Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to open Committee on this significant Bill. I have Amendments 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 126, which relates to Northern Ireland, 127, 128, 130, 131 and 217. These amendments seek to remove, from every place in the Bill, the generational element of the smoking prohibition to be brought in.

Let us not mess around. A generational ban is de facto prohibition, and there is no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, it will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated and heavily taxed industry. It will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated and untaxed criminal market. The idea that because the Government ban a product, they extinguish demand for it, is pure fantasy.

The Government’s policy approach of exceptionally high taxation on tobacco is already failing. A generational ban will only cement their failure. The representation of that failure can be found in the flourishing black market. So long as there is a flourishing alternative market, consumer demand will always be met with cheaper, illicit tobacco. Taxes on tobacco have become so expensive that people are switching in huge numbers to buy cheaper, illicit products. Not only does this result in a decline in vital tax revenue to the tune of about £1 billion a year, but it is doing nothing to bring down smoking rates, which have stalled since 2020, according to Action on Smoking and Health. The Government desperately need to rethink their policy towards tax and banning tobacco, as it is not working and is the single biggest driver of the expansion of the illicit tobacco market controlled by organised criminal groups.

That takes me to the second consequence of driving cigarettes underground: the susceptible purchaser of cigarettes will then be offered the other, illegal products available on the black market. Action on Smoking and Health and the Government maintain that illicit tobacco consumption is in decline, but all the evidence from law enforcement and retailers tells a different story. The Government need to pay attention to what is happening in Australia, where organised criminals have taken over control of the illicit tobacco and vapes market and violence and chaos have exploded across the streets. Retailers are facing the full force of the impact of this violence, with more than 290 arson attacks taking place in the last two years. Even Ministers in the Australian Government are calling out the tobacco black market as the biggest threat to public health in Australia, with organised crime taking a stranglehold over the illicit market.

If the Government are serious about reducing smoking rates, they need to execute a twin-track strategy of pursuing stronger zero-tolerance enforcement action against those criminals trading illicit tobacco along with prioritising more investment in targeted education programmes, youth access prevention, smoking support services and campaigns to educate smokers on less harmful alternative nicotine products.

Implementing a generational ban will be unenforceable. It will only drive more consumers into the hands of the criminally controlled illicit market. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Further, it will deprive the Treasury of much-needed revenue, which will be redirected instead into the pockets of organised criminals. Smoking rates will not decline any further, given the exceptionally low price point for a packet of illicit cigarettes—apparently between £3 and £6 for a 20-cigarette pack—and for hand-rolling tobacco, which is between £5 and £8 for 50 grams. In contrast, a packet of 20 cigarettes in a shop apparently costs about £17. One can see immediately the incentive for purchasing black-market cigarettes.

My final point by way of introduction is that this Government purport to be a keen proponent of adherence to the provisions of international law, but, as reported in the Sunday papers, it is now clear that a generational ban would not be permissible in the European Union. The ability to impose this ban is therefore a Brexit benefit—something that noble Lords will perhaps not hear from the Minister. More importantly, it would be unlawful to introduce it in Northern Ireland.

There is now clear and careful legal opinion, from the former Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin King’s Counsel, that a generational ban would be contrary to the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I ask the Minister, in respect of the applicability of this measure across the United Kingdom, whether the Government accept that that is the case, and if not, why not? Are they content to proceed in the face of contrary legal evidence and take their chances before the courts of Northern Ireland? In the event that the law is found incompatible by the courts of Northern Ireland, do they intend to disapply these measures in Northern Ireland, thus creating an imbalance whereby 21 year-olds in Northern Ireland are able to buy cigarettes but their compatriots in Wales, Scotland and England are not?

By way of further background to these amendments, noble Lords will note that the method by which my amendments would take effect is by raising the age of purchase from 18 to 21. This would be much more practicable and manageable and a more straightforward way for retailers to enforce a stricter regime on the purchase of tobacco than a generational ban, which would be complicated, impractical, unworkable and unenforceable. Furthermore, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that raising the age to 21 would have an identical effect on UK smoking rates as the introduction of a generational ban. Moreover, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that increasing the age of purchase from 18 to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as a generational ban, achieving 0% smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds by 2050.

One further aspect that I wish to touch on is the impact of the proposed generational ban on retailers. For retailers, especially small independent ones, the introduction of the generational ban presents a number of very profound challenges. Crimes against retailers are already at epidemic levels. Many independent shopkeepers are scared of the impact that a generational ban will have on their businesses and the safety of their staff. There is no getting away from the fact that the weight of responsibility for enforcing the ban falls entirely on the shoulders of retailers, who will have to navigate a new legal age threshold that will change every year and with every customer. Already, the British Retail Consortium records that violent acts of abuse and intimidation towards Britain’s retailers have leapt to an unprecedented 2,000 incidents a day, up from 1,300 incidents a day in 2024. This is a staggering increase. Retailers have consistently tried to engage with the Government throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government have ignored that audience and their concerns at every stage.

Shopkeepers could not be clearer: the end result of the implementation of a generational ban is that they will close their businesses, with all the loss of jobs and convenience that that will entail. Tobacco and vape sales make up 20% of the annual revenues of many of these shops. With the inevitable escalation of further violence and intimidation towards themselves and their staff, it does not make economic sense in the long term to carry on. We also know that organised criminal gangs are keen to dominate the illicit tobacco market, as they have been in Australia, and, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, have sought revenge on those who are not participating in their illegal schemes.

This Government tell us that they wish to introduce ID cards. If that is right, would it not be better—if they insist on persisting with a generational ban—to await the introduction of those measures prior to introducing a measure such as this, to avoid the absurd situation when you have potentially an 18 year-old shopkeeper having to ask a 46 year-old to prove that they are in fact 46 and not 45, with no obvious basis on which to ask for that and with all the attendant risks of aggression and difficulty that that would give rise to?

For all those reasons, I beg to move Amendment 1 and commend all my amendments in the group.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 5 and 205 in this group, which, although there has been no prior discussion between myself and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, point in a very similar direction. I propose in Amendment 5 that the permitted age of sale be raised in the interim to 21—Amendment 205 is purely consequential, so I do not intend to say anything about that separately; I will focus on Amendment 5—so that there would be an immediate introduction on the passing of the Bill of a ban on sales to persons under the age of 21, with a view to replacing the generational ban.

The arguments against the generational ban that have been made by my noble friend are compelling and comprehensive, so there is not a great deal that I can add. But I can bring some experience, which perhaps my noble friend does not have, of having had political responsibility in the past for the enforcement of underage tobacco sales in a local authority through a trading standards department and having myself been out in disguise in a fairly clandestine way, because that is how they operate on such excursions—I will not call them “raids”, because that makes them sound very dramatic; I shall just say “excursions”—in order to test sales at various premises to see whether they are complying with the law. So I have some experience of that.

I think that, in the minds of those promoting the generational ban, there is an expectation that it is going to be self-enforcing. After all, the ban on smoking in offices and in shops, which was introduced some years ago, is self-enforcing. I have never seen anybody attempt to enforce it, because there has not been any necessity. When was the last time one saw somebody smoking in a shop so that enforcement might be required, or wandering around their office with a cigarette or a pipe? It is self-enforcing.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 17. The bulk of the amendments in this group are to do with age verification, but mine are not, and I do not intend to speak about age verification. However, the process of numerical determinism that governs our actions and procedures means that I have the privilege of speaking first in this group.

My amendments are to do with the question of whether certain regulations should be approved and made by the affirmative or negative process, which I hope is a relatively uncontroversial topic. Indeed, I hope that it will find support across the Committee, because I wish to move from the current arrangement whereby these regulations are made under the negative process to the affirmative process, which generally finds favour among your Lordships.

Both amendments require certain specific regulations—not all regulations—to be approved by the affirmative process. Amendment 3 relates to tobacco sales and Amendment 17 relates to vape sales. The activities subject to these regulations are what constitute a defence by the retailer if charged with an offence under the Bill. In other words, these regulations state how a retailer must operate if they are to have a defence under the Bill from the charge of making illicit sales. To be effective, these must be highly technical and challenging regulations which will require the broadest consultation with representative bodies, including those representing not only retailers but trading standards and enforcement officers, which I think would benefit greatly from parliamentary scrutiny.

This would involve issues such as—we will come on to this—what sort of age verification would be acceptable and other matters of that sort. As I say, they are likely to be very technical and they will have to work. If they are going to work, the greater the scrutiny they are given, the better. In that sense, the argument makes itself.

I hope that the Government see that there is nothing mischievous about these amendments; the Bill and the operation of it would benefit by accepting them, and there should be little difficulty in doing so. I am not proposing to speak on the broader question of age verification that will come up in the course of this debate, but I wish to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, tabled in my name, would create an offence of selling tobacco products online. This is a probing amendment.

If the generational ban policy is to be effective, or the alternative policy of an age limit of 21, there would be a clear loophole if tobacco could be bought online, as roughly 9% of sales are at the moment, without any form of age verification. Such a policy would be unusual for the UK, as there is not currently a product that is available for sale in a bricks and mortar shop that you cannot legally purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to introduce this measure: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, France and Greece, to name a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet, so there are some clear international precedents.

Banning the online sale of tobacco was recommended by the Khan review in 2022 and the World Health Organization, which argued that internet sales constitute

“display at points of sale”

and

“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.

Today you can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarket websites or shopping apps and see reviews, such as:

“Quite nice for relaxing on a summers day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps or at a test match”,


as one purchaser of Pall Mall Flow Red Superkings commented. Last time I went to a test match, smoking was prohibited.

Separately from the point about the delivery of smoking products, are these the messages that we want smokers to see about such a lethal product, given that such advertising was banned on television some 60 years ago? When retailers sell tobacco products, they are not permitted to display them, yet there are pictures of products online. This seems inconsistent. Products such as heated tobacco and cigarillos have colourful packaging, as they are not captured by plain-pack laws, which seems to be a regulatory oversight. I appreciate that the Government may be doing something about this, so perhaps the Minister can give us some details—but it feels like the online world is somewhere where rules are often bent with little repercussion, and the amendment would address that.

At the moment, online sales are not heavily exploited by underage individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we should be mindful of that possibility in the future. If the Government are minded to resist the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain how age verification will be secured at the point of delivery. Someone born after 2009 can order their groceries online and include tobacco, but they could not buy it in the shop. How might this be enforced without the amendment? Does the Minister plan to go down the route that we have taken for the delivery of knives? Since 2022, a retailer has to verify the age of the purchaser before he or she sells a knife and, if that knife is delivered after an online order, it has to be checked at the point of delivery. Does the Minister have that in mind for tobacco sales? Who will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy if tobacco products are available online? I look forward to her reply in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes. I believe I said that it potentially risks making vapes less accessible. I know that that is not a view that he shares. I also agree that, where there is evidence, we need to be focused on it in the measures we are taking. But the position I have outlined is the case. I will reflect on the comments that he and other noble Lords have made, which I have heard very well. I understand the concerns of retailers and I am very aware of them; that is why we continue to work so closely with their trade associations to overcome difficulties. We do not want retailers to be put in a position where they cannot do the job that they want to do. We will continue in our work in that way.

With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel about to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks and for the sensitive and attentive way that she commented on the debate; she has clearly listened to what noble Lords said and sought to respond within the limits of government policy. As far as my own amendments are concerned, I heard what she said with just a hint of encouragement; there was not a slamming of the door at least, so I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with on Report.

Concerning the other amendments in this group, I refer to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, used the words unintended consequences. The Bill potentially has quite a lot of unintended consequences. Some of them relate to age verification and the role of retailers in the architecture created by the Bill. There are potential lacunae in the Bill.

I simply say that the sooner the Government come forward with draft regulations and a clear idea of what is being required, the happier noble Lords will be and, more importantly, the happier the retailers—including online retailers—will be with the Bill as it goes forward. I hope that the Minister recognises that and feels that the Government can act on it. Perhaps we might even see some draft regulations before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, with that hopeful and optimistic wish on my lips, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, so much has been said about the principle and the technicalities of the Bill that I thought I would use my few moments to return to the language used in the Bill. I realise that that is a controversial thing to do, because I have seen the reaction to the speech of my noble friend Lady May. I wish to express some solidarity with her, because the argument against her has been that people wishing to access an assisted death do not actually want to die, but suicides presumably do. I think that is a mistake. In the case of suicides, most of them do not want to die. Most of them want their girlfriends or their families back, their fortunes restored or their pain taken away. The distinction collapses when you look at it closely. They are very much in the same position as people who are trying to avoid pain at the end of their life. So I express my solidarity with my noble friend.

There are other points about the language. It is notable that the words “death” and “dying” hardly appear. The poison to be used is described as an “approved substance”, and the still mysterious contraption by which it is to be administered is called an “approved device”. The business itself, when you get to Clause 25, is headed “Provision of assistance”. “Assistance” is the term used throughout the Bill. Is this something that is going to become part of our daily language? “Have you considered ‘assistance’, Mrs Smith?”

We know what this is: it is euphemism, an ancient Greek device for hiding from the gods, through the use of flowery language, something of which you are ashamed. That is what the language of this Bill is constantly expressing at every turn. I think we are right to be ashamed of what is in this Bill. I think we should take the opportunity not only to scrutinise it but, if we see fit, to give the Commons an opportunity to consider it in a second parliamentary Session to see whether its view remains as firm as it is now—which after all is not very firm, purely on the numbers.

I will make one final point in response to an argument that I have heard several times in the course of this debate: that it is somehow discriminatory that some well-off people can afford to go abroad to evade the law and that this is a discrimination that needs to be addressed by giving everybody the opportunity to evade the current law. We never use that argument on anything else, do we? Have I ever heard that argument used when it comes to tax evasion, for example? It is a very strange argument indeed, and one that I think does no credit to those who promote it.

I think this Bill indeed deserves scrutiny, but we are not in any way committed or obliged to pass it. It is a Private Member’s Bill and, if it is the view of the House that it should not pass, that is the view the House should take.

Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I will not divide the Committee, but I will return to it on Report if the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is not convinced by my argument that this is not a necessary Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I spoke next so I could update the House on various developments that have taken place since Second Reading. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her remarks about the importance of improving data and the importance of that data for women’s health. Nearly all of the other points she made were dealt with and debated at Second Reading, which the noble Baroness was unable to attend.

However, the fact is that there is nothing in the Bill which exceptionalises abortion, because the statistics on abortion complications already have to be collected under the existing abortion regulations using a system that relies on data provided by the abortion provider. That might have been sensible when the regulations were put in place, but currently the majority of abortions take place by the use of pills at home. Therefore, if there are complications, they are presented, in most cases, at hospitals in A&E and they are not part of the abortion notification system, so the majority of those complications are no longer captured by the current system.

The royal college says it is impossible to capture the complication statistics, but it seems to be completely unaware that, in November 2023, the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities produced a report that, with some labour, did actually capture them and showed that it could be done. All that is in this Bill is a requirement that that report, which is being treated by the department as a one-off and not to be repeated, should be repeated. It is wrong to suggest that this cannot be done; it has been done, and it can be done again.

I want to be brief, as I am conscious of the words of the Chief Whip before we started. I will move on to some developments that have occurred since Second Reading, because at the end of Second Reading, thinking that perhaps the Bill would not proceed to Committee, I tabled some Written Questions on this matter. I had one reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, on behalf of the Cabinet Office, which effectively introduced me to Mr Ed Humpherson, the director-general for the Office for Statistics Regulation, with whom I have since had correspondence.

Before I read from his letter to me of 20 February, I will remark that, as was mentioned at Second Reading, these statistics are referred to as national statistics and they are required to comply with the statistics code. In that light, the last compliance check was carried out in 2012 and because of that, Mr Humpherson says: “We have agreed with DHSC that a compliance check of the statistics would be beneficial”. A great deal of what the Bill seeks to achieve is likely now to be pursued by the Office for Statistics Regulation in consultation with the DHSC. Since it is very unlikely that any compliance check would consider that the current system was successfully capturing complications arising from abortions, I am therefore very pleased with what Mr Humpherson said.

I will continue with his letter a little bit, because my pleasure at his agreement to carry out a compliance check is slightly modified by his timetable and approach. He goes on to say: “We plan to carry out this review in the first quarter of 2026/27, giving DHSC time to undertake its planned developments. These include supporting data providers to move to DHSC’s digital submission system and working with digital experts and system users to improve the design of the Abortion Notification System”. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I would agree that that work would be very welcome. My only quibble with Mr Humpherson—and I have written to him to say this—is that I would have thought the sensible thing would be to have the compliance check first, in order to identify the deficiencies and agree between DHSC and the regulator what the deficiencies are, and then for the department to invest in the digitisation of the collection of the statistics in such a way that they will comply with the regulator’s requirements.

When the Minister comes to reply, I am sure she will say that she will collaborate fully with the Office for Statistics Regulation and its work, because I fully expect the department to do that—it is the responsible thing to do. Can she agree that she will consider whether this is being done in quite the right order? Would it not be sensible to bring the compliance check forward so that the developments being carried out, which will involve investment and time, are not wasted but achieve what the regulator will be satisfied with at the end of the day?

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to attend Second Reading. I begin with the observation that, as a healthcare service, abortion is highly regulated and subject to the same oversight as any other care. As a result of the Abortion Act 1967, it is also subject to additional oversight which predates many of the regulatory and monitoring systems in place across the health service today.

This context is relevant to the Bill before us, which seeks to build on this 58 year-old framework. I am wholly in favour of monitoring all forms of healthcare provision and entirely agree that further work needs to be done on the collection and analysis of large datasets relating to women’s reproductive health. However, I have concerns that this Bill in primary legislation is not the best way to approach this important work.

I am aware that both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—the RCOG—and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service have shared with noble Lords their concerns that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, singling out abortion for new legislation in this way exceptionalises it and fails to treat it like other forms of healthcare. This would potentially stigmatise abortion care for both women and the medical professionals who provide the care. It would also indicate that abortion is considered to be such a high-risk intervention that it is in need of particular oversight.

The RCOG points out that abortion is a “safe and effective procedure”. Some one in three women in the UK will have had an abortion before the age of 45 and international studies have repeatedly found that abortion is of less risk to women than complications that can arise from continuing a pregnancy to term and giving birth. As a result, I am concerned by any indication that this House considers abortion to require increased monitoring and oversight, over and above that of comparable healthcare, and indeed the message that it would send to the nearly 300,000 women who access abortion services across the UK every year.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that we need to improve collection of data, but this must be done across women’s healthcare more broadly, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what plans the Government have to achieve this. We know that in many areas, women wait a disproportionately long time for diagnoses of devastating conditions, such as endometriosis, and in that time often suffer complications that come from lack of treatment.

It was for this reason that the previous Government published the widely welcomed, first ever women’s health strategy for England, to take a holistic approach to women’s healthcare. I pay particular tribute to my former colleague, Emma Dean, for her tireless and excellent work to make this happen. We also appointed the brilliant Dame Lesley Regan as the first women’s health ambassador to support the implementation of this strategy. I was pleased to note that the Minister for Secondary Care confirmed in the other place the Government’s commitment to the women’s health strategy, though I am concerned about the lack of progress against the strategy’s widely welcomed commitments, especially the Government dropping targets for ICBs around the creation of women’s health hubs. The RCOG has said that the existing hubs have reduced unnecessary referrals, provided training opportunities for professionals and enabled women to access support quickly.

The NHS 10-year plan and monitoring of the women’s health strategy would, I hope, offer an opportunity to address the challenge of good monitoring without adding unnecessary legal burdens to the healthcare system. I hope that we can all agree that the purpose of this monitoring has to be to improve information and care for women, and that singling out abortion is unfortunately likely to do more harm than good.

Before I close, I want to touch on the practicality and operability of this legislation. I understand that the information currently used by the department to produce abortion statistics, such as the type of abortion, gestational age, and information about women accessing care, is separate in the majority of cases from a woman’s broader healthcare record. It seems incredibly important to protect this right to privacy for women accessing abortion care, particularly for women at risk of domestic abuse, honour-based abuse or reproductive coercion. I know that my noble friend will not want to place women at risk as a result of this legislation, so I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the department is able to link abortion records with wider healthcare records in the way this legislation would require, and if so, whether that would mean that abortion care would appear on a woman’s medical record, whether or not she had given consent.

Given my concerns about the impact of the proposals in the Bill on women and the wider healthcare system, I am not able to support it in its current form and support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in her opposition to the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

On the points that have been directed to the Government—the ones I am able to refer to—the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked about improving the design of the abortion notification system and whether it would be sensible to change the order to ensure a review by the Office for Statistics Regulation before investing in improvements. The department is engaging with digital experts and reviewing the design of the HSA4 form. We are also conducting research among system users in order to redesign the system. On the ordering of work, I confirm that the department is developing work with the OSR on improvements to the system that are required irrespective of the statistical impact. The reason for that is to improve the user experience for clinicians. However, the Bill is not required to make such an improvement.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

For clarification, is the Minister saying that the digitising and adapting of the abortion notification system that her department plans to carry out will be done in collaboration with the Office for Statistics Regulation? Or is the intention that the department does the work in its own box, so to speak, and then the Office for Statistics Regulation comes in and checks it? She seemed to hint that, for the first time, it might be the former, which would be quite encouraging.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I said, we are developing work with the OSR. As with all ways of developing work, that means working in a way that will get us to the place we wish to get to. I do not quite recognise the latter way forward that the noble Lord referred to, but I will be happy to write him further on this matter.

I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that our focus in the women’s health strategy is on turning those commitments into action. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the provision of free of charge emergency hormonal contraception at pharmacies from October this year. We are also setting out how we will eliminate cervical cancer by 2040 through the new cervical cancer plan, we are and taking urgent action to tackle gynaecology waiting lists through the elective reform plan. Those are all tangible improvements to women’s health. I assure the noble Baroness that the women’s health strategy is very much kept under review to see how and where it can be improved.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked about the linking of records. It is not currently possible to link the abortion notification system with wider health records data, because of the unique identifiers on the abortion notification system data. However, as I said earlier, we are reviewing the wording of the form so that it will be easier for clinicians to complete, which will, I hope, bring about some improvements.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that the Government are focused on moving the NHS from analogue to digital across all areas of healthcare, in order to provide the improved data collection that many noble Lords have called for during the debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, called on the Government seriously to consider the implications of money flowing in from the USA with a view to obtaining influence—a point also referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Barker. I can confirm that this matter is being considered more widely across government.

As noble Lords may remember, the Government have expressed reservations about the Bill as legislation is not required to produce an annual report. We believe that the aims of the Bill can be achieved through existing routes, thereby rendering further legislation unnecessary. In 2023, the department published a report on abortion complications and could choose to do so again. However, it has no plans to publish ongoing separate additional annual reports on abortion complications as there is no operational need to do so. I hope noble Lords will understand—some have made this point—that we have to uphold a duty of care not to legislate when other reasonable processes are available, as there are in this case.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely welcome this Bill, for a number of reasons.

The first is that it has been described as bold on the basis of the advice given by the late Viscount Nelson. But there is a fine line, even he would have acknowledged, between being bold and being reckless. I regard this as essentially a reckless Bill, because it invites us to set out on a wholly untested course of a generational ban, with all the difficulties of enforcement, when the Government’s own impact assessment, or their modelling, shows that a very similar effect on the trajectory to a smoke-free future would be achieved by raising from 18 to 21 the age at which cigarettes and tobacco can be sold. That would be an incremental approach, much more easily understood by the public and much more easily enforceable by shopkeepers. But no, we choose the reckless course, because there is something exciting, brilliant and brand new about it, but we do not ask whether it is going to work.

Given the large expertise in local government in your Lordships’ House, I am surprised to be the first speaker who is saying that I have had experience of political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority. I know how very difficult it is to manage test purchases, especially with younger people who need to be protected, briefed and counselled before they are put in a situation that could turn violent. That is one of the reasons why there are so few enforcement activities. According to the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill:

“In 2023 to 2024, Trading Standards conducted over 650 tobacco test purchases in England and Wales”.


That is approximately one, or one and a bit, per local authority in an entire year.

Anyone who thinks there is going to be effective enforcement of a generational smoking ban has to understand that that is the base of enforcement from which you are starting, and it is going to have to be huge if it is to be effective. Part of the explanation for that low number is that it is clear that trading standards has switched its focus to vaping—I will come to vapes in a moment—because there were 3,400 test purchases of vapes. But even 3,400 divided by the number of local trading standards departments is a very small number indeed.

There is also the effect on crime. I was really struck by the wonderfully optimistic figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on the basis of Treasury figures, about the number of smuggled cigarettes falling. What world does the Treasury live in? If asked, it would probably say that the amount of marijuana being smoked on the streets is falling, because it has not properly measured it. Only two weeks ago the BBC news was filled with some very interesting reporting, basically saying that for many of our high streets up and down the country, the sale of illicit cigarettes is now the principal economic activity and is closely associated with money laundering and foreign drugs dealing. Who cannot imagine that this is going to expand?

I come also to vapes. In the Government there is clearly a state of confusion about vapes. On the one hand, vaping is a core part of the Government’s and the National Health Service’s smoking cessation approach. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Government do not really approve of it and are not terribly in favour of it. What we can all agree on is that vapes should not be sold or marketed to children. One of the best ways of doing that would be to stop the importation into this country of a large number of illicit vapes deliberately designed to be marketed to children. I suspect from his description of it that the one rather naughtily waved around earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, may have been in that category.

Finally, the question of flavours is a mistake on the part of the Government. It is not flavours that are marketed to children; it is the descriptors. It is the fact that something is called bubblegum, say, that makes it attractive to children, not that it tastes like bubblegum. What does bubblegum taste like anyway? It is not flavours that the Government should be aiming at but descriptors, and I think that is something we should see an amendment on in Committee.

International Health Regulations: Amendments

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. All Members of the House, when we had a good Question on the take-up of Covid vaccines, agreed that information supporting the take-up is a vital health message to get across. To any detractors, I say very firmly that it is not the view of the Government, and I know that it is not the view of nearly all noble Lords.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, returning to the treaty, am I right in thinking that it contains provision that envisages a role for the WHO in vaccine certification? If that is the case, how would that have played out when we wished to roll out our own vaccine very speedily? Would we have had to wait for WHO certification?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, my noble friend will agree with me that our ability to assess the vaccine more quickly than any other country and roll it out very quickly was a key asset for the UK. Clearly, we will not do anything that will put that at risk.

Foetal Sentience Committee Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I propose that the Bill be read a second time with some trepidation, not because this is a momentous Bill but, on the contrary, because it is a very modest measure indeed.

I shall go through its clauses, which are very few. The first requires the Secretary of State to establish a committee and allows the Secretary of State to appoint the members of that committee. I have not chosen to specify who they should be or how many they should be, because I trust the Secretary of State in whatever Government, of whatever political colour, to make sensible decisions about that and appoint appropriate and skilled people. The clause also states what the purpose of the committee is, which bears reading out. It is

“to be a source of evidence-based, scientific expertise on the sentience of the human foetus in the light of developments in scientific and medical knowledge, and to advise the government on the formulation of relevant policy and legislation”.

The second clause requires the committee to publish reports. It actually requires the committee to publish only one report per annum, for the purposes of transparency, saying what the committee has done and giving an account of any income or expenditure it has had, as well as who its members are—a normal sort of annual report. The Government are not required to respond to that, but the committee is then free to publish further reports of a more scientific character. Clause 3—I shall come to this—requires the Government to respond to reports of that character. The other part of Clause 2 is language that ensures that the Bill is consistent with devolution legislation.

Clause 3 refers to the response that the Government have to make to those reports. There is nothing to stop the Government responding by simply saying that they have noted the report, if that is as far as they wish to go.

Finally, Clauses 4 and 5 are supplementary and general clauses, which I have been advised are appropriate for this Bill.

Why would such a committee be needed, and what value would it have? The question of human foetal sentience has been addressed by a number of bodies, but principally by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. As the very helpful note from the Library makes clear, the current conclusion—because, of course, this is a shifting and developing scientific field—is that, to date, evidence indicates that the possibility of pain perception before 28 weeks of gestation is unlikely. However, one of the members who formed the committee that reached that view has now changed his mind and takes the view that the perception of pain could arise as low as 12 weeks.

The British Association of Perinatal Medicine takes the view that foetuses born as early as 22 weeks’ gestation show physical and physiological responses to pain, and there is no reason to think that foetuses at this gestation are any different. In addition, it might be said that the NHS recommends the use of analgesia for the foetus in the case of operations in utero for spina bifida from 20 weeks onwards.

So it is fair to say that there is considerable breadth of view on the question of human foetal sentience and when it kicks in. We would all benefit—government and all the relevant professions—from having a forum in which a clearer and more determined view, and one which developed over time, could be thrashed out between different medical professions. It would also have the advantage that the Government generally, in responding to questions on this issue, have tended to rely on the work of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which places a heavy burden on it. The advantage of having a committee such as I propose would mean that there are opportunities to bring together other royal colleges, including those representing paediatricians, midwives and others, so that their view could be contributed on an equal basis.

This all brings me to the question of advances in medicine and medical science, and rapid advances in surgery. I have referred to the rare but important cases of operations in utero for spina bifida, but there are other reasons why operations may need to be carried out on the human foetus while still in the womb. There are also, of course, cases where it is necessary to operate on a pregnant woman for her own sake, and in those circumstances consideration should also be given to what consequences might arise in relation to the sentience of the foetus that she is carrying in her womb.

All of this, at the moment, is being conducted against a background of inconsistency of professional opinion. If one says, as one could, that this should all be left, as a matter of clinical judgment, to the medical practitioner, I am all in favour of medical practitioners being able to exercise clinical judgment freely and professionally, but in fact it is very difficult to do that without some sort of agreed guidance. We do not, as a matter of practice, leave practitioners free of guidance—there is a great deal of guidance on a range of topics, which they follow when carrying out their necessary and valuable work—so I do not think it impinges on the freedom of the medical practitioner to exercise their professional judgment that there should be a better-informed agreement on the time at which foetal sentience arises than currently exists, given the inconsistencies that I have drawn attention to.

There are also inconsistencies with the way in which we treat sentient animals. The then Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill 2022, which came through your Lordships’ House, established a precedent for this Bill by requiring the Government to set up and maintain a committee precisely to give them advice on policy in relation to animal sentience. That Act, noble Lords may recall, declares mammals and certain categories of shellfish to be sentient. I would be surprised if my noble friend the Minister wanted to say that a human foetus should be denied the same esteem as a lobster, but in fact that is the current position. We have legal protections for lobsters and decapod crustaceans—I remember the discussions during the passage of that Bill about those animals—as well as all mammals, but we have no view, let alone protection, for the human foetus.

There is also an inconsistency with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which defines protected animals and protects their foetuses from a point two-thirds through the gestation period. We have legal protection for canine foetuses from seven weeks onwards, but we do not even have informal policy advice for the human foetus and its own sentience. This Bill would open a path to correcting that, by allowing scientists to come together and reach an agreed view and a developing view, in the light of new discoveries.

Finally, I come somewhat reluctantly to the question of abortion, which I have not mentioned until now because the Bill is not about abortion. The question of sentience is much broader than that and relates to foetuses where the mother is extremely keen, devoted and committed—as indeed are her professional carers—to the healthy birth of that child.

The Bill does nothing to change abortion law or the way in which any proposed future changes to abortion law are carried out. It has no implications, other than to provide a focus for scientific knowledge, on the course of legal developments relating to abortion. It does nothing to impinge on the legal rights of women to terminate a pregnancy. Anyone who argues that it does is implicitly arguing that those rights are defensible only if scientific knowledge is somehow suppressed and dispersed.

This is a modest Bill intended to provide scientific knowledge and inform public debate. It is also based on a clear precedent advanced by the Government; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was a government Bill. It is hard to see on what grounds the Government or noble Lords would object to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, when I saw this Bill on our prospectus I was immediately suspicious. It follows close on the heels of an effort during the Public Order Bill to enable protests on the doorstep of abortion clinics. Happily, that effort failed and it was agreed that buffer zones were necessary. The amendment would have allowed people who totally opposed the termination of a pregnancy to harass women as they entered clinics for medical attention.

Why would an independent committee be needed to respond to the issue before us today? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists updated its research and guidance less than two years ago, in 2022. The royal colleges—I am a fellow of three of them—are the seats of high-level monitoring of global developments in research and conduct of medical matters. They do it with great care and their research relates to what happens not just in the United Kingdom but around the world.

Why am I concerned? The politics of the United States of America is riven with divisions on the issue of abortion. For many decades it has been weaponised by far-right, deeply misogynistic organisations calling themselves Christian, which oppose women’s right to reproductive freedom. I always say, “Follow the money”. Dark money has surged into the United Kingdom’s anti-abortion groups in recent years. We should be concerned about overseas political influence inside our country. Sadly, many far-right organisations are being funded by such sources. Shadowy funds whose sources are obscured or not fully disclosed play an alarming part in enabling think tanks and far-right political groups to distort our politics.

One group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, has doubled its activities in this country in the last couple of years. Founded in the United States in 1993, the Alliance Defending Freedom—the freedom of only some—is an influential conservative group that aims to promote Christian principles and ethics. It is behind legal efforts to roll back abortion rights, remove LGBT+ protections and demonise trans people—that is not very Christian, and I count myself as one. It claims that its tireless work—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness suggesting that I have been in receipt of dark money or any money at all, or would she like to take the opportunity to state that she is not making such an allegation?

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I am perfectly happy to say that some innocent dupes are used by some of the organisations funded in this way.

This organisation claims that its tireless work helped the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v Wade, which guaranteed the right to abortion. The ADF has supported controversial anti-abortion activity in this country, including supporting and funding protesters outside clinics. We are seeing the ramping up of spending to bring US-style abortion politics into our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords across the House to the Companion at 4.18, where it states clearly that we address each other as “noble Lord”. We do not use the word “you”, and there is a good reason for that, which is that that actually makes us a politer House. Standing up, even in impassioned debates on subjects about which people feel strongly, and saying “you” will lead to people pointing, which is not acceptable, and there is a reason for this. I have been in this House for 26 years, and there are some things that are wise, and this is one of those.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I heartily endorse what the noble Baroness has just said about how we address each other. Does she think that stating quite clearly that those who disagree with you are either in receipt of “dark money” or are “innocent dupes” meets the standards of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in the debate. I am not proposing to answer them individually, but I shall make some comments, if I may, about the extraordinary speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. The first thing is that nobody, certainly not I, made any deprecatory remarks about the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The idea that we were, or I was, holding it in institutional contempt is simply not borne out by anything that was said. All that was said was that other professional bodies of equal reputation have reached different views, and that a forum for bringing them together so that something could be worked out that might have a more robust character was something that could be recommended. It was complete fantasy and totally unfair to claim that we had said, or I had said, anything deprecatory about the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The second thing that I feel I have to say is that, given an opportunity, as the noble Baroness was, to state that she did not think that I was in receipt of dark money, or any money, in relation to this, her only answer was to accuse me of being some dupe. Without making any judgment, I will say that I have never heard anything like that said in your Lordships’ House, in the admittedly short time I have been here.

I shall only repeat, in a way, what I said earlier, in response to the noble Baroness, that the right to an abortion—any right that depends on blanking out developing scientific knowledge—cannot be regarded as a very robust right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested that somehow the evidence before this committee was going to be selected. I have really no idea where this idea comes from or who it is she thinks is going to do the selection. But that brings me to another point—one, I am sure, of genuine misunderstanding—the fault for which I have to attribute to myself.

There was a suggestion by some noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the committee would be full of politicians or politically appointed persons. That was never my intention. I thought that I had made it clear, and perhaps it should have been made clear in the Bill—that is something that could happily be addressed by an amendment—that the membership of the committee was to be made up of experts with scientific knowledge. That is how it would generate scientific knowledge and examine the research. Of course, leading among those experts, I would expect appropriately chosen representatives of the relevant royal colleges and other professional bodies, not politicians at all. I do not think that the Animal Sentience Committee, to take an example that provides a parallel, is stuffed with politicians or political appointees. I think that it has members who know something about animals and how they respond to pain. But that point may be a genuine misunderstanding, and one that I would be happy to address, as I say, in Committee.

As for the Minister’s response, I am grateful for his tone but very sorry to hear his content and the fact that he feels that he cannot agree. In effect, as another noble Lord pointed out—I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham—he is rejecting an opportunity to make policy-making more robust and evidence-based. There were some very clever but totally unpersuasive words about the Animal Sentience Committee. The Minister said, in effect, that the Government’s view was that crustaceans deserve higher esteem and regard than the human foetus. Neither position, in my view, is sustainable. With that, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Smoking

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, we are mindful of trying to get the balance right. Inevitably, by taking away a major market, which the over-18s will become as we go into it, smoking sales through retail units will go down more and more. We expect them to reduce as a result of that. We think that is probably getting the balance right, rather than trying to be overburdensome by saying, “No, you shall not be licensed to do that any more”. We think that will happen naturally through the market, because we are of course taking out a whole segment of future customers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report published this week by University College London, in association with Cancer Research UK, which suggests that banning disposable vapes would lead to fewer adults giving up smoking? Will he give an assurance that any proposals brought forward by the Government will be based on clear evidence and common sense, and not unevidenced enthusiasm?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope I could give my categorical agreement that everything is based on evidence and common sense; I will let people draw their own conclusions as to whether that is always the case. But, seriously, clearly anything we look at must be evidence-based. We will shortly be announcing the results of the consultation, which has a 28,000-strong evidence base, to show that we are really doing rigorous analysis.

General Practitioners: Shortage

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes the very important point that GP practices are evolving. Some are moving premises; some are merging in larger premises; some are moving into primary care centres, where they are able to offer not just traditional GP services but some of the services that secondary care currently offers. I am not entirely sure of the specific point that the noble Lord makes. He would be welcome to have a conversation so that I can follow it up with my department.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that an increasing number of GPs prefer to work part-time because they face a marginal tax rate of 62% on earnings over £100,000? Will he consider discussions with his friends at Her Majesty’s Treasury to address those anomalies in the tax system?

Health and Care Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said about protections and safeguards offered by the NHS, and the system of abortion provision to young people. But it seemed to me that those safeguards related principally to pregnant children up to the age of 16. There is a gap here, because the age of 18 is important in this debate, and it does not seem to be covered. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, it was only last night that an opposition amendment said that, in the case of child refugees, the Government must give priority to the best interests of the child—and, as I recall, that amendment was passed and is now back in the Bill. But “child” was defined in the amendment as a person under the age of not 16 but 18. So the best interests of the refugee child must take priority but the best interests of the pregnant child are not even mentioned anywhere in the amendment.

If I recall correctly, only last week we were debating a Private Member’s Bill—but one which I believe had government support—which would raise the permitted age of marriage to 18. Marriage is a natural law right, and also arguably a convention right, because there is a right to a family life, but, correctly, we are allowed to moderate how that right is implemented and affected by putting age restrictions on it. We may decide that 16 is an appropriate age or that 18 is an appropriate age; these are all perfectly legitimate decisions to make. But if our movement is in the direction of saying that 18 is the age at which you should be allowed to marry, it seems to me that there is a huge gap in the amendment in Motion N, which my noble friend Lady Eaton is doing her best to correct.

I regret that my noble friend has said that she is not going to move to a vote, so I am left to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can explain to me, when he replies, what it is that the Government see as being the means of safeguarding pregnant children between the ages of 16 and 18, who are regarded so carefully in relation to other types of protection that are debated in this House and command widespread cross-party support but seem to have fallen through the traps here.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I shall be very brief, because it is time we draw this ping-pong session to an end. First, I congratulate the Minister on his introduction to the tele-abortion amendment, and on the reassurance that he gave to the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. The issue has been expressed very eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Barker, and I have no intention of going into detail.

The only other matter before us right now on which we need to take a decision is that of the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. From these Benches, I need to say that we absolutely support the noble Lord in his amendment, and we will vote with him, if he divides the House.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 108, while supporting the other two amendments introduced so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Northover, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke so eloquently.

I am completely in support of those amendments, but I wish to speak briefly to the genocide amendment today. On various occasions during the Covid pandemic questions were asked of the then Health Minister about the procurement of PPE. He was not able to give me a straight answer to say, “We can guarantee that no PPE procured could have had anything to do with slave labour or could have come from Xinjiang.”

The NHS seeks to be world leading. We all support it and want it to be able to deliver for every citizen in this country. But that should not be at the expense of the lives of those in other parts of the world. It is not good enough to say that we have the Modern Slavery Act if that will not lead to a change in practices. It is absolutely essential that our supply chains do not include anything that comes from forced labour.

If one looks at what is going on in Xinjiang, it is possible to barter to get numbers of people, just as it was 200 years ago during the slave trade. That is not acceptable. It may be the case that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, we will be told, “This is not the right piece of legislation.” If it is not, what will the Government bring forward that will mean that every point of our supply chain—every part of government procurement—ensures that we are not procuring things that have been made using slave labour?

We must not be complicit. This House should support the amendments, and if the Minister is not able to support the amendment, perhaps he could come back with a revised and better version of the amendment that will do what we all seek to achieve.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly only to Amendment 108, which I understand the Government are likely to resist when my noble friend the Minister comes to speak. I say simply, very briefly, that to be persuasive, my noble friend has to explain how through administrative measures the National Health Service will achieve the effects of this amendment. He has to explain that in a credible way and that the effects will be rapid and comprehensive. Any idea that this will be kicked into a long review that ambles on and may or may not produce the effects required by at least the first two proposed new subsections of the amendment will lack credibility; I am less concerned about the chairman of the Select Committee part that comes in the third one. I would like my noble friend to know before he speaks that that is what I think we all want to hear.