Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendment 197 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the robust debates that we have had during Committee; I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for that. I want to say just one thing in response to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said. There is something wrong with vaping in the very limited circumstances when it hooks a 12 year-old on to something very addictive, which may last for the rest of their life—the noble Baroness did concede that point.

I turn to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, recognises that evidence and public opinion are likely to move forward as the measures in this Bill are implemented over a period of time. While the harms of smoking tobacco are well researched and evidenced, the impact or benefits of vapes and other nicotine products as smoking cessation tools are not yet so well evidenced. Besides, we can expect innovation in this area as the tobacco companies try to protect their profits. We must keep up with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned, Public Health England used to publish regular reviews on the impacts of vaping, but this has not continued; in any case, the reviews need to be a bit wider than vaping because we do not know what products are coming down the track.

The noble Lord is asking for an independent expert panel. I would certainly expect the Government continually to provide evidence themselves as they put the wide powers in this Bill into operation. However, just as the independent Climate Change Committee is well trusted in respect of the advice it gives to the Government, based on a wide range of scientific evidence—the Government benefit from that—so an expert advisory committee on the future implementation of the new regime for nicotine and vaping products, quite independent of the tobacco and vapes industry, would add to the Government’s confidence and to public confidence.

I do not want to predict what the findings of such an expert panel would be, but its deliberations could be very helpful when the operation of the Bill is reviewed at any point in future, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Russell in his Amendment 195. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested a five-year review. However, it will be very important that its deliberations and advice to the Government are totally transparent. If that were not the case, it would not command the respect of the public, the research community or anybody else. I am sure that that is the noble Lord’s intention. This idea is well worth consideration by the Minister. I am sure that there will be more discussions about it, perhaps offline, and I look forward to her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

201A: Clause 167, page 120, line 13, leave out “(2) to (8).” and insert “(1A) to (8).
(1A) Parts 1 to 3 may not come into force until the Secretary of State commissioned and published the findings of an independent legal opinion showing that these parts are fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent parts 1 to 3 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has considered and demonstrated that this would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I think it will be helpful to bring the Committee very briefly up to date on what I raised. This amendment is crucial to this Bill because it is basically about whether we can implement it because of the Windsor Framework. I thought it would be helpful for noble Lords to know that four European Union countries have now put in detailed opinions to the European Commission that His Majesty’s Government now have a few months to respond to. The spokesman for the European Union said:

“It is now for the UK in respect of Northern Ireland to report on the action it proposes to take in view of the detailed opinions. The Commission will comment on that reaction”. 


I am trying to impress again that what has gone right through this Bill is the question of whether, in the end, a generational ban can be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Minister has been told again that she has to meet me. She has been told by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has finally written a letter to me, not via his secretary, saying that, again, he will not be commenting, even though he is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General, and that he wants a meeting where the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will respond to all the legal points. I thought that might be helpful. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)]

The amendment has been moved. Does anyone else want to speak to it? If no one does, then we have had the debate. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

Yes.

Amendment 201A withdrawn.