Health Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the very many noble Lords who queued up to speak in this debate—I obviously raised a very important point. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for reminding me how innovative I was when I was the Technology and Innovation Minister. In fact, I set up the very service that I am now asking for many years later. It does beg a question, because even I, as the person who set it up, still did not know that this service existed. When I speak to people in NHS England and elsewhere and say, “You know what you need? You need a front door for innovators”, they say, “You’re absolutely right; we haven’t got one”. So even people in NHS England do not know that this exists.

I was up front that I knew this was not meant to be in the Bill. I just wanted to get discussion. It probably helped to prompt my memory as well—my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—but it is really important that more people know about the NHS Innovation Service. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the many other noble Lords who are interested in this topic to let us know what the Government intend to do to promote the NHS Innovation Service, so that more people are aware and so I do not ask for the same thing next time we have a health Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thought the logical conclusion would be that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Health Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow in the slipstream of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Watkins, and speak about carers. They all spoke very movingly. I will speak in particular about young carers.

Last week, at Oral Questions, I pointed out that there were 15,000 schoolchildren spending more than 50 hours a week looking after their parents or siblings, and 3,000 of those were aged between five and nine. In that context, I pointed out the disadvantages they face in the field of education: being suspended, arriving late and underachieving. Young carers also underperform —if that is the right word—in terms of mental and physical health. They are rarely identified by the relevant authorities until, on average, three years have passed. In health terms that could include the GP, other health practitioners or those providing mental health services. It takes an average of three years to identify the young carers. Carers Trust polling found that just under a third of young carers said that they felt stressed or worried simply because of their caring role. The GP Patient Survey shows that young adult carers are notably more likely to live with long-term physical health conditions themselves—around 40% for young carers as opposed to 29% for young adults who are not carers.

Despite these health inequalities, very few young carers are identified by health professionals. That was brought home by the recent tragic case in the child safeguarding practice review Cooper and Harris. Two boys were living with their mother who had multiple health issues and had regular emergency hospital admissions. She told the hospital and medical staff several times that her young sons looked after her at home. The ambulance staff recognised the distress experienced by the boys when their mother had a particularly bad fall. Despite this, neither boy was identified as a young carer. Tragically, because the support for that family was not adequate, one of them found his mother lifeless one morning and had to call the emergency services. While the previous NHS long-term plan included specific measures relating to young carers, such as top tips for GPs on improving access to local support for young carers, the current long-term plan does not mention young carers at all.

Amendment 88, as has been explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would go a long way to helping improve the identification of unpaid carers of all ages, including young carers, by placing requirements on ICBs to identify them, mirroring the responsibility of local authorities. Amendment 89 would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and well-being of carers, including young carers. Through my role as the vice-chair of the APPG for Young Carers and Young Adult Carers, I routinely hear about the impact of caring on the health and well-being of young carers.

The Sutton Trust’s study found that young carers are more likely than young people without caring responsibilities to report severe psychological distress and are more vulnerable to self-harm and attempts on their own lives. The harrowing child safeguarding practice review Molly showed that even though the young carer was identified, professionals supporting Molly’s mother, such as GPs, did not sufficiently consider the needs of Molly, who took her own life with her mother’s medication when she was just 14.

I turn finally to respite care, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. The provision of regular respite breaks can help support the health and well-being of unpaid carers. One of the things that carers always say makes the biggest difference are breaks. For young carers, respite can take many different forms: young carer groups; trips in the school holidays, which so many miss out on; or even being supported to access opportunities as a family. The Welsh Government actually do this.

These amendments complement the recent Unpaid Carers Action Plan: Recognise, Refer, Reach, which I welcome. I very much hope that the Government can respond sympathetically to this group of amendments.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 214 complements other amendments in my name. It concerns people with high support needs when they go into hospital and the care that they receive.

At two of my stays in hospital in the summer, I was repeatedly asked whether I had a carer. It felt very patronising as opposed to supportive. However, Second Reading of this Bill gave me another opportunity to have a lived experience of the NHS. This time I spent a week in St Thomas’ Hospital, which was an entirely different experience. It also gave me the opportunity to talk to people who would be affected by this amendment.

Nurses might be trained but not able to offer the appropriate support that someone with high care needs requires. If a person is unwell, it might be difficult for them to explain quite complicated care. There is a real fear among disabled people with high support needs about going into hospital in terms of the impact on their personal health budget—that it might be taken away or changed and about who pays for that care while the individual is in hospital. At a time of great worry, you do not want people to avoid going into hospital because they are worried about their personal health budget.

Hospitals might be accessible but not have the appropriate facilities for disabled people. This is where carers can make a real difference. Another individual contacted me to say that the nursing staff did not know how to use the hoist. It took four members of staff to operate it. It takes one person at home, but that one person was not allowed on the ward to help the individual. In another case, someone with cerebral palsy who was awaiting surgery could transfer to a hospital bed but was told that if they cannot transfer to the surgical bed—which they cannot do—they cannot have the surgery. Their carer is not allowed in to help them, so they are wasting all the pre-operative time. They know that they will be told that they cannot have the surgery.

We need to explore some of these issues further and might be able to in further groups. The current system is, at best, disjointed. We should be able to do better around the whole issue of carers.

Unpaid Carers: Patient Hospital Discharge

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend that the involvement of and support to unpaid carers is crucial when a patient is discharged because, as she says, it is vital not just for patient recovery but for the whole healthcare system. I welcome the recent Carers UK report that was published last year, which focused on how government legislation and guidance is or is not being implemented and monitored in practice. That has been and will be very useful work for us to continue with.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, there are 120,000 young carers aged between seven and 18, many of whom are the principal carer for a parent or sibling, accompanying them when they go into hospital. Although many hospitals are good about identifying the young carers, not all of them are. What more can be done to make sure that these young carers are identified right at the beginning of the process and fully consulted about arrangements for discharge?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to emphasise the role that many children and young people have as young carers. The Children’s Social Care National Framework is statutory guidance for local authorities, which have duties to identify young carers who may need support and to assess their needs. I am well aware that young carers may not be aware of this, but there is a right to request assessments. Improving joint working between adult and children’s social care services, as well as health services, is key. Lastly, I hope that the electronic patient record would identify where there was a carer, including a young carer.

Independent Commission on Adult Social Care

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care.

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

My Lords, the independent commission is making strong progress, and its work is on track. Just last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set out early recommendations for the Government to consider and take forward. This was informed by the commission’s extensive work, which included engaging with people and their families and across political parties. Later this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will launch the national conversation and publish the phase 1 report.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said that the adult social care system was held together by “sticking plasters and glue” and said on the “Today” programme that the system was “horrendous”. She is due to complete the first part of her review this year—basically, looking at getting better value from the existing system—but the second part, which will look at the long-overdue reform of the adult social care system, will not be completed until 2028. That will be too late for this Government to pass the necessary legislation, making this Parliament the fifth to have ducked this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, completed her review of grooming gangs in four and a half months. If asked, she could complete the second part of this review by September 2027, which would give us adequate time for this to be done in this Parliament. Will the Minister ask her to do just that?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord pushes this point, and I am sure that we all share his view. It has also been said that there is not a lack of good ideas, but there has been a lack of good politics. That observation has been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is chairing an independent commission and she has made it clear how complex and deep-seated these challenges are, as the noble Lord described. The 2028 date is a “by” date; the noble Baroness may report sooner, but that is a matter for her.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

A Government full of lawyers and led by a lawyer, who seems obsessed, actually, about international law, should explain clearly how they claim that they can proceed, how they claim that they can override EU objections, and what the risks are for Northern Ireland and for the Bill if they are wrong. We deserve transparency, and the United Kingdom deserves better than a system where laws affecting one part of our country can be challenged, delayed or diluted by external actors while Ministers shrug and ask us to take it on trust. We have taken it on trust before and it proved to be something that we cannot do again. For those reasons, I cannot support the approach that has been taken on this and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 202 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smoke-free country every five years, and sets out some specific obligations that should be included within that road map. The Bill is world-leading, and I welcome that, but it does very little for current smokers, of whom there are still about 5.3 million left in the UK. Without a comprehensive strategy to ensure that current smokers are supported to quit, we risk certain groups being excluded from the smoke-free future, and, of course, we will have to wait several decades for the smoke-free generation to take over.

The previous Conservative Government published the 2017 tobacco control plan, which set out key areas of focus and the ambition to create a smoke-free generation by tackling youth smoking. This was accompanied by the tobacco control delivery plan, which enabled relevant partners and services to implement the plan. These have both expired, and there is no current strategy on tobacco in place. The Labour Party pledged to publish such a strategy in the health mission document, Build an NHS Fit for the Future, saying that it was important that no one should be left behind. It said:

“We will build on the success of the last Labour government with a roadmap to a smoke-free Britain”.


My amendment asks the Government to make good on that promise now that they are in power.

When I raised this in Committee, it was disappointing that the Minister said:

“There are no plans to develop a report on specific targets or to publish a road map at this time”.


That seems a very clear rejection of the commitment that I have just read out. The reason the Minister gave lacked substance. She justified it by saying that it was

“because we are focusing our attention and total ambition on making sure that we can deliver the Bill and work on the regulations that will follow”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 191.]

However, the amendment asks simply for a report every five years; indeed, there would be no requirement to produce one until 2031. It is not going to take that long to deliver the Bill—hopefully by the end of this Session—and to introduce the regulations shortly after. I therefore hope that the Minister will come to the House today with a more robust defence of the abandonment of the commitment that I have referred to.

A road map would include a clear target to end smoking. In 2023, the Khan review found that

“England will miss the smokefree 2030 target by at least 7 years, with the poorest areas not meeting it until 2044”.

When I asked the Minister about this in Committee, she said:

“We are going even further than the Smokefree 2030 target. As I have mentioned throughout, our ambition is for a smoke-free UK and creating the first smoke-free generation”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 191.]


That is excellent—I entirely applaud it—but without a road map we will not know whether, or indeed how, that ambition is going to be delivered.

I appreciate that the Government have tabled Amendment 205, which requires them to carry out a review no earlier than four years and no later than seven. My noble friend Lord Lansley has tabled Amendment 206, which I am sure he will speak to in a moment. But the government amendment is actually very little different to what should happen anyway. All government departments are expected to review new legislation three to five years after Royal Assent. Known as post-legislative scrutiny, this typically assesses how the Act has worked in practice and whether it has met its policy objectives. Under that obligation, departments are expected to produce a memorandum on the Act three to five years after it is passed, which is then presented to Parliament and departmental Select Committees, which can decide if they want to take it further. So in practice, the government amendment adds very little to what ought to happen anyway.

The timescale in the government amendment is less onerous than current practice, and such a review would be much less specific than the process that I have set out in Amendment 202, which has some very specific targets. Any government review would be retrospective in nature and limited to assessing the specific measures contained within the legislation, whereas subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 202 go much wider. Indeed, Amendment 206, in the name of my noble friend, is also more granular than the government amendment. A road map would require the Government to explain how they intend to use the powers in the Bill and how these will sit alongside broader policy action and service provision required beyond legislation. A road map would provide a shared direction and common goals to work towards, helping to maximise the impact and success of the legislation from the outset, rather than simply looking back at how it has performed years later. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group. For the record, I declare my interest as a trustee of Action on Smoking and Health.

First of all, I follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, around a road map. Surely a road map is less strong in terms of action than the very substance of this Bill in the first place, which is about action. Each successive year of the implementation of this Bill will take another year of smokers out of the reach of the tobacco industry. Therefore, the actions as proposed in this Bill are stronger than a road map would suggest, as that implies a level of choice further down the line. That is clearly what this Bill is intended to avoid—the further consideration of actions to reduce smoking instead of decisive measures to reduce smoking now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the legal opinions, which I believe was a piece of work commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, whose members include BAT, JTI and Imperial. Given the industry’s long and litigious history, both here and internationally, it would be remarkable if they did not try to use this process to threaten legal action; that has been their playbook for decades. Some noble Lords will have heard directly from advocates in Kenya, Zambia and Pakistan at a recent ASH briefing. They described years of aggressive industry interference, including a six-year battle in Kenya over measures as basic as health warnings, measures that the industry had already failed to overturn elsewhere. The purpose of these cases is rarely to win on the law; it is to depress political will, delay implementation and exhaust public authorities. That effect is especially corrosive in countries with fewer resources or resilience than the UK. So when we are presented with yet another industry-funded legal opinion, it is reasonable to treat it with caution. The smoke-free generation policy is indeed novel, but novelty as a concept is not a legal defect; it is simply untested. That is not in itself a reason to abandon a policy designed to protect children from addiction and future generations from avoidable disease.

ASH has commissioned its own legal opinion from academics at the University of Liverpool with expertise in both public health and EU law. Their analysis directly addresses the issues raised in the group of amendments that we are debating now. They conclude that there are strong grounds to believe any legal challenge would fail and that the Bill is compatible with EU law. I will explain why.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

I think we should put some constraints on the advertising of betting now—I do not go the whole way—but with hindsight we can see that the illegality of off-course betting was a well-intentioned, absurd and utterly ineffective misuse of the criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, should persuade us all that the Bill as it stands is a repeat of that rather ridiculous experiment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, for the first time in my life, I will publicly disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke. I will speak briefly but very strongly against this group of amendments, which would simply defeat the object of the Bill: to introduce a generational ban and achieve over time a smoke-free country.

Less than two years ago, a generational ban was the policy of a Conservative Government, and the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of his proudest initiatives. In that Parliament, on a free vote, the vast majority of Conservative Members of Parliament supported the Bill, as did 28 out of the 30 members of the Cabinet. All the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were put forward at that time, listened to and discounted. In this Parliament, the measure passed with a majority of 415 to 47, so it is fair to say that the Bill has broad cross-party support, and it is popular outside. It has a clear objective of reducing the burdens of smoking on the economy and the NHS.

I will leave it to others to deal with the argument about illicit tobacco and the Windsor Framework; I just want to tackle the libertarian argument, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened to all the libertarian arguments when a Conservative Government made it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets. We heard the arguments about well-informed adults being aware of the risks. Nobody would now reverse that piece of legislation. We heard the same arguments on compulsory seat belts. Both those measures were introduced by a Conservative Government. We heard the same arguments about smoking on public transport, on trains and in pubs. Yes, there is a libertarian argument, but in my view there is a much broader benefit in moving to a smoke-free country.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I will concentrate on one narrow area—one of the practical aspects of this generational ban—which, as my noble friend Lord Clarke highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. I am sure the Minister will soon argue that age verification is a well-established practice and therefore should present no particular difficulty, but the implications of the Bill in a few years’ time are profound, as my noble friend noted.

Judging the difference between an 18 year-old and a 40 year-old by eye is not especially difficult—although at this point I note that there are a number of Peers on the Government Benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers. But how is a shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of someone who is apparently 40 years old in a few years’ time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 in 364 days? I am sure that we will soon hear the argument that the point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year- old born after the 1 January 2009 will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke because of the Bill. But that is simply not a credible argument. As my noble friend Lord Murray noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one does not need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked. Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous and more edgy. Plenty of people will still choose to smoke.

In effect, the state will therefore be asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. To put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year, it reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores. Some 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse and 44% reported hate-motivated abuse. The top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. Does the Minister think this will get any better when the shopkeeper has to ask two middle-aged men for their passports—or, indeed, an 85 year-old for his birth certificate?

Today, I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1,600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024-25. That is down from the previous year, but it is still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification, which are inevitable. I am sure the Minister will also refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers due by 2029. That is also welcome, of course, but I note that the previous Government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact. The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the Government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other laws.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments would achieve the Government’s aims without causing this needless aggravation. The Government’s own impact assessment states that a one-off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective in the short term at reducing smoking rates, compared with a generational smoking ban. The Government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendments 129 and 133 would place a duty on the Government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or the inserts within them but on every single cigarette, by printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whose great work on this Bill is much to be admired, said that this was something the Government could look at in future but not something they were looking at now, and that secondary legislation could provide for this in future. I ask: why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin?

This idea is not new or untested. It was first endorsed by the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health in 2021, and then in the Khan review commissioned by the previous Government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers, with demonstrable impact. Australia followed suit last April, albeit with warnings only on the filters. The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers responded to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking: cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message—and it is the wrong one.

I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to introduce pack inserts that direct smokers towards quitting support. I argued strongly for this when we debated the Health and Care Bill. It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often offered from someone else’s packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack-based measures simply do not.

This effect of warnings on individual cigarette papers has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on it or may have an insert in future. Printing warnings directly on the cigarette would ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off-putting for young people.

It is sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood. Action on Smoking and Health found in an analysis of its survey data that younger smokers, the very people who would benefit most from this measure, were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My amendment would help them give up every time they handle a cigarette.

More importantly, it would help prevent people smoking their very first cigarette. The evidence shows that, the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to reduce the harm it causes to smokers, their families and everybody else.

Finally, I know the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that, in some countries where this has been implemented, they appear only on the filter. The UK could do things differently if we choose, as in Canada. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could display to this Chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I hope she will say not just that this measure might be considered in future but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group. Before coming to those, I will say a word about Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I was initially attracted to. Like many other noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ASH, where we listened to health experts explain that filters do not prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they have ingredients in them that might be damaging. Far worse, because of the filter, smokers inhale more than they would have done had there not been one, as they think it is safe. It may be that the 25 government amendments achieve in a rather roundabout way what the noble Baroness seeks to do in Amendment 77. We will listen with interest to the Minister when she speaks to her amendments.

Amendment 133 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As I have said before, when I was a Health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt putting a warning on cigarettes and it declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic. This was not an argument I found very persuasive. Here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something that at the time was world-beating, although I understand that I have now been overtaken by Canada.

Amendment 204, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sits rather uneasily in this group, which is otherwise about filters, in that it is about the tobacco levy. I want to make a number of points. First, previously the Government ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014. Indeed they did, but this is a very different model from that which they consulted on. Crucially, in the one they consulted on, the levy would have been passed on to the consumer, with all the impact on RPI or CPI. This model has been constructed to avoid that; it would control the price that tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and would not allow tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers as they do at the moment. It would raise revenue. One estimate has been £5 billion. Even if it is a fraction of that, it is money well worth having.

The scheme would not be complex to administer. As the noble Earl said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PPRS, controlling medicine prices, with far more manufacturers than are involved in tobacco. Crucially, the Khan review, already referred to, which was initiated by Sajid Javid when he was Health Secretary, pointed out that the Government were not going to hit their then target of a smoke-free England by 2030. It recommended the levy—this was an independent review commissioned by the last Conservative Government—and reinvesting the money in media campaigns targeted at those elements of the population who were still smoking.

Finally, I know that the Minister will not mind me reminding her of what she said when a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships’ House by 213 to 154. She knows what I am going to say; she supported and voted for that amendment, saying that it would

“provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]

Well, that is what we are asking for today. She did not persuade me in Committee when she gave the reasons why she had changed her mind. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why she will now urge the House to reject what she thought was a good idea four years ago.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, since this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I declare my interest as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, and we sometimes run seminars on evidence behind public health policy.

Battery Shortage for NHS Hearing Aids

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the shortage of batteries for NHS hearing aids.

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

My Lords, a single type of Energizer hearing aid battery is under supply pressure due to increased demand. It is still available to order and the NHS supply chain has instituted demand management to ensure a fair supply of available stock across the NHS. The NHS supply chain is working with Energizer and an alternative supplier to maximise stock availability and will take steps to improve future resilience. I am glad to say that the supply issue is anticipated to be resolved by 16 March.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that reply. While this is not the most urgent problem facing the NHS and its patients, 80% of people over 70 suffer from hearing loss. Many of them are now switching off their NHS hearing aids to conserve the batteries, and this has an impact on their quality of life. Last November, supply problems began to emerge and, as the noble Baroness has just said, if you go to the NHS supply chain website, it says that the batteries are subject to “demand management”—a euphemism for short supply. Very worryingly, as the noble Baroness has just said, normal service will not be resumed until March 16. So the question for the Minister is: what resilience is there now in the NHS supply chain for this product and others; why is there so much dependence on one supplier for a fairly basic product; and, related to that, why is it going to take so long to restore normal service?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

These are very real issues that the noble Lord is raising. There are only three global manufacturers and we get our supplies from two of them. There are limited places to get them from. In terms of future resilience, we work very much in partnership, through our Supply Resilience Directorate, with industry and the wider sector to ensure continuity. Importantly, I very much welcome that there was recently investment in Tyne and Wear in the factory, on UK soil, in order to enhance our domestic manufacturing capability. But we will also conduct a lessons learned exercise after this.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lord, I want to add a brief footnote to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley asking for this independent expert panel on vaping.

It seems to me, from looking back at history, that we used to have exactly such a panel because, when we had Public Health England, it published a series of reviews on vaping with precisely the terms of reference that my noble friend mentioned; Public Health England was replaced in 2021, I think, by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. At that point, the series of reviews seemed to come to an end because, in September 2022, the OHID published

“a final annual update in the current series of evidence reviews about health harms of vaping by leading independent tobacco experts”.

However, if you look at that final report, it makes the case for what my noble friend has said.

First, it refers to the limited evidence on flavourings, clearly implying that more research should be done there. The final point was in its overall conclusion, which was that

“more standardised and consistent methodologies in future studies would improve interpretation of the evidence”.

It is not quite clear to me who will actually do that.

I note that, at the end of Second Reading, the Minister referred to some studies. She said that the Government had

“already commissioned a 10-year study to investigate the long-term effects of vaping on the health of 100,000 young people”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 743.]

I am not sure, however, that that is quite the same as what my noble friend asked for.

There seems to be a gap now, in that we no longer have the PHE/OHID reviews. We may have to wait 10 years for the study I just mentioned. The case that my noble friend has made for an independent panel on vaping seems to fill that gap; I hope that the case he made will have support from the Minister.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my support for this amendment, which seems very sensible. When we have an amendment in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we should all be looking at it very seriously indeed.

I have never smoked and never vaped but I remember, when vaping started, being absolutely delighted because it got rid of the smell of smoke whenever you went to places. There was a general feeling that vaping was better than smoking. I still feel that very strongly, but I accept that there is no evidence to tell us what is going to happen in the long term. I also think that things change; there is more research going on in all sorts of areas to do with vaping, and it just seems sensible that we have some form of expert panel.

I very much accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the word “experts”. We need to look carefully at who would be the experts on this but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, this might be something on which there could be discussion before Report so that there is agreement on the kinds of expert that we want. What we do not want is for them all to come from the same aspect of research in a particular academic area. As we come to the end of this Bill, I really do think that the Minister should see this as something that she could accept and which would be very sensible.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is blue. Is there something wicked about blue?

There is a distinction between the one and the other. The truth is that respectable companies will comply with the law, as they do with the law on smoking advertising, and disreputable ones will find ways of getting around it, as so many currently do.

I return to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 168 addresses Clause 119, which, as I mentioned in the previous group, contains certain defences that can be used by those charged with offences laid out in the previous clauses, such as distributing or designing advertising. I propose that an additional defence be added to it that,

“it is, when in relation to the advertising of vaping products or nicotine products, in a location in which it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present is aged 18”.

This is an attempt to try to fit in with what the Minister said earlier about the aim of the Bill, that we are meant to be trying to address young people, which I agree with, and help ensure that they are not induced into taking up vaping and other nicotine-based products.

Amendment 170 would create an exemption, not by amending Clause 119 but by adding a new clause, for a specialist vaping retailer making communications online in an age-verified environment. We have robust age verification now as a result of the Online Safety Act. There are many sites, I believe, which you are required to verify your age to access. That is what Ofcom has increasingly rolled out under the provisions of that Act. It is perfectly possible to have age-verified sites and to ensure that people can access them only if they can demonstrate they are above a certain age. That is what this is trying to do. It is trying to create some sort of balance for those adults—those above the age of 18—who wish to have access to information about vaping in a way that ensures it does not get to children. On the basis of what the noble Baroness has said is her purpose, I really cannot see how she should object to this. I hope that Amendment 170 and possibly even Amendment 168 might find favour with her.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 167 and 171 in the names of my noble friend Lord Kamall and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. They seek a carve-out from the ban on advertising for smoking cessation purposes.

In Part 6, which is about advertising, I cannot see any exemption for those services. It may be tucked away somewhere else in the Bill. My enquiries about this led me to believe that the qualification that you have to act in the course of business before the ban applies is an exemption for the health service, local government and any other public health agencies. I wonder whether that is good enough. Pharmacies are businesses, and many GP practices are limited companies. If I went into a pharmacy or to my medical centre and asked for help to give up smoking, it seems that they might commit an offence because they are a business. I think there is some merit in those two amendments, unless there is something somewhere else in the Bill that provides a specific exemption for smoking cessation services.

I have looked at the defence in Clause 199, “Advertising: defences”, and there is a defence, but it can be exercised only by somebody “in a relevant trade”—in other words, selling tobacco products, herbal smoking and the rest. If the only exemption is for business purposes, it seems to me that there are some grey areas. Surely there is a case for making it clear that we want these products to be promoted as smoking cessation services and people should not run the risk of getting caught by what I think is rather vague drafting of the Bill as it stands.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, much has been said on this. It might be worth noting—I appreciate this is the wrong place to note it—that the ultimate virtue in life and the bottom line of every single decision we make does not have to be public health. If you think that other things are important, it does not make you beyond the pale, evil or somebody who can be cast out of society. Public health is one of the balancing things we have to consider in society, but there is a range of things we need to discuss.

I say that because when we are talking about these exemptions, which I think are very sensible, moderate and proportionate, one of the things that is interesting is that the plethora of specialist vape shops—I appreciate that people in this Room might not be familiar with them—are full of geeky people who understand the wide variety of vapes that are available legally on the market in this country. They are not somewhere that young people hang out; I mean young in the sense of being under 18. They are often frequented by people who are interested in the different types of vaping you can choose to indulge in. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made is that they are not places for children.

It is interesting that many of the people who work in those establishments see themselves as being in the smoking-cessation business; they actively see themselves that way. Many go on training courses in smoking cessation and are therefore almost zealots. So, in some ways, I would much rather buy my vapes from a convenience store than go into a vape shop, because they give you a lecture in all things related to vaping, very often to do with public health.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, which I support in principle, but I am interested to hear the Government’s response to the points about practicality, apart from anything else. There is a real issue here. Fundamentally, people are pointing to a very real issue that needs to be tackled, either through the approach in Amendment 33 or a variation on Amendment 34. I am interested to hear how the Government think they should tackle it.

I am picking up on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made when she was talking about whether the intention is about littering or health. I have no objection to joined-up government, and it is a good thing to be doing that. I will speak later today on the Planning Bill urging planning to take account of health; health should also take account of environmental impacts of things in this way.

To conclude, I have one question with three parts for the Minister. Do she and the Government recognise and accept that filters have no positive impact on health and—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said—possibly have a negative impact with people breathing in harder? Does the Minister accept that most people who smoke do not know that filters have no impact and, indeed, think that they may be saving themselves to some extent? The third part is: if the Government believe those things, it seems to be something they should be tackling in some way within their tobacco plans and I am not aware that they are. I leave those questions with the Minister.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.

When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.

My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found

“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.

This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, it is clear that the very word “filter” is the most misleading of epithets. It leads many people to believe they make smoking safer. I would take a lot of convincing that people are not led to believe it is safer by the use of that very misleading epithet. It is not the point that filters do not make smoking more dangerous—incidentally, some of the early filters actually contained asbestos, so there were certainly some at an early stage that did make smoking much more dangerous. Leaving that on one side, the whole point is that people are misled into believing that smoking with filters is safer. That is the reason for Amendment 33.

There is a logic to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I find compelling. The fact that we can do something in relation to the environment as well as to health is not a reason for not acting; it is a reason for acting. The suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the state has no role here or only a qualified role and should not be entering this area, I find staggering. There is every reason we should be doing so in my humble opinion. Therefore, I strongly support Amendments 33 and 34.

On Amendments 141 and 143 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, there is unimpeachable logic in putting a warning on something if you are trying to deter people from using it. I do not think it is sufficient that it is on packets; there are many people who will have a single cigarette proposed to them. They will see the warning there, and there will be publicity given to that warning. It is not just the warning on the cigarettes; the fact the Government are doing that will mean it is more widely known.

There is a great logic, and I urge the Minister to be bold. It is not sufficient that we are having this generational ban, important though that is. There is a reason for moving more quickly and forcefully in relation to the amendments, and an unimpeachable logic to trying to iron out the position on filters, which are indeed a giant fraud.