Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot support these amendments, I am afraid.

I want to make a couple of comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The scenarios that he outlined would be against common sense and I really hope that, when the regulations come before us, they adhere to common sense and take account of the sorts of scenario that he suggested. I certainly think that, with the Bill as it stands, if the noble Lord had decided to give up smoking after the Bill—rather than before, as I understand he already has done—by being of age, in that I think he probably is over 18, he would be able, once the Bill becomes law, to go into a shop and buy vapes to help him give up smoking. So, I do not share his fears; let us put it that way.

I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the egregious nature of some of the advertising. In my own experience, in the high street of my local village, the whole window of one of the local shops is covered with advertisements for vapes, which are very clearly aimed at children: there is no question about it. Of course, the regulations must be carefully drafted to make sure of the objective we all share: making sure that adults who are of age and who wish to stop smoking can do so with the help of vapes.

I turn to the specific amendments in this group. In Amendments 160 to 166 and 173, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition on publishing and advertising. We do not believe that these products should be marketed to the general public; there are already provisions allowing them to be promoted as a cessation tool, which is what they are supposed to be in the first place, with a reasonable range of flavours correctly advertised.

Amendment 172 would require both a call for evidence and consultation before the introduction of marketing restrictions on vaping and heated tobacco products. These would delay the Bill—there is no question about it—and would, therefore, delay what the Bill is trying to do, which is combat the uptake of these products by young people. In any case, consulting with the manufacturers in this way may very well contravene Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which we debated last week.

Amendment 173A is not necessary, as we have already been assured both that consultation will take place and that the available evidence will be considered.

Finally, Amendment 174 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is not necessary because Clause 132(2) already states:

“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult”.


That should cover the noble Lord’s concern.

I have a question for the Minister about the consultation. This morning, I met a mother whose teenage daughter took up vaping at school and now cannot get off the habit. The mother did everything a good mother should do, because the child was quite upset about it; she was so hooked on nicotine that she could not give it up. She went to the GP. She went to the stop smoking services. She went to the pharmacist. She went to a drop-in. She then tried to buy 0% vapes but could not find them in any shop. Eventually, she persuaded a local shop to stock a small number of 0% nicotine vapes, so that the child could continue the behavioural habit without the nicotine—and without standing out from her peers, all of whom vaped behind the bike sheds, as far as I understand it.

It is important. It harks back to an amendment that we discussed last week about the NICE guidelines for stop vaping services. The Government need to make it clear that 0% vapes are and should be available as part of the cessation tools for people who do not just want to give up smoking tobacco but want to get off nicotine as well. That public health service—I do not call it an industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does—should be available to young people.

In the real world, they are vaping. We do not know how harmful it is to them, but I strongly suspect that it is. It is certainly highly addictive. It takes all their pocket money and who knows what else. Very often, they get their vapes from illicit sources, which brings them in contact with people they should not be in contact with. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the consultation will take that sort of thing into account.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I was right in believing that it was implicit in the noble Baroness’s remarks that she felt that 0% vapes should be an exception to the advertising rule.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Just to clarify, yes.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is helpful. These amendments once again bring us back to the issue of proportionality. The first thing to say, and I hope that no Member of the Committee will disagree with me, is that we have to be very careful when legislating on vapes and nicotine products, lest we inadvertently discourage their use by those who need them for smoking cessation purposes.

That leads to me to make a point similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Sending the message that there are harsh criminal penalties associated with advertising these products or having anything to do with the advertising process plays right into the false narrative, which a lot of people now believe, that vapes and nicotine products—but especially vapes—are as harmful to human health as tobacco smoking. Used irresponsibly, vapes can cause addiction to nicotine and, in that sense, are bad for you. However, when responsibly used as a means of quitting smoking, they are not bad for you. We should tread carefully when purporting to put them on a par with tobacco products and herbal smoking products, as the Bill does in Clauses 113 to 118.

There are 6 million tobacco smokers in this country whom the Government rightly want to help to quit. But those who go through that process know that it is not as easy as simply putting down the cigarette and walking away. Having a safer, accessible and—dare I say—pleasant alternative to turn to is often what makes it bearable for those suffering from cold turkey.

Vaping and nicotine products are those safer alternatives to smoking. They do not possess the same chemicals and tar found in tobacco, and the poisonous chemicals in tobacco smoke are absent. Despite this consensus, 53% of the public believe that vapes are just as bad, while 40% believe that nicotine causes most smoking-related cancer. What do the Government say to those people when they place equal bans on the advertising of tobacco, nicotine and vapes alike? I do not think that they convince them that one of those options is better.

Amendment 173A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and Amendment 174 in my own name, would require the Secretary of State, before imposing a ban on the advertising of vapes and nicotine products or a ban on vape and nicotine companies acting as sponsors, to assess the impact of those bans on likely rates of smoking cessation and the impact on producers, retailers and, indeed, consumers. The free market has played a large part in the threefold reduction in smoking over the past 20 years through the natural growth of tobacco alternatives. The result is that we now have a vaping industry worth over £3 billion, a large part of it with standards and codes of practice, and a rapidly growing nicotine products industry.

I believe that we should welcome that, because it has facilitated the decline in smoking rates and, at the same time, contributed to the economy. I am the first to concede that there are bad-faith actors out there. No one on these Benches would argue against a ban on products or advertising targeted at children, but that is a very different thing from a ban on all advertisements of vaping and nicotine products in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as I was saying, on Amendment 161A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of,

“or has reason to suspect”,

in Clause 114(1)(b), we believe this phrase is commonly used and therefore there is no need to remove it.

On Amendment 161B on possible disparities between penalties in different devolved nations, we look forward to the Minister’s response. Although consistency is usually desirable, there may be unintended consequences, which the Minister knows about, because different situations prevail in different parts of the country.

We support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in his Amendment 167 because it is important that vapes can be promoted as a cessation tool. However, as I understand it, the Bill prohibits the advertising of vapes by businesses only, which means that public health organisations, GPs and hospitals treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases could promote them as a quitting aid. As I understand it, the prohibition does not cover products licensed as medicines, so they can continue to be promoted.

Having said all that, I hope that the Minister can assure us that clear guidance compatible with the Bill’s intentions will be provided by the Advertising Standards Authority so as not to hinder public health settings while preventing commercial advertising, which has had such an egregious effect on the level of awareness of these products among children, who do not need them to quit smoking.

With Amendment 168, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would allow vapes to be promoted in what we might call adults-only places. Leaving aside the fact that, as we know, many younger people slip into these places, promotion there would give the impression that these products are for recreational use, which is not their purpose. Anyone going to a nightclub who is trying to quit smoking but fears they may be tempted to have a cigarette when they have had a few drinks and their resistance is lowered would certainly equip themselves with their vapes before going out.

We do not think Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is necessary as the Bill already allows public health authorities to promote heated tobacco and other things as quitting aids.

Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raises an interesting issue that we think could be explored. There may be a case for some limited arrangements for display or promotion by specialist retailers, but this should be done very carefully to avoid ensnaring young people inappropriately. I think the Bill allows specialist vape shops to operate, and they could display material provided by public health authorities.

Amendment 170 is not necessary as there is no prohibition in the Bill of specialist retailers putting information on their website.

Regarding Amendment 170A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I think about my local corner shop, which has illuminated signs inside and a shop window plastered with enticing advertisements for sweet-flavoured vapes. I hope the Minister will resist this very broad exemption.

Finally, we think that Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on brand sharing is far too broad and would, in the end, apply to all brand sharing. I know from my work on food advertising how widely brand logos, colours and images can be recognised by the public. Who does not know that burgers and chips are being sold when they see the golden arches of McDonald’s, or that chocolate bars are being advertised when they see the colour purple and the words Dairy Milk? You need to be very careful when regulating brands, so I hope the Minister will resist that one, too.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments we have seen a logical continuation of our debate on the previous group, since in their various ways these amendments pose the question of what are the appropriate constraints to place around products that are of considerably less concern in a health context than tobacco products. We are back in the realm of deciding what is proportionate and how to secure better clarity and consistency in the operation of the Bill’s advertising and design provisions.

Although he has not been here to speak to it, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s Amendment 161A struck me as a point worth raising. It would protect designers and creative professionals from being criminally liable based on mere suspicion or indirect association because it would work to raise the threshold of proof of intent. One could imagine that in some cases it could be difficult to prove that someone designing an advertisement had reason to suspect that it would be published. In any event, is it right that someone who has been asked by their employer to design a vape advertisement should be criminalised because they know or believe it may be used in some context? I am afraid that the word “draconian” comes to mind.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 161B a very similar thought came to mind. Are the Government really saying that the offence of designing an advertisement for a vape merits a prison sentence? There are mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment. How should the sentencing provisions in this part of the Bill be read alongside the provisions of the Government’s Sentencing Bill? What is the overall message? The Sentencing Bill will require almost all sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. On the one hand, the Government are creating imprisonable offences, and on the other, they are saying that people should not actually go to prison, even if they are sentenced to it. At the very least, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why the sentence on summary conviction is to be different in Scotland than in Northern Ireland, which might have been a point my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would have made.

Turning to my Amendment 167 and the very well worded amendment, if I may say so, from the Liberal Democrats, the underlying purpose of each is the same, which is to urge the Government to regulate, rather than ban, vape advertisements so that in narrow clinical contexts, such as smoking cessation clinics, they can be deployed for public health purposes. Amendment 168A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising has a very similar purpose.

In Amendment 169 I am asking the Government to consider a further exemption for advertisements located discretely in specialist vaping shops. Why not allow that? As my noble friend Lord Moylan has asked in his Amendment 170, why prohibit such specialist shops providing information online subject to suitable age-gating checks? That in turn raises a further question from my noble friend in his Amendment 168. In adult-only environments, why should displaying an advertisement for a vaping product be against the law given that, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, vapes are and will remain legally available for purchase by anyone aged 18 or over? Why are the Government treating vape advertising in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising? What is the justification? Amendment 170A from my noble friend Lord Howard asks that question in a different form. Why should we not allow factual product information to be provided at point of sale in an age-restricted area in suitably licensed premises?

Finally, Amendment 172A from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would prevent overreach. It would ensure that brand restrictions target only genuine attempts to promote nicotine or tobacco, not completely unrelated products such as clothing or other merchandise. I think my noble friend has identified an issue that requires clarification from the Government, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendments 195 and 196. As he said, they intend to support the core principles of the Bill and ensure effective delivery. It is one thing to legislate; it is quite another to deliver and even to implement. I am currently involved in following measures that were put into legislation through the Health and Care Act 2022, which have still not been implemented. We must make sure that things like that are properly implemented.

Whatever the Government’s intentions are now, when the facts change a sensible person changes appropriately, albeit along the same core principles. A number of potential barriers along the way have been suggested by noble Lords as we have debated the Bill, including today, such as an expansion of the illicit market; the possible clever responses of the tobacco industry to get round the intention of the Bill to protect young people and achieve a smoke-free generation; and technical issues such as age-gating, age verification and so on.

Although the Bill gives the Government wide powers to act, my noble friend’s points about having two reviews, to which his amendments would mandate the Government to adhere, would give naysayers confidence that any unintended consequences would be dealt with either by the Government using the powers in the Bill or by introducing further legislation if necessary after the reviews.

I particularly support my noble friend’s inclusion of nicotine use in his request for reviews. Although the use of vapes as a quitting tool has already been shown to be effective, we all know that they have been taken up by large numbers of young people who have never smoked tobacco. However, the industry is still very young and there is still little evidence about the effect of both the flavour additives and the long-term use of nicotine on the young brain and lungs. Over the coming years, that evidence will emerge one way or another. We already know how addictive nicotine is and that it can make people feel stressed, restless, irritable and unable to concentrate. That is problematic for children in school, which is the very reason why sales of nicotine vapes are banned for under-18s, although illicit sales to younger people are really problematic for teachers.

We also know that nicotine leads to short-term increases in heart rate and systolic blood pressure; as I understand it, that is why tobacco pouches are endemic among professional footballers before a match. Unfortunately, this habit is being copied by many of their young fans. Some use several of them, resulting in dizziness, nausea and, in a few extreme cases, fainting. We do not know about the long-term effects of the use of nicotine by very young people, as the research focuses on users of legal age; this is the sort of thing that may emerge over the next few years. As to the future, we will see how well vapes and other nicotine replacement therapies work as quitting tools. We need to be sure that the legislation will respond to this and other evidence.

These two age points are significant since they have been suggested as an alternative by some opponents of the generational escalator in the Bill. Why not, they suggest, simply raise the legal age of sale to 21 or 25? A promise of reviews at these age points will help encourage those people to support the Bill as it stands, so I hope that the Minister will accept these two amendments; I prefer them to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, except that I certainly support his reference to small businesses. I am sure that noble Lords will know about these matters from previous debates, but perhaps we could put our heads together before Report.

On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, regarding the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System and the standstill period that now impacts on the Bill, it is important to note that several EU countries, such as Greece, Romania and Italy, object pretty routinely to all tobacco control legislation in the EU. There is no new information today that is cause for concern regarding this Bill.

On the legal opinion to which the noble Baroness referred, it appears to have been shared with only the Daily Mail—it certainly has not been published—so I am unable to take a view on it; besides, doing so is probably beyond my skill set and pay grade anyway. I just hope that the Minister has good legal advice.

There is a point to be made here, however, about how the UK seems to have found itself in the worst of both worlds, with EU states being able to object to legislation that we wish to bring in to protect the health of our nation but with us having none of the benefits of being a member. That is a point for another debate, though. I hope that the Minister can confirm that any such objections will not be binding on the UK; and that this sovereign Parliament will be able to push ahead with this important legislation.

I turn to Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. He appears to be expecting a different Administration in the next Parliament; I will leave it to the Minister to reply to the noble Lord’s comments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which centre on three linked themes: the need for careful, joined-up policy-making; the need for proper review; and the need for clear accountability on how this Bill will work in practice once it becomes law.

In her Amendment 114B, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, directs the Committee’s attention once again to the issue of the Bill’s compatibility with the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I am glad that she has done so because I agree with my noble friend Lord Johnson; with no disrespect to the Minister, I felt that her reassurance on that question in our earlier debate was more of an assertion than a reasoned explanation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are quite right that there is still considerable uncertainty and anxiety around the Windsor Framework issue. The noble Baroness quoted the opinion of the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC; I will not repeat it, although I have those words in front of me. Like the noble Baroness, I am very concerned by his unequivocal statements on this question. Surely it is imperative that the Government can clarify exactly how the Bill will work in practice. It is not good enough to say merely that it will work; we need to know how it will work and how the concerns raised by legal experts such as Mr Larkin will be addressed.

An authoritative, independent legal opinion would give us much greater confidence on this point. Indeed, the question of legal compatibility has a direct bearing on the other amendments in this group, which pertain to Northern Ireland; we will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in response to those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 146. It seems to me both sensible and essential to set the groundwork, as he put it, for further work on defining vape flavours—keeping in mind at all times the Government’s intention, which we support: to allow vapes as an effective, proven tool in quitting smoking tobacco while at the same time addressing the egregious activities of the tobacco industry vis-à-vis young people. It has used colours, flavours, images, packaging and marketing to encourage young people who have never smoked to take up vaping. We know that, once hooked on the nicotine in these products, it will be very difficult for these young people to wean themselves off them when they want to. We also know that evidence of real and lasting harm will continue to emerge over the next few years, and that is why the work to define flavours is so important and why I support this probing amendment.

I am one of those nerdy people who, when they go shopping at the supermarket, takes a little magnifying glass with them. I strongly suspect that the “banana ice” vape of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the “mango ice” vape of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have never been within five miles of a banana or a mango, and that anything called “raspberry fizz” will never have been within five miles of a raspberry. These things are put together. They do not contain any raspberry, mango or banana; instead, they contain a whole mix of chemicals. It might be more honest to label them with, “This vape tastes a bit like banana, but it contains the following 15 chemicals”, but you cannot do that, can you? Hence the Government’s problem.

As with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 142 would open the way for the Government to include big-puff vapes and other technical measures in regulation—perhaps things such as age-gating at some future point—but it would not mandate them to do so. So, I would certainly not oppose it, although the Minister might tell us that the Government can do all this without the amendment.

Amendment 144 could inadvertently restrict the Government’s opportunity to limit the number of flavours. I would not want to do that, so I do not support this amendment, but I would like to see the Government allow a reasonable range of flavours to help people who use vapes or who are quitting smoking, for the very reason indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: smokers like the fruity flavours, which certainly help them. That would be a very good thing. I really do think that allowing only a tobacco flavour would be a bad idea, because tobacco is the very thing that smokers want to get away from.

I very much look forward to the Government’s response, particularly to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I need to start with some apologies to my noble friends Lord Mott and Lord Udny-Lister because I have to express a measure of caution on Amendment 142, which would increase the power of Ministers to make regulations on the sorts of products that can be banned by extending the scope of Clause 90 to include design and interoperability.

Although I recognise the intent behind the proposal, the problem here is nailing down exactly where the truth lies. One hears from a number of people that so-called high puff count vapes are inherently harmful and are, therefore, to be regulated or prohibited. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister certainly indicated that that was his view, but it is nevertheless striking that the briefing I received from ASH regards this amendment as unnecessary. If the Committee will forgive me, I will just read out a section of it:

“Concerns regarding larger big puff products may be unfounded. There is no current evidence to suggest that these might increase harms or pose additional risks from products containing less liquid. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in terms of satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing environmental impact and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking”.


I find that a little baffling, and it would be very helpful if we could hear from the Minister the official view of these high puff count devices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 147 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think his intention is quite correct for the following reason. Many of those who wish to stop smoking want to be released from the addiction to nicotine altogether, as they did in the old-fashioned way, as he has just said. They do not just want a less harmful nicotine hit. It is an expensive and harmful addiction, particularly for the developing young brain, yet we are told that many young people are becoming addicted to nicotine through vapes and tobacco pouches, and there is no help for them to quit in many places. As the noble Lord said, NICE guidelines list four services that should be available, including behavioural interventions and in-person group sessions, to help people quit, as well as nicotine-containing replacements for tobacco, which are available in most local stop smoking services. I have received a briefing from Allen Carr’s Easyway, although I have never come across the company before.

There is some evidence that some people who manage to stop smoking tobacco by using a nicotine replacement go back to smoking tobacco in the end. Quitting nicotine altogether has been shown to be more sustainable; people go back to smoking less often when they have managed to kick the nicotine habit as well. I assume that that is why NICE has recommended that services to get off nicotine addiction must be offered as well as vapes and patches. I note that, in its guidelines, NICE does not say “should” or “could”; it says “must”.

The ultimate role of NICE is to ensure that people across the UK have access to the most effective and cost-effective treatments and services; that is why it says that all four methods of quitting should be available. It may be much easier, quicker and even cheaper just to hand out patches and vapes—it is certainly much more difficult to arrange behavioural therapies and group therapies—but, for some people who want to quit smoking, it is more effective for them to have behavioural therapy, group therapy and the help of Allen Carr’s Easyway. That company must be good, authentic and of a high quality if it is recommended by NICE.

I certainly support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot put it better than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has just done in relation to the recommendations about Allen Carr’s Easyway, which has been warmly endorsed by NICE in its guidelines. This is one of the four interventions that NICE recommends. The content of those guidelines should now be underlined for NHS smoking cessation clinics, to ensure that, exactly as the noble Baroness said, there is an option for those who do not want to remain addicted to nicotine when they elect to stop smoking.

I hope that the Minister will take this amendment away with her; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising this issue. I say to him that there is probably another dimension to his amendment, if one takes literally the wording around what constitutes an appropriate level of nicotine in vapes. We have heard from the Minister that there is a power to regulate this in the Bill. However, again, we have a tension here: on the one hand, there are obvious arguments in favour of limiting the strength of nicotine in vapes that are used recreationally; on the other hand, we want vape dosages of nicotine to be strong enough to satisfy the addictive craving of someone who is hooked on smoking tobacco and who does not wish to go down the Allen Carr route. If you make the dosage too weak, the patient will simply revert to their former harmful habits.

My noble friend’s amendment is also useful in the sense that it would enable us to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to reconcile those dual objectives and the potential difficulties that face policymakers in attempting to regulate nicotine strengths. This short debate has brought us to an interesting point in the smoking cessation arguments. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 81 and 83, but as this is Committee I also note the virtues of Amendment 89 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will soon find out which one the Minister prefers, if either of them.

My amendments would ensure that the money from the fixed penalty notices goes to the local authority to pay for public health initiatives determined by the authority. As the Committee knows, local authorities are very hard up. Indeed, some are going into administration. I know from my work on food and health that the public health grant is stretched to breaking point for obesity services, let alone all the other services that we are talking about, such as smoking quitting services. All that makes the burden assessment, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very important, so I too would be interested to hear where it is.

Although I hope that the level of compliance with the new laws will be high, so that there is no need for too many fixed penalty notices, I believe there is virtue in the idea that such fines should support smoking cessation services. I am afraid that at the moment there is limited access to these services. As I have said before, young people who wish to stop vaping also complain of a lack of services to help them to do so. One would hope that what I should perhaps call the traffic warden syndrome, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would not happen—but, of course, if people are breaking the law, they will need to pay the penalty. One would not want small businesses to be overburdened by constant vigilance on that score.

However, if the Minister were minded to accept one of my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendments in another group, on a levy on the profits of tobacco companies to support the NHS and smoking cessation services, that might be even better because it would raise a lot more money, which could be spent on cessation and prevention. That is the subject of a different discussion.

Why is the additional government funding for trading standards not enough? Is it enough or not? Perhaps the proceeds of fixed penalties should go to enforcement, rather than helping people to quit smoking and vaping. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure and enforcement.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, taken together, this group of amendments focuses on the question of how the new fixed penalty notice regime will operate in practice, how enforcement will be resourced and how local authorities will be supported in carrying out their duties under the Bill. Those are all important themes.

Amendment 74 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister proposes a stepped approach to fixed penalty notices reflecting the number of times a person has been issued with a notice. That makes a lot of sense to me. The first time somebody commits an offence should surely be treated differently from the fourth or fifth time. I hope that enforcement officials will want to do this anyway, but such an approach would help strike a balance between giving people the benefit of the doubt—particularly as this will be, at the beginning, a complex new framework of rules—and ensuring that repeated non-compliance is dealt with properly.

That spirit of proportion and fairness also underpins Amendment 77, which would give local enforcement authorities the discretion to issue a formal warning notice to first-time offenders in lieu of a fixed penalty. I hope that the Minister will recognise the constructive intent behind both proposals.

I turn to the series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seek to ensure that the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from offences under Clauses 17 and 20 are used to support trading standards teams directly, rather than being absorbed into the Consolidated Fund. Like my noble friend, I can see no real reason why the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from those breaches should not be treated in exactly the same way as the proceeds of other fixed penalty notices or fines. Trading standards officers are at the forefront of enforcing the Bill’s provisions.

There is, perhaps, a debate to be had about whether hypothecation along those lines creates an incentive for enforcement officers not to exercise the kind of discretion favoured by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. However—I admit that this is entirely guesswork on my part; I hope the Minister can illuminate us further— I do not think we should expect the yield from fixed penalty notices to be all that great in the scheme of things. This means that the incentive for overzealousness is likely to be more theoretical than real, so on balance I can identify with my noble friend’s argument that the resources generated by enforcement officers through their activity should be reinvested to strengthen their own capacity.

Amendments 81 and 83 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would instead direct the revenue from fixed penalty notices towards local public health projects. This idea has considerable merit. There are some practical considerations because such a funding stream would, by definition, be inherently unreliable—and, in the context of a local authority budget, it would probably be very small beer—but, in any case, as the noble Baroness said, we hope that the number of penalty notices issued under this part of the Bill will start at a low level then decline even further as we go along.

Nevertheless, the noble Baroness asked an important question about how enforcement and public health objectives can be more closely aligned. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government see the relationship between enforcement activity and public health outcomes—specifically, how enforcement might be used not only to punish but to deter and to prevent the behaviours that lead to such offences in the first place. If the Minister can convincingly join the dots, as it were, I will have a better basis for assessing the merits of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 204 tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This is a welcome and sensible amendment. It highlights the central role of local authorities in delivering and enforcing the provisions of the Bill. It is no secret that local authorities are already under significant financial strain, as has been said, and yet this Bill leans heavily on them for its success. I think it is fair that they are given certainty that the additional duties and regulations imposed on them will not leave them further out of pocket. With that, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a great debate. Those noble Lords who know me know that, like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I would not want to do anything to weaken it. Noble Lords who know me also know that I am a great supporter of evidence-based policy. I therefore looked very carefully and thoughtfully at this group of amendments, and asked myself a number of questions.

First, would this group of amendments interfere with the principal core objective of the Bill, which is to deter young people from smoking highly addictive tobacco products and achieve a smoke-free generation? This is a desirable objective both for the physical, mental and financial health of the individual and for the cost to the NHS and overall economy, which affects all of us as taxpayers. I concluded that, in one case, these amendments would affect the core objective of the Bill, and that is the case of snuff. I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has included snuff along with handmade tobacco. My noble friend Lord Russell has already outlined the evidence that snuff is a problem for young people, and it can be very dangerous.

I also concluded that, on the basis of the evidence currently available to me, these amendments are unlikely to affect that objective, because of the very high cost of cigars compared with other tobacco products. But we need to be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just outlined, about the unintended consequences of any exemption because the tobacco industry is very clever and driven by high profits. There is some evidence that, albeit not harmless, cigars have less effect on health than other tobacco products, as they are not inhaled, have no additives and therefore are probably less addictive and certainly smoked less frequently than cigarettes.

I am a fan of evidence-based policy, but I am also a fan of fairness, so I asked myself: is the legislation fair in this respect? I thought initially about small retailers that sell cigarettes, vapes and many other products. Under the terms of the Bill, they will have to adjust their business plans gradually, over many years, to account for the loss of one potential year’s cohort of young smokers to whom they will no longer be legally able to sell cigarettes. That adjustment and time period are not unreasonable and that is what the Bill does.

However, there is one group of small retailers that claim they would lose their business entirely with no gradual adjustment if the Bill is not amended. They are the sellers of exclusive handmade cigars. I have never smoked a cigar in my life, but I am concerned about all small retailers and about fairness. This is because we are told that the nature of the global market, of which the UK is only 2%, is such that they would not be able to comply with packaging regulations.

I then asked myself if it is fair to existing smokers. The Bill is considerate to existing smokers of cigarettes, currently over 18, who are addicted to cigarettes and who will be able to continue smoking them until they die if they really need to. Of course, we need to help more of them to quit, as so many want to do. But is it fair to smokers of cigars? If the sector briefing is correct, they will not be able to buy compliant cigars in this country once the Bill is passed. I asked myself if that is fair to them.

I then asked myself whether exempting cigars from the legislation would create a loophole and encourage young people to switch from cigarettes, vapes and all the other much cheaper forms of nicotine-delivering mechanisms to cigars, which cost over £20 per unit. I think this is very unlikely. There is also the potential of people moving to cigarillos, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, so any exemption would have to be carefully drafted. Actually, Amendment 104 is quite carefully drafted, apart from my criticism about the inclusion of snuff. Something very similar would need to be drafted to avoid the industry using it to lure young people into smoking.

Lastly, I asked myself what the evidence is to include handmade cigars in the scope of the Bill. As I understand it, the evidence is based on a single study that lumped together a large group of non-cigarette tobacco products, all of which are very different from each other. This has been mentioned in the debate. Lumping them together like that, without the desirable granularity of getting evidence about each individual type of product, resulted in evidence of increased usage. We know that there is a rise in use of tobacco pouches and heated tobacco among young people, but what about cigars? Is there any evidence that young people are increasingly smoking them? I have not seen any up to this point, so perhaps the Minister can point us to the evidence that young people start smoking by using cigars and that the incidence of them doing so is rising or that they report an intention of turning to cigars if they cannot legally get hold of cigarettes.

In the light of all that, I think the Government need to show that they have taken evidence from specialist cigar retailers and their customers about all the issues that I have just mentioned. The Minister has frequently told us that her team has talked a lot to small retailers and their industry representatives, and I know she has done so when it comes to small corner shops that sell a variety of different nicotine-delivery mechanisms. So could she give us chapter and verse on when and how frequently her team have spoken to this particular and rather different group of small retailers? If she and her team do so, they may be open to the suggestion that further consultation and evidence on this issue is required, possibly followed by a careful and watertight exemption from parts of the Bill—if the evidence is there.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to a set of principles that my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have emphasised throughout our scrutiny of the Bill: namely, that the policies set out in legislation should reflect its core purpose, but that unintended consequences that do disproportionate damage should be avoided. We can avoid those consequences by adopting policies that take account of the facts not just in one policy dimension but in all other relevant dimensions—in other words, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay put it, policies that are truly evidence based.

My many noble friends, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey, Lady Fox and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, have made the case—in my view, a convincing one—that, when it comes to those tobacco products that occupy what is, by any measure, a niche position in the marketplace, most especially handmade Havana cigars, a much wider set of considerations should be factored into policy-making than those that apply to the vast generality of tobacco products, such as cigarettes, which are both mass produced and mass consumed.

Handmade cigars are a world away from what we typically refer to as the tobacco industry. As someone who was a Health Minister for a full five-year Parliament, I know how difficult a proposition that is for Health Ministers to accept. The Department of Health and Social Care rightly sees it as its function to preach the ills of tobacco in all its forms and to take every possible step to constrain the demand for tobacco products for the good of patients and the public. I completely understand that.

As a Minister, I was proud to take through Parliament the measures proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley that mandated plain packaging for cigarettes, and as an opposition spokesman I supported the policy of the last Labour Government to ban smoking in the workplace. I need no persuading about the damage to health caused by both active and passive smoking. However, I have also been consistent in acknowledging that there are one or two narrow areas of tobacco regulation—

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.

I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.

The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.

On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.

I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.

The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing

“the glue that binds us together as a society”.

This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.

The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the

“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;


fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be

“outdated in the modern world”—

deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.

That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 35 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will also express my strong support for Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All the amendments in this group are guided by an important principle. The success of a new licensing regime will depend not only on the strength of the associated enforcement powers but on the fairness, proportionality and practicality with which those powers are exercised.

Amendment 30 is a sensible and fair proposal. It acknowledges that the vast majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and already operate under stringent regulatory regimes. Many of those businesses hold alcohol premises licences and are personal licence holders, and as such as are meticulous in complying with the rules and standards legally in force to prevent under-age sales and the supply of illicit goods.

Clause 16 will impose new licensing obligations, checks and costs. Taken together, for many small independent businesses they will represent a significant administrative and financial burden. My noble friend’s amendment simply asks that the Government recognise the existing history of compliance by allowing a streamlined process for those that have already demonstrated that they meet high licensing standards elsewhere. This would embed efficiency and fairness into the enforcement system and reward good practice. It would save time and cost for retailers and allow enforcement resources to be focused where they are most needed, on those who persistently flout the rules.

Amendment 35 turns to another crucial point of principle: fairness and proportionality in how licensing powers are applied. As drafted, Schedule 1 would allow licensing authorities to impose proximity or density restrictions, in effect preventing a licence being granted simply because a premises happens to fall within a designated zone or is near other retailers that sell similar products. That is an extremely broad and, frankly, concerning power. It risks punishing businesses not because they are non-compliant through choice or negligence but simply because of where they are located.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I feel it is appropriate that we should have at least a short debate on Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 130, partly because they raise concerns that are very similar to those I had intended to flag when responding to the group of government amendments that were, in the event, not moved. Our debate on that group of amendments must remain a pleasure in store.

However, these clauses together confer on Ministers the power to take over the enforcement and prosecutions of local authorities or other enforcement authorities, either for individual cases or entire categories of cases. The inclusion of these powers in the Bill needs explaining, first, because they appear to go much further than is necessary or appropriate and, secondly, because they raise a number of important questions about the relationship between central and local enforcement and about accountability.

At present, the Bill rightly places day-to-day enforcement in the hands of local weights and measures authorities, which have the expertise, local knowledge and operational independence needed to make these judgments. Under these clauses, however, the Secretary of State or the devolved Ministers could simply direct that those functions are to be discharged instead by Ministers centrally. There is no statutory test to be met before that happens, no requirement for the local authority to have failed or refused to act, and no mechanism for consultation, appeal or review.

By any standard, that is a very wide power to exercise over democratically elected local authorities. In effect, it allows central government to displace local enforcement at will. Inherent in the exercise of this power is a risk that enforcement decisions become politicised. Local authorities act impartially and are guided by the evidential tests and the public interest. One can imagine a situation in which a future Government—I am not saying this one—choose to intervene and adopt an approach of their own when taking over investigations or prosecutions. How will we safeguard the impartiality of decision-making? How will the basis of any decisions be scrutinised or, indeed, challenged?

There is the added issue of proportionality. If these are intended as reserve powers for exceptional circumstances, the Bill should say so. At the moment, there are no thresholds, no published criteria and no requirement even to lay a Statement before Parliament when such powers are used.

We have tabled these stand part notices to probe the Government on several points, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, why does the Secretary of State need these powers at all, given the enforcement architecture already in existence and set out elsewhere in the Bill? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage using them? Is this a genuine power of last resort or something that might be used more routinely? Thirdly, what safeguards will there be for local authorities whose functions are overridden? Will they be consulted, or have the right of challenge? Fourthly, how will accountability work once a Minister takes over enforcement? Will there be a published direction, a report to Parliament or any means of scrutiny? Finally, how do these powers sit with the devolved authorities?

We all want effective enforcement of the law, and there may be rare cases where national co-ordination is required. However, I think we need some further and better particulars from the Minister.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delete Clause 35 and its associated clauses. I do not believe that the backstop, which enables the Secretary of State to take over enforcement from trading standards, is a power grab; it is necessary in case a local authority goes into administration and cannot fund trading standards. Similar measures to protect social services in the case of a local authority going into administration can be found in the Care Act 2014, amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 recognise that there may be situations where it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to act rather than local weights and measures authorities.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of our Benches, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 12. I also support Amendment 148, of course, although my name is not on it yet; I have a bit of a track record on changing “may” to “must”, so I am very much in favour of that amendment.

As my noble friend said, the tobacco industry sits on a rich source of data that would help public health planners and practitioners to plan and deliver public health smoking cessation services in a granular way. That could help to reduce inequalities, so my noble friend’s Amendments 12 and 148 are no-brainers for the Government in the fight against health inequality, which I know they are in favour of winning. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, if you have the data, you have a powerful weapon; the industry uses it and the Government should have it.

The data would also shine a light on the massive profits of the tobacco companies, which saw the writing on the wall about the decline of tobacco smoking and shifted part of their business model to hooking young people and existing smokers into being addicted to their nicotine vaping products instead. They then surrounded them with brightly coloured packaging, attractive-sounding flavours and masses of expensive advertising. One has to wonder why they spend so much money on advertising and the attractive displays in my local village shops. Ah, yes—it must be because that enables them to hook people to their profitable products for life.

These profits are addressed in Amendment 192 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and in my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 194, which I also support. Both amendments propose a levy on the profits of tobacco companies. Tobacco and the nicotine it contains are uniquely harmful products, which is why they should be treated in this way. They are highly addictive for some people from their very first use, by the way; that is sometimes ignored. Tobacco kills more than 76,000 people in England every year—that is almost as many as were killed by Covid in just one year, in 2020—and the four manufacturers that are responsible for most of the UK’s tobacco sales make excessive profits that require regulation. It has been said that they make an estimated profit of £900 million a year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%; as my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, most manufacturers of other goods are quite satisfied with an average of 10%. Yet those companies currently pay very little corporation tax in the UK. The tobacco tax of £6.8 billion that they pay does not even scratch the surface of the harm they do; as has been pointed out, that tax is paid by the consumer and not by the producer.

In other areas of society, polluters are required to avoid and minimise pollution and to pay to clean it up. Tobacco companies make no effort to do either. In other monopoly situations, such as energy supply, the Government intervene, yet tobacco companies get away scot free, despite the fact that their products cost the NHS £1.82 billion annually and the ill health caused by them causes major suffering to individuals and families; they also have a major effect on productivity and the economy, costing society in England £43.7 billion a year.

Given this Government’s objectives on growth, I would have thought that a “polluter pays” tobacco levy would be very popular with them, as it is with the general public, 76% of whom support the policy. It could raise up to £700 million per year to fund vital smoking cessation and wider public health activities, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggests in his amendment. It could prevent industry manipulating prices to undermine the health aims of tobacco taxes. A levy would make tobacco less profitable in the UK and reduce industry incentives to lobby against government actions to achieve a smoke-free country. I know that they are very clever lobbyists. Although I trust that this Government will resist such lobbying, this would ensure that the cost burden of taxes is not shifted to consumers because a levy alongside a cap on manufacturer pricing would prevent manufacturers passing the costs on to consumers.

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, alongside obesity caused by poor diet. Investing in the resources raised by the levy to help smokers quit, as in Amendment 194, will support the Government’s ambitions to halve the difference in healthy life expectancy and shift healthcare from treatment to prevention, an ambition outlined strongly in the Government’s 10-year health plan.

These amendments are very much in line with what the Government want. I hope that they will have the courage to accept them. The key principle is that the revenue to tackle the harms of tobacco should come from the industry, not the poor, addicted and often sick consumer, and the cost of the damage caused by tobacco should certainly not come from the taxpayer.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses common themes: the regulation of the tobacco industry, its profits and its reporting obligations. Collectively, these raise important questions about transparency, fairness, proportionality and the limits of state intervention.

Beginning with Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, these concern the provision and publication of information by tobacco manufacturers and importers. We recognise the intent behind these amendments: to improve the quality and availability of data so that public health policy can be better informed. Data, transparency and evidence-based policy-making are essential to an effective tobacco control strategy. However, would these amendments enable us to achieve that? Requiring every manufacturer and importer to publish detailed quarterly sales data broken down by product type, brand and region would give us more information, but how useful would it be? The Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already have access to significant data from HMRC such as market surveys and other reporting systems. The question usefully begged by this amendment is whether there are any gaps in that data that could usefully be filled.

This brings me to Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seeks to change Clause 95 so that the Secretary of State “must” rather than “may” make regulations requiring producers and importers to provide information about their products. I would like an answer to my earlier question before I jump one way or the other on that amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which she has tabled it. Having more data would certainly be useful, but we need to know exactly what data before we compel companies across the board to do one thing or another. It is generally better to provide Ministers with flexibility, allowing them to act where there is a clear and proportionate need, without imposing automatic or universal obligations on every business regardless of its size or nature.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we were talking about the issue of one person almost the same age as another person having less freedom of choice. The point is that once you are addicted to nicotine, your freedom of choice is extremely limited, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Northover. She gave the example of her nephew, who found it extremely difficult to give up. My late mother-in-law was in the same position. She tried to give up smoking until she died—and she died of smoking, sadly.

It is very important that we have a robust system of enforcement. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us about it, and what future measures the Government might take to reduce the number of illicit cigarettes—although I am told that it has declined by about 90% since 2000. One or two noble Lords mentioned the case in Australia. The fact is that it was a lack of robust enforcement that caused the problem in Australia. Despite that, the amount of people smoking has indeed gone down—but I agree with noble Lords who say that we need strong enforcement. When it comes to a smoker who, let us say, is my age, or who will be my age in many years’ time, who needs to provide some kind of ID, as long as it is not absolutely mandated, I am sure that some form of ID will be devised by clever people for those aged 82, and it will not be very difficult for them; they will just be able to do it, and that will sort that problem out altogether.

As noble Lords might have gathered, I support the Government’s generational approach to reaching the point of a smoke-free Britain. It is a public health crisis, as is obesity, on which the Government also need to take action. Lots of amendments are coming up about various aspects that have been mentioned today, such as age-gating, which we will discuss in greater detail. This has been a very extensive and passionate debate. I must say that I find myself a little surprised that so many of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party are so against what the Government are trying to do achieve his ambition. However, I shall leave it at that.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for bringing forward the amendments in his name, because he has allowed us to begin this Committee by engaging with one of the central and, dare I say, most controversial pillars of this Bill: the generational smoking ban. It is fitting that we start with this big policy issue, because the clause goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do in creating what they describe as a smoke-free generation.

Before I turn to the points made in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we are discussing the Bill—and a number of noble Lords have underlined that context. Smoking remains the single biggest entirely preventable cause of illness, disability and death in our country. It kills some 80,000 people each year. It costs our NHS and social care systems more than £3 billion annually. Someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute. It shortens lives, it devastates families, and it deepens inequality. Yet, as we debate this issue, we can recognise that, happily, the direction of travel is positive. Smoking rates have been falling: in 1990, nearly one in three adults smoked, but, today, that figure stands at just above one in 10. The number of children who smoke is falling as well.

Those are not arguments for complacency or for not legislating, but nor are they arguments for legislating carelessly. My noble friend Lord Murray asked some pertinent questions for the Minister to answer, in particular on the Windsor Framework and the dangers of a burgeoning illicit market, but, more generally, he was surely right to challenge the Government to explain exactly how the generational ban will operate. I say that he is right, because the proposal will represent a profound shift in how the law treats adults. It will, for the first time, make a permanent legal distinction between two adults, based solely on their dates of birth. One person aged 35, say, will be permitted to buy a legal product, while another person aged 34 will put a tobacconist in criminal jeopardy for selling him precisely the same product.

I emphasise that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, serious practical questions arise from that distinction, quite apart from the questions around discrimination throughout this Bill, to which we need—I say this to the Minister—to face up. Some of those questions have already been foreshadowed by my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Moylan but, as a starter, let me pick up the question of enforcement, which came up in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. How exactly do the Government intend these measures to be policed? How much responsibility will fall on shopkeepers, how much on trading standards and how much on the police?

Then there is the impact on retailers. How will small and independent retailers be supported to implement the new age checks and avoid inadvertent breaches of the law? Are we just going to leave them to cope as best as they can? Importantly, there is also the question of public understanding. How will the Government communicate to the public, especially younger adults, that some people of more or less the same age may face entirely different legal restrictions?

Can the Minister confirm one point of detail, which we discussed in our meetings on the Bill ahead of Committee? Will a person born on or after 1 January 2009 be permitted to sell tobacco products to someone born before that date? In other words, will someone who is themselves legally prohibited from purchasing tobacco still be able to serve or sell such products to others who remain entitled to buy them? That may seem a minor question, but it is one of the many practical questions that shopkeepers and retailers are already asking. The answer will affect staffing and hiring practices. What age will an employee of a tobacconist have to be to handle tobacco sales? Those are not arguments against the generational ban, but I hope that the Minister can address these concerns in her reply.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

In the case the noble Earl has just mentioned, could not the coroner have obtained the information by another means?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. I can, of course, find out and let the noble Baroness know, if those details are available.

I know there have been concerns that inquests can seem to be adversarial, and that protected material passed on to the coroner could be used in them. Inquests are, by definition, designed to be inquisitorial; statute prohibits inquests from determining criminal and civil liability, and interested persons are prevented by the inquest rules from making submissions on the facts. Coroners seek to obtain the objective truth—how and not why someone has died. I submit that not allowing coroners to see relevant safe space material could prevent justice being done and seriously undermine public confidence in the coronial system.

I turn to the important issue of funding, raised by Amendment 123, although I do not know that noble Lords have spoken to that. The noble Lord is shaking his head so, to save time, I will not cover that point.

Finally, let me just say that an independent HSSIB is an excellent concept that has wide support. In my submission, it would be a terrible pity if noble Lords rejected it because of doubts about how well it would work. I believe that it will give patient safety a valuable boost and hope that the House will support it.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing this debate before the Committee. I have listened to him and other noble Lords with care. Before I turn to the detail, it may be helpful if I explain the reason why Clause 54 is in the Bill.

Clause 54 originated as a legislative proposal made by NHS England and NHS Improvement to the Government in 2019. In making this recommendation, NHS England, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, worked closely with representatives of the foundation trust sector. The key principle behind this clause is a recognition that the interests of the whole system should be prioritised in decisions about capital spending while also respecting the freedoms and accountabilities of NHS foundation trusts.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked whether it was our intention that the power in the clause would be a last resort—absolutely yes. Clause 54 is a reserve power to be used only in extreme circumstances to avert the risk of a foundation trust pursuing its own private capital objectives—if I can put it that way—that are not prioritised at a system level. I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley that that is the potential mischief that the clause is trying to address.

The control will operate in the context of the new NHS capital regime, introduced in 2020-21, at ICS area level with planning at a system level to take a holistic view of the local healthcare needs and balancing the allocated operational envelope for providers at that level. Having a power to set capital spending limits for NHS foundation trusts, as can already be done for NHS trusts, ensures an equitable distribution of capital to better enable the investments with highest priority and that achieve the greatest benefits for patients.

At this point I will push back, in the nicest possible way, at the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the actual level of capital spend. At the spending review 2021, capital spending was set to increase over the Parliament to £32.2 billion for the period from 2022-23 to 2024-25. That includes a £5.9 billion capital investment for the NHS to tackle the backlog of non-emergency procedures and modernise digital technology. As a result, the Department of Health and Social Care’s core capital budget will reach its highest real-terms level since 2010.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Governments always tell us how much money they have spent, but the question is always: has it met the demand? The money that the Minister has just mentioned is to try to cover the backlog of elective procedures; it does not cover the backlog of repairs.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

There will be money to address the backlog of repairs within that total.

Of course, it is our intention that a capital limit would be imposed by NHS England only if other ways of resolution had been unsuccessful. I will take the Committee through some of the detail, because it is important.

Amendments 188 to 192 would further restrict how the power can be applied. Amendment 188 would modify the clause by inserting “individual trust”. This modification is unnecessary because new Section 42B already ensures that an order relates to a single trust.

Amendment 191 would limit the order to one financial year, but, instead of that, the guidance prepared by NHS England will set out that any capital expenditure limits will apply to individual, named foundation trusts. We envisage that most will apply for the period of budget allocation, which is a single financial year.

Amendment 189 would insert steps that NHS England must take before applying the control and limit when an order may be made. The amendment also links the power with the capital planning function held by ICBs in new Section 14Z54. That plan may not always relate to a single financial year and can be amended in year; for example, for big capital projects, the plan could be set for several years, and in such a scenario it would be difficult to determine whether a foundation trust exceeded the plan in the early years. Amendment 189 would undermine the ability to impose the limit in a timely way and would mean that any limit could realistically be applied only when an overspend had already occurred or was committed to. That would risk funding being unfairly taken away from other areas.

Amendments 190 and 192 contain a requirement to lay a report before Parliament alongside a statutory instrument containing the order. That would cause significant delays in the power’s application. There is already a requirement in the Bill for NHS England to publish any orders which place a capital limit on a foundation trust and for guidance to set out the circumstances in which it is likely to impose a limit. We expect the guidance will also state that representations made by the trust will be published by NHS England.

As I mentioned, it is our strong view, supported by NHS England, that the powers and safeguards in the Bill create a proportionate and fair balance. These measures will ensure that if a foundation trust were actively to pursue capital expenditure that is not aligned with local priorities or affordable within local budgets, there is a means to prevent this as soon as possible.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am certainly with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the issue of outcomes. Like her, I am a member of the All-Party Group on Cancer, and I was right behind our former chairman John Baron’s attempt to get a clear focus on outcomes. I am delighted to see how successful that has been.

My Amendment 8 is very simple. It would prevent the Secretary of State tinkering too often with the mandate. As others have said, the mandate is the primary instrument through which the Secretary of State provides the Government’s direction to the NHS. He is right to do so, since the NHS uses the most enormous amount of our money and is of vital concern to every voter and taxpayer—those whom the Government represent.

However, the NHS is a little like the “QE2” in that it is absolutely enormous and takes quite a while to change direction. Indeed, a great many levers have to be pulled for it to do so. Chief executives, boards and professional staff need time to set new plans, targets and employment policies—to say nothing of moving the money around—to comply, as they must, with changes to these mandatory directions from on high. It is therefore highly undesirable for a Secretary of State to change the mandate too frequently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, even when it happens, adequate notice and reasons must be given.

Other amendments in this group deal with other aspects of the mandate, but I want to be fully assured that, given the difficult tasks we set our NHS, its outline instructions and targets are not unfairly changed too often. I feel justified in having this concern, because the evidence of clauses later in the Bill indicates to me a tendency by the Government to want to meddle where meddling is inappropriate and could have negative effects. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State’s attempted power grab, which we will discuss later in Committee.

Can the Minister assure me that there is already some effective measure that would prevent the mandate being changed more than once in any financial year, which would make it very difficult for the NHS to comply?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to respond to these amendments relating, in their several ways, to the NHS England mandate. I will cover each in turn.

I begin with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 4. I confess that I am not in the least surprised that he, of all noble Lords, should have reminded us of the key importance of the NHS outcomes framework. Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to specify objectives that will help NHS England achieve improvements in the outcomes provided for in the NHS outcomes framework. As he and I remember clearly, the NHS outcomes framework is a set of indicators that provide for national-level accountability for the health outcomes that the NHS delivers. The first version was published in 2010 to inform the first mandate to what was then still known as the NHS Commissioning Board. In essence, it looks at long-term health trends across various domains, including quality of care and patient experience. It is a valuable resource and, as my noble friend knows, remains an important tool for measuring the NHS’s contribution to improving outcomes over the long term.

I quite agree with my noble friend that progress against outcomes is vital. That is why we have included Clause 3 in the Bill. One of the main advantages of a longer-term mandate is that it will allow us to take a longer-term view of progress against outcomes that can be measured meaningfully only across a number of years.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked who will be responsible for improving outcomes. The answer is that NHS England and ICBs have duties in relation to improving the quality of services. I can assure him that we will hold them to account for doing so. Having said that, we are moving now to a system-wide approach. That entails the need to measure shared outcomes across health and the wider social care and public health system. Some of these outcomes are led by the NHS but many are system-wide, so the business of measuring patient and service-user outcomes will inevitably become more sophisticated.

We want to ensure that our system is flexible and able to adapt as those system approaches develop and mature. I hope my noble friend therefore appreciates why we would not want to enshrine the NHS outcomes framework in the mandate in statute, in a way that might limit or compromise our ability to explore broader system approaches as we go forward. However, I seek to reassure him that the NHS outcomes framework will continue to be a vital tool to look at long-term trends in health outcomes and the NHS’s role in supporting health outcomes. That basic role for the NHS outcomes framework will not change.

I fully understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in her Amendment 7 that the mandate should not be revised unnecessarily and without good reason. I completely agree with that sentiment; again, it lies behind our desire to look at the mandate over a longer timeframe than has hitherto been possible. My concern is that her amendment goes much further than, I suspect, she intended, because it would prevent the mandate being revised at all in anything other than an urgent or unforeseen situation. That would be unhelpful, because it would wholly prevent planned changes to reflect, for example, evolving strategic priorities, emerging evidence of need or even a planned general election.

The purpose of Clause 3 is to strengthen the role of the mandate by enabling the Government, where appropriate, to set a mandate that can endure, rather than having an annual use-by date. Looking back to our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill in 2011, the noble Baroness will remember that it was always the intention that the Government should set a multiyear mandate, and Parliament agreed. In practice, that intention has been hampered by the inevitability of an annual review of the mandate to a fixed deadline—a deadline that does not neatly align to a number of events and strategic processes, including the Budget, spending reviews and general elections. Clause 3 addresses this. I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention to revise mandates unnecessarily at the drop of a hat, as it makes no sense to do so.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for highlighting a similar set of issues to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her Amendment 8 would prevent the Government revising our mandate for NHS England more than once in the same financial year, for any reason. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I completely understand her concern that the mandate should not be revised so frequently that NHS England is unable to plan for or deliver government priorities effectively. This is why I reassure her that this will not happen, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. I hope she accepts that reassurance, because it cannot be in the interests of any Government, or of patients and service users, to set a mandate that changes NHS priorities too frequently. I expect any such revisions to be very rare. As I have indicated, though, one can imagine that they may be necessary to respond to unforeseen events, to reflect the result of a general election or to signal future shifts in priorities at a point when the NHS is planning ahead. The Government need the necessary mechanism to deal with these and other similar eventualities.

The noble Baroness will see that Clause 3 already contains an explicit safeguard in respect of reasonableness: NHS England will not be obliged to revisit a business plan that it has already published, should the Government revise the mandate within a year of its issue. The Government will also have a continuing duty to consult NHS England before making any revision. I believe that, in combination, these two safeguards work together to fully answer the point that the noble Baroness made.

Jimmy Savile: NHS Investigations

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I understand the point made by my noble friend. At the same time, it is clear from the executive summary of Kate Lampard’s report that Stoke Mandeville is by far the most important and salient element of the report and I had hoped that that would have guided readers’ attention towards the section of the report that deals with Stoke Mandeville. Nevertheless, I am sorry that my noble friend has found it necessary to say that and I understand why he has.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement referred to inadequate systems and the need for a culture change. Does the Minister accept that many people are of the view that what we have is inadequate law and not only inadequate systems? I do not know whether my noble friend heard the “Today” programme this morning in which Mr John Humphrys, in interviewing a lawyer acting for one of the many Jimmy Savile victims, was astonished to discover that there is no offence of ignoring knowledge of child abuse that has been reported. Indeed, a majority of the British public think that it is already the law but the Minister knows that it is not.

I welcome the commitment to a public consultation that resulted from an amendment I tabled to the Serious Crime Bill, but several months have passed since that commitment was made by the Government and we still do not know which department will lead the consultation. Will it be the Home Office, the Department of Health or the Department for Education, or will it be a combination? I heard that in another place the Minister undertook that the consultation would be complete and the Government’s response given within 18 months of the Bill becoming an Act. Can the Minister confirm that that undertaking stands and say whether there has been any progress on which department will lead on this consultation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I cannot give a specific undertaking on the timescale that we envisage for the consultation or on any legislation that might ensue from it because that raises the question of whether any legislation is necessary. That is what we want to know from the consultation process. However, I can tell my noble friend that the Home Office will be leading the consultation in conjunction with all the other relevant government departments.

Tobacco: Packaging

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Thursday 28th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

It most certainly is relevant, which is why we are taking the legislative opportunity in the Children and Families Bill to drive home that very point. My noble friend is right.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate those in your Lordships’ House on their persistence in keeping this issue before the Government, including my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. I also congratulate the Government on their determination to base policy on evidence. However, if the Government, in the fullness of time, use their regulatory power to introduce standardised packaging, will they keep a watching brief on the tobacco companies? In the past, whatever procedures we have brought in, they have been extremely clever in finding ways round them to lure young people into starting smoking. Therefore, will the Government watch the situation very carefully and try to make sure that the tobacco companies do not get round standardised packaging, thus continuing to attract young people to a habit that will kill them?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes a very important point. She is, of course, right that the tobacco companies protect their commercial position with great vigour. We will indeed keep an exceedingly close eye on the actions of the tobacco industry and, should we decide to introduce regulations, we will do all we can to ensure that they are watertight.

Organ Transplantation

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

No, my Lords, and that is part of the problem.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Will the Minister accept that it can be very difficult for doctors to approach a bereaved family to ask about organ donation? I know this from personal experience, because doctors did not approach me when I lost my late husband; I had to raise the matter myself. It is understandable that they do not want to upset the family. However, can it not be even more upsetting for a bereaved family who have not been asked about donation to realise some time later that they have missed the opportunity for their loved one to give life to other people?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend raises an extremely important set of issues. This was one issue identified by Chris Rudge when he took up the post as National Clinical Director. A great deal of work has been done in the NHS to increase the number of organs available to patients and to have the kinds of conversations with families that are necessary but very delicate. There has been an increase in the number of specialist nurses for organ donation who are of course highly trained in that area, and appointments of clinical leads for organ donation have also helped.

Health: Children and Young People

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Earl Howe

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the outcomes framework that I have just referred to should assist in the latter regard. I think the noble Baroness would agree that the system we have at the moment is not sufficiently joined-up, and in that sense does not adequately serve the needs of children. The approach we have taken to the proposed NHS reforms is to promote the importance of the integration of care and service provision for everyone, including children. We believe that strong partnerships at a local level, supported by professionals and local leaders, are the way forward, not top-down direction. The health and well-being board provides the forum for repositioning the joint strategic needs assessment into a truly joined-up strategy for local people.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has said about getting the views of children, but does he think that giving the commissioning of the excellent Healthy Child programme to local authorities is going to bring about the universal dissemination and delivery of that programme?

[Earl Howe]

The role of local authorities will be pivotal in this because it is at local-authority level that public health, social care, and indeed the discussions that will go on in the health and well-being board context will bring together policy in a way that informs NHS commissioning. I think that the approach we have taken has been widely welcomed, and we are absolutely determined that all sectors of society, including children, are included in these processes.