House of Lords

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 3 March 2026

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Carbon Budget 6

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their policies and plans will deliver Carbon Budget 6.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

Carbon budget 6, which was set out in 2021 and is current from 2033 to 2037, was subject to several legal challenges. It is now in the hands of the present Government. The Secretary of State carried out a full and rigorous assessment of the package, policies and proposals prior to publishing the recent Carbon budget and growth delivery plan and concluded that they will enable carbon budget 6 to be met. He will continue to monitor policy delivery and keep the package under review.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for the Answer. You can imagine this is something that concerns me, because the previous Government lost two court cases about this as they were not going to achieve what they were aiming for. We have just had carbon budget 7. I am quite curious about whether this Government have really done the right risk assessments. The previous national security assessment said that nature damage will cost 12% of GDP by 2030 relative to what could have been achieved. If Labour are interested in GDP, it really ought to sort itself out on the issue of the environment.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

We do not have the announcement of carbon budget 7 until the summer. The noble Baroness might care to think about what the process of looking again at carbon budget 6 was after those legal judgments. Indeed, the Government have taken a much more robust approach to developing the plan, which has allowed us to make a much clearer and more rational assessment of the savings that will enable carbon budgets to be met and to quantify them fully.

We have also quantified a number of real-world trends that are rather important today, and which are shaping our society and economy. That means our assessment reflects how we would expect the world to change as we accelerate towards net zero. None of these things were done when the previous Administration set out carbon budget 6—indeed, they were part of the legal challenge to those budgets. That is the reason why we consider that carbon budget 6 can be met, in addition to which a number of new policies and directions have come forward since this new Government took office.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if we are going to meet our carbon budgets, clearly, the challenge of getting low-carbon electricity generation as quickly as possible is crucial. The latest figures I have for Q2 2025 suggest that nuclear power was about 15.1% of electricity generation. How do you square that with the Greens’ manifesto, which says that they want to get rid of nuclear power in this country?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The continued presence of nuclear power as a low-carbon power source is, and will be, an integral part of carbon budget 6 being met. It would be very difficult to catch up with those carbon budget 6 figures without nuclear power. It will come and go a little bit, in terms of retirements of nuclear power stations by the mid-2030s and new nuclear power stations coming online, but it will come back to at least that 15% figure. It is very difficult to see how carbon budget 6 might easily be met without that power in place.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches and then from the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Government continually reassess carbon budget 6, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the concerns of Ofgem, which has said that the volume of grid connection applications

“exceeds even the most ambitious demand forecasts”.

Further, last week, the Energy Secretary said that energy demand “remains inherently uncertain”. What is the Minister’s department doing to try to work out how much energy will be needed by data centres? Can the Government commit to using only low-carbon sources of power for these operations?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

In terms of the Government’s clean power 2030 plans, pretty much only low-carbon power will be used for operations in the future. As far as data centres are concerned, this is one of the real-world trends that I mentioned has been analysed out in the carbon budget considerations. While AI will certainly considerably reduce the amount of electricity that is being used, the overall trend towards a large number of data centres will increase its use, so you have trends going in either direction. However, that is within the modelling that has been done so that we can consider how the budget can be met.

On grid connections, among other things, Ofgem is very much under way in reducing the number of people in the queue and making sure that the grid is far better able to accommodate the early connections and consequences of the rollout of new grid bootstraps, for example.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, given that the pursuit of carbon budgets has so far given us the highest electricity prices in the OECD, can the Minister confirm that the pursuit of decarbonisation has so far primarily resulted in the deindustrialisation of Britian, and that our carbon budgets do not take account of the fact that we have simply exported carbon emissions to the rest of the world?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

It is certainly not true that the pursuit of a low-carbon economy has led to deindustrialisation. The noble Lord need only look at the £60 billion of investment that is coming into the green economy and all that goes with it. Indeed, the low-carbon economy is growing three times as fast as the general economy. Many of the things that are coming in concerning low-carbon energy are very much concerned with industrial plants, grids, new forms of electricity generation and so on, which will not only produce large numbers of jobs but a very sound industrial base for the country.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, to return to the Minister’s original Answer in relation to legal challenges, what assessment has been made of the electric vehicle rollout and boiler replacement mandates and their timeframes, and the Government’s ability to meet the building and transport emission cuts and the sixth carbon budget in good time?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

On EV rollout, the noble Earl will be aware of what has been put in place for ending internal combustion engine use in vehicles and the phase-out of hybrid by 2035. The rollout of electric vehicles continues unabated, and the number of electric vehicle charging points in this country, currently at more than 80,000, is well on target for what we think necessary over the next period to ensure that the fleet works as well as it should.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that in the UKCS we have a far smaller carbon footprint for our own North Sea gas than the full life-cycle emissions of imported LNG from Qatar and the United States? Given that the Government’s energy security is challenged with growing dependency over the next 10 years on LNG ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, why are we the only country in the world that is failing to accelerate development of our own gas reserves, in the North Sea, for energy security and environmental objectives so that we can deliver firm and affordable power to all our high-energy-use industries, which currently face crushing energy costs, four times higher than in the United States?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that, even if we were substantially to increase the footprint of gas production in the North Sea, that would not come on stream for many years. Secondly, gas is traded on international markets at a particular price, so it would make no difference to energy costs in the UK, because the gas would go to one of the three international gas markets and bringing down that price would be beyond the control of the UK—unless we introduced draconian measures to prevent the price discovery of the particular levels of gas being undertaken on international basis, which I am sure the noble Lord would not be happy with.

Defence Industrial Strategy 2025: Economic Growth and Job Creation

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 on promoting economic growth and job creation in English regions and devolved nations.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, investment in defence is investment in jobs and growth in every nation and region in the UK. That is why we have invested £773 million in the defence industrial strategy, which will position the UK as a global leader in defence technology by backing UK businesses and harnessing the sector’s strengths. There are five defence growth deals, revamping our procurement framework and launching an ambitious skills programme. The defence industrial strategy will create new good-quality and highly skilled jobs across the UK and drive economic growth.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Government’s commitment to significantly increasing defence expenditure and the opportunity to use this lever to promote economic growth, especially through the development of dual-use technologies and extended supply chains, I draw my noble friend the Minister’s attention to the fact that only seven of 14 mayoral combined authorities have so far produced local growth plans that explicitly name defence and national security as priority growth sectors for their area. Does he share my view that better connections between combined authorities and the Ministry of Defence are required to ensure that there are real and tangible economic benefits in every nation and region to increase defence spending? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Government engage systematically and effectively with regional leaders to ensure that this welcome investment creates the maximum number of jobs possible?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. It is really important for the defence industrial strategy that we liaise with all the devolved Governments and, as my noble friend says, with local devolved councils and mayoral authorities. Kim McGuinness is the Mayor of the North East, in my noble friend’s part of the country, and I know of the work that he has done with local authorities. It is essential that we work with them to deliver the economic growth that we want across all the regions of England and nations of the UK.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the defence industrial strategy will have no economic effect. What might make an impact is a defence investment plan, backed up by the necessary level of resources. The absence of such a plan is undermining business confidence and investor confidence. When will the Government start taking such crucial decisions at a pace that matches the urgency of the international situation we face?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I accept the point with respect to the publication of the defence investment plan. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, that will be published as soon as it is ready. Look at what has been happening. Noble Lords across this Chamber demanded that the Government spend money on Leonardos, and we announced investment in them just recently. We have also invested huge sums of money on the Clyde and at Rosyth to build new ships. We are investing huge sums of money to develop the dockyards in Plymouth to improve the availability of the submarines, and we are also making numerous investments, such as in Rolls-Royce, with a £9 billion nuclear programme over the next few years. I understand the point the noble and gallant Lord is making, but the Government are not standing still—we are already spending billions of pounds investing in our defence industry.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little on the point that the noble and gallant Lord just raised about the defence investment plan? When I asked him about this in January, he referred to the comments of the Secretary of State at the beginning of January that the Government were working flat out to get this plan done, and there were rumours that it would be ready for the spring. Looking at the pleasant weather outside, spring seems to have arrived. When will the defence investment plan arrive? People will judge the Government not on what they say but on what they do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making, and it raised some mirth in here, but the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready and when the Government have made the decisions about matching the budget to the capabilities they want. These capabilities should be matched to the demands of the future, learning the lessons of Ukraine.

As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Government are not waiting for the defence investment plan before investing billions of pounds in our defence industry across the country, in the ways I laid out. I go back to the point about the Leonardos. We did not wait for the defence investment plan to do that: £1 billion is going to be spent to ensure we have helicopters. Numerous noble Lords have also been to Rosyth and the Clyde and have seen the ships being built there. This Government are investing in our defence industry, and the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, of course we welcome the decision to award the helicopter contracts for Yeovil, which the local MP, Adam Dance, has been campaigning for, and we are glad that it has been signed. But the reality is that without this investment plan, there are jobs and investment on hold in defence installations right across the UK. They desperately need to know when the orders are going to flow and when the money is going to come through. We also need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have a real stake in building up our high-tech capacity and in filling in our munitions requirements.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the last point, of course munitions are important, as we see particularly at the moment. That is why the Government are investing £1.5 billion in six new munitions sites. Thirteen sites have been identified, they are being reviewed, and we will come forward with those munitions sites so that we have them available. Again, that is money being invested. We are also talking about small and medium-sized businesses. We know that the future is not just in the big primes but in small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have set up within the Ministry of Defence an organisation to drive that growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial, and we will develop those as well.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that we should judge the Government on what they do. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the £10 billion defence contract with Norway to build Type 26 frigates, which has for the first time in many years brought sustainability to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I ask my noble friend the Minister to double down on commitments to make sure that the jobs and investment that flow from this benefit all in Scotland, most particularly those in deprived communities. I ask him to set up a taskforce to make sure that all Scots and all people in the west of Scotland benefit from this—as I say, particularly the most deprived. This Government are taking action; let us make sure that people get the benefit of that action.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. I will consider her suggestion to ensure that the most deprived communities benefit from the investment. That is why we have the skills agenda and why Scotland has a defence growth deal. My noble friend will know that nearly 12,000 jobs are dependent on MoD investment in Scotland and that on the Clyde and in Rosyth we are seeing significant investment. This Government will drive that investment forward.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. I welcome the defence growth round table that took place in Belfast last week. By all accounts it was a very worthwhile event, particularly its focus on the challenges to growth. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on political leaders in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh to get behind the defence industry and not shy away from it at this particularly turbulent time?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do agree. The noble Baroness will know how many jobs in Northern Ireland are dependent on the defence industry—not least Thales, which has seen a £1.6 billion investment. I would have thought that everyone would have welcomed that for the jobs and prosperity it brings.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, while I accept what the Minister has said about current investment, there is a continuing delay in defence investment and orders, which not only is damaging to the Government’s relationship with the home defence industry but risks pushing urgent UK requirements down the queue for future deliveries. Will the Government confirm that the UK’s orders remain prioritised for the Type 26 frigate programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will ensure that we deliver the frigate programme as announced. We are delighted with the frigate deal that has come from Norway, and we are hoping to bring forward other significant investments. The noble Earl, with his Scottish roots, will know how important this investment is to Scotland. We will continue to drive that investment forward. We will make sure that we protect our own frigate programme as far as we can, but exports are an important part of what we do as well.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, Northern Ireland is rightly designated as one of the five key UK regions that are pivotal to the success of this strategy, thanks to the Province’s expertise in cyber security, shipbuilding and missile manufacturing. Can the Minister update the House on precisely what progress His Majesty’s Government have made in delivering this strategy in the six months since it was published and what benefits it has brought to the people of Northern Ireland?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, there have been meetings in Northern Ireland to drive the strategy forward. We are hoping to make an announcement about the growth deal for Northern Ireland to build on the consultations that have taken place. Northern Ireland is home to Thales and a diverse range of defence and dual-use industries. The country is recognised as a leading cyber security hub, boosted by the Queen’s University Belfast Centre for Secure Information Technologies and Momentum One Zero. It is also a critical home to Thales and Harland & Wolff, companies that are critical to our support for Ukraine and our maritime strength. That is a good news story for Northern Ireland and for the whole of the UK.

British Farming: Competitiveness

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Lord Harlech]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the competitiveness of British farming against imported produce.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my farming and land management interests in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impact that it may have. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect our most sensitive sectors. We will set out our wider plans to boost farming profitability and long-term viability later this year.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. UK food self-sufficiency has fallen below 65%. Britain increasingly relies on volatile international markets while holding its own farmers to higher standards than most of our trading partners. The Batters review was unequivocal that food security is national security, so, yes or no, will the Government commit to treating agriculture as a sensitive sector in all future trade negotiations and ensure that no future trade deal allows imports produced to lower welfare or environmental standards to undercut British farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have been very clear when working on our trading agreements with other countries that our standards are sacrosanct. We will not allow deals that undermine the standards that we have in this country. We are investing £11.8 billion in the farming budget over this Parliament, so we are absolutely serious about building our farming road map and responding positively to the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. It is really important that any products that are produced to different environmental or animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market only if they comply with the strict requirements that we put in place.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the way to help with this significant issue would be the Government achieving their own manifesto promise of getting at least 50% of food supply to the public sector produced by British food producers. Can the Minister share with us what is preventing the Government achieving that with some urgency?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that we talked in our manifesto about the importance of public procurement in supporting our food industry. The Procurement Act allows contracts for certain value thresholds also to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers. We want to look at the big suppliers and the smaller suppliers in order that we can deliver that manifesto commitment as best we can, because 50% is a large amount of our food procurement. Last year, we had a new national procurement policy statement, which puts emphasis on weighting environmental and social outcomes in government contracts. British farmers and local suppliers will be very well placed to meet those outcomes.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, one way to improve the competitiveness of UK farming is through innovation. The Government have invested a considerable amount in research and innovation in relation to agriculture and the food system through UKRI. As a result of that, the UK is at the forefront of a number of novel technologies, including precision breeding and the use of AI to detect animal diseases. In negotiating a new SPS agreement with our colleagues in Europe, will there be a carve-out for these new technologies so that we can continue to develop and use them even if we have a new agreement and dynamic alignment with the European Union?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord in that I am not able to discuss any specific carve-outs that we are looking at during the negotiations with the European Union. What I can say is that the innovative areas that he referred to are under discussion, because they are very important both for our scientific communities and for our farming communities, and those discussions are ongoing.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. In so doing, I commend the work of my noble friend the Minister in achieving agreements with the European Union in that regard. Further to that, can I urge her, working with the EU as part of the reset, to ensure that we achieve an SPS veterinary and phytosanitary agreement that will help promote and protect our farming industry and food security, not least in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that working with the European Union around sanitary and phytosanitary issues regarding veterinary medicines is very important and something that we are clearly focused on. I also thank her for her role in the Veterinary Medicines Working Group. The whole group came together to do the best we could to ensure that veterinary medicines were still available in Northern Ireland after the end of the grace period at the end of last year. We will continue to work together on how we move forward within the EU reset.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have said that they do not expect the EU–Mercosur trade deal to impact UK food production, supply or security, or indeed UK imports of agricultural products from the bloc. However, the British Agriculture Bureau has taken a market-wide view and has warned that the deal risks increasing competition on the EU market, potentially displacing products on to the UK market. What is the Minister’s assessment of this? I declare my interest as a dairy and beef farmer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to say that the UK values its relationship with the Mercosur countries and we are committed to identifying ways to continue to strengthen our trade relations. We are not currently negotiating a free trade agreement with Mercosur, but our trade strategy is clear that we will consider new free trade agreements where there is a comprehensive deal that makes sense at the time.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in relation to the latest free trade deal with India, there is every reason to believe that Indian dairy products will be allowed into the UK market without reciprocal rights for British dairy farmers to export their products to India. How can such a deal be done when we are trying to support British farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the India deal, we maintained tariffs on several products, including pork, chicken and eggs. That was because we had concerns about animal welfare standards and the potential impact on British farmers. That is what we will do and the position we will take when looking at trade deals with any country.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, when will the Government publish their response to the excellent Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters? Will it focus on the farm-to-table food chain to ensure that profitability reaches the farm gate and is not consumed by retailers, wholesalers and distributors en route? In that regard, will it also take note of the model set forth in Great South West’s recent agri-food growth plan, which shows the value of regional focus, championing local farming and food production? I note my interest as a Devon farmer and a programme board member of the food security board.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the latter part of the noble Earl’s question, Great South West does tremendous work in this area. I went to the launch of its review, which is a blueprint for how the Government believe we should be delivering and supporting farming in our country. I commend the noble Earl for his work with and support for that group.

There are a large number of recommendations—57—in the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We are looking at those carefully but taking some actions on a number of them already so that we can deliver practical support and certainty for farmers where we can before we publish our full response. Part of that is the new farming and food partnership board, which we have announced, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the wider supply chain to drive collaboration and increase the kind of fairness that the noble Earl talked about.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My noble friend referred to the Government’s procurement plans. In my experience, I never found any government procurement plans; there were departmental procurement plans. It was impossible in particular regions to get the prisons, the schools and the hospitals to work together, because they had their own budgets and decision-making. That is still the case today, and it goes against co-ordinated effort to help British farmers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the important things that we are doing in Defra and other departments is trying to have a better collaborative relationship with local authorities. Much of what we want to do as a Government will be delivered by local authorities so, unless we support them better, we will not be able to deliver much of what we need on the ground. Procurement is an exact example of that.

Assisted Dying Legislation: Isle of Man and Jersey

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enable legislation passed by the Tynwald of the Isle of Man and States Assembly of Jersey allowing assisted dying to receive Royal Assent in a timely fashion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, since receiving the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill, we have engaged with its authorities, in line with the UK’s responsibility for its international relations. This includes ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Advice on Royal Assent will go to the Lord Chancellor in due course and, when we receive the Jersey law, we will follow the normal process of scrutiny in a timely manner.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We are in an odd position—are we not?—on the assisted dying Bill. The Isle of Man has legislation in place, the Welsh Assembly has just approved a legislative consent Motion, the States Assembly of Jersey has agreed a Bill and the Scottish Parliament will shortly follow. Yet, after nearly nine months and 180 hours of consideration in our Parliament, we are still stuck on Clause 3 of a 57-clause Bill. Given that 73% of the public back the Bill, is not the position of the Bill’s House of Lords opponents beginning to look rather odd and, frankly, out of touch?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Government have been clear that we are neutral on the topic of assisted dying and the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It is a Private Member’s Bill and my noble friend the Chief Whip has made it clear that there will be no government time given to the Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is for your Lordships to determine the progress of the Bill.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, before Royal Assent has even been granted to Jersey’s Bill, a Deputy has tabled a Motion calling for assisted dying to be extended to non-terminally ill people with unbearable suffering. In reply, the Health Minister has said “Now is not the time, but it would be appropriate to consider extending the law as part of the three-year review of the Act”. Does the Minister not agree that this demonstrates that the terminal illness criterion is no cast-iron guarantee, but is simply the mission creep that many of us have warned against concerning our legislation?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the Crown dependencies are self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Parliaments. The UK is not responsible for looking at the content or the policy of any legislation that they pass, but merely for checking that it is compatible, for example, with the European convention. I am certainly not going to say anything that would change the Government’s position of neutrality in relation to the Private Member’s Bill that is passing through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the process leading up to advising on Royal Assent is one in which the UK Government examines island legislation to see if it has unintended effects in the United Kingdom. Is that process being gone through and, if so, how, given that we do not know what the Government’s position would be on such fundamental questions as whether assisted dying would be provided within or outside the National Health Service, and all the dependencies rely on specialist medical help from hospitals in England?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

At the risk of repeating myself, the Government do not look at the merits of the legislation that they receive in relation to the Crown dependencies: these are stand-alone pieces of legislation that do not affect the position the Government take in relation to the Private Member’s Bill before this House.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to the assisted dying legislation in the Crown dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, observed, also legislation coming forward in Scotland and, quite distinctly and separately, in England and Wales. If assisted dying becomes lawful in one jurisdiction of the United Kingdom but not another, can the Minister explain what UK-wide framework has been developed to manage the legal, ethical and medical consequences of that divergence, or are we in danger of creating for the United Kingdom a fragmented regime in this most ethically sensitive issue, without any agreed cross-border protocol?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand why the noble and learned Lord asks that question, but it would be entirely premature of the Government to work out what the situation is going to be, since we do not know whether or if that Private Member’s Bill will pass through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose the principle of assisted dying and I think that the current Bill is very flawed. However, I also regret the fact that your Lordships’ House has not been able to actually have votes on some of the key elements within the Bill. I think there are many noble Lords who regret the way this Bill is being conducted.

My noble friend says the Government are neutral, which I fully understand, but, in the current circumstances, surely the Government need to think about how Parliament can be helped to come to some conclusions. Surely, we would start with a vote in principle in the Commons. If it is in favour, the Government should produce a Bill that would allow us to have proper scrutiny. Will she at least consider a way forward that enables us to come to a proper conclusion?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know how many more ways I can find to say that the Government are neutral on this Bill. My noble friend the Chief Whip has made extra days available on Fridays: we still have four more to go. How that time is used is a matter for your Lordships’ House, bearing in mind that the position of the Government consistently has been that this is a question of conscience and not a matter for the Government.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, how are the Government considering the proposed legislation in the different areas to be safe within the European Convention on Human Rights, given that we have already heard that Jersey’s euthanasia is proposed to extend to those who are not terminally ill and that the deficits in the infrastructure of the Isle of Man Bill have already been identified? There is ongoing discussion about the Bill proposed in Scotland, which looks quite different, and the Welsh Assembly gave legislative consent to only some parts of the Bill, under the impression that, if it did not, it would have no control whatever over how the legislation was enacted, given that health is devolved to Wales.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She has asked for quite a lot of information and we may have to write to her on that. I can certainly speak about what happened in relation to the Isle of Man. We have the Isle of Man for assistance on the Bill’s reliance on codes of practice for the implementation of pre-death and post-death reviews. We also asked for assistance on the training and guidance of healthcare professionals, specifically around safeguarding against potential coercion. The Jersey Bill has not arrived with us yet, but I repeat that the merits of the legislation are not a matter for this Government.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, set out in the Ministry of Justice’s communications with the Isle of Man, there are a number of concerns with the legislation there that are very similar to the concerns that many of us have with the Bill before this House, and many amendments have been put down to deal with those concerns. We would be making faster progress if the sponsor of the Bill would engage seriously with those concerns and accept some of the amendments that have been put forward by those who want to make the Bill better.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Can anybody think of another way for me to say that the Government are neutral in relation to this Bill? And I am certainly not going to comment on matters that are for the sponsor.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that respecting the settled will of the legislatures of the Isle of Man and Jersey on matters within their domestic competence strengthens the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies? Will the Government therefore commit to publishing clear criteria and timeframes for the granting of Royal Assent?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The most recent communication from the Isle of Man—the latest information—was received at the end of January. Officials are now preparing advice for the Lord Chancellor. It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on either the timing or the content of that advice.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the Government’s determined position of neutrality, which the Minister has rightly said she has repeated many times, would she not accept that, once Royal Assent is given to the procedures and the Acts in Jersey and in the Isle of Man, there will be an extraordinarily unsatisfactory patchwork of provision across the United Kingdom for assisted dying, and therefore it is particularly important that the Government should make sure that the Bill before your Lordships’ House is properly completed?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I still cannot think of another, better way of saying it. I think it would be rude to my noble friend to say that I refer her to my previous answer, but I am afraid I do.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Membership Motions

15:19

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

That Lord Hogan-Howe, Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede be appointed to the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session.

Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee

That Baroness Neate be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Barker.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

That Baroness Hamwee be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. In doing so, I place on record my considerable thanks to deputies past and present, who are so integral, indeed essential, to the work of your Lordships’ House.

Motions agreed.

Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

15:19

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.

Motion agreed.

Gibraltar Treaty

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:20

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 26 February.

“With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. First, I welcome the presence in the Gallery of His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Sir Ben Bathurst. Given his previous commands, I also take the opportunity to wish him a very happy St David’s Day in advance—Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus—which I share with all the House and, indeed, with the people of Gibraltar. It is also a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your own strong support for and associations with Gibraltar, not least in relation to the university.

After five years of tireless and complex work and dozens of rounds of negotiations, I am pleased to inform the House that we have published a draft version of the treaty. I am depositing a copy of the draft treaty in the Library of each House, together with an accompanying summary document. I am delighted that we have reached this moment, which heralds a new era of security, prosperity and stability for Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.

For more than 300 years, the Rock has been a hugely important part of the British family. Its people are British citizens, and our commitment to them remains absolute. This Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect Gibraltar’s unique position and to secure post-Brexit arrangements that deliver on that responsibility. This draft treaty protects jobs and livelihoods for the people of Gibraltar and offers a stable framework for their relationship with the European Union, removing the uncertainty they have faced since Brexit. In short, it shows what real diplomacy and co-operation can achieve. It is the result of sustained and effective efforts on the part of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain.

His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been at the table at every stage of the negotiations; nothing has been agreed without their full support. I place on the record my appreciation for the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their teams, who played vital roles in securing the best outcome. I also pay tribute to UK negotiators, including our teams in Brussels, Madrid, London and Gibraltar. Their diligence and diplomatic skill have ensured that this treaty protects UK sovereignty and delivers practical outcomes for citizens and businesses on both sides of the border.

Now let me reflect on some of the detail. Around 15,000 people cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day—half of Gibraltar’s workforce. The treaty removes all checks on people and goods at that border; instead, dual immigration checks will take place at Gibraltar’s airport, with Gibraltar conducting its own controls and Spain, as the neighbouring Schengen state, conducting checks on behalf of the European Union, in a model similar to the French police operating at St Pancras.

Let me be clear: Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Immigration, policing and justice remain the responsibility of its own authorities. British sovereignty over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, is fully upheld and explicitly protected. Crucially, the United Kingdom’s military facilities and operations on the Rock remain under full UK control. The treaty also establishes a bespoke customs model that removes the need for routine goods checks at the land border and strengthens co-operation between customs authorities.

Gibraltar will align its import duty rates on goods with EU rates. That will allow people to cross the border with everyday goods, such as shopping, without declarations or additional charges, bringing an end to long queues for workers, businesses and visitors. Having been in those queues myself, I know that that will make a substantial difference. To be clear, Gibraltar will not apply VAT or any other sales tax, and its vital services industry will not be affected.

The result is a pragmatic agreement and arrangement that protects Gibraltar’s way of life, supports its economy and strengthens cross-border co-operation, while safeguarding the United Kingdom’s sovereignty position. It also gives businesses the certainty that they have sought for many years, allowing them to plan and invest with confidence. The conclusion of the negotiations also reflects the wider, transformed change in tone and trust that this Government have rebuilt with our European and EU partners, including Spain—a crucial NATO ally and economic partner. It represents a new era of co-operation and delivery for growth and security.

As with the UK-EU summit last year, the agreement shows that a constructive, problem-solving relationship with the European Union can deliver real benefits for British citizens. We are publishing the draft treaty alongside the European Union while legal teams complete final checks and translations, so that all Parliaments with an interest can have access to it on the same timeline.

The publication of the draft today marks a milestone, but it is not the formal end of the process; the final version of the treaty will be laid in the UK Parliament for scrutiny before ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain as we move towards signature and implementation, and I will update the House as that work progresses.

In conclusion, this is a significant achievement for Britain, for Gibraltar and for our wider European partnerships. It shows this Government’s commitment to fixing problems, supporting our overseas territories, and defending Britain’s interests with clarity and confidence. With this treaty, Gibraltar can look to the future with certainty. Its people can be reassured that their way of life is protected. To quote the Chief Minister today, the treaty

‘provides a springboard to stability, certainty and a modern partnership with the EU. And it does so without affecting our fundamental, inalienable right to remain British in every respect. Indeed, the Agreement makes absolutely clear that nothing in the Agreement or any supplementing arrangements shall affect sovereignty.’

In the words of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, our commitment to Gibraltar remains, as ever, as solid as the Rock. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. I should begin by saying that the Official Opposition welcome the fact that the Government of Gibraltar have been at the table throughout these negotiations. Gibraltar is British. The Government tell us that sovereignty was never on the table throughout these negotiations, and it never should be. I only wish they were consistent in their application of this approach to other treaties.

This treaty runs to more than 1,000 pages and, of course, we need time carefully to consider the detail. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring the publication of the treaty in draft. This has allowed us to begin the process of scrutiny early. Can the Minister say when the treaty will be laid formally so that we can plan for the CRaG process that will follow? When we went through the CRaG process for the 2025 UK-Mauritius treaty, the Government failed to follow the Ponsonby rule, which established the convention that the Government will allow a debate on a substantive Motion in respect of treaty ratification where a formal request is made by the Official Opposition. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will follow the convention if a request is received in respect of this treaty?

On a connected scrutiny point, can the Minister say whether domestic legislation will also be needed before we proceed to ratification? If so, when will that be laid before the House? As the Minister knows, we have been critical of the Government’s sequencing of the agreements in respect to the UK-Mauritius treaty and the Bill, so can he say whether the Government are aware of any extant and binding treaties in respect of Gibraltar that may be in tension with the terms of the draft treaty that has now been agreed with the EU?

I turn from process to the practicalities of the treaty. Can the Minister please set out the steps that will be taken under the treaty to protect the rights of British citizens freely to visit Gibraltar? We know that dual passport checks will be undertaken at the airport in Gibraltar. What recourse will a citizen have in circumstances where Spanish border control and British border control are in disagreement on a person’s admission to what will remain British territory? Can he say what oversight UK authorities will have over the activities of the Spanish border control operations in Gibraltar? What is the process for dispute resolution?

Ministers know that we on these Benches have profound concerns about the process of dynamic alignment. We must not be rule-takers. How will dynamic alignment operate under this treaty? How will Gibraltar and the UK avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control? Can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar and not EU politicians will decide on her own future?

When the Minister in the other place was asked about Article 25 and its reference to the ECHR, he said that

“we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that”.—[Official Report, 26/2/26; col. 489.]

That is, obviously, a statement of the status quo, but can the Minister please explain what the status of Article 25 would be if the UK were to withdraw from the ECHR? Would an amendment to the treaty need to be agreed with the EU at that point or could the UK derogate from Article 25 unilaterally?

Finally, on a point of fairness, this treaty appears to create an imbalance in the treatment of EU citizens and UK citizens. An EU national may have free access to Gibraltar through the land border without any restrictions whatever, but a British national travelling from the UK could potentially be banned from entering at the airport by Spanish border control guards. These are challenging issues, and we understand why compromise can be necessary, but could the Minister please set out the work that he is doing to ensure that UK citizens continue to have smooth and free access to Gibraltar, which is, after all, still a British territory? I look forward to the Minister’s reply to these questions.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to FCDO business, even though it may well be temporary. These Benches support this treaty. In the House of Commons, without any sense of irony, the Conservative Opposition said that Parliament had been kept in the dark about this treaty. However, it was the previous Government who ignored the wishes of the 96% of people of Gibraltar who sought to remain in the EU, forced on them the hardest of Brexits, took no action to correct the damage that they were told by Gibraltarians would happen, and then refused to present to Parliament a mandate for negotiations to have a sustainable agreement.

I therefore thank the Government for working closely with the Gibraltar Government and agreeing with these Benches, who said before the election that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltar. I also put on record the hard work of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, Joseph Garcia, who is from our sister party, as well as of officials, including the recently retired Dominique Searle, the Gibraltar representative in the UK, for all their patience, perseverance and dedication to reach agreement.

I welcome the fact that the Gibraltar Parliament is debating this treaty as we speak. The fact that the Gibraltar Government have accepted a constructive amendment from the opposition means that we will likely see it pass unanimously in the Gibraltar Parliament and then be sent to us for consideration under the CRaG process. I hope that, if our EU committee seeks a debate on this, the Government will honour the Grimstone convention in this House and timetable a debate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government will do that if the EU committee seeks it.

These Benches have supported, and will always support, the right of the Gibraltarians to decide their future. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that there are no sovereignty concessions and, indeed, no mechanisms in this treaty that would allow for sovereignty claims? I know that the Gibraltar Government sought independent legal advice to confirm this, but the Minister putting it on the record at the Dispatch Box would be helpful.

I believe that the EU and Spain have entered into these new arrangements in good faith, but we have to be conscious of the previous unilateral actions of Madrid, which has caused disruption and concern for Gibraltarians in the past. Can we receive assurances that the dispute resolution mechanisms between the EU and the UK will also allow for Gibraltar to seek to extract itself from the terms should it feel that the terms have been reneged on? I hope that that will never be necessary, but we do not know; a right-wing Government in Madrid might perhaps take a different view from the current one.

I note also the Gibraltar Government’s pragmatic position on the involvement and operation of the ECJ. We are perhaps starting to see sensible approaches again, which is welcome. As we seek better and closer relations with the EU, can we ensure in the reset on SPS and, I hope, youth movement that there will be no negative implications for this treaty? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Also, as part of the SPS discussions, can we seek an SPS point for Gibraltar adjacent to Gibraltar—not farther away than currently being envisaged—which will be greatly beneficial to the Gibraltar economy?

The benefits of the work of the Gib Government will be for the people and the economy of Gibraltar. There are 15,000 crossings each day for workers in Gibraltar. All parts of society are interconnected. The healthcare and social care service is reliant on staffing and family relationships cross the frontier. This does not make any Gibraltarian less British, but it does mean that easing and removing friction is a pressing need.

We would also like to see no delay now in the implementation and I ask the Minister if we are preparing for provisional implementation of the agreed text, prior to formal ratification, to avoid the unnecessary burden of installing costly infrastructure for entry and exit systems before 10 April. This would be a pragmatic and welcome step.

We welcome the approach of the Gibraltar Government, the UK Government and the EU, and we hope that we can learn positive lessons and build on this leadership by Gibraltar so that the rest of the UK can adopt a similar mechanism and processes to enjoy the benefits that Gibraltar will see. If it is good for the people and economy of Gibraltar, does the Minister agree that it is good for the people and the economy of the UK as a whole?

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their questions and contributions and I welcome their support for the agreement. There is no doubt that this is good for Gibraltar. I declare an interest: I was a union official representing members in Gibraltar for 30-odd years, so I visited it on numerous occasions. I also went there and experienced it when there were difficulties on the border. In fact, I represented 10,000 Moroccan workers who were based in the barracks in Gibraltar when the border was far from open, so this is good news. Sovereignty is not, and never has been, on the table. In fact, the agreement safeguards it explicitly, and the double lock we set out at the beginning has been fully respected.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we expect the signature next month. Following the signature, the treaty will be laid under CRaG in the usual way, and we will follow the appropriate parliamentary processes. There are, of course, parallel processes on the EU side that must be observed. There is no doubt that we will follow CRaG, and Parliament will be able to fully scrutinise the treaty.

This really is good news not only for the economy and the people of Gibraltar—as the noble Lord said, 15,000 people will be affected, and this has the support of Gibraltar—but the economy of Gibraltar is 90% service-orientated and the cross-border employment created is also having a positive impact on the region in Spain, so it is good news for Spain as well. Certainly, when I first went to Gibraltar, La Línea and the area around that was one of the highest areas of unemployment in Spain. So, this really is good news.

I can also reassure the noble Lord that British citizens have always been subject to immigration checks in Gibraltar. That has always been the case. Certainly, as a union official, I could not work in Gibraltar unless explicitly approved by the Gibraltar Government. Immigration and entry into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. As the noble Lord said, as we speak, the Gibraltar Parliament is considering the treaty. The principle we have adhered to in these negotiations is “Nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”, and we have been clear that that will continue to be the case as we move forward.

We are also clear that, as is normal in these types of agreements, a range of mechanisms are available to help the parties to resolve disagreements. Certainly the expectation is that we will resolve those issues amicably through dialogue, and if that is not possible then there is a formal dispute resolution mechanism that includes the possibility of using independent arbitration to resolve the issues. Lastly, although we hope it does not come to this and no one expects it to, there is the ultimate insurance of a unilateral termination clause that can be used in the event that it becomes apparent that the agreement is not working for us or our Gibraltarian partners. So it is clear that all the guarantees that we have sought, particularly those regarding our military operations and facilities, are there.

I am pleased that the noble Lords welcome the agreement and that, after five years of uncertainty for the economy, we now have a situation where we can move forward that will support the continuation of Gibraltar as a British territory but under the control and determination of the Gibraltar people.

15:36

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I have visited Gibraltar many times, and I trust the judgment of the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who has welcomed this draft treaty. However, its publication has echoes of the Windsor Framework, which was supposed to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom but has instead diluted UK sovereignty over the Province, where EU law now increasingly dominates, has created a major trade barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and has significantly increased costs for consumers. How confident is the Minister that the draft treaty has been properly thought out and will not leave Gibraltarians in the same position as Northern Ireland, subject to a diktat from Brussels over which they have no say? Might it also increase the risk of Gibraltar’s proud British identity being compromised by a Spanish Government who have long wanted to have their own flag flying over the Rock?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There have been a number of occasions when the noble Lord and I have been in Gibraltar together, so I certainly understand and fully appreciate his commitment. However, I want to be clear that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. They are fully supportive of the agreement, which they judge will be good for jobs and businesses in Gibraltar, for the people of Gibraltar and indeed, as I said earlier, for the prosperity of the whole region.

Gibraltar is not joining the EU single market or Schengen. It will align with some laws through its own domestic system, mainly in relation to immigration and customs. The Court of Justice of the European Union will not have jurisdiction over Gibraltar but will have a limited interpretative role in resolving disputes over EU law. Accordingly, Gibraltar courts will factor CJEU rulings into their consideration when ruling on matters that touch on EU-aligned law in Gibraltar.

However, let us be clear: we know that Gibraltar is a small place geographically, but it has huge potential for service industries. That is where the jobs are coming from and where Gibraltar exports, and this agreement will guarantee that for the future. With all parties agreeing to that, we can see a prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

What increases will there be in taxes, excise duties and handling charges? How much money will be sent to Spain for levelling up? What are the estimated costs of all the additional regulation? Is this not rather bad for business in Gibraltar?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think a single businessman in Gibraltar would agree to that. As the noble Lord said, 98% of the people in Gibraltar, through their referendum, supported the continuation of membership of the EU. The EU benefited Gibraltar in terms of cross-border trade and prosperity. The situation since Brexit has been five years of uncertainty that has impacted on businesses. What the Gibraltar Government fully understand, but perhaps the noble Lord does not, is that their service industry is their biggest export—that is what generates jobs. Other customs and tax issues are for the Gibraltar Government to agree, but they will work in concert where that does not impact on the trade that they seek to expand upon.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in Spain. I very much welcome this draft treaty. I think it is very much for the benefit of the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain. There is reference in the helpful note prepared by the Foreign Office to various “Parliaments with an interest”. The note then goes on to say:

“The Government will … work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the EU and Spain”.


Can I ask about ratification? Does this treaty need to be ratified by the European Parliament, the British Government, the Gibraltar Government and the Spanish Government—or not? That is one question. Secondly, there is reference to indirect taxes in Gibraltar being imposed without adopting VAT. Can the Minister explain what that means?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

This is a treaty between the EU and the United Kingdom and obviously the EU has consulted and engaged with the Spanish Government, who are supportive of the EU agreement. We have been consistent, as I have said before, and there has not been a single meeting without the Gibraltar Government and the Chief Minister being present. That will continue in any discussions. On the tax and customs relationship, there will be changes, not least because the border will be open for goods. The days when I bought 200 cigarettes and put them in the boot of my car to get across that border are well over. Cigarettes will undoubtedly cost roughly the same in Gibraltar in the future as in the EU. That is still substantially lower. I notice the noble Lord smiling at me—it is about time he stopped smoking.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have recently joined the European Affairs Committee. Does the Minister agree that it might be better, when we consider all this, to take on board what the Government of Gibraltar think its impact will be on business in Gibraltar, rather than, with all due respect to him, what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, thinks?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is right. That is the principle we have adopted. In tomorrow’s newspapers, particularly those in Gibraltar, we will read that the Parliament of Gibraltar agree. It is a matter for Gibraltar; it is good news and I think we should appreciate that.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, it is good to hear that the Minister has a personal connection with Gibraltar and experience of working there, because there is so much misunderstanding about what Gibraltar is and who the people of Gibraltar are. Will he confirm that his Government recognise that Gibraltarians are not and never have been Spanish, that they are Gibraltarian, that they want to remain British, and have always said so? Will he further confirm that his Government recognise the strategic importance of Gibraltar as a base for the Royal Navy—an integral part of NATO operations in the Mediterranean and the surrounding district—and that that will always be respected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Absolutely. The noble Baroness knows my commitment to Gibraltar. This Government are committed, and Minister Doughty has been absolutely clear about that in all the negotiations. I repeat, nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar; that is the key. Nothing in the agreement, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded at the naval base. This was a firm condition for us, and Spain has been co-operative and is a key NATO ally. My noble friend is sitting next to me; MoD officials and Ministers have been closely involved in the negotiations and the Defence Secretary fully supports the agreement. It is absolutely a commitment that we will maintain.

[Lord Barrow (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the conclusion of these negotiations. This has been years in the making and I know from first-hand experience how tough the negotiations were. However, this is a UK-EU agreement, so how will the Government of Gibraltar be involved in decision-making if it comes into force? What will happen, for instance, if the Government of Gibraltar feel that the agreement is no longer delivering the hoped-for economic and other benefits?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and hope that I made the position clear at the beginning. To repeat, Minister Doughty wrote to the Chief Minister yesterday, making these principles absolutely clear. In fact, the Chief Minister read out to the Gibraltar Parliament the principles about which we have been clear throughout the negotiations: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The agreement has been negotiated to ensure the long-term continued security and prosperity of Gibraltar. The United Kingdom will exercise its powers on the termination or suspension of its obligations under the agreement only following full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, whose wishes and views we will follow. That is the principle to which we will stick rigidly.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

It is wonderful to hear the phrase “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”. How much Northern Ireland would have wished that was the case when we were having negotiations with the European Union; however, that is a matter not for the Minister but for the previous Government, who would have done well to take that on board.

To follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about dispute resolution, in the past Madrid has caused some difficulties for Gibraltar by closing the border and what have you. Are the Minister and the Government happy with what has been put in place to deal with any difficulties that may arise from Madrid? That would be really important for the Gibraltarians, who have suffered in the past.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right—the Gibraltarians have suffered in the past, as I have personally experienced and seen. That has had a serious impact on the economy of not only Gibraltar but the local surrounding area. We are clear that dispute resolution processes and mechanisms will be available to both parties and are sure that any situation is best dealt with through agreement. However, if it cannot be resolved amicably, there are processes in place that we are certain will work.

What we have seen over the past five years of negotiations is a determination for all parties to see this as a way to ensure the success of Gibraltar’s economy and its continued opportunity for employment for 15,000 people in the local area. Both Gibraltar and Spain are benefiting from this agreement.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Purvis about provisional implementation before 10 April.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not have a clear answer on that. We have a process; the treaty has to go through a formal process in the EU. But I think today’s debate in the Gibraltar Parliament, where I hope there will be unanimous agreement—I share the noble Lord’s aspiration—will ensure that there is a stability about the future. People know the way they are now going, which is getting rid of that five years of uncertainty that we have seen since Brexit.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, many years ago the commander-in-chief of a commando brigade invaded Spain when they were meant to be exercising in Gibraltar. That was quite embarrassing, but my question relates to the military. I have not had a chance to look at the totality of this treaty, but what I have heard about it is very good. Will we still be able to use the Z berth for nuclear submarine repairs in Gibraltar? Will we be able to store the whole gamut of weapon stocks that we have, without any interference or checking from the Spanish, and will we be able to do both air and maritime operations from Gibraltar, without any aspect of those coming under the purview of Spain?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to declare what arms we have where at the current time, but the reality is that nothing in this agreement will affect our ability to operate unimpeded. That is absolutely guaranteed and the MoD has been involved, certainly in respect of our naval operations out of Gibraltar. The noble Lord also mentioned the airport and elements of the agreement relating to it. Obviously, there is oversight of the company running its commercial civilian aspects, but these do not affect RAF Gibraltar. The terms of the agreement fully protect the operations and independence of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar. The airfield is run and managed by the MoD; the agreement does not change this one bit.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we have the current slightly bizarre situation where British military aircraft flying into RAF Gibraltar are not allowed to overfly Spanish airspace. Is that resolved by this treaty or not?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Nothing impedes our operations and, of course, Spain is a NATO ally and we work co-operatively with Spain. One of the really good things about this agreement from a civilian point of view for Gibraltar International Airport—again, this is an important point on the economy—is that flights will be able to operate across Europe, including to Spain. That will create opportunities for the airlines that operate out of Gibraltar. It is a tourist destination in the area, so great opportunities can exist from this agreement.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place the Foreign Secretary stated that uniformed Spanish officials will be stationed at checkpoints only at the borders. However, various commentators have since warned that these same uniformed officials will be able to operate within the territory away from the border. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance on this very important point?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think there is any confusion. There will be border checks, but the key difference is that it will operate so that there is freedom across the border. The border will be open in the terms of the agreement, which is significant, but flying into Gibraltar there will be checks. Those checks are required and will be operated on the same basis as we have, for example, with the French in St Pancras. We have border controls in London done by the French. A similar sort of operation will be conducted in the terms of this agreement.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend kindly write to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about flights into Gibraltar over Spanish land? I only ever visited in 1977 and 1979, in solidarity when the Spanish had closed the border. It is a great place for tourism but, if I remember correctly, there is a very tight turn on the aircraft because of the inability to fly over Spanish land.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Commercial flights were obviously limited because there was no opportunity to fly anywhere else in the EU. I have flown there many times and have done that sharp turn; it can be pretty frightening. The really good thing about this agreement is that it opens up Gibraltar International Airport to other EU destinations and other destinations in Spain. I think that is a really good thing that will change. I repeat that the agreement does not impede any of the activities of our defence operations, whether that is the RAF or the Navy.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister a point of clarification? I think I understood him to say this in his opening statement. Is it the British Government’s legal position that the nature of entry requirements to Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltar Government and not the UK Government?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it has always been the case. Believe it or not, that also happens in Jersey and the Isle of Man. It is not an unusual situation. I have visited Gibraltar on numerous occasions and had to go through those checks. If I wanted to stay for any lengthy period, I had to request permission from the Gibraltar Parliament.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that these negotiations have been taking place over many years and have included the noble Lord. I pay tribute to Minister Doughty and his team for all that they have done, and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. Does my noble friend agree that this deal concludes the final chapter in the Brexit deal and leaves us free to pursue a modern, mutually beneficial economic relationship with the European Union?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Those aspirations are not necessarily reliant on each other. The really good thing is that this agreement is for the people of Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar. I agree with my noble friend: Minister Doughty has worked tirelessly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to achieve this agreement. On whether it will influence our future, we all know that the prosperity of our country and Gibraltar requires good relations with the EU. That is our objective and we will continue to do that.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought, Welsh legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:58

Clause 16: Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence

Amendment 21A

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

21A: Clause 16, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) Regulations made under this section may not come into force earlier than the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which they are published.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations establishing the retail licensing regime for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England may not come into force until at least one year after they are published. This is intended to ensure that businesses and local authorities have sufficient time to understand, prepare for and implement the new licensing requirements, including administrative systems, training and enforcement arrangements.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 21A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. In Committee the Minister stated that the Government would design a licensing regime that would support compliant retailers while targeting rogue operators. She also spoke of minimising burdens where possible and recognised the importance of ensuring that retailers and local authorities had sufficient time for training and development. Reference was also made to a call for evidence and to the subsequent consultation that would address matters such as the process for granting licences and implementation generally.

A retail licensing system will require the creation of application systems, fee structures, compliance mechanisms and, crucially, enforcement arrangements. Local authorities will need to establish or adapt administrative systems, train their staff and ensure alignment with trading standards and environmental health functions. Small retailers, many of them independent businesses, will need to understand the new requirements. They will obviously have to submit applications, adjust their own internal processes and potentially invest in training or record-keeping systems.

In our Committee debate, I was encouraged by the Minister’s statement, which indicated that the Government were actively seeking views on how long a period implementation would require. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence, if she has it, and the subsequent consultation to which she referred in Committee? Specifically, is she in a position to provide the feedback the Government have received from retailers and local authorities on the time they would require to implement a licensing regime?

16:00

Secondly, have the Government reached a provisional view on the likely commencement timetable for retail licensing regulations? Do they anticipate a phased introduction, and if so, over what period? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the administrative readiness of local authorities? Has the department engaged directly with representative bodies to understand the systems, staffing and training that will be required, and the time needed to put those in place?

Lastly, if the Government will not commit to the precise terms of this amendment, will they commit to ensuring that there is a clearly defined and publicly communicated minimum lead-in period between the laying of regulations and their commencement? I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for asking some very practical questions, to which I hope we will get some practical answers. The only thing I will raise—I do not want to flog a dead horse for the moment—is that there are existing regulations for off-licences, and it would be interesting to see the degree to which the Government feel that those should be reflected, just in case there is a need for the two to come together at some time in the future.

Amendment 25 is key. Tobacco retailers are concerned —I have discussed this following the last debate—because they have never been in this area in any depth. They feel quite strongly that they should have some means of checking they have registered properly, and that, if the local authority changes something, they have a means of going back and checking on that portal. That is the reason for this amendment, and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says when she responds.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group that stand in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the CTSI, although I emphasise that these amendments are not linked to the CTSI or my role there.

Before speaking to those amendments, I will speak in support of Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Howe, because small businesses will need all the time they can get to prepare for yet another layer of administrative burden. By way of background, the track and trace system, for which specialist tobacconists have been preparing for over five years, requires every economic operator to have a unique identifier code that they must supply when an order is sent out to them. Even something this simple has been remarkably complex and very time consuming. It has taken one supplier in the handmade cigar sector well over two years to register all its customers, and it is not yet there. A fully fledged licensing system, with all that it entails, is likely to be much more complex, especially for businesses such as hotels, for which cigars are not a primary source of income.

Businesses will suffer and possibly cease trading if the licence application process is excessively burdensome in terms of cost, time or hassle. Traditionally, the handmade cigar sector, which comprises mostly family-owned businesses, has been permitted extra time to prepare for new legislation, such as on packaging, display restrictions and so forth, in recognition of how much harder it is for small and micro-businesses with fewer resources to adapt.

I move on to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in this group. I hope that these amendments will be seen as being a constructive, good-faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for specialist tobacconists. Their principal business, comprising some 70% of their turnover, is in handmade cigars. As I explained on the first day of Report, handmade cigars, which are artisanal, individually crafted, high-value and relatively expensive premium products, are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small-format cigars and cigarillos. In other words, they occupy a completely different segment of the market. That distinction matters in terms of price, consumer characteristics and, most importantly, the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.

There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. That fact was challenged last week, and I should therefore reiterate that where there is any data or evidence of cigar usage by young people, it refers not to handmade cigars but to machine-made, mass-produced, lower-priced, small-format cigars and cigarillos. The overwhelming majority of those purchasing handmade cigars are over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Furthermore, handmade cigars are not inhaled and are consumed infrequently, not habitually. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult customers.

In these amendments, we do not oppose the principle of licensing. The introduction of a new licensing framework, however, raises legitimate concerns about how it would apply to existing specialist tobacconists. They are a small number of lawful specialist businesses whose principal business is handmade cigars. Most of them are long-established, multi-generational, family-run, small and micro high-street enterprises. They have long been separately recognised in legislation and regulations. These amendments would provide for the grandfathering of existing specialist tobacconists into the new licensing scheme and seek to protect them from future regulations that might impose numerical caps or geographical restrictions.

These amendments do not go as far as proposing a separate category of licence, nor do they propose exempting new entrants from the licensing regime. They simply recognise that the small businesses operating lawfully under the current stringent regulatory framework should be neither unnecessarily destabilised by the introduction of a new regime nor gradually extinguished by density or zoning controls designed for different purposes. On this point, it is worth noting that in certain locations—St James’s in London is one example—they form a recognised specialist cluster that is popular with tourists and is not dissimilar in character to Savile Row in the context of the bespoke tailoring.

At a time when small businesses face significant economic pressures, we should be cautious about regulatory layering that risks unintended consequences for niche sectors that do not present the public health harms that this Bill is designed to address.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments laid in my name, starting with Amendments 24 and 25. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 24 seeks to establish a national register of tobacco and vape retailers. The reason I am pushing this so strongly is that the national register would strengthen traceability and support our trading standards officers and, importantly, could become a mechanism to strengthen consumer confidence and public reporting of rogue traders, by providing the general public with the means to distinguish legitimate retailers from rogue operators.

As for Amendment 25, noble Lords will hopefully understand the significant challenges that small businesses in this country are facing at this time. Yet here we are, through the Bill, finding yet more ways to strangle our small, legitimate traders with more red tape and more bureaucracy. I, like several people, I am sure, have heard directly from small retailers that many of them do not even bother to report people who carry out smash and grab thefts to the police, due to the time it takes out of their working day.

With these themes in mind, we should be mindful of passing legislation that places new and undue burdens on these small businesses. If we get this wrong, I fear that this legislation unamended would push many small and currently legally trading businesses into the hands of criminal enterprises that are fuelling illicit tobacco and vape trading across the UK. That is why, through Amendment 25, I am asking for the creation of a single digital portal for licence applications and renewals. This digital portal would lessen the burden on businesses, while also enabling greater oversight from enforcement agencies, all the while reducing the risk of administrative errors.

Amendment 31 would enable licensing authorities to suspend or revoke alcohol licences in cases where tobacco or vape licence conditions are persistently breached. Beyond the fact that, in breaching tobacco and vape licensing requirements, the person would fail to meet the definition of a “fit and proper person”, if the Bill is to succeed, it must be based on meaningful economic consequences that hurt and impact illicit trading. Alcohol represents a very significant proportion of convenience store turnover. Linking the two regimes creates a deterrent and uses existing powers under the Licensing Act 2003. If everybody is serious and genuine in their endeavours to protect children through this legislation, we must close this enforcement gap and send a message to those who breach tobacco and vape conditions by deeming them unfit to sell alcohol.

Finally, Amendment 44 seeks to ensure fairness and avoid regulatory arbitrage by ensuring that there is consistency across England and Wales. I seek your Lordships’ consent to apply the same alcohol licence linkage principle in Wales to that which I have proposed for England. That principle is that serious and persistent breaches of tobacco retail conditions should carry real commercial consequences, hitting rogue traders in a way that seeks to gravely disrupt and deter rogue trading.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate so far on the practicalities of a generational ban on smoking. I have been particularly intrigued by the journey we have taken. In that journey, a number of people have come to me, and I thank them for the enormous amount of information and support we have received from the specialist cigar industry. I was particularly delighted, noble Lords may be interested to hear, that my noble friend Lord Parkinson alerted me to a brand of cigars that sadly no longer exists called the House of Lords Cigar Range. I am sure we could sell that in the gift shop if things changed.

I also thank the Minister for her assurances over sampling rooms. I know this was debated, but I would be grateful for further clarification relating to her correct assertion that plain packaging will be difficult for specialist tobacconists to comply with, and thus extra care will be taken to ensure that they can carry on their business within the law, and that their specific needs will be met, as they are already in relation to the display of tobacco products.

However, these amendments, to which I have added my name, go further in protecting this important if niche industry of specialist tobacconists. The purveyors of these handmade, hand-rolled cigars, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, employ hundreds of people. They are largely family-owned or small businesses. They have been trading in some cases for hundreds of years and, importantly, provide delight to thousands of tourists and enthusiasts every day.

Regarding compliance with local licensing regulations, I do not believe that these shops have ever had any form of enforcement or issue around their compliance. I believe their behaviour to be exemplary. If we do not acknowledge the difference of these specialist tobacco shops but simply lump them in with the hordes of vape shops that are a blight on our high streets, we will end up in the worse situation that is causing the sorts of problems that we see today and that have just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister.

16:15

These new regulations may be misused, as regulations normally are. I am sure we all remember the extraordinary application of anti-terror legislation by local councils to people who left their bins out on the wrong day. If these regulations are misapplied, they will destroy the cluster of these specialist tobacconists, especially around St James’s. We are told that there are already laws in place allowing councils the power to revoke and limit licences, which is true. What we are asking for is confirmation that a properly behaving store in the St James’s Street cluster will be exempt from the new rules around the concentration of tobacco purveyors.

We must be specific. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us that well-behaving shops will be treated appropriately. That may be the case today, under sensible councillors, but imagine if one of the councils were to be run by the Green Party, for example. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place, has made clear her opposition to cigars, citing unsubstantiated data that 35% of 11 to 17 year-olds had tried a cigarillo in the last year alone. By the way, machine-made cigarillos are a totally different product which we do not defend and which are not relevant to this debate. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, of the Liberal Democrats, slightly bizarrely suggested that cigars were somehow the preserve of the masculine right, led by Andrew Tate. Are they suggesting that I am some sort of red-pill masculine chauvinist? Such stereotypes do not do credit to the industry and the people who are trying to make a living within it. Also, I should point out that I have never circuit trained, in case anyone was concerned, and every cigar smoker I know is marked out by their mild manner and sensible politics.

I should also add that the Green Party wants to legalise drugs: I think it made that announcement on the same day that it came down so heavily on cigars. I am not against that at all as a libertarian, but it seems inconsistent, to say the least, that under the Greens’ benign rule you will be able legally to take cocaine but not smoke a Cohiba. The future would not be in trusted hands at all, which is why we are looking for these reassurances. Can the Minister make a clear statement about this situation and put our minds at rest that Davidoff of London is not to be turned into a drugs den?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend, although I fear that, after his poetry, I will be much more prosaic. I will speak to Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I want to talk in particular about the implementation of the enforcement and licensing scheme in relation to vaping and nicotine products.

In Committee, we discussed how the Government might implement the registration and licensing scheme, and the regulation of vaping and nicotine products, in co-operation with industry. I am grateful to the Minister for our subsequent discussion and for her letter. However, while the letter followed up the analogy we used in the debate with the role of the Portman Group on the regulation of alcohol products, it referred to the wrong bit of what the Portman Group does. She referred to the voluntary aspects in relation to advertising and sponsorship, whereas the correct analogy is with what it does in relation to the naming, packaging and protection code.

In essence, what that does is ensure that where products which are intended, as determined by the adjudication panel, to appeal to children are put on the market, it is able to notify retailers, who ensure that the product is not stocked. In the Bill, in relation to vaping and nicotine products, as the Minister will be aware, there is intended to be a tighter regime than is the case in relation to alcohol products. That still lends itself to the co-regulatory solution, not because the industry is looking for a voluntary solution but because it is looking for a more proportionate and effective solution.

In particular, I want to make it clear that if there is a register of products, and Clause 94 says there will be, there will then have to be somebody who makes a judgment on whether a product that is registered is compliant with the requirement of not being intended to be attractive to children. The essence of what we are setting out to do is to avoid children accessing or being attracted to vapes.

The scheme in this Bill needs somebody to do a job like that of the adjudication panel. Through the licensing that is in the clause, it is available for conditions to be attached to licences for retailers to make it clear that if there is an adverse adjudication in relation to a product that is registered, it would not be stocked by the retailer. This is not voluntary; it seems to be intended to be watertight, but somebody somewhere has to make an adjudication on whether the naming, packaging or promotion of a product, although it may be compliant with the legislation, is none the less intended to be attractive to children.

As the Minister will know, a series of judgments over time will inevitably have to be made. The least proportionate approach is for there to be a constant effort on the part of the Government to establish in regulations what is and is not permissible. It is much better to have a process, as the Portman Group does, by which an adjudication panel arrives at a quick and effective solution.

I am asking the Minister that we continue the debate which he has kindly entered into with me and that officials use the time which my noble friend is looking for in Amendment 21A to ensure that we have an implementable solution which the vaping industry, and the retailing industry in particular, can be confident in and can put in place before commencement of those provisions.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. If there is to be a retail licensing scheme, it needs to be more robust, fairer and more enforceable than currently envisaged. It needs to respect and reward retailers who are already complying with the law, which is the point behind Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and other noble Lords, and identify and punish those who are operating illicitly and illegally, which is the point behind Amendments 31 and 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister.

The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, proposes that existing, compliant and currently exempted specialist tobacconists selling handmade Caribbean cigars be automatically included in the new retail licensing scheme. This tiny number of about 120 micro-businesses, many of them multigenerational, already face the prospect of the damage done to their business by the proposed packaging regulations, and, albeit in many years to come, as their customers are almost exclusively into early or late middle age, the prospect of competing with illicit sales as a consequence of the generational ban part of the Bill.

As they are the very model of compliant, law-abiding specialist retailers, would it not be only fair at least to give them the certainty that they would automatically be included in the retail licensing scheme? Would it not lessen the burden and cost of the new licensing regime itself if it automatically granted licences to those 120 responsible businesses with a proven track record of being good actors in the tobacco area? The Minister has already said that she is not in the business of putting small businesses out of business, so I hope the Government look favourably on these amendments, which would give them an easy way of keeping at least some of these businesses in business.

Amendments 31 and 44 recognise the reality that many tobacco products are sold from premises that not only sell alcohol but derive most of their business from it. As drafted, there would be two separate licensing regimes—one for alcohol and the other for tobacco products. Would alcohol retailers not be far more circumspect about selling illicit tobacco products if, by doing so, they risked losing their alcohol licence and therefore their main source of income? Would trading standards officers and local authorities not find it much easier to enforce one combined licence than two separate ones? Would illicit products’ supply chains not be more easily disrupted if they lost their sales outlets through an unrelated alcohol penalty? Finally on these amendments—here I cross over to the previous amendments—would it not be fairer for existing specialist tobacconists if the bad actors were discouraged from unfairly competing with the good actors by having their alcohol licence removed and thus their businesses seriously affected?

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments standing in my name together with those from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. As referenced by many of the previous speakers, they deal with the grandfathering rights that we would hope to get for the particularly small businesses in this sector. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues and her willingness to take meetings and have discussions.

It has been said, but it is worth emphasising, that hand-rolled cigars are a distinctive business that has a different health impact and profile—of not having youth adoption. However, I repeat that it has a significant economic benefit for the luxury tourism industry, which is an important component of a country with the tourism profile that we have. Therefore, these businesses—small in number as they are—offer a distinctive service to the nation and should be considered carefully with the impact of the proposed legislation. There are distinct production methods, consumption patterns and market demographics for these products. Therefore, the risk of imposing a regulatory framework designed for industrial-size manufacture on a small-scale, family-orientated and economically sensitive sector requires adequate proportionality.

These amendments are designed to do that for the 120 or so businesses that would be covered by them, where there are huge concerns about economic viability, together with all the other matters that face small businesses. The Government have a strong concern to make sure that we do not always legislate such that we impede the opportunities for small businesses. These are very important principles to which we should adhere, and these amendments offer clear and enforceable definitions to ensure that the legislation can be targeted and proportionate. They would not undermine any of the public health objectives but would define their application to ensure that vulnerable specialist tobacco vendors were granted a retail licence under the new scheme, with the right arrangements to allow flexibility in circumstances around rental increases and other things that are particularly impactful on this size of business.

I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that these matters have been considered carefully and that the opportunities for these companies to continue to exist are supported by the Government.

16:30

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group of amendments concerning the proposed retail licence scheme for tobacco and nicotine products. We welcome the inclusion of a retail licensing scheme in this Bill. This is a significant and constructive addition to earlier versions. The proposal represents a major step forward in strengthening the regulation of tobacco and nicotine sales in the UK. It brings the sale of tobacco into line with established practice for alcohol. Tobacco, of course, remains the single most harmful product that is still readily available. It is the single biggest cause of preventable illness and early death in the United Kingdom. It therefore follows that the sale of these products should be subject to comparable regulatory oversight. Extending the oversight to vapes and other nicotine products will further assist trading standards in addressing non-compliant, unregistered and under-age sales. This combination of proportionate regulation and clear enforcement powers will help to protect both the public and responsible retailers from unscrupulous and illegal competition.

The principle underpinning this reform is simple: the right to sell products that carry health risks must come with clear responsibilities. We want a system that supports compliance, deters abuse and places public health at its heart. Amendment 21A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would ensure a minimum of a one-year gap between regulations being passed and coming into effect, allowing for a transition period. We entirely understand the wish to allow retailers, local authorities and other enforcement bodies adequate time to prepare for the new framework. Implementation must be orderly and practical. However, setting a fixed one-year time delay in primary legislation risks creating unnecessarily rigid constraints. Some elements of the scheme may be ready to begin earlier, while others might benefit from a longer period. The Government’s approach—to determine the precise timing through secondary legislation, informed by evidence gathered from those affected through consultation and negotiation—will ensure that that transition happens as smoothly and credibly as possible.

Turning to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115, I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, regarding how existing specialist tobacconists should be treated within the new regime, including on transitional protection and possible exemptions. We acknowledge that the Government have already made some considerable steps in these areas, and we fully recognise the intention here: to try to give certainty to small specialist retailers who have operated responsibly and reasonably within the law for many years. However, these amendments would, in effect, enshrine grandfather rights in primary legislation, automatically conferring licences or permanent exemptions from any future limits on the number or distribution of these outlets throughout the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations. That would effectively pre-empt the consultation process and remove discretion before any evidence has been gathered or assessed in any way.

It is important that all aspects of eligibility, transitional arrangements and the scope of any future caps or location-based controls are properly considered through consultation, considering not only the interests of existing traders but the wider objectives of public health, community protection and fair enforcement. Given that this applies to existing retailers, not new ones, it does seem that these points should be made within the consultation. We hope that the Minister intends to do that and is open and considerate to these small and normally very compliant retailers—a point that has been made several times. We imagine that the retail licensing scheme will differentiate between the different types of retailers; but given that all details have yet to be confirmed, these amendments feel premature to us.

Amendments 24 and 25 relate to national registers and a unified digital portal. Again, to us, it feels like these things will be necessary for any licensing scheme, and we therefore assume that these amendments are not necessary, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that. On Amendments 31 and 44 and alcohol licences, we believe that this is already possible, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

I would like to pick up on one point that was made in the debate. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about how breaches made under one licence would be communicated and passed on to the people who are regulating the other licences, and how she feels these two licensing schemes would interact with each other, specifically where breaches have taken place.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as well as the engagement they have been good enough to give their time to before Report.

Let me start with the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The UK Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are carefully considering the design of the licensing scheme. A recent joint call for evidence asked detailed questions about implementation. This included specifically inviting feedback on whether applications for existing businesses should be treated differently from those for new businesses, and whether factors such as the location and density of retailers should have a role in granting licensing. I know, particularly from the debate today, that the question about existing businesses is a matter of concern to noble Lords.

We are aware that, under reforms to alcohol licensing through the Licensing Act, existing compliant businesses were indeed brought on to the new system, as noble Lords have referred to before, using grandfathering arrangements. I can assure noble Lords that we are considering this carefully alongside the feedback from our call for evidence, and we will invite further feedback when we consult on our proposals. However, the main point I would like to emphasise—a number of noble Lords have asked about this, and rightly so—is that, as I have said before, the Government do not wish to create a scheme which arbitrarily puts law-abiding retailers out of business. That is absolutely not the intent of this policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, along with other noble Lords, raised questions about specialist tobacconists, which we have discussed, and rightly so, on a number of occasions. With regard to various regulations that we have spoken about, and on specialist tobacconists broadly, as the noble lord, Lord Johnson, acknowledged, I gave the assurances on day 1 of Report last week, and I hope they have been heard.

We want a scheme that is proportionate and fair, as I believe noble Lords do, particularly to the many existing businesses that operate responsibly—I emphasise that, because they deserve credit—but we also want to deter those who break the law, which was called for by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Again, feedback on our proposals will help us strike the right balance. While I cannot accept the noble Earl’s amendment, I hope I have provided some reassurance that we are considering the details of this scheme in a way that is sympathetic to his aims.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for tabling Amendments 24 and 25 and to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 21A. I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to achieve with these amendments. We agree with the need to introduce more rigour around who can sell these products and to minimise additional burdens on retailers and local authorities as far as possible. We also share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to ensure that retailers have enough time to prepare for the new licensing scheme. However, I believe these amendments are not needed as they are about how the scheme is implemented effectively. This is something we need to consider properly—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to this—through consultation.

I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as I have before, that we are in regular contact with retail associations on implementation of the Bill, including the design of the future licensing scheme. This work will continue.

I know how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, feels about the point that he is raising. We have engaged with the UK’s main independent vaping bodies—the UK Vaping Industry Association and the Independent British Vape Trade Association—and that engagement will continue. We will continue to hear their considerations and those of their members, but ultimately our policy decisions on future regulations will be guided, as noble Lords are aware, by evidence to protect and improve public health. I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which is different from the one that I am suggesting, but I hope he can be reassured about our engagement directly with those bodies because we feel that is the right thing to do.

I want again to reference our call for evidence, which asked about what support retailers and local authorities may require. It encouraged feedback on what works for existing licensing schemes. It also asked a specific question about how long is required to implement the scheme. These are all things rightly of concern to noble Lords in this group. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a point about timings, how the timetable will go and including a lead-in time. We are considering these issues carefully and will reflect on the feedback that we have received before consulting on our proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, understandably asked for an update on the feedback in the call for evidence. That is important because the feedback will, as the noble Earl knows, inform our proposals for consultation. I am not able today to provide the update that the noble Earl rightly seeks, not least because we are still considering the returns from the call for evidence, which closed at the end of last year. But I can say that in our view there is no need to introduce legislative requirements, as in these amendments, before consultation has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about the amendments being somewhat premature, but I know they have the best of intentions. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is fair and reasonable time for businesses to adapt to any new regulatory regime.

Turning to Amendments 31 and 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, I am again sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve. Where a business is found to have not complied with tobacco and vape legislation, it makes sense to bring into question whether that business is acting responsibly in relation to other products. However, any action that licensing authorities take against businesses should, as we would all expect, be justifiable and proportionate. A decision to suspend or revoke a business’s licence might have a significant impact on its livelihood and should not be taken lightly. Noble Lords have rightly made that point in this Chamber.

We are talking here about different products; it might not always be the case that non-compliance with one licensing scheme means that a business is non-compliant with another. It is important that licensing authorities take decisions with evidence of the business’s capability to sell specific products in line with the objectives of the respective licensing schemes. However, I agree that breaching a tobacco and vape licence may indeed be a useful signal for licensing authorities to more closely investigate a business’s compliance with their alcohol licence or vice versa; this is something that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about. Licensing authorities can and should use their judgment and knowledge of a business’s track record to inform the level of scrutiny that they apply. This includes, where there are concerns that a business is not complying with one scheme, carrying out additional checks to ensure compliance with other licences that it may hold and taking appropriate action where needed.

I hope that noble Lords have been reassured not only today but in the engagement that we have had prior to today, and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

16:45

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my amendment, which was largely reassuring and provided useful clarity. I think we all agree that, with the new licensing regime, enforcement must be effective and proportionate while also ensuring that businesses, especially smaller businesses, have time to prepare. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on this. However, if the will is there, I think useful progress could be made on the constructive ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Lansley; I know that she has had discussions with him about these.

Last week the Minister provided welcome assurances to my noble friend Lord Lindsay on specialist tobacconists. She acknowledged their unique character and indicated that it is not the Government’s intention to remove the existing exemption, which allows such premises to display tobacco products provided that those products are not visible from outside. In relation to my noble friend’s amendments in this group, I thought the logic of his case was compelling and I was therefore encouraged to hear the Minister say that the Government were sympathetic to the aims implicit in the amendments. I look forward to some good news on that front and hope that my hopes there are not misplaced.

I thought the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister contained some interesting ideas. They are all aimed at strengthening enforcement, improving verification processes and, more broadly, simplifying the operation of the licensing regime. As my noble friend said, there could also be benefits for consumer confidence. These are all good things so, whether or not my noble friend presses his amendments in due course, I hope that the Government will take some of his ideas away and give them further consideration. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21A.

Amendment 21A withdrawn.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Schedule 1: Retail licensing scheme: England

Amendments 23 to 26 not moved.

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

27: Schedule 1, page 125, line 8, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e)
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes combined authorities etc from the list of local authorities that can be licensing authorities (since where a county or district council is a licensing authority its functions can be given to a combined authority under other legislation).

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group were tabled in my name for Committee but were not moved at the time. Government Amendments 67, 69 and 74 are also needed as part of these changes. However, as these amendments are also required for changes that the Government are introducing to the use of proceeds from fixed penalty notices, they will be debated as part of the next group.

At the moment, the Bill places responsibility on trading standards to enforce the future licensing scheme. However, the licensing authority for the scheme will be set out in regulations. The licensing authority may sit in a different tier of local government from trading standards and therefore, as the Bill is currently drafted, would not be able to enforce the scheme. Feedback from stakeholders has suggested that enforcement of the licensing scheme would be stronger and more seamless if those responsible for administering the scheme could also enforce it. These amendments will therefore ensure that whoever is designated as the licensing authority for the scheme will have the powers to do so. In any scenario, trading standards officers will still be able to enforce the scheme alongside the licensing authority. These amendments will help the licensing scheme achieve its aims of supporting legitimate businesses while tackling those who disregard the law, and, in doing so, will support public health.

I turn to government Amendments 144 and 145. Amendment 145 was tabled in my name in Committee but was not moved. It has now been necessary to also table Amendment 144, which is connected. These amendments seek to resolve an issue which has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals certain enforcement procedures and provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As currently drafted, Clause 103 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which rely on these provisions. Therefore, without amendment, there is a risk that we may not be able to confer the necessary powers on enforcement authorities.

Amendment 145 allows for the provision of equivalent powers to fully enforce regulations made under Part 5 without referring to the Consumer Protection Act. In doing so, it ensures that regulations made under Part 5 are fully enforceable. Amendment 144 allows for flexibility in the penalties that can be imposed by regulations under Part 5. This flexibility will enable regulations creating new offences to replace certain offences from the Consumer Protection Act and to provide for the lesser penalties associated with them. The amendment retains the maximum term of imprisonment that the Bill currently provides for as a safeguard.

Government Amendment 49 corrects a minor drafting error in the Bill; it does not reflect a change in policy. Finally, government Amendments 208 to 215 are consequential, as a result of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group of minor and technical government amendments, which relate primarily to enforcement and regulation-making powers. I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these technical and complex but necessary clarifications within the Bill. Briefly, our Benches appreciate the explanation given but we fully support what the Government are doing in these amendments and have no particular concerns with them. In the interest of time, I will avoid going into the detail, but we have no objection to any of these amendments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will also be brief. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As I stated in my opening speech, these amendments serve to strengthen the overall enforcement of the Bill, as well as the processes for future regulation—something that I know is of concern to both Front Benches, as well as all noble Lords. For this reason, I beg to move the amendment.

Amendment 27 agreed.

Clause 18: Financial penalties for breach of licence conditions: England

Amendments 28 and 29

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

28: Clause 18, page 10, line 29, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 18 and Schedule 2 allow a licensing authority that is a district council but not a local weights and measures authority to impose financial penalties for breach of licensing conditions.

29: Clause 18, page 11, line 2, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) In this section—“personal licence” has the meaning given by section 16(8);“premises licence” has the meaning given by section 16(8);“relevant district council” means a district council that—(a) is specified as a licensing authority under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, and(b) is not a local weights and measures authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

Amendments 28 and 29 agreed.

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Schedule 2: Financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions: England

Amendments 32 to 41

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

32: Schedule 2, page 125, line 24, at end insert—
“(2) In this Schedule “relevant district council” has the meaning given by section 18(6).” Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

33: Schedule 2, page 125, line 26, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

34: Schedule 2, page 126, line 1, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

35: Schedule 2, page 126, line 6, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

36: Schedule 2, page 126, line 12, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

37: Schedule 2, page 126, line 14, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

38: Schedule 2, page 126, line 15, after “authority” insert “or council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

39: Schedule 2, page 126, line 25, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

40: Schedule 2, page 127, line 7, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

41: Schedule 2, page 127, line 14, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

Amendments 32 to 41 agreed.

Clause 19: Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in Wales without a licence

Amendment 42 not moved.

Schedule 3: Retail licensing scheme: Wales

Amendment 43 not moved.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

Clause 23: Restricted premises orders

Amendment 46 not moved.

Clause 27: Power to extend restricted premises orders in Wales

Amendment 47 not moved.

Clause 28: Restricted sale orders

Amendment 48 not moved.

Clause 31: Liability of others for certain offences committed by bodies

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

49: Clause 31, page 16, line 36, leave out “and” and insert “or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a change to ensure drafting consistency.

Amendment 49 agreed.

Clause 32: Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities

Amendments 50 and 51

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

50: Clause 32, page 17, line 27, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England and local weights and measures authority in Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
My amendments to this clause, clauses 33 and 35 to 39, 44 and 47 and my new clauses inserted after clause 39 collectively ensure that the licensing provisions may be enforced in England concurrently by local weights and measures authorities and by district councils that are licensing authorities.

51: Clause 32, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) In this Part “relevant enforcement authority in England” means—(a) a local weights and measures authority in England, and(b) in relation to the enforcement of sections 16 to 18 (retail licensing: England), in addition, any district council in England that—(i) is specified as a licensing authority under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, and(ii) is not a local weights and measures authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendments 50 and 51 agreed.

Clause 33: Programme of enforcement action: England

Amendment 52

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

52: Clause 33, page 17, line 35, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 52 agreed.

Clause 35: Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

53: Clause 35, page 18, line 33, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 53 agreed.

Clause 36: Power of ministers to take over proceedings

Amendment 54

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

54: Clause 36, page 19, line 3, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 54 agreed.

Clause 37: Fixed penalty notices

Amendments 55 to 59

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

55: Clause 37, page 19, line 10, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

56: Clause 37, page 19, leave out line 17
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

57: Clause 37, page 19, leave out line 22
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

58: Clause 37, page 19, leave out line 25
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

59: Clause 37, page 19, line 30, leave out “or 20”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendments 55 to 59 agreed.

Amendment 60 not moved.

Amendments 61 and 62

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

61: Clause 37, page 19, line 37, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

62: Clause 37, page 20, line 14, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendments 61 and 62 agreed.

Amendment 63 not moved.

Clause 38: Fixed penalties: use of proceeds

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

64: Clause 38, page 20, line 17, leave out subsections (1) and (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 25, requires fixed penalties imposed in respect of licensing offences in England to be used as set out in clause 38(3) rather than being paid into the Consolidated Fund. The provision for Wales is moved to a new clause after clause 39.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier group I spoke about the importance of fixed penalty notices in the Bill, as they provide trading standards officers with an additional enforcement tool to bring retailers into compliance without taking up court resource. I have carefully considered the points raised by noble Lords in Committee about the proceeds of fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, including those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

I am therefore pleased to have tabled these government amendments because they will allow local authorities in England and Wales to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing fixed penalty notices for enforcement purposes, rather than having to return proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. That will enable local authorities to reinvest proceeds into strengthening the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation—something that noble Lords have asked for.

In addition, we are investing up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help to enforce the law. This funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England, and we will continue to provide funding to support the apprentices over the next three years as they complete their training.

Trading standards plays an essential role in ensuring compliance with tobacco and vape legislation. The enforcement provisions in the Bill, further strengthened by this amendment, will give them the tools they need to carry out that role. Proper enforcement of the law will protect the public from potential health harms and help to realise public health outcomes from policies in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These provide that the money collected by trading standards in small fines imposed by fixed penalty notices for offences other than those related to the licensing regulations should go towards smoking cessation services provided by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament.

17:00

I have modified the amendment I tabled in Committee because the Minister convinced me that I should not request that the larger fines for offences against the licensing regulations in Clause 38(1) and (2) should be diverted to smoking cessation services, because it might deter local authorities from enforcing the regulations if they were to be financially penalised by doing so. I accepted the Minister’s argument, so I have focused my amendments on subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, which relate to the smaller fine of £200, or £100 if paid promptly. These are enforced by trading standards officers in the normal course of their work. They tell me that the Government have provided funds for more people, but there are still costs relating to collecting the fixed penalty notice fines, and the additional government funding and the licence fee should cover that.

My amendments focus on the fact that, despite the welcome additional £70 million for local authorities secured for three years, many local smoking cessation services cannot afford to provide the full range of methods for helping smokers to quit. There has been a lot of success. The number of people successfully quitting with local stop smoking services in England has risen by 34% since 2022-23 from 95,400 to 127,541, but there are still 5.3 million smokers across the UK, and we need a broad approach to help them to quit.

Most services provide nicotine replacement methods, which is fine for smokers who just want to avoid the dangers of tobacco smoke, but that does not help those who find it very difficult to quit or who want to kick their addiction to nicotine. As we all know, nicotine is very addictive and will cost the user a lot of money for the rest of their lives—hence the demand for non-nicotine replacement methods. One of the methods that has been found to be extremely effective is using pharmaceutical drugs such as varenicline, which work on the brain receptors that respond to nicotine. Smoking cessation services tell me that they work extremely well and permanently, but they also tell me that they cannot provide this method because they cannot afford to have a prescriber on hand. Instead, they have to refer the patient to a GP, and this costs money. For this and other reasons, I am looking for ways of getting more money to local authorities, so that they can fund these services more generously and appropriately in line with the need and demand.

The Minister has just told us that the government amendments will allow local authorities to keep the full amount of all the fines to spend on enforcement, not just the amount it costs them in court fees or administration. That is very good news; I welcome it and thank the Minister. I am assuming that this will leave local authorities with more money to spend on a wider range of smoking cessation services. With that assumption, I welcome the Government’s compromise and do not intend to press my amendments. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.

I have one final comment. I was disappointed not to be here last week due to illness, and so I could not speak to Amendment 204 on the “polluter pays” levy, but I did watch online. I was also disappointed at the Minister’s response, particularly the assertion that we already have such a levy through excise taxation. This is not the case, as all costs are passed on to consumers while companies continue to make huge profits. The Minister has been most helpful in this group already, and I hope to continue this conversation beyond the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I say a big thank you to the Minister for listening; as she rightly said, she has listened and taken on board the comments made in Committee. Amendment 78, which I tabled in Committee, is in fact in the same terms as the Minister’s Amendment 64, which she introduced earlier this afternoon. My purpose was to ensure that local authorities would be able to enforce, more effectively and more substantially, the provisions of the Bill and their trading standards responsibilities generally. I am very glad that the Minister listened so positively to our Committee debate.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I was very happy to give way to my noble friend to allow him to heap more praise on to the Minister. Sometimes Government Ministers cannot always be assured of receiving praise from other Benches.

My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome these government amendments and are grateful to the Minister and Department of Health and Social Care officials for reflecting constructively on our debate in Committee on fixed penalties.

On Amendments 66 and 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, while I do not disagree with the sentiment, which is admirable—since in theory hypothecation of taxes, public fines and penalties would lead to more transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent—there is also a strong argument in favour of more fiscal devolution to local authorities, and whether we should use legislation to tell local authorities what they should be doing with the funds they are responsible for. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to those amendments, and I thank her and the Government once again for their amendments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there are no limits to the amount of praise that can be received by Ministers on this Front Bench, and noble Lords should feel free, at any time, to heap praise. We will always be grateful.

I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—we are very pleased to see her back in her place in good health—and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. On the noble Baroness’s Amendments 66 and 68, I have heard the call for, as she described, a broad approach. We recognise the importance of local smoking cessation services, which is the very reason we are investing an additional £260 million pounds over the next three years within the public health grant. This will mean that at least £150 million is ring-fenced for stop smoking services every year. The funding is protected, as the noble Baroness seeks, and cannot be used for other public health initiatives. It provides assurance and stability for these essential services.

In addition, we have extended the national smoke-free pregnancy incentive scheme for a further three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29, with funding worth up to £15 million—£5 million per annum. We are also committed to integrating opt-out smoking cessation services into routine care within all hospitals, as set out in the 10-year health plan.

I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about how committed we are to providing support for smokers to quit without the need to fund services using proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Instead, as your Lordships’ House has heard, we believe that proceeds can be better used by local authorities on the enforcement of the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. It is important that local authorities are able to retain the proceeds to cover their costs in issuing fixed penalty notices and reinvest any remaining funds in enforcement. Strong enforcement of the measures in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation will help ensure that we deliver our ambition to achieve a smoke-free UK and to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. In other words, on the very important points that the noble Baroness is pursuing through her amendments, that ultimately is the best way of reducing smoking.

Government amendments 64, 65, 67, 69 and 74 will support this by allowing local authorities to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing offence fixed penalty notices as well as the £200 fixed penalty notices in the Bill, which goes further than noble Lords were originally requesting. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support these important amendments.

Amendment 64 agreed.

Amendment 65

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

65: Clause 38, page 20, line 25, leave out from “a” to end of line 27 and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England in pursuance of a fixed penalty notice must be used in connection with any functions they have”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 17.

Amendment 65 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

As Amendment 65 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 66 for reasons of pre-emption.

Amendment 67

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

67: Clause 38, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 67 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

As Amendment 67 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 68 for reasons of pre-emption.

Amendment 69

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

69: Clause 38, page 20, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 21
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 69 agreed.

Clause 39: Power to change amount of fixed penalties

Amendments 70 to 72

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

70: Clause 39, page 21, line 5, leave out “by local weights and measures authorities in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

71: Clause 39, page 21, line 10, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

72: Clause 39, page 21, line 16, leave out “or (2)(a)”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendments 70 to 72 agreed.

Amendments 73 to 75

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

73: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Fixed penalty notices: Wales(1) A local weights and measures authority in Wales that has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under, or under regulations made under, any of the following may give the person a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence—section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);section 2 (purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others);section 6 (age of sale notice at point of sale: Wales);section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);section 11 (purchase of vaping or nicotine products on behalf of under 18s);section 14 (displays of products or prices in Wales);section 15 (free distribution and discount of products);section 20 (offences in connection with retail licences: Wales).(2) A fixed penalty notice is a notice offering a person the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction for the offence to which the notice relates by payment of an amount specified in the notice within the relevant period. (3) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence under section 20 must be an amount equal to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.(4) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of any other offence must be £200.(5) For the purposes of this section “the relevant period” is the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the fixed penalty notice is given.(6) A fixed penalty notice must explain—(a) that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed the offence, and why,(b) the effect of subsection (7), and(c) when and how payment may be made.(7) Where a fixed penalty notice has been given to a person (and has not been withdrawn)—(a) no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the relevant period, and(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays—(i) the full amount of the fixed penalty in the notice before the end of the relevant period, or(ii) 50% of that amount before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the relevant period starts.(8) Where proceedings are instituted for the offence after the end of the relevant period, that period is to be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the period mentioned in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.(9) A fixed penalty notice given under this section may be withdrawn by the local weights and measures authority that gave it at any time before a payment is made in pursuance of the notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

74: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Fixed penalties in Wales: use of proceeds(1) Any sums received by a local weights and measures authority in Wales in pursuance of a fixed penalty notice must be used in connection with their functions under or under regulations made under—(a) this Act;(b) the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/507);(c) Part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017.(2) In this section “fixed penalty notice” means a fixed penalty notice given under section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is in part consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27. The amendment also changes the effect of the current provisions in requiring fixed penalties imposed in respect of licensing offences to be used as set out in the new clause rather than being paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.

75: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to change amount of fixed penalties: Wales(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales) in relation to the giving of fixed penalty notices in respect of any offence other than an offence under section 20 so as to—(a) change the amount which must be specified in notices, or(b) change the percentage discount for early payment. (2) The amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must not be changed to an amount that exceeds level 3 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendments 73 to 75 agreed.

Amendments 76 and 77 not moved.

Schedule 5: Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales

Amendments 78 to 82 not moved.

Clause 44: Transitional provision: general

Amendment 83

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

83: Clause 44, page 22, line 26, leave out “section 37(1) and (3)” and insert “section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales)(1) and (3)”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 83 agreed.

Clause 45: Power to extend Part 1 to other products

Amendments 84 and 85

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

84: Clause 45, page 23, line 4, after second “to” insert “—
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 1 that applies to tobacco products.

85: Clause 45, page 23, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by sections 7 to 9 in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.

Amendments 84 and 85 agreed.

Clause 47: Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 86

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

86: Clause 47, page 23, line 28, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);” Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 45.

Amendment 86 agreed.

Amendment 87 not moved.

Amendment 88

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

88: Clause 47, page 24, line 1, at end insert—
““relevant enforcement authority in England” has the meaning given by section 32(1A);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Amendments 89 and 90 not moved.

Amendment 91

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

91: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations made under Part 1: Windsor Framework(1) Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State must—(a) commission an independent legal opinion assessing—(i) the extent to which the implementation of this Act in Northern Ireland complies with the Windsor Framework;(ii) the likelihood of any increase in the illicit trade in tobacco products if regulations under this Act are made in relation to Northern Ireland otherwise than in England, Wales and Scotland;(b) publish that legal opinion;(c) consult any person they consider appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this Part unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the legal opinion under subsection (1) demonstrates that the implementation of Part 3 of this Act (sale and distribution: Northern Ireland) is fully compliant with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations about the sale and distribution of tobacco in England and Wales until they have considered and demonstrated that to do the same in Northern Ireland would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I will speak also to Amendments 120, 201 and 216, in my name, to which the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Naseby, have added their names. I should say at the beginning that I wholeheartedly support Amendment 207 but will not refer to it.

When the Windsor Framework was proposed, I and others warned that it would be anti-democratic, in the sense that it would lead to laws being introduced in Northern Ireland over which the people had no democratic say. We warned that it would mean that laws approved by our elected Parliament could sometimes be blocked in a constituent part of the United Kingdom, so these amendments are all about the primacy of our law over EU law.

Since the framework, EU rules have quietly been applied to Northern Ireland, affecting items such as mundane tumble dryers, smartphones and vehicle imports. Those are all very irritating and anti-democratic, but this Bill is really on a different scale. The generational smoking ban and the Tobacco and Vapes Bill are flagship policies of His Majesty’s Government. They were in Labour’s manifesto and have sweeping implications, which have been debated, for trade, retailers and hospitality. They touch on civil liberties, on our culture and on the integrity of the union.

When foreign states seek to use the Windsor Framework to obstruct the implementation of this legislation in Northern Ireland, the matter cannot simply be waved away. I am afraid that that is precisely what the Government appear to be doing on this issue, right from the beginning of Second Reading. Seven EU member states have said that the Bill violates EU tobacco directives and undermines the single market. They have formally registered their opposition and called for the law to be blocked.

The Government’s response is to say, first, that they have a different interpretation of the law; and, secondly, that, even if that is wrong, they should be able to proceed on public health grounds. However, we have known about the legal issues that this Bill faces in Northern Ireland for over a year. King’s Counsels, former Ministers, leading journalists and leading academics have raised the alarm. Of course, they have been proved right on other Bills where government legal experts said that they would be fine and that nothing could stop them being implemented in Northern Ireland—then, of course, we saw that they could be.

17:15

After months of uncertainty, with Parliamentary Questions being met with silence or one-line answers and after months of evasion, we still have not had a clear answer. When I asked the Attorney-General for clarity, as I said in Committee, I was told to ask the Minister instead, so the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, was not just defending the Bill but doubling as the Government’s Attorney-General. I am still asking why the Government believe they are right and seven EU states are wrong. Why did Denmark and Ireland have to abandon almost identical proposals because of EU law, but our Government insist that they can press ahead regardless?

Northern Ireland is subject to the same directives and rules because of the Windsor Framework. The Government are proceeding in a way that leaves this policy open to challenge in EU legal mechanisms and potentially, of course, financial penalties—although I would hope we would never actually pay them. They are proceeding in a way that leaves Northern Ireland in a suspended state of uncertainty. Retailers, traders and shopkeepers will pay the price, and those who thrive on the illicit trade—the black marketeers, the criminal gangs and those who exploit smuggling routes—will benefit.

Some noble Lords may ask, given my views on the European Union, why I am not pleased that the Government are in a sense standing up to Brussels. It is not that simple. We should never have been placed in a position where the EU can interfere in the operation of British legislation in parts of the United Kingdom. It makes matters worse, not better, that we now have an arrangement in which the EU can object when it suits and look the other way when it suits. Northern Ireland is left to carry the risk, the cost and the uncertainty. It is an insult to Northern Ireland, our businesses, our traders, our people and United Kingdom law enforcement that key legislation affecting daily life is left for lawyers to argue over.

Imagine you are running a corner shop in Northern Ireland. You invest in all the things that you need to deal with this Bill. Your staff are expected to police a rolling age threshold, distinguishing between a 27 and a 28 year-old. Illicit products undercut you at a fraction of the price. Customers can cross the border to buy what is restricted on one side but not the other. Then, after you have spent the time and money adapting, the legal and political uncertainty returns and the law could even be reversed, because the courts will be involved. I have to say to anyone who knows about Northern Ireland that lawfare is absolutely rife there. This is not a theoretical concern; it is happening now. It affects every person throughout Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, not just businesses.

This is the first serious test of the Windsor Framework. It is the first major disagreement between the UK and the EU over a significant new policy being implemented in our Province since we left the European Union. Disagreement has led to only more disagreement and uncertainty has led only to more uncertainty. It really is a mess. I say to the House that these amendments are designed not to pretend that everything is okay. We should be treating this debacle as a warning and reassessing the underlying flaws of the Windsor Framework, how it is at its core antidemocratic and how it will over time—we are already seeing this—pull our United Kingdom apart one rule at a time.

What is baffling and surprises me is that a Government who claim they want a reset with the EU are now seemingly picking a fight with seven EU states and the European Commission and branding their interpretation of EU law as wrong. They are insisting on implementing a measure that is incompatible with the rules of the Windsor Framework and the tobacco products directive, which the Government claim to support. Is it that the Government have been given some form of private reassurance that the Commission does not intend to take enforcement action? Perhaps the EU intends to change its tobacco directives in future. But it would be a disgrace if Northern Ireland’s constitutional position and the practical realities of its laws were being decided through back-room understandings and wink-and-nod politics. I think we are entitled here, in this House, to know if that is happening.

It would also be a damning indictment of the Windsor Framework if it can function only through secrecy and by asking the UK to test, bend or breach the very rules it says that it is operating under. We deserve better in Northern Ireland, and we deserve better in the United Kingdom. That is why I cannot understand why the Government will not publish their legal advice in full. They do so occasionally. Over the weekend, they published their advice on the US jets using British bases, but after months we have heard nothing on this critical constitutional issue. I have to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, has been very bad in not even trying to engage on this issue with any of us from Northern Ireland.

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

17:30

EU law explicitly encourages member states to set and enforce age of sale limits to protect children and young people. In the absence of harmonised rules on age of sale, member states—and, therefore, by extension, Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework—retain discretion to determine the age they consider appropriate. When it comes to trade rules, the protection of public health, particularly the health of children, is one of the most firmly established justifications for restricting intra-EU trade. Given that smoking causes at least 16 cancers and remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, it is difficult to see how the Bill could be judged anything other than proportionate and consistent with the tobacco products directive and EU free movement principles.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for his view on that. Could he explain why Denmark and Ireland were not allowed to go ahead, and why seven countries feel so differently from what he has just said?

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

I will come to that point in a moment and explain further. The TRIS process concluded on 18 February. The UK Government have provided a clear and satisfactory response to the concerns raised by member states, which I hope offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Far from being alarmed by the UK’s approach, several EU countries are watching it carefully. In France, a similar Private Member’s Bill is gathering cross-party support. In the Republic of Ireland, Ministers opted to raise the age of sale to 21 at this stage but have been explicit that future Governments may “keep going” and consider a rising age of sale. Countries across the EU are following developments here with great interest. We cannot say that positions taken by EU Governments in the past will determine their future positions on this issue. We are clearly leading a global conversation about how best to respond to the harms caused by tobacco. There is not just EU-wide but global interest in what the UK is doing here.

Finally, two successive UK Governments, of different political persuasions, have brought forward the Bill with the smoke-free generation policy at its heart. Both will have taken detailed legal advice and agreed to proceed on the basis of its content. The fact that alternative legal advice commissioned and funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association offers an opinion to the contrary does not, for me, outweigh the judgment of two successive Administrations firmly committed to protecting public health. I therefore cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I hope that the House will consider the strength of legal arguments in favour of the Government’s position as assurance that this is the right and moral thing to do.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and to speak to my Amendment 206. I might say to him that, to me, it seems clear that what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and other noble Lords intend in Amendment 202 is to complement what is in the Bill rather than to in any sense contradict it. The intention was entirely to look at how, in addition to the measures in the Bill, we can move to a smoke-free country, rather than simply relying upon the assumption that in the fullness of time—as my noble friend said, in a matter of decades—the smoke-free generation will take over and give us a smoke-free country. It is a very long way ahead that we will arrive at that point.

The noble Lords on both Front Benches—my noble friend and the Minister—and I have all been involved in many of the measures that have got us, over the years, to a reputation of having among the strongest tobacco control policies anywhere in the world. I hope that is something we can collectively work to sustain.

On the point about reviews, and at the risk of lauding the Minister again, I welcome that she has brought forward her amendment. I know my noble friend says it is only a little more than is required in any case, but it is not necessarily required in statute, which is rather important. I note the presence of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who was kind enough to sign Amendment 206, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did likewise. In part, we were setting out to establish exactly in each statute that there should be the necessary review process. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, Amendment 206 has some granularity about what this review actually requires.

I draw attention to what is in Amendment 206. In a sense, I am asking the Minister to say that, in addition to the fact of a review, there will be substance that contributes to the review and is reflected into it in due course. First, there should be independent and substantial research into the harms associated with vape, in particular, and nicotine products. In Committee, we discussed this a number of times and were all less than convinced that we knew what the long-term health impacts would be of substantial vape use. We have some evidence over up to 10 years, but that will certainly not be sufficient for the longer term. We need to have much more and better evidence. I hope the review will not just be about the process of the operation of the Act but will look to where the underlying issues at the heart of the Bill are moving over time.

Likewise, that is why we have included in proposed new subsection (5), to be inserted by Amendment 206, that we should look specifically at the extent to which the operation of the Act reduces

“rates of smoking”

and

“reduced use of vaping products amongst children”,

and whether the operations of the Act lead

“to a reduction in the use of vaping products for the purposes of smoking cessation”.

From the point of view of Action on Smoking and Health, one of the central issues that we need to examine is whether we can be certain we are continuing to secure the benefits of vaping products but not leading more young people, or others, into using vaping products rather than using no smoking products at all—which would be the better solution. We also want to look at what the economic impacts of the Bill might be and have, on a number of occasions, discussed small and micro-businesses.

While it is not my intention to press Amendment 206 to a vote, I hope that some of the granularity within it will be reflected in the review the Minister has vouchsafed to us under Amendment 205, and that she might at the Dispatch Box make it clear that, in due course, they will all form part of the review.

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who deserves much personal credit for his work on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and I are on the same side on these issues. I will speak in support of Amendment 202, because it would be a good thing to require the Government to publish five-yearly reports, setting out a clear road map towards a smoke-free country.

While the smoke-free generation policy will rightly protect future generations from the harms of tobacco, it does not in itself sufficiently address the needs of the 5.3 million people who still currently smoke. If we are serious about creating a smoke-free country then we cannot afford to overlook them. Smoking remains responsible for around 74,000 deaths each year and a national strategy would ensure a focus on getting smokers the support they need to live healthier lives, free from the harms of tobacco. The UK’s tobacco control policies have, over many years, delivered a remarkable decline in smoking rates, representing a major public health success story, but further progress is not inevitable without sustained action.

This can be shown by the example of Germany, where smoking rates have remained at around 30% since 2017. Key differences are the absence in Germany of a comprehensive national strategy and Germany having weaker restrictions on tobacco. Without a clear plan, progress can stall. Crucially, this amendment includes targets and specific interventions for groups and areas with a persistently high prevalence of smoking. This matters because smoking rates remain deeply unequal. In the most deprived areas of the country, one in five people, 21% or so, smoke, compared with just 6.2% in the least deprived areas. Around half of the gap in healthy life expectancy between these groups can be attributed to smoking. Supporting people in these communities to quit would make a significant contribution towards the Government’s stated ambition to reduce health inequalities and make our country more productive, as well as happier. We need to do more to reach groups where smoking prevalence remains stubbornly high, such as people with serious mental illnesses, those living in social housing and those in routine manual occupations.

The Bill will help to ensure that nobody starts smoking, but it must be the first step in a wider national road map to ensure that everyone is supported to kick the habit, which is what most smokers seek. The publication of a road map would complement the Government’s own Amendment 205, which sets out how the implementation of the Bill will be reviewed. A clear plan would articulate what the Government aim to achieve in future and by when. It could also encompass further measures, long called for by the APPG on Smoking and Health, including action on so-called cigarette filters, the publication of industry sales data and warnings on individual cigarettes.

Amendment 202 urges the Government to be bold, set a new target and back it with a credible long-term plan. The APPG examined evidence last year and recommended a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament, alongside a clear ambition to make smoking obsolete within the next 20 years. These goals are achievable. I urge the Minister to seize this opportunity by indicating that there will be a road map of the kind that we seek very soon.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds.

I support a smoke-free generation policy, which is central to the Bill. We who support a smoke-free generation want to achieve better-quality health for all, particularly young people, to ensure that they have better health outcomes in terms of heart disease and various types of cancers. Looking at the proposal made by the UK Government to the European Commission in respect of this, it is quite clear that the number of deaths caused in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking is quite high. We should be making every effort to ensure that it is lowered.

We also need lung screening in Northern Ireland. That would help oncologists to identify those individuals who are liable at a later stage to develop lung cancer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can pass on to the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland that request for the prioritisation of such resources. I have some family members who are involved in oncology in lung specialisms at Belfast City Hospital. They have told me that it would make their job much easier, in identification and in diagnosis, if that screening was available.

The proposal made by the UK Government to the EU clearly demonstrates that these clauses and this Bill are not at variance with the Windsor Framework. Tobacco products will continue to be available in Northern Ireland. The Bill received legislative consent. Northern Ireland is a divided society where there are different views on the Windsor Framework. I support it, but I respect that others are opposed to it. But if the Executive and the Assembly—made up of various parties in a mandatory coalition, with different political perspectives on the constitutional issue and on Brexit and the Windsor Framework—had noted a breach of the principles of free movement of goods and conflicts with the EU, the Windsor Framework et cetera, the Bill would not have received legislative consent.

17:45

I am in no doubt that my noble friend the Minister will allay the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on this issue. If we had not had Brexit, we would not have been confronted with this issue. Be careful what you argue for, because you could end up with something that you might not be terribly happy with. I believe that the Windsor Framework is necessary to address movement of goods and a hard border. I do not want to see a hard border on the island of Ireland. This Bill and the provisions contained therein will allow the movement of goods in an unfettered state.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but say gently to her that Brexit has allowed the UK Government to pursue this legislation. As we have seen in the cases of Denmark and the Irish Republic, both Governments, whatever they might decide to do in the future, are deciding now that they are unable to proceed with this type of legislation because of the tobacco directive. The noble Baroness needs to be careful of the actuality and the legal position that prevails.

Noble Lords who are in favour of this intergenerational ban and are confident that the Windsor Framework does not provide any legal impediment should have no difficulty with these amendments. Amendment 201 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, makes it explicit that Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that European Union law is supreme in Northern Ireland. It is a conduit for the implementation of the Windsor Framework protocol. It says that if there is any doubt, the courts must say that UK law will be operative and cannot be set aside by any consideration of Section 7A. There should be no concern that these amendments are trying to impede the implementation of the inter- generational ban. They are trying to ensure that it will happen, despite the Windsor Framework.

I heard the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, talk about the legal opinion of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. I have no doubt that it has produced a legal opinion, but many others have as well. The courts in Northern Ireland have ruled on this as well. We need to be clear that those of us who are concerned about this issue are looking at it from the point of view of ensuring that Northern Ireland does not lose out and that we are not prevented from benefiting from what should be a UK-wide, four-nations approach.

The former Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC, has said that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill

“serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a Government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground, as respects its Northern Ireland component, on provisions contained in the Windsor Framework … Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland”.

We can look at other examples. On legacy legislation, the courts of Northern Ireland have said that Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act means that an Act of Parliament is not just incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore needs to be rectified but is actually disapplied and made of nil effect, because of Section 7A and the fact that European law overrides. We have seen it also in the case of migration law.

This is not some kind of novel concept, subtly dreamt up by a few people in the interests of the tobacco industry; this is a real concern about the application of European Union law—in this case, the tobacco directive—that has the potential and almost certainly the effect of disapplying this law for Northern Ireland. Anyone who is concerned about reducing smoking and the effects of smoking in Northern Ireland, where over 2,000 people die every year from illnesses associated with smoking, should be concerned about this issue and should want to do something about it.

The Government are relying on assertion. They keep asserting that this will apply throughout the United Kingdom. We have heard other speakers in this debate just provide assertions but ignore the clear approach that the courts in Northern Ireland have taken on these matters. Why do the Government not publish their advice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said? They have published advice in other areas recently, so why do they not publish the advice and let us know what the particular argument is that says, in this particular instance of the tobacco directive, this will not apply in Northern Ireland? There is no logic; there is no analysis by any lawyer that I know of who has looked at this matter and who has dealt with the other cases that have come before the courts of Northern Ireland, and who believes that is the case. So why will the advice not be published?

We are told that this is just a normal age of sale restriction. The fact of the matter, of course, is that it is not just a normal age of sale restriction and therefore exempt; it is a rolling ban, and that cannot be got round. That is why the Irish Republic and Denmark took the position that they did, after getting very serious legal advice from those European Union law experts within their own Governments and the European Commission.

I say very respectfully to noble Lords who have spoken: do not rely on assertions. Do not rely on a view that this will be all right on the night and that there will not be any challenge. The fact of the matter is these things will be challenged. We are trying to build a protection into this Bill that will ensure that Northern Ireland benefits, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, in moving forward with this inter- generational ban. That is entirely reasonable. It is entirely sensible. Why not take the opportunity to ensure that guarantee is in place?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, following on from that very useful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it goes without saying that the amendments in this group on the tensions between the Bill and the Windsor Framework are crucial. I want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for leading on this issue, because she has brought to light something that we need to understand.

It gets to a general concern about the Bill that I have, which is a worry about its workability—legally and when it comes into contact with reality—because I fear a rude awakening. A part of that will be the unintended consequences of the Bill, which a lot of us have tried to draw attention to in Committee and so on. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 206, which calls for periodic reviews of the Act in terms of its operation as well as its effects. I have also tabled my own amendments on the impact of the Act on domestic production and supply chains, which I will discuss later.

Just before I explain why, I am of course glad to see that the Government also recognise the need for a review, and that is very positive. With all due respect to the Minister, I am afraid that Amendment 205 is just not extensive enough. I was particularly disappointed that the consultation is limited to the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—what about all those other stakeholders who would be affected and what about the research? I would really urge the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to incorporate parts of my own amendment and that of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Norton of Louth, into her amendment to make it have some substance and not just be written down for the sake of it.

Amendment 206 gives a concrete shape to what should be reviewed. I appreciate its focus on independently conducted research, particularly now that there have been complaints that, “You cannot trust that research because it is by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association”. I have similar views when I read research by ASH. The noble Lord who cited it, as though he was a kind of neutral observer, is part of another lobbying group. I would rather have neither as my trustworthy go-to. But I feel that quite a lot of important information is missed if we do not have research, so that is why I like it.

I felt frustrated during our deliberations in Committee that so much information had been overlooked. For example, many neutral academics who have researched the health impacts of vaping, in particular its efficacy in helping people quit smoking and the epidemiology of vaping versus smoking, had been overlooked by the Government. These would be invaluable sources and insights had they been consulted.

In Committee, I also suggested that the Government should look at research coming out of assessing the impact of the single-use vape ban that came into force last June. My amendment was rejected, but, interestingly, early evidence and research, as well as market indicators, show that the majority of adult vapers have transitioned to compliant reusable products. I did not think they would, but they have. That is interesting, because it goes against what I intuitively thought.

However, recent evidence shows that 9% of daily vapers admit purchasing illegal single-use vapes and, more worrying, 15% of former single-use vapers report that they have returned to smoking and/or increased their tobacco use. This sort of research and information is important for us to understand why we need careful monitoring, and with this Bill, we are going to need a lot of careful monitoring.

That is why I commend the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which asks all the right questions to review evidence to discover whether the Act will actually reduce rates of smoking. Will it reduce rates of vaping among young people and children? Will the legislation reduce the use of vaping products for adults? That is not a good outcome, but will that be what happens? What will the economic impact of the law change be on small and micro-businesses? That is something I am really worried about in terms of family-run convenience stores and so on.

The amendment also usefully differentiates between tobacco, nicotine and vape use, which are too frequently in discussions elided without distinction. The suggestion of assessing

“the behavioural responses to the regulatory regimes introduced under this Act”

is key, as the Bill makes a number of suppositions based on the idea that everything in this Bill will have a certain impact on the behaviour of consumers, retailers and other parties. But as this is a novel policy that nobody else has done before, there is no evidence from anywhere else in the world that it will work. We are yet to see whether behaviour will change in the way the Government allege and the supporters of this Bill imagine, so the review will check reality.

My Amendment 207 is more focused on an aspect of the Bill’s impact that we have not really talked about before now. It seeks a structured parliamentary scrutiny of the Act’s practical effects on domestic production, supply chains and market behaviour and enforcement in relation to nicotine products. There is a whole new industry that has grown up domestically around nicotine products, and it is going to be hit by the Bill.

The Bill represents a significant regulatory intervention in a rapidly evolving market. Regulator interventions on this scale can produce structural consequences beyond their primary intent. Often, when Bills are passed, we see problematic effects afterwards, such as compliance costs altering competitive balance, enforcement capacity not being aligned with legislative ambition, lawful operators facing disproportionate burdens and illicit, dodgy suppliers adapting more quickly outside the law than lawful businesses striving and straining to comply with law changes. One area of concern is whether the relatively new, innovative, domestic industry associated with nicotine products will be strangled almost before it gets off the ground.

18:00

There is manufacturing happening in this country, laboratory testing, quality assurance, distribution and specialist retail activity that I fear will be disproportionately harmed by this legislation. The review would find that out. Whether in e-liquids, mixing, bottling in manufacturing, device assembly, quality control, UK-specific compliance schemes and mechanisms or specialist shops, there is a whole ecosystem around this industry in the UK. It supports skilled employment across the country in production, laboratory sciences, logistics, retail management, product safety training and more. This matters because there is a concern that the Bill will reshape and perhaps damage supply chains servicing the UK market, making it more reliant on overseas production—whisper it: Chinese vapes. By the way, I use them regularly and will not have a word said against them, but even I know that they are possibly not great on the quality scale. But we are creating quality vapes at home, domestically.

Domestic production and its associated employment operate within UK regulatory oversight and provide greater transparency, traceability and accountability than supply chains that are entirely import-led. In other words, will the Bill end up unfairly impacting on best practice, on quality and on compliant, home- grown industries to the advantage of less rigorous suppliers?

The review, beyond this theme of assessing any unintended consequences and proportionality, would do so in a timely fashion of three years to allow Parliament early visibility of problems, rather than waiting until structural effects are entrenched. If distortions or enforcement gaps emerge, Parliament will have the evidence to address them. That evidence would be gathered partly from a suggested consultation with a neglected set of stakeholders: those carrying out domestic production activities, of whom there are many and the Government should talk to them, and the representatives of workers in the relevant domestic sectors. I know that the Government will want to talk to the workers. That is all to check that the Bill is working as intended.

To finish, one of the problems with consensus and the Official Opposition’s decision at a certain point, let us be honest, not to oppose the Bill—I do not know how that happened—is that it means everybody can nod through something and say, “Isn’t it marvellous?” I say that we need a bit more critical thinking. Scrutiny post legislation will be even more essential. All the reviews in this session need to be enacted for the Government’s sake.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Supporting a smoke-free society is the right direction of travel, in my view, but I also worry about contact with reality.

A road map should also include the potential unintended consequences of cannabis smoking in a smoke-free country, with real targets and interventions. Walk across London and other towns and cities and smell the cannabis smoking on every street corner. People are breaking the law, with the police doing virtually nothing about it.

Cannabis has profound long-term health implications in the young. Some of us have worked in this space and have to deal with them. What are the unintended consequences of the Bill for the uptake of cannabis smoking among the next generation? I ask the Minister: what work have the Government done on the unintended consequences of this policy, and what do they plan to do about the potential uptake and increase in cannabis smoking, and the increase in illicit dealing on our streets?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling Amendment 202, to which I have added my name. It would require the Government to publish, every five years, a road map to a smoke-free country: in other words, a plan for the event rather than a review after it.

There are two essential components to achieving a smoke-free country. The first is that no one should start smoking at all. I hope that the Bill will successfully achieve that over time; the Government have shown great ambition in this area. The second component is that all current smokers are supported to quit, so that everyone stops. On this second part, the Government have been a little quieter, until recently. We have heard about the recent success of targets met for the number of pregnant women smoking at the time of delivery: I think it has gone down by half. However, the rates for other groups remain stubbornly high and we are not seeing the same targeting interventions. We need to ensure that we have this type of focus, energy and commitment with other groups, where we know that smoking rates are higher. Plans for these groups could be located in the road map being proposed.

For example, mental health is a key priority area for the Liberal Democrats. There is a dual causal relationship between smoking and mental health: if you smoke, it increases your chances of developing mental health conditions and, if you already have a mental health condition, you are more likely to smoke. Nearly half of those with a serious mental illness in England smoke, alongside a quarter of people with depression or anxiety, compared with 11.6% of the general population. High rates of smoking in this population have a disastrous impact on physical health, particularly for those with a serious mental health illness who, on average, live 15 to 20 years less than someone without. It is estimated that smoking accounts for about two-thirds of this reduced life expectancy.

The pervasive false narrative that smoking somehow alleviates mental health symptoms urgently needs to be addressed, as it creates so many challenges when we are trying to support these smokers to quit. If the Government are going to publish a strategy, a dedicated section on how they will bring down smoking rates in this group would be extremely welcome and needed. I welcome the Government’s concession that vaping vending machines should be allowed in secure adult mental health settings; this should certainly help this population to quit.

Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require the Government to publish a review of the Bill. I welcome government Amendment 205, which does something similar but with a lot less granularity. However, would the Minister give us a little more information about where the Government will get their evidence to underpin the review? Can she assure the House that that evidence will be independent and not influenced by any lobbying or so-called evidence put before the Government by big tobacco, or anybody else who would benefit from slowing down the elimination of smoking in the UK?

The intent of this review should be to support the legislation. As several noble Lords have said, the smoke-free generation is a novel policy and we need to demonstrate the impact and evaluate implementation to encourage other countries to follow. There are also many regulations on the way, along with those from other government departments, on nicotine products. A clear analysis of how these policies will work together would be very welcome.

However, the review must not be viewed as a sunset on the smoke-free generation, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on what, at this point, we know will not be in the Government’s review. For example, the Bill’s impact assessment notes that many of the health impacts of the rising age of sale will not be seen for 10 years, so we should be mindful that this part of the Bill is playing a very long game. There may be early data that we are on the right track and the review will perhaps be able to look at compliance, retailer feedback and all the other things that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. I feel that much of this falls into the scope of her Amendment 207.

Finally, Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raise concerns about the Bill’s implementation in Northern Ireland. I have been reassured by the Government’s response to the TRIS process, which lays out in some detail their response to the concerns raised, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, mentioned, the legal opinion published in the Daily Mail was commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. Without seeing it, I cannot really comment other than to say it is not surprising that the industry is laying the ground for future legal challenges. It is, as we know, highly litigious and wants to chill the appetite for tobacco control globally. It all goes to show, I suppose, that if you put two lawyers into a room, you get three opinions. There are, as we have heard from the Minister on other occasions, other legal opinions out there that say that the Bill is compatible, but I leave the noble Baroness to answer for those concerns. However, I support the Government to press on with this vital public health legislation, and to plan it and review it as required.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate with some powerful contributions, but I should like to turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It was reported last week in the Times that seven EU member states have formally expressed concern that the Government’s proposed generational smoking ban might breach the Windsor Framework. The Minister said last week that the provisions of the Bill intended to apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Windsor Framework. However, these external concerns plainly have not gone away.

In a previous meeting, I was grateful to the noble Baroness and her officials for discussing the Technical Regulations Information System—or TRIS—procedure in respect of liaising with the European Commission and those EU countries that have raised objections. She explained that, in the Government’s opinion, the TRIS procedure is about consultation and will not lead to any decisions that would be binding on the UK Government. Can the Minister clarify if my understanding of the Government’s position is correct in that regard? Will she also update the House on discussions with the European Commission and with representatives of member states that have raised their concerns? Can she also say whether any formal objections have been lodged through the Windsor Framework structures, including the joint committee?

In general on this issue, we see a rather polarised position, with the tobacco industry on one side and ASH and the Government on the other, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government have sought or obtained any independent external legal advice on compatibility and whether they are confident that the measures would withstand a challenge in the event of infraction proceedings or dispute resolution. Following on from that, what contingency planning, if any, has been undertaken should a divergence issue arise in relation to Northern Ireland?

Let me turn to Amendments 202, 205 and 206, which relate, in their several ways, to reviewing the effects and outcomes of the Bill as an Act. I am supportive of them but especially grateful for Amendment 205, which responds to the plea put forward by a number of noble Lords in Committee that this far-reaching Bill, whose real-life effects on the health of the population must inevitably lie in the realm of uncertainty, merits close review at a point when we are in a position to assess those effects realistically. Hence, I particularly welcome subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment, which refers to assessing the impact of the Act. As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, the review needs to drill down into the granular detail and the substance of how smokers and non-smokers are behaving in response to the implementation of the different strands of policy.

Having said that, I very much support the ideas contained in my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 202, for all the reasons that he gave. A review within four to seven years, as the Government have proposed, considering both economic and health outcomes and involving the devolved Governments, is a sensible safeguard as far as it goes. However, a road map and milestones, which both government and Parliament could follow and monitor along the way, would add considerable value. I am sorry that it appears that this is not an idea that the Government are willing to take further.

18:15

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, advanced a strong case for a review focusing more directly on the Bill’s economic effects and its effect on markets. At the heart of her case is a fact that I think we are all aware of, which is that the economy is, at its heart, about the allocation of scarce resources, which have alternative uses. When we regulate or prohibit products in a particular sector, we impose compliance costs, as she rightly pointed out, and that can affect investment decisions, supply chains, employment and innovation. That does not mean that regulation is wrong, but it does mean we should be honest about its wider consequences, so I did think that the noble Baroness’s proposal was one which merited considerable thought.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which have covered a number of important areas. I will start with Amendment 202, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—it was also spoken to by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As noble Lords are aware, there is already a duty on government to review most secondary legislation and to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation, and we take these obligations very seriously. For Amendment 202 specifically, the point must be reiterated that this Government are committed to achieving a smoke-free UK, and we recognise that this work will absolutely not be over when this Bill receives Royal Assent.

However, I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and it is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment 205, which introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act within four to seven years of Royal Assent and to lay a report before Parliament concluding the findings of that review. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Young, that this includes looking at the impact on communities where smoking rates are currently the highest. I hope that this is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smoke-free ambition.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and others have said that this Bill is not about assisting people to quit. In the last group, noble Lords will recall, I addressed our determination, and laid out the resource that we have committed, to help people to quit smoking now, and that absolutely is a key aspect.

Amendment 205, which I tabled, will ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations. However, the amendment is set out as it is—it provides the necessary flexibility on timing—because we want to ensure that evidence is in place before conclusions are drawn. We do not want this to be a tick-box exercise.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that independent evidence will indeed be central. Most notably, it will include the living evidence map commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which will collate UK-based and international evidence on vapes and nicotine products for the next five years. This will include things such as any published research evaluating the impact of the Bill, and regular summaries will be publicly available to outline emerging trends and evidence gaps. I am pleased to say that this tool was published on 18 February.

As the Bill’s impact assessment outlines, we would not, in all honesty—I know noble Lords understand this—expect to see the full, transformative impact of the Act for some time. It is for that reason that the impact assessment used a 30-year appraisal period for the smoke-free generation policy. Our modelling found that the Bill will save tens of thousands of lives over the next 50 years. None the less, we expect that this review will capture any early indicators and operational progress.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is no limit on consultation just to the devolved Governments because, as I set out on previous groups, we are keen and committed and have already set out how we will consult many. We will continue to commission a substantial package of high-quality independent research on what is world-leading legislation.

On Amendment 207 by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I appreciate her intention to ensure that the impact of the Act receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, as I hope she has heard me say throughout every stage of the Bill. As she is aware, the Government already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill on its introduction. Where possible, this has covered estimated impacts on businesses across the tobacco and vapes supply chain, including impacts for manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers.

For measures delivered through secondary legislation, in particular product standards, flavours and packaging, further detailed impact assessments will be undertaken. I have also spoken about government Amendment 205, which will include consideration of economic impacts where evidence allows. I must also emphasise that we will not prioritise the profits of businesses over protecting children from the risks of tobacco products, vaping and nicotine.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that there is no evidence to suggest that changing the age of sale of tobacco would have any relation to drug use. Indeed, we can look at our experience that, when the age of sale went from 16 to 18, drug use decreased.

I turn to Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I hope that these comments, in particular my opening remarks, will be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because I will start with an update to your Lordships’ House on the notification of the Bill under the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System, known as TRIS. The UK Government have notified certain provisions in the Bill related to Northern Ireland on TRIS. This is an absolutely standard process; it is not an approval process. The Commission and member states may indeed comment, but they do not play a role in approving the UK’s legislation in respect of Northern Ireland.

It is the case, as noble Lords have said, that certain EU member states issued opinions setting out their concerns about the compatibility of the smoke-free generation policy with EU law. It is not unusual for member states to submit opinions on TRIS notifications. To give just one example, several member states also wrote to France recently when it proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states already having introduced such a ban.

The Government have provided a comprehensive response on the opinions they have received. The response sets out the strong public health justification for the policy and explains why the smoke free generation complies with EU law as it applies under the Windsor Framework. The Commission has also now responded, noting our response, and this concludes the TRIS process.

On the points raised by noble Lords including the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and, in a different way, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about legal opinions, your Lordships are probably far more aware of this, but it is worth restating: legal opinions, to state what is obvious, can and do differ. I emphasise that it is not unusual for the tobacco industry to argue that government measures are incompatible with the law. My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke to this very point. Experience tells us that this has happened many times: to give but two examples, on the introduction of standardised packaging in 2016 and on the regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

Amendments 91, 120 and 216 are not required: the Government have already published their response to the Commission, setting out why measures drafted in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with obligations under the Windsor Framework and EU law. I referred earlier to the Government’s published response on TRIS, following detailed opinions from EU member states. I strongly urge all interested Peers to read this if they have not had the chance to do so already, because it sets out in detail why the Government believe that the smoke-free generation policy and other measures in the Bill are compatible with EU law. It covers the Bill’s compatibility with Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU tobacco products directive, and the public health justification for measures in the Bill.

Finally, I note that we cannot accept Amendment 201 as it could put us in breach of international law by undermining compliance with our obligations under the Windsor Framework. To this point, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her observations. With that, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. We had this discussion a few times in Committee. I tabled these amendments to make sure that all noble Lords are fully aware that no matter how much time we spend on the Bill, and whatever happens, it could end up in the EU ruling that it cannot apply to Northern Ireland. That is just a fact. There may be different legal opinions; I certainly have not relied on just the legal opinions of the tobacco industry. I am just disappointed as, once again, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General seems to be very quiet on this and does not want to engage or produce anything that shows us the legal opinion.

However, as has been said many times before, there is obviously agreement between the two Front Benches. Although I welcome the very sensible probing of this by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there is clearly a consensus that the Bill is going to go through whatever because other Bills are probably more important. I therefore just warn noble Lords that we have been right before when we warned about legal opinion and what was happening in the Windsor Framework, and I think we will be right again. Having said that, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Clause 49: Age of sale for tobacco products etc

Amendments 92 to 98 not moved.

18:30

Clause 62: Free distribution and discount of products

Amendment 99

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

99: Clause 62, page 33, line 19, leave out “is” and insert “will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 99 agreed.

Amendment 100

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

100: Before Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Alignment of definition of “filter” etc(1) Section 35 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3) (interpretation of Part 1) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”.(3) In subsection (2), for “cigarette filters” substitute “filters that do not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product”.(4) In subsection (3), after “order” insert “amend this section so as to”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds a definition of “filter” to section 35(1) of the 2010 Act, amends the definition of “smoking related product” so as to attract that new definition and adjusts the power to modify the latter definition to allow amendments that are not confined to the text of section 35(2).

Amendment 100 agreed.

Clause 63: Alignment of definition of “tobacco product”

Amendment 101 not moved.

Clause 67: Power to extend 2010 Act to other products

Amendment 102

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

102: Clause 67, page 35, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if not falling within paragraph (a), a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by sections 9A to 9C in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows Part 1 of the 2010 Act to be amended so as to extend to filters provisions relating to tobacco products. It also allows the Scottish Ministers to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.

Amendment 102 agreed.

Clause 68: Age of sale for tobacco products etc

Amendments 103 and 104 not moved.

Amendment 105

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

105: Clause 68, page 36, line 10, leave out from “Regulations” to end of line and insert “may not be made by the Department under paragraph (2)(a) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 105 agreed.

Clause 69: Purchase of tobacco on behalf of others

Amendments 106 to 108 not moved.

Clause 72: Age of sale notice at point of sale

Amendment 109 not moved.

Clause 76: Sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s

Amendment 110

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

110: Clause 76, page 40, line 3, leave out from “Regulations” to end of line and insert “may not be made by the Department under paragraph (2)(a) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 110 agreed.

Clause 80: Free distribution and discount of products

Amendment 111

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

111: Clause 80, page 42, line 21, leave out “is” and insert “will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 111 agreed.

Clause 82: Interpretation of 1978 Order

Amendment 112

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

112: Clause 82, page 43, line 34, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(1).

Amendment 112 agreed.

Amendment 113 not moved.

Clause 84: Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc without a licence

Amendment 114 not moved.

Schedule 11: Retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland

Amendment 115 not moved.

Clause 85: Power to extend legislation to other products

Amendments 116 to 118

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

116: Clause 85, page 48, line 9, after “to” insert “—
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 2 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 that applies to tobacco products.

117: Clause 85, page 48, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) The Department may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by Articles 4E to 4G in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.

118: Clause 85, page 48, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that applies to tobacco products.

Amendments 116 to 118 agreed.

Schedule 14: Part 3: consequential and other amendments commencing after 6 months

Amendment 119

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

119: Schedule 14, page 160, line 19, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(2).

Amendment 119 agreed.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Amendment 121

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

121: After Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of section 88 to filters(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 88 for the purpose of extending it to a relevant offence that involves possession of a filter with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.(2) In subsection (1)—“filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);“herbal smoking product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco;“relevant offence” means an offence created by virtue of regulations under—(a) section 45(1A),(b) section 34A(3A) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act 2010 (asp 3), or(c) Article 6B(1A) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1907 (N.I. 26));“tobacco product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause confers power to extend clause 88 to filters.

Amendment 121 agreed.

Clause 89: Retail packaging

Amendment 122

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

122: Clause 89, page 50, line 12, at end insert—
“(da) filters;” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 122 agreed.

Amendment 123

Moved by

[Baroness Walmsley]

123: Clause 89, page 50, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) Provision made by the regulations must ensure that—(a) vaping products are sold in plain packaging;(b) vaping products are not displayed at the point of sale in the usual course of business, including promotional or marketing materials used at the point of sale, such as imagery, wording, branding, or promotional offers;(c) a person who fails to comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations under this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“plain packaging” means packaging that does not include branding, logos, imagery, or colours designed to make the product attractive;“point of sale” means any location within retail premises where vaping products are available for purchase.”

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 123 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Northover. When in Committee my noble friend tabled an amendment to prevent companies advertising vapes in a way that attracted children, the Minister’s response was that this was not necessary because advertising of vapes would be banned under the Bill except for public health purposes as a smoking cessation tool. In that case they would not be allowed to be advertised in a way that attracted children, and our amendment was therefore not necessary.

Having accepted the Minister’s point, we turned our attention to the packaging itself and point of sale display materials, because we know that the companies trying to sell vapes to people who have never smoked before will stop at nothing to hook people into nicotine addiction. That is why we have proposed that vapes must be sold in plain packaging like cigarettes and not displayed with attractive materials at point of sale. A recent UCL study showed that implementing plain packaging for vapes reduced their appeal to young people but did not affect how harmful adults perceive vapes to be compared with cigarettes. In particular, the paper noted that:

“Packaging is a primary marketing tool for vape companies”,


and that

“it is commonplace for brands to also use youth-appealing elements, such as images, cartoon characters, stylised fonts, and novel brand and flavour names on vapes and e-liquid packaging”.

We therefore felt it worth exploring the Government’s plans with regard to consultation and regulations about the packaging and point of sale of vapes. Vapes were on the market for quite a few years before the big uptick in youth vaping around 2021. That coincided with cheap, colourful, ergonomic disposables flooding the market. We need to make vapes a dull cessation tool again. Regulating packaging can and should be done quickly because vapes are being more aggressively marketed, partly through displays in stores. This is having an effect. Action on Smoking and Health’s latest youth vaping survey found that awareness of vaping promotion grew among 11 to 17 year-olds between 2022 and 2025. There was a significant increase in awareness of promotion of vapes over that period, particularly in shops: 37% in 2022 compared with 55% last year.

In 2022, 56% of 11 to 17 year-olds who were aware of vapes reported that they were exposed to some form of vape promotion. In 2022, 11% of young people who were aware of vapes reported seeing vape displays every time or most times they went into supermarkets. Last year that figure had risen to 27%, so there is a pressing need to do something about this. I accept that plain packaging and display rules for tobacco products were implemented, following consultation, through secondary legislation. I therefore ask the Minister what research has been carried out on the potential effect of plain packaging and point of sale for vapes, whether it would deter young people who do not smoke from taking up vaping and whether it has been shown that there would be any deterrent effect on adults who wish to quit by using vapes to help them to do so. Frankly, I would be very surprised if someone who wishes to quit would be deterred from buying a vape just because it was not in a shiny, colourful, attractive package on a shiny, colourful, attractive display, like the ones I currently see all over the place.

I do not support Amendments 125 and 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I felt we had a balanced debate in Committee about the role that flavours play in smoking cessation, and I was reassured by the Minister’s comments at that time. Clearly, regulation of flavour descriptors is easier to do and may give us the desired outcomes, meaning that we do not need to regulate flavours themselves. However, it is important that the Government retain the right to regulate flavours in case evidence emerges about particular flavours that require action.

On Amendment 136A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the limit on vape size is currently 2 millilitres, but I know there are concerns regarding products that attach to vapes to increase this. I urge caution in this area. While it might seem likely that larger tanks increase consumption, there is not yet evidence of this being the case, and concerns regarding big-puff products may be unfounded. We need to find out. Indeed, the rise in youth vaping in Britain since 2020 appears to have been primarily driven by 2-millilitre, colourful, single-use vapes, not larger-capacity products. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing littering—which would be a good thing—and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking. I look forward to comments from the Minister on the broad point regarding attachments. I know that both these issues were included in the recent call for evidence, so she may have some early insights for us in the light of that. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 125 and 134 in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the support that she has indicated for them. On the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am obviously distressed that she has been exposed needlessly to the sight of shiny vapes in her local supermarket, petrol station or whatever it is. We can sympathise with her on that, but she seems to have ignored entirely the context of Clause 89. This gives the Government the most extensive powers, at least in relation to packaging, which, as far as I can see, could very easily lead to the equivalent of plain packaging, but she made no reference to it.

My amendments would increase the powers that the Government have in Clause 89. I will first explain the rationale for what I am proposing. There is a great deal of agreement—there has been throughout Report—between the Minister and me; I hope that we can continue that in the course of this debate. We agree, crucially, on the importance of how the flavours are described and presented to the public in attracting buyers to vapes.

However, that cuts two ways. We know, on the one hand, that vapes can have what I call “flavour descriptors” on them. These are deliberately designed to appeal to children and young people in a way that we are all opposed to. We do not wish to see vapes marketed in such a way as to seduce children and young people into taking them up. When we see flavour descriptors such as “cotton candy” and “gummy bear” on the side of a vape, we can all agree that that sort of thing should have a stop put to it because we know the market that it is intended to reach. On the other hand, as I think the Minister has acknowledged, for vapes to be an effective cessation tool for adults it is important to have a range of flavours available to them. As I said, I think the Government have acknowledged that.

Where in the Bill is the power that the Government need to regulate flavour descriptors? It is the flavour descriptor—the “gummy bear”, the “cotton candy”—that the Government need a clear power to be able to eliminate. We discussed this in Committee. The Minister very kindly wrote to me afterwards and said that the Government would rely on Clause 89, which relates to retail packaging. This gives the Government a certain number of powers to make regulations concerning packaging, but it does not at any point, as far as I can see, specify the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging as something that the Government have a direct power to regulate.

The Government may rely on Clause 89, and it may be possible that its scope could be stretched to cover their point. It would ultimately, I suppose, be a matter for the courts to decide. My Amendment 125, fairly straightforwardly, would give the Government that power explicitly. It would add to the list in Clause 89(3), currently running from paragraph (a) to paragraph (k), of the things that the Government can regulate. It would add a further thing: the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging. I do not think the Government would necessarily want to reject this amendment. It would give them a power that could be very useful; even if they feel that they have this power already, making it explicit would make matters somewhat easier.

To complement that, there is in Clause 91, which relates to contents and flavours, a power for the Government to make regulations concerning the “flavour of relevant products”. Here I want to make a point which I made in Committee and which is of the utmost importance; I speak as somebody who uses vapes. My point is that, in practice—I say this especially for the benefit of noble Lords who do not use vapes—the flavour descriptor on the vape has almost no relationship to the flavour of the vape.

18:45

If you buy a vape named “mango ice”—vapes commonly have such names—it will taste nothing like an actual mango. In regulating the flavour, you do not say anything about the flavour descriptor. Do the Government really want to start regulating flavours, which are, in any case, subjective? I have a partiality to blueberry ice vapes. They do not taste like blueberries— I can assure noble Lords of that—and they do not remind me of blueberries; they do not make me feel like I am enjoying a blueberry. This is true to the extent that, when I go to reorder them, I have to look on the box to remind myself what the flavour I like is called. It is called blueberry, but it certainly has no relation to blueberries.

Indeed, if you go a little further into the examples that I gave earlier, what flavour would the Minister associate with “gummy bear”? Is it intended to taste of bear, or of gums? The two concepts of “flavour” and “flavour descriptor” are absolutely distinct. The Government need to be precise in what they are regulating. This is why I have a second amendment, Amendment 134, relating to Clause 91, which would substitute “flavour descriptor” for “flavour” in that clause. The Government could then focus their resources on the thing that does the damage, which as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, more or less said—although for some reason she disagreed with my amendments—is the packaging, the advertising and the message on the box outside. It is not the taste on the inside, which is largely subjective, as I said, and bears no relation to what is on the outside.

Finally, I will say something pre-emptively as the Minister may refer to it when she replies. The Minister wrote to me saying that evidence from Action on Smoking and Health in 2025 suggested that certain sorts of flavours appealed more to young people and other sorts more to older people. I will not read out the details, but that was the gist of what it said.

I dispute that this evidence is of any real value. First, it comes from Action on Smoking and Health, which is a ludicrous source for the Government to rely on from a statistical point of view. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the other day, it is as if the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, had turned up at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were relying on the London Cycling Campaign for the statistics that they would use on road traffic in London. These are highly biased, partisan organisations that produce statistics to order.

Secondly, even if you were so naive as to trust the evidence produced by Action on Smoking and Health, there is no indication in the letter that the Minister sent to me that this evidence distinguished between the flavour descriptor—as being sweet or whatever—and the flavour itself. That is quite useless from the point of view of the conversation that we had in Committee.

I have probably annoyed a number of noble Lords, which certainly was not my intention—I wish to have everybody on my side, not least the Minister—but I think that I am being very helpful to the Government. I hope that the Minister will, with alacrity, accept my two amendments.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 136A deals with the rapid emergence of devices with a very high puff count—so-called “big puff” devices—which are clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing regulation. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, approved by this House and the other place, set a 2-millilitre limit on vape tank size. That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching 10-millilitre refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond 2 millilitres. If the law says 2 millilitres it should mean 2 millilitres, not 2 millilitres multiplied by clever engineering.

These are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly. They are cheaper per puff than standard devices and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are opting for these devices with a higher puff count. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that is broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8,000 cigarettes all contained within a single device. The concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.

I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the 2-millilitre limit. We also see superficial attempts to comply with the ban on disposable vapes. Devices are fitted with USB charging points but retain non-replaceable coils, so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded. This is disposability in all but name.

I anticipate that the Minister may suggest that the Bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the Government believe is already implicit. Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit. It is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps.

The Minister may also say that the Government have launched a call for evidence and that legislation at this stage would be premature. However, the concern here is not about developing future policy but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The 2-millilitre limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the 10-millimetre refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the 2-millilitre limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.

Effective enforcement depends on legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether what is in effect a 12-millimetre system technically complies with the 2-millimetre rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules and that prompt action will be taken to close this loophole and uphold the 2-millimetre limit in practice.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and the ambition to create a smoke- free generation. Throughout my clinical and academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventive action, because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendments 125 and 134. I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the Government’s power to regulate flavour descriptors—the words on the packet rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance.

The Chief Medical Officer’s evidence note is clear. Flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long-term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet. Restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the Government’s ability to act as new science emerges. As we have heard, flavour is one of the principal drivers of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is a game that children will lose.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate the substances that may be included in a relevant product. I am not proposing that we change that at all. I am simply suggesting we change “flavour” to “flavour descriptor”, because flavour is inherently subjective. The substances which may be toxic or harmful would remain in scope of the legislation in the language the Government have chosen to use, irrespective of my amendment. I interrupt the noble Lord only because I am not entirely sure that he has grasped the effect of my amendment, and I thought he might want to reflect on that.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

If I have not, then I apologise. I still believe it is not clear on paper. I feel it is the flavour that is being bound, but if the noble Lord’s amendment is correcting that, that is fine. Narrowing the powers before the science is settled is another issue. There is very little scientific evidence on the impact of the taste or whatever the inhaler contains. This has not been utilised before, so we do not know the dangers of the substance that is being inhaled. The prudent course is to retain the widest possible powers and to act on evidence as it emerges. To do otherwise will leave our children exposed to risks we could have prevented. I urge the House to at least look at these amendments or reject them.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has explained what his amendment is trying to do. I just want to query whether narrowing the powers before the science is settled is an admirable aspiration. That gives authoritarian power to the Government to do anything they want because there is no science and it is not settled. How is that evidence-based policy? It is the opposite and I think that is very dangerous.

I want to more accurately emphasise that flavours are part of smoking cessation, but I am only going to do that briefly. The reason why I want to do that is to quote ASH, because—guess what?—ASH says that flavours are a very important way in which adults vape and therefore give up smoking. So, for once, I am quoting ASH in a positive way to say that flavours cannot be demonised and we have to be very careful what we wish for.

19:00

My main point is to talk about plain packaging. I thought it was interesting that Cancer Research made the point about the plain packaging of vapes. One of the difficulties is that, as soon as you say “plain packaging”, we know that we are going through exactly the same playbook as tobacco and it is being treated the same. What did we do? We said that we had to bring in plain packaging of cigarettes. Then we say, “Oh, now what should we do with vapes? We’ll bring in plain packaging”. And then we wonder why people get confused between vapes and smoking or why the attitude is the same.

Cancer Research makes the point that it is important that the Government consider quoting evidence to ensure that changes to vape packaging strike a balance between reducing the appeal to young people and those who have never smoked while ensuring that vapes remain an accessible and appealing product to adults who smoke and want to quit. I also think it is important to understand that point-of-sale information is essential to be able to communicate to any consumer making a purchase decision on whatever they are buying. You see the packet and that is what you decide to do.

In relation to the risk potential of a nicotine product that is relatively safer than smoking, it is vital that we do not simply hide away what it is that we want adult smokers to consume. The danger here is that, even in relation to communicating age restrictions in shops, you are going to have posters, banners, digital screens and all sorts of things. That does not equate to having a demand that everyone buys vapes. What it does do is communicate to anyone who wants to buy vapes that different types of vapes are on sale, and it ensures that you can advertise the kinds of age restrictions that we are demanding that retailers now enforce. There is a real danger that the kind of ultra position of plain packaging will have unintended consequences.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, unless it is designed as a probing amendment, I fear I am not drawn to Amendment 123. In essence, it would tie the Government’s hands on the rules around the packaging and display of vapes. If the amendment were accepted, it would make any prior consultation and legal advice completely pointless. Measures of this depth and scope, mandating plain packaging for all vaping products and prohibiting point-of-sale display in all circumstances, would represent a major intervention in what is currently, and will certainly remain, a lawful market, and not only a lawful market but one that serves a significant therapeutic purpose in a public health context. The extent to which the powers in the Bill relating to the packaging and display of vapes need to be exercised must surely depend on decisions by Ministers following full and proper consultation with the businesses, manufacturers and retailers that would be directly affected.

Some regulation in these areas is almost certainly going to be necessary, particularly if we are to protect young people. However, regulation must be proportionate and evidence based. Vapes are not the same as tobacco, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out. For example, there needs to be scope for product differentiation by consumers. If consumers are denied choice, that will kill off any incentive on the part of manufacturers to pursue beneficial innovation. That consideration is important if we believe that vapes are likely to occupy an important place as a smoking cessation tool for adult smokers over the medium to long term.

On Amendments 125 and 134 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I hope to hear the Minister make some positive comments. As my noble friend has argued, both today and in Committee, it is not just the flavour of a vape that gives it an appeal but the flavour that it purports to have, and we know that the flavour descriptor can affect the purchasing decisions of those inclined to use vapes as a recreational toy.

In relation to Amendment 136A, there are clearly a number of considerations that must be weighed carefully. On the one hand, higher-capacity devices may be important for some adult users who rely on vaping as a smoking cessation tool. For those individuals, practicality and product functionality can make a real difference in supporting a transition away from combustible tobacco. On the other hand, there remains a legitimate concern, which my noble friend rightly voiced, about whether larger-capacity devices could increase appeal to younger people or facilitate greater nicotine consumption, with implications for addiction.

I suggest that those are finely balanced issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the evidence base underpinning the proposal and how the Government intend to strike the right balance.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this debate. Amendment 123 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Clause 89, which I will refer to later as well, already gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate packaging, while Clause 13 already provides powers on display that can set requirements as to where products can be sold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about evidence. There is evidence that removing branding and standardising packaging reduces a product’s appeal to young people, as the noble Baroness alluded to, while having little impact on adults. However, I can say that we will consult on proposals before making regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to this issue a number of times and I agree, because we are conscious of the need to ensure a balance between dissuading young people from taking this up while not dissuading adult smokers from quitting.

On the point about research, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we continue to fund high-quality research, including research on the packaging of vapes and nicotine products, and I am glad to say that that is due to conclude later this year. While I understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to reduce the appeal and visibility of these products, and I acknowledge her concerns, her amendment does seek to set the requirements in the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, we have a statutory duty and we would be wise to consult on these issues, because we need to ensure, as the noble Earl said, that any restrictions are proportionate and evidence based. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that these are areas on which we will be acting.

On Amendment 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, vaping products, as has been referred to in this debate, are already limited to 2 millilitres for tanks and 10 millilitres for refill containers. Over recent years, some manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill containers can be attached to a single device as a means to circumvent the legislative requirements and restrictions.

I want to assure the noble Lord that Clause 90 provides the powers to amend or place additional requirements and limits on vape tank sizes and the size of refill containers. It is vital that we undertake the necessary consultation, because we wish to make sure that our regulations are based on the best possible evidence related to tank capacity limits and that we do not have unintended consequences for adult smokers who use vapes as a quit aid, something I know is of concern, and rightly so, to noble Lords. It is therefore more appropriate for such detailed technical measures to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our recent call for evidence sought views specifically on tank sizes to better understand current market practices and we are, as I mentioned in an earlier group, currently analysing responses and will consider our proposals for consultation post Royal Assent.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 125 and 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I begin by assuring noble Lords—and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested I would do this—that Clauses 89 and 90 already provide powers for the Government to regulate information on vape devices and packaging, including flavour descriptors. I draw the attention of noble Lords particularly to Clause 89(3), which is a non-exhaustive list of the kind of provision that regulations could make, including in paragraph (b),

“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords about potential unintended consequences of implementing flavour restrictions too rapidly or stringently, and I understand the points that noble Lords have made about the role that flavoured vapes can play in helping adult smokers quit, something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did a very fine job of inviting us into the world that he has experienced in this regard. In that spirit, I can confirm the Government’s commitment to consult on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients. This commitment reflects our intention to adopt a proportionate approach, again as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to do, supporting adult smokers in their efforts to quit while also working to reduce the appeal of vaping products to children.

However, and on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I have to be clear that it is essential that we retain the ability to go further in line with the evidence, which the noble Baroness referred to. Flavourings are added to vaping products and that can increase their appeal. Hundreds of flavoured ingredients are used in vapes and, although some are considered safe when ingested, we do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, said, know the long-term health effects when they are inhaled, particularly in respect of children. Some initial data drawn from the limited research available is concerning and indicates that certain chemicals may be harmful if inhaled. For this important reason, we must have the flexibility to restrict flavoured ingredients in the future to protect public health. We have sought further data on flavours as part of the call for evidence conducted at the end of last year and we are reviewing those responses. In addition, we are exploring commissioning further research on the health impacts of vape ingredients when inhaled.

I hope that all this reassures noble Lords that the powers in the Bill already provide a comprehensive framework to act on these issues and that our approach will remain balanced and evidence-based to strike a necessary balance between reducing youth appeal and ensuring that adult smokers continue to have access to products that may help them quit. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

19:15

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, in particular, the words—and I hope I quote them correctly—these are areas on which we are planning to act. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I looked very carefully at Clause 89, as my earlier comments in earlier debates on how they might affect specialist tobacconists might have proved to him, but I point out that it talks only about packaging and not about display materials—that appears in a different part of the Bill.

I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, even if my amendment was put word for word into the Bill, it would not prevent information about the products being provided on the packaging or the display to people who wanted to buy them. That would be fine. My intention—and I know the Minister understands this—is to do everything possible to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to stop it being taken up by young children who have never smoked. Vapes are and should remain a cessation tool.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister, because we have discussed this issue outside the Chamber. She has given me what I want in that she has clarified that the Government have the powers in the Bill to regulate both packaging and display and has said the Government intend to act in these areas. I am very grateful for that. Having been given what I want, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 123 withdrawn.

Amendment 124

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

124: Clause 89, page 50, line 33, at end insert—
“(l) the technological features, markings or identifiers on packaging required for product authentication or the prevention of illicit products.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to introduce this group and, in particular, to speak to my Amendment 124. This group is about the features of products in Clauses 89 and 90—not the ones that we have just discussed but in particular the technology features to be found in products.

If I can jog to the later amendments, government Amendments 130 and 132 and my Amendment 131 relate to a subject that a number of noble Lords will recall we discussed in Committee. We discussed whether there should be powers in the Bill to regulate the technology in vapes such that the mechanism for regulation would not only be at point of sale but could also be at point of use. My Amendment 131 is designed specifically to achieve that. The Minister has been listening again, and I am pleased to have the opportunity again to thank her for her engagement and that of officials. I also thank her for the amendments she has now brought forward.

The Minister’s Amendments 130 and 132 together would have the effect of allowing for the features of a product to include the technology associated with that and, in Amendment 132, the software included with that technology. What is the point of that? It is to be able to secure that known technology which would allow age gating and verification, linking the electronics in the vape to a smartphone with age verification built into it. This would enable us to provide that only verified adults would be able to use vapes.

What is really interesting is that this is not speculative: the technology is presented to the Food and Drug Administration in America and the latest information I have from IKE Tech, which I thank for its work on this, is the application for a pre-market tobacco product, including a human factors study. In tests, 100% of adults were able to access the product successfully, while 0% of under-age users were able to do so. It is an effective technology.

If I can anticipate the Minister’s view, it is that Ministers are not yet convinced that this is the approach to take; they want to ensure that there is effective point of sale verification. However, I hope they agree that, given the progress that has been made, not least through the FDA in America, which will be demonstrated in a substantial market, the combination of point of sale and point of use may be necessary in future to achieve the level of assurance about age gating to vapes that we want to achieve. At the moment—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not with us at the moment, so I am able to quote from Action on Smoking and Health—ASH tells us that nearly half of under-age vapers are buying them from shops, so there is a substantial job to be done. We know that nearly a quarter of under-age vapers receive them via proxy purchases. We will not eliminate proxy purchases through the point of sale restriction, but age gating, in the technology of the product itself, may achieve exactly that.

I think we are all agreed—at least, I hope we are —following the debate in Committee, when we were supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we want to have this power available, and I hope that Ministers will look actively at whether this is a desirable thing to achieve. Government Amendments 130 and 132 will achieve that.

There is also the question of Amendment 124, which is the basis of this debate. It relates to Clause 89 and the technology essentially in the packaging of vaping and nicotine products. I shall not press the amendment, because I am assured by the Minister in our conversations that the powers available in Clause 89 would allow that the kind of technology for authentication of a product can be specified. We want to put into products a smart tag, which we discussed previously, and is effectively a near field communication tag embedded in the packaging to enable tracking of illicit products, giving real-time identification of the history of a product by enforcement authorities. It would also enable retailers and consumers with the appropriate technology in their smartphones to assure themselves of the authenticity and safety of a product that was available to them, doing so in a way which, unlike QR codes which can be copied, and some of the other coding systems presently used, can be done in a unique token ID system embedded in blockchain, meaning that it would not be able to be removed, copied or circumvented. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Clause 89 already has the powers necessary to include technology as sophisticated as this. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group relates to the technology in devices. Government Amendments 130 and 132 are, we understand, designed to future-proof this legislation, particularly to prevent the placing of video games inside vaping devices. We on these Benches welcome the intention and the future-proofing of the legislation. This is of the utmost importance; we see it time and again and are right to expect that the tobacco industry will react to this legislation when it hits the statute book.

This is not abstract—it is based on real-life evidence and real-life vapes that exist. Cigarette companies are now producing vaping devices that incorporate video games, particularly retro video games, and even virtual pets. For some, this might appear as not that important or essential, but nothing could be further from the truth. The linking of nicotine addiction with a gaming addiction, and the linking with different rewards and sensory interactions, are extremely powerful and the motivation is only about increasing profits for Big Tobacco.

Looking at it in more detail so that your Lordships understand, the points that users can get in the games on the vaping devices are linked to the number of puffs they take, how frequently they take them and how often they interact with their vaping device. They can compare scores with their friends, and virtual pets can die if people do not take enough nicotine. This might look playful, but it is about feeding and deepening individual addiction to these devices. They are extremely powerful and harmful, particularly to the young people at whom they are aimed.

One of these new devices has apparently been viewed over 12 million times. British American Tobacco’s latest device, Vuse Ultra, was recently dubbed “the future of vaping”. These devices are available in the UK, and the market will inevitably grow if there are loopholes in the legislation. The devices push the boundaries, so it is important that the Government regulate them.

As we heard, the oversight remains weak, as do trading standards; the devices get into our young people’s hands; they might predominantly be purchased in shops, through friends or even sometimes parents. Online restrictions are not as good as they should be. These are important issues.

We welcome the two government amendments, but is the Minister convinced that the Government really have all the powers they need to future-proof this legislation? Do they feel that they have adequate powers in the Bill and future regulations to prevent vaping devices being linked to any form of online data collection and storage; to prevent the linking of vapes to apps in phones via Bluetooth, QR codes or joining the website; to stop the linking of users’ individual puff counts to games or online collection; and to stop the actual connection between the number and times of puffs taken and access to forms of promotion, discount or VIP passes? This is clearly where the industry would like to go if the guardrails are not provided by the Government.

I also welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Speaking to the words that he used, the hope is that government Amendments 132 and 130 will cover Amendment 131, but it would be good to have the Minister confirm that.

Finally, Amendment 124 is about the technology within the packaging and whether the Government feel that they have the powers they need to put in these near-field tracking devices to make sure that these are genuine products, not fraudulent or unreal. Do the Government need Amendment 124 to feel they can make sure that the products available in the shops are legal and not counterfeit, or are they satisfied with what they have?

19:30

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I will touch on two things that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. First, I was previously in the European Parliament and worked on a number of technology regulations, and we can never be absolutely certain that we have legislated for the future or completely future-proofed anything. The only way to do that is to ban everything, frankly. We therefore often find regulation having to keep up with technology when it is far behind it, but we can put certain provisions in place. We can predict certain things but we cannot predict all innovation completely. Secondly, I hope the noble Earl will not mind me gently reminding him that not all vape companies are connected to big tobacco. A number of vape companies have nothing to do with big tobacco, and it is important that we understand that distinction.

My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lord Lansley. Before the Minister speaks to them, we also very much welcome the two government amendments in this group, which we think respond very helpfully to the issues raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We believe that adding these provisions is a good way of future-proofing the Bill, as much as any Bill can be future-proofed, without necessarily compromising any decisions that Ministers may wish to make in the short term—but also without committing the Government or a future Government to any specific technology solution or to one company’s specific solution. With that in mind, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 130 and 132 provide a power that would allow the Government to regulate the technological features of vaping products and tobacco-related devices, and the software associated with those features, to address emerging risks and to protect children. While the Bill already provides powers to regulate various device features, such as colour, size and shape, I listened carefully to the points raised in Committee about vape technology and the need to future-proof the Bill in order to respond quickly to new risks. I appreciate the support of both Front Benches on this point, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how far one can ever go when future-proofing. I can assure him that we are not planning to ban everything, but I thank him for the interesting suggestion.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke to concerning examples of the emergence of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people. As he said, some can now come with gaming functionality and others can be linked to what are called puff leaderboards and reward systems, so the more you inhale, the more credits you build up. Emerging evidence suggests—and it is worrying—that these interactive and gamified vaping features may heighten their appeal to children. This raises serious public health concerns around their potential to escalate dependence on nicotine. Our amendments therefore ensure that such emergent technology features can be appropriately regulated to reduce the appeal to children.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 131 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Let me first reassure him, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with regard to Amendment 124, that the powers in the Bill already enable us to regulate markings, which could include digital markings such as QR codes, to be used as part of a system to authenticate products. On Amendment 131, with reference to the device itself, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestions and his contributions on how best to future-proof the Bill, including on age-verification technology.

While it is not the Government’s policy to verify age at the point of use, and we have no intention to do so at this time, we recognise that need, as I have said, to be able to regulate technology to protect public health and respond to evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, acknowledged. It is for this reason that we are introducing the new regulation-making power on technology to which I have just spoken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The Minister referred to QR codes on packaging, which are obviously covered by the terminology of the Bill as it stands. But the example I used was smart tags, which effectively incorporate an electronic feature into the packaging of a product for monitoring. I would like to be assured that smart tags, too, are covered by the existing powers in the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would be happy to write to confirm that point, but we feel that the Bill covers what we need to cover now. Our amendments talk about future-proofing, which is the key thing, but I would be pleased to write further.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

Amendments 125 and 126 not moved.

Amendment 127 not moved.

Clause 90: Features of products

Amendment 128

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

128: Clause 90, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 128 agreed.

Amendment 129 not moved.

Amendment 130

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

130: Clause 90, page 51, line 13, at end insert—
“(g) any technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product.” Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under clause 90 to make provision about the technological features of a tobacco related device (such as a heated tobacco device) or a vaping product.

Amendment 130 agreed.

Amendment 131 not moved.

Amendment 132

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

132: Clause 90, page 51, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1)(g) may include provision about software for use in connection with technological features to which the regulations relate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under new subsection (1)(g) about the technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product to include provision about related software.

Amendment 132 agreed.

Amendment 133 not moved.

Clause 91: Contents and flavour

Amendment 134 not moved.

Amendment 135

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

135: Clause 91, page 51, line 30, at end insert—
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 135 agreed.

Clause 92: Substances released into human body and emissions

Amendment 136

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

136: Clause 92, page 52, line 8, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 136 agreed.

Amendment 136A not moved.

Clause 93: Non-compliant images

Amendment 137

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

137: Clause 93, page 52, line 36, at end insert—
“(da) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 137 agreed.

Clause 94: Registration

Amendment 138

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

138: Clause 94, page 53, line 8, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 138 agreed.

Clause 95: Information

Amendment 139

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

139: Clause 95, page 54, line 9, at end insert—
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 139 agreed.

Clause 96: Studies

Amendment 140

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

140: Clause 96, page 54, line 32, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 140 agreed.

Clause 97: Responsible person

Amendment 141

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

141: Clause 97, page 55, line 9, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 141 agreed.

Clause 99: Product Safety

Amendment 142

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

142: Clause 99, page 56, line 16, at end insert—
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 142 agreed.

Clause 100: Matters dealt with by 2016 Regulations

Amendment 143

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

143: Clause 100, page 56, line 33, at end insert—
“(iva) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 143 agreed.

Clause 102: Offences

Amendment 144

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

144: Clause 102, page 57, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Regulations under this Part creating an offence—(a) may provide for it to be punishable with a term of imprisonment or a fine (or both);(b) may not provide for the maximum term of imprisonment to exceed 2 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 102 currently requires offences created by regulations under Part 5 to be either way offences with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. The amendment allows more flexibility so that summary only offences with lesser maximum penalties can be created.

Amendment 144 agreed.

Clause 103: Enforcement

Amendment 145

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

145: Leave out Clause 103 and insert the following new Clause—
“Enforcement(1) Regulations under this Part may include provision about enforcement.(2) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring functions on the relevant enforcement authorities;(b) provision for the appropriate national authority to—(i) direct, in relation to cases of a particular description or a particular case, that any function conferred on a relevant enforcement authority by virtue of the regulations is to be carried out by the appropriate national authority and not by the relevant enforcement authority;(ii) take over the conduct of any proceedings from a relevant enforcement authority in respect of an offence under this Part.(3) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring on a relevant enforcement authority the power to prohibit a person, for a period of up to 6 months, from supplying a product, if the authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a breach of regulations under this Part in relation to that product;(b) provision for the forfeiture of products—(i) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by court order;(ii) in Scotland, by order of a sheriff;(c) provision similar or corresponding to section 88 (HMRC seizure powers). (4) Provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) may include—(a) provision for compensation to be payable by a relevant enforcement authority in specified circumstances;(b) provision about the resolution of disputes about compensation.(5) Regulations under this section may include provision conferring jurisdiction on a court or tribunal, including—(a) provision conferring jurisdiction to order a person to reimburse a relevant enforcement authority’s expenditure in specified circumstances;(b) provision about appeals.(6) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Health;“relevant enforcement authority” means—(a) in relation to England, a local weights and measures authority,(b) in relation to Wales, a local weights and measures authority,(c) in relation to Scotland, a local weights and measures authority, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district council;“supplying” includes—(a) agreeing to supply;(b) offering or exposing for supply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is intended to replace clause 103. Clause 103(2) allows regulations to apply enforcement provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals those provisions. The new clause recasts, and narrows, the powers in a way that avoids referring to the 1987 Act.

Amendment 145 agreed.

Clause 111: Interpretation of Part 5

Amendment 146

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

146: Clause 111, page 60, line 36, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to Part 5 of the Bill.

Amendment 146 agreed.

Amendment 147 not moved.

Clause 113: Publishing advertisements

Amendment 148

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

148: Clause 113, page 62, line 31, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 148 agreed.

Amendment 149

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

149: Clause 113, page 62, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition regarding advertising.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, while I am on my feet moving Amendment 149, I will also talk about the other amendments in my name. We must prevent an indiscriminate or blanket prohibition without proper scrutiny and consultation. I fear that, without these safeguards and measures, and with the approach being taken, years of success in smoking cessation will be reversed rapidly.

Further still, in the drafting of this Bill it is apparent that advertising is being looked at as merely a commercial persuasion. I would argue that this is wrong. We are forgetting that advertising is a channel of product differentiation and risk communication. We must therefore provide manufacturers with the opportunities to communicate factual and regulated information regarding relative risks and cessation pathways. Otherwise, we will be creating a system in which misinformation will flood the gap.

We must not allow a blanket prohibition on advertising vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products without consultation. To do so would be an affront to our business community and contrary to the way that things should be done. As already raised in Committee, half of all smokers now wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking. If communication is prohibited through an advertising ban, how do we correct misinformation such as this? How do we promote public health outcomes?

The impact assessment acknowledges potential unintended consequences for smoking cessation. These unintended consequences must be rooted out and the only way to achieve that at this stage is through wider and effective consultation. The amendments I have put forward all seek to prevent harm reduction being undermined, and on that basis I hope to gain support.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 168 is in my name. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 196, which is in the next group, but the subject matter is broadly similar. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for signing these amendments.

These amendments, taken together, would serve the purpose of providing safeguards and guarantees for the hospitality sector within the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I should be clear that they would not tie the hands of government in any way. They would not create carve-outs or specific loopholes, with the exception of a very narrow exemption in Amendment 168. They merely propose a requirement to consult specifically with the hospitality, retail and entertainment industries before making regulations in these areas.

I ask noble Lords, when thinking about these amendments, to consider the broader burdens currently faced by the hospitality industry. It is well known that the sector has been exposed to a number of challenges as a result of government policy in recent months and some aspects of this Bill have the potential to substantially add to these challenges. It is worth looking at the broader context, because the hospitality sector contributes £93 billion to the UK economy each year. It is the third-largest employer, with 3.5 million people employed in the sector. Since the 2024 Budget, over 89,000 jobs have been lost, which accounts for roughly 53% of all job losses in the economy. That is before the impact of the Employment Rights Act, which 49% of business leaders have said will make them less likely to hire new staff.

On business rates reforms, pubs have been granted a limited stay of execution, but, in the wider hospitality sector, the estimate is that it will cost the industry an additional £150 million, or the equivalent of about 12,500 jobs. The beer tax in the 2025 Budget has forced up the price of a pint by effectively eliminating the profit margin on beer through the alcohol hike of 3.55% from last month. That is all before the increases to national insurance, which have driven up operating costs across the board, as well as sky-high energy prices. This is an industry that is under considerable existential pressure.

It is important to reiterate these facts in light of the briefings from many of the public health charities that have been campaigning on this Bill. They claim that these amendments are not necessary. But every single UK hospitality industry association, including UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association, has warned about the damages this Bill could do to the sector. These amendments are therefore needed because the industry has said that it has absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs.

While the Government have said that it is not their intention to legislate for smoke-free and vape-free places for the hospitality industry as it is not the right time, that statement carries the clear implication that they might choose to do so in the future. To be clear, these amendments would not stop the Government legislating in this area. They would merely require that they guarantee consultation, with an impact assessment, before doing so. Why the guarantee? It is because too often we see sectors with concerns around this area being dismissed for having vested interests—we have heard many arguments this evening around the same subject—and the Government heeding only the submissions of organisations that tell them what they want to hear. In view of this, we suggest that these amendments and safeguards are extremely important.

19:45

Noble Lords may question why advertising is also included in Amendment 168, and the reason is twofold. Following my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, we must acknowledge that revenue from advertising that supports the hospitality sector is not unhelpful. More importantly, advertising is included because, in the smoking area of a nightclub or bar, advertising for non-tobacco products —I stress that these are non-tobacco products—is an effective way to ensure that smokers are being directly encouraged to quit smoking and to switch to something significantly less harmful. This is exactly the policy of the NHS and the intention behind the Bill. With these amendments, there would be complete control over what is communicated in these adverts.

There were a couple of criticisms of these proposals in Committee: that allowing marketing of this type could mean that these products are seen as recreational, and that under-18s are often able to slip into age-restricted environments. I will quickly address both these points. The Advertising Standards Authority, and with these amendments the Government, can make very specific regulations about how these products are presented to ensure that no recreational messaging could be used if this was a concern. Vaping is already heavily regulated in terms of advertising by the Advertising Standards Authority and that could easily be strengthened. The argument about under-18s slipping into these environments rather makes a mockery of the entire principle of the age verification on which the success or failure of the Bill depends. I suggest that it would be somewhat ironic and illogical to depend on that argument.

One would hope that even the most stringent supporters of the Bill would see that what these amendments are proposing is a very constructive form of targeted, controlled, limited and effective communication that will not only help the UK drive down smoking rates and limit the exposure of children to any marketing of these products, but at the same time safeguard the interests of the hospitality sector. Should it transpire that these measures turn out to be flawed or ineffective, consultation with the industry could eliminate any issues or omissions.

This Government like a consultation. In a previous group, the Minister said that we would be wise to consult, and I agree. It might be of interest to digress briefly to note that, as of 28 January of this year, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, informed me via letter that there were 81 consultations ongoing across government departments. I do not think it would be onerous to add one or two more.

I believe that the Government should consider accepting this amendment, which is designed to facilitate good policy-making and mitigate any of the unintended consequences that the powers in the Bill might have on the hospitality industry.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the explanation for the amendments has been well made. I have added my name to a number of amendments, including Amendments 149 and 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would exclude vapes and nicotine products from prohibitions regarding advertising, and he has explained why.

It is genuinely shocking how many misconceptions there are about vaping and smoking among the public. There is a real job of communication that the Government have an obligation to do. If 50% of adults now believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, that is not a good thing. If only 30% believe vaping is less harmful, that is not positive.

Conflicting messaging about vaping can discourage smokers from switching to lower-risk products and therefore widen health inequalities—all the things we keep talking about. Misrepresentation is a real problem and I think we have got to tackle it. Banning advertising would reinforce the false perception that vaping is just as harmful as smoking.

As we are coming to the end, I will make my final declaration. As somebody who smoked 40 cigarettes every day for 40 years—can you imagine?—I want to put on record in Hansard that I am grateful to the vaping industry, and particularly to flavoured vapes, because I stopped smoking as a consequence of flavoured vapes. That is what I thought that everybody wanted us smokers to do, only to find that vaping and smoking are being treated as though they are almost the same. I am very keen that we do not do anything that will make vaping less visible or erase it from the public square.

The Government have sort of acknowledged that by allowing public authorities to run mass media campaigns encouraging adults who smoke to “Swap to Stop”. Dare I suggest that official public health adverts, even if they go on TikTok, might be a little bit dry and less appealing than seeing some adverts for vapes in a nightclub? Tens of thousands of people gather for a night out at hospitality venues, so that seems to be something that the Government would want to encourage. Although I know that the amendments do not make the Government do anything, I suggest that it would be very positive if, in venues where you have thousands of adult smokers, they saw adverts for less harmful alternatives to smoking. That is a clever way to encourage switch-and-quit.

That is one of the reasons why I have added my name to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby. The emphasis on adverts for vapes and products that do not contain tobacco is well made. It is also important for us to consider the hospitality sector; that has been explained very well. Hospitality venues rely on marketing and sponsorship as part of their income. As I say, it would be a public service, rather than doing anything damaging, to allow them to carry on.

Many of us are worried about the fatal damage that the Bill will do to the retail sector. It seems ridiculous that another industry could be put in jeopardy by the Bill; that would not be good for the Government’s growth strategy. When UKHospitality stresses that the industry has

“absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs”,

we should listen. When the CEO of Whitbread, one of the largest hospitality operators in the country, says that the hospitality industry

“finds itself on the receiving end of a series of government interventions which together will significantly hold back our ability to contribute to growth”,

we should listen. We could, rather carelessly, be in a situation where we do not take that into consideration when we bring in some of these advertising restrictions. These amendments are proportionate; they suggest that we should hold back a little and at least organise a consultation.

Another industry that the Bill imperils is the design industry. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 152, which would exempt designers from having committed an offence if they had “reason to suspect” that a design or imagery contains these kinds of products. The problem for designers is that they may be criminalised for designing something that includes products that the Bill is trying to eradicate from the public space. That is a serious attack on artistic freedom. This amendment should be incorporated into the Bill. I do not think that anyone intended for the Bill to criminalise designers—but this is a Bill that will do all sorts of things that were not intended. These amendments are very moderate and allow the Government to hold back the tide of that.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and of other noble Lords, because it seems so reasonable. Surely there is no harm done if the advertisement is in a licensed premises; is not visible, except from inside the venue; is not for a tobacco product; mentions a smoke- or vape-free area; and is age-restricted to adults only. I cannot see what there is to object to, unless we are saying that the age restrictions do not work—in which case, why are we pressing ahead with a generational ban in the first place? Do we really want to get into this overreaching, overregulated situation where the compulsory cure is worse than the voluntary disease—one entered into willingly and knowingly by consenting adults?

I particularly support subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. It asks for further investigation into the effects on the hospitality industry, which is already suffering the devastating consequences of other policies. It would be good to hear what losing these marketing revenue streams will mean for those who have to run a business to make a profit in order to employ people, especially bearing in mind that recent policies have cost nearly 100,000 jobs and are responsible for nearly 50% of all job losses.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group on advertising and sponsorship. On these Benches, we feel that it is essential that the Bill strikes the right balance between regulating the advertisement and sponsorship of nicotine products, to ensure that they cannot be marketed in ways that appeal to children, and allowing their promotion to adults who smoke as a way to quit smoking.

I have listened to the speeches that have been made in this group. The initial response in my head is that we are facing an absolute explosion in vaping, particularly among our children and young people. I do not think that the pub industry is going to survive on the back of vape advertising, and I do not particularly feel that we need more advertising for vapes. I listened to the argument on education, but education is not advertising, and I do not trust the industry to do the job of educating because they are interested in one thing, and that is not education but profits.

Responding to this group, I think there is a background problem here. We already have too many loopholes in the system. On the side of TfL buses, it is perfectly possible to see huge adverts for nicotine pouches with the health warnings written in tiny lettering. We already have problems with this. Big tobacco knows that marketing works, and it uses it for one reason. We need to be absolutely clear that the purpose of the Bill is not only to bring about a generational ban. We do not want to replace tobacco with vapes. Vapes are there to help and support people to stop smoking; they are not a whole new revenue stream for big tobacco to enjoy for ever more as a sop for it having to stop selling its products that kill everybody. That is clear.

ASH data on nicotine pouches has shown that, between just 2024 and 2025, awareness of this market has grown from 38% to 43% among young people in Britain, and that nearly 4% of teenagers now report having tried nicotine pouches. This advertising is powerful and it works; that is why these companies use it. We feel that the Bill closes the current regulatory loophole while still allowing nicotine products to be promoted as a cessation device. We feel that this is the right place for the legislation to be. It strikes a considered and appropriate balance to maximise the public health benefits, which is where our concentration needs to be. It does not need to be on promoting vapes or anything else; this Bill is about promoting public health.

Turning to the amendments, Amendment 168 would allow the advertising of non-tobacco products in hospitality areas. This is not appropriate. Hospitality areas are not the right settings. This would give a false impression that these products are for recreational use and not for smoking cessation, and it would potentially create a massive loophole in the middle of the Bill that will be exploited mercilessly by the industry. We have heard about its ever-ready need to put forward legal claims, whether it will win them or not.

I recognise some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made, as I said, and congratulate her on having stopped smoking. I agree with her on the need to have availability of vapes and better education, and I agree with her on the absolute need to maintain the flavours in vaping products for smoking cessation. However, I have to say that there is a greater risk with this amendment that these products would be seen as recreational and not for smoking cessation; to my mind, that is where our concentration needs to be.

On Amendment 152, this issue was discussed in Committee, and I thought that the Minister explained that the provision mirrored the approach taken on existing tobacco advertising and promotions, and we were satisfied with that.

Finally, Amendments 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169 aim to remove the powers to restrict advertisement of nicotine products and heated tobacco unless there is a consultation with business. Again, we do not support this. It is already illegal to advertise heated tobacco under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and we just do not support those amendments.

20:00

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for their amendments in this group. I begin with the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. Many noble Lords have raised concerns about the unintended consequences of this Bill. Just yesterday, HMRC published data showing that legal tobacco sales in the United Kingdom fell by 52% between 2021 and 2025. That statistic will be welcomed by those who want to eradicate smoking, but there is still some way to go in encouraging smoking cessation. My noble friend’s amendments simply ask a question akin to that debated in group 5—namely, how far we should go with regulation of vaping and nicotine products, especially when we are trying to promote them as alternatives to smoking tobacco?

Of course, some regulation is certain to be necessary with products such as vapes, but we have to be careful that we confine them to responsible use. We should also be careful not to use a sledgehammer when a nuanced approach might be a more effective way forward in a particular circumstances and settings. If we overdo the restrictions, we risk driving smokers away from quit aids and alternatives such as vapes towards easily available alternatives—unfortunately, such as illicit tobacco, which we know is still too accessible to some smokers. Many noble Lords have spoken to their own experience in local authorities about trying to tackle illicit tobacco. In the right settings, advertising and displays of vaping products can play a role in encouraging adult smokers to switch from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives, and we know that many are already doing so. It is important for the Government to find the right balance.

I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. There is really little that I can add to the case that he has made so persuasively. The hospitality sector has faced sustained pressure in recent years, including rising energy costs and an increase in the cost of taking on new employees, staff shortages in some areas and increasing regulatory burdens. It is therefore reasonable that when we introduce further restrictions, we carefully consider their cumulative impact on licensed venues.

My noble friend’s amendment is tightly drawn. It would apply only within the curtilage of premises licensed under the Licensing Act 2003; only where advertisements are not visible from outside; only in age-restricted venues with appropriate safeguards; and it explicitly excludes tobacco products. It also provides for regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and requires consultation and a full impact assessment, something very much in line with better regulation, in which many noble Lords believe. That framework suggests a helpful attempt to strike a balance, maintaining strong protections for children and the wider public while recognising that adult-only controlled environments may justify a different approach. It seems reasonable to at least explore whether limited, carefully regulated flexibility of this kind could be accommodated without undermining public health objectives. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on such flexibility.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, Amendments 149, 151, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169.

Survey data shows that there has been a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion among young people, with 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops. This figure relates to 2025, and that is up from 37% in 2022. We are therefore delivering on our manifesto commitment to stop vapes from being advertised to children, while still enabling them to be promoted by public health authorities as a means for adult smokers to quit smoking, something that noble Lords have emphasised correctly, once again, in this group.

Tobacco advertising, including for heated tobacco products, is already prohibited under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and will remain so under the Bill. On Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can clarify that the advertising provisions do not restrict the use of, or sale of, products, and therefore should not overly impact on the hospitality sector. I will come back to reference to the hospitality sector, following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when we get to the final group, which is coming up next.

Evidence for tobacco has found that partial bans, as referred to in this amendment, are not as effective as comprehensive bans in reducing tobacco consumption. I therefore feel that it is extremely reasonable to draw similar conclusions for vape advertising. Under current legislation, there are already strict restrictions for vape advertising. We believe that the promotion of vaping to quit smoking is best led by the appropriate public health authorities, because they can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.

In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I outlined on the first day of Report, following my prior assurances on public health campaigns, we are introducing a specific defence which will strengthen this capability by allowing businesses, such as pharmacies and GPs—something that noble Lords rightly drew my attention to—to advertise non-branded vapes, if it is part of a campaign agreed with the public authority for public health purposes. We are not considering further exemptions due to the risk of loopholes, the potential for poorly enforced entry rules, and the fact that evidence has shown that comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising have reduced consumption, but partial bans, as I mentioned before, have had no significant effect.

On Amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the language of “has reason to suspect” is standard practice and already included in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This wording is specifically designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those involved in the design of advertisements cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where there are clear grounds for suspicion. I say again, this is standard legal practice.

Finally, on Amendment 153, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, it is important that we recognise and respect the established criminal law system within each nation of the UK. As noble Lords will know, Scotland has a separate criminal justice system, and 12 months is the maximum penalty on summary conviction for this type of offence and is fixed in line with its criminal justice system. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanations and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 149 withdrawn.

Clause 114: Designing advertisements

Amendment 150

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

150: Clause 114, page 63, line 20, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 150 agreed.

Amendments 151 to 153 not moved.

Clause 115: Printing advertisements

Amendment 154

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

154: Clause 115, page 64, line 4, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 154 agreed.

Amendment 155 not moved.

Clause 116: Distributing advertisements

Amendment 156

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

156: Clause 116, page 64, line 32, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 156 agreed.

Amendment 157 not moved.

Clause 117: Causing publication, designing, printing or distribution

Amendment 158

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

158: Clause 117, page 65, line 18, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 158 agreed.

Amendment 159 not moved.

Amendment 160

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

160: Clause 117, page 65, line 33, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 160 agreed.

Amendment 161 not moved.

Clause 118: Internet services

Amendment 162

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

162: Clause 118, page 66, line 22, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 162 agreed.

Amendment 163 not moved.

Amendment 164

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

164: Clause 118, page 66, line 38, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 164 agreed.

Amendment 165

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

165: After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
“Exceptions for internet service providers (conduits, caching and hosting)(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information— (i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) upon knowing of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are—(a) that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network;(b) that access to the information has been disabled;(c) that a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118(1) by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it was or contained a relevant advertisement, and(b) upon knowing that the information is or contains a relevant advertisement, the provider promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(6) In this section—“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet;“relevant advertisement” means an advertisement whose purpose is, or effect will be, to promote—(a) a tobacco product,(b) a herbal smoking product,(c) cigarette papers,(d) a vaping product, or(e) a nicotine product;“user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.(7) In the definition of “internet service provider” in subsection (6), a reference to the internet includes a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service (as defined by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates exceptions to the advertising offences in relation to mere conduit services, caching services, and hosting services.

Amendment 165 agreed.

Amendment 166

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

166: After Clause 119, insert the following new Clause—
“Advertising defence: public health campaigns(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under any of sections 113 to 118 in relation to an advertisement whose purpose is to promote vaping products or nicotine products in general, or a category of such products, it is a defence for the person to show that they knew or reasonably believed that they were acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority. (2) A public authority may only make such arrangements for the purposes of promoting or protecting public health.(3) Where in accordance with subsection (1) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show a particular matter, the person is taken to show that matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(4) A reference in this section to a “category” of vaping products or nicotine products does not include a brand.”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a defence to the advertising offences created by the Bill for public health campaigns. The defence is available only where a person knows or reasonably believes that they are acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority.

Amendment 166 agreed.

Clause 120: Specialist tobacconists

Amendment 167

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

167: Clause 120, page 68, line 29, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 167 agreed.

Amendment 168 not moved.

Amendment 169 not moved.

Clause 122: Brandsharing

Amendment 170

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

170: Clause 122, page 70, line 18, leave out “or effect of the use is” and insert “of the use is, or the effect of the use will be,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 170 agreed.

Clause 123: Sponsorship: tobacco products

Amendment 171

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

171: Clause 123, page 71, line 13, leave out from “purpose” to end of line and insert “of anything done as a result of the agreement is, or its effect will be,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 171 agreed.

Clause 124: Sponsorship: vaping and nicotine and other products

Amendment 172

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

172: Clause 124, page 71, line 39, leave out from “purpose” to “to” in line 40 and insert “of anything done on or after the specified date as a result of the agreement is, or its effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

Amendment 172 agreed.

Schedule 16: Advertising etc: audiovisual and radio broadcasting

Amendments 173 to 187

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

173: Schedule 16, page 162, line 20, at beginning insert “In”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20

174: Schedule 16, page 162, line 20, leave out from “radio)” to end of line 23 and insert “for subsections (10) and (11) substitute—
“(10) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(ba), (bb), (bc), (bd), (bg) or (bh) of Schedule 11A (herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products) subsection (2)(fa) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(be) of Schedule 11A (vaping products), subsection (2)(fa)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 20 May 2016, and(b) in relation to the product placement of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11A) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(bf) of Schedule 11A (undertakings whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of vaping products) subsection (2)(fa)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 1 November 2020, and(b) in relation to product placement by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,(or both) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11B) In subsections (11) and (11A) “vape” and “vaping substance” have the meaning given by section 111 of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that changes to the rules about product placement in TV and radio programmes do not apply to programmes the production of which began before those changes are introduced.

175: Schedule 16, page 162, line 24, leave out “In”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29

176: Schedule 16, page 162, line 25, at beginning insert “is amended as follows.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29

177: Schedule 16, page 162, leave out lines 28 and 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29

178: Schedule 16, page 162, line 29, at end insert—
“(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Advertising of vaping products or nicotine products is only permitted in an on-demand programme service if—(a) the advertising relates to those products in general or to a category of those products, but not to a particular brand, and(b) the inclusion of the advertising in the service is in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority.(1B) A public authority may only make such arrangements for the purposes of promoting or protecting public health.””Member’s explanatory statement
This permits the advertising of vaping and nicotine products in on-demand programme services for public health campaigns.

179: Schedule 16, page 163, line 3, leave out “In”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.

180: Schedule 16, page 163, line 4, after “placement” insert “is amended as follows.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.

181: Schedule 16, page 163, line 12, leave out “or nicotine products”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.

182: Schedule 16, page 163, line 14, leave out “or nicotine products, or” and insert—
“(bg) it is of nicotine products,(bh) it is by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of nicotine products, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.

183: Schedule 16, page 163, line 15, at end insert—
“(3) For subsections (15A) and (15B) substitute—“(15A) Subsection (4)(ba), (bb), (bc), (bd), (bg) and (bh) do not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15B) Subsection (4)(be)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 20 May 2016, and(b) in relation to the product placement of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine, does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15BA) Subsection (4)(bf)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 1 November 2020, and(b) in relation to product placement by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,(or both) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15BB) In subsections (15B) and (15BA) “vape” and “vaping substance” have the meaning given by section 111 of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.””Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that changes to the rules about product placement in on-demand services do not apply to programmes the production of which began before those changes are introduced.

184: Schedule 16, page 163, line 31, leave out paragraph 7
Member’s explanatory statement
This leaves out amendments to section 368Z of the Communications Act 2003 since it has been repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023 and that repeal is now in force.

185: Schedule 16, page 164, line 14, after “4” insert “—
(a) in paragraph (b), after “tobacco products” insert “(or both)”;Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the drafting of paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 11A to the Communications Act 2003 is consistent with my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.

186: Schedule 16, page 164, line 21, leave out “or nicotine products”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20.

187: Schedule 16, page 164, line 23, leave out “or nicotine products; or” and insert—
“(bg) of nicotine products;(bh) by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of nicotine products; or”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20.

Amendments 173 to 187 agreed.

Clause 132: Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products

Amendment 188

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

188: Clause 132, page 75, line 12, at end insert—
“(za) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

Amendment 188 agreed.

Amendments 189 and 190 not moved.

Clause 134: Interpretation of Part 6

Amendment 191

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

191: Clause 134, page 76, line 17, at end insert—
““filter” has the meaning given by section 111;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendment to clause 132.

Amendment 191 agreed.

Clause 135: Addition of smoke-free places in England

Amendment 192 not moved.

Clause 136: Smoke-free premises: recasting of power to exempt performers

Amendment 192A

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

192A: Clause 136, page 78, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations made under this section may not be read as placing any burden on a person to prove to any enforcing authority that smoking is necessary for artistic reasons, and in any proceedings relating to an alleged offence it is for the enforcing authority to establish that the conditions for any exemption do not apply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify that regulations relating to smoking in theatrical performances do not alter the existing allocation of the burden of proof.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 192A I will speak also to Amendment 194A standing in my name. In Committee, I raised a question relating to Clause 136, which I make no apology for raising with the Minister again. Under the Health Act 2006, Ministers have a regulation-making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision in effect creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgment about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.

I contend that Clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence in Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. That offence is clear. It says:

“A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence”.


In other words, under the current law, you do not commit an offence unless and until you are convicted of it, whereas, under the exercise of the power in the Bill, you have committed an offence unless you can prove in court that you have not. Those, it seems to me, are two very different things. While the Government maintain they are merely rephrasing the current law to create the same legal effect, I have not been persuaded by their explanation. The burden of proof has clearly been reversed.

Let us not forget that we are talking about theatres. Many of them are small and many of them are already operating on narrow margins. Some are fringe venues that are not organisations with legal departments on retainer. Yet, as the Bill stands, a theatre director who permits an actor to smoke on stage is thereby immediately in legal and financial jeopardy, because he has rendered himself liable to arrest for an offence from which he can be absolved only by arguing his artistic case before a judge. That cannot be right. It cannot be right to oblige every director of a Noel Coward play to commission legal advice to protect himself in the event of his subsequent arrest. If Clause 136 remains as it is, I hope the Minister will tell me that its provisions will be the subject of guidance to the enforcement authorities, because that at the very least is what is required.

20:15

Amendment 194A would require the Secretary of State before designating any place or vehicle as vape-free to publish the evidence relied on and to be satisfied that exposure to vapour in those settings presents a health risk sufficient to justify the restriction. This is to ensure that, where the state restricts behaviour and curtails liberty, it does so on the basis of clear and demonstrable evidence.

The Government have taken a robust approach to tobacco. The impact of smoking tobacco on public health is clear. Decades of research have established the harms of both primary and second-hand smoke. But vaping is not tobacco and the two should not be conflated.

While vaping is not risk-free, the available evidence on second-hand vapour suggests that the risks to bystanders are, at most, negligible when compared with second-hand smoke. That distinction matters. It is the difference between proportionate regulation and prohibition for prohibition’s sake. If the Government believe that exposure to vapour in particular places genuinely presents a material risk to health, they should have no hesitation in publishing the evidence that supports that conclusion.

The request that I would make is for the Minister to confirm that any designations of premises that are made under the powers in this clause will be based strictly on published evidence of risk to health and not, for example, on the precautionary principle or a desire for regulatory symmetry with tobacco. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing those amendments so well and explaining some of the concerns. I am particularly pleased that he brought back the point about artistic freedom because it was very well made.

I will talk more broadly about the amendments in this group, which sum up the dangers of mission creep inherent in the Bill and highlight the pitfalls in allowing the Secretary of State to have such leeway, away from democratic scrutiny, to move the goalposts. Granting Ministers the power to extend smoke-free areas, including outdoors, to include vaping and heated-tobacco use, should not just be nodded through. It would mean the use of secondary legislation to allow the banning of, for example, smoking or vaping outside in the beer garden of a pub and the ring-fencing of whole swathes of outdoor uncovered spaces, such as outside health and social care facilities or education settings.

It is worth remembering that this would mean that for front-line workers, from teachers to care workers, never mind patients or residents, it could be illegal to go and have a vape outside their workplace. Is that reasonable? Is that proportionate? It is one thing for the workplace to designate that they should not, but for the law to intervene is more dangerous. This again, in effect, conflates smoking with vaping, undermining the perception that vaping is relatively safer, as I have endlessly, boringly, repeated.

I want to say something about smokers because, in this relentless bid to banish smoking, there is a danger that we end up demonising smokers—millions of our citizens who can be punished for indulging in a risky but legal habit—and saying that we do not want to see them anywhere in the public sphere. I do not know that this is the kind of society that the Government have in mind. Even Cancer Research UK warns that

“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.

There again are those unintended consequences.

Part of the justification for many of these outdoor bans is the notion of modelling and normalisation theories that are so popular in academia, which say that we need to protect children so that they never see adults smoking or vaping and therefore do not copy them and it is never normalised. I want us to think about what that would mean if that was why we could never have adults vaping outside where children might see them. If we are saying that children might copy adults who vape or smoke, is that not a green light for the state to start seizing children from their parents and leading public health home invasions to rescue children from their vaping parents? I am frightened to say that because it might give the Minister some ideas.

The amendments in this group that I have put my name to are again largely those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, because he tabled some brilliant amendments. They seem to me to be entirely proportionate and sensible, seeking to keep the Bill on track and focused on its stated aims instead of being a vehicle for outlandish overreach that is not evidence-based. The arguments in favour of restricting vaping and smoking outside venues seem to hinge on a prohibitionist personal distaste for the habit rather than evidence-based policy.

That is why the issue around passive vaping and the lack of evidence in relation to it is worth highlighting. Cancer Research UK supports the Bill but keeps putting out warnings in its briefings that you must be careful not to go too far. It says:

“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping, however the current evidence does not suggest that breathing in second hand vapour is harmful. Given that evidence indicates that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it’s likely that second-hand vapour would be less harmful than second-hand smoke”.


Meanwhile, Dr Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at UCL’s tobacco and alcohol research group, explains:

“Second-hand exposure also differs: smoke comes both from the burning tip of the cigarette and exhaled smoke, whereas e-cigarettes release aerosol only when exhaled, resulting in far lower bystander exposure. Research led by UCL found that people exposed to second-hand vapour absorb around 84% less nicotine than those exposed to second-hand smoke. While not zero, exposure from vaping is far lower than from smoking, and levels of other toxicants are likely to be lower still”.


They are basically saying, “Hold on, keep a sense of proportion”, and that is all that we are talking about here.

I hope that the Government will seek out such voices in their consultation on smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free places in England, which was announced on the first day of Recess on Friday 13 February. Of course, these free places will be anything but free, as they will deny individuals personal freedoms and impinge on the freedoms of a great many private and public venues.

I urge the Minister and her department to widely and loudly advertise that consultation so that a diverse group of respondents can be encouraged to feed in beyond the usual suspects, NGOs and lobbyists. I especially hope she will encourage the hospitality industry and individual venues to respond because, as we have already heard, the hospitality industry is under the cosh.

The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that 62% of its members fear that these kinds of bans will negatively impact their trade and 20% believe it would lead to the closure of their pubs. Sometimes when we discuss issues in the Bill, we view all aspects of society only through the prism of public health. It can be a rather joyless, arid and sanitised version of “The Good Life”, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the world of pubs, pub gardens, nightclubs, or eating or music venues, overregulation will kill them off; it will kill off the atmosphere, never mind kill them off financially.

The truth is that if one looks at the research, 49% of regular pub-goers are smokers—shock horror—even though smokers account for less than 15% of the UK population. More and more, of course, are vapers. That is not a crime nor a problem. Funnily enough, a lot of people who go to pubs also like to have a drink. Yet, bizarrely, they are in trouble for that too. Many in hospitality worry that the Bill will be used as a blueprint for alcohol, as well as anything else. Indeed, the Department of Health is considering preventing under-18s from purchasing no-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks in pubs, because they say it would encourage alcohol uptake in the future. Then there is a discussion about adding health warnings and imagery and plain packaging to alcohol bottles.

It is no wonder that all those different hospitality organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted are saying that they are worried about the impact of the Bill and its provisions on trade, customers’ behaviour and operating costs. To be honest, it is no wonder that many publicans have banned Labour MPs from their locals, if one considers everything that has been added on.

Presently, hospitality venues put up their own restrictions. In other words, they ban people they do not want; they have rules. That is because they deal with their clientele with absolute common sense. But there is a fear that such proportionate self-regulation by the sensible people who run the hospitality industry in this country will be trampled on by the Bill.

Finally, sadly, trusting small SMEs in hospitality to act responsibly is not a feature of Amendment 199 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley. It seems apt to note, in my final speech on this Bill, how shocked I am—shocked, I tell you—that the Liberal Democrat Benches are neither liberal nor democratic on this issue. Through Amendment 199, they want to inveigle local councils into compliance by using this law to issue future pavement licences only as smoke-free. So much for localism, encouraging a thriving high street or cafe society, or supporting local autonomy. It is a step too far; I think a few things are, but that really is the limit. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government are not as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats. I will not necessarily hold my breath.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, it is really hard to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she gives a speech like that. Amendments 193, 194, 197 and 198 hope to address the powers to designate vape-free and heated tobacco-free places. The argument, really, is that it is all a bit over the top. There is limited evidence of harm from passive vaping compared with that of inhaling second-hand smoke. It is my fear that, as currently drafted, the Bill could inadvertently force ex-smokers to have relapses if they are using alternatives alongside smokers. That is what is going to happen. They are all going to be pushed into the same area, and that, I suggest, is the worst of all outcomes.

I further push the point that age-gated venues should be able to retain the discretion that they already have. Our hospitality and pub sectors need these safeguards.

Of course I agree with everybody that we must protect children but, in doing so, we must not inadvertently drive adults back to cigarettes and destroy our pubs in the process. That, I am afraid, is exactly what we run the risk of doing.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be super-brief, because I spoke broadly on my Amendment 196 in the previous group when I made the case—it is not hyperbole—that the hospitality sector faces an existential issue. I agree with all my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s words on this.

My Amendment 196 is extremely straightforward: it insists on a consultation if any regulations are made under Clauses 135 to 138 in relation to designating a place smoke-free or vape-free. Please consider the interests of the hospitality sector, which, as I highlighted in the previous group, is responsible for so much activity and employment in our economy.

I just finish by saying that I am shocked beyond compare that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she and I have been in this House for the same time—has only just noticed that the Liberals are illiberal.

20:30

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, despite the comments of the previous two speakers, I will speak to Amendment 199, the purpose of which is simple: to make every future and renewed pavement licence issued by local authorities smoke-free.

Your Lordships will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted. They gave cafés, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors: no smoking. The LGA supported this, saying that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke”.

It welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of allowing people to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road but not on the other if a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies. Since then, pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. However, after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke-free was removed without proper consultation of health authorities.

In 2021, this House supported an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke-free. Amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health-protecting measure is applied consistently.

There is currently a requirement for some seating to be smoke-free, but the distinction means very little when you talk about a very small bit of pavement. More than 10 councils have made smoke-free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham—not outstandingly liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. Councils also aim to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, which would make outdoor seating areas cleaner, more welcoming environments.

Second-hand smoke is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions, and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke-free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ASH shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafés and restaurants; indeed, 40% said that they would be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. That is more than double the number of people who say that they would go less often, debunking the idea that smoke-free means customer-free. Making outdoor areas smoke-free is not only sensible but what the public want.

I regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke-free places. It is a shame that the Government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all and that they fell into this false narrative that smoke-free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality.

Less than 12% of the population smoke, so the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors. Indoor smoke-free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of nearly 5,000 pub customers reported that more than one in five visited the pub more often than before smoke-free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will, in future, consider looking at the pilots for smoke-free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon, where these spaces will naturally become smoke-free.

This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the Government would consult on any use of smoke-free powers as they are doing currently.

Moving on, I welcome Amendment 194A from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited. However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also to ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke passes that test. While the evidence of exposure to second-hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reducing any possible risks around children must be prioritised, following careful consultation.

In that respect, I do not support Amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would remove these powers altogether. However, there is a challenge in all of this. Given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said—and she is quite right —how do we ensure that in creating vape-free places we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talked to a young man the other day who asked me, “What are you doing in the House of Lords?” I explained about this Bill, and he said, “Oh, all my friends vape”. He said, “I think it is just as harmful as smoking, isn’t it?” QED. Of course it is not.

I welcome the commitment in the published consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that score. Will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vaping is less harmful than smoking? How will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect to encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting aids?

It is disappointing to see only council-run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds. Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people’s smoke, so are the Government planning to commit to look at these too?

Amendment 192A from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very interesting, but we do not think actors should have to smoke at work. I think it was pointed out in Committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes; in particular, I believe that the National Theatre has such a device. If it is good enough for that theatre, it is good enough for me. Moreover, Wales does not have this exemption in place, and it has not harmed Welsh theatres.

We do not think that Amendment 193 is appropriate either: most venues are vape- free anyway, and the law is just really catching up.

On Amendments 197 and 198, I do not think that heated tobacco should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it is not recommended by NICE for cessation. However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices, because I have had a letter expressing some concern that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the Bill applies to any advert,

“whose purpose or effect is to promote … a tobacco product”.

So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices—not just sticks—will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco product?

I see that in Clause 132 the Government explicitly take the power to extend provisions in Part 6 to tobacco- related devices. I understand that this is to future-proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space, as we know the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. I ask the Minister: why are heated tobacco devices explicitly included in Clause 132? Is it because of the difficulties they have had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they are advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising the tobacco sticks themselves? A little clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could provide it, please.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this last group of amendments. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House that, on 13 February, the Government published their consultation on free-from places. We are consulting on making outdoor public places, including children’s playgrounds, hospitals and schools, smoke-free and heated tobacco-free. Additionally, we are consulting on making outside playgrounds and schools vape-free.

With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smoke-free, we are consulting on also making these heated tobacco-free and vape-free. I want to emphasise—and I hear different opinions on this within your Lordships’ House—that the consultation does not consider extending these proposals to outdoor hospitality. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised under Amendments 194 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as well as Amendment 196 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

With regard to Amendment 193 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the vast majority of people—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is present in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to second-hand harms. This would be of particular concern to those who are medically vulnerable, whose conditions may not always be visible.

Additionally, under the proposals put forward in the consultation, those who wish to vape would still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings. I should say that we have been pleased to meet various stakeholders, including UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, and we have welcomed their input.

Furthermore, a number of establishments, as I am sure we are all aware, have already introduced their own policies restricting vaping indoors. These proposals provide consistency and clarity for the public and businesses, and that is crucial if we are thinking about legislation.

I turn to the evidence. Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, question the need for the vape-free places and heated tobacco-free places clauses. I also refer to Amendment 194A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

We have already published a draft impact assessment alongside the consultation on free-from places. To the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, this sets out the evidence base for the proposed policies. I encourage noble Lords to review the document, which is thorough, if they have not had the chance to do so already. I can say that we will reassess the evidence after the consultation is closed, and we will consider any additional evidence identified before deciding on final policy positions and publishing a final stage impact assessment alongside regulations.

20:45

On vaping, the Chief Medical Officer’s advice has always been clear that although it is less harmful than smoking and vapes can indeed, as we have discussed, be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children should not vape. Since I have set out my comments on heated tobacco at earlier stages, I will simply summarise. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. All tobacco products are harmful, and that includes heated tobacco products. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about devices is not relevant to this group of amendments, but I will be pleased to write to her on that.

On Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we have made it clear that now would not be the right time to consult on extending smoke-free places to outdoor hospitality settings in England, and that principle applies to making pavement licences smoke-free. Under existing legislation, there is already a requirement for pavement licences to have reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. Local authorities can already go further to make it a condition of pavement licences that the whole area is smoke-free if they so wish. We have seen that done in a number of areas, for example, in Greater Manchester.

On Amendment 192A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which was spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Bill recasts an existing regulation- making power in the Health Act 2006, as the noble Earl said. Currently, the exemption for performers to smoke in a smoke-free place relates to the premises—for example, a theatre or a film set. In recasting this power, the Government wish to make it clear that the new defence relates to a person only rather than the premises. If this defence is relied on in court—I emphasise this because I hope it will be helpful—the defendant would need to produce only minimal evidence about whether smoking was justified for the artistic integrity of the performance. The burden is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence. Therefore, this would not amount to an additional burden on performers. It might be helpful if I say to the noble Earl that it is anticipated that this will make no practical difference for production companies or performers. We would be very happy to work with organisations, such as trade bodies or membership organisations, to clarify this position.

Finally, I shall speak briefly to government Amendment 200. This is a minor and technical amendment to address a drafting inconsistency in Clause 144 relating to the persons responsible for signs in heated tobacco-free premises in Scotland. It aligns the wording with that used in the equivalent provisions for smoke-free and vape-free places in Scotland. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this government amendment and that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I welcome what the Minister had to say on my Amendment 192A. It seems that the key must be for clear guidance to be issued to enforcement authorities to ensure that the heavy hand of the law is not laid inappropriately on those in our entertainment industry. From what the Minister said, I am at least reasonably confident that that will not be a consequence.

I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the importance of acting on the basis of evidence. Where powers exist to designate spaces as vape-free, it is right that they are exercised proportionately and on the strength of clear and published evidence of risk. I was glad to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharp and Lord Udny-Lister, especially in relation to hospitality settings.

I also hope that as the Government consider how these powers may apply more widely, there will be full and proper consultation with those sectors potentially affected. Once again, I think in particular of theatres and performance venues where there may be specific artistic or practical considerations. It is important that such institutions are consulted appropriately and that we do not create unnecessary burdens or unintended consequences for them without good reason.

As we conclude this Report stage, I express my appreciation to the Minister and her officials for their willingness throughout the passage of the Bill to engage with us and other noble Lords on its provisions, and for the changes and undertakings that the Minister has been prepared to make in response to concerns put forward at various stages. The Bill is a better Bill as a result. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 192A.

Amendment 192A withdrawn.

Clause 138: Vape-free places in England

Amendments 193 to 195 not moved.

Amendment 196 not moved.

Clause 139: Heated tobacco-free places in England

Amendments 197 and 198 not moved.

Amendment 199 not moved.

Clause 144: Heated tobacco-free premises in Scotland

Amendment 200

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

200: Clause 144, page 91, line 18, leave out “occupies or is concerned in the management” and insert “has management or control”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the person responsible for displaying signs about heated tobacco-free premises in Scotland is the same as the person responsible for displaying no-smoking signs and no vaping signs.

Amendment 200 agreed.

Amendments 201 to 204 not moved.

Amendment 205

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

205: Before Clause 158, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation of this Act during the relevant period, and(b) prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of that review.(2) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) consider any evidence as to the economic or health impacts of the Act, and(b) consult—(i) the Welsh Ministers,(ii) the Scottish Ministers, and(iii) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.(3) In this section “the relevant period” means such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate being a period of not less than 4 years, nor more than 7 years, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Bill and lay a report before Parliament setting out the conclusions of that review.

Amendment 205 agreed.

Amendments 206 and 207 not moved.

Clause 165: Regulations and orders: procedure

Amendments 208 to 215

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

208: Clause 165, page 119, line 2, leave out “or orders”
Member’s explanatory statement
This and my other amendments to clause 165 reflect changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025, which introduces the concept of a Welsh statutory instrument and makes related provision about procedure. There are no significant substantive changes to the procedure for regulations.

209: Clause 165, page 119, line 2, leave out “or the Welsh Ministers”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.

210: Clause 165, page 119, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations or orders made by the Welsh ministers under this Act are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.

211: Clause 165, page 119, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) if made by the Welsh Ministers, are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4));”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.

212: Clause 165, page 119, line 29, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) if made by the Welsh Ministers, are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4));”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.

213: Clause 165, page 119, line 39, after “made” insert “by the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland department”
Member’s explanatory statement
This excludes Welsh statutory instruments and Scottish statutory instruments from the provision about combining instruments that are subject to different procedures since there is general provision for the combination of such instruments under the legislation mentioned in my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 41.

214: Clause 165, page 119, line 40, after “made” insert “by them”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 39.

215: Clause 165, page 119, line 41, at end insert—
“(7) See also—(a) section 33 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (combining Scottish subordinate legislation subject to different procedures);(b) section 37G of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (combining Welsh subordinate legislation subject to different procedures).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 39.

Amendments 208 to 215 agreed.

Clause 167: Commencement: Parts 1 to 4

Amendment 216 not moved.

Amendment 217

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

217: Clause 167, page 120, line 33, leave out from “force” to end of line 34 and insert “on the day on which this Act is passed”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 63 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in Scottish legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.

Amendment 217 agreed.

Clause 168: Commencement: Parts 5 to 8

Amendments 218 and 219

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

218: Clause 168, page 121, line 13, at end insert—
“(za) section 131 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;” Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 131 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in old legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.

219: Clause 168, page 121, line 14, leave out “, 131”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my other amendment to clause 168.

Amendments 218 and 219 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 220 not moved.

House adjourned at 8.52 pm.