Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her highly engaged approach to these issues facing small specialist tobacconists in the niche handmade, hand-rolled cigar industry. I also appreciated the assistance of her officials at the Department of Health, who have been sitting through a very long debate and must be wondering when it is going to end; I think this is the last group. They demonstrated a high level of understanding of cigars, their impact on health and the effects this Bill could have on the people involved in the specialist industry. I really do appreciate that. We have had a hugely successful, open dialogue around what is a very important issue.

I believe from my conversations with the Government that they do not want to destroy this important cottage industry of mainly small family-owned firms—which, I might add, attract a huge amount of tourism to this country and are world class in their standards of service and compliance. They sell a product which is not associated with childhood smoking, and they are not at risk of contributing to the remorseless rise of vapes, snuses and other nicotine delivery products. Wonderful shops like Davidoff, Fox, Sautters and Cgars, to name a few, employ hundreds of people and give satisfaction and happiness to thousands more.

It is very important that we accept the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to protect these stores, especially those in the cluster of St James’s Street. I know we will come on to this later, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister on guidance to local authorities in this area, which reflects a number of the points in these amendments, as well.

The issues around packaging are also surprisingly important to the industry. We are not asking for anything other than a commitment to the continuation of existing legislation, which protects how speciality tobacconists display cigar products and can trade new and, importantly, vintage cigars. These products have to be stored and distributed in cedar or cedar-lined wooden boxes, which cannot be changed at source. It is important for noble Lords to understand this; they have to be transported in a certain way, in a certain type of box. It is not simply about moving them into some other type of packaging; and the packaging cannot be changed at source, since they predominantly come from important trading partners such as Cuba or the Dominican Republic, which do not have the capacity to change the packaging to enable us to have plain packaging.

By the way, the boxing and labelling system also helps ensure authenticity. This follows the discussion we had about counterfeiting earlier.

It is also important to recognise that these boxes and how the cigars are packaged are a far cry from packaging that advertises or that is targeted at children. It should be noted that health warnings are already applied to all these boxes. I stress that we are not looking for a carve-out or loophole with these amendments; we are looking simply for the continuation of a sensible policy to allow a niche industry of speciality tobacconists, with important trading partners, to exist and continue its trade as planned. This fits in with the express quotes from the Minister that, in effect, preserving the status quo as it stands today and rolling it forward is part of the Government’s agenda. We respect that and find it enormously helpful.

There is overwhelming evidence that going back on this original legal commitment would mean the end of the specialist cigar industry, so if we introduced plain packaging, it would be devastating for this important area of our economy and would have no benefit to the overall plan of making Britain smoke-free either.

I went to inspect the offices of Hunters & Frankau, which is the main importer of Cuban cigars, to see how a ban on ordinary box packaging could be implemented. If your Lordships saw the hundreds, if not thousands, of product lines in this Indiana Jones-like warehouse—I must say, when I had a chance to tour those storerooms, it was a very happy moment for me—your Lordships would see that it is totally impractical to bring in some type of plain packaging, given the way these authentic handmade products are sourced and distributed.

Canada and Australia have been quoted as having brought these measures into place. They are very different markets, so I do not think they are comparable in reality. In actuality, it has led to the almost total collapse of the handmade cigar industry as a result of the reduction of lines from many hundreds down to a few tens. The effect has not been on large multinationals or big tobacco; it has been the closure of many small businesses. Family-owned tobacconists and specialty suppliers have closed as a result. Needless to say, the consumer also suffers.

Finally, I would be grateful to hear confirmation that the Government have no plans to go back on previous legislation that allowed for a very small number of sampling rooms in this country—I believe the number is fewer than 30. These are not to be confused with so-called cigar lounges, of which there are many, which are predominantly outdoor areas, albeit with some type of heating and sometimes roofing. The investment in these humidors, which is what they are, with sampling rooms attached, has been significant. Several major hotels have integrated them into their business model. They are part of the supply chain of handmade premium cigars and to disestablish them would cause significant unnecessary harm.

I reassure noble Lords that at no point will these actions create a loophole for big tobacco. I am very aware that that has happened in the past, with flavourings, cigarillos and so on. Protecting these characteristics will not see an increase in youth smoking. I think we are all agreed on that. No one I have met, even those who are most fanatical about this Bill—some people are, and I do not disrespect that—wants to see an end to our specialist tobacconist industry today.

These are small, family-owned businesses, which behave impeccably, are drivers of tourism, create income for the Exchequer and behave extremely effectively in providing a niche community with cigars. To have clear commitments about these important matters from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would allow the industry to continue to be a highly responsible part of British retail. It would allow these small, family-owned stores to continue to drive footfall and income for this country. It would be a fair way to treat the adult, free-choosing, occasional cigar smoker into the future too.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as we have already heard, the amendments in this group seek to carve out exemptions for specialist tobacconists, particularly when it comes to cigars. I will focus primarily on Amendments 126, 127, 147 and 192. I begin by focusing on what cigars actually are. They are often described—and we have heard them described—as luxury or artisanal goods, but they are, first of all, carcinogenic tobacco products that are harmful to human health.

I support the Government’s approach, as the Bill stands, to comprehensive tobacco control regulation that ensures that future generations do not become addicted to any form of tobacco. We have heard arguments that their use is infrequent and primarily among those over the age of 25. Indeed, the absolute numbers show that the majority of cigar smokers are over 25, but that reflects population size. In reality, among smokers—this is a really important point—the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be smoking cigars. Toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate actively promote cigar use to a young, predominantly male audience, linking cigars with power, wealth and success. We know how quickly this kind of influence can spread and be taken up if we leave loopholes for it.

As we have already heard, cigars have traditionally benefited from carve-outs of regulation on things such as pack size, flavours and packaging. Were we to change that now it would open the door to future innovations, as some of the proponents of these amendments have already acknowledged, with, for example, cigarillos. Action on Smoking and Health data shows that these are popular among young people who smoke: 35% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried them in 2024 and 2025. We must not leave space in the Bill for innovation by the merchants of death, which I am afraid these amendments do.

Although I understand the intention behind the amendments that refer to plain packaging, I do not support them. The suggestion is that plain packaging will be fatal to the industry. I note that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay all apply standardised packaging to all tobacco products, including cigars. Data from Canada shows that, since that has come in, there has been only a very minor drop in the sale of cigars, in line with traditional long-term trends.

It is also important to note that the power to introduce plain packaging for cigars is not new. It already exists under regulations introduced in 2015 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and implemented by a subsequent Conservative Government. The Government issued a call for evidence on this in November 2024.

Finally, I will touch very briefly on smoke-free places and cigar lounges. I do not support Amendment 192. Yes, the customers may choose to be in that space, but the staff may not have a realistic practical choice about being there; it may be the only job they can get. We do not want workers exposed to second-hand smoke under those kinds of conditions.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsley signed Amendment 126, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred. It seeks, above all, to ensure that all small retailers are treated fairly. I am sure the Minister will be addressing this.

Moving on to cigars and cigar lounges generally, I do not see why these should be exempt. In Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, about a new cigar lounge in Sheffield which has opened near a school. A public health team at the council made representations saying that it had serious concerns about the impact of the lounge, particularly in an area where smoking causes great health inequalities, but it was powerless to stop this. As we have just heard, having staff working indoors in these lounges seems to go against the very intention of the original smoke-free legislation, which was to protect staff from the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful answers she has given to the various points my amendments have raised. I am also grateful for the time she allowed for discussions between Committee and Report to understand the issues better; my thanks to her. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Kamall for the support they have offered for these amendments.

Before coming back to what the Minister said, I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Northover, that there is quite a lot of confusion over the statistics relating to cigars as a generic category. I remind both of them that my amendments deal solely with handmade cigars, not with cigars as a single generic whole.

As I said, handmade cigars are not inhaled. They are relatively expensive compared with other smoking options. A lot of cigars out there on the market are machine made; some of them are small enough to be cigarillos. The statistics about young people indulging in cigar smoking almost wholly relate to people who are smoking not handmade cigars but other types of cigar.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am very aware of the hour, but I just had a quick look online and saw “Andrew Tate’s favourite cigars”—exactly the kind of very expensive products that the noble Earl is talking about. That is what is being promoted to young men in particular.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

This is my attempt to find way forward on these issues. I hope the Government are listening. They may not like my way forward and they may have another suggestion, but this is an area where further work is needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I will not go through them in detail, as I am sure she will, but I note that this is a lovely practical example, and all credit to the Government that their campaigning has worked. We heard in Committee from both Action on Smoking and Health and the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership about the need for an exemption in in-patient mental health settings for vaping vending machines. The Government have clearly listened, and this is an example of how this all should work, so let us applaud and highlight that.

I support Amendment 16, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just introduced. The ban on disposable vapes is clearly being widely, almost universally, got around. The noble Earl spoke about producer responsibility. Well, we have a profoundly irresponsible industry that is behaving in ways that have serious health and environmental impacts. I spent most of this afternoon hosting an event for the National Association of Local Councils. As soon as I said I was leaving to do the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the reaction was, “Waste!” That is understandable. Let us look at some figures from Biffa on three recycling facilities, in Suffolk, Teesside and London. Before the ban on single-use vapes came in, they saw an average of 200,000 vapes mixed in with general waste; after the ban came in, that went up by about 3%. There was perhaps a rush of material being sold in that immediate period, but from everything we are hearing, the waste problem is still enormous, and the risk of these lithium batteries exploding and catching fire in waste lorries and recycling centres is absolutely enormous.

We need more action on public health, too. I spoke to a young person today who said, “Well, I’m a bit confused about how vaping relates to health and cigarettes”. Young people are not getting a clear message, and they are being sold these things everywhere. This amendment is saying we need to keep a watch on this and be ready to catch whatever the industry does next, because we know big tobacco is profoundly irresponsible. As the noble Earl said, this is perhaps not the exact way to do it, but we need to make sure we hear from the Government that they are prepared to take action against big tobacco at any time.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, which create an exemption for vape vending machines in mental health hospitals. This was really good to see: it is a humane step and will be very beneficial to patients. It proves that the Government can listen and amend, and I hope there might be more listening and amending, and exemptions, even at this late Report stage. It makes our debates feel as though they can get somewhere. This was an important concession for the Government to make, so I am really pleased to see that.

I have grave concerns about Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There is a real danger here that we end up seeing this Bill as a vehicle for a relentless attack on anything to do with nicotine. Unless I am much mistaken, the Bill does not intend—even though this is its effect—to treat all nicotine products in an undifferentiated way. It is aware of Cancer Research’s statement that vaping is “far less harmful” than tobacco and is the most popular tool to help people quit smoking.

But, following on from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not want to say simply that vaping can be considered positive only if it is used as a smoking cessation tool, because people will then undoubtedly—and they do undoubtedly—vape as a recreational habit. Is the Government’s aim, or this amendment’s aim, to tackle dependence on any substance whatever? Nicotine is the one that is named, but will caffeine be next? Where do we draw the line? As far as I am concerned, that should not be what this Bill tries to do.

I worry that this will lead to mission creep in the Bill, which will create a kind of pre-crime. I listened to the noble Baroness and I do not think that we should have a moral panic about vaping: that is the main thing. It is not appropriate for this Bill to start doing a pre-crime anticipation of all the things that might or might not go wrong in relation to vaping. That would be a disastrous outcome of this Bill. So I urge the noble Baroness to avoid the siren voices of those urging her to take it even further down the line of prohibition. I urge her to hold firm to the notion that, although there will be some suggested regulation of vaping, we should not and must not make vaping indistinguishable from tobacco in the public’s eye by treating them as equally problematic through the course of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I covered Amendment 17A, in my name, in Committee, so I will be brief.

Currently, the vast majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws-worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. In the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That is equivalent to 6,000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary constituency every day. Each plastic butt can take up to 10 years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they have polluted the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. Worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around £40 million a year fighting a losing battle—money that many would argue could be better spent on vital front-line services. The industry could have made a change, but so far has not gone far enough.

Banning plastic cigarette filters is supported by the public, including smokers. In polling commissioned earlier this year by the Parliament News website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, 2,000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked:

“Would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable alternative”,


almost nine in 10, or 86%, agreed, while just one in 20, or 6%, disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority—77%—supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found that eight in 10 people support the government levy and additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers. Some 84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment.

I do not think that this is a party-political issue. It was discussed by MPs, who voted on an amendment that was supported cross-party, including by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Reform, independents and unionists. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the change that was being put forward. If we are going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an important change.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics and public health, including the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. As I will come to later, my amendment calls for banning filters altogether.

Very often in your Lordships’ House, I find myself acknowledging that something that is being proposed is not exactly what I want but would be an improvement. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the ban on plastic filters that the noble Baroness proposes would be an improvement. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which I am not going to reprise, but, basically, we have a problem, in that the term “biodegradable”, which is what is being proposed, is exceedingly unclear and is not defined. There is very clear evidence that these so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones, leach harmful chemicals and remain in the environment for a long time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. Although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction.

Amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed in Committee, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the Government to act now and ban all cigarette filters, which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and, of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Liberal Democrats for Amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. I am absolutely delighted, for the second group in a row, to say to the Minister that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which mean that the Government are preparing the way for banning filters in the future, is a significant step forward.

However, I want to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why this action must be taken now. The problem of so-called guilt-free littering makes the littering problem even worse. Companies that manufacture so-called biodegradable filters continue to make profits only if people continue to consume tobacco; the biodegradable filters proposal is essentially coming from the tobacco industry.

This country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be—we hear the phrase world-leading so often in your Lordships’ House—the first country in the world to ban so-called cigarette filters. We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit.

The World Health Organization has said that it believes a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less, and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.

I recognise that in Committee the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point. There are now academics working on that very point. I am sure they will be reaching out, and I will make sure that the noble Baroness hears about that as well.

While I agree with the Minister that the long-term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use—that is obviously the ambition that pretty much everyone can sign up to—with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action. I am glad to see that the Government’s position has again shifted on this since Committee. I thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, as well as the academics who have been highlighting this issue and moving this forward.

Finally, and briefly, I express Green support for Amendments 10, 204 and 133, and particularly for the suggestion in Amendment 133, which I spoke on extensively in Committee, for warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. Again, this is a place where we would not quite be first in the world, but we would certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that has been shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we are all after.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank them for their support for this important amendment. This amendment proposes a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused. The principle is simple and widely accepted: when an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm.

Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacture of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control and healthcare for those suffering from smoke-related illnesses. Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight.

This is not a new charge on consumers. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public’s health than it has ever contributed. Four companies control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly-like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm. Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK.

Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including a cost of £1.8 billion to the NHS and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely £6.8 billion—only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The “polluter pays” principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment. It is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in England.

Baby Milk Powder: Cereulide

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have identified any systemic issues following the discovery of the toxin cereulide in baby milk powder sold in the UK; and if so, what steps they plan to take as a result.

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

My Lords, Nestlé and Danone launched product recalls of certain infant formula products because of the possible presence of cereulide toxin. This is a live incidence and it is too early to identify any systemic issues.

The Food Standards Agency is working across agencies and with the Department of Health and Social Care to manage the incident response. The FSA has published information on the product recalls on its website, including advice for consumers.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I would posit that there is very clearly a well-identified systemic problem that non-mandatory ingredients such as arachidonic acid, which is the source of the current contamination in Nestlé and Danone products, place a burden on infant metabolism and create multiple potential points of microbial and other contamination in the manufacturing process by the four companies that supply the vast bulk of infant formula in this country through complex, for-profit global supply chains. Are the Government going to look into further action on this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Obviously, we are very concerned about toxins and ensuring that there is no damage done to people: that is the reason for the product recall. The effect of this is that it creates bacteria, so it is like food poisoning in that respect.

With regard to what the noble Baroness has said about ARA oil, the concern of the FSA is very much about safety. What has happened here, as I understand, is that ARA oil is a very common ingredient, but this one appears to have had some contamination, which has affected certain batches, and it is those that are being recalled.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend will be aware that we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about to whom, when, and where jabs are available on a range of matters, including Covid. The committee keeps that constantly under review. Our immediate threat is in respect of flu and RSV; in particular, flu cases are rising, which is why we are closely monitoring the situation, as well as having prepared more extensively and providing more additional support than we have ever done before.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, when it comes to influenza, the focus is often on droplet transmission, but there is also evidence of aerosol transmission, with the deeper lung deposition resulting in greater potency in initiating infections. That means that ventilation and air filtration are hugely important. How would the noble Baroness assess the levels of air ventilation and air filtration in hospitals and other medical settings, and, more broadly, in schools? Are the Government looking to improve that to help deal with all the respiratory infections that we face?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, but I will be very happy to write to her. She will know how much improvement needs to be made to the estate. She will also be aware of the extra money that the Government have committed. Those decisions are local matters, but she raises a much wider and national matter, and I will be pleased to write to her further.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to address a couple of these amendments in a broad sense. Amendments 182 and 187 would ensure that all schools and colleges were vape-free and would require them to proactively implement policies as such. I draw here on my own experience from the Learn with the Lords scheme. I had a shadow from that scheme here in Parliament—a young woman of about 16 or so. She had been with me for about an hour when she said to me, in tones of total desperation, “I need a vape”. I confess that that is not something within my personal experience, and I am not entirely sure about where I took her, although it seemed an appropriate place and I did my best. But I think that we have to acknowledge that schools, colleges and other similar institutions will encounter people who have started vaping and are experiencing great difficulties with addiction to that vaping. I would want to keep it so that the school can make its own decisions on what is best for its own situation and its community, rather than trying to apply a blanket ban. We know what the ideal would be, but we have to think about the reality for head teachers and others who have to deal with that practical situation.

I also want to speak against Amendment 182A, which would allow vaping products in places where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18. I should declare another interest here. I must admit that I really do not enjoy walking down the street and getting a face-full of vaping fumes through no choice of my own. Many of the pubs, clubs and bars that are likely to be in this situation are already voluntarily vape-free. We do not want to force them to change the circumstances of what works for their patrons.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall start with Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, which replaces his withdrawn Amendment 180A. It seeks to specify that vaping should be allowed in locations where it is “reasonable to expect” that only people over 18 congregate. I believe this would limit the Government’s response under their powers in the Bill if future evidence emerged that action would be desirable. Given that parts of the Bill seek to limit any action that opens the way to under-18 vaping and to discourage those aged 18 to 24 from vaping, except as a smoking cessation tool, this amendment would appear to be in opposition to that objective, which I share.

I have commented before that many young people slip undetected into over-18 places—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just accepted that that does happen now and then—so the amendment could undermine the Bill’s objective, which could be why the noble Lord has reworded it. However, many indoor settings already voluntarily designate their premises vape-free, and they may do so because many non-smokers find vaping as well as cigarette smoke offensive because of the smell. I am sure they would not have done that if it were bad for business. Any change in this situation would require further consultation, so perhaps that is what the Minister might say.

Going back to the beginning of the group, Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to restrict the Government’s ability to act in future to three specific locations. I am glad that the noble Lord did not specify that hospitals should be designated vape-free, because vaping may be a valuable quit-smoking aid to patients. However, it does not seem to me that these places need to be specified in the Bill. There is going to be a lot more consultation, and I hope that evidence will come from the call for evidence.

Amendments 182 and 187, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are unnecessary as schools already have the power to ban students bringing vapes on to their premises as they cannot have been obtained legally if the students are under 18. However, it is sad that many of them either do not do so or find it hard to enforce their ban, if they have one, for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has just mentioned. One has to have sympathy with young people who have managed to be hooked on nicotine so badly that they have to say, “I need a vape”, as she put it. I hope that schools in particular, where the pupils are under 18, will see it as their duty to discourage vaping among their pupils. In support of that, I would be sorry to see staff vaping on the premises because it is a very bad example.

There is a major problem with young people buying unlicensed vapes, some of which have been adulterated with THC or the drug spice, which is a dangerous development. The latter is particularly addictive and harmful, so I hope that schools would be active and vigilant on this matter. However, I think the Minister may tell us that more consultation is taking place on this issue, so I am content to wait for that.

I support the principle of Amendment 183, from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would prohibit the Government designating mental health trusts as vape-free. We must recognise the use of vaping in mental health and smoking cessation, alongside treatment, so the trusts should be able to make their own decisions about vaping on their premises. I very much hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government do not have any intention of designating mental health trusts as vape-free areas. For all those reasons, and those given in previous debates, I would not support removing Clause 138 from the Bill. The public strongly support their opportunity to go into vape-free places, and many businesses have understood that already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My amendment seeks to allow ministerial discretion for heated tobacco products. As I have said previously, we know that vapes and heated tobacco products are much safer than smoked tobacco products. We need a regime of regulation that promotes switching where smokers are unable to stop. This small change may shift the dial in favour of switching. I hope that Ministers will consider this amendment in the constructive way in which it is meant.

I am trying to make a consistent point across all my amendments to improve the number of smokers switching to safer alternatives. We all know our doctors are often harsh in their advice; they will tell us that drinking alcohol is always unhealthy, even though many of us drink socially and are not unhealthy. The fact is that we need a system that encourages people to make healthier choices without riding roughshod over their personal liberties. That is what I am trying to propose. By allowing discretionary powers on spaces where everyone is reasonably expected to be over 18 in respect of heated tobacco, Ministers will be able to nudge people to make healthier choices, when they have found it impossible to quit smoking. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly against all the amendments in this group. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about our understanding of heated tobacco products. I am drawing here, as I have been throughout Committee, on the excellent briefings from Action on Smoking and Health. I note its conclusion, that there is not currently good-quality evidence on the health harms of heated tobacco devices or their efficacy as a smoking cessation tool. Therefore, in that context, we need to be very cautious of the potential health impacts. The Bill as it stands is in the right place.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. In Amendment 184A, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exclude heated tobacco from the smoke-free generation objective of the Bill, to allow it in places where everyone is over 18. For this reason, and because of my lack of confidence that any location can be sure it is really only used by over 18s, I cannot support this amendment.

In Amendment 185, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exempt heated tobacco from being banned in uncovered hospitality areas, which parallels an earlier amendment about vaping. As smoking gradually declines, the Government may very well seek to make further restrictions, as the public will almost certainly become used to the lack of nicotine products in their environments, and they may rather like that situation. Therefore, the Government must be free to use their powers in the Bill to respond to the public’s changing attitudes on these issues.

Removing Clause 139 would prevent the Government from designating heated tobacco-free places at all. Many businesses have done this already, and any evidence that these products are being used as smoking cessation tools is likely to decrease over the years as the number of smokers decreases. That would therefore not be a good reason to prevent the Government from acting if they saw fit.

--- Later in debate ---

With that context, I hope the Minister will not want to be associated with the unintended consequences of bankruptcies, retail job losses, more violence in retail outlets and even more decimation of local high streets. As we reach the end of Committee, I put in a sensible plea that, in order to mitigate against that, the Government really pay attention to this section of the retail industry that has up until now been more or less ignored and sidelined.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this group. I will speak in specific terms against Amendment 188 and very strongly against Amendment 200A.

Starting with Amendment 188, I declare my position as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service. I note the terrible figures from the Institute of Customer Service earlier this year—these are from people who work in all areas of public-facing customer service—which showed that 43% of those surveyed had faced some incident of customer hostility in the previous year. That figure was up nearly 20%. Some 21% of the people surveyed had also faced physical threats while they were doing customer-facing roles.

As the noble Earl said, we have a real problem with shoplifting, but we also have a problem across the board. I do not think the best way to approach this is to look specifically at retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. There is a need for government action, and I have been working with the Institute for Customer Service more broadly, as I have in the past on other legislation, to tackle this. It does not make a lot of sense to regard this as a discrete problem; it needs a much broader angle of attack.

I am very strongly against Amendment 200A, which would establish a government grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age-verification technology to reduce the financial burden on smaller retailers. I absolutely agree that the burden should not fall on smaller retailers. However, I point out that—this is based on work earlier this year by the Social Market Foundation—the big four tobacco companies make £900 million in profits annually and that their average profit margin, looking at the cost of producing and distributing tobacco products versus the price they charge to whole- salers, is 50%. There is no other product that has anything like that kind of return.

Due to being involved here, I have not had a chance to look closely at what happened in the Budget today but, so far as I have been able to discover, a fairly standard increase in tobacco duty is coming in at 6 pm today. However, the Chancellor has not, it seems, followed the recommendation of the Social Market Foundation to put a levy on tobacco products on some of those windfall profits. At the time, that was suggested for health measures, but it could indeed go into such a measure as this. It is very clear that the merchants of death should be paying for the costs associated with their products much more broadly than this. But, certainly in the context of this amendment, they should meet any burden of compliance so that it does not fall on the smaller retailers.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interject at this late stage of Committee, but I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who had concerns that many of the organisations giving evidence previously on the retail question were from health-related charities, and I declare my own non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.

I just inject a note of caution about relying too heavily on some of the trade associations for the small retailers that she describes, given that they have some financial vested interests. The organisation that she cited, I noticed on their website, has received a sponsorship support from Japan Tobacco International. Another major retail association declares on its website that it has received funding from Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco. Therefore, notwithstanding the need to consult retailers directly, I think that some of these trade associations may have a conflict of interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have not always historically been an enthusiast for experts dictating policy, but I am enthusiastic about this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Particularly in relation to policy or legislation related to public health, there is an awful lot of evidence swapping, people citing data, and so on and so forth, then accusations of not being able to trust that data. It would be very helpful to have a genuine independent academic body looking at some of these things, that we could maybe all trust a little—or even look sceptically at—but which actually digs into the evidence. Many of my friends are academics; any research can be advocacy research. None the less, it has to be there in the public arena for us to examine it. It is not just data and numbers.

This is important because earlier today, the Minister rightly said that we are going to follow the evidence, yet we had a serious conversation about whether there should be regulation to ban second-hand vaping fumes. The explanation for the fact there is no evidence of that being harmful was that it is evolving evidence, evolving evidence being the unknown, unknown approach, as far as I can see. I want to Cancer Research here because this is what you do when you are not quite sure how to counter somebody saying this is evidence. It said:

“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping”,


which I accept,

“however”,

there is currently no good

“evidence”,

that

“second hand vapour is harmful”.

However, we have managed to have a conversation as though, even though there is no evidence, it probably is, or it could be. I think that discredits the notion of evidence-based policy. There are also different kinds of academic studies. I was pleased to hear the idea of behavioural studies. At Queen Mary University, for example, they have done a lot of work on vaping, and all their studies suggest that vaping is not a gateway to smoking. I think that the Government need to consider such things. There are a large number of qualified specialist academics who are researching not just the health impacts of vaping but a whole range of how vaping is used. I would like that somehow to be acknowledged in the Bill and for that group of people not to be ignored.

As we are at the end of Committee, sometimes in this Bill I have argued in defence of vaping as a smoking cessation tool, because that is how I have used it. However, I have felt a little uncomfortable about the way that it is assumed that, unless it is a smoking cessation tool, there is something wrong with it. I wanted to query whether that is true. Have the Government got a view of a recreational habit? Why would the Government choose to try to overregulate something that is just a recreational choice? Some people might start vaping who have not smoked. It might be that, by vaping, they will not start smoking.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I just think we must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a highly addictive product and there is a role for the Government in ensuring protection from giant multinational companies trying to hook people on highly addictive products that we know do them harm.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I want to say that I understand some of the addiction points in relation to young people in particular. I asked in an earlier group in Committee if this Bill was tackling addiction per se as a problem. There are things that we know are addictive—for example, nicotine. I am simply asking the question about what it is we are trying to tackle. I am asking this because, when we are talking about adult freedoms and choices, it is not just enough to cite medical evidence. That is why I want the expert panel to really assess the medical evidence and behavioural points. That is where I was going. I am cautioning against seeing everything through the prism of expertise as medical expertise.

As it is the last time I will speak in this stage, I thought I would end on some behavioural insights. Since we last met, the BBC has rewritten its Christmas adaptation of Julia Donaldson’s book over its fears that it would encourage children to smoke. It is The Scarecrows’ Wedding, which as noble Lords will know, features a villain scarecrow called Reginald Rake who, lighting a cigar, accidentally starts a fire. There has been something of a kerfuffle, and the BBC decided that this had to be rewritten. It sounds like some Daily Mail story—how ridiculous, PC gone mad and all the rest of it.

For the purposes of this amendment, a colleague of mine who works in media literacy made the point that the irony is that The Scarecrows’ Wedding is a perfect example of a book for young people that puts people off smoking. Betty O’Barley, who is another scarecrow by the way, is so horrified at the villain, Reginald Rake, smoking that she keeps saying to him “smoking is bad for you”. The whole point about Reginald Rake is that he is the villain of the story. The irony of this is that a media literacy expert makes the point that the BBC’s rewriting of this is completely counterproductive in relation to messaging. I say that because I think it is a bit more complicated than just swapping numbers around. An expert panel, looking at the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy, would not do any harm as we finish Committee on this legislation.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and I am interested in the themes in Amendment 173A, about which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because I think that an assessment of and research into the impact of any kinds of advertising and sponsorship restrictions is very important moving forward. The reason why I am concerned about any advertising restrictions is that people who currently smoke and are looking to switch to vape can do so only if they know what vapes are and understand the facts around relative harms, where these products can be purchased and so on. Imposing these restrictions as written in the Bill without consultation would have grave unintended consequences. At the very least, there must be clearly defined exemptions.

In this House there is constantly talk about the problem of misinformation. I agree that we do not want people to be making judgments about anything based on misinformation or factual inaccuracy. Yet the difference between vaping and smoking is not well understood. Public Health England and, indeed, Doctor Khan’s independent review concluded that vapes are 95% less harmful than tobacco, yet misperceptions about the harm of vaping have risen at the same time. In 2025, 56% of adults believe that vaping is more harmful than or equally harmful as cigarettes, compared with 33% in 2022. In other words, misinformation is creating ever more misperceptions every year. Opinium research from July 2025 found that 51% of all respondents believe that vapes are equally harmful as or more harmful than smoking, with 48% of current smokers believing that. Certainly, they do not know that vapes and other nicotine products have 99% less toxicants than cigarettes. Curtailing the opportunity to provide public information on the relative benefits of vaping, as this Bill threatens to do, would further exacerbate this lack of understanding.

My concern is that a lot of the discussion is driven by a small but very loud portion of lobbyists who are very concerned about youth vaping rates. Lobbying groups particularly push that issue, as has the public health industry. Actually, the percentage of young people who vape is dwarfed by adult vapers, many of whom, as we have heard, have switched to vaping from smoking for health reasons. That safer alternative could now be in jeopardy unless we allow advertising to make it clear that vaping is in fact a desirable, healthy option. By putting forward the argument that vaping is not desirable and just as dangerous as smoking, we risk doing public health a real disservice.

Even now, vaping products are allowed only very restricted advertising since the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations came into force in May 2016. Additional to these restrictions, I fear that clauses in the Bill go so far as to treat vaping products as though they are the same as tobacco products. That sends an implicit message that nicotine, tobacco, smoking cigarettes and vaping are all much of a muchness. That is one of the themes that I have been pursuing: we need to have a much more granular, nuanced approach. Prohibiting any form of marketing for vape or nicotine product manufacturers directly undermines the important role that marketing has to play in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping or other nicotine products.

Just to finish off, there seems to be a complete contradiction. On the NHS Better Health webpage, it says in big letters, “Vaping to quit smoking”. I want to know: is that not advertising? It contains a range of information and advice for people who smoke and are looking to quit—in fact, I read it when I was smoking and looking to quit. It includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use a nicotine vape compared with other nicotine replacement products, like patches or gum.

I want to ensure that adult smokers like me have access to information. When I read that, I then had to go out and find out about vapes. I went to the local vape shop and had a bit of a seminar. I then went to talk to the local convenience store and looked at the range of vapes. Then, as a consequence, I took up vaping and eventually gave up smoking—which I would have thought the Government want. If I had not been able to see where those vapes were on sale and to see and read the advertising and the marketing, then I might have stayed a smoker. This is not about me but about all the other smokers who as yet do not understand that vaping is a safer option than smoking. They might as well find out about it. I would have hoped that the Government would be encouraging, not discouraging, them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak against all the amendments in this group. They all, in various ways, could restrict or delay action by the Government—action that is urgently needed.

On vaping, I know that the Advertising Standards Authority has expressed concern about product placement on websites such as TikTok. There are concerns and, given the new technology and new media around, further action may well need to be taken on vaping. But I will focus on nicotine pouches; I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some information on them.

I note that today, for example, Convenience Store magazine reports that Imperial Tobacco has launched new nicotine pouches

“with five flavour options—Sweet Mint, Cool Mint, Watermelon Ice, Juicy Peach and Berry Blast”.

They apparently have a “better mouthfeel” than previous versions and smaller, slimmer tins that will fit conveniently in your pocket. That does not really sound like a stop smoking aid, does it? You will see these nicotine pouches in convenience stores, as the site of that announcement suggests—colourful tins with colourful labels stacked conveniently right beside the chewing gum. But this is not just about the nature of the product or where it is stored. I invite noble Lords to have a look next time they catch the Tube, where they will almost certainly see adverts for nicotine pouches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I was saying that, if noble Lords travel home on the Tube tonight, they will see at the side of pretty much every escalator at least one advert for nicotine pouches. Theoretically, these are stop smoking aids, but what does the advert say? It is along the lines of “Make your journey more pleasant; enjoy these favours”. If you are quick and have great eyesight, you might read in the small print as the escalator goes past, “Meant for under-18s for smoking cessation”, but that is not the message presented by the advert. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government are planning immediate action on the advertising of nicotine pouches, because it is clearly a huge issue.

It goes further than advertising to promotion. I recently went through Manchester Piccadilly station, where some bouncy young people with very sharp haircuts, in matching sports and leisure wear—that is probably how I should refer to it—were handing out free samples of nicotine pouches, mostly to young people who matched their demographic. That is not appropriate behaviour; it is not good for public health. We need to crack down on this. I come back to the delays and barriers that these amendments would cause to the Government’s action on nicotine products and offer the strongest possible opposition to them.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the amendments in this group, first, I do believe that vaping is safer than smoking. All the evidence is that it is safer, but it is of course not risk-free. Indeed, that was the position under the previous Government: in October 2023 it was stated quite clearly that vaping is safer than smoking but it is not risk-free. If you do not smoke, do not vape.

I am all in favour of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool for smoking; I think that is permitted under the Bill, and the Minister will no doubt cover that in response. I think we do need some way of promoting vaping, certainly for those who smoke, so that they can give it up. But if, as appears to be the case, everybody regards vaping as powerful for the cessation of smoking but for no other reason, because it is not risk-free, we should not be permitting advertising except in the narrow compass of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool. For me, that would be the most sensible position, so I am not in favour of the amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is horrified. I do not want to talk about nicotine pouches, which is mainly what she spoke about, but she also spoke earlier about the flavours of vapes. We discussed the flavours and descriptors of vapes. I think she was offering a good illustration that my amendment about descriptors was right; it is the descriptor she found offensive, not the actual taste. In fact, she did not know what the taste was as I assume she never tasted them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Just to clarify for the noble Lord, everything that I was speaking about on flavours was about pouches, not vapes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon, but I will still make my point about what she said about flavours. She was not describing the flavours; she does not know what the flavours are. She never bought them or consumed them as far as I imagine. She is talking about the descriptors—the rather lurid descriptors—just as my amendment is saying. That is what the Government should focus on, rather than flavours, which is what the Bill refers to. That is a digression back to an earlier group.

I simply want to say that the Government are in a state of tremendous confusion. They want us to have the information, but they do not want us to have too much information. What they have is a regime that is astonishingly oppressive and amazingly draconian, and which really ought not to stand as it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I apologise for delaying the Committee. I was not having a cigar, as was suggested; I just got caught in the slow lane in the Lobby.

I shall come briefly to a conclusion. I ask the Minister for some clarification around the reality of how these proposals will be brought into play. I do not wish to speak on behalf of my fellow Peers but, clearly, there is a broad understanding across the Committee that we will end any form of advertising or promotion, except in specialist areas. I was pleased to see, and am grateful for, the carve-outs for specialist tobacconists, but we must ensure that these are proportionate and realistic; I assume that it is not the Government’s intention to impose a two-year prison sentence on someone who inadvertently passes on an advert for tobacco products or whatever it may be.

The “Internet services” clause needs serious consideration because, like all these laws that try to catch the provider, be it the telephone company, the internet service provider or whatever, from my experience, having sat where the Minister is, they are largely impractical. It is better to think practically about what these service providers can do, what sort of expectations we should be holding them to and how they can practically try to minimise the proliferation of adverts for tobacco products.

My final question to the Minister is, how can I receive my information as a legitimate enjoyer of an occasional cigar? How will I be given information online, which is how many people purchase their tobacco products perfectly legally? The Minister said that she is not looking to take action retrospectively on people who now enjoy a legal pastime but to bring in a smoke-free generation, but how will that conflict with my rights? How will I receive information? Can I receive the information that I want to receive in a way that enables me to distinguish easily between products, which requires some type of brand point, online, by email or through the websites of the suppliers? How is that going to work in practice? It is all very well to say that we do not want to have advertising. The reality is that it is perfectly reasonable for me to receive good information. I am sure that the Committee would want to make sure that that was safely delivered and appropriate rather than using the wrong type of legislation and a catch-all or a sledgehammer in order to try to crack this nut.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will address just two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who powerfully and clearly introduced it as a probing amendment to the Government while very handily timing her intervention to remind me that it is in this group and that I have attached my name to it. I thank the noble Baroness for that.

We might say that there are different sides in this Committee, but everyone has agreed that adult smokers need to be able to get the information they need that this is an effective way to stop smoking. That is what this amendment does, and I do not think I need to say anymore on that.

I want to address briefly Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about restrictions on brand sharing. It is important to highlight why this amendment should not be part of the Bill. The process of brand stretching or brand sharing is something that we have seen the tobacco companies doing a great deal of. Mysteriously, expensive leather jackets, fancy sunglasses or even stationery suddenly start to bear various branding aspects—I will get to what those aspects are in a second—that just happen to echo that of a certain form of cigarettes. Governments very often find themselves playing a whack-a-mole game: if you try to ban this, then something slightly different appears and so on.

I particularly want to highlight the guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control because this amendment very clearly goes against what that says. It notes that there needs to be an effective ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. I think it is worth quoting this because it highlights the ways in which the WHO is trying to catch everything because it has to try to catch everything:

“Promotional effects, both direct and indirect, may be brought about by the use of words, designs, images, sounds and colours, including brand names … or schemes of colours associated with tobacco products, manufacturers or importers, or by the use of a part or parts of words, designs, images and colours”.


The Government need all the powers they can possibly have to stop the merchants of death sneaking round into little gaps in the legislation.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 171 in this group, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. My noble friend has highlighted many egregious examples of the sort of advertising that the Bill needs to avoid through careful drafting. Her suggestion is explicit that advertising must not appeal to children, non-smokers or indeed anyone for whom these products are not intended, while ensuring that their core purpose as smoking cessation products is not impeded.

Amendment 171 would tighten up the wording of the Bill to achieve the Government’s intention. It would also future-proof it. We debated, on Amendments 195 and 196 from my noble friend Lord Russell, the need for reviews in the future, to give everyone the confidence that the Government will at least keep pace with—or preferably get ahead of—developments. We should include in those reviews any clever advertising and marketing intended to get round the Bill, as well as product development and emerging evidence of harms. Frankly, if the industry does not like it, it has only itself to blame because of its blatant and highly successful campaign to lure children to use its products.

On Amendment 161A, from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of “reason to suspect”—

--- Later in debate ---

In probing the Government on the evidence base, consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, oversight and accountability, we hope to understand how they intend to exercise the sweeping powers that they have granted themselves in the Bill. I hope the Minister is able to answer those questions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendments just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly Amendments 175 and 179. I start from the point of view that the powers to extend smoke-free places in England, were Amendment 175 to pass, would be less than the powers in the devolved nations. As smoking prevalence continues to fall, there will clearly be an ongoing open discussion that appraises the evidence on smoke-free extensions and how best to protect public health and workers’ rights.

In August 2024, the Government indicated—well, apparently it was leaked—that they were going to extend these powers when bringing back the Bill. There was then a backlash, the Government U-turned and said that the consultation would focus only on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. That is disappointing, but we do not want to close down the opportunities and options for the future that would be available from this Bill.

Think about some of the other places that might be high-priority areas in the future, such as beaches. Very often, we experience big problems with litter and there are lots of small children on beaches. People have an expectation of fresh air there; that is one of the reasons why they go to the seaside. There are other places where exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke is particularly high. One example is transport hubs, but we can all think of other places where there are real issues and where we might want to keep the possibility of further extension open.

Finally, our medical understanding of the impacts of so-called passive smoking and second-hand cigarette smoke is growing and increasing all the time, and heading in only one direction. I note, for example, that just in the last week a major veterinary provider told pet owners to be aware of the impacts of passive cigarette smoke and vaping on pets. Our understanding of the impacts in this kind of area just keeps growing and growing, so we should not close down the possibilities in the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 176. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, his Amendment 178 does something very similar. As I have often said, policy should be based on evidence, so this amendment seeks to tease out exactly what evidence the Government plan to use when designating a new area as smoke-free.

The Government have already said that their consultation on further smoke-free areas will focus on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. It is fairly clear that areas in and close to schools should be smoke-free, in the same way that local authorities now have powers to prevent the opening of new fast-food outlets near schools because of the health dangers of much of their sales.

However, some playgrounds are very large and it is possible that a parent waiting on a bench for a child, well away from the play equipment, may want to smoke a cigarette—if they are of legal age, of course. Although it would set a bad example, it would be hard to understand the level of risk to the children playing; it would depend how far away they are. As for hospitals, many of them have already designated their grounds as smoke-free, although it has been hard to enforce. Many of us will have seen people smoking outside St Thomas’ Hospital, underneath the “No smoking” sign. Many hospitals have distinct outdoor smoking shelters. The matter is complicated, which is why my amendment probes the Government on the criteria they will use.

On the other hand, Amendments 175 and 179 seek to specify in the Bill the areas that can be designated as smoke-free. This could restrict the Government from acting in other areas in future. Obviously, we want the same rules in all parts of the UK, to save confusion. There are several reasons why the Government should not be limited in this way, and they must bear in mind the different circumstances that prevail in different areas. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, there are many children on beaches, and discarded cigarettes are a real litter problem, according to coastal local authorities. As she said, transport hubs may also come into focus, because of the crowded conditions in many of them, especially at certain times of the day such as rush hour. We think the Government need flexibility on this issue. Indeed, somebody might be more affected by second-hand smoke in a transport hub than at the far side of a very large playground, which is why I would like to see an evidence test.

We do not support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as the Government may want to restrict smoking in uncovered hospitality areas in the future. However, if they do so they will have to explain the reasons why, and we could debate it then. The fact is that the prohibition on smoking in indoor hospitality venues has proved very popular with customers and landlords alike and has certainly not had a damaging effect on footfall or expansion of the sector. The same might apply to uncovered hospitality areas in the future, if they are considered for the ban.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group that are in my name—Amendments 78, 86, 88 and 89. Particularly perceptive Members of our Grand Committee will remember that, when they looked at the third Marshalled List, the Minister had signed my Amendment 89. I understood at the time that she had signed it not for the same reason that I tabled it—as we discovered at the last sitting of the Committee, the Minister did not move a whole set of government amendments. We will doubtless return to those issues later.

My amendments are all of a piece. The object is to dive into Clause 38 and remove those parts that relate to money that is received through fines for licensing offences from the hands of the Consolidated Fund to put it into the hands of the local weights and measures authorities or—as we might get to, in due course—the relevant authority, which is the trading standards enforcement authority. My proposition is a terribly simple one: we should prioritise the receipt of resources not only from fixed penalty notices but from the fines imposed for licensing offences and they should be made available to local authorities with trading standards responsible for enforcement.

The background is probably well known to Members of the Grand Committee. Trading standards is operating with substantially fewer members of staff than it did a decade ago. The Local Government Association has warned that trading standards may be unable to fulfil its statutory duties and the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has warned of a growing gap between its statutory duties and the available resources.

Happily, today we meet with a realisation that this has not inhibited trading standards departments across the country from taking effective action together with the leadership of the National Crime Agency, which reported 2,700 premises—barber shops, vape shops and other trading establishments—operating illegally. Where vaping is concerned, which is our interest here, these are being used as a route for the sale of illegal vapes—without paying the appropriate duty or doing so in due course—including to minors, which is of particular concern for many noble Lords. There is also the employment of staff who are not properly able to work in this country.

A wide range of these issues requires enforcement. My purpose is to try to ensure that the resources that are clearly coming into the system are devoted to trading standards. We know, or at least it is estimated, that trading standards enforcement costs over the next five years will total something like £140 million. We know that the Government have provided a grant of £10 million to support trading standards. There clearly will be an income to local authorities from the fines relating to licensing to the extent that they will be able to recover their direct costs, as well as from the fixed penalty notices. We do not have an authoritative estimate of what that sum will be. If the Minister has a clear estimate of what the sums accruing to local authorities will be, it will give an opportunity to see how much of that £140 million cost over five years is likely to be met from penalties and fines.

This issue was debated in the other place and the Government, as is their wont, resisted the idea that money should be paid to local authorities from these fines, instead of being paid into the Consolidated Fund, because, as the Government put it, they did not want to create a perceived conflict of interest such that the enforcement authorities seemed to have an interest in pursuing fines. We should think of it the other way round. We want enforcement authorities to do their job properly. With these amendments, I am testing the proposition that the Government should increase the support for trading standards officers. If they find a provision that makes the revenue from fines to local authorities too much to bear, I should be supportive of a commitment by the Government—if not at this stage, then later—to assess the gap between the revenue that results from the fines and penalty notices and the costs to local authorities and to meet that gap by Exchequer grant, once they know what the Consolidated Fund revenues from these fines may be.

In addition to that request in principle to the Government, I have been looking at the impact assessment, which says in paragraph 1401:

“A new burdens assessment will be completed to assess costs to local authorities ahead of the Bill being introduced”,


particularly in relation to the enforcement of the new powers relating to vapes. I cannot find the burdens assessment—my research may be inadequate—but what does it say are the costs that need to be met by local government? That too should be something that we assess: to what extent is local government going to receive fixed penalty notices or fines that enable it to meet those costs? We do not want to be constantly adding statutory duties to local authorities without the corresponding resources.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, from whom we have not yet heard—but that is the way the order works. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I am slightly torn because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just put forward a strong case. There are indeed huge problems with the funding of trading standards. I go to a recent report in the Financial Times in which the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute said that the underfunding of trading standards has left consumers open to rogue traders and fake goods. There is a huge problem there and, as the noble Lord said, the Government’s own impact assessment says this measure is going to increase the burden and they are already hopelessly overburdened.

However, Amendment 81 goes in a different direction, towards public health initiatives to be determined by local authorities. Either of these has a strong case. I prefer the public health case, because public health is something that I am gravely concerned about. There is a real logic to the money going from where damage is being done to public health towards dealing with damage done by illegal activity.

I talked about how much trading standards is suffering. We all know that public health in the UK is in a terribly parlous state; when we compare ourselves with other countries that we might consider similar to ourselves, we are doing much worse in public health. I suspect that the Minister will get up and say, “Yes, but in February this year we gave £200 million to public health”, but that is to go towards smoking cessation programmes —which are very relevant to the Bill—along with addiction recovery, family and school nurses, sexual health clinics, local health protection services and public health support for local NHS services, and £200 million does not sound like quite so much when I read that list out.

There is a real logic to making sure that this is not just a small drop of money going into the ocean—the Treasury—and that the money goes to where the damage has been done, to public health. Trading standards would still be better than the money going straight into the Treasury. These are simple, logical ways to make sure that we stick some plasters on to some of the crises that are affecting our communities.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to this group, it is essential that trading standards have the resources they need. Although the government pledge of an additional £10 million is welcome, I feel it is probably not going to be enough. It is worth bearing in mind that trading standards are supportive of the Bill, and that is good news.

I understand the desire of my noble friend Lord Lansley to push the idea of the money being ring-fenced, as it were, for trading standards. As he acknowledged, there are dangers in that approach; we can think of overzealous traffic wardens and the criticisms that they have in relation to raising money that is ring-fenced for specific purposes, and there may be a danger of that happening here too. Still, I quite understand the desire to press for additional finance for trading standards, and I hope the Minister will say something on that in response because I think that is needed.

On Amendment 74, it seems eminently sensible to have a stepped approach to fines for offenders so that it is a proportionate response and first offenders do not have such a high fine as others. I am wholly supportive of that, and I hope the Minister is listening in that regard too.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

33: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on supply of cigarette filters in England and Wales(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must make regulations having the effect of prohibiting the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.(2) Subsections (6), (8), (9), (10), (10A), (10B), (10C) and (10D) of section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section.(3) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as applied by subsection (2) in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) In this section—“cigarette filter” means a filter which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 33 in my name, I will also speak to the related amendments in this group.

Amendment 33 has a very simple aim: to ban filters on cigarettes. I must start by saying that this is healthwashing. Filters on cigarettes have no health benefits. They were developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s as a response to growing public concern over the link between smoking and lung cancer. An exposed internal note from the tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris stated that they are “an effective advertising gimmick”. They were deliberately developed to turn from white to brown in order to increase the perception that they filter the cigarette smoke; in reality, smokers simply inhale more deeply, drawing more smoke through the cigarette butt and even further into their lungs. The more recent trend of white filter tips, as compared to the older orange ones, reinforces this message with consumers. The evidence shows that young people, in particular, perceive cigarette packs with references to filters as containing cigarettes that are significantly less harmful than those contained by packs without such references.

Yet this is still not widely known. Look at the communications power of these merchants of death versus the health messages—of course, the merchants of death have a lot more money to put into the messages they are putting out. I acknowledge the support provided to me by Action on Smoking and Health in bringing forward this amendment; noble Lords who have received its briefing may well have noted that it strongly backs this amendment. Only one in four adults realise that filters do not protect smokers, so 75% of people still think that, because the filter is allowed to be there, it is sending a message of health: “There must be some health benefit, surely, or else why would the Government allow it?” That is my Amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I worry that this group of amendments indicates that, in the name of public health, state overreach can get completely carried away with itself. I ask that we take a step back and consider the state’s ability to interfere in the manufacture and R&D of legal products, which is completely disruptive to those products’ manufacture and design; if the state is going to do that, there needs to be a very good reason.

I want to look at some of the reasons that we have heard in relation to either a ban on or alteration of the use of filters. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this is an environmentalist issue or a public health issue. Is it litter, or is it plastic? What is it? This is a debate about tobacco and vaping, so let me concentrate on that. There is an idea that one in four adults does not know that filters are not healthy. As a long-standing smoker, I have to say that, while there are arguments about filters, I have never heard a smoker say, “I use a filter because they’re healthy”. There are a whole range of discussions about the use of filters—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. By way of correction, in case I was not clear, 75% of smokers do not know that filters do not have any health benefits; the stat is the other way round.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The point I am making is that it is true that the majority of smokers do not sit around and discuss whether filters have a benefit to their health. I am quite sure that, had you asked me in that survey, I would not have had a clue. You would then say that I was being conned into using a filter. However, I would be indifferent because that is not the basis on which people smoke, either with or without filters. I am particularly bemused by the idea that, as a woman, if I saw a white filter, I would immediately think “purity” and be forced to smoke a white-filtered cigarette. I mean, goodness me—have we all gone mad?

I want to talk also about the idea of health warnings on actual cigarettes, which, again, is completely disruptive to product design and so on. It is completely petty. Sometimes, I feel as though the public health people have done everything and anything they possibly can and have run out of things to do, so they are now down to the narrowest possible thing: the cigarette itself.

It is interesting that this idea is aimed especially at young people who might be given one cigarette at a party; and that people seem to be saying that, if only such people saw that written warning, it would be enough to stop them. Were we ever young? Were we ever at a party? Did we ever read anything on the side of a cigarette that stopped us? The point I am making is that, as it happens, the majority of young people know that smoking is bad for you; many young people even give adults like me lectures on how smoking is bad for you. The idea of a written warning is not, I think, very helpful.

I just wonder what the health warning would say. Would it say, “Tobacco kills you”? What is it going to say? I have had an idea. Public perceptions on the difference between smoking and vaping are at their all-time worst. Only a minority of current adult smokers—29%—are able to recognise accurately that vaping is less harmful than smoking. So I have an idea: if we are going to have a message on the side of individual cigarettes, perhaps we could say, “Vaping is cheaper and less harmful than smoking”. That is a good message. Why do we not say that? We could even say, “Vaping is good for you”. The point I am making is that that is not where we should be putting messages; we have heard confused messages in this Committee so far.

My final thought is on the success of Canada and Australia in dealing with smoking, which has been cited and thrown into the conversation. Let us look at what is actually happening and today’s front-page headlines in Australia. The only success of Canada and Australia has been the huge growth of a black market in cigarettes and vapes. It is a disaster. Many people in public health are now saying, “Maybe we went too far”. So, before we start emulating them, maybe we should take different lessons. The front page of the Australian newspaper The Age today is about the fact that people are panicking about what they have inadvertently done. This group of amendments is the kind of thing that could lead us in completely the wrong direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will gladly add to the brief points that I am going to make to the noble Lord. I was just about to turn to international comparisons. Sometimes, I feel the answer is “How long is a piece of string?” However, quite seriously, we constantly keep international comparisons under review because we are keen to learn and see. The challenge, which I will come on to, is to draw exact comparisons, for a range of reasons, including on what we are already doing.

On the point about international comparisons, it is important that we recognise that the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which already emphasise health harms. This includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. As I have already referred to and noble Lords have discussed, we have announced that we will be introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I understand the motivation for these amendments, but we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time. We will continue to monitor the evidence.

We are implementing many of the recommendations of the Khan review. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. For example, we are majoring on the smoke-free generation policy, which is a major shift. Not only are we implementing many of these recommendations but we continue to keep them under review.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey asked about targets. Again, they will be kept under review. Unsurprisingly, our real target is delivering the Bill and designing the regulations so that they work. Some of this is also about where we can make the greatest impact in the quickest way, which is why we are focusing on the inserts rather than looking for additional things to do at this stage.

I hope that this is of some interest and reassurance to noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich, full and powerful debate. The political breadth around this Committee showing concern and calling for more government action is notable. I thank the Minister for her contribution and her full answers.

I specifically want to address the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about so-called biodegradable filters. I understand why the noble Earl thought the figures for these and plastic filters sounded similar; that is because the figures are similar. I can quote to the noble Earl an article on this area from Waste Management in 2018 titled, “Comparison of cellulose vs. plastic cigarette filter decomposition under distinct disposal environments”. That basically comes up with plastic filters taking 7.5 to 14 years to disappear and biodegradable ones taking 2.3 to 13 years, so the figures are similar. The Government are drawing on similar figures.

The Minister said both types are harmful to the environment and the natural world. There I will point to a study published in Environmental Pollution in 2020 titled, “Smoked cigarette butt leachate impacts survival and behaviour of freshwater invertebrates”. I have now referenced all the evidence in that space that the noble Earl might like to go away and look at.

This has been a hugely rich debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for giving us the irony story of the day about tobacco companies being concerned about toxic ink on their products. I think we probably should have a cartoonist in the Room at this point. We have had a great deal of consensus across the Committee about the need for action; the one stand-out different position was taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, I do not share her concern about the welfare of cigarette manufacturers or the purity of their product design. Like the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Bourne, I think public health should be a matter of government policy, and I am delighted to have signed the noble Lord’s amendment in the planning Bill later so we will be back together on that one.

I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, who very bravely brought before us two family tragedies to illustrate that, in the end, we are talking here about human lives, people’s parents, people’s children and the suffering that comes from the merchants of death. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, brought his medical expertise, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, cited an important academic study that I hope the Minister will take a good look at in terms of action.

The response from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Young, was that the Government could regulate. I am afraid that what we would like to hear and what these amendments are seeking is for the Government to take action. I suggest that “could” is not good enough in these circumstances. It is worth saying that we are not talking about an either/or here. I am sure everyone very much welcomes the smoking cessation efforts that the Minister referred to, but people will continue to smoke, and we want to reduce the health and environmental harms that result.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made an important point about cigarettes being close to your eyes and the small print. I point out that most of the people we are targeting here are young people who will not, as I do, have to get the bifocals at exactly the right line to be able to read seven-point print. I think that covers all that has been said here.

One thing I will add is that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to my amendment and others as probing amendments. I am afraid that is not my intention. I am obviously going to withdraw the amendment now, but I have full intentions of bringing it back. I hope the Minister might be open to discussions beforehand. In your Lordships’ House we have medical experts and people with real expertise, and we might be able to tease out some of the issues raised today in terms of the health damage being done by filters. What would it be like if we got rid of filters?

My final point, in responding to the Minister, is about the limited evidence of the harm of filters. We have strong evidence, established over decades, that there is no health benefit from filters. In the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, we are seeking to follow the leadership of Australia and Canada in putting markings on individual cigarettes, but perhaps we could be the leaders in banning filters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Grand Committee

Finally, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question in relation to Northern Ireland. She made the point that no statutory registration of pharmacy technicians in Northern Ireland has yet taken place. But the process to make it a legally regulated profession has been approved and is moving forward. In fact, the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland back in 2022 issued a consultation that was actually approved. So why has there been a delay? What discussions has my noble friend the Minister had with the current Minister of Health, or what discussions will she be having in future? What seems to be the obstacle? To me, it seems practical common sense by ensuring that pharmacists can deliver face to face contact with patients, thereby freeing up the NHS and GPs.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction of this SI. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Ritchie, and to say, perhaps counterintuitively, that I agree with both of them. It is very clear that there are arguments for steps forward because of the way in which circumstances and technology have changed: there is an argument for reform. But the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, are very important and we have to put those into context.

I note that a survey put out in August by the National Pharmacy Association and Community Pharmacy England said that 63% of pharmacies could close in the next year and only 6% of pharmacies were profitable. Only 25% of pharmacies are independent; the rest are either corporate or supermarket-owned pharmacies.

The concerns are obvious when we are talking about that last group. There is a risk of seeing one pharmacist having effective control and providing authorisation to a large number of pharmacy technicians where there might be corporate structures that put a large amount of pressure on financial returns rather than ensuring absolute safety and the controls that are needed. So we need to understand this SI in that context. Obviously, in some ways that is what is driving the SI, but we also need to think about the controls and where there is huge financial pressure on independence. A majority of prescriptions now come through giant corporate companies with very distant methods of control.

My second question is on timing. I note that on 1 October the General Pharmaceutical Council opened its consultation on overhauling the pharmacy technician training framework, including plans to move study from level 3 to level 4. It rather feels that we have just opened a consultation on changing the training, yet here we are bringing in regulations that almost seem to be assuming that that training has already been stepped up. Would it not be a better idea to step up and overhaul the training and then bring in the different regulations? The consultation suggests there is a very clear understanding that there is a need to improve the training of pharmacy technicians.

My final set of questions has to go back to physician and anaesthesia associates and the Leng review. I would like to understand how this SI fits within the broader framework of regulation of all the medical professions. I note, looking back over the history of this, that we go back to 2014 and the Law Commission recommendations about the regulation of a new single legal framework for health and care professionals. Under the previous Government we had consultations in 2017, 2019 and 2021, all of them in this space. So far as I have been able to discover, they did not seem to cover physician technicians: certainly not in much detail. This whole physician and anaesthesia associates débâcle, I have to say, was supposed to be part of a whole process of looking at all stages of medical regulation right across the board. How does this SI fit within that framework?

Finally, I have to note that, in the Chamber on 16 July, I was told that the Government would be delivering an implementation plan for the Leng review in the autumn. I have noticed that quite a lot of leaves seem to be changing their colour at the moment. I know that the government definition of “autumn” can be quite extended, but perhaps the noble Baroness could update us on when we can expect to see that implementation plan.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In fact, it is a pleasure to follow all noble Baronesses who have spoken and to be the first Baron to speak in this debate. A bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I counterintuitively support quite a lot of what has been said, even though some of it is quite contradictory and does prompt questions, even though the generality is supported.

I also thank the Minister for outlining in a clear and understandable way the order before the Committee. In my role as vice-chair of the APPG on Pharmacy, I have been able to speak not only to a number of organisational groups but to individual pharmacists to understand some of the differences of opinion within the sector.

This is without doubt a pivotal moment, marking a significant shift in pharmacy regulation. I offer the Government our general support for the core principle of modernising an outdated legal framework to unlock clinical capacity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, for far too long—in fact, since 1933—regulations have been rigid, forcing highly qualified pharmacists to oversee tasks that can be safely and competently managed by other registered professionals.

This order, by introducing the concept of authorisation and delegation to pharmacy technicians, corrects this historical anomaly. The benefits are clear; it empowers pharmacists to fully embrace clinical roles: prescribing, consulting and administering services, probably as part of the new neighbourhood health services that the 10-year plan suggests. It validates the expertise of pharmacy technicians, providing them with greater autonomy, particularly in complex environments like hospital aseptic facilities. It introduces, to use the Minister’s phrase, common sense measures of allowing trained staff members to hand out pre-checked, bagged medicines in the pharmacist’s temporary absence, ending needless patient delays.

However, the consultation process responses, which saw over 5,000 replies, revealed a sector divided. Although professional bodies and pharmacy technicians largely welcomed the proposals, we must not ignore the fact that many individual pharmacists expressed profound concern, as quite rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It is here in the detail and the perceived risk that we must focus our scrutiny. Indeed, while welcoming the statutory instrument, there could be some unintended consequences. The issues raised are not frivolous; they are structural and require ministerial assurance.

I wish to highlight three major areas of risk. The first one is patient safety, training and accountability. The core objection from many pharmacists relates to the level of initial education and training required by pharmacy technicians to take on these new autonomous roles. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, the consultation has just started. It ends on 24 December. It will not pick up pace until at least early 2026, and then there will be the training, the qualifications for the training and the accountability for the training. Are the Minister and the Government convinced that there is enough time to roll out not just the training but to assure its quality before technicians are allowed to do this?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has really highlighted the problems that could come around with vague authorisation. If a pharmacist gives a general or oral authorisation without clearly defining the scope, conditions and limitations for the technician, it could lead to confusion and mistakes, particularly concerning high-risk medicines. I was going to ask similar questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, but I will leave those to one side.

There also is, potentially, an accountability gap. While the order notes that a pharmacist’s failure to have a

“due regard to patient safety”,

may lead to professional misconduct, establishing clear accountability when a technician makes an accuracy error under general supervision could be challenging for regulatory bodies. There is a contradiction there that needs to be understood.

Also, on dispensing queries, the new rule allowing a sale supply of ready dispensed products in the pharmacist’s absence creates a challenge. For example, will a shop assistant who has been there for one day and works in the pharmacy be allowed to do this? It does say “any member”, so I am pleased that the Minister is shaking her head. I seek reassurance on that particular point.

What if a patient has a question about the medicine? The person carrying out the transaction must know when they are qualified to answer and, crucially, when they must stop the transaction. How will this be addressed and understood by all concerned? The safety mitigation is reliant on the General Pharmaceutical Council-strengthened guidance and rules—work that is still pending, as we have heard. We must ensure that this guidance provides absolute clarity on the minimum competence standards required for authorisation and, crucially, that the professional indemnity cover for those roles is appropriate for the new scope of the responsibility.

Secondly, on the risk of undervaluing dispensing services, as the Minister said, the changes are enabling and not mandatory, yet the risk of financial exploitation is real. Pharmacies are already funded below cost for dispensing. My concern mirrored—

HIV: Testing and Medical Care

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree that giving people who are attending an emergency department a blood test as part of a routine examination—unless they opt out—has assisted very much in engaging people in care and in identification. We have 79 emergency departments in the programme and they are making a substantial contribution. We will continue to assess where it is successful and how we can extend the success into areas that are not currently benefiting.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, there has been a decline in the rate of testing of 16 to 24 year-olds, which is deeply concerning. Are the Government going to tackle that as a matter of urgency, recognising the need to target that group in particular?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I have mentioned, the plan—which is due to be published by the end of this year—will include a focus on HIV testing and will take account of the groups that are less likely to be tested, because that will be key to our success in eradicating new HIV transmissions by 2030.