House of Lords
Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper, published on 20 October 2025, to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the post-16 White Paper sets out our plan for giving people of all ages the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed and we need in order to develop a workforce that supports growth and national renewal. Through a range of policies and reforms across government, including the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement, we will take a system-wide approach to promoting a culture of lifelong learning.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. I know she is aware that tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the launch by the then Arts Minister, Jennie Lee, later Baroness Lee of Asheridge, of the White Paper which led to the establishment of the Open University. That institution stands today as one of the finest legacies of any Labour Government. The 1966 White Paper emphasised that student enrolment should be open to everyone. This was referenced in the post-16 White Paper comment that there should be “no place or person” excluded from further education. Does my noble friend agree that more flexible pathways into and through higher education are necessary, as well as improved adult skills, that these are critical for economic growth, and that the Open University has a major role to play in this?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend’s comments. I recognise the enormous contribution that a previous Labour Government made through Jennie Lee with the establishment of the Open University—and the contribution that the Open University has made in the last 60 years to enable people to learn in a way that suits them throughout their lives. It has transformed many people’s lives. As my noble friend says, we need to learn from that, not just in terms of our higher education but in how we can use the lifelong learning entitlement to enable people to learn throughout their lives—in further education and through independent learning providers and HE, supported by student finance. In the modern world, with a changing workplace, it is crucial that we enable that to happen and it is right that people have those opportunities.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was intended to usher in a skills revolution. But I fear that it will turn into a pea-shooter initiative unless the funding, the eligibility of which is restricted to level 4 and level 5 courses, is widened so that students can take level 7 courses. Will the Government set out what plans they have to do that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important that we introduce the lifelong learning entitlement in a relatively restricted way, enabling us to build for the future. The key requirements, which I was addressing yesterday, are to provide flexibility for students at levels 4, 5 and 6. Those are the first priorities that we have set for the lifelong learning entitlement.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was the number one recommendation of the Augar review back in 2019, so one cannot say that implementation has been very rapid. Can the Minister give us any progress information on how many providers are proposing to offer modular provision, and on the consultation on break points in degrees, which would make it easier for people to study without having to undertake a complete undergraduate degree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness, and I am kicking myself for not knowing the numbers which will be in a position to offer modular provision in January 2027. We have taken quite a careful approach to ensuring that those which are able to do that will be offering high-quality courses at that point. We have had a very good response to that.
We are working now to determine how, as the noble Baroness says, we can enable there to be break points in degrees so that people can, at both level 4 and level 5, in some ways bank the learning that they have done and then possibly return to it later in life. I know she will push me to say that it is also important that we expand the numbers of students who are taking level 4 or 5 courses on their own as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
Following on from the emphasis on level 4 and 5 courses, what are we doing to encourage parents and pupils to accept that going on to level 4 and 5 courses after A-levels is a socially acceptable option, and one which schools should encourage? This cultural barrier is clearly one that has to be scrambled over.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. When we were talking yesterday about the opportunities provided by V-levels and T-levels, I also talked about the way in which they would increase the numbers of people who would take level 4 and 5 courses. We all have a responsibility to show the credibility and the currency that both vocational and technical education can provide for young people.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, this year marks the 20th anniversary of Unionlearn, which my noble friend Lord Blunkett should take a good deal of credit for, and which, at its peak, together with union learning reps, helped a quarter of a million workers into learning for the first time. Many of them would never have gone through a conventional classroom. Can my noble friend the Minister say what progress there is for supporting Unionlearn and enabling it to get back to helping more working people back into learning in the workplace?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I can remember the contribution made by the union learning fund to support trade unions to enable the development of skills in their workplaces. It is a real shame that the last Government removed the funding from it. I can tell my noble friend that this is something that, relatively recently, we have been discussing within one of the two departments that I operate within. We are thinking about how we can get some of those benefits back and ensure that trade unions are able to contribute in a way in which they historically have done, to not only the representation of the workforce but the development of the workforce.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
I declare my interest as a former chairman of King’s College London. What discussions have HMG had with the principals and vice-chancellors of universities on this subject?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I chair an advisory group on how we can develop and deliver the lifelong learning entitlement, which is well attended by vice-chancellors. I talk about the opportunities for lifelong learning whenever I get the chance.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we support the Government’s White Paper objective that higher education reforms will drive economic growth. But that will work only if degrees benefit both students and the taxpayer. Does the Minister agree that there are currently too many degrees which contribute to neither growth nor positive outcomes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Although the noble Earl did not revert to the language that some of his colleagues have used about university degrees, I share the view that, if we are expecting both young people and the state to invest in higher education, it needs to be of high quality. That is why I support the Office for Students in its current work to have a better definition of “quality” for higher education courses and why we have made it clear that we will want to link future increases in tuition fees to that measure of quality.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, I too commend the work of the Open University in opening access to higher education. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is a targeted pathway in place to reduce the numbers of young people not in employment, education or training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm that to my noble friend. Since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions took on the role, it has been a key priority to tackle the 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning. That level is far too high and has been in existence for far too long. That is the reasoning behind the investment this Government are making in the youth guarantee, for example.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that lifelong learning needs to be based upon a strong foundation, which has at its heart valuing education. That means that all parents should ensure that their children get into school, stay in school regularly and value the education that is on offer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why we celebrate the 5 million additional days that children have been in school over the last year. In our schools White Paper we set a further challenging target to get young people back into school and attending full-time. The noble Lord is right that we need the support of parents to do that.
Quantum Technology
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the UK is able to optimise the opportunities arising from quantum technology.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s national quantum programme has seeded a world-leading emerging sector. The Government are increasing investment from £1 billion in the last decade to £1 billion over the next four years. This funding will accelerate deployment of quantum sensors, networks and computers, turning the UK’s research excellence into industrial impact. It will also build the skills base, infrastructure and international partnerships necessary to cement the UK’s leadership position in what are game-changing technologies.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the UK has an extraordinary opportunity when it comes to quantum: a potential 7% increase in productivity by 2045. That is some £212 billion. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to go further and faster in skills; in accepting all the recommendations of last year’s quantum taskforce; in scaling, to make bigger bets right across the quantum stack; and in driving demand, with government as an efficient, effective first customer—in short, being bolder and going deeper? The benefits to the UK economy can be measured in the billions.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The short answer is yes, and noble Lords will hear more about that shortly. All those things are critical. We have a good skills programme. There was a good report in July last year to deal with that. We are looking at options, including the use of procurement to make sure that this technology is pulled through.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, with the leading position that the UK has in quantum computing, what plans do the Government have for translational research, particularly in the areas of drug discovery, pharmaco- kinetics, next generation imaging and compute power, which will be needed to deliver on artificial general intelligence?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question. Quantum computers will be best for quantum problems. Drug discovery is a quantum problem, so it is exactly the sort of area for which this will be useful. We have five hubs specifically looking at both basic science and translation: a biomedical sensing hub dealing with imaging and other areas, including blood testing; a sensing, imaging and timing hub in Birmingham; an integrated network hub in Edinburgh; a quantum computing hub in Oxford; and a hub on position, navigation and timing. These are all about pulling the technology through in due course.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given the worrying flow of some UK quantum companies taking money from or moving abroad, particularly to the US, in search of additional funding, is my noble friend the Minister confident that we are doing enough to map where in the UK the expertise is? It is important to us for national security, apart from anything else, that we have our own sovereign capability. Are we mapping it as well as we can and do we have an early warning system, such that we can intervene when some of these newly developing companies are thinking of going abroad, so that we can give them the support, funding or whatever else they need to stay in the UK, where we need them to grow?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My noble friend asks an important question. There is no doubt that UK quantum companies look pretty attractive at the moment. We have a good idea of where those companies are, what their skills are and what is going on across the quantum space, but I believe there is a need to have all the levers in place to make sure that these companies stay in the UK. Yes, that is about funding, but also about regulation, procurement and giving the signals that can leverage the investment that these companies will need, as many of them are getting up to very significant valuations.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will take the Lib Dems then come to the Conservative Benches.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, quantum technology clearly has profound implications for our future national security, including for the secure communications on which we all rely and for potential future threats to cryptography. How are the Government working to ensure the alignment of the national quantum strategy with our cyber and national security strategies? What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s sovereign capability in key parts of the quantum supply chain?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There are two important parts to that question. First, it is necessary to make sure that all existing data go through into post-quantum cryptography—in other words, into things that cannot be broken by quantum computers. That process is being led by the National Cyber Security Centre, which is working with businesses and trying to get them into place to have that ready, but it is not a short-term project. It will take quite a long time to get all that done. Secondly, the race is on to make sure that we are at the very forefront of getting a working, scaled quantum computer, because that is what will give us an advantage in all these areas. We work very closely with the security agencies across all this.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
Will the Minister acknowledge that our theoretical physicist community, which is powerful and underpins so much of the sensible things the Minister has been saying, is feeling considerable anxiety at the moment because of the scale of the cuts proposed by UKRI to the Science and Technology Facilities Council? Will he urge UKRI to publish an impact assessment of its proposals?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I absolutely acknowledge the concern of a particular branch of physics—particle physics and astronomy—which has historically been placed under the Science and Technology Facilities Council. That is a bit of an odd situation, because it means its funding is traded off against facilities. That is exactly what is being looked at, at the moment. My number one priority for UKRI is to protect and grow investigator-led, curiosity-driven research, because that is the very thing that will give us the advantage in 10, 20 or 30 years. There is a very clear instruction that we are going to protect that. At the moment, UKRI is looking at the impacts of potential changes to funding, but no decisions have been made on that yet. I recognise the problem.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, quantum technology is possibly, indeed probably, the most disruptive and transformational technology yet invented by mankind. Thankfully, with our world-leading science base, the UK already has the second-highest number of start-ups working in this sector. Thankfully too, we definitely have a considered embryonic national strategy, which the Minister has outlined. Nevertheless, is it not inevitable —we can see it happening already—that the UK will soon be outspent by the US, China and the EU? Do we not need continuously to recalibrate our strategy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. About 11% of all companies in the world in quantum are in the UK. We are second in investment, but this is a race, others are spending huge amounts of money here and many of our companies look pretty attractive. That is why we have a series of programmes, not just funding at the front end to keep grant funding and other support but thinking about how we get pull-through into procurement. That is what will keep these companies here, allow them to grow here and allow them to have the export opportunities. I look at this on a daily basis. This is a critical technology, a big growth opportunity for the UK and one where we have years of advance progress putting us at the leading edge. Over the past 60 years or so, as a country we have not done well at making sure we scale and keep companies and new technologies. We must do everything we can to achieve this in quantum.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, to build on the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, quantum technologies will at some point, probably soon, enable a huge range of new capabilities across our lives, including in defence, healthcare, commerce and scientific research. So significant, broad and complex will be the impact that I suspect we will look back with nostalgia at the relative ease and simplicity of regulating AI. Can the Minister share what plans the Government have to regulate quantum and what steps, if any, have been taken so far?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The first thing to say is that I think AI and quantum will come together, so the two technologies will be extremely powerful. We commissioned some work from the Regulatory Horizons Council, which has produced the world’s first approach to regulating quantum, very much in the line of regulating use, not the development of the technologies. That has led to a series of fora where regulators are getting together to discuss this. It is something that we are at the leading edge of, but it is very early days for knowing exactly what that regulation should look like. I am sure this House will have many views on that subject.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we have been lulled to some extent by the fact that quantum has taken a long time to get to this point. The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that money has been accelerated from £1 billion over 10 years to over four years, but does he not recognise that the rate of progress has accelerated even further? Should the Government not go back and look again at even more acceleration? If not, we will be passed.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that I look at that every day. I am looking at ways to make sure we unlock more private sector capital to get this acceleration. This is at a stage where these companies need to grow as private sector companies. We need to help that. We need to unlock the masses more capital than government could or should give to make that happen.
Prisons: Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of education in prisons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The provision of prison education is not good enough and budgets have not kept pace with rising costs. I am determined to improve the quality of education by driving up classroom attendance, expanding access by embracing digital learning and strengthening partnerships with employers such as Morrisons, FirstGroup and Marston’s to provide training and jobs on release. Work to improve reading in prisons is a priority and I am pleased to let your Lordships know that Lee Child is our first prison reading laureate.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure we can all agree that education will play a crucial part in trying to reduce the incredibly worrying reoffending rates. The Minister has been very kind in giving me detailed responses to Written Questions. I am sure Members will be concerned and worried, in relation to our education programme providers, that at Feltham 60.2% of education programming was not provided and at Wetherby 44.9% was not provided—and so it goes on. Can the Minister assure us that the programmes will be fully provided by the contracted provider? Will we get a rebate on the money that was not provided? Finally, do we have any means of inspecting the quality of provision and the quality of delivery?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right and I am looking at this on a daily basis. I walk past too many classrooms in prisons that are not full. Some are only one-third full. If I owned an airline and my planes were one-third full, I would not be doing very well. Recent Ofsted inspections have been encouraging, but we need to make sure our prisons are far more stable. When they are 99.9% full, the priority is not education, unfortunately, but it should be. It is a combination of having more stable prisons, working with our education providers to create a more stable environment to get more men and women out of their cells into education, and developing in-cell digital learning.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next, then we will go to the Labour Benches.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, but can he explain why we continue to release prisoners early without requiring or securing a measurable improvement in literacy and numeracy?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
This is the final question that the noble Earl will be asking me, because today is my 600th day in the job and his penultimate day in your Lordships’ House. I thank him very much for his contribution. There are too many people coming in and out of prison, especially in female establishments. The average number of days spent in a female prison that I have been to recently is less than 45, which is not enough time to give people training. The staff we have in our prisons do an incredible job educating men and women. Anna Fellingham, who is the librarian at HMP Frankland, was recently praised by the inspectors for her creative writing courses for all abilities. It is the time that our educators spend with prisoners in stable prison environments that is going to make the difference. We want people to leave prison not just being able to read and write but having the skills for a job on release, so that when they get out, they do not come back.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree with me and the University and College Union that this is the time to make a clean break with the outsourced delivery of prison education and to bring it back in-house to be run by the Department for Education, for the benefit of prisoners and as a public service rather than for profit? Hundreds of jobs look like being cut and we hope this would stop that. Can he make an intervention to ensure that we do not lose more prison educators, whom we clearly need? I thank him for the warmth with which he speaks about prison education, but we need to keep them in and it should be an in-house service.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend knows we have had a mixed model of education in our prisons for nearly 30 years. What is important is that we support our educators and support staff in prisons by getting prisoners out of their cells into classrooms so they can do the fantastic work that they do. For me, the focus is on the right kind of support for the right prisoner at the right time. Prisoners and prisons differ, so we need to make sure we target it in the right way. But when we talk about education and we think about classrooms, we also need to think about workshops, because getting skills like dry-lining, bricklaying, and painting and decorating is just as important in many ways, and probably more important to many prisoners, as going to the classroom, which many of them had a bad experience of when they were younger.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I was encouraged by the Minister’s previous comments. I was going to ask about vocational education and whether the impact of that is being measured. Clearly, all education matters. At a recent visit to HMP Styal, I was particularly impressed by the work of The Clink, which sadly has shut after 10 years. How can the Government invest better in partnerships in that vocational sphere?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. Styal is my local female prison that I have been going to for probably most of my life, so I am well aware of the challenges but also the opportunities there. The partnership model is something that I have been doing for 25 years, encouraging businesses, volunteers and charities to go into prisons, work with prisoners and give them skills. I am pleased that a number of companies are opening up workshops—Iceland, for example, has recently set up establishments—but, unfortunately, we have 72 workshops that are vacant at the moment. One of my priorities is to fill those workshops, not just with organisations coming in but with internal prison industries. We manage to make everything in a prison cell apart from the TV, the duvet and the pillow, so there are more things that we can make. We are trying to do more work across government to make things, give people skills and help the economy.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that neurodivergent people are disproportionately represented in prisons; a 2021 review found that the figure was up to 50%. So educational needs are higher but, unlike in mainstream education, there is no incremental budget to deal with this. What are the Minister’s Government doing to empower tutors to meet the special educational needs of prisoners with neurodivergence, so that they can come out of prison equipped to live a life without crime? Will the Government commit to solving the complexities of data collection? Without understanding the scale and nature of the problem, it will be very difficult to address it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I shall address those two separate points. Data collection is something that challenges me every day, along with vetting. As someone who has run a business where I had all the information at my fingertips, I find it frustrating, as I know other colleagues do, that we do not get all the information we need to manage—but that is something that I am working on.
On neurodivergent prisoners, we have made big strides in appointing neurodiversity managers in prisons, but also in focusing not just on classrooms but on the environment where prisoners are. Some of the most inspiring work that I have seen in prisons recently is on autism wings, where staff are heavily trained to support these often vulnerable and challenging prisoners. When they do, the prisoners’ behaviour completely turns around and they go from being challenging, often violent prisoners to being those who really engage with the regime and get the skills they need.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, among the challenges to successful education in prisons are excessive hours spent in overcrowded cells and the lack of internet access alluded to by the Minister. What plans do the Government have to address both those challenges in the context of prison education?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
There are some good reasons why we do not want internet everywhere in prisons, but 90% of the English estate now has digital learning in its cells in various ways: Launchpad or Coracle. My vision is that we need to go much further with that, as well as offering a much wider curriculum on iPads or computers in cells, because that is an increasingly popular way for prisoners to educate themselves.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, today is my noble friend Lord Attlee’s penultimate day as a Member of this House, so I take this opportunity to thank him for all his hard work and wish him well.
The manifesto pledged the Government to work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to purposeful activity. Last week the Minister informed the House that access to in-prison education can reduce offending by up to nine percentage points. Why then has the Minister approved a prison education settlement that will cut core national education in prisons by 25%?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct that it cuts the actual provision: the budget we have has gone up, but you just get less value for money. This comes back to my aeroplane theory: I want the aeroplane—that is, the classrooms—to be full. However, we are doing more than that. We have a working-week trial in five prisons, where prisoners will be out of their cells for most of the day. This comes back to the point that we need to run stable regimes in our prisons, so we can have a regular drumbeat of education and purposeful activity. That can make the difference between people getting the skills they need and them leaving prison with no skills—and, when they leave with no skills, it is pretty obvious what happens.
Student Loans: Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the student loans regime.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making tough but necessary decisions to protect both taxpayers and students. It is right that those who can afford to repay their student loans do so. The system remains heavily subsidised. Lower-earning graduates are always protected by the cancellation of any outstanding loan and interest at the end of their repayment term. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that. At the moment, a student leaving with an average debt of £53,000 has to earn £66,000 per year just to cover the interest on the debt. The deputy leader of the Labour Party recently described that as “egregious”. The Budget made the situation even worse by freezing the thresholds for students from 2027. A month ago, the Chancellor described the current regime as “fair and reasonable”, but not a lot of people agreed. Does the noble Baroness think the leader of the Opposition might be on the right track by suggesting capping loans at RPI?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know the noble Lord would not want the suggestion to be made that the level of debt impacts on the amount anybody repays in any given month, because, of course, that is wrong. As I have already identified, the majority of students do not repay the whole of their loan, so they already receive a considerable subsidy from the state. I am sure there are noble Lords in this House who feel slightly aggrieved about being accused, as the leader of the Opposition did, of presiding over a scam in developing the current plan 2 student loan system, but it is important that we maintain the protection for students and graduates that the student loan system creates while being open to thinking about how we can mitigate its burdens on students and those who are repaying their student finance.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of how the increasing burden of student debt will influence young people’s decisions not to go to university, particularly for young people in regions of the UK where average salaries are really low? Are we going back to a situation where attending university will be just for the wealthy?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No we are not, and nor should we, which is why we have made increasing access and participation a major pillar of our reforms of higher education. Despite the student loan system, we have seen an increase in the numbers of young people going to university. We now need to close the gap between those who come from advantaged backgrounds and those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, which has stubbornly remained. The student finance system removes any upfront fees from students to ensure that anybody who could benefit from higher education can.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the student finance system is broken. Students face soaring repayments that they never signed up for. May I suggest, for instance, that public sector workers—doctors, nurses, teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civil servants, and so on—who will never earn the eye-watering salaries of the private sector, have their loans written off after, say, 10 years of public service? Meanwhile, how about a complete revamp and building a cross-party consensus on what a fairer system would be?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To be clear, once again, the level of debt does not determine the level of repayments that students make. To suggest that it does confuses and misleads those thinking about going to university. I take the point that has been made recently about the pressure of student loan repayments. As a Government, we have had to set priorities in the 18 months we have been in power. We have chosen to stabilise the finances of our universities, introduce maintenance grants, increase the maintenance support for students, take action to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning—let alone getting the chance to go to university—and reverse the decline in young people starting apprenticeships. That is a pretty fair set of priorities.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, in England alone, outstanding student debt now stands at £270 billion and is forecast to reach £500 billion by the late 2040s. With respect to the nation’s balance sheet, how much of this total debt do we realistically expect to be repaid? What, therefore, are the net liability implications for keeping to our fiscal rules?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As a Government, we recognise and support the public subsidy that the student finance scheme implies for students. For plan 2 full-time borrowers who started their courses in 2022-23, for example, we expect that only 32% of them will repay their loans in full. This is therefore a public subsidy for those individuals and for realising the broader public benefits that higher education brings, not only for those who have the opportunity to go through it but for society more broadly.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that my noble friend the Minister thinks that changes could be made to the system to make it fairer. However, does she agree that it is not sensible to think that there was a golden era when everybody went to university without worry? I went to university during a time when there were maintenance grants, but there was huge pressure in those times, particularly on people from lower incomes whose parents could not afford to put the top-ups in. We need to remember that when we consider the changes that need to be made. If she can make it fairer, that is good, but do not imagine that there was some previous time when everything was wonderful.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I went to university without a student loan, but I was part of only 14% of young people who were able to benefit from higher education. That figure now stands at more than 50%, and we need a student finance system that recognises that. I reiterate that the Government are making changes to student finance. We will reintroduce student grants and we are increasing maintenance loans for students. We are therefore opening up the opportunity for more students from lower-income backgrounds to get the benefits that higher education brings.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham put it so well, Rachel Reeves says that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”; Lucy Powell, on the other hand, says that the system is “unfair” and “egregious”, while Bridget Phillipson says that it is not a priority for the Government. With three contradictory views on a review of student loans, is it any surprise to the Minister that, according to the latest Ipsos survey, over two-thirds of the country
“do not have confidence that the Government is running the country … properly, competently or seriously”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wonder whether the noble Earl has had the opportunity to discuss with some of his colleagues whether they believe that the system that they introduced is a scam. This is a system that was introduced by the previous Government. Plan 2 is no longer in operation for students starting today. Finally, if the leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest to students that they will repay less through a cap on interest, she would, of course, be misleading them, because that would not be true.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Sutton Trust, which has done wonderful work in this area, has shown that students who cannot afford to leave home do worse in their studies and throughout life. Will the Minister give student maintenance top priority and make it open to everybody, as it was in my time? I hope she will be brave enough not to shy away from the possible need to cut university places, have some mergers and make sure that we are not oversupplied with courses and universities that are not worth the money that students are paying.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness that reducing the numbers of people who can benefit from higher education is the most effective way to address this issue, although I agree that we need to address the cost of living crisis that current students face. That is why we are increasing the support available through maintenance loans, and it is why this Government will reintroduce the maintenance grants cut by the previous Government.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise of noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This Bill is a huge step forward. By unlocking the potential of sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK, we can significantly reduce aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships’ input as this Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny of this legislation has been welcome, particularly on HEFA. I am sorry about the acronyms—this Bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been exemplary in their engagement on the Bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny, and in particular for making sure that transparency is at the forefront of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable.
The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the Government’s intention. In addition, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the expertise and clarity he has brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, including the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in Parliamentary Counsel and others who have been involved in its successful passage.
I look forward to seeing this Bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably. This Bill does just that. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, before I say a few words, I would like to declare my interest, as listed in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I thank the Minister and the Government for continuing the sustainable aviation fuel regime that we set out, the revenue certainty mechanism and the investment in UK industrial production of sustainable aviation fuel. I thank him for listening carefully to the points made by colleagues in Committee, and for bringing forward appropriate amendments on Report. Finally, I thank him for responding to a number of points I made by committing to keeping the House informed as government policy develops in this area. I am very pleased to support the Bill as it makes its way on to the statute book.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
I welcome the passage of this Bill. It will result in a slight increase in costs as far as the training sector of aviation is concerned, but that is a small price to pay for the overall benefits.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. I will briefly thank the Minister and his team for their time in all our meetings and for their collaborative approach during the passage of the Bill. In particular, the accommodation we reached on the exclusion of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids fuels—HEFA—from revenue certainty mechanism support, and the helpful response of the Minister to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a Statement in Parliament if that were to be changed, meets the intent of my amendments and that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This will provide important clarity for industry and focus support where it is most needed in de-risking the more immature technologies.
It has been welcome to see rare cross-party support for a Bill in the energy space, and I hope we can carry forward that collaborative spirit on future energy Bills in the next Session.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we reach the final stage of this Bill, I say a huge thank you to the Minister and his team of officials. They have been incredibly open to discussion and have genuinely listened to our concerns throughout this process. I hope the Minister agrees with me that our discussions on reporting and monitoring will help to ensure that the impacts of the legislation are understood thoroughly as it is implemented, including by government, the sector and other stakeholders. This level of engagement has been vital in making sure that it is practical and ready to work in the real world. This legislation will provide the clarity and confidence the industry needs to finally get the wheels turning on sustainable aviation fuel.
I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his support and hard work behind the scenes. I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for his immense work and support on this Bill. Ultimately, our goal is to see the aviation industry embrace a cleaner future. This Bill is an important step forward, making sustainable aviation fuel a common reality rather than a distant goal and ensuring that we can stay connected while significantly reducing the sector’s environmental impact. I look forward to seeing this legislation put into practice and seeing a much higher proportion of sustainable fuel in the sector in the years to come.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, despite the applause from all sides of the Chamber for this Bill, I am afraid it remains a very troubling piece of legislation. It has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, effectively as a piece of net-zero legislation, but, as I have insisted throughout its passage, this is not net- zero legislation. The net-zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place 15 or 16 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in an increasing amount of HEFA, and, increasingly, other fuels, over time. That is what will make the contribution to net zero.
This Bill is in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we will consume SAF, we need to be a world leader in producing it. Despite my pressing the Government repeatedly, the Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should dedicate resources to it. The Bill’s means of doing this is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. It really is, as I say, very troubling.
Through this Bill, we are now guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. We on our side sought a commitment from the Government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they will actually pay for this policy over the years ahead. Much of what matters to make this Bill work is in fact saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials on the one hand and the shark-toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success—I am sure the Minister would want to say that.
Despite all that, I cannot fail to thank the Minister for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation, in working with the official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. I also thank his officials, who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. I am grateful to all those people for doing that.
I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on certain amendments. We have achieved some improvements to the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships’ House. None the less, the best solution for this Bill would be that it is never called upon or used, and that we procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in Britain or elsewhere.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister promised to clean up politics, yet we have had the Cabinet Office investigating one of its own Ministers before belatedly referring the matter to the independent adviser. The process has been conflicted from the outset. The Cabinet Office investigation was conducted by the propriety and ethics team, PET—a team to which a former Labour Together staffer was appointed. Does the Minister agree that such an appointment to PET was plainly unwise, and is the person in question still in that position?
We are told that the Minister in question must remain in post while the independent investigation takes place. Can the Minister here cite where within the remit of the independent adviser it says that he cannot be investigated while suspended as a Minister? Will she set out to the House the precise terms of the referral to the independent adviser and whether the investigation extends beyond Mr Simons’s tenure as a Minister?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Good afternoon. I thank the noble Baroness for her questions, of which there were several. Let me see whether I can assist her with some of her concerns.
First, I place on record my thanks and the thanks of the Government to the civil servants who have so diligently undertaken their work. The noble Baroness will be aware that civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, and that therefore all their actions are impartial. Given some of the questions, it is important that we do not cast aspersions on their impartiality or their ability to do their roles without fear or favour.
On the appointment on a former member of staff from Labour Together to the team, I would like to clarify that the post in question sits within the wider propriety and constitution group, not in the propriety and ethics team. That member of staff had nothing to do with the fact-finding exercise that was undertaken by the Cabinet Office.
To confirm the process, what has happened is a fact-finding mission by the propriety and ethics team, the findings of which were discussed with the Prime Minister, with the recommendation that the independent adviser on ethics undertake a process. Sir Laurie Magnus is now undertaking that process, and I would expect him to report soon. Noble Lords will be aware that all his publications are placed in the public domain, so we will all be able to read his recommendations.
On the role of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, I hate to say it but the clue may be in the name: it is on ministerial standards. Sir Laurie Magnus can investigate only Ministers, as has always been the case. There is no such thing as a suspended Minister; there is a Minister or not a Minister. Therefore, he is undertaking an investigation into the Member in the other place as a Minister.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the serious questions about the behaviour of Josh Simons, who is now a Minister, and the inappropriateness of his pursuit of particular journalists are now under investigation, and we support that investigation. I want to ask a wider question about the transparency of funding for third-party campaigns. Why on earth was Labour Together so protective about its funding and will we now be told where its funding was coming from? Will the Government take the opportunity of the elections Bill, now published, to ensure that third-party campaigns are caught by the requirement for transparency of funding? This is a question across the spectrum, as the Minister will remember. The Free Speech Union, for example, recently took out an emergency injunction to prevent its funding being leaked. In a democratic society, we should be told where these third-party campaigns are getting their money from.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point that we have discussed in recent weeks. He will be aware that the elections Bill has now been published. I should declare that I have, historically, been responsible for a third-party campaign, HOPE not hate, and that, until the general election, I used to run Index on Censorship. The noble Lord will appreciate some of my concern about recent events. To be clear, the questions pertaining to the actions of Labour Together are a matter for Labour Together, not a matter for the Government. It is an independent organisation, subject to its own governance structures, and noble Lords will be aware that it has its own reporting arrangements. On the wider point, it is something that Members of your Lordships’ House will be discussing in great detail when the elections Bill is in front of us.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot begin to express how appalled I am that attacks should have been made upon independent journalists investigating a matter which was a legitimate matter to be investigated by the media. I should declare immediately that I am on the high-level legal panel that advises the Media Freedom Coalition, a global coalition of 51 countries that are seeking to protect journalists. It is quite shocking that any person holding a leadership position should be attacking journalists, when we know that independent journalism is fundamental to democracy and our security, and absolutely something that this Government and any Government should be protecting. I really am concerned at how thin this investigation might have been—it did not go deep enough. The funding has been raised, and what the funding is about, but I am asking the representative on the Front Bench to explain to us how deep this investigation was. This goes to the heart of our democracy. Attacking journalists—good journalists—should never take place.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend and I worked together when I was the chief executive of Index on Censorship, and in fact I was a member of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists under the previous Government, which, under the current Government, is co-chaired by Jess Phillips MP and Steph Peacock MP. My noble friend will be aware that we announced yesterday that the Media Freedom Coalition will be co-chaired by the UK for the next two years. I appreciate and share many of her concerns. The investigation that is currently under way is about the actions of Josh Simons as a Minister. My noble friend will be aware that there are other investigations ongoing, outside government, related to the actions of APCO, and Labour Together obviously has its own governance issues to deal with.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the Minister has just highlighted the flaw in this process. When the Prime Minister makes a decision about the continuation of Mr Simons as a Minister, will he have just the information provided by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, or will he look at Mr Simon’s behaviour when he was at Labour Together? As the noble Baroness has just said, his actions in that organisation appear to have been an attempt to smear journalists. If it is found that he did that, that is what would make him not fit to be a Minister. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that when he makes his decision?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would hope that the Prime Minister will use both the recommendations from Sir Laurie Magnus as well as every other form of information available to him.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, this House does not question the Minister’s commitment to press freedom, but, clearly, we must judge the Government on actions rather than words. Although in this case the threat of legal action does not appear to have been deployed, she will know that the anti-SLAPP legislation is critical to the protection of press freedom. In opposition, her party were very much committed to this legislation, and they have said that they are committed to it, but there are reports that we will not see it in the next King’s Speech. Can she give us an update on that?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is even more aware than I am that it is well above my pay grade to comment on the contents of the next King’s Speech. But she will be aware that I actively campaigned on the issue of anti-SLAPP legislation alongside many other Members of your Lordships’ House, and I know that my colleagues in the department share similar commitments.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. To answer the point made earlier, when our website was subject to a cyber attack and the names of our, for the most part, small donors—who had donated to campaigns such as defending Hamit Coskun, on trial for burning the Koran—were illegally published by an extreme criminal protest group, we felt we had no choice but to take out an injunction to stop their names being published. It would have been a breach of their privacy.
Two current Labour Peers are directors of Labour Together and were directors when Josh Simons took the decision to fund APCO. Has the Minister taken the opportunity to discuss Josh Simons’ behaviour with those Labour Members?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I am not aware of the Members of your Lordships’ House to which he is referring, but if he would like to speak to me outside the Chamber, I look forward to that conversation.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, before we come to the Statement on the Government’s response to the House of Commons humble Address, I remind the House that various police investigations have been reported in the media in recent days. While none of the cases is currently sub judice, I invite noble Lords to exercise restraint in commenting on specific matters under investigation, and to avoid saying anything that might prejudice those investigations.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal for the opportunity to respond to this Statement.
We are three weeks on from the Motion passed in the other place for this humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, and not a single document has yet been published. We often hear that Ministers are moving at pace, but this time Ministers are moving at an unacceptably slow pace. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The Government must not drag their feet in complying with the clear instruction of Parliament. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for publication?
In the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepted that compiling the material will take some time and spoke of publication “very shortly” in tranches. But “very shortly” is not a plan. Parliament’s instruction requires urgency as well as completeness, and we will continue to hold Ministers to account for delivering both.
The Chief Secretary also told the other place that the first tranche would be published in early March. Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify what the Government mean by early March? For example, should the House expect publication within the first week of March, and can she confirm the precise date on which the first tranche will be laid?
The humble Address expressly exempts papers that would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. These papers are instead to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the ISC. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain what test officials are applying when they decide that disclosure would be prejudicial in each case? Will she also confirm that material identified as engaging those exemptions is being passed to the ISC promptly as it is identified, rather than being held back and sent only once the wider collation exercise is complete, so that the committee can begin its work without delay?
It has also been noted that the ISC’s secretariat is provided by Cabinet Office officials. We unequivocally do not question the independence or integrity of the ISC, but given that the Cabinet Office is also leading the Government’s sifting and handling of material for publication, what steps are being taken to ensure that these parallel roles do not create even the perception of a conflict and that the ISC has the resources and independence it needs to do this job quickly and thoroughly?
I turn to the documents the Government say they are withholding following discussions with the Metropolitan Police. In the other place, the Speaker has been clear that the police cannot dictate to that House what may be required under a humble Address. Will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the Government accept the principle behind that statement—that the duty to comply rests with Ministers, and that any documents withheld because of the live investigation will be published as soon as it is possible to do so? Will she also consider setting a clear backstop for further updates to Parliament so that the process cannot drift indefinitely? More broadly, humble Addresses are understood to be binding resolutions of the House. Does she accept that a failure to comply with the humble Address without proper justification could be treated as a contempt of Parliament?
The official Opposition have called for clarity on what is to be published, what is being withheld, and why. Will the noble Baroness commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which are being temporarily withheld—for example, because of the police investigation —together with the reason in each case? If she cannot give a firm commitment today, will she undertake to write to clarify the Government’s position?
We have been patient and constructive, but the public interest in these papers is clear. They must be published in a timely way if lessons are to be learned and accountability secured.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgment to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will persuade the public only that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt.
However, there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation. We need to know not only about the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network but how far others in the UK were involved and whether any of the trafficking of young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential government information to rich financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust in not only our political elite but the City of London and its links to New York banks. Then there are the rumours of Russian links with all this. It is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place.
We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication—particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation—but we ask the Government to publish and explain to the public as much as possible, in order to rebuild public trust.
I hope the Minister also recognises that the British Government are now in a position where they can and should set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal: no recent arrests in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents and an Administration doing their best to deny any involvement, contrasted with the Government and Head of State in London taking the limited British involvement seriously.
Democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these Benches therefore encourage our Government to demonstrate in everything they do in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all these documents that will embarrass the US Government and America’s financial, high-tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.
The previous Conservative Government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because its deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. I again encourage the Government to publish a much fuller version of the ISC’s Russia report to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and as helpful background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions; I will try to answer as many as possible. I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s suggestion about delay in dealing with this. There are a lot of documents to be produced. The Government have been very clear that there is no hesitation at all in complying fully and completely with the humble Address. I hope that reassures her.
There is no scheduled timetable but it is important that, with so many documents, we do not wait until we have every document but get them out in tranches. Some of those may be out of sequence, in a sense, but all government departments have been asked to be very clear that all documents must be kept, whatever form they are in, and that information and messages must be kept so they can be fully disclosed.
The noble Baroness asked for confirmation on what is being withheld. Only two areas are being withheld. Information will be sent to the ISC. The Government will make a judgment on whether that information has an impact on international security, international relations and national security. If the Government make that judgment, it will then be given to the ISC to assess. There is a clear process and an assessment of the Government’s judgment on that when it is sent to the ISC. The other issue—which I understand is one document, or maybe a suite of documents—is the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson by No. 10. That is the information that is currently with the Metropolitan Police. There is obviously a delay in publishing that, but as soon as we are able to do so we will. I take into account the Lord Speaker’s comments that nothing should be allowed to prejudice justice.
The noble Baroness asked what “early March” means. I am tempted to say that early March means early March. I do not know quite how further to describe early March: does it mean 1 March or 2 March? It means early March. It will be published in early March and I expect we will see the information produced in the next couple of weeks or so.
The noble Baroness also raised the slightly curious point about the independence of the ISC, which the House of Commons raised as well. I hope I have not misunderstood—she is shaking her head at me, so perhaps I did—but the ISC has to be able to conduct its work without fear or favour and have the full confidence of the whole of Parliament in doing so. Although the staff are employed by the Cabinet Office, she will know from her experience of the Civil Service how very much they work for the ISC.
Having said that, I understand that there have been discussions about whether those staff should be employed directly by the ISC or whether it is more appropriate that there is a pool of people who work for the ISC and may return to other Civil Service jobs. The important thing is that they have the resources to do their job. I have absolute confidence in the Members of this House who are members of the ISC—the noble Lord, Lord West, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who is behind me, keeping an eye on me—to ensure they do their work fully, completely and properly. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will agree.
The noble Baroness commented that the Metropolitan Police cannot dictate to the House and asked whether the Government accept their duty that any documents held should be released afterwards. I have already answered that: they will be released where we are able to do so and where that does not jeopardise any possible further action the police may want to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, addressed how all of us can make mistakes. He referred to mistakes by past Governments and by this Government. Indeed, I heard his party leader on the radio this morning talking about mistakes that he had made. When mistakes are made, three things must happen. First, there must be an admission that a mistake has been made. Secondly, how it happened must be understood. Unless you understand how and why it happened, you cannot take the action that is needed to protect yourself and others from making similar mistakes in the future. Thirdly, an apology is required. I will never suggest that no Government ever made a mistake—it is human life—but to understand how and why, to put the wrong right and to apologise are important steps forward.
The noble Lord asked the Government to publish and explain as much as possible. Yes, transparency—particularly in an era of distrust of politicians, which we have been in for some time—democratic accountability, the rule of law, and being as open and transparent as possible are important. Who would have expected, when the Epstein papers, documents and emails were released, that this would reverberate around the world? It is uncomfortable for any Government to find themselves in a position where the information in those emails was completely unknown by them. The sense of betrayal, hurt, anger and upset in seeing those documents and that information is enormous. I assure the noble Lord on that.
The noble Lord says that there are rumours about Russian influence. It is very difficult to do anything about rumours. I worry about rumours. It is evidence that we must work on. Any evidence that can be made available should be made available. However, he will understand, in talking about the Russia report, that it is about finding the balance between transparency and international relations and security. I am grateful for the work that the ISC is doing on this, and generally, as I think the whole House must be, to ensure that it is confident that this balance is right and that it can work with the Government on this. However, the responsibility for national security ultimately lies with the Government.
The noble Lord says that there is further embarrassment to come. I am less worried about embarrassment than I am about not doing justice to the young women and girls who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein. There are times in life when we have to take a bit of embarrassment to ensure that justice is done.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back- Bench questions. It is Back-Bench questions, not speeches.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised ISC staff. Their job, and that of the committee, was made incredibly difficult by the previous Conservative Government cutting the budget and interfering with the appointments to the committee. The committee met the Prime Minister last year. This was the first time that the committee had met a Prime Minister in 10 years. Following that, the budget was increased. Negotiations are ongoing about moving the staff outside of the Cabinet Office. I assure your Lordships that those staff are dedicated, hard-working individuals who work very closely with the committee. I ask my noble friend: if the committee requires more resources, will those resources be given to deal with this task?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his point about the staff. I tried to do it justice but, as chair of the committee, he did it much better than I could. It is important that there is no question that the committee and the House have full confidence in the staff and the work that they do. Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made it clear that there are ongoing discussions. It is important that the resources that the ISC needs are available. I understand that discussions on that are taking place.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to things we did not know. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he confirmed in the House of Commons that he did know that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted for child sex trafficking, and he still appointed him as ambassador to the United States of America. That is a bit of a problem.
Can I pick up on something that the Leader of the House said about decision-making? The humble Address said that all information in the terms of the Address would be published, except where it was prejudicial to national security or international relations. I understood that the process of pulling together all those documents was being overseen by the Cabinet Secretary, who I understand has delegated that to the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, and that it would be that official who made the decisions about what was prejudicial and what therefore went to the ISC. The Leader of the House has just said that that decision is going to be taken by the Government, by which we normally mean Ministers. Can she clarify whether the decision about which documents are prejudicial and will therefore go to the ISC will be taken by the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, who has been delegated that task by the Cabinet Secretary, or by Ministers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord raises two points, the first of which concerns what the Prime Minister did or did not know. I do not think anybody was aware of the extent of the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and the relationship between him and Peter Mandelson until these documents were released. The other point is the information that the Prime Minister and No. 10 have given to the Metropolitan Police. Questions were asked of Lord Mandelson and the answers that were forthcoming to the Prime Minister were not, as we now understand, the case. The Prime Minister feels that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson then. It is the extent of that relationship that is really important.
On the humble Address, I was talking about government in the widest sense. The Cabinet Secretary has delegated this to the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, who will be the person sifting the documents to ensure that the documents sent to the ISC are those that the Government have withheld for reasons of international security and international relations and our national security.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire raised the suggestion we have seen in the press that Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims could possibly have been brought into the UK through private airports. I remember 20 years ago this issue being raised in relation to the victims of extraordinary rendition, in which I am afraid the UK Government colluded. Has that loophole really not been closed? Have there been no immigration or security controls on who comes into this country in private jets?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know whether the case is exactly as the noble Baroness describes it. What I do know is that all evidence is being looked at to see whether there is any evidence of such trafficking. That means going back through records over some time to see what is available. If there is any evidence of trafficking, of course the appropriate action should be taken as a matter of urgency.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for the way in which she is approaching this discussion and the answers that she has given. Can she confirm the situation about the humble Address? Obviously, it was constructed by the leader of the Official Opposition with a view to perhaps causing maximum embarrassment, but that is the job of opposition, and we should not be surprised at that. I understand that the framing of it potentially covers all diplomatic cables, many of which would automatically be copied to the UK ambassador to the United States. Can my noble friend confirm that part of the task that the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office has been given is to judge whether or not those can be released? Is there not an important principle that releasing diplomatic cables or material relating to diplomatic cables is prejudicial to the interests of this country? Even if that diplomatic cable said what a nice person whoever it was is and that they had a really good discussion, the fact of releasing some, but not all, cables raises the question about those which are redacted. Is that not in itself likely to be prejudicial to the national interest? This is an important process, which requires a great deal of diligence.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right. It is an important process. Our international relations with countries across the world where we have diplomats and where they have provided information in the UK’s national interests may at times be sensitive. The humble Address is quite clear that, where there are issues of national security or international relations, those documents and that information will be passed to the ISC for it to make a judgment. To come back to my noble friend’s point about whether it was intended to be embarrassing, the truth may be embarrassing at times but if it leads to justice and a better outcome then it is the right thing to do. The Government have no problems complying fully with the humble Address.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision to take this very seriously and to publish in tranches. Given that many days have now elapsed, will the Government publish a tranche tomorrow to show good faith, so that the proper process of scrutiny can begin?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord heard my earlier answer. We will not be publishing documents tomorrow but as soon as possible. I imagine that it will be in the next couple of weeks.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the House appreciates that the noble Baroness has had to answer a lot of questions in a short time, but she has not as yet answered the final question asked of her a few moments ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about whether the Government will commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which have been temporarily withheld—for example, because of a police investigation—together with the reason in each case. The more complicated this matter becomes, the more helpful it would be if the Government could give that information. If the noble Baroness cannot immediately answer that question, will she commit to answering it in writing to the noble Baroness and the Opposition as soon as possible?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have no problem answering questions at the Dispatch Box—it is probably one of the highlights of my day.
I am slightly puzzled by the question, though I will take it back. It seems to me that, if it has already been said what the document is that is being withheld from the Metropolitan Police—that information was announced in the House of Commons yesterday and I have said it here today—and if we then publish a list of documents that are being sent to the ISC because the issues are significant to international relations or national security, does that not give more information that could undermine national security or international relations? There is an issue of transparency, but transparency does not extend to such issues. It has already been accepted that the documents will be sent to the ISC. I will look at this, but the noble Baroness should have faith that if the ISC is receiving those documents then it can look at them. If it is that she wants a list of confidential information that is being given to the ISC, I am not sure that that takes the House any further, or whether that might undermine the work of the ISC. I am not sure that it is a helpful suggestion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for the clarity of her answers. Will she confirm that, once the ISC has decided that a document should be disclosed, notwithstanding any concern that the Government may have had about its implications for national security or foreign relations, the Government will comply with the decision of the ISC?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My understanding is that the exact details of how this will work in practice are still being discussed between the Government and the ISC. Those discussions will be concluded this week, but the Government have no interest in withholding information if it does not relate to international relations or national security. I hope that, if we get it right, the issue will not occur in the first place, but those discussions will take place between the Government and the ISC this week to conclude the terms of reference.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her answer. I make the point that the then Opposition moved and invoked an humble Address on a number of occasions during the Brexit negotiations, at very critical junctures. At that stage, it was not necessarily in the national interest to reveal all the information that the Her Majesty’s Government were using.
I just take the noble Baroness back to the report on due diligence. Surely it is for parliamentarians and the wider public to make a judgment not only on the veracity of the due diligence report presented by the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister but on the Prime Minister’s judgment in what he did with that report. It seems odd, and perhaps the noble Baroness will explain why it was, that a charge of misconduct in a public office is inextricably linked with the release or otherwise of the due diligence report that was presented to the Cabinet Office. Finally, will she say what is an acceptable delay before that very important document on which we will judge the Prime Minister’s judgment is published?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord’s comments on the humble Address were aimed at. He has heard no complaints whatever from me or from this Dispatch Box about complying fully and totally with the humble Address. I do not think I made any complaints about humble Addresses previously, as the noble Lord implied, so I am not quite sure what he was saying.
I can also tell him that no charges have yet been brought of misconduct in public office. The evidence being looked at has come to the fore, post due diligence and security vetting, from the Epstein files. Nobody in this House or outside it could have had any warning, or a crystal ball or anything, that could have indicated the extent of those messages and what they contained. So, if any charges are brought of misconduct in public office, it will come from those emails that were released. I will wait and let the police do their work on that, to see whether charges are brought against any of the individuals who have so far been arrested.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:59 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 246 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the generational ban for tobacco products in England and Wales by raising the age of sale to 21.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all my amendments in this group, which is all of them barring Amendment 203. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby, who has signed all my amendments.
The amendments all do the same thing: they would remove from the necessary places in the Bill the generational smoking ban—that is, the prohibition on tobacco sales to all those born after 1 January 2009—and replace it with a fixed age of sale of 21. In my view, this policy was wrong when it was adopted by my party in government, and it is still wrong now.
In asking noble Lords to support this amendment, I will make six points. The first is in relation to prohibition. A generational ban may sound like a progressive step to protect public health, but it is de facto prohibition, and there remains no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, this policy will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated, highly taxed industry, which will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated, untaxed criminal bonanza.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 203 in my name, which is also supported by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. She is sorry that she cannot be here today because of ill health. I know she is keeping a close eye on us, but I hope she takes it easy and will be back with us soon.
Amendment 203—to change the subject slightly—would require the Government to publish, shortly after Royal Assent, a communications plan to support the implementation of the smoke-free generation policy and to raise public awareness. We know that the ban on smoking in public places was effectively communicated so that those who needed to take action were well prepared to do so and the public knew what the plans were. We want to see the same actions here.
When this amendment was tabled in Committee, it was excellent to hear the Minister strongly agree that such communication was vital. Many of us involved in this debate over the years know from experience how effective public health communication can be. We have played our part in the major advances in tobacco control, from smoke-free public places to changes in the age of sale and plain packaging—and we have had all the same arguments coming back at us. None of those reforms succeeded by chance. They worked because they were carefully planned, cross-party in approach and underpinned by communication strategies that brought the public with them. The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, far-sighted and potentially significant for our children and grandchildren.
We fully realise how the industry—represented here today, I can see—will, as ever, push back against this measure using every device in the book. We have seen that time after time in this Chamber over the years, with very familiar arguments.
I commend those who have helped to bring about this legislation, from Professor Khan to Professor Chris Whitty, from Rishi Sunak to the current Government. The Bill team have done a fantastic job in bringing together previously fragmented strands of tobacco regulation, seeking to close loopholes so that we create a framework that is robust enough to withstand future industry innovation, which, again, is extremely familiar. This might indeed be one of the last tobacco Bills needing to pass through this House—not that I hold my breath.
This legislation contains a world-leading and genuinely novel policy to help to deliver a smoke-free generation, which the Opposition are also theoretically committed to. It therefore creates a real opportunity not just to implement a new age of sale but to communicate the harms of smoking and promote smoking cessation, just as the ban on smoking in public places did. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments in Committee that clear guidance will be published and the Government will work to ensure successful implementation. But guidance alone is the minimum requirement, and I hope the Government’s ambition goes further than that.
In 2007, as those of us here then will remember, when smoke-free legislation was introduced, the message was simple, consistent and widespread. The Government did not leave it to businesses and others to explain on their behalf. Stakeholders were identified early, supported properly, not undermined with all sorts of reasons to feel anxious, and given time to prepare. Guidance, signage and materials were ready well in advance. National TV adverts raised awareness. The result was immediate: we saw 98% compliance on day one, accompanied by growing public support.
That approach achieved more than compliance; it changed attitudes. It sparked conversations about the harms of smoking, not the liberties—as if an addiction is a liberty—and encouraged many people to try to quit. That kind of cultural shift is exactly what this legislation should aim to replicate. Although the rising age of sale applies to a specific cohort, a wider objective is to engage the whole population and frame smoking cessation as a shared national endeavour.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support the 27 amendments in this group, which were so ably spoken to by my noble friend.
Members of the House may not know—there is no reason why they should—that when I came back from working in India and Sri Lanka, both of which are very extensive users of tobacco, I joined an advertising agency on the marketing side. In particular, I was asked to help on the marketing of Gallaher products such as Park Drive and Senior Service. That experience meant getting to know those companies in depth, and I began to understand how the industry operated. Of course, at that point I had no idea that I would become a Member of Parliament some 10 years later, but I realised that this is not a flippant industry. This was an industry employing thousands of people, particularly in skilled areas, and an industry that, as far as I could see as a marketing man, listened to the problems of health.
I am married to a full-time GP, and I have a son who was a GP. I have admired various political parties that ran the National Health Service through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and onwards. You only had to go into your own surgery to see the effort put in on the ground to encourage people not to smoke. It was not as if the industry ignored it. Pressure was understandably put on, whereby advertising, in which I had a role to play, should be targeted in terms of age and timing. The media at that time was very different. But, on the recommendation that I and my team went through, the industry recognised that it should avoid advertising to young people and took positive steps to that effect.
I hasten to say that I have no financial involvement; I do not have any stocks and shares in tobacco companies. I am only speaking from experience. When I got to the other place as the honourable Member for Northampton South, I continued to take an interest in the industry. I am impressed with the efforts that were made jointly by the industry and various Governments. But I do express huge disappointment to the present Government that, as far as I understand it, they have resisted attempts to talk to the industry in depth, particularly to retailers and the other representatives. They certainly feel that they have been ignored, and that is not a good position to be in.
Leaving that aside, we come back to the central issue of what the Government are proposing and what I and others are proposing. Twenty-one is a sensible age. I did my national service as an RAF pilot from 18 to 20, and then I went to Cambridge. By that time, you can decide for yourself what you are going to do. This idea of a phased introduction is confusing to all those involved.
There is a problem on the ground. I live in Bedfordshire, next door to Northamptonshire. We have a lot of small towns. For one newsagent, roughly 19% of his income comes from tobacco. It is falling, but that is understandable. It is falling because the percentage of the population who smoke has dramatically fallen between the period when I first got involved, in 1964, and today. I do not argue that it would not be better if it had fallen a bit further, but it has fallen dramatically. This is an issue for the retail trade.
Another issue that His Majesty’s Government appear not to be terribly up to date on is the illicit tobacco trade, which is a huge problem today. As I understand it, His Majesty’s Government recognise that only 10% of cigarettes consumed in 2023-24 were illicit. That, in itself, equals 12 billion illicit cigarettes. However, when you dig a bit deeper, the National Crime Agency’s Deputy Director for Illicit Finance, Sal Melki, has stated that the combined law enforcement agencies’ Operation Machinize seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 2024. Surely that is the area we should be focused on. We do not need new and complicated laws—that is a real target. I do not understand why His Majesty’s Government are not making that a real priority. As it is, the illicit trade is totally undermining our situation.
I had the privilege of working as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland. I am not blaming anybody, but it was my own party that failed to deal properly with the situation in Northern Ireland. I am really upset that we did not do it better, but we did not. It ought not to have happened. But, quite frankly, even if the Government’s wish was to go through, it is not going to happen in Northern Ireland. That is not good. We are part of the United Kingdom; we do not want to have another category where poor Northern Ireland is left out in the cold.
I am not going to repeat the points my noble friend has already made. This amendment that he and I have put down is a simple proposition to replace the generational ban with a minimum legal purchasing age of 21. I plead for the House to think long and hard. I shall certainly be supporting this amendment if my noble friend tests the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Naseby. However, what they cannot avoid is that their amendment, by maintaining the legal sale of tobacco products to persons over the age of 21, will continue the enormous damage to public health and the enormous cost to the National Health Service that is caused by the consumption of this product.
I am not persuaded by the freedom arguments. We ban heroin. We require that people wear seat belts, even if they are over the age of 21 and they may take a different view. If Sir Walter Raleigh were to bring tobacco into this country today for the first time, there is surely no doubt whatever that it would be banned because of its noxious, dangerous character. The Bill contains such detailed provisions relating to legality precisely because this has been a lawful product for so long. I think the Government are quite right in the way they seek to deal with it.
The only other argument of substance presented was from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, relating to illicit tobacco products. But that is an unfortunate consequence of banning any product. We ban cannabis. There is an illicit trade in cannabis, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a supporter of legalising the sale of cannabis. The enactment of the Bill will do an enormous amount to educate the public of the dangers that this product causes and of the need to ensure that we move forward now to promote public health.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to my interest. About 30 years ago, I was a director of British American Tobacco. I started smoking when I was at school, and I have now been smoking for about 70 years. At the moment, the thought has not crossed my mind that I am going to abandon my enjoyable smoking of small cigars.
Leaving that aside, I recall that when I was at BAT, just as my noble friend’s experience of Gallaher has confirmed, we were desperately anxious to keep our reputation as a company and make sure the dangers of our product were brought to people’s attention and we could protect our reputation. I will not reminisce for too long, but I recall that we lobbied the then Government to make it illegal to sell our products to under-18s. They rejected that idea because of counterlobbying from retailers. We certainly offered no resistance whatever to the widespread publication of the health risks of smoking, which are considerable.
We were often accused of doing dreadful things. People who campaigned against our product decided they had to campaign against the evil organisation that was involved in it. But this was a complete misunderstanding of our attempt to maintain a good reputation. It was, in fact, an extremely well-run company. My opinion is that smoking should not be banned and made illegal if the sale is to adults who are fully informed that they are adding to the risk to their health that motoring and other things already pose to them and decide that the pleasure of smoking involves them taking it on.
I will not repeat all the excellent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who put the case perfectly clearly and well—I agree with every word he said. I find the proposition, which was first put forward by my own party towards the end of our last period of office, a quite extraordinary one. It is going to be found that shopkeepers are making an illegal sale if their customer is a day older than the legal limit imposed by Parliament. I assume that in 60 years, somebody like me will be required to go into a shop taking my birth certificate, saying that I am 85 so can legally buy a cigarette, whereas if I was 84 years of age it would be an illegal act to engage in this transaction. I cannot see how shopkeepers are going to comply with the law except by demanding some proof of date of birth and continuing to demand that proof as the legally entitled purchasers steadily grow older and older. I am sure it is well intentioned. It is another attempt to reinforce the already very successful efforts we have made in this country to reduce the incidence of smoking. But it is faintly ridiculous and slightly preposterous, and, given the history of the decline of smoking in this country, it is quite unnecessary.
The most important point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, makes to those who might be faintly neutral in this debate is that it will stimulate organised illegality. It most undoubtedly will. He made the arguments for that, but I remind the House of the best example in my lifetime. Until about 30 years ago, betting on racehorses was legal only on the course, and there was a firm law saying that you could not place a bet on a horse—it was strictly illegal—unless you were actually at the course.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, for the first time in my life, I will publicly disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke. I will speak briefly but very strongly against this group of amendments, which would simply defeat the object of the Bill: to introduce a generational ban and achieve over time a smoke-free country.
Less than two years ago, a generational ban was the policy of a Conservative Government, and the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of his proudest initiatives. In that Parliament, on a free vote, the vast majority of Conservative Members of Parliament supported the Bill, as did 28 out of the 30 members of the Cabinet. All the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were put forward at that time, listened to and discounted. In this Parliament, the measure passed with a majority of 415 to 47, so it is fair to say that the Bill has broad cross-party support, and it is popular outside. It has a clear objective of reducing the burdens of smoking on the economy and the NHS.
I will leave it to others to deal with the argument about illicit tobacco and the Windsor Framework; I just want to tackle the libertarian argument, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened to all the libertarian arguments when a Conservative Government made it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets. We heard the arguments about well-informed adults being aware of the risks. Nobody would now reverse that piece of legislation. We heard the same arguments on compulsory seat belts. Both those measures were introduced by a Conservative Government. We heard the same arguments about smoking on public transport, on trains and in pubs. Yes, there is a libertarian argument, but in my view there is a much broader benefit in moving to a smoke-free country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I will concentrate on one narrow area—one of the practical aspects of this generational ban—which, as my noble friend Lord Clarke highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. I am sure the Minister will soon argue that age verification is a well-established practice and therefore should present no particular difficulty, but the implications of the Bill in a few years’ time are profound, as my noble friend noted.
Judging the difference between an 18 year-old and a 40 year-old by eye is not especially difficult—although at this point I note that there are a number of Peers on the Government Benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers. But how is a shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of someone who is apparently 40 years old in a few years’ time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 in 364 days? I am sure that we will soon hear the argument that the point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year- old born after the 1 January 2009 will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke because of the Bill. But that is simply not a credible argument. As my noble friend Lord Murray noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one does not need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked. Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous and more edgy. Plenty of people will still choose to smoke.
In effect, the state will therefore be asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. To put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year, it reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores. Some 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse and 44% reported hate-motivated abuse. The top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. Does the Minister think this will get any better when the shopkeeper has to ask two middle-aged men for their passports—or, indeed, an 85 year-old for his birth certificate?
Today, I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1,600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024-25. That is down from the previous year, but it is still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification, which are inevitable. I am sure the Minister will also refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers due by 2029. That is also welcome, of course, but I note that the previous Government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact. The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the Government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other laws.
My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments would achieve the Government’s aims without causing this needless aggravation. The Government’s own impact assessment states that a one-off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective in the short term at reducing smoking rates, compared with a generational smoking ban. The Government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 1 and the associated amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, because I believe wholeheartedly that a country free from the harms of tobacco would transform the public health of this nation and prevent huge amounts of human suffering. We heard from the noble Lord about the reversal of the planned policy in New Zealand, but we did not hear an explanation for that. The explanation is quite simple: there was a change of coalition parties following a general election. One of the new coalition parties feared the drop in revenue to the Government as a result of the policy being introduced and a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking, which surely proves the point that that party accepted that such policies as this would be effective.
We have heard about the wonderful, kind-spirited nature of the tobacco industry in caring for young people, but not enough about the many decades of deceit, in which that industry knew full well the links between its products and lung cancer, and covered up what it knew and lied about them, as it lied about tobacco smoking of a second-hand nature. This is not an industry which we can trust for a remote second.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
May I ask what evidence the noble Lord has for that? I well remember, when I was on the board of BAT, that we acknowledged the health risks. We were accused of somehow denying it, but the people with this bizarre conspiracy theory were never able to produce any examples of our denying it, because we did not, and we did not oppose warnings and labels on packages. It is just part of the mythology of the more extreme fringe of well-intentioned anti-tobacco lobbyists.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, with respect, I am not part of any extreme fringe, and the views I have enunciated are shared almost entirely by the medical profession in this country. For decades, the tobacco companies had evidence that tobacco was linked to lung cancer, yet they kept denying until it was proven by showing the number of people with lung cancer who smoked and the number of people with lung cancer who did not. The industry hid that as it fought tooth and nail against such things as plain packaging with many bogus arguments. This is the most deceitful industry in the world.
We have heard about the cliff edge problem, but it is one that we have now. At 17 years and 364 days, you may not buy tobacco, but you can on your 18th birthday. With these amendments, that would change to being able to buy tobacco on your 21st birthday, but not after 20 years and 364 days on this planet.
My experience of being orphaned at 16, and finding my mother, a heavy smoker, dead in her bed as a result of hypertensive heart disease, with smoking obviously a key factor in her death, has driven me, ever since then, to support people trying to quit—that is most smokers, in my experience—and to prevent the tobacco industry promoting addiction to its lethal products. The Bill proposes a world-leading policy of which we should be proud, and we should not make it less effective, as proposed by many amendments in this group.
Raising the age at which someone can legally be sold a cigarette works in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. It may not be 100% effective, but that is not a reason to try to make it less effective. We know that raising the age of sale in England from 16 to 18 in 2007 reduced smoking rates among 16 and 17 year-olds by 30%. In the US, when the age of sale was increased from 18 to 21, the chance of a person in that age group taking up smoking fell by 39%.
The tobacco industry employs the most deceitful and dangerous lobbyists in the world. Their role is to try to protect its enormous profits and persuade more people—in particular young people—to take up the deadly habit in order to replace the 50% of its consumers whose lives are shortened by smoking tobacco.
One argument we hear from opponents of tobacco control legislation is that it represents a so-called nanny state. This is a term that I feel is really used only in the media. The phrase does not resonate with the public, who are highly supportive of tobacco control legislation. I hear laughter, but polling shows that 68% of the public support the smoke-free generation. The Chief Medical Officer has been clear that there is no freedom in addiction. Many people start smoking as children and become addicted almost immediately. Two out of three people who try just one cigarette go on to become daily smokers, and three-quarters of smokers say that they would never have started if they had the choice again.
It is also important to be clear what this policy does and does not do. The rising age of sale does not remove any current adult’s ability to buy tobacco; it simply phases in a high minimum age of purchase for future generations. That is a proportionate approach. By contrast, accepting these amendments would mean that those aged 18 to 20 who already smoke would suddenly be unable to buy tobacco legally—a far more intrusive step.
Smoking remains one of the greatest preventable burdens on our public services and our economy. It is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments every year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion annually and local authorities nearly £4 billion a year in social care costs. That is money we do not have, and which could and should be spent on improving health, not managing preventable harm. The number of people—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is Report stage of proceedings. His speech is a bit on the long side. Can he bring his remarks to a close, please?
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hear some responses from the Benches next to me who disagree with this. I hope, however, that they will consider carefully the arguments that I am making, and those that come from the Minister shortly.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I rise to support my noble friends’ amendments in group 1, not to defend tobacco, but to defend common sense, public safety and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who would be most harmed by a policy that looks simple on paper but is deeply dangerous in practice.
First, the burden on retailers and communities is real. Small shopkeepers already face unprecedented levels of crime and intimidation. The Bill would force them to enforce a moving legal threshold every year, placing the full weight of policing on their shoulders.
We heard an awful lot from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on guidance. I am listening to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, and I would love to see what the Government guidance will be for that shopkeeper. When they ask, “What is your age? When were you born? Prove it.”, how on earth will the shopkeeper be able to deal with people in their 20s, 30s and 40s when trying to stay on the right side of an ever- changing law?
The implementation of a generational ban on tobacco sales will have profound, unintended consequences for shopkeepers, law enforcement and retailers—to the benefit of organised criminals—across the UK for years to come. That is not hyperbole; it is a sober description of the risks we are being asked to accept with this.
Secondly, the policy will drastically expand the illicit cigarette market and hand control to organised criminals. Everybody knows the stark evidence—even though HMRC will never admit it—that illicit tobacco loses the Treasury £3.5 billion per annum. Some 25% of all cigarettes sold are illicit and cheap, and the price differential drives consumers to illegal sources in pubs, clubs and under-the-counter sales.
This ill-conceived generational ban—admittedly, a stupid idea from the last Government—will create a permanent cohort of consumers who cannot legally buy tobacco, and where demand exists, supply will follow. That supply will be by criminal networks. Let us look briefly at Australia as a sign of what will unfold in the UK. Organised crime gangs dominate the illicit tobacco market in Australia, which has led to arson, violence and the takeover of local markets by criminal gangs.
Thirdly, enforcement capacity is already stretched to breaking point. Trading Standards and other front-line agencies have lost staff and lack the resources to police a complex, ever-changing age rule. Enforcement bodies are underfunded and under-resourced; adding a perpetual generational rule will only widen the enforcement gap and shift the burden to retailers and local communities, who will be unable to cope. When enforcement fails, the law becomes a paper shield for criminals and a real threat to honest businesses.
What is the sensible alternative? It must be setting the age at 21, as set out in my noble friend’s amendment. This is not a retreat from public health; it is a pragmatic, enforceable measure that achieves the same long-term outcome for young people while avoiding the catastrophic side-effects of a generational ban. My noble friend set out in detail from the Government’s own impact assessment how raising the age to 21 would achieve the same long-term aim.
A minimum age of 21 is clear, static and much more easily enforceable. It allows retailers to train staff once and apply a consistent rule, and it reduces the incentive for criminal markets to exploit a permanently excluded generation. It also aligns with international practice and with the Republic of Ireland’s own policy direction, reducing cross-border legal friction.
Finally, we must pair any age change with stronger enforcement and support. If we raise the age to 21, we should simultaneously strengthen fixed-penalty regimes, resource trading standards and Border Force properly and invest in targeted education and cessation services. Enforcement must be credible—it is not at the moment. Everybody knows that you can get illegal cigarettes in any pub or club in the country. We need stepped penalties for repeat offenders, licensing powers that bite and better funding for the agencies that will be asked to do the work.
All of us in this House and Parliament share the aim of reducing smoking, but good ends do not justify bad, unworkable means. A generational ban risks destroying small businesses, empowering organised crime, overwhelming enforcement and creating legal chaos. A minimum legal purchasing age of 21 is a proportionate, enforceable and effective alternative that would protect public health without the catastrophic unintended consequences. If we come to a vote, I urge the House to reject the generational ban and support a measured, evidence-based approach that combines an age limit of 21 with robust enforcement and support for cessation. I support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he persuaded me that, at the end of the day, we are dealing with a question of health, not choice. I will give an example. Colin Bennetts, Bishop of Coventry from 1998 to 2008, died in July 2013 after a period of illness due to cancer. His lungs were filled with deposits of smoke. He said to everybody, “I have never smoked in my life”, but as a youngster he had worked in an office where cigarettes were lit at every moment. Colin, who had not smoked, died of lung cancer. You do not have to smoke to die from it —others sitting near may get it.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but you cannot compare gambling on horses with smoking. Gambling on horses affects only those gambling, but secondary smoking is detrimental to anybody in a place where people are smoking. I do not think these amendments would be helpful. We should stick with the Bill as drafted, because we are trying to protect people’s lives and make them healthier.
I suffered what is called in medical terms a lung infarction, where bits of your lungs do not quite operate. I still have that illness, so every time I go into a place where there is a lot of smoking, I can barely breathe—I have to get out into the fresh air and get it in my lungs. Friends, this is about health. If we do not do this now, then when?
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. Given that smoking continues to be the single biggest cause of cancer, it will not be a surprise that I oppose the amendments in this group, which would substantially weaken this landmark legislation. In explaining why, I will respond to each of the six points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.
First, the noble Lord argued that we do not need more tobacco control legislation anyway because smoking rates are already coming down. That is not correct; Javed Khan has pointed out that, among the most deprived parts of the country, on current trends we will not be smoke-free until 2044. In any event, some in the tobacco industry have come to the same conclusion. I quote from an advert that Philip Morris took out in the New Statesman, no doubt designed to influence people such as us: “Here in the UK, smoking rates are not declining fast enough. None of the home nations are on course to hit their smoke-free dates, and the most deprived communities are lagging significantly behind”. The suggestion that we can just assume that the status quo will produce a benign outcome is incorrect.
The noble Lord’s second argument was that, rather than having a generational tobacco sales restriction, we should instead just move towards delaying the age at which smoking can be initiated to 21. The tobacco industry would doubtless switch its efforts to targeting twenty-somethings instead of teenagers. On the surprising claims we have heard in respect of the behaviour down the decades of Gallaher or British American Tobacco, I simply say to noble Lords: google their internal documents. They have all been disclosed as a result of international treaties and court cases, and noble Lords will see the systematic duplicity, bribery and corruption that has continued across the world in advancing big tobacco’s agenda. Those documents, the internal files, are there: noble Lords can check them out for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to the Republic of Ireland as an example we should perhaps be following, when it proposed to adopt the age of 21. However, the director of the tobacco industry-funded front organisation FOREST said of the effect of adopting the age of 21 as a tobacco sales restriction:
“If you’re not careful, you’re actually going to make smoking … fashionable again. You’re going to actually encourage young people to smoke”,
on the back of this proposed sales restriction to over 21 year-olds.
The third argument we heard was about the black market. For reasons that are a non sequitur, we have several times heard cited the example of Australia. The amendments in this group relate to changes to the age of sale. There has been no change in the age of sale in Australia. As far as I am aware, it is still 18 and has been for 30 years. So, whatever else is going on in Australia, it has got nothing to do with the amendments in this group in respect of age of sale. In fact, the Australian example tells us that you need rigorous enforcement. Until very recently, there was no retail licensing available for New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland, covering about 70% of the Australian population, and it has only been patchily introduced subsequently.
There is agreement that we need strong enforcement to deal with the illicit trade, but the argument that we should essentially do whatever it takes to maximise revenue for the Exchequer is a flawed one. If that were the case, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we would be legalising and licensing handguns, assault weapons, fentanyl or crack cocaine. The fact is that, when it comes to tobacco control policy, it is not the Laffer curve that we should focus on, it is the life expectancy curve.
The fourth argument has been around the impact on retailers. I accept that there are legitimate concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of violence and also noted the provisions that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill as one step to attempt to tackle this. But the fact is that the progressive age of sale restrictions in the Bill are an evolutionary measure that will be phased over many years, giving retailers much opportunity to adjust. There are substitutes that they can sell, including vapes, as alternatives to smoked tobacco. Surely, nobody is suggesting that the trump argument should be that we need to sustain the margins of retailers at the expense of 80,000 people who die prematurely from smoking every year.
The fifth argument we heard was around the Windsor Framework. It is fair to say that alternative legal opinions are available. Member states are free to determine the age limit that they see as appropriate on their territory. This does not constitute a trade restriction within the meaning of the EU treaties. In any event, even if a court found that it did, it could be justified on public health grounds. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Bill has the support of Northern Irish Health Ministers and that legislative consent has been received from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lastly, we come back to the liberty argument: the freedom of unborn smokers to become addicted in decades to come. Well, those of us who take the opposite view judge that this is a proportionate response to a great harm. It is a novel piece of legislation; we will need to see how it plays out in practice. One of the government amendments that will be before us on Report will be precisely a report on its real-world effects in the coming years. In the meantime, to weaken what has the potential to be one of the most fundamental health-improving pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever enacted would in my judgment be a grave error.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave a pretty good summary of many of the arguments against this group of amendments. I join him in all that he said. My fundamental motive is twofold. First, I would like to see the eradication of smoking in this country. That is a vision that we should embrace and be proud of. Just kicking the can and putting up the age limit, as this group of amendments seeks to do, would simply extend a very large and unfair addiction that kills two-thirds of its users and that we could all do without.
Secondly, I am very proud that my party was leading on this issue and brought about the generational ban. I remind noble Lords to have a moment of self-awareness. This is a measure that is massively supported by voters, taxpayers, smokers, Conservatives, retailers and even by the tobacco companies which, at least in this country, have a notional commitment to the eradication of smoking. You can judge whether to take that at face value, but that is at least their rhetorical position. So it seems out of date for my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Naseby to be stalwarts for the permanent establishment of smoking in the face of such opposition.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Noble Lords have, perfectly reasonably, rebutted me on that. But my point is that the modern retail experience does not rely on retailers squinting to try to judge the difference between 21 and 22 year-olds. It is mandatory for almost everyone to produce ID when they are purchasing any restricted product. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rightly said, it is right that the Government support this regime. I am pleased to see statutory guidance, updated training standards and enforcement tools as part of the Bill.
Regarding stories about the black market, I must express grave reservations about some of the points that have been made in this debate. They remind me more of stories of Arthur Daley and “Minder” than of modern Britain and I am not sure how relevant stories of Australian biker gangs shooting each other are. Just to correct my noble friend Lord Napier, he said that 4 billion—
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is looking very well on it. He mentioned that 4 billion cigarettes had been taken by the police in 2024. According to HMRC, the number is 24 million. I draw attention to that because there is a lot of loose use of numbers in the description of illicit trade.
Lord Naseby (Con)
The figure that my noble friend quotes is correct from the source that he quoted, but, after further investigation, it was found that the figure I quoted was the correct figure.
Lord Bethell (Con)
If my noble friend is correct, I will absolutely and humbly correct myself. Maybe we could have a drink afterwards and compare notes on that.
On the question of freedom, I too am a passionate believer and fighter for freedom. However, the freedoms I care about are not only the freedom of choice but the freedom not to be impoverished by taxes and not to see my nation, my country, ruined by the health, welfare and productivity costs of carcinogenic, nasty toxins such as cigarettes. The financial cost on ourselves, and particularly on our children, of this industry is absolutely enormous and is still growing, even if the numbers have stalled. So the freedom from addiction and debt should be included in any discussion of what the freedoms are. For those reasons, I will be voting against this package of measures.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I am also against these amendments. I will disclose a conflict of interest: I started smoking when I was 16—and 33 years later, like many of us who start to smoke at that age, because it is a childhood disease, I gave up.
We know and have heard about all the health effects of smoking, but we also have to realise that smoking is an easy addiction to start. I have looked after every addiction—heroin, cocaine, alcohol—and smoking is the easiest. You need only two cigarettes for 80% of people to be addicted, like me, for 33 years, and many people, like me, try to give up.
It is not just addiction that is the problem. It is not even about death, although death is a bad outcome to have. It is also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I have lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems. Smoking causes all sorts of things.
As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking-related diseases. My surgeries used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers and full of people with premature heart disease. It is not an accident that I no longer see that in my consulting room; it is because of the hard work of our Chief Medical Officers, the Department of Health, ASH and many others to stop normalising smoking.
On the issue of the black market, there is of course a price differential. Wherever there is a price differential you will get a black market, whether it is diesel, cigarettes, alcohol or whatever. But the Bill is about stopping people starting—as the noble Lord said, preventing the next generation that has not even been born from starting. We have to focus on prevention, which is what the Bill is about.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, called this a world-leading policy. It is world-leading, because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. One wants to know why. At least the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. Can we at least have a little humility by admitting that the Bill is an experiment? It is a risk.
How you do age verification, as rather wittily described by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is a bit untested. How will we cope with the 84 year-old versus the 85 year-old—will there be a scrap? It is said that it is not going to happen for many years, but I thought the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow, and the long- term implications of policies that pass.
Let us be honest: there is no good practice to copy with this Bill. There is no evidence about exactly how it will work or whether it will work. The claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation, and that is not evidence; it is not scientific. Therefore, the moral high ground and the sense of certainty deployed by those who are enthusiastic about the Bill, and the disdain towards those of us who are sceptical about it, are just a little misplaced.
I therefore request that, as we go through the very short Report stage, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, we are honest about things such as cost-benefit analysis—what is lost, what is gained—and, rather than moral righteousness, consider whether this is actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the Bill forward. Whatever the intentions of those promoting the Bill, many of the clauses in it are counterproductive.
I know we are not on this section yet, but as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a Bill that, to all intents and purposes, treats vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the Government. I do not think that there will be the health gain that is claimed.
My final point at this time—because I will be back —is that it is a little rich to sneer about freedom. Saying the word “libertarian” gives certain people a thrill; they can feel as though they are morally virtuous. I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, despite what Wikipedia says. However, I fully embrace living in a free society. I do not think that freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, nor that saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles makes you to the right of Genghis Khan, or whatever it is that people are implying—or, worse, in the pay of big tobacco, which is the inference of many of the contributions. At some stage relatively soon, lots of adults—the 84 and 85 year-olds, because these kids do grow up to be adults—will be denied a choice. This Bill affects adults.
People can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight-loss injections. To me they are a bit risky—I think, “Are they safe?”—but I am not mounting a campaign yet, because half this House would be out. People say it is worth the risk. A lot of people do daft things such as going skiing—mad; too risky for me. There are all sorts of things. People have been known to have the odd extra pint or eat the odd greasy breakfast. People take risks and make choices about their health all the time.
I do not want more people to smoke, but I also think that, in a free society, we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices—even the wrong choices. We live in a free society. Deciding the right and wrong choice is what happens in authoritarian regimes, but in a free society we say, “I don’t think you should do that, but I’m not necessarily going to legislate so that you can’t do everything I personally disapprove of”. We should not even say, “You shouldn’t do that, because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn’t do”. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to your doctor, who says, “Take this”, and you say, “I decline to take that medication; I do not want that intervention”. In a free society, a doctor cannot force you to do what you do not want to do—even the virtuous health professional who we are all meant to revere.
As we carry on this Report stage, can we all show a bit of humility? Living in a free society puts before us difficult moral decisions. There is no necessarily right or wrong. We are allowed to scrutinise a Bill that is put before us without being accused of somehow being evil because we do not go along with the Bill. Just because the Conservative Government, when they were in, and the Labour Government now agree—if that is the basis on which we should not scrutinise, we might as well all go home. I am sad to say that, for some of us, the Conservative Party has had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am a Conservative Member who, in the other House, voted against this proposition. Does the noble Baroness not share my concern that one of the unspoken nonsenses of this legislation is that far too many young people are already choosing to smoke cannabis, instead of cigarettes that they might legally obtain? That proves that, however we try to legislate or regulate this market, people will do what they choose to do. Virtually no effort is made to clamp down on the illegal smoking of cannabis.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am allowed to come back on that. All I want to say is that I do not want it to go down in Hansard that I am such a libertarian that I support the smoking of cannabis: I am not Zack Polanski. It is also the case that we have to think of the unintended consequences and the real world and real young people, rather than imaginary ones.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray. We have heard a lot of nonsense from those from whom we would expect to hear a lot of nonsense. It is more surprising that those from whom we would have expected to hear some good sense have most grievously erred and strayed.
The proposed legislation will in no way stop people smoking; it will simply drive smoking underground. Health issues will not improve and highly aggressive criminal involvement in this trade will soar. His Majesty’s Treasury will be denied at least £10 billion a year, which will accrue to the benefit of the criminal underworld. This crass development will turn out to be a disastrous policy swerve. Look at the empirical evidence: prohibition or intended prohibition has turned out to be a disastrous and damaging policy in many parts of the world. This ill-thought-through legislation will have to be repealed in due course. Let us come to our collective senses: the consequences of this proposed legislation will be dire.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I am worried not about whether it is right or wrong to try to stop smoking but about whether this would work. There is no point in passing laws that do not work, as they are not respected. I think back to the amount of pot that was smoked when I was at university, to all the drugs generally around the place, and to the switch from alcohol to ecstasy and other things when they were cheaper because the price of alcohol had been raised. We tamper around with it, but the problem is much deeper than that: people need to take things to stave off reality a bit, from time to time.
I was not a smoker, because I saw my friends wheezing at school. I tried it; everyone was worried about the amount of chocolate I ate, so I briefly tried smoking. I gave up after my second sore throat and saw no benefit from it. To be honest, this will not be an effective way of stopping smoking, so I see no point in it. It will cause problems with policing. We can handle age verification in various ways, but I will not bore your Lordships with that now. We should not make life more complicated for everyone. They will go on smoking if they are driven to it, and we do not want to make it look attractive, which driving stuff underground does.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Before I say a few brief words about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and his excellent speech, I congratulate my former constituent, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who made an excellent speech. He spoke for common sense in how we treat adults. We will probably be allowing people to vote at 16 and we allow all sorts of things to happen at a much younger age, yet we do not realise how this generational ban will affect older people making decisions about their own lives and health.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, people take risks all their time. I am suffering from a very sore back, because I took a risk in thinking that, at my age, I could still ski—I found it quite difficult last week. We all take such choices. After the age of becoming an adult, people have to be able to make those choices. We should be spending our time educating young people. I do not want people to smoke—I have never smoked in my life—but I do not see this generational ban working.
To the people who want to see smoking stopped, I point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, this generational ban will end up in the courts. Labour Peers did not listen when people said that the immigration Bill and the legacy Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland. It is clear from what has already been said by many noble KCs, by the European Union itself and by those seven countries that have given detailed reasons that this Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, not just because of the Windsor Framework but generally because of the tobacco directive.
If we were really serious about getting rid of smoking, we would ban tobacco altogether. That will never happen, because the Government like having the money that comes in from it. I do not understand how anyone could think that, by voting for something that will take years to implement, no matter what the Government say, we will not land up in court over and again with legal issues. Until the Windsor Framework goes, this will not happen. I have an amendment next week, so I will not go into any more detail on that now. Whether or not you agree with the generational ban, this might be a reason to look seriously at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the age of 21, even if you think that, in principle, adults over the age of 18 should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly sum up for the Front Bench on this interesting group of amendments. Our position is that we support this generational change and welcome the Government bringing it forward. This is not party-political; these ideas come from across the House, and we welcome them.
From our point of view, changing the age of sale to 21 would be tinkering at the edges and would not bring about the change that we all know we need. Nobody who has ever smoked a cigarette or been a smoker would wish otherwise. Imagine for a moment that, today, we were not considering this ban but contemplating introducing cigarettes for the first time. Nobody with a modicum of common sense would ever contemplate introducing cigarettes and allowing corporate companies to sell products that kill half their users. We all need to change this. My own father died of emphysema, and I am sure there is hardly anyone in this House who has not been impacted by tobacco.
This might be one of the most important things that any of us in the House do in our lifetime. It is hard to see another piece of legislation having such a beneficial impact on preventing harm and misery for people in society and helping them to lead healthier and better lives.
We see no insurmountable problem in this legislation. Yes, it is new and novel, and there will be teething problems—I cannot say there will not be—but they are all surmountable. Age verification and ID are commonly used, we need to look after our small retailers and look at how this change will be implemented, and there are other views on the EU question, but this is essential and it needs to be done. We have had conversations about freedom of choice, but we would not allow any young person to pick up a loaded revolver with two chambers and one bullet and give them the freedom of choice to spin it, put it against their head and pull the trigger.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Does the noble Earl not agree that we would save many lives if we passed a law saying that nobody should be allowed to drive a motor car unless there is a man waving a stick walking in advance of them? Similarly, if we banned electric bicycles, we would prevent a great deal of injuries and possible deaths. We all have to face these kinds of judgments as part of the human condition and living in a society.
Earl Russell (LD)
With the greatest of respect, there are degrees of risk. There is no electric bike or motor vehicle that we have allowed that kills 50% of people who get on a bike or in a car. The noble Lord is comparing apples with pears. The dangers of smoking are known and proven, and are far greater than anything else.
To conclude, we welcome this generational ban. There are particular issues that need to be looked at and the Bill will need to be regularly reviewed, but we will come to amendments on that. This is the most important thing that we must do. It is essential that we make progress to improve the public health of people in this country.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for his amendments in this group and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important and lively debate.
Reducing smoking rates and, in particular, preventing young people from taking up tobacco, with its highly damaging and pernicious consequences, are goals that I believe command broad support across the House. My noble friend’s amendments present us with an opportunity to settle in our minds the best way those goals might be achieved. From our debates in Committee and again today, we know there is a dichotomy of views on that.
My noble friend has eloquently made the case for substantially lifting the age of sale such that the legal purchase of tobacco by anyone under the age of 21 would be rendered impossible. The Government, on the other hand, have proposed the much more radical step of initiating a complete ban on tobacco sales to anyone born after 1 January 2009, thus creating, year by year, a wider and wider cohort of individuals for whom access to cigarettes and other tobacco products in shops will be legally barred.
Neither of these proposals, whether that of my noble friend or that of the Government, provides an absolute block on young would-be smokers accessing tobacco; so long as cigarettes remain a legal product, nothing could. However, if the generational ban can be made to work as intended, there can surely be no doubt that the benefits to public health over the long term will be immense. My right honourable friend the previous Prime Minister arrived at that realisation during the last Government, and the present Government have seen fit to agree with him.
There are two main arguments against the generational ban: one relates to civil liberties; the other is that of practical workability. I will not repeat the points that have been made on those themes, but I acknowledge that what is proposed in the Bill is, by any standards, without precedent in our consumer law. For the first time, a permanent legal distinction will be drawn between two adults based solely on their date of birth. One person may lawfully purchase a legal product while another, perhaps a year younger, may not. This would be not because of any difference in capacity or circumstance but purely by virtue of when they were born. The question people ask is whether in a free country that is right.
Following on from that are the questions around enforcement and general practicability. There are major questions around verification. As the years go by, shopkeepers will need to satisfy themselves that the person in front of them seeking to buy tobacco is 42 as opposed to 41, and so on. That does seem very different from a straightforward age of sale cut-off, which is a rule that everybody understands. Would shops and customers get used to this rigmarole? How easy would it be? As my noble friend rightly said, a number of countries have chosen to adopt the course that he is advocating rather than the generational ban.
I must, however, declare my hand. This Bill, as I have said, is an opportunity—an opportunity to make a transformational change in an area of public health that successive Governments have agreed is one of the two or three most important and far-reaching in our midst. Indeed, I would say that it is the most important. I do not think that the civil liberties arguments stand up to scrutiny for very long when we are talking about the chance of preventing serious ill health across millions of our population. Smoking needs to be made deeply unfashionable. My noble friend’s amendments, although entirely well meant, are unlikely to achieve that scale of health benefits nor that kind of attitudinal change.
There is uncertainty in whatever we decide to do. I am content for my noble friends on these Benches to make up their own minds on these matters. My noble friend, whom I greatly respect, will urge colleagues to join him in the Lobbies if he chooses to divide the House. At the same time, I hope he will understand that it ill behoves me, as my party’s spokesman for health and social care and as a former Health Minister, to pass up what I see as a golden opportunity to do something imaginative and radical, which is why I support the Government in their excellent ambitions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I think we can safely say that there is no unanimity of view, as a number of noble Lords have commented. I am particularly grateful for the support from both Front Benches, as has been consistent throughout. I am also grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Young, Lord Rennard, Lord Stevens and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and others.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, what an excellent debate showing your Lordships’ House at its best, with superb speeches on both sides of the argument. It would be invidious to list them, so I will not. I thank the Minister for her reply and her tolerance of my points throughout Committee and Report on the Bill.
Three thoughts occurred to me during those speeches. The first related to the point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is a man to whom I listen very carefully. He tried to draw an analogy between my amendment and the ban on heroin, or the requirement for people to wear seat belts in a motor car or a helmet when riding a motor cycle. That is, however, to ignore the fact that there is always a balancing exercise in deciding whether to ban something. One of the factors to consider is proportionality. We know from the excellent speeches we have heard this evening that what the Government propose by the Bill is untested and a gamble, not only with the lives of people who may take up smoking but with the livelihoods of shopkeepers and many involved in the retail trade. This policy is not properly thought through, and I am afraid that the analogy made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, does not satisfy me that my reasoning is flawed.
The second thought that occurred to me as I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is that I am always astonished that they retain the use of “liberal” in the title of the Liberal Democrat party. Having heard their speeches, it is surely redundant.
My third thought was during the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. She said that freedom is not something to be embarrassed about. I very much hope, if the noble Baroness has yet to order her coat of arms from Garter, that she uses that redounding phrase as her motto. With that ringing in your Lordships’ ears, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 3 and 12, which would have the effect that the regulations to be issued in relation to age verification should be made under the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as originally envisaged.
When I tabled these amendments in Committee, the Minister showed what I thought was a hint of favour towards them, so I had the temerity to retable them on Report and lo, what do I find, but that the Minister has added her name to them. With that, I think they require no further argument. They were recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move Amendment 3 and will move Amendment 12 at the appropriate moment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My only comment on this group is that we would not support Amendment 26, which would require a fund to be set up for age-verification technologies. If any fund were to be set up—we do not see the need for it—then it should be funded by the tobacco industry. I note with great interest that the Minister has signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I will briefly speak to Amendment 26, which is in my name, about the cost implications for small retailers and convenience stores. It is really a plea to the Minister to make some money available and introduce a grant system which can assist them. Age-verification technology is not cheap. They need to invest in a robust IT system. We need to build up a market for age verification. We also need one that protects consumers’ data and strengthens enforcement without penalising shopkeepers.
I think we all acknowledge that small shopkeepers are already in difficulty; it is not an easy time for them. We should look at anything we can do to help, and I think this would help. A simple act such as this would make it that much easier to ask the difficult question about age verification.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I half support Amendment 26. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
The introduction of this regressive and untested generational ban on tobacco sales obviously raises the thorny issue of how it will be implemented in terms of retailers checking ages. Following the discussion on the first group, it is worth noting that this is very different from standardised age checks, which we already have, where there can be challenges at 18 or 21 and over.
I would like to quote Trading Standards Wales, which described it as creating
“a two-tier age system for tobacco whereby someone born in 2008 would be legally able to purchase tobacco products whilst someone born in 2009 would not”.
It seems that, for this Bill to work in its own terms, enforcement is key, but it is not clear how that will be practical. Again, to quote Trading Standards Wales:
“Having a two-tier age system means that young people could still obtain cigarettes from older friends or family members that smoke and, it is unlikely that any parties would report each other to the authorities as both would face legal consequences in doing so”.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for their amendments in this group. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments and congratulate my noble friend on pressing the point.
Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will pick up the cogent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because this brings us to the broader question of age verification. Our debates in Committee demonstrated the genuine concerns among retailers that a strict “no ID, no sale” policy could become a serious flashpoint for violence and abuse directed at shop workers—an issue that, I am sure the Minister will agree, cannot be dismissed lightly. There is also a risk of confusion among customers, particularly where different age thresholds already apply across tobacco, alcohol and other age-restricted products; any new requirement must not add to that complexity. The process for purchasing these products should remain clear and readily understood by all members of the public and, crucially, shopkeepers.
Against that background, it would be extraordinary if technology were not to play a part in making that process easier and less potentially fraught. Can the Minister tell us anything about the cost and affordability of such technology? What specific consideration was given to these concerns during the Government’s consultations, and what assessment has been made of the potential impact on retail workers of what could become a cumbersome and confusing set of procedures with, as I have said, the added risk of threats and abuse to shopkeepers? At the very least, is any guidance planned to ensure that new verification requirements do not create a patchwork of conflicting obligations at the point of sale?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back Amendments 3 and 12, which would change from negative to affirmative the procedure for making regulations to specify steps that may be taken to verify the age of customers.
In Committee I committed to returning with the Government’s response to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have carefully considered those recommendations and listened to the support within your Lordships’ House, and I can confirm that we are accepting the recommendations in full. Therefore, as noble Lords have observed, I have—I think we can say unusually—put my name to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I can only counsel the noble Lord not to get used to it. I am very pleased to support his Amendments 3 and 12.
I have tabled government Amendment 105. For consistency, I have also tabled Amendment 110 to Clause 76, which is an equivalent amendment that provides the power to specify age-verification steps for Northern Ireland.
Amendment 26, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, would require the Secretary of State to establish a financial assistance scheme for the acquisition of age-verification technology by producers and retailers of nicotine products. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord’s aim is to support retailers—something that I hope the noble Lord heard me saying on behalf of the Government—and to strengthen adherence to age restriction laws. But I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—it is important to clarify this point—that the Government have no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce age of sale.
Checking that a customer is over the age of sale is a well-established concept for retailers, and they should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell age-restricted products to anyone underage. To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that they can use, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age. This includes the types of digital identities that can be used.
On some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I know that other noble Lords are, rightly, concerned about this—I confirm once again that the Government will work with the retail sector, as we are already doing, to publish clear, workable guidance to support it with these legislative changes. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, understands the Government’s position, and I encourage noble Lords to support Amendments 3, 12, 105 and 110.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Concerning the debate about enforcement, as somebody who in the past had political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority, which is the mechanism by which enforcement of underage tobacco sales is achieved, and having sat through the whole of Report so far this afternoon, I am surprised that there has been no mention of trading standards. Perhaps we will get to this later, but trading standards will need some help as well, because a considerable burden is going to be placed on it if this mechanism of a generational age limit is to go ahead. With that, I am grateful for the support for my Amendment 3.
Earl Russell
“Power to add vaping products or nicotine products to sale prohibitions(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 1 for the purpose of adding vaping products or nicotine products specified in the regulations to the list of items in subsection (1).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 2 for the purpose of adding vaping products or nicotine products specified in the regulations to the list of items in subsection (1).(3) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers if the regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group is on restrictions on vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her support. We welcome and commend the Government’s ambition to create a smoke-free generation, but if our goal is truly to protect the next generation from addiction and ill health, we must go further towards a nicotine-free generation as well. Big tobacco must not be allowed to re-establish its market through the vaping industry. The Government often speak of delivering the smoke-free generation, yet this phrase does not appear in the Bill.
My amendment has been through a bit of a journey. My original intention had been to amend a general purpose clause in the Bill, but, as I said, there is not one in the Bill. I then planned to add a general purpose clause but, on advice from the Public Bill Office, I instead decided to table this enabling power allowing further controls on nicotine products, should that ever prove necessary.
While cigarette smoking has continued to decline, vaping has increased, particularly among young people. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping; 5% of 11 to 15 year-olds vape regularly, rising to 12% for 16 to 17 year-olds. If you ask any parent or teacher, this trend is unmistakable.
Vaping should be a tool for smoking cessation, not for a new generation of addicts to provide revenues for big tobacco. The provision is modest and enabling. It compels no action but does give Ministers the power, through the affirmative procedure and after consultation with the devolved Administrations, to respond swiftly when new evidence of novel nicotine products emerges. Flexibility is crucial, because legislation often lags behind the innovative curve of the tobacco industry. Without it, as soon as this legislation is passed, we may find new products emerging.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I will not go through them in detail, as I am sure she will, but I note that this is a lovely practical example, and all credit to the Government that their campaigning has worked. We heard in Committee from both Action on Smoking and Health and the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership about the need for an exemption in in-patient mental health settings for vaping vending machines. The Government have clearly listened, and this is an example of how this all should work, so let us applaud and highlight that.
I support Amendment 16, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just introduced. The ban on disposable vapes is clearly being widely, almost universally, got around. The noble Earl spoke about producer responsibility. Well, we have a profoundly irresponsible industry that is behaving in ways that have serious health and environmental impacts. I spent most of this afternoon hosting an event for the National Association of Local Councils. As soon as I said I was leaving to do the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the reaction was, “Waste!” That is understandable. Let us look at some figures from Biffa on three recycling facilities, in Suffolk, Teesside and London. Before the ban on single-use vapes came in, they saw an average of 200,000 vapes mixed in with general waste; after the ban came in, that went up by about 3%. There was perhaps a rush of material being sold in that immediate period, but from everything we are hearing, the waste problem is still enormous, and the risk of these lithium batteries exploding and catching fire in waste lorries and recycling centres is absolutely enormous.
We need more action on public health, too. I spoke to a young person today who said, “Well, I’m a bit confused about how vaping relates to health and cigarettes”. Young people are not getting a clear message, and they are being sold these things everywhere. This amendment is saying we need to keep a watch on this and be ready to catch whatever the industry does next, because we know big tobacco is profoundly irresponsible. As the noble Earl said, this is perhaps not the exact way to do it, but we need to make sure we hear from the Government that they are prepared to take action against big tobacco at any time.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, which create an exemption for vape vending machines in mental health hospitals. This was really good to see: it is a humane step and will be very beneficial to patients. It proves that the Government can listen and amend, and I hope there might be more listening and amending, and exemptions, even at this late Report stage. It makes our debates feel as though they can get somewhere. This was an important concession for the Government to make, so I am really pleased to see that.
I have grave concerns about Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There is a real danger here that we end up seeing this Bill as a vehicle for a relentless attack on anything to do with nicotine. Unless I am much mistaken, the Bill does not intend—even though this is its effect—to treat all nicotine products in an undifferentiated way. It is aware of Cancer Research’s statement that vaping is “far less harmful” than tobacco and is the most popular tool to help people quit smoking.
But, following on from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not want to say simply that vaping can be considered positive only if it is used as a smoking cessation tool, because people will then undoubtedly—and they do undoubtedly—vape as a recreational habit. Is the Government’s aim, or this amendment’s aim, to tackle dependence on any substance whatever? Nicotine is the one that is named, but will caffeine be next? Where do we draw the line? As far as I am concerned, that should not be what this Bill tries to do.
I worry that this will lead to mission creep in the Bill, which will create a kind of pre-crime. I listened to the noble Baroness and I do not think that we should have a moral panic about vaping: that is the main thing. It is not appropriate for this Bill to start doing a pre-crime anticipation of all the things that might or might not go wrong in relation to vaping. That would be a disastrous outcome of this Bill. So I urge the noble Baroness to avoid the siren voices of those urging her to take it even further down the line of prohibition. I urge her to hold firm to the notion that, although there will be some suggested regulation of vaping, we should not and must not make vaping indistinguishable from tobacco in the public’s eye by treating them as equally problematic through the course of the Bill.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I very much support my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendments, which seek to address the abuse of vapes and other nicotine products. When you go into any local shop or see adverts, you must mentally think that those promoting these should hang their heads in shame. I mentioned in Committee the example from my own extended family, where vaping has been the route for teenage relatives to become addicted to nicotine and, from there, to smoking. So I fully support everything that we are doing to reduce nicotine dependency, and I support my noble friend’s amendments here.
Despite that, we welcome the Government’s amendments that create an exemption for mental health settings, allowing the continued use of vape vending machines. Written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by, for example, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust and others made it clear that vape vending machines located in mental health wards are currently a crucial part of delivering effective smoking cessation services. Several trusts using these machines have reported that they provide a safe and straightforward way of ensuring that patients can access vapes when they need them. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened to this evidence and made this concession.
In England, vapes are now the most commonly used smoking cessation aid, and it is awful that they have been exploited for other purposes. Nevertheless, vaping is recommended by NICE as the first-line smoking cessation tool and is more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies. Smoking prevalence in in-patient mental health settings remains extremely high, with estimates of about 50% overall and some studies reporting rates as high as 80% in individual hospitals, so I see why the Government have decided to take this particular measure forward.
Although it is technically possible for vending machines to be stocked with other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, this would not reflect patient preference, and we need to be guided by what works to support smokers to quit. As my noble friend Lord Russell said, that is what vapes should be about. The risks associated with proxy purchasing would seem to be low, particularly in closed wards, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister further on this point and to have clarification on how she envisages these machines operating within the new licensing scheme.
Therefore, although we accept the Government’s amendments in relation to mental health settings, we think that they need to do more to tackle the awful spread of nicotine addiction that we now see among young people. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 13A and 14A only as a means of thanking the Minister very much for her Amendments 14 and 15 in this group. As a number of us argued in Committee, including in particular my noble friend Lord Moylan, there is a strong case for saying that, in a secure mental health setting where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated, and potentially to staff as well, as a knock-on effect. I am very glad that the Minister felt able to reconsider this issue in the way that she has.
I confess I am troubled by Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because, although its stated purpose is to future-proof the Bill, the signal that it sends is perhaps regrettable in the context of current public attitudes towards vaping as a means of quitting cigarettes. A substantial percentage both of the general public and of smokers mistakenly believe that vapes present a greater risk to health than smoking tobacco, extraordinary as that is. The NHS is unequivocal that vapes provide a far safer route to managing nicotine addiction than continuing to smoke. The prospect that they could at a later stage simply be swept into the same prohibition regime risks creating uncertainty, discouraging switching and undermining public health gains. We need to remember that the Bill already contains extensive regulation-making powers in respect of vaping and nicotine products—on advertising, flavours, packaging, display and sale—and those powers are wide-ranging and substantial. So adding a further power of this breadth is, I suggest, unnecessary overreach.
I am afraid that I think Amendment 16 is unnecessary as well. The Bill already contains extensive powers to regulate vaping products, from product standards and enforcement to environmental controls. The Government are already consulting widely and gathering evidence in these areas, and I am afraid I do not think there is any need for the creation of yet another statutory taskforce.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The Chief Medical Officer’s advice on vapes is quite clear: although vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children should never vape. In the design of policy proposals, it is imperative, we feel, to get the balance right—I say this to noble Lords who raised this point—and we sought to get the balance right between protecting future generations from the risk of vaping and ensuring that vapes remain accessible for adult smokers. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular will welcome that.
Amendment 7 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide a regulation-making power that could be used to add vaping and nicotine products to the smoke-free generation provisions in England and Wales. I understand the aims of the noble Earl in bringing this forward, but I have to say—again, I hope this will be helpful to noble Lords who expressed concerns—that there is a fundamental difference in safety between vapes and tobacco products.
Tobacco is uniquely harmful. Up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking —so vaping, while it is not harm free, is significantly less harmful than smoking. Given the current research on health harms, the evidence base does not support extending smoke-free generation provisions to vapes or to nicotine products.
Also, to respond to the amendment, the Government should assume new powers only where there is clear justification for future regulatory change. Certainly, introducing a vape-free generation power, as suggested, would be a major step not currently supported by evidence. An age of sale restriction of 18 for vaping and nicotine products is therefore considered proportionate to protect children and young people, particularly as they may be more susceptible to the risks from nicotine use, including addiction.
On Amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the points raised alongside this by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I hope that I can provide a reassurance that the Government are already delivering a comprehensive programme to tackle youth vaping, strengthen enforcement and reduce environmental impacts, and have the relevant expertise required on these issues. It is our contention that it is not necessary to put this on a statutory footing.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked how we would deal with the environmental impact of vapes. That is an extremely important area. What I can say is, as part of our upcoming circular economy growth plan, to which the noble Earl referred, the task force will consider circular design. That means including cross-government approaches such as would fit this Bill; it will consider regulation of product features and support increased recyclability—and I think that is the right place for it to be dealt with. We have to remember that last June we banned the sale and supply of single-use vapes, and from 1 October this year we will introduce a vaping products duty, which we know is effective at dissuading price-sensitive young people. Furthermore, we have a range of measures in this Bill that will tackle the drivers of youth vaping and allow us to take action on advertising, packaging, flavours and display. To support the development of future regulations, importantly, we have recently conducted a call for evidence to gather views on issues such as flavours, nicotine limits and tank sizes. There are differing opinions on all of these, so I think the call for evidence is the right approach.
The Bill also strengthens enforcement with powers that will enable us to introduce a licensing scheme and product registration scheme. Through our £10 million enforcement programme with National Trading Standards, which I referred to in the previous group, we will fund the vaping expert panel to provide valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations.
We are also commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. This includes a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies and a five-year long living evidence review that will collate the latest research of vaping. Additionally, last year, we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health impacts of vaping on young people’s health. I consider that all these will greatly build on to the knowledge base and evidence base that we have.
Amendments 13A and 14A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to exempt sales from vape vending machines in mental health hospitals for patients and staff aged 18 and over. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. As I am sure the noble Lord realises, we believe that the Government’s amendment covers what he is intending to achieve—and I am glad that he is indicating his agreement on that point.
I listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee on patients in mental health facilities—something particularly close to my heart, as I am the Minister for Mental Health. These patients’ liberties may be restricted in terms of their being able to access vaping products to meet the public health need of helping them to quit smoking or manage nicotine addiction. Adults with a long-term mental health condition have much higher smoking prevalence rates than the general population, and this exemption takes into consideration the concerns that were raised by Peers, for which I am grateful, related to helping those people with a long-term mental health condition to quit where needed and it is appropriate.
In my reflection on these concerns, I am pleased to say that is why I have brought forward government Amendments 14 and 15, and I am very pleased to have the welcome of both Front Benches, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Fox. These government amendments provide an exemption from the ban on vape vending machines for adult mental health in-patient facilities in England and Wales. To be clear, the wording of the exemption has been very deliberately chosen. It is tightly defined to include only adult mental health in-patient settings and only in areas intended wholly or mainly for in-patients. By its nature, that means that staff will also be able to access these machines, but the exemption would not extend to areas that are not mainly for in-patient use, such as a visitors waiting room or a staff room. I hope that gives some indication to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on how this might work.
We are retaining the wider ban on vending machines to prevent young people from accessing age-restricted products, and to protect the next generation from being hooked on nicotine. I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am thankful for all those who have spoken in this debate and for the Minister’s detailed response.
On government Amendments 14 and 15, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for bringing the issue forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening and bringing forward the Government’s own amendments. As the Minister has commented, they have been welcomed across the House; they are compassionate and sensible measures, so they are very welcome indeed.
On my Amendment 7, I tried to explain the journey that I had been on in terms of a general purpose clause. It might be that the wording of my amendment was still a little bit clunky. I want to be absolutely clear: it is not a relentless attack on nicotine, and I am not anti-vaping. The question is where we draw the line on these issues, which is probably for another Bill in future. I absolutely recognise the role of vaping in smoking cessation, but what I do not want is a new product line for big tobacco to create new nicotine addicts and to create future revenue. Where we sit between those two points is perhaps a matter for another Bill, but those issues will at some point need to be addressed. That should not be done in a way that is overly restrictive, but it should also not be done in a way that is overly free in allowing big tobacco to exploit young people and get them addicted to nicotine when that does not need to happen.
Turning to my Amendment 16, I listened to what the Minister said and I welcome the fact that the Circular Economy Taskforce is looking at these issues. We will look at those recommendations closely when they come forward. The Government say they have banned single-use disposable vapes. I must admit that, to my mind, to all intents and purposes, in the real world that is simply not the case. They are still single-use products. All that being said, I welcome the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
“Transparency of tobacco sales data(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring every manufacturer and importer of tobacco products to publish, on a quarterly basis, data relating to the sale of tobacco products in England and Wales.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision requiring publication of—(a) the volume of sales of tobacco products, broken down by product type, brand and geographical region, and (b) such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of assessing tobacco consumption and its effects on public health.(3) Data published under regulations under this section must be made publicly available in a format accessible to public health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant bodies.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco companies to publish sales data, to improve transparency and support public health policy.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide quarterly sales data to assist public health activities. These regulations may include information about, for example, volume of sales, geographical area and product type.
Tobacco is not like any other industry, as we have been discussing. The products sold by the industry kill around two-thirds of long-term users and the harms are widespread and well-documented. Yet the industry treats its data as a commercial secret, leaving public health authorities in the dark. The information already exists. The tobacco industry holds it. This amendment would ensure that the data are harnessed for the public good.
I note that, although Amendment 10 outlines areas where regulations could be brought, it does say “may”—there is flexibility there for the Government. All that is required is that they make progress in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, noted in Committee that HMRC and the Department of Health currently have access to some data. However, we do not feel that that is sufficient. We have heard from those working in public health that there are gaps which, if filled, would benefit activities on the ground.
Smoking is responsible for deep health inequalities, with modelling from Cancer Research UK, for example, showing a 25-year gap between the most and least affluent communities in this country in achieving smoke-free status. That is a shocking illustration of health inequality, reflected in nearly twice as many smoking-related cancers in the poorest areas compared with the wealthiest. Access to sales data would help local authorities, trading standards and public health agencies target resources effectively, monitor patterns of use and respond quickly to emerging threats.
Other countries do this. Canada’s Tobacco Reporting Regulations require manufacturers to report on over 20 ingredients and 40 emissions, along with sales and promotion data, to assist Health Canada in policy decisions. Australia requires companies to report on sales volumes, product pricing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship activities and expenditure, alongside information regarding ingredients.
Mandating transparency—we were discussing transparency earlier—is the right step. It holds the tobacco industry more accountable and ensures that public health can act on the evidence, rather than wait for other data sources. For these reasons, I urge the Government to support this amendment and commit to improve transparency for an industry that has avoided accountability for decades. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I covered Amendment 17A, in my name, in Committee, so I will be brief.
Currently, the vast majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws-worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. In the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That is equivalent to 6,000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary constituency every day. Each plastic butt can take up to 10 years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they have polluted the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. Worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around £40 million a year fighting a losing battle—money that many would argue could be better spent on vital front-line services. The industry could have made a change, but so far has not gone far enough.
Banning plastic cigarette filters is supported by the public, including smokers. In polling commissioned earlier this year by the Parliament News website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, 2,000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked:
“Would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable alternative”,
almost nine in 10, or 86%, agreed, while just one in 20, or 6%, disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority—77%—supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found that eight in 10 people support the government levy and additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers. Some 84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment.
I do not think that this is a party-political issue. It was discussed by MPs, who voted on an amendment that was supported cross-party, including by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Reform, independents and unionists. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the change that was being put forward. If we are going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an important change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics and public health, including the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. As I will come to later, my amendment calls for banning filters altogether.
Very often in your Lordships’ House, I find myself acknowledging that something that is being proposed is not exactly what I want but would be an improvement. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the ban on plastic filters that the noble Baroness proposes would be an improvement. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which I am not going to reprise, but, basically, we have a problem, in that the term “biodegradable”, which is what is being proposed, is exceedingly unclear and is not defined. There is very clear evidence that these so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones, leach harmful chemicals and remain in the environment for a long time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. Although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction.
Amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed in Committee, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the Government to act now and ban all cigarette filters, which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and, of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Liberal Democrats for Amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. I am absolutely delighted, for the second group in a row, to say to the Minister that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which mean that the Government are preparing the way for banning filters in the future, is a significant step forward.
However, I want to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why this action must be taken now. The problem of so-called guilt-free littering makes the littering problem even worse. Companies that manufacture so-called biodegradable filters continue to make profits only if people continue to consume tobacco; the biodegradable filters proposal is essentially coming from the tobacco industry.
This country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be—we hear the phrase world-leading so often in your Lordships’ House—the first country in the world to ban so-called cigarette filters. We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit.
The World Health Organization has said that it believes a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less, and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.
I recognise that in Committee the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point. There are now academics working on that very point. I am sure they will be reaching out, and I will make sure that the noble Baroness hears about that as well.
While I agree with the Minister that the long-term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use—that is obviously the ambition that pretty much everyone can sign up to—with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action. I am glad to see that the Government’s position has again shifted on this since Committee. I thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, as well as the academics who have been highlighting this issue and moving this forward.
Finally, and briefly, I express Green support for Amendments 10, 204 and 133, and particularly for the suggestion in Amendment 133, which I spoke on extensively in Committee, for warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. Again, this is a place where we would not quite be first in the world, but we would certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that has been shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we are all after.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank them for their support for this important amendment. This amendment proposes a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused. The principle is simple and widely accepted: when an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm.
Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacture of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control and healthcare for those suffering from smoke-related illnesses. Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight.
This is not a new charge on consumers. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public’s health than it has ever contributed. Four companies control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly-like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm. Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK.
Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including a cost of £1.8 billion to the NHS and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely £6.8 billion—only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The “polluter pays” principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment. It is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in England.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendments 129 and 133 would place a duty on the Government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or the inserts within them but on every single cigarette, by printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whose great work on this Bill is much to be admired, said that this was something the Government could look at in future but not something they were looking at now, and that secondary legislation could provide for this in future. I ask: why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin?
This idea is not new or untested. It was first endorsed by the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health in 2021, and then in the Khan review commissioned by the previous Government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers, with demonstrable impact. Australia followed suit last April, albeit with warnings only on the filters. The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers responded to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking: cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message—and it is the wrong one.
I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to introduce pack inserts that direct smokers towards quitting support. I argued strongly for this when we debated the Health and Care Bill. It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often offered from someone else’s packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack-based measures simply do not.
This effect of warnings on individual cigarette papers has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on it or may have an insert in future. Printing warnings directly on the cigarette would ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off-putting for young people.
It is sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood. Action on Smoking and Health found in an analysis of its survey data that younger smokers, the very people who would benefit most from this measure, were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My amendment would help them give up every time they handle a cigarette.
More importantly, it would help prevent people smoking their very first cigarette. The evidence shows that, the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to reduce the harm it causes to smokers, their families and everybody else.
Finally, I know the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that, in some countries where this has been implemented, they appear only on the filter. The UK could do things differently if we choose, as in Canada. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could display to this Chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I hope she will say not just that this measure might be considered in future but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group. Before coming to those, I will say a word about Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I was initially attracted to. Like many other noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ASH, where we listened to health experts explain that filters do not prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they have ingredients in them that might be damaging. Far worse, because of the filter, smokers inhale more than they would have done had there not been one, as they think it is safe. It may be that the 25 government amendments achieve in a rather roundabout way what the noble Baroness seeks to do in Amendment 77. We will listen with interest to the Minister when she speaks to her amendments.
Amendment 133 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As I have said before, when I was a Health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt putting a warning on cigarettes and it declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic. This was not an argument I found very persuasive. Here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something that at the time was world-beating, although I understand that I have now been overtaken by Canada.
Amendment 204, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sits rather uneasily in this group, which is otherwise about filters, in that it is about the tobacco levy. I want to make a number of points. First, previously the Government ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014. Indeed they did, but this is a very different model from that which they consulted on. Crucially, in the one they consulted on, the levy would have been passed on to the consumer, with all the impact on RPI or CPI. This model has been constructed to avoid that; it would control the price that tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and would not allow tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers as they do at the moment. It would raise revenue. One estimate has been £5 billion. Even if it is a fraction of that, it is money well worth having.
The scheme would not be complex to administer. As the noble Earl said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PPRS, controlling medicine prices, with far more manufacturers than are involved in tobacco. Crucially, the Khan review, already referred to, which was initiated by Sajid Javid when he was Health Secretary, pointed out that the Government were not going to hit their then target of a smoke-free England by 2030. It recommended the levy—this was an independent review commissioned by the last Conservative Government—and reinvesting the money in media campaigns targeted at those elements of the population who were still smoking.
Finally, I know that the Minister will not mind me reminding her of what she said when a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships’ House by 213 to 154. She knows what I am going to say; she supported and voted for that amendment, saying that it would
“provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]
Well, that is what we are asking for today. She did not persuade me in Committee when she gave the reasons why she had changed her mind. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why she will now urge the House to reject what she thought was a good idea four years ago.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, since this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I declare my interest as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, and we sometimes run seminars on evidence behind public health policy.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I will start by addressing the government amendments tabled in my name. The issue of filters, as we have heard in this debate, has been raised throughout the Bill’s passage, both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum.
However, there has not been a consensus on a single approach, and it is that that we have sought to deal with. That is why we are taking a suite of powers to enable secondary legislation to regulate filters, should evidence suggest that it is necessary. Although these powers could enable the banning of filters in the future, they also enable us to regulate filters in other ways, such as regulating their packaging, advertising, display in stores and free distribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to, there is evidence that people incorrectly believe that some cigarette filters make cigarettes less harmful. There is absolutely a risk that this could influence smoking behaviours. The fact of the matter is that cigarette filters provide no protection from the health risks of smoking.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Government’s intention to take action. On that point, and more broadly, the evidence base about the direct health impact is still in formation. We will explore commissioning further research to understand the harms and, based on that, consider further consultation. For these reasons, we are not able to accept Amendment 76 from the noble Earl.
Since we are taking these powers on filters in the Bill, Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are therefore not required—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Should we choose to ban filters, we would indeed be the first country in the world to do so. It would be a significant step, and noble Lords will understand that, before making any such decision, we need to interrogate the issue fully and ensure that all potential consequences are considered. However, we will now have the powers to act through these government amendments if and when the evidence emerges.
Specifically on Amendment 17A, evidence currently suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable can still leach harmful chemicals into the environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. There is also evidence to suggest that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them, as noble Lords have said.
I turn to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I am sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency of the tobacco industry. I therefore understand why she brought this forward. However, Clause 95 already provides powers to make regulations that could require producers or importers to provide specified information. This could include sales data, as well as market research, from producers of any relevant products within the scope of Part 5, not just tobacco products. This clause also enables us to make provision about when and how the information must be provided, and the publication of any such information. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will consult on these requirements as we develop the necessary regulations.
I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 204, tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp. However, as I said in Committee, again in answer to the point the noble Earl raised, we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco in the form of tobacco duties. The UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation at the Autumn Budget 2025. This duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I appreciate that the amendment proposes combining a levy with regulating prices, but the reality is that, because of the ongoing structural decline in the UK tobacco market, we are sceptical that there is the suggested level of profit available in the system. Regulating pricing would also be a complicated and resource-intensive policy to design and implement, and which we believe is unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives, such as raising additional revenue. It would be challenging to design restrictions that industry could not circumvent, for example, by shifting focus to products not included in the cap or avoiding tax through international transfer pricing. Therefore, as I stated previously, our preference is to continue with tobacco duties—an understood approach which incentivises those who currently smoke to quit and generates revenue that can be put back into a full range of public services.
Finally, Amendments 129 and 133 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for strong tobacco control. However, with respect to these amendments, we already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products which could enable us to mandate health warnings in the future. We already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on cigarette packaging, emphasising health harms. They include the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. We have announced that we are introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. Therefore, we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did acknowledge in his contribution, the Government will continue to monitor the evidence.
I hope that this provides reassurance to noble Lords that the Government are committed to evidence-based policy to tackle the harms from tobacco use and that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is a vital Bill, even if we are seeking to improve it further. We have clearly made progress on filters and there are a number of other areas where progress can be made under the Bill. I note the Minister’s encouraging words in relation to my amendment on data and transparency. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Government for the Statement and the publication of the schools White Paper, the SEND consultation and the update on teacher recruitment. I also acknowledge the time taken by the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues in communicating in particular the Government’s proposals in terms of reforming support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, including taking time to talk to parents. This is a very important and sensitive area, and that is appreciated by all.
The Government have been very clear about their intent with these reforms, but I will ask the Minister some questions, particularly on realigning the incentives in the system. Before the Minister points out any of the mistakes of the previous Government, I will be absolutely clear that there was an issue with the 2014 reforms in relation to incentives. The principles that underpinned the Children and Families Act, which introduced education, health and care plans, were not flawed. The aim of creating a tailored and comprehensive single plan for a child was not a bad one; nor was the requirement for local authorities and partners to jointly commission services and to focus on outcomes and participation of children; and nor was the extension of rights and support into further education and training, so that young people with SEND were better prepared for adulthood.
The problems came with the incentives, which ended up unintentionally pushing parents to seek specialist and, in many cases, very expensive support for their child. Every one of us, as a parent, would seek the best possible support for our children, but it ended up driving up costs in a way that no one anticipated. I hope that the Minister can set out how the incentives will work in the proposed system, because the existence of earlier intervention support, which is very welcome, does not equate to parents believing that it is sufficient for their child.
It would help to understand how the department and Ministers have thought through the incentives for parents and for mainstream schools to intervene and improve outcomes. If the Minister could walk us through an example, it would be very helpful. Perhaps she could expand on the plan set out on page 84 of the consultation to redirect more money into the core budget and say how much the Government anticipate will be taken out of education, health and care plans to make that happen.
I would also be grateful if she could set out how confident the Government feel that the new funding for inclusive mainstream provision and for the specialist workforce will be sufficient. At first sight, the figures do not look sufficient when one thinks about them at an individual school level, although I appreciate that they are very large in relation to any negotiation with His Majesty’s Treasury. Unless they are sufficient, parents understandably will seek to revert to specialist support as the only route to adequate help for their children.
The same is true when one looks at the numbers set out in the document in relation to the specialist workforce, where I see that the plans of the previous Government, particularly in relation to educational psychologists, are being continued at a rate of 200 a year. I appreciate that it is difficult to recruit and find these staff but, again, they need to be there in sufficient numbers.
I apologise if I missed this in the document, but I wonder whether the Government considered using approaches that I think are used quite frequently on the continent, where funding is given to a local area and all schools can benefit from provision for the children with the most complex needs where no individual school has sufficient children to make it viable to support them. Finally, will the Government be piloting these approaches to test how they work in practice, so we avoid unintended consequences?
Apart from incentives, can the Minister address some of the concerns that have been expressed by parents who are worried that their rights will be eroded? I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Minister to reassure those who are listening. There are many areas that have been highlighted: I will pick just a couple. First, education, health and care plans were set with a legal test of whether it “may be necessary” for provision to be secured through a plan, not whether a child has “complex” or “severe” needs. That appears to be changing. The document says that education, health and care plans
“will be developed with the setting, and in consultation with parents, after the Specialist Provision Package and placement decisions have been made”.
The Minister will know that parents are worried about that.
Finally, can I give her the opportunity to answer the question that her colleagues have so far declined to answer? Could any child who currently has an EHCP lose it in future?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that I have been asking for this to come out for a long time, so I thank the Government for getting there eventually. The document does accept that it is a difficult and slow process that we are starting, and anybody who kids themselves that it is not will be doing a disservice to everybody involved. We are talking about 2030 for getting some structure in place. You have to train people, to get other people used to being told that they are operating differently in the classroom, and to get schools to re-incentivise, with an inclusion strategy and individual support plans. This is a cultural shift which will take real effort and time to push through. If we accept that, how will we make sure that everybody in every school understands that they have a duty and the ability to identify and tell parents what the problem is? That is where it all starts to go wrong.
At the moment, there is a disincentive for anybody to be identified by a school as having a special educational need, because you have got a budget that comes from the main school budget, which means you have got a choice between four kids getting their dyslexia support or help for autism or ADHD, or the roof leaks. How is that to be squared? It is not just more money; it is the allocation of money, and it is the duty. If you have an individual plan going through, are you flexible enough to allow that to be implemented?
There has been an acceptance in this Chamber every time I have spoken that you do not work harder; you work smarter. Individual groups will have a different take on this. I am a dyslexic, and I declare my interest as the president of the British Dyslexia Association. I use technology and I work with people who use technology—I declare my interest as the chairman of Microlink PC. The incentives I have there and the problems I square up to are different to those in the autism sector, which is probably one of the most vocal groups. How are we going to work these two in together? How are we going to have the flexibility to allow a school to actually undertake these different types of approach?
If you have that, if you make that an incentive, you stand a chance of getting a better situation, but only if you have identified that you can get the right help to the right person. Take dyslexia—I will cling to mother and talk to the one I know about. If it is not just the English teacher but the maths teacher who realises bad short-term memory means these individuals will not remember formulas and equations, bring those two together so everybody knows you will work differently. You can go into dyscalculia and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is not here but she has actually raised this and done a great service in bringing it further forward. When these groups come through, how are we going to get the capacity into the school to identify and bring it forward?
The reassessment of all plans and support structures when you get to secondary school is a natural break—you go from acquiring basic skills to acquiring knowledge to pass exams. But how are we going to make sure that is not something where somebody says, “Right, you are doing this here”; it should be about how you continue, not how you stop. There is a fear, and it has become very apparent. I recommend the “Woman’s Hour” podcast if noble Lords want to have a definition of the fear that has come out about this. How are we going to deal with that? These are the sort of questions we are going to have to start to answer today and carry on with.
I welcome the approach here, but unless you actually get a more coherent pattern that reassures those who have fought to get their EHCPs, spending time, blood and not a little money on them, what are we going to do? Can we also have a commitment from the Minister that the Government will be looking at how to remove lawyers from the system? In many cases, there are a lot of very second-rate lawyers who have taken this work on and are milking the system. We cannot go back to this. We cannot go back to this situation where only the articulate and well off are getting the help they need.
I applaud the attention towards subjects like sport and music, because it helps with special educational needs if you have got some positive attitude towards them. How are we going to bring this together? How is the flexibility and that inclusion pathway going to be put down so that the rest of this can be put on? If you get that right, you stand a chance of making a real improvement here. If we do not have that and we do not have the identification capacity, you will not achieve that much.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, our White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, sets out our ambition to improve the lives of all children and young people, combining the support they receive at home with a school experience that is challenging, enriching and inclusive.
First, we will broaden children’s experience of education with a knowledge-rich curriculum, smooth the transition between phases, and introduce an enrichment entitlement for every child and accountability changes that promote breadth.
Secondly, we will ensure that children who have been sidelined for too long are fully included. We want every child to have the best start in life, with support available earlier and locally. Deprivation funding will be targeted to boost outcomes for the most disadvantaged children, and we are launching two place-focused missions to provide a blueprint for national change. Our ambitious SEND reforms will support mainstream inclusion so that children can access help without waiting for lengthy assessments or having to engage with lawyers—including from our £1.8 billion Experts at Hand programme, wrapping professionals such as speech and language therapists around schools, and removing the incentive that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified for parents, who are desperate for the support that they need and want for their children, to have to fight through a lengthy process to get an education, health and care plan. But for those with more complex needs, new specialist provision packages, designed with experts and parents, will define the support required. All this is backed by £7 billion more for SEND in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26.
Thirdly, we will move from children and communities withdrawing from school to engaging with a new pupil engagement framework. Improved behaviour and attendance support and clearer information for parents will help strengthen relationships between families and schools.
Finally, we are building the strong foundations needed to deliver this change—more expert teachers, better training and improved maternity provision, deeper school collaboration through a trusted model and innovation powered by data, AI and regional RISE teams. These reforms, shaped by the largest national conversation on SEND, put children, families and inclusion at the heart of our system, and together they will ensure that every child in every community can achieve and thrive.
To give more detail on the incentives and funding point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear that we will reform the system through the addition of £4 billion over the next three years, including the £1.6 billion for the inclusive mainstream fund, because we must get to a position where more parents feel confident that their children are receiving the support that they need in schools, alongside their friends and as part of their communities. We will provide £1.6 billion for that fund over three years, with over £500 million per year over the next three years to mainstream schools and other educational settings. That fund will give schools and other education settings direct responsibility over funding to empower them to deliver for children and young people with SEND. Over time, there will be a rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools’ budgets, in line with new accountability arrangements—funding in schools where it needs to make the difference.
In addition, our £1.8 billion fund will enable there to be what we are calling Experts at Hand—speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists and others supporting children and teachers before the point at which children need to get to have an education, health and care plan. That funding will provide, for example, the equivalent of 160 days’ worth of support in a secondary school and 40 additional days in primary. We will expect schools to work in groups in order to ensure that, where it does not necessarily make sense or is not possible to provide that provision in one school, they can work together in order to ensure that that provision is available.
The key point here, as we think about education, health and care plans, is how we move to a system where children will not need an education, health and care plan to get support in the first place. Although, to be clear, education, health and care plans will remain for children with complex needs, they will be based on evidence-driven, expert-determined, specialist provision packages, which will enable better and more effective commissioning by local authorities of the provision that is most likely to provide support for children. They will back up the education, health and care plans, which will remain for those children with complex needs.
We are clear that we need to transform the system before we change the EHCP system. That is why we have been clear that no child will have their EHCP renewed before 2028-29 and that it will be only those children who are currently in year 2 or below, who will come to the end of their primary, at which point it would seem appropriate to review their education, health and care plan. Many of them may well continue with that plan; for others, the transformed system and the development of individual support plans for every child with special educational needs may provide a better opportunity at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. We need to train people and teachers in order to be able to deliver the inclusive education that is at the heart of this reform. That is why we have already announced the £200 million additional support for every teacher and educator, from early years through to colleges, to get training in special educational needs and the type of teaching required to support children and young people. That is why we will make additional support and practitioners available in early years to help to identify those children who need additional support, and it is why we will invest in research to find the most effective ways of doing that throughout the system.
To conclude, our ambition is clear: to build an education system that enables every child, wherever they live and whatever their needs, to achieve and to thrive. These reforms will deliver earlier support, stronger inclusion, broader opportunities and higher standards for all. They are shaped by parents, grounded in evidence and backed by significant investment. Most importantly, they place children at the heart of every decision that we make. Working together, we can create a system that is fairer, more ambitious and fit for the future. That is how we will ensure that every child can achieve and thrive.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I know from my work as an MP how sensitive this issue is and how important it is to families. I used to represent a constituency that the Minister will know very well.
There are concerns that we should not ignore. A number of eminent clinicians and psychiatrists are now raising concerns that the expansion of diagnostic labels to conditions such as autism and ADHD is causing children with the most severe and complex needs to be overlooked. Given that one in three EHCPs is now given for autism and that the number of children overall with SEN is rising, does the Minister think there is any validity in these concerns? If she does, will she look at it? What is the response? Will the Fonagy review look at this issue specifically as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that I know that constituency very well, having proudly represented it for 13 years—although I am afraid that the history of Worcestershire’s approach to special educational needs has not always been as effective as we would want it to be. There is a challenge to be made to local authorities to ensure that they are stepping up to the mark, given the considerable additional investment that we are putting into the system.
On the point about diagnostic labels, the important thing is that we should not be waiting for a child to receive a label to determine whether they have needs that need to be met, both through more inclusive mainstream teaching and through additional support being provided within schools. Even when we get to the specialist provision packages, they will be determined not by labels but by the needs that children have in order to make progress.
On the point about overdiagnosis, we need to be careful. The Secretary of State has been clear about that. He has commissioned further research into the nature of the diagnosis, particularly in the areas of mental health and other learning difficulties. That is an appropriate thing to have done.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that great teaching is vital to great schools and great childhoods. We both shared the pleasure of working at the chalkface for many years. What will the Government do in the months and years ahead to ensure that great teachers stay in the profession and that they themselves achieve and thrive?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right—and also about the joy that teaching brought to us both. That is why, alongside the White Paper, we published the implementation plan for delivering an additional 6,500 specialist teachers in our secondary schools and colleges. It is why, through the already improved pay for teachers, we are providing incentives for them to stay; why we are continuing to look at the working conditions that teachers operate under; and why, for example, the White Paper extends maternity pay for teachers from a pretty low base. Using all those things, and the support for teachers to do the job that they love even better, we are already seeing some progress in keeping more teachers in the classroom. We will continue to ensure that we focus on that.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this document. It is very important and ambitious, but it is not without risk. The way in which the Government have consulted on it—and, in a way, taken their time—gives us the best possible chance of making a success of it. I hope that is the case.
I have two questions, which I hope the Minister can address. First, on the extra money going into the system to support SEND, I very much welcome the work that the Government plan to do on a new formula for supporting children from disadvantage. Will the way the SEND money goes into schools be part of that review and go in with money in the normal way, or will it take a different route? Will the details of that be announced? Secondly, I note that the White Paper allows local authorities to set up trusts. There is a quirky sentence, I think in chapter 5, which says that these local authority trusts will not be allowed to intervene or get involved in the day-to-day running of the school. That is not my impression of what happens with trusts at the moment. Will the rules that surround a local authority-led trust be exactly the same as the rules that surround others, or will they be slightly different, as this seems to indicate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the White Paper proposes a different approach to how we fund disadvantage, recognising that a “yes or no”, free school meals analysis of whether somebody is disadvantaged does not really get to the heart of the nature of that disadvantage. We will consult on that in relation to the money that schools receive for the pupil premium and for the disadvantage factors within the national funding formula, some of which would relate to children with SEND but is not specifically about SEND. The £4 billion additional funding for SEND will be allocated in the way I outlined in my first answer.
On the point about local authority trusts, it is the objective of the White Paper for all schools to be part of a trust. We are clear that, in some cases, there may not be existing trusts that could take on a school. For that reason we will also allow local authorities to set up trusts, but it is not the intention to recreate local authorities through trust provision. That is the reason for the particular arrangements for local authority trusts.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government. As a teacher, I think this is an amazing document and I look forward to talking about it a lot more. Something I particularly love about it is the high expectation of families. A question that comes to me—one of many—is that it talks about experts at hand, wrapping professionals around mainstream settings. I love the fact that the schools are becoming the experts, but it is pretty light on detail. Can the Minister be a little more specific about how this is going to happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the emphasis on families and the relationship between schools and parents. An important element of the White Paper recognises, as I know the noble Lord does from his teaching career, that although teachers make a phenomenal difference to how children succeed, many other factors outside schools also impact on that. That is why this builds on a range of other activities, including those to support children to arrive at school ready to learn and our efforts to tackle child poverty, and brings stronger expectations on schools to ensure that they develop better home-school agreements and communicate consistently.
On the point about experts at hand, this is where I was talking about the additional funding that will enable some of those experts who, I am afraid, are currently spending too much time carrying out assessments or are in excellent special schools but are not able to offer that expertise out to schools, to develop it. Yes, there is work to be done on the design of how that happens, but this is considerable investment to deliver an average of 160 days to secondary schools precisely to get that support to children without them having to go through the torturous process of getting an education, health and care plan.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all the officials involved in producing this very ambitious White Paper and crediting Ministers for their determination to tackle this very difficult issue. I wholeheartedly support their emphasis on early intervention.
The Minister very helpfully set out the plans for the £4 billion of spending that I understand is coming from the department’s existing spending review settlement over the next three years. I wonder whether she could also confirm—or correct me if I am wrong—that the Treasury is providing an additional £3.5 billion in 2028-29 as a one-off payment. Is this funding earmarked to cover the projected £6 billion of deficits that the OBR set out? I would be grateful if she could clarify that for me and tell me if I have misunderstood.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The £4 billion is additional funding over the next three years. The £6 billion that the OBR identified was based on the premise of an unreformed system. That the system is being reformed means that, by the time we get to 2028-29 and 2029-30, we will be operating in a very different system. As part of the local government settlement, we have also begun the process of writing off and taking over responsibility for the money that local authorities have built up from overspending on special educational needs in recent years. Those two things are separate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my diocese has more than 190 Church schools and we educate around 60,000 children, in the total roll across them. The Church of England has already officially welcomed the White Paper and these Benches echo that this evening.
In Manchester, we have been looking at those points of transition—the transition from preschool into primary and from primary into secondary. In the past five or six years, the Bolton metropolitan area has had a project called Children Changing Places, because we recognise that, in those points of transition, children’s academic, social and spiritual development can go backwards, so we have been investing money into those points of transition. I note that both the White Paper and the Minister, in her replies this evening, referred to those points of transition. Might I tempt her to say a little more about how children can be enabled to manage those transitions without dropping back in their various levels of attainment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. As an example, we are working on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start school with an ambitious target to improve that, and investment in Best Start in Life and childcare to enable it.
Another key transition is from primary to secondary. Too often, key stage 3—the first three years in secondary—is not spent as effectively as it could be. Developing a new programme around the best practice for key stage 3 and really focusing on that will be part of the work of the RISE teams.
Another area where transition is often raised is in relation to SEND and children going from mainstream schools into colleges. We will make better provision for that and expect schools, at an earlier stage, to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my education interests, in particular as chair of STEM Learning and of the E-ACT multi-academy trust. At some of our E-ACT primary schools in Bristol, we have been investing in speech and language therapy training for all our mainstream teachers in reception and early years. As a result, we are identifying more pupils with special educational needs but fewer are going on to have education, health and care plans. That gives me optimism in the basis for early intervention in these reforms and that it will work.
My question to my noble friend is around the seven specialist provision packages. Getting the detail right on those is crucial to gain the confidence of parents. How can we ensure that the consultation that the department is carrying out will properly include all stakeholders, including those with special educational needs and disabilities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has identified the benefits of early intervention, as he says. We need a clearer and more evidence-based approach to what is appropriate for children with complex needs, which is why we are creating a new set of nationally consistent specialist provision packages. They will be designed to set clear expectations of what high-quality specialist provision should offer. They will be developed by experts and tested with families to make sure that they work in real life and reflect the best evidence about what helps children thrive. As I said, they are not based on diagnoses; instead, they will focus on the support that a child needs to learn, communicate, feel regulated and take part in school life. This important work will also be reviewed by an independent national expert panel, which will help to keep them up to date.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question relates to the plans for a review of education, health and care plans after primary school from 2030. For children with a special school place from September 2029, there is a promise to keep their place, but their EHCP will be reviewed.
I am drawing on my experience as a governor at a primary school in London that had an autistic unit. When it was created, the assumption was that children would be there for a few years, would get support and would then be able to move into mainstream schooling. That was not the experience. As school years go forward, the curriculum becomes more complex and the social setting of a classroom becomes more complex, and children were not able to make that progression.
If there is to be a review of EHCPs at the end of primary, do the Government have any evidence or data on how many people with an EHCP will lose it? We have to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about parents putting so much time, energy and money into securing these EHCPs and the fear of losing them. What will the benefit of the review be versus the cost to parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, to be clear, the majority of children who have an EHCP are in a special school. No child who is in a special school will need to leave a special school placement at any point. Secondly, on the point about bases in schools, part of the investment that we are putting in is to enable more opportunities within schools, to develop the type of bases that will provide specialist support for children but enable them to stay in mainstream schools in their communities, alongside their friends.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these changes are desperately needed. The system is currently broken and we need to see change. I press the Minister on the issue of the pupil premium, a scheme designed for funding to follow disadvantaged young people. If any review is undertaken of how that money is allocated, can the Minister assure us that it will be done in a transparent way so that we know which people may lose out? Can the Minister commit to at least trying to protect funding for care-experienced young people when it comes to the pupil premium?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is not about how we cut the money that is available for disadvantage; this is about how we ensure that it is spent in a way that recognises that not all disadvantage is the same. We will be maintaining—in fact, we have increased—spending on the pupil premium. In relation to the overall review of the funding formula and the way in which we allocate the pupil premium, all of that will be subject to consultation, which will be starting this summer.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and the document—they are brilliant. However, I want to ask about the children who might have to attend a special school because of their particular needs and the challenges that they face. As somebody has already mentioned, one of the problems that local authorities face in the overspend on this concerns some of the special schools that we already have, which are profit-gouging. They are overcharging huge amounts of money for our most vulnerable children. We know that there are excellent special schools in the sector run by charities, social enterprises and, indeed, some of the private enterprises, but it is clear that those making vast profits need to be dealt with. I welcome the investment that has been proposed, but I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about the transition that will happen. Will new powers be needed for local authorities and others, to make sure that we do not leave children and parents vulnerable because of the schools that are having to be dealt with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. There is excellent work going on in our special schools, in the state sector and the independent sector. However, it cannot be right that there is a differential of three times between that which is charged in independent special schools and that which is charged in state special schools. Where that reflects highly specialised provision, that is legitimate, but where it is feeding private equity and, as my noble friend says, focused on profit, it is wholly wrong. That is why we will improve the regulation of independent special schools and, using the specialist packages that we are developing, create price bands indicating what local authorities will pay for children to go there. We can then be clearer that the money we are spending is delivering outcomes for children and not profits for private equity.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, my question has been partly answered. I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House and for the White Paper. I would like to press her a little more on that very topic. While it is absolutely right that these schools not be run for such profit-gouging as has been mentioned, how will needs be assessed in the case of children with very complex needs who are currently in specialist education that is well-run? I declare an interest, in that my nephew works with those children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Children in special schools, either in the state sector or in independent special schools, will be there by virtue of an education, health and care plan. They will keep that education, health and care plan if they are in a special school. That will now be reinforced by clearer evidence and recognition of what the best practice would be for those children. Part of that evidence will be informed by the excellent work that is happening within special schools. If we can also get some of the expertise in special schools into mainstream schools through the £1.8 billion investment and the “expert at hand” provision then we really will have made sure that we are making the most of the excellent work that happens in our special schools.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new definition of heated tobacco product is included in the age of sale and other regulations covering vapes and nicotine products.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of my amendment to Clause 10 is simply to ensure that heated tobacco products are explicitly addressed within the age of sale framework. I am strongly of the view that, when Parliament seeks to regulate a product, it must define it clearly. As other noble Lords have repeatedly mentioned, there is still a high level of inconsistency and ambiguity in this Bill, which renders it fundamentally flawed unless many of these amendments are supported over the next few days. Both retailers and trading standards officers require certainty when it comes to product classification, and a clear statutory definition would avoid later confusion, reduce the overall risk of litigation and strengthen accountability, which must remain the overriding purpose of this Bill if it is to stand any chance of delivering what I believe is the Government’s intended result. In the interest of making the Bill workable on the ground, I hope that this minor change will have your Lordships’ support.
My amendment to Clause 11 mirrors the approach that I have taken concerning Clause 10. I am again asking for consistency so that, where vaping products are referenced, heated tobacco products are dealt with explicitly. We cannot pass legislation through this House where there is ambiguity. I fear that, if these points are ignored, the Bill will lack the clarity required to make it practically enforceable. As such, we in this House will be placing a grave, unfair burden upon those in enforcement. Furthermore, we will be creating unfairness for compliant businesses, which comes with the not inconceivable risk of pushing retailers towards the temptation of rogue and illicit trading. We need to legislate coherently across product categories rather than allow voids to undermine the objectives that the Government are seeking to achieve.
I will speak now to Amendments 87, 89, 90, 101, 113, 189 and 190 in my name. I wish to ensure that the phrase “or consumed in any other way” is removed and that a clear definition of heated tobacco is inserted. It is important to note that heated tobacco does not burn tobacco; it heats it. This is important as evidence indicates lower toxicant exposure compared with that of most cigarettes. If future adult access is to be prohibited, this decision must be based on proper assessment and evidence, which is lacking at this time. The purpose of Amendments 189 and 190 specifically is simply to insert some precision into the Bill. These amendments replace “consumed” with “smoked” and remove reference to heated tobacco devices. I put it to your Lordships that “consumed” is excessively broad. Through slightly better drafting, we can protect businesses, enable better enforcement and protect the courts from uncertainty. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for helping to differentiate products and for having some precision in the way we discuss these issues. I have been concerned throughout about a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not think it helps anyone. It certainly does not help in relation to health, let alone retailers and so on, as has been described.
Heated tobacco should not be conflated with vapes, but it should also not be conflated with smoking cigarettes or tobacco in that sense. As the noble Lord explained, heated tobacco products are heated, not combusted. That means that, although they might have some degree of harm, there is a body of evidence that shows that there is a huge reduction in harmful products from heating tobacco rather than smoking tobacco. This matters to me because a lot of people use heated tobacco as a smoking cessation tool, as a form of giving up smoking.
When I have raised issues concerning the evidence on heated tobacco, I have been told that the problem with that evidence is that it is based on research produced by the tobacco industry rather than by independent researchers. I point out that, none the less, it is scientific evidence and can be tested as such, whoever pays for it. But if there is some concern about the evidence, I encourage the Government to consider how they can fund research into the very different types of product we are talking about, rather than simply dismissing any evidence they do not like the look of because of who funds it. We need to have a sense of proportion and should not treat all products the same. As I say, I therefore reject the one-size-fits-all approach. We will have much better legislation if these things are clarified on the face of the Bill and we all know what we are talking about, and do not just lump things under the single heading of “harmful and dangerous”.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to heated tobacco and its inclusion in the Bill, and in particular the rising age of sale. It is essential that the measures in the Bill apply to all tobacco products without exception. We have learned repeatedly that, where legislation leaves loopholes, the tobacco industry exploits them. We saw this with cigarillos—products defined as cigars but designed to resemble cigarettes, evading plain packaging with the flavour and pack size rules, as we discussed in Committee.
The Bill is a chance for truly comprehensive legislation. I am particularly concerned about Amendment 89, which would remove the phrase
“or consumed in any other way”.
That would leave the door wide open for further innovation from the industry to continue selling tobacco products here in the UK. The regulatory powers in the Bill must be broadly defined, including powers over packaging and presentation. This is not overreach; it is future-proofing based upon our past experience. Without it, we invite industry innovation designed solely to sidestep regulation and undermine public health.
Heated tobacco products should not be conflated with vapes. Vapes can be and are recommended for smoking cessation, following evidence, including a Cochrane review, showing that they are a helpful tool for smokers. Heated tobacco products do not meet that standard and are not recommended by NICE. They are used by fewer than 1% of people in the UK, yet awareness of them is rising, particularly among young people. Alarmingly, nearly one-quarter of 11 to 17 year-olds are now aware of these products, and that may well be the result of their marketing in supermarkets and online.
I therefore welcome government Amendments 217, 218 and 219, which ensure that the comprehensive definition of a tobacco product applies from the moment the Bill comes into force. That will help to address the ongoing and unacceptable advertising of heated tobacco products in supermarkets and elsewhere. If we are indeed serious about creating a smoke-free generation, all tobacco products, including heated tobacco, must be included without ambiguity or exception.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has tabled a number of amendments on heated tobacco products. Although there may be some concern about what is behind them, they raise important questions that I am afraid the Government have yet to answer with any real precision.
As I noted in Committee, there appears to be some evidence that individuals who switched from conventional cigarettes to heated tobacco products show lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who continue smoking. I am just comparing them to cigarettes, not to vapes. To be clear, I do not suggest that this settles the question of harm—these are relatively new products, and the long-term evidence base is still developing—but it means that the Government cannot simply treat heated tobacco products as interchangeable with conventional cigarettes without explaining why they refuse to consider their relative harm compared to cigarettes. I am talking about not absolute harm, but relative harm.
There is also the practical question of where these products may be used. The position on indoor and outdoor spaces remains, as far as I can tell, unclear. Heated tobacco does not produce combustion or sidestream smoke in the conventional sense, and yet it is not obvious from the Bill how the Government intend to address that distinction—if they intend to address it at all.
More fundamentally, can the Minister explain what specific evidence underpins the decision to include heated tobacco in the generational ban? I am sure all noble Lords accept that current evidence shows that vapes are relatively safer than smoking. It may be that vapes are relatively safer than heated tobacco, but as yet, we have not seen definitive evidence. Unfortunately, as noble Lords have said, much of the research on heated tobacco is funded by the tobacco industry. I can understand the concern there. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there is no definitive independent research on the relative harms of heated tobacco. If there is definitive research, can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to the relevant academic papers? I think we saw one link to a meta study that was not very good, but there has been no meaningful in-depth research.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend, who told me that when they tried vapes to quit smoking, it unfortunately did not do the job for them. When they went back to their doctor, he said that he was not supposed to do this, but he suggested heated tobacco as a relatively less harmful alternative. While he hoped his patient might have switched from cigarettes to vapes, since this had not happened—we do not live in a perfect world—he preferred his patient to use heated tobacco to going back to cigarettes. Once again, this was a practical approach based on relative harms.
I completely understand the concern that, if we overpromote heated tobacco, we might find that smokers switch to it rather than vapes. Given that the policy rationale rests substantially on reducing harm—we should be looking at absolute harm and relative harm— I would welcome clarity on whether the Government are satisfied that the case for treating heated tobacco like cigarettes is proven. It will be interesting to see that distinction between heated tobacco and cigarettes. Is the science still sufficiently uncertain to warrant a more cautious approach?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the contributions made in this debate. I will start by addressing government Amendments 217, 218 and 219, tabled in my name; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support.
The Bill updates the definition of a tobacco product in legislation relating to promotion and advertising, and in Scottish legislation, to
“a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way”.
Those last few words,
“consumed in any other way”,
are the key ones. What does this definition do? It ensures that all forms of tobacco products, regardless of how they are consumed, are captured by this legislation, including—this is important to the points raised by noble Lords—any future novel tobacco products.
These amendments bring forward the commencement of this updated definition to the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. That is because the Government’s view is that all tobacco products currently on the market are already captured in the current definition, so it is appropriate for this future-proofing amendment to come into force at Royal Assent because there is no change to the law for which notice would be required.
Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seek to redefine how heated tobacco products are captured within the Bill so that they are no longer treated in the same way as other tobacco products. These amendments also seek to prevent provisions being extended to heated tobacco devices in the future.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the Bill deliberately defines tobacco products expansively and includes heated tobacco. The reason for that is that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all forms of tobacco are harmful.
On the points raised about evidence, there is evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco in laboratory studies; the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. Unlike vapes, there is limited evidence that heated tobacco can support smoking cessation, despite what is claimed by the tobacco industry. On the matters of evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as has been set out by all four UK Chief Medical Officers in a technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that heated tobacco products are safe or should be promoted as quit aids in some way is entirely misleading.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are funding high-quality research into tobacco products. Between 2020 and 2025, £25 million was invested in a NIHR research programme to research tobacco control, and that will help us develop the evidence base. Exempting heated tobacco products from the smoke-free generation policy and other provisions in the Bill would simply allow the tobacco industry to continue to find a way to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products. The Bill is completely geared to go the other way.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about heated-tobacco-free places. We will return to the whole issue of tobacco-free places when we come to group 16, so I am sure that that will be debated then. I hope that I have been able to clarify the Government’s position for noble Lords, and that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she talked about research that was done on tobacco products between 2020 and 2025. In that time, was any specific research done on heated tobacco as part of tobacco products?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The specific definition is “tobacco control research”, so it would be strange if it did not include what we know about already, which includes heated tobacco. I will be glad to confirm that to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reassurances, although I am afraid that I do not agree with her. However, I accept that we have taken this as far as we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Merron
“(1A) But subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a vape vending machine made available for use in a mental health hospital if the machine is in an area that is intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an exception to the offence of having management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine is made available for use. It applies where the vending machine is in a mental health hospital in an area intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.
Baroness Merron
““mental health hospital” means an institution (or part of an institution) maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of inpatients who—(a) are aged 18 or over, and(b) are suffering from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983);”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my first amendment to clause 12.
Lord Moylan
“Offence of manufacturing, supplying or offering to supply counterfeit nicotine products(1) A person who manufactures, supplies, or offers to supply counterfeit nicotine products, including tobacco and vape products, commits an offence.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or an unlimited fine, or both.(3) In this section, “counterfeit” means any product or packaging bearing without authorisation a trade mark identical to or indistinguishable from a registered trade mark.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the criminal penalties for the production and sale of counterfeit nicotine products with a view to protecting consumers, upholding safety standards, and safeguarding legitimate businesses from unfair competition. It introduces a tiered sentencing structure, permitting tougher consequences for serious offences.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in approaching this amendment, I start with a very powerful series of BBC News reports that were broadcast before Christmas—other noble Lords may have seen them. The BBC accompanied trading standards officers—and, I believe, Customs and Excise—on raids of various high street premises in various provincial towns. They were shops that looked like stores; you would call them mini-markets or something like that. They had goods on the shelves—packets of soup and whatever it might be that you might conceivably want to buy—but their business was not actually selling these things, and nobody who went into those shops was particularly interested in buying the packets of soup that adorned the shelves.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am never quite sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate as someone who has smoked the occasional cigar, but on this set of amendments I declare an interest in that I have teenage children. I see their actions, which chime very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just discussed.
We are in danger of creating a two-tier system—we do this across the board, and I am afraid we in this House are guilty of it—whereby we have excess intense regulation, which affects law-abiding citizens and consumers, and we focus on that, feeling that we have done our job and can sit back and relax, having stopped smoking, drinking or whatever it may be. But the reality is that we simply end up creating a second and entirely unregulated market.
I saw the same documentaries that my noble friend saw and was surprised, but not by the clandestine nature of organisations and illegal groups of pirates supplying illegal cigarettes and vape products under the counter or under the table in a pub—these were shops that were well advertised. In fact, I was quite impressed with some of the branding. Some of them were chains; they have become multinational corporations with headquarters, running an effective illegal system that pays no taxes. Clearly, as these documentaries showed, they had other issues, such as money laundering and very bad employment systems.
In conversations with the Minister, I have been encouraged by the realisation of this two-tier issue. It is not simply in the physical sense; it is also online. The teenagers I speak to say they have never actually bought a legal packet of cigarettes. It would not occur to them: at £20 a packet, they would be better off taking up cigars. Instead, they buy everything online, where there are no age checks. They can usually get hold of somebody else’s credit card, and it is delivered to the house. I find it very alarming that we will spend our time in these debates, and the Government will spend a huge amount of effort on a so-called ban of smoking and nicotine products, while at the same time allowing an illegal market to flourish.
From conversations with the Minister, which I found extremely helpful, I am aware that online sales are hard to regulate because of how enforcement happens at the local level: there is no one authority, although specific authorities will take leads in certain areas. There does not seem to be enough money or focus on this important issue. I am saying this because I care about the retailer and about the end ambition, in some measure, of this overall government initiative. It would be extraordinary if we focused all our efforts on a great sledgehammer to crush legal, law-abiding and decent retailers who are trying to do their job, and law-abiding consumers, without realising that we are creating another monster that needs to be tamed.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I shall talk about the two amendments in my name. First, the Bill does not provide a deterrent; the proposed fixed penalty of £200 is nothing to those involved in this illicit trading and organised criminal activity. It is obvious that the unscrupulous retailers will simply absorb the costs and just continue with what they are doing.
It is worth mentioning at this point—and I have seen this—that when people are selling illegal tobacco it is not under the counter. You can have a nice card with all the different brands laid out for you to pick and choose from. It is very professional: a serious bit of criminality out there. I might add that I do not smoke, but I have seen it with others. That is why I am seeking through this amendment support to introduce a stepped penalty regime, escalating for repeat offenders and enabling referral to national and enforcement bodies where organised criminality may be involved. If we want to stand any chance of cutting down this illicit trade and the sale of tobacco and vapes, enforcement must have real teeth. Without a stepped penalty regime and referral powers, the Bill and the generational ban will be nothing more than symbolic.
Amendment 63 is on the points I have just made about having a more robust and stepped approach to penalty notices. I want to strengthen enforcement further by introducing a new statutory referral duty where a fixed penalty notice is issued. If the Bill does not confront the organised criminal network, it will just continue. We want local authorities to issue fixed penalties, and then to refer the matter to the National Crime Agency and relevant police forces and to share intelligence, which is key. It is further my intention that this amendment place a statutory duty on the NCA and police to investigate whether organised crime, excise or VAT evasion is at scale or other serious offences are involved.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to speak to two amendments in this group that are about the opposite ends of the retail spectrum. On the one hand, there are law-abiding shopkeepers who need to be given a certain leeway if they mess up at the start of this legislation. At the other end of the spectrum are those open lawbreakers who hide in plain sight.
I added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about giving relevant authorities the discretion to issue a warning notice to first-time offenders. Because this is totally novel and internationally unique legislation, enforcement will be important; but because this is a bit of an experiment, some leeway has to be given to allow it to settle in without criminalising people unnecessarily.
Fixed penalty notices are precisely designed to enable offenders to avoid criminal prosecution and reduce the burden on the courts. That is how they are usually used. I am just worried about the overcriminalisation of shopkeepers via this Bill; it is important to be proportionate and allow that discretion. Allowing trading standards officers to issue warnings to first-time offenders would promote the idea that shopkeepers can learn what the rules are and find out that they have had their warning. I am sure that many initial breaches are likely to be unintentional, and a warning will help a business to understand the rules and allow them not to repeat the mistake, and so on. Therefore, fines are reserved for repeat or serious offences; that is an important way in which to approach this.
In relation to an earlier amendment about communicating what the Bill will do, although I do not necessarily agree with it, it is obviously important that people understand the implications of the Bill when it becomes law. If it passes, which it will, there will have to be quite a steep learning curve for all sorts of different parts of society.
I want to draw attention to something called Local Vape Action, which has just been launched in Maidstone in Kent. It is a local partnership involving retail shops working with the local community and doing education, engagement and enforcement. There are initiatives happening locally where people are trying to say, “We are the good guys; we are the people who are compliant; we’re trying to keep to the rules”. They are trying, for example, to improve the appearance of high streets, making sure that legitimate vape retailers—not the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described—want to take some responsibility for not being the rogue traders. I think that is to be commended.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on my earlier amendment on the communications strategy, and that she has come around to my point of view on this. It clearly is vital that we have an excellent, proactive communication strategy in relation to this new policy, as I argued on the first group.
These amendments seek to ensure that penalties for offences are fair and proportionate. I am very sympathetic to Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which looks like a very useful attempt to take a stepped approach to fines; it seems a very reasonable way to go about this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that, and why she feels, if she does, that it is not necessary or appropriate.
We believe that Amendment 63 is not necessary, as the ability to give warnings already exists. On Amendment 17 on counterfeit products, I am delighted to return the compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who says that she does not like to have unnecessary new offences, by telling her that we understand that this is currently an offence under the Trade Marks Act and that offences under that Act are automatically lifestyle offences, meaning that a proceeds of crime application can be used to remove criminal earnings. Maybe the Minister can comment on these various amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister benefited this debate by coming forward with their amendments in this group based on their extensive experience in local government. I warmly welcome Amendment 17; counterfeiting nicotine products is not a victimless crime. It undercuts legitimate businesses that are already operating under considerable regulatory and financial pressure.
Let us be clear that the cumulative burden placed on small businesses, regulatory or otherwise, is already substantial. These businesses, as other noble Lords have said, are already playing by the rules. They pay their taxes and comply with an ever-increasing, complex regulatory framework. It is simply not fair that they should find themselves undercut by operators selling counterfeit products outside that framework entirely.
Beyond the commercial harm, there is a serious consumer safety dimension. Counterfeit nicotine products are unregulated, untested and potentially dangerous. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government share the view that the robust criminal penalties for counterfeiting are not only appropriate but essential. I would be grateful to hear what steps are being taken to ensure that enforcement capacity exists to make sure that these penalties are meaningful.
At earlier stages of the Bill, I know there were some concerns about the capacity of trading standards, for example. The sum that the Government have made available for local trading standards is to be welcomed, but some still wonder whether it will be enough or whether it is a drop in the ocean.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendments reflect a sensible approach to fixed penalty notices. A step penalty structure that treats a first offence differently from repeated non-compliance is surely right. While some local authorities may already have discretion to issue a warning instead of a fixed penalty for first-time offenders, as my noble friend has raised, it is important that first-time offenders are not treated unduly harshly given the complexity of some of the regulations that these small retailers will have to face. I hope the Minister, if she feels that she cannot accept the amendments as they stand, can say some positive things about them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate on an issue that concerns us all in this Chamber.
On Amendment 17 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I agree with his desire to take robust action against counterfeit products—I am sure we all do—but I cannot accept the amendment simply because I do not believe it is necessary, not because of specific objections. I heard his invitation for me to continue as I started, but, unfortunately, I cannot do so for this amendment. We believe it is not necessary, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because protections against trademark infringement are already a matter for existing legislation.
On the point about necessary legislation addressing counterfeit products, which I accept, I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Trade Marks Act 1994, as we have heard, already provides significant penalties for breaching these rules. They include: on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. These are significant penalties.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In terms of duplication, I argued on the Crime and Policing Bill that it was probably not necessary to legislate for assaulting a shop worker to be against the law, as assaulting anyone is. I asked why there was a specific point about shop and retail workers and was told that this would make a special case of shop workers to emphasise their vulnerability. The point about duplicating laws has never held the Government back before, because they keep doing it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I must admit that I have a different view. Where we already have legislation covering the specific points we are talking about, as we have here with the Trade Marks Act 1994, there is no reason to go further. The legislation is already working. It is fair to raise the example that the noble Baroness gave, but I do not share her view on that duplication, as it was important specifically to identify shop workers. Maybe we just need to disagree on the duplication or otherwise of legislation.
While trademark protection is not a matter for the Bill, powers in Part 5 will enable the Government to introduce regulations relating to packaging, product safety and product registration. Those who breach these regulations following their implementation may face significant penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both. The penalties broadly mirror the penalties provided by the noble Lord’s amendment, albeit I accept he proposes a slightly higher maximum term of imprisonment of three years instead of two.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised legitimate points about the scale of the illicit market and also potential connections to other illegal activities. On that point, HMRC and Border Force’s joint illicit tobacco strategy sets out the continued commitment to tackle and disrupt the organised crime groups behind the illicit tobacco trade, a commitment supported by over £100 million of new funding.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, that is a disappointing response. I repeat that my amendment does not rest on any claim that this Bill is going to make a bad situation worse. I do not want to get into that argument. It is a bad situation already. We should be willing to acknowledge that perhaps it is worse than we realise—especially those of us who do not spend a lot of time on provincial high streets and in working-class areas where this happens and is widespread. We need vigorous tools to deal with it.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the need for nuance in how enforcement is carried out. I am aware of the enforcement code that regulators use, including trading standards, because I have worked with it. One wants to be lenient to the honest shopkeeper who muddles up a 40 year-old with a 41 year-old. However, it is not possible to sell counterfeit goods accidentally. You know if you are selling counterfeit goods—it is a deliberate action—especially if you have them stashed in the attic and under floorboards. You are not making an honest mistake when you sell them. We need to be very hard on these people.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister has got something, in arguing for a gradation of fines and punishments that will bite harder on people who are repeat offenders or more serious offenders. The Bill misses a trick on that.
On this side—and, I suspect, if they reflect on it, in other parts of the House—there is concern that the Government have not got this element of the Bill right and that they will have to come back to it. The ideal thing would be if they came back to it before the Bill was enacted, at Third Reading, perhaps with something along the lines that my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister produced. It is possible that they could put it right later when they discover that they have made a mistake, but that is much more messy and would not have the desired effect.
I am disappointed. The Government will have to return to this, and the sooner the better. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay
“(3A) Regulations made under this section may not prohibit the display of tobacco products in any premises, or part of premises—(a) which are exempt from the prohibition on the display of tobacco products under regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, in so far as that exemption relates to specialist tobacconists, or(b) which are operated by a specialist tobacconist.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of the Earl of Lindsay to Clause 14, would preserve the existing exemption for specialist tobacconists from tobacco product display restrictions in England and Wales. Their effect is to ensure that the regulation-making powers in clauses 13 and 14 cannot be used to remove or circumvent that long-standing exemption, whether directly or indirectly through changes to existing display regulations.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 18, 19, 127, 147, and 192 are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I declare my support for the spirit of her Amendment 126, although I am seeking to tackle the issue that she is addressing in a slightly different way. I declare an interest as president of the Charter Trading Standards Institute. However, these amendments are not CTSI amendments; they are very much my own.
I have tabled these amendments in a constructive spirit, as part of what I hope will be recognised as a good faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for handmade cigars within the Bill’s existing architecture. As I have previously said, I unequivocally support the Government’s objective of reducing youth smoking and protecting future generations from smoking-related harms. Nothing in this group of amendments seeks to undermine this. It is rather that the proposed amendments seek to ensure that, in pursuing that objective, we do so in a manner that is proportionate, evidence-based and fair to a small number of lawful, specialist businesses.
Handmade cigars are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced tobacco products. They are also fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small format cigars and cigarillos, all of which occupy a very different segment of the market. This distinction matters in market characteristics and, most importantly, in the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.
Handmade cigars are artisanal products. They are individually crafted, higher-value, relatively expensive, premium products. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult consumers. They are not impulse purchases. Of overriding importance is that handmade cigars are not inhaled, and they are consumed infrequently and not habitually. They are often associated with special occasions or celebratory moments, and are an important feature of the UK’s hospitality sector.
There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. The last time detailed UK data on cigar usage was collected, it was found that the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers were over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Handmade cigars therefore occupy an entirely different segment of the market, in price, consumer profile and usage.
Their production is uniquely different, which brings me to our Amendments 127 and 147. Handmade cigars are low-volume, high-variety, artisanal products, manufactured in small batches, mostly by producers in Latin America and the Caribbean. There are over 1,300 individual product lines, almost all of which are packaged manually. Requiring bespoke standardised packaging specifically for a single market such as the United Kingdom is simply not practical or commercially viable.
As currently drafted, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose the standardised packaging regime to handmade cigars in the same manner as to mass-market cigarettes, et cetera. Such a measure ignores known risk profiles and market characteristics, and certainly does not represent sound evidence-based policy. The certain outcome of this is that handmade cigars would disappear from our market altogether, along with the long-standing specialist retailers whose businesses depend upon them and, of course, their employees.
These two amendments, therefore, would exempt handmade cigars from the retail packaging regime, accompanied by a tightly drawn statutory definition of what constitutes a handmade cigar. They recognise that the policy rationale for plain packaging in the context of high-volume, youth-sensitive products does not translate to artisanal, individually crafted cigars sold in specialist premises to adults. They acknowledge that imposing such measures on the handmade cigar sector is totally disproportionate when there is no evidence of youth uptake, no discernible public health gain, but the strong likelihood of catastrophic operational and economic burdens being placed on small, compliant, law-abiding businesses.
These facts would have become evident had there been a more comprehensive and focused impact assessment. The impact assessment produced by the department, which runs to 164 pages, makes just three mentions of cigars, with no quantification of the likely economic impact to businesses trading in these products, no small and micro-business assessment, and no discussion of alternatives.
In speaking to these amendments, I ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the Government’s response, which has been pending since January 2025, to the call for evidence to inform potential future regulation of standardised tobacco packaging will confirm that handmade cigars will retain their status quo, as exempted from the introduction of plain packaging.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her highly engaged approach to these issues facing small specialist tobacconists in the niche handmade, hand-rolled cigar industry. I also appreciated the assistance of her officials at the Department of Health, who have been sitting through a very long debate and must be wondering when it is going to end; I think this is the last group. They demonstrated a high level of understanding of cigars, their impact on health and the effects this Bill could have on the people involved in the specialist industry. I really do appreciate that. We have had a hugely successful, open dialogue around what is a very important issue.
I believe from my conversations with the Government that they do not want to destroy this important cottage industry of mainly small family-owned firms—which, I might add, attract a huge amount of tourism to this country and are world class in their standards of service and compliance. They sell a product which is not associated with childhood smoking, and they are not at risk of contributing to the remorseless rise of vapes, snuses and other nicotine delivery products. Wonderful shops like Davidoff, Fox, Sautters and Cgars, to name a few, employ hundreds of people and give satisfaction and happiness to thousands more.
It is very important that we accept the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to protect these stores, especially those in the cluster of St James’s Street. I know we will come on to this later, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister on guidance to local authorities in this area, which reflects a number of the points in these amendments, as well.
The issues around packaging are also surprisingly important to the industry. We are not asking for anything other than a commitment to the continuation of existing legislation, which protects how speciality tobacconists display cigar products and can trade new and, importantly, vintage cigars. These products have to be stored and distributed in cedar or cedar-lined wooden boxes, which cannot be changed at source. It is important for noble Lords to understand this; they have to be transported in a certain way, in a certain type of box. It is not simply about moving them into some other type of packaging; and the packaging cannot be changed at source, since they predominantly come from important trading partners such as Cuba or the Dominican Republic, which do not have the capacity to change the packaging to enable us to have plain packaging.
By the way, the boxing and labelling system also helps ensure authenticity. This follows the discussion we had about counterfeiting earlier.
It is also important to recognise that these boxes and how the cigars are packaged are a far cry from packaging that advertises or that is targeted at children. It should be noted that health warnings are already applied to all these boxes. I stress that we are not looking for a carve-out or loophole with these amendments; we are looking simply for the continuation of a sensible policy to allow a niche industry of speciality tobacconists, with important trading partners, to exist and continue its trade as planned. This fits in with the express quotes from the Minister that, in effect, preserving the status quo as it stands today and rolling it forward is part of the Government’s agenda. We respect that and find it enormously helpful.
There is overwhelming evidence that going back on this original legal commitment would mean the end of the specialist cigar industry, so if we introduced plain packaging, it would be devastating for this important area of our economy and would have no benefit to the overall plan of making Britain smoke-free either.
I went to inspect the offices of Hunters & Frankau, which is the main importer of Cuban cigars, to see how a ban on ordinary box packaging could be implemented. If your Lordships saw the hundreds, if not thousands, of product lines in this Indiana Jones-like warehouse—I must say, when I had a chance to tour those storerooms, it was a very happy moment for me—your Lordships would see that it is totally impractical to bring in some type of plain packaging, given the way these authentic handmade products are sourced and distributed.
Canada and Australia have been quoted as having brought these measures into place. They are very different markets, so I do not think they are comparable in reality. In actuality, it has led to the almost total collapse of the handmade cigar industry as a result of the reduction of lines from many hundreds down to a few tens. The effect has not been on large multinationals or big tobacco; it has been the closure of many small businesses. Family-owned tobacconists and specialty suppliers have closed as a result. Needless to say, the consumer also suffers.
Finally, I would be grateful to hear confirmation that the Government have no plans to go back on previous legislation that allowed for a very small number of sampling rooms in this country—I believe the number is fewer than 30. These are not to be confused with so-called cigar lounges, of which there are many, which are predominantly outdoor areas, albeit with some type of heating and sometimes roofing. The investment in these humidors, which is what they are, with sampling rooms attached, has been significant. Several major hotels have integrated them into their business model. They are part of the supply chain of handmade premium cigars and to disestablish them would cause significant unnecessary harm.
I reassure noble Lords that at no point will these actions create a loophole for big tobacco. I am very aware that that has happened in the past, with flavourings, cigarillos and so on. Protecting these characteristics will not see an increase in youth smoking. I think we are all agreed on that. No one I have met, even those who are most fanatical about this Bill—some people are, and I do not disrespect that—wants to see an end to our specialist tobacconist industry today.
These are small, family-owned businesses, which behave impeccably, are drivers of tourism, create income for the Exchequer and behave extremely effectively in providing a niche community with cigars. To have clear commitments about these important matters from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would allow the industry to continue to be a highly responsible part of British retail. It would allow these small, family-owned stores to continue to drive footfall and income for this country. It would be a fair way to treat the adult, free-choosing, occasional cigar smoker into the future too.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as we have already heard, the amendments in this group seek to carve out exemptions for specialist tobacconists, particularly when it comes to cigars. I will focus primarily on Amendments 126, 127, 147 and 192. I begin by focusing on what cigars actually are. They are often described—and we have heard them described—as luxury or artisanal goods, but they are, first of all, carcinogenic tobacco products that are harmful to human health.
I support the Government’s approach, as the Bill stands, to comprehensive tobacco control regulation that ensures that future generations do not become addicted to any form of tobacco. We have heard arguments that their use is infrequent and primarily among those over the age of 25. Indeed, the absolute numbers show that the majority of cigar smokers are over 25, but that reflects population size. In reality, among smokers—this is a really important point—the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be smoking cigars. Toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate actively promote cigar use to a young, predominantly male audience, linking cigars with power, wealth and success. We know how quickly this kind of influence can spread and be taken up if we leave loopholes for it.
As we have already heard, cigars have traditionally benefited from carve-outs of regulation on things such as pack size, flavours and packaging. Were we to change that now it would open the door to future innovations, as some of the proponents of these amendments have already acknowledged, with, for example, cigarillos. Action on Smoking and Health data shows that these are popular among young people who smoke: 35% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried them in 2024 and 2025. We must not leave space in the Bill for innovation by the merchants of death, which I am afraid these amendments do.
Although I understand the intention behind the amendments that refer to plain packaging, I do not support them. The suggestion is that plain packaging will be fatal to the industry. I note that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay all apply standardised packaging to all tobacco products, including cigars. Data from Canada shows that, since that has come in, there has been only a very minor drop in the sale of cigars, in line with traditional long-term trends.
It is also important to note that the power to introduce plain packaging for cigars is not new. It already exists under regulations introduced in 2015 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and implemented by a subsequent Conservative Government. The Government issued a call for evidence on this in November 2024.
Finally, I will touch very briefly on smoke-free places and cigar lounges. I do not support Amendment 192. Yes, the customers may choose to be in that space, but the staff may not have a realistic practical choice about being there; it may be the only job they can get. We do not want workers exposed to second-hand smoke under those kinds of conditions.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsley signed Amendment 126, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred. It seeks, above all, to ensure that all small retailers are treated fairly. I am sure the Minister will be addressing this.
Moving on to cigars and cigar lounges generally, I do not see why these should be exempt. In Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, about a new cigar lounge in Sheffield which has opened near a school. A public health team at the council made representations saying that it had serious concerns about the impact of the lounge, particularly in an area where smoking causes great health inequalities, but it was powerless to stop this. As we have just heard, having staff working indoors in these lounges seems to go against the very intention of the original smoke-free legislation, which was to protect staff from the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s excellent and persuasive arguments in support of the amendments in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who is not in his place, cannot be bettered, so I shall not try to, except to say that I support them.
Regardless of one’s attitude to smoking, there is a general recognition of the important role that specialist tobacconists play. They are small, highly regulated businesses that serve a discerning adult clientele. They are not engaged in the mass-marketing of cigarettes, nor are they driving youth uptake. Specifically, handmade cigars are not cigarillos. Premium handmade cigars are luxury products, purchased occasionally at a considerable cost by informed adult consumers. I was surprised to learn in Committee that they attract overseas visitors, who spend huge amounts of money here in the UK because these handmade cigars are packaged and marketed in a way that is unique to the United Kingdom. It is difficult to see how such establishments constitute a meaningful threat to the Government’s stated objective of reducing youth smoking and creating a smoke-free generation.
I stress that many of the criticisms made of cigars are made of cigarillos, but it is important that we distinguish between cigarillos and the unique products that are artisan cigars, whatever one thinks of them. I do not smoke; I think smoking is a disgusting habit. I do not drink alcohol; I think drinking alcohol is a terrible thing. But I am a liberal and I do not seek to impose my views on other people. It is important to distinguish between handmade crafted cigars and mass-marketed cigarillos, which may well be attractive to young people. I believe that cigarillos should be seen in the same light as cigarettes.
Since the introduction of the Bill, there has obviously been enormous anxiety among specialist tobacconists around the country about what the Government might choose to do to their day-to-day businesses. These amendments will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to reassure the sector. There is real concern that if plain packaging regulations were to be imposed on hand-rolled cigars, this would constitute an almost instant death for every specialist tobacco business. We heard about other countries where plain packaging has been imposed, but the UK continues to attract people who want to buy the packaging and all the marketing around it, whatever we may think of it.
For the good reasons already stated, these businesses enjoy special dispensations from the provisions of the law which apply to the generality of tobacco retailing. These dispensations are well founded, well understood and respected across the supply chain. As far as I am aware, they have not been abused. Many of the complaints about the uptake of cigar smoking are in relation not to these types of cigars but to cigarillos. This area of tobacco retailing is so niche that it is irrelevant to the vast majority of smokers. There is no reasonable case for the Government to choose to exercise powers to impede, restrict or otherwise alter the day-to-day lives of those involved in this specialist sector.
To be clear, I am talking about packaging. I am not referring to any of the amendments concerned with cigar lounges. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about workers who may not wish to be exposed to cigars but have no choice but to take that job and be exposed. I am talking about specialist tobacco manufacturers and retailers. Obviously, any attempts to restrict these businesses would involve some consultation with the Department for Business and Trade, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government have no intentions to restrict the specialist manufacturers in this way and to make their businesses unviable.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. On Amendments 127 and 147, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and Amendment 126, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have listened to the points that have been raised by noble Lords, not just today in the Chamber but in engaging outside the Chamber, which I have been pleased to do, and I have listened to the calls for handmade cigars to be exempt from packaging provisions in this legislation.
I remind the House, as I have had to remind noble Lords in other discussions, that the powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products are not new; they already exist. They were first introduced under the coalition Government as part of the Children and Families Act 2014. At the time when the powers were introduced, the Government of the time rightly recognised the need to ensure that these powers applied to all tobacco products, future-proofing the legislation, so introducing an exemption for handmade cigars now would weaken what is in effect long-standing legislation. I remind noble Lords that one of the points about the Bill is to bring together legislation that is in other areas into a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is what we are doing.
As I have said on a number of occasions, all tobacco products are harmful. That includes cigars and those marketed as premium or handmade. When burned, all tobacco products release toxic compounds that pose a risk to the user. In fact, research has found that some toxicants, including carbon monoxide and certain carcinogens, are higher in cigar smoke than cigarette smoke, and of course the toxicants that are found in tobacco smoke in cigars increase the user’s risk of developing diseases such as cancer, heart disease or respiratory disease. As the four Chief Medical Officers of the UK set out in their technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that cigars are substantially safer than other tobacco products is not accurate.
Given the health harms of all cigars, it is appropriate that they are in scope of the legislation and that the Government retain our current ability, introduced in 2014, to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products. Moreover, exempting product categories is likely to lead to exploitation by the tobacco industry, which will always find a loophole to exploit. For example, following the ban on menthol cigarettes in 2020, tobacco companies began marketing cigarette-like menthol-flavoured cigarillos.
I shall provide some assistance on the points being raised today. As I said, I have heard concerns from noble Lords about future packaging restrictions that could impact specialist tobacconists more significantly than other retailers, and concerns about potential unfairness arising from that. I can say, as I have said before, that it is absolutely not this Government’s intention for any future packaging requirements to put any small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, out of business. Our intent is that any future packaging regulations make the health harms of these products clear while minimising the impact on businesses.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, asked about future regulation on packaging. If that is to be the case, further impact assessments will be prepared in advance, including the economic impact of any proposed regulations. The policy proposals for any packaging requirements will be a matter for consultation, and all businesses—including, I am sure, specialist tobacconists —will want to respond and will be welcome to. I want also to be clear that the Government will consider the impact any policy proposal has on small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, via future published impact assessments, as I just said. It is important, however, despite these points, that the Government retain their current powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products, as any carve-out would potentially create loopholes for exploitation, as other noble Lords have expressed concern about.
Amendment 192 from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seeks to maintain the existing exemption to allow individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist shop. The Government are, as noble Lords know, committed to protecting people from the harms of second-hand smoke, which is why we launched a consultation on expanding smoke-free places on 13 February.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made, there are a number of exemptions to the current smoke-free legislation, including an exemption for sampling rooms—not smoking lounges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to—in specialist tobacconists, providing certain criteria are met, as outlined. The Government do not intend to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. The consultation explicitly states our intention for the exemption to remain.
Finally, Amendments 18 and 19, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seek to maintain the existing exemption for specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products. There are several exemptions to the current tobacco display legislation, including an exemption for specialist tobacconists. In England, this allows specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products as long as they are not visible from outside the premises. The Government’s intention is not to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. This will be reflected when we consult on future display regulations later this year.
It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims with any disproportionate impacts on businesses, including specialist tobacconists. However, we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure that it is not targeting young people or exploiting the existing exemptions. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful answers she has given to the various points my amendments have raised. I am also grateful for the time she allowed for discussions between Committee and Report to understand the issues better; my thanks to her. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Kamall for the support they have offered for these amendments.
Before coming back to what the Minister said, I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Northover, that there is quite a lot of confusion over the statistics relating to cigars as a generic category. I remind both of them that my amendments deal solely with handmade cigars, not with cigars as a single generic whole.
As I said, handmade cigars are not inhaled. They are relatively expensive compared with other smoking options. A lot of cigars out there on the market are machine made; some of them are small enough to be cigarillos. The statistics about young people indulging in cigar smoking almost wholly relate to people who are smoking not handmade cigars but other types of cigar.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am very aware of the hour, but I just had a quick look online and saw “Andrew Tate’s favourite cigars”—exactly the kind of very expensive products that the noble Earl is talking about. That is what is being promoted to young men in particular.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that very expensive cigars are usually unaffordable to young people, which is why the vast majority of cigar smokers are over the age of 25 and most of them are over the age of 35. The statistics bear that out.
I am grateful for all the interest that these amendments have inspired. Most of all, I am grateful to the Minister for the very thoughtful response that she has given and for her undertakings that it is not currently the Government’s intention to remove certain practices that allow the specialist tobacconist sector to continue. These are important because, despite what has been suggested, I re-emphasise that handmade cigars are not inhaled or habitual. They are almost solely associated with occasions such as Christmas and birthday parties and the up-market hospitality venues. For the continued survival of the almost always family-owned specialist tobacconist, continued access to handmade cigars for those types of events and occasions is extremely important to maintain. The Minister’s assurances will be valued by all those in the handmade cigar sector.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendments to clauses 62, 80, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123 and 124, would ensure that the effect of a person’s action is considered by reference to what it will be, rather than what it currently is (for consistency with the mental element of these offences).
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments relating to the advertising provisions. They are in large part technical in nature, but they have a clear and important purpose: to stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. They also ensure that the regime is clear and capable of being enforced fairly and consistently across all settings, whether online or offline.
We know why we are here today. In 2025, more than 1 million children reported having tried vaping. We have seen the brightly coloured and cartoon advertisements that have clearly appealed to young people. The Bill delivers on this Government’s mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children while continuing to support adult smokers to quit.
Government Amendments 20, 99, 111, 148, 150, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 167 and 170 to 172 are minor and technical amendments. They simply update the wording across the clauses that create offences relating to free distribution, advertising, brand sharing and sponsorship. These amendments will ensure that the offence is committed, for example, as soon as an advert is published, which may not have been the case in some circumstances. That means that, for example, if a leaflet with an advert is put through a letterbox, the offence arises when it is delivered, not when the resident eventually reads it.
I have also tabled Amendment 165, which restores specific exceptions that already exist in current law. These make it clear that intermediaries—companies such as TalkTalk or BT—that provide passive internet services such as internet access cannot be liable for advertising offences in certain circumstances. This does not reflect a change in policy. The Bill does not intend to change the circumstance in which passive service providers may be liable. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, these amendments explicitly protect providers of passive services who have no ability to control, publish or remove adverts if they satisfy the circumstances prescribed in the exceptions.
Government Amendments 173 to 174, 179, 180 to 183, and 185 to 187 make it clear that the product placement provisions in Part 6 are not retrospective. They restate the existing law in relation to tobacco, and ensure that the new restrictions apply only going forward and do not affect programmes made before they came into force. This means that broadcasters or on-demand programme service providers will not be required to review or edit existing programmes. Finally, Amendment 184 removes now redundant amendments to video-sharing legislation that was repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023.
I turn to what is perhaps the most substantive amendment in this group—Amendment 166—and Amendments 175 to 178 on the public health defence. In Committee, I explained that the Bill already allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. Noble Lords raised important questions about how this applies to pharmacists, pharmacies and GP practices that both support smoking cessation and operate as businesses. I listened carefully to these concerns and, in response, I tabled an amendment creating a specific defence to provide clarity on how this will work in practice. This amendment allows businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products where it is done in arrangement with the public authority for public health reasons. In practice, this means that public authorities will continue to be able to partner with businesses such as pharmacies to run effective public health campaigns that promote vaping for smoking cessation.
We have also replicated this exception for on-demand programme services to ensure that public health authorities can continue to work with businesses to promote vaping for smoking cessation through these platforms. I hope this provides reassurance to noble Lords that healthcare professionals, including pharmacists and GPs, can continue to display smoking cessation materials. It also ensures that others, such as design agencies commissioned by public authorities, will not be caught inadvertently by the offence provisions when supporting this work.
I know that all these matters were of concern to noble Lords; I am therefore, as I said, glad to put forward amendments to tackle these very real points. I look forward to hearing the views and contributions of noble Lords in this debate, and I hope I can count on their support.
Baroness Northover (LD)
From these Benches, the Minister can count on our support.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late and, given that some of my noble friends have left the Chamber—no doubt to enjoy a very expensive handcrafted cigar—it is left to my noble friend Lord Effingham and me to offer the opposition. If I had any temptation to call a Division, I can see that I am outnumbered.
I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. I know that many of them are technical, but some are very important. I particularly welcome Amendment 165, which provides sensible protection for internet service providers acting merely as conduits, caching services or passive hosts. They are not really active in this space. They do not initiate, select or modify the content transmitted across their networks, and it would not be fair or practical to render them criminally liable for material of which they have no knowledge and over which they exercise no control.
Similarly, Amendments 166 and 178 ensure that legitimate public health campaigns are not inadvertently caught out by the advertising offences in the Bill. Where a person is acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority and for the purpose of promoting or protecting public health, it would be wrong for them to face criminal liability.
Finally, we welcome Amendment 183 because it ensures that the new restrictions do not apply retrospectively to programmes that were already in production before the new rules came into force. I suppose this is all a very long way of saying that we welcome the amendments from the Government.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am delighted to receive the support of both Front Benches, either in a few words or in a few more words. This is to fulfil a mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children, while continuing to support adult smokers to quit. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.