(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for and in connection with a streamlined process for granting personal and premises licences to businesses that—(a) both have an alcohol premises licence and are a personal licence holder, and(b) have not been subject to enforcement action in the last 12 months for actions that a licensing authority would judge as inconsistent with conditions set out in regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to acknowledge that the majority of retailers selling tobacco products and vape products do so responsibly and have robust policies in place to prevent sales to children and to prevent the sale of illicit or non-duty paid products.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on the Bill for the first time—not because of a lack of interest, but because it clashed with other Bills going on at the same time. I declare my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, known as PASS, which looks to provide age verification in the form of a PASS card—currently it is a physical card, but I hope it will be digital—for those wishing to access shopping, nightlife and alcoholic drinks to prove their age.
I will say at the outset what the purpose is and why there is a need for Amendment 30. I am grateful to the Association of Convenience Stores for helping me prepare and draft the amendment. The ACS has 50,000 local shops and its membership would be greatly affected by the Bill, if this amendment is not carried. The explanatory note helpfully sets out the purpose of the amendment, which is to acknowledge that the majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and have robust policies in place to prevent sales to children and to prevent the sale of illicit or non-duty-paid products.
The Bill proposes the creation of a new licensing system for the sale of tobacco and vaping products, which will require thousands of existing retailers to transition to new administrative processes. Local authorities will also have to handle a significant volume of licensing applications. I omitted to say that I also chaired the ad hoc committee of your Lordships’ House that looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003 and which reported in 2016-17.
Without a proportionate transition system, the Bill may create unnecessary burdens for both businesses and enforcement bodies. There is an established precedent for a proportionate approach. I referred to the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, dealing with alcohol, which allowed grandfather rights that gave responsible existing licence holders permission to transit to the new framework in a streamlined way. With Amendment 30, I propose the creation of a fast-track application route for retailers that can demonstrate existing robust controls and compliance. The process would not remove scrutiny or licensing requirements but recognise that many retailers already operate under strong regulatory expectations. Eligible businesses would be those that hold an alcohol premises licence, are a personal licence holder and have not been subject to enforcement action in the last 12 months inconsistent with the conditions set out in the regulations.
Why does this matter? The majority of retailers act responsibly, uphold age-verification policies and do not deal in illicit products; for compliant retailers, we should freeze enforcement capacity to target bad actors and high-risk sellers. Also, a proportionate transition would reduce significant administrative strain on local authorities and businesses.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Howe on their Amendments 35 and 42 in this group, but I end with a request for information on how retailers such as convenience stores and others are expected to have enough time to train and prepare their staff for the provisions of the Bill and particularly for a transition phase. That is key. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
I support this group of amendments. It is absolutely right that we have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. Many people would be very surprised to find that we do not have a licensing scheme for tobacco, as we do for alcohol. It is unregulated, so I welcome the proposals to have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. It should be streamlined; we need to recognise that the vast majority, as has been said by my noble friend, comply with the law and are fully responsible.
In developing a licensing scheme, we need to look at the experience of other, diverse countries that have a licensing scheme—Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada and Singapore, to name some—because there is a lot to be learned from them. I urge the Minister to have a good look at what is happening elsewhere.
A vaping licensing scheme is particularly welcome. Currently, vapes are prolific on our high streets, in markets and at counters in nail salons, and so on. They are unregulated, and that must change to protect people and hold those that are responsible to account. I very much welcome the move to have a licensing scheme here, and I associate myself with what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has just said.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.
I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.
The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.
On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.
I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.
The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing
“the glue that binds us together as a society”.
This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.
The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the
“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;
fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be
“outdated in the modern world”—
deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.
That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 35 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will also express my strong support for Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All the amendments in this group are guided by an important principle. The success of a new licensing regime will depend not only on the strength of the associated enforcement powers but on the fairness, proportionality and practicality with which those powers are exercised.
Amendment 30 is a sensible and fair proposal. It acknowledges that the vast majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and already operate under stringent regulatory regimes. Many of those businesses hold alcohol premises licences and are personal licence holders, and as such as are meticulous in complying with the rules and standards legally in force to prevent under-age sales and the supply of illicit goods.
Clause 16 will impose new licensing obligations, checks and costs. Taken together, for many small independent businesses they will represent a significant administrative and financial burden. My noble friend’s amendment simply asks that the Government recognise the existing history of compliance by allowing a streamlined process for those that have already demonstrated that they meet high licensing standards elsewhere. This would embed efficiency and fairness into the enforcement system and reward good practice. It would save time and cost for retailers and allow enforcement resources to be focused where they are most needed, on those who persistently flout the rules.
Amendment 35 turns to another crucial point of principle: fairness and proportionality in how licensing powers are applied. As drafted, Schedule 1 would allow licensing authorities to impose proximity or density restrictions, in effect preventing a licence being granted simply because a premises happens to fall within a designated zone or is near other retailers that sell similar products. That is an extremely broad and, frankly, concerning power. It risks punishing businesses not because they are non-compliant through choice or negligence but simply because of where they are located.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This group of amendments deals with the details of the forthcoming retail licensing scheme.
Let me say in opening, in response to all of these amendments, that our intention in this regard is very much what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just spoke about: to support legitimate businesses that stick to the rules while deterring and being able to deal with rogue retailers. We want the scheme to minimise the burden on retailers and local authorities as far as is possible—again, a point that was rightly made by a number of noble Lords.
Let me first turn to Amendment 30, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I hope I can reassure her that the Government are carefully considering the design and implementation of the licensing scheme. In respect of her opening comments, we look forward to continuing to work with the Association of Convenience Stores and other important and relevant groups. Considering the design and implementation of the scheme will include the interaction with alcohol licensing.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we are working closely with the Department for Business and Trade as well as the Home Office. However, as she recognised, ultimately, our objectives and motivations are different; they may be complementary, but they are different. For example, on alcohol licensing, the focus is on supporting resilience and growth of on-trade venues that provide safe and regulated spaces for people to socialise. With tobacco and vape licensing, as I said, it is about ensuring that we support those who abide by the rules and act as a deterrent to those who do not. Of course, we have a public health objective.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about pressures on enforcement, which is a very reasonable question. Local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee they collect from retailers to cover the cost of running and enforcing the licensing scheme. That will assist local authorities and will ensure that the scheme is implemented and sustainable. I believe the noble Baroness also asked if there would be enough time for training and development. Again, that will be part of our discussions that will follow from the call for evidence and the consultation after that, which I will come to very soon.
I want to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made about looking to other nations. We are aware of several international examples where this has been very successful, including some cities in the United States, Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain and Australia. We have much to call on and will absolutely be considering what works best in the development of our own scheme.
Noble Lords will recall from earlier discussions that we have recently launched a call for evidence, which closes on 3 December. That is on a whole range of issues, including questions about the process for granting licences and implementation more generally. That will inform a subsequent consultation on the detail of the scheme. The points being raised today are all important and they will be considered through both those actions.
I turn now to Amendments 35 and 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendment 35 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State requiring licensing authorities to consider the location and/or density of tobacco and vape retailers when they make decisions on the granting of licences. The call for evidence asks for feedback on how licensing authorities should make decisions and whether and how much factors such as the ones the noble Lord rightly raised, location and density, should have a role. However—I am sure many noble Lords would agree with this—there are certain places where it would obviously be inappropriate for a tobacco or vape shop to be located. For example, I have not heard a call for vape shops to open next door to children’s nurseries, so there are some obvious points. As our aim is to stop children and young people smoking and vaping, it is absolutely right that we consider factors that might have a role, such as the location and density of retailers. I am very much looking forward to the feedback on this through our call for evidence.
Amendment 42 would require the Government to consider the benefits of combining tobacco and alcohol licensing into a joint scheme. I certainly understand the noble Lord’s very good intention to learn from existing licensing schemes and to avoid unnecessary burdens on retailers—something I have already associated myself with. We recognise that alcohol licensing is established and familiar to a lot of businesses, and that we can learn from alcohol licensing when designing the new scheme. That is why the call for evidence includes detailed questions on the design, and why we have to consult. It is the right thing to do, but it will also meet the intentions of the amendments before us. This process will allow us to consider where we can make use of existing systems and practices, as noble Lords have called on us to do. We share the view that the minimisation of additional costs and burdens, as far as possible, is the right thing to do, while ensuring that the new licensing scheme achieves our aims on tobacco and vapes.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he said that the current lack of a licensing system for tobacco is a major gap in enforcement. Therefore, I am glad that the introduction of this new retail licensing scheme is strongly supported by retailers and the public alike. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a debate on this small group of amendments. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Bourne. I took great comfort from the fact that this has been achieved in other countries, so we can perhaps follow their good practice. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howe.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, misunderstood what I am trying to achieve here. I am trying to set out similar grandfather rights to those awarded in the implementation of the original alcohol licensing Act, as applied in 2005. These rights would allow those businesses already selling the products to continue selling them, but under a process I have set out. I hope that is something she might support going forward.
This is intended as a probing amendment, and my noble friend Lord Howe made the point that we are looking for fairness, proportionality and practicality. I hope that will be a red line running through this process. I hope we can return to this at a later stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
“(5A) Draft regulations under this section must be published before the end of the period of six months from the passing of this Act.”
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in some ways this group will follow on from the last; some of the comments I will make now could be applied to the previous group of amendments.
Noble Lords will be aware that, as discussed in the previous group, the licensing regime the Bill sets out is complex. Many of the Bill’s provisions are yet to be determined in regulations, meaning that businesses across the country are faced with something they dread: uncertainty. Some retailers have told me they already see this on top of the double whammy of increases to employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, and they have had to face that doing business is more difficult, as is taking on new employees.
We all know that the large retailers have public affairs teams, legal teams and compliance teams, all helping them navigate the complexities of changes in legislation. For them, the sale of tobacco and tobacco products counts for a small proportion of their total revenue stream. However, the situation could be very different for small, family-run businesses, staffed by two, three or four people, often working from dawn to dusk—staffing the till and the counter, and sorting out bills and expenses. For many other people, just managing half this workload would be a good day’s work. Imagine, on top of all this, having to find the time to understand, and make changes to abide by, these new regulations.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, just to clarify on the previous group and to quote myself, I advised caution about the idea of combining the two kinds of licences, specifically because of the strong possibility of fundamental change to the remit of the alcohol licences.
On this group of amendments beginning with Amendment 32 in the names the noble Lord, Lord Kamal and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it is important that the Government do not delay unduly in laying out the details of the new licensing scheme. That is only fair to retailers who need to respond to it. However, it is also important to get it right, and it is a highly technical issue. There will be a lot of noise about the workability of elements of this Bill without adding to that by getting the licensing scheme wrong, and I am sure the Government are aware of that. However, I am also aware that the Government have already issued a further call for evidence on the technicalities of the scheme, which I hope will help them to iron out any problems. I hope that they do not hang about over this, as they did with putting the Bill into your Lordships’ Committee—which we awaited with bated breath; it took a long time—but I do not support rushing such a technical process. Therefore, I do not support putting these amendments with their specific timescales on the face of the Bill. I look forward to the consultation.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group.
I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is not in his place to speak to his amendments, but I will just touch on them briefly, if I may. Basically, his amendments seek to require licensing regulations to be made within three months of the relevant provisions in the Bill coming into force. The amendments would also extend the existing retailer register in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that, of course, the Government share the noble Lord’s desire to move as quickly as possible to implement the licensing scheme. That is why we have recently launched the call for evidence on the range of issues that we have laid out, including questions on the design of the retail licensing scheme. The feedback received will be absolutely critical, and we want to get on and launch this as soon as possible. However, it is also important that the Government have sufficient time to ensure that the regulations are properly thought through. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, when he hears the discussion, will be reassured and understand that three months is not sufficient time to run a consultation, analyse the feedback received and prepare well-considered regulations. That is as much as I shall say on his amendments.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I hope to give him the reassurance that he seeks, as we discussed in last week’s Committee, that I understand these particular concerns. His amendments would similarly require Ministers to publish draft regulations implementing a retail licensing scheme for England and Wales within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The Government are committed to ensuring that those impacted by regulations and those with expertise have the opportunity to contribute their views. We want to minimise additional costs and burdens as far as possible, while ensuring that the scheme is a success and achieves our aims of supporting legitimate businesses as well as tackling those that disregard the law. Again, the recently published call for evidence seeks input on a range of topics, including the implementation of the retail licensing scheme. As I have said, this will inform the consultation, which we will launch as soon as possible.
To respond directly to the noble Lord’s comments, our call for evidence also asks about the implementation of the scheme and how long will be required to implement the policy. We will, of course, work through the appropriate channels to ensure that businesses have the necessary guidance to implement the changes. I cannot emphasise enough that this is for all businesses, regardless of their size or the organisations that represent them. We want to make sure that we get that message out loud and clear, so that they have confidence that their views will be regarded with the same importance as all those who contribute to the policy.
I note the noble Baroness’s comments about making sure that we get this right, so we cannot be beholden to specific timeframes on the face of the Bill. We all acknowledge that this is a complex policy and, while we want to move swiftly, it is important that there is enough time to ensure that the policy is properly thought through before developing regulations. I repeat that requiring the Government to publish draft regulations before adequate consultation may risk creating a flawed policy. For the reasons that I have outlined, bringing together previous comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on this group of amendments. The intention was always that these would be probing amendments; whether it was three months, as from my noble friend Lord Mott, or six months, as from us, we wanted to get some certainty and find out whether, at this stage, any thought has been given to an outline timetable. This is so that the retailers that will have to face this new licensing regime can understand the different stages—the Minister laid out some of the consultation stages—and the overall timetable. Here we are, getting towards the end of the 2025, and they are wondering, “When will this new licensing regime be in place? Will it be sometime in 2026 or in 2027?” That is the sort of outline assurance they want.
It was very helpful of the Minister to mention some of the consultation stages, but it would also be helpful if, perhaps in writing, she could give us a timetable that relates to real dates in the next two or three years—and, in doing so, avoid “in due course” or “as soon as possible”—so as to reduce the uncertainty for those retailers that will have to prepare for this measure. I also welcome the acknowledgement from the Minister of the importance of consulting small retailers—that point has already been made in our debates on previous groups—as well as her understanding of the role that these small retailers play. The burden for them is very different and disproportionate as compared to that for some of the larger retailers.
In general, we welcome the tone from the Government and understand that there must be consultation stages. However, we are asking for some sort of outline timetable in writing, if possible, on when the Government envisage the licensing regime being in place—with the usual caveats, perhaps, depending on what comes back from the consultation. Some certainty would be really welcome at this stage.
Having said that, and having reflected on the comments from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe.
“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.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 34 in this group, which is on cigarette filters and health warnings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision
“prohibiting the manufacture, supply, or sale of … plastic filters intended for use in cigarettes, and … cigarettes containing plastic filters”
through regulations that must be laid before Parliament
“no later than the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
This amendment is required. It is a practical, necessary and long-overdue measure that I hope to show enjoys widespread public support. Implementing it would strengthen our commitment to environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility while having minimal impacts on those who choose to smoke cigarettes with filters.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discarded cigarette filters are one of the most common and prevalent forms of public litter. It has been estimated that 90% of all cigarettes smoked in the world contain non-biodegradable filter tips and that, in the UK, some 3.9 million cigarette butts are discarded daily. On a constituency basis, that is 6,000 cigarette butts, or 2.2 million thrown away each year. Every year, billions of cigarette butts are discarded across the UK, which is a staggering amount.
As they degrade very slowly, they release microplastics and many harmful chemicals, which are a danger to nature and to aquatic life in particular. Only one in four smokers even realise that filters are not biodegradable; most assume that they already are. Eighty-six per cent of adults support this change in the law, including 77% of the smokers asked. Cigarette butts are a bit like ants. The power of their pollution is caused by their very small nature, their frequency and the fact that they are discarded so widely. It is very difficult to clear them up, even if we wanted to.
As we have heard, they are made from cellulose acetate—a non-biodegradable form of plastic—and take up to an estimated 10 to 15 years to break down in the natural environment. I question one figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which seemed to be for plastic filters, not biodegradable filters. I do not recognise the figure she gave. Yet, despite this harm, plastic filters continue to be widely used. This and other Governments have made progress on banning other forms of everyday plastic pollution, but no progress has been made here. For these reasons, regulatory action is now required. Fortunately, perfectly workable alternative solutions are available and are widely recognised within the industry as being fit for purpose and working with manufacturing processes.
Across the world, there has been a move to work on these issues. The World Health Organization supports a ban on non-biodegradable cigarettes as part of the global plastics treaty and the EU is also looking at these matters. If the Government accept this amendment, the UK could become the first country in the world to pass legislation on these matters. Biodegradable cigarette filters made from natural fibres such as paper, hemp or bamboo would degrade much more quickly and cause far less harm. They would eliminate unnecessary plastic waste and give people the option of having a filter on a cigarette if they want one.
I do not argue that filters in any shape or form make cigarettes healthier to smoke; they clearly do not. I know that tobacco companies have falsely put them forward in this way in the past. However, they make smoking more pleasant for those who want to smoke. If an alternative exists that would deal with the plastic pollution, we should not unnecessarily ban these items. My amendment is about trying to find a way between having the plastic pollution we see now and a complete ban.
Turning to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that banning filters would not resolve the problem because people will continue to smoke. They will smoke cigarettes without filters. They will dispose of the butts of those cigarettes without filters on the ground. Indeed, in many cases, they will end up burning their fingers and dropping them in places they do not want to, which could become an increased cause of wildfires, which are becoming an ever more prevalent problem. The litter will still exist and the nicotine in the cigarette butts will still exist. I do not buy the argument that removing filters would improve health outcomes in any way at all. I find it hard to see that a cigarette without a filter is in any way healthier than a cigarette with a filter. It may not make any difference, but I certainly cannot see how it can be argued to be in any way better.
My amendment is well argued and supported. I am open to working with the Government around the timelines that I would put in place. It might be that the Government feel that those timelines are too short. On reflection, maybe I should have allowed for a bit more time for it to take place.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 141 and 143 would require the Government to consult on introducing health warnings on each individual cigarette by printing them on the cigarette papers. These amendments are necessary because the Government have not yet committed to consulting about these warnings, let alone insisting on them, as I believe that they should.
Warnings on individual cigarettes, also known as dissuasive cigarettes, were recommended by the APPG on Smoking and Health in 2021 and in The Khan Review—Making Smoking Obsolete in 2022. The Government should take heed of Dr Javed Khan’s report in particular, which was commissioned by the previous Government to examine how we could get to our smoke-free target by 2030. Canada has already seen remarkable success with this approach and Australia has just followed suit with regulations coming into effect in July this year.
Research commissioned by Health Canada into the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes with health warnings showed that these cigarettes were perceived as less appealing than cigarettes without health warnings. The converse is, of course, also true. Cigarettes that did not have health warnings on were viewed as being less harmful. The impact was particularly notable among young people, who reported that when they were offered single cigarettes in social situations, they were not exposed to the warnings on the cigarette pack. With warnings visible on every cigarette, this would no longer be the case. Cigarettes may not be able to be sold individually, but they certainly can be handed out individually to others at parties and social events.
It is very welcome that the Government are introducing pack inserts, for which I have long argued and which signpost smokers to quitting information inside the packets. But I find it ironic that it is the tobacco industry, which of course shortens the lives of half its customers, that warns that there may be dangers from the ink printed on the cigarette papers. These papers would, of course, be printed with non-toxic ink and would discourage people from taking up this habit, which proves fatal and damaging to so many people.
We do not want to make smoking any more harmful. We want fewer people to take up the habit, and we want to help the majority of smokers, who are struggling to quit as most are. So, I urge the Minister to consider this additional complementary and necessary measure. It may help those people who need to be deterred from accepting a cigarette offered from someone else’s packet and who may then begin a habit that shortens the lives of half the people who take up that invitation to become a smoker.
Some people, particularly those in the tobacco industry, still suggest that, at this point, we all know all about the harms of smoking. However, the evidence is clear: the more strategies we use to inform consumers, the more chance we have of preventing people starting smoking or of helping people quit, as most smokers try to do repeatedly. My late noble friend Lord Ashdown frequently told me that he gave up smoking three times a day. He found it, as most smokers do, highly addictive and very hard to give up. We need to know that what is compelling for one potential smoker may not be workable for another smoker. So, given how lethal tobacco is, we need to use every tool at our disposal to deter smoking and to help people quit.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 141 and 143, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
This Bill is a world-leading piece of public health legislation. It is comprehensive in the powers it takes to regulate tobacco products; flexible; and, we hope, future-proof. This subject is dear to my heart because my father died of lung cancer, having been a lifelong smoker since he started at the age of 12; my older sister died at 67, also of lung cancer. So smoking has had a profound effect on my family, as it has for so many across the Committee.
The flagship policy of raising the age of sale every year is, as we know, projected to reduce smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds to zero by 2050. That is an extraordinary achievement in our sights. However, there is a real risk that the Bill’s very success may lead to the perception that the job is done. We must not be complacent. Instead, we should ensure that we use the powers in this Bill to continue pressing every lever available in the fight against tobacco. I just mention that my father told me that, when he was 12, he was not looking at packets of cigarettes but was being offered single cigarettes.
One such opportunity for us lies in the introduction of health warnings on individual cigarettes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others have recommended in these amendments. As the noble Lord outlined, this measure has already been implemented in Canada; it represents a practical and, potentially, powerful next step. As the noble Lord said, we know that the design of cigarettes affects how they are perceived; and that this can act as a form of marketing. Research shows that slim or thin cigarettes tend to be more appealing to women, while using white paper for cigarettes implies cleanliness and purity. Studies have also shown that the little golden ribbon that marks the start of the filter means that a cigarette is perceived as being more attractive, of a higher quality and better tasting than those without.
Evidence from Canada, which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, has shown that cigarettes without health warnings are perceived as less harmful than those carrying them. Dissuasive—a word I have only recently learned—cigarettes help, therefore, to align consumer perception more closely with the reality of the serious harms caused by smoking. Alongside printed warnings, it may also be worth exploring whether changes in cigarette colour and removing that little gold band could enhance this further.
I anticipate that my noble friend the Minister may say that the powers to introduce dissuasive cigarettes already exist in the Bill; and that a specific amendment is therefore unnecessary. I accept that point. However, I know that noble Lords are keen to hear more from the Government about how the range of powers in this Bill may be used in future; this feels like a fruitful area. A mechanism for outlining this could be publishing a five-year tobacco strategy, setting out how and when the Government intend to use the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and what targets are being set for future smoking prevalence. This will provide welcome clarity and vision, although I understand that my noble friend the Minister has already ruled out publicly publishing a strategy.
New data on smoking prevalence are due to be published tomorrow. I hope that they bring the good news that smoking rates continue to fall. Let us be clear, however, that this does not happen by chance: continued progress requires vigilance, ambition and creativity.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I have never smoked. Having said that, I was for some 15 years in marketing and advertising. I do not think that the proposal here is at all practical. Cigarettes are very narrow so to read something in six-point type—which is what we are talking about—will be difficult and will have next to no effect at all. We have proper health warnings on the pack itself. We should concentrate on those and do more work on how well they are being communicated; that may take us further forward. Amendments 141 and 143 are, frankly, for the birds.
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.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have added our names. I declare an interest as the president of the Local Government Association. I thank ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—for its briefing, in which it laid out these amendments clearly. It supports the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, though not the one in my name; however, it raises some really interesting points around what we are trying to do and how far we need to go.
It is important to raise the issue of greenwashing and to look at better solutions than the one we currently have. Although this amendment does not go as far as some want, it is a step forward. I came to this amendment, which looks at the equivalent number of plastic straws that are in each cigarette—it is two plastic straws—because I worked on the impact of the ban on plastic straws on disabled people. Disabled people were vilified for daring still to want to use plastic straws, whereas people who smoke do not seem to have that same level of pressure against them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, always makes really interesting speeches and asks really interesting questions. Are we doing this from the point of view of public health, the environment or littering? I would say, “All of them”. As somebody who has never smoked—I question how interesting any of the parties I went to as a teenager were—I presumed that filters were safer. It is only when you do the research that you realise that people have been deceived into thinking that they are safer than they actually are. The number of butts that are littered worldwide—4.5 trillion—is absolutely horrendous; it is the equivalent of 1.69 billion pounds of toxic trash. Look at the impact on the UK: a minimum of 3.9 million butts are littered every day. I am also interested in the fact that cleaning up these cigarette butts costs local authorities around £40 million a year; I think that that money could be spent far better in different ways.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The point I am making is slightly different. If I had my way, I would ban cigarette sales completely, but I know we are not going to get that far in a hurry.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the filters are made of cellulose acetate that is converted into plastic. They are promoted as a health benefit in the sense that people think they filter out harmful tar, nicotine and carcinogens, which they do not. They are of no benefit. Filters also make people more addicted, because they make the cigarette smoke temperature lower and feel smoother, so I am told. People therefore take deeper breaths and become more addicted to the substances they inhale, because there is a higher concentration of them. They are actually more harmful, despite being promoted as less harmful than just cigarettes on their own.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, which I support in principle, but I am interested to hear the Government’s response to the points about practicality, apart from anything else. There is a real issue here. Fundamentally, people are pointing to a very real issue that needs to be tackled, either through the approach in Amendment 33 or a variation on Amendment 34. I am interested to hear how the Government think they should tackle it.
I am picking up on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made when she was talking about whether the intention is about littering or health. I have no objection to joined-up government, and it is a good thing to be doing that. I will speak later today on the Planning Bill urging planning to take account of health; health should also take account of environmental impacts of things in this way.
To conclude, I have one question with three parts for the Minister. Do she and the Government recognise and accept that filters have no positive impact on health and—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said—possibly have a negative impact with people breathing in harder? Does the Minister accept that most people who smoke do not know that filters have no impact and, indeed, think that they may be saving themselves to some extent? The third part is: if the Government believe those things, it seems to be something they should be tackling in some way within their tobacco plans and I am not aware that they are. I leave those questions with the Minister.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.
When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.
My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found
“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.
This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, it is clear that the very word “filter” is the most misleading of epithets. It leads many people to believe they make smoking safer. I would take a lot of convincing that people are not led to believe it is safer by the use of that very misleading epithet. It is not the point that filters do not make smoking more dangerous—incidentally, some of the early filters actually contained asbestos, so there were certainly some at an early stage that did make smoking much more dangerous. Leaving that on one side, the whole point is that people are misled into believing that smoking with filters is safer. That is the reason for Amendment 33.
There is a logic to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I find compelling. The fact that we can do something in relation to the environment as well as to health is not a reason for not acting; it is a reason for acting. The suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the state has no role here or only a qualified role and should not be entering this area, I find staggering. There is every reason we should be doing so in my humble opinion. Therefore, I strongly support Amendments 33 and 34.
On Amendments 141 and 143 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, there is unimpeachable logic in putting a warning on something if you are trying to deter people from using it. I do not think it is sufficient that it is on packets; there are many people who will have a single cigarette proposed to them. They will see the warning there, and there will be publicity given to that warning. It is not just the warning on the cigarettes; the fact the Government are doing that will mean it is more widely known.
There is a great logic, and I urge the Minister to be bold. It is not sufficient that we are having this generational ban, important though that is. There is a reason for moving more quickly and forcefully in relation to the amendments, and an unimpeachable logic to trying to iron out the position on filters, which are indeed a giant fraud.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell and Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I will also rehearse arguments in favour of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested there is some confusion about why people might want to ban filters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that a ban is about both public health and environmental considerations.
It has been clearly shown that filters of all kinds have no health benefits whatever. Indeed, I maintain that they are actively harmful to health, but I will come to that later. They are also very costly to public authorities and bad for wildlife and the environment. Filters have been called, by a Back-Bench Member of the government party,
“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/25; col. 1043.]
because they were formerly advertised—when cigarette advertising was still allowed—as being safer and less harmful to health than cigarettes without filters. This lie has had a long tail because even now only 25% of people understand that they have no health benefits.
As a result of the false perception that the filter—because of its very name as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bourne—removes some of the tar and other harmful tobacco chemicals, evidence shows that smokers of filtered cigarettes inhale deeper and more frequently. Proof that filters were invented to deceive is the fact that they were deliberately made from a white substance which turns brown when heated, adding to the illusion that they were removing some of the harmful elements from the tobacco smoke. This was deliberately to mislead the smoker.
Filters of all kinds are bad for the environment. The plastic ones in particular contain thousands of toxic substances, including microplastics and nanoplastics. They take up to 10 years to break down in the environment, releasing all these microplastics as well as the 7,000 toxic chemicals from the on average five millimetres of tobacco that remains attached to each butt. These are washed into our soils and water systems and damage marine life, other wildlife and our drinking water.
Microplastics are ubiquitous. They have been found from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. They cause cancer, including colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, and the levels of them found in human brains—causing who knows what effects—have increased by 50% since 2016, according to pathologists. Even the so-called biodegradable ones contain microplastics in the glue and in any case take a very long time to break down. I deliberately put one in my compost heap, and it was still there a year later. In any case, they, too, always have some tobacco attached. They have zero health benefit and lead to a false sense of security.
The environmental damage is also very costly. We all pay to clean them up when they are discarded through littering; as has been said, local authorities spend £40 million every year, money paid by taxpayers—you and I—which could be better spent on public health and other services. Some 86% of the public and even most smokers believe that manufacturers should switch to fully biodegradable filters rather than plastic ones, but, frankly, I think that is not enough to fix the problem, for the reasons I have outlined.
The killer fact, to coin a phrase, is that there is a strong epidemiological link between the rise in the prevalence of cigarettes containing filters and the proportionate rise of a kind of cancer called adenocarcinoma, while other lung cancers have fallen along with the reduced prevalence of smoking overall. A paper by Min-Ae Song et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in America in 2017 analysed 3,284 citations in scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents and concluded thus:
“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban”.
Indeed, such a link had originally been suggested by the surgeon-general as far back as 2014. Therefore, I am inclined to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but at the very least I hope the Government will accept Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell.
On Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard, I hope the Minister will see the sense of consulting on this. Not every cigarette smoked by a child or a young person or an adult smoker comes immediately out of a packet bearing health warnings. Many children, when they start illicit smoking, share a packet among themselves and many never get to see the packet at all. That is why the principle, already accepted by successive Governments, that a health warning on the packet should accompany tobacco-containing products should apply to individual products and not just the packaging. I am aware that the Government plan to make sure that there is an insert in each packet signposting smokers to cessation services and products. This is a welcome positive measure to accompany the deterrent measures of health warnings, but it is not enough. I am sure the first thing many will do is throw away the insert and never read it, as people sometimes do with pills. They cannot throw away the paper that wraps the cigarette. That is why it would be the most effective place to put the warnings.
If you believe that the health warnings on packages work and deter, how much more effective would it be to reinforce that message every time a cigarette is removed from them? A consultation and a review of the evidence of the ban in other countries would be a good idea, and I recommend it to the Minister.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the amendments in their names.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for all of the contributions on this much debated set of amendments. I understand the concerns that have been raised.
I begin with Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Let me turn first to the health arguments that have been put forward. We know that cigarette filters have historically been marketed incorrectly as making smoking safer, and that smokers perceive cigarettes with a filter as being more enjoyable and of lower risk. These points were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Patel, Lord Bourne and Lord Crisp. However, as with all regulations—I know that noble Lords will understand this—it is important that any measures are based on evidence, are fully considered and do not create unintended consequences. Obviously, that will be a theme throughout the Bill, particularly as we discuss these groups of amendments.
We acknowledge that there is some limited evidence on the health harms of filters, but we are not currently aware of any clear evidence—that is what is not in place—to show that a ban on filters would lead to a reduction in smoking rates; of course, that is the focus of this Bill. When it comes to encouraging existing smokers to quit—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly highlighted this area—we are prioritising investing in local stop smoking services, delivering smoking cessation campaigns, delivering access to nicotine replacement therapy and introducing positive, quit-themed pack inserts. I was glad to hear support for such measures from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On that point, I want to refer to effectiveness, particularly as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made the point that such inserts might simply be discarded. The modelling suggests that, in terms of increased effectiveness because of themed pack inserts, there would be 150,000 additional attempts at quitting. Over two years, this would result in 30,000 successful quitting scenarios, which would reduce the incidence of smoking—exactly what we are focusing on.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the concern that filters allow for flavoured crushballs to be added. I hope that it is helpful for me to say to your Lordships’ Committee that this Bill gives the Government the power to regulate flavoured tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as any product that is intended to be used to impart flavour; this could include flavoured accessories, such as filters.
I turn now to the environmental concerns raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley. It is the case that cigarette butts are the most littered item in the UK. They are a blight on our streets and our communities. They take a long time to degrade, and they leach toxic compounds into the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the role of local authorities and the pressure on them because of this littering; again, I certainly take her point. Local authorities have a range of powers to tackle littering, including fixed-penalty notices for some £500. I also see the challenge that the littering of cigarette butts presents to local authorities.
However, ultimately, the most effective thing we can do to tackle tobacco litter as well as protect people’s health is, clearly, to reduce the prevalence of smoking. It is worth referring to the powers available to Defra, which would enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters. Although we do not plan to take action in the short term, I assure noble Lords that we will certainly continue to monitor the evidence and keep this under review.
On Amendment 34, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence at present that banning plastic filters will lead to better environmental outcomes, although I absolutely understand the wish for this. Evidence suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable or plastic-free, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, can still take a very long time to degrade in the natural environment and leach harmful chemicals. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. We are therefore concerned that a ban on plastic filters could have unintended consequences and undermine attempts to reduce littering, if people incorrectly believe that plastic-free filters somehow do not damage the environment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Before the Minister moves on, can I ask a question that I asked earlier? If she recognises that 75% of smokers think that filters reduce the risk—indeed, they may increase it—does she not think the Government should be doing something to counter that belief, perhaps more actively than they are doing at the moment?
Earl Russell (LD)
Before the Minister rises, I welcome the response to this amendment, but the point is that most people still litter their fag butts in any case and believe that they are already biodegradable, so I press the Government to take further action in this area.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the issue is about depth of evidence and how action, if it is to be taken, gets the right result. I went over the unintended consequences several times for my own benefit and I can see the potential for this not producing what we want. I take his point, but it is about how, when and what the evidence and the effects are. That is why it is not possible to accept the amendment.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said about the 75%. I am not in a position to comment on that, but I refer back to what I said—it is about getting the right evidence. The challenge in this group of amendments is that the evidence is not complete and taking us to the right place, but we will certainly keep this under review. I say that in respect of some of the other amendments too. Noble Lords will be aware that there are various powers in the Bill that allow changes to be made as things develop.
Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, would add cigarette filters to the scope of Parts 5 and 6. Those parts apply to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Those products have been included in the scope of the Bill as they cause harm in and of themselves. “Tobacco related devices” are also included in the scope of Part 5, so that we have the ability to regulate them in a similar way to vape devices. We are not convinced that the position with filters is the same.
While we agree that filters should not be advertised in a way that promotes smoking, which is partly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Bill’s ban on advertising and sponsorship already covers any advertisement with the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product, restating existing provisions. The Advertising Standards Authority has rules on filters which state that marketing communications for filters should not encourage people to start smoking or to increase their consumption.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I asked how long the Government think they will need for evidence from Australia and Canada before they will be in a position to judge whether those health warnings have been effective. Can the Minister answer that either now or in writing? Secondly, do the Government have any evidence on what wording is most effective for health warnings? Once again, the answer could be in writing.
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.
Baroness Walmsley
“Prohibition of distribution of tobacco products etc in England without a licence(1) An individual must not do any of the following things in the course of business in England, except under the authority of and in accordance with a commercial distribution licence—(a) distribute relevant products to any person;(b) possess relevant products for the purpose of their distribution (by the individual or another person).(2) A person must not in the course of business use or permit the use of premises in England for any of the following except under the authority of and in accordance with a premises distribution licence—(a) the storage of relevant products for the purpose of their distribution (by the person or another person);(b) the supply of relevant products to businesses or wholesale purchasers.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (1) or (2).(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for and in connection with the grant of commercial distribution licences and premises distribution licences.(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult any persons that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.(6) Schedule (Distributor licensing scheme: England) makes further provision about regulations under subsection (4).(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(8) In this section—“commercial distribution licence” means a licence granted by a licensing authority that authorises a business to do the things mentioned in subsection (1);“distribution” means the supply of products to retail businesses, wholesale distributors, and other forms of non-retail supply;“grant” includes variation or renewal;“licensing authority” has the meaning given by paragraph of Schedule (Distributor licensing scheme: England);“premises distribution licence” means a licence granted by a licensing authority that authorises the use of premises for the purposes listed in subsection (2);“relevant products” means—(a) tobacco products;(b) herbal smoking products;(c) cigarette papers;(d) vaping products;(e) nicotine products;“supply” includes despatch;“wholesale distributors” are businesses that offer goods for sale that are sold to persons for resale by them or for processing and resale by them, to members of the general public for their use or consumption.”
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments starting from Amendment 39 and ending at Amendment 212—apart from Amendment 119, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe—are an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who cannot be in his place today, and myself to provide a framework for regulating the wholesale and distribution element of the supply chain for tobacco products.
For the sake of transparency, the development of this framework has been led by the UK’s largest online vaping retailer, Vape Club, which is a founding member of the UK Vaping Industry Association and operates independently of any member of the tobacco industry. The creation of the proposed scheme involved consultation with multiple key industry stakeholders, including trading standards and the Association of Convenience Stores, excluding representatives from the tobacco industry. I am aware that it is in the interest of these organisations to do everything possible to tackle the illicit market.
This set of amendments would require businesses distributing or storing tobacco, vaping and nicotine products for commercial purposes to obtain and operate under a valid licence. It outlines offences and penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; Scotland has its own system.
These amendments deliver two key benefits. They would help to tackle the rise in youth vaping and to curb illicit trade in tobacco products, although we are aware that the number of illicit cigarettes smoked in the UK has declined by 90% since 2000. I also accept, as the Minister has often said, that the best way to eliminate the illicit market in tobacco-containing products—I use that phrase carefully—is to eliminate demand, which is the objective of this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, before turning to the amendment in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. They propose the establishment of a new licensing scheme for the distribution of tobacco, vape and nicotine products in addition to the retail licensing scheme already provided for under the Bill.
While I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I am sure it will come as no surprise that we have some concerns. My noble friend Lord Howe and I have already shared concerns about the impact of the regulatory framework of this Bill and the burden it will place on legitimate businesses, especially small retailers and distributors, which are already subject to extensive compliance requirements under existing law, and which will be beset with further regulation under the proposals outlined in the Bill.
However, we understand the underlying concerns behind these amendments about the illicit market, so we believe that they are helpful in probing the Government to understand where they believe there are enforcement gaps and whether they have evidence of gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level of the supply chain. I am, therefore, grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Our understanding is that there are concerns over enforcement in relation to illegal imports at the customs level and illicit point-of-sale activity. These amendments give noble Lords an opportunity to ask the Minister where the Government believe the enforcement gaps are, and whether they currently exist.
In addition, if the Government have identified these gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level, do they believe that they could be best tackled by having a new, separate distributor licensing scheme, or do they share concerns over creating a second, parallel system operating alongside the retail one? My noble friend Earl Howe and I are concerned that such duplication risks adding unnecessary administrative complexity for local authorities, trading standards and legitimate operators alike. We also have concerns over how these two systems would interact, and whether businesses operating both wholesale and retail functions would be required to hold multiple licences and pay multiple fees. We are interested in the views of the Minister about our concerns.
Amendment 190, in my name and that of my noble friend Earl Howe, would require the Government to prepare and publish a national illicit tobacco and vape enforcement strategy within one year of the passing of this Act. This is a probing amendment—we have suggested one year; it could be slightly longer or shorter. We believe that this is a practical proposal which chimes with the intentions and ambitions of the Government on this Bill. Indeed, it is a concern that has been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. All noble Lords are concerned about illicit sales of tobacco and vapes, wherever we sit in this Room.
While we entirely share my noble friend Lord Bethell’s concern about the rise in illicit trade, we believe that the Government need a far more comprehensive view of how products enter, move through and are sold within the United Kingdom. They must develop an overall strategy to cover the stages of the supply chain from the point of import to transportation within the UK and, ultimately, to the sale of these products on our streets and online. In short, we need a coherent and strategic plan of enforcement that gives an overview, rather than one which tries to attack certain bits. Once we have the overview, we can look at where the gaps in enforcement exist and seek to plugs those gaps.
The trade in illicit tobacco and vape products is a serious and growing concern. We have heard throughout Committee that the introduction of a generational ban and other prohibitions in this Bill may, if not properly managed, risk pushing more activity underground into the illegal market. No noble Lord wants this to happen. No one benefits from a thriving illegal market but criminals and those that seek to circumvent the law. It undermines legitimate businesses, deprives the Exchequer of revenue and exposes consumers—often young people—to unregulated and potentially dangerous products.
That is why we believe it is essential for the Government to set out clearly how they intend to meet this challenge, and to explain who will lead, how the agencies will co-ordinate, what resources will be allocated and how success will be measured. We have attempted to be careful and sensitive in drafting this amendment; it does not demand an immediate response but sets out a reasonable and deliberate timetable. It gives one year, or perhaps a bit more, for the Government to prepare, consult on and publish a coherent strategy. That would give Ministers the time to review the evidence, engage with enforcement agencies and draw together the different strands of policy that are already being developed across departments.
If this Bill is to succeed in its wider aims, it must also be accompanied by a credible and co-ordinated plan to tackle the illicit market that so often undermines those very goals. This probing amendment simply seeks to understand how the Government intend to develop a strategy to tackle the illicit market, and whether they intend to take an overall and strategic view.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions in this debate and for these amendments, which rightly highlight the need to take a systematic approach to the illicit market. Having said that, we do not believe them to be necessary; I will gladly set out the reasons why in my remarks.
First, I am grateful for Amendments 39 to 41, 53, 54, 58 to 62, 123 to 125, 133 to 138, 206 to 208 and 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am sympathetic to the aims contained in these amendments; the Government certainly share the aim of strengthening enforcement throughout the supply chain and ensuring that only legal products are on the UK market. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides powers for the Government to implement a licensing scheme for tobacco and vape retailers. The focus on retailers is to ensure that illicit products do not reach members of the public where they pose a risk to public health. The retail licensing scheme will enable conditions to be imposed on retailers as part of the terms for obtaining a licence. We expect all retailers to comply with the law and not sell illicit products; doing so will risk their licence being revoked.
In addition to the licensing scheme, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to develop a new registration scheme for the products covered by the Bill. This will require all tobacco, vape and nicotine products to be registered before they can enter the market, meaning that wholesalers will be unable to supply illicit products to retailers as only compliant products should be available. The powers provided by the Bill also allow for the testing of products to ensure that they are what they claim to be. This will make it easier for enforcement officers to identify illicit products and to clamp down on both those who do not register products and those who seek to mislead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about spice vapes. I have a couple of points to make here. Vapes containing controlled drugs, including spice, are obviously illegal; naturally, this is a matter for the police and Border Force. I am sure that it will be understood that the regulation of controlled drugs is not a matter for this Bill. However, the measures in it will create a simpler and clearer regulatory environment, which will assist enforcement agencies in identifying and taking action against non-compliant vapes. Border Force is taking action to detect and seize supplies of vapes laced with drugs at the border and is following law enforcement to dismantle the criminal gangs that attempt to smuggle illicit commodities into the UK. It is of course worth noting that the import, production or supply of a class B drug such as spice carries a maximum sentence of up to 14 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
As well as the new measures in the Bill, there are already policies in place to manage products through the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked questions and made important points about the role of HMRC. For tobacco, HMRC already operates the tobacco “track and trace” system, which tracks the movement of all tobacco products, whether manufactured in or imported into the UK, through the supply chain all the way up to retail.
Also, the vaping products duty will come into force on 1 October next year, taxing vaping liquids at 22p per millilitre. To support the implementation of the duty, HMRC is introducing a range of measures, such as a duty stamps scheme to support the identification of non-duty-paid products, as well as investment in more than 300 additional enforcement officers. Vaping duty stamps will be in a hybrid digital and physical format, which will allow product tracing and authentication. Together, these schemes will better support a compliant market and weed out illicit products, as we all seek to do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 190, which seeks to publish a strategy to deal with illicit tobacco and vapes. I understand the concerns that have been raised regarding illicit sales, but this amendment is unnecessary given that the Government already publish a strategy on illicit tobacco sales.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments and to the Minister for her response. The very fact that there is an illicit market is an indication that there are gaps in enforcement. This group of amendments is an effort to control that illicit market or, at the very least, to deter illicit supply by way of the size of the financial penalties proposed.
The Minister mentioned vapes laced with spice, which are often obtained online by young people from websites with a very poor level of age restriction. Many of them do not even know what they are getting because many of these products claim to have THC, the active element of cannabis, in them and do not mention spice at all. Perhaps that leads us to reconsider the earlier amendment that proposed a ban on online sales, because it might get rid of that problem.
However, I accept that the Government are keen on controlling the illicit market. That the strategy will be based on the illicit tobacco strategy will help, because it will be based on lessons learned, I hope. So I am content for the moment to look forward to the increased powers of HMRC and increased funding for enforcement. I will not press my amendments any further.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I feel it is appropriate that we should have at least a short debate on Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 130, partly because they raise concerns that are very similar to those I had intended to flag when responding to the group of government amendments that were, in the event, not moved. Our debate on that group of amendments must remain a pleasure in store.
However, these clauses together confer on Ministers the power to take over the enforcement and prosecutions of local authorities or other enforcement authorities, either for individual cases or entire categories of cases. The inclusion of these powers in the Bill needs explaining, first, because they appear to go much further than is necessary or appropriate and, secondly, because they raise a number of important questions about the relationship between central and local enforcement and about accountability.
At present, the Bill rightly places day-to-day enforcement in the hands of local weights and measures authorities, which have the expertise, local knowledge and operational independence needed to make these judgments. Under these clauses, however, the Secretary of State or the devolved Ministers could simply direct that those functions are to be discharged instead by Ministers centrally. There is no statutory test to be met before that happens, no requirement for the local authority to have failed or refused to act, and no mechanism for consultation, appeal or review.
By any standard, that is a very wide power to exercise over democratically elected local authorities. In effect, it allows central government to displace local enforcement at will. Inherent in the exercise of this power is a risk that enforcement decisions become politicised. Local authorities act impartially and are guided by the evidential tests and the public interest. One can imagine a situation in which a future Government—I am not saying this one—choose to intervene and adopt an approach of their own when taking over investigations or prosecutions. How will we safeguard the impartiality of decision-making? How will the basis of any decisions be scrutinised or, indeed, challenged?
There is the added issue of proportionality. If these are intended as reserve powers for exceptional circumstances, the Bill should say so. At the moment, there are no thresholds, no published criteria and no requirement even to lay a Statement before Parliament when such powers are used.
We have tabled these stand part notices to probe the Government on several points, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, why does the Secretary of State need these powers at all, given the enforcement architecture already in existence and set out elsewhere in the Bill? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage using them? Is this a genuine power of last resort or something that might be used more routinely? Thirdly, what safeguards will there be for local authorities whose functions are overridden? Will they be consulted, or have the right of challenge? Fourthly, how will accountability work once a Minister takes over enforcement? Will there be a published direction, a report to Parliament or any means of scrutiny? Finally, how do these powers sit with the devolved authorities?
We all want effective enforcement of the law, and there may be rare cases where national co-ordination is required. However, I think we need some further and better particulars from the Minister.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delete Clause 35 and its associated clauses. I do not believe that the backstop, which enables the Secretary of State to take over enforcement from trading standards, is a power grab; it is necessary in case a local authority goes into administration and cannot fund trading standards. Similar measures to protect social services in the case of a local authority going into administration can be found in the Care Act 2014, amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 recognise that there may be situations where it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to act rather than local weights and measures authorities.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to these comments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain further the clauses relating to enforcement powers, which I think is what he is seeking from these amendments, and to look at the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 30 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 provides a power for the Secretary of State in England or Welsh Ministers in Wales to carry out the investigation and enforcement of a particular case or a particular type of case instead of local authority trading standards. Similarly, Clause 36 provides a power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings relating to an offence under Part 1 or under any regulations made under Clauses 13 or 14 regarding the display of products or prices. Clauses 129 and 130 serve a similar purpose in relation to Part 6, which makes provisions on advertising and sponsorship. Clause 129 provides a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make a direction about the enforcement of the Part 6 provisions. Clause 130 provides a power for the appropriate national authority to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings within their respective jurisdictions relating to an offence under this part of the Bill.
These clauses replace and are based on existing legislation. Trading standards operate in all local authorities, and it is standard practice that they would undertake required local enforcement action and pursue legal proceedings. However—this is referring to the comments made by the noble Earl—these powers provide a useful safeguard for the unlikely situation in which a local authority is unable or unwilling to take enforcement in a particular case. These powers reflect the landscape in which tobacco control measures operate. Individual local authority trading standards departments might not have the resources or willingness to take enforcement action and legal proceedings in cases where this action involves or has significant implications for large multinational companies. In instances such as these, these powers may be used to ensure consistent, strong and effective enforcement.
The noble Earl raised the devolved Administrations. Health is a devolved matter and the Bill builds on the existing legal frameworks of all four of the nations. This means that there are some differences in the provisions between each nation. I think we have outlined how the accountability of these powers will be managed through the different existing arrangements.
The noble Earl also raised the specific matter of scrutiny. I hope I have covered the points throughout the comments that I have made.
I hope noble Lords are reassured that these are necessary clauses based on existing legislation. Together they ensure effective enforcement and therefore should stand part of this Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of a clause stand part debate at this stage of the Bill is to ask some questions. There is no implication that the clause should be deleted. I simply wanted to ask those questions and to ensure that some answers are placed on the record, and I am very grateful to the Minister for doing just that.
I welcome her explanatory comments; it is right, in the light of what she said, that Ministers should have the tools they need to ensure effective enforcement where the public interest demands it. However, I remain concerned that the powers set out in these clauses are unqualified, and I would like to think about that further. I recognise that it is possible to conceive of circumstances where ministerial intervention might be justified—for example, where a case raises genuine national issues or where there has been a manifest failure to act for whatever reason. However, that is precisely why I felt some form of conditionality ought to be built into the legislation.
I appreciate that there is precedent for provisions of this kind, and I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Between now and Report, I will consider whether the Bill could be improved with the addition of some clear thresholds, safeguards or procedural tests. For now, I am content to move to the next group of amendments.