Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 34 in this group, which is on cigarette filters and health warnings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision

“prohibiting the manufacture, supply, or sale of … plastic filters intended for use in cigarettes, and … cigarettes containing plastic filters”

through regulations that must be laid before Parliament

“no later than the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

This amendment is required. It is a practical, necessary and long-overdue measure that I hope to show enjoys widespread public support. Implementing it would strengthen our commitment to environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility while having minimal impacts on those who choose to smoke cigarettes with filters.

As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discarded cigarette filters are one of the most common and prevalent forms of public litter. It has been estimated that 90% of all cigarettes smoked in the world contain non-biodegradable filter tips and that, in the UK, some 3.9 million cigarette butts are discarded daily. On a constituency basis, that is 6,000 cigarette butts, or 2.2 million thrown away each year. Every year, billions of cigarette butts are discarded across the UK, which is a staggering amount.

As they degrade very slowly, they release microplastics and many harmful chemicals, which are a danger to nature and to aquatic life in particular. Only one in four smokers even realise that filters are not biodegradable; most assume that they already are. Eighty-six per cent of adults support this change in the law, including 77% of the smokers asked. Cigarette butts are a bit like ants. The power of their pollution is caused by their very small nature, their frequency and the fact that they are discarded so widely. It is very difficult to clear them up, even if we wanted to.

As we have heard, they are made from cellulose acetate—a non-biodegradable form of plastic—and take up to an estimated 10 to 15 years to break down in the natural environment. I question one figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which seemed to be for plastic filters, not biodegradable filters. I do not recognise the figure she gave. Yet, despite this harm, plastic filters continue to be widely used. This and other Governments have made progress on banning other forms of everyday plastic pollution, but no progress has been made here. For these reasons, regulatory action is now required. Fortunately, perfectly workable alternative solutions are available and are widely recognised within the industry as being fit for purpose and working with manufacturing processes.

Across the world, there has been a move to work on these issues. The World Health Organization supports a ban on non-biodegradable cigarettes as part of the global plastics treaty and the EU is also looking at these matters. If the Government accept this amendment, the UK could become the first country in the world to pass legislation on these matters. Biodegradable cigarette filters made from natural fibres such as paper, hemp or bamboo would degrade much more quickly and cause far less harm. They would eliminate unnecessary plastic waste and give people the option of having a filter on a cigarette if they want one.

I do not argue that filters in any shape or form make cigarettes healthier to smoke; they clearly do not. I know that tobacco companies have falsely put them forward in this way in the past. However, they make smoking more pleasant for those who want to smoke. If an alternative exists that would deal with the plastic pollution, we should not unnecessarily ban these items. My amendment is about trying to find a way between having the plastic pollution we see now and a complete ban.

Turning to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that banning filters would not resolve the problem because people will continue to smoke. They will smoke cigarettes without filters. They will dispose of the butts of those cigarettes without filters on the ground. Indeed, in many cases, they will end up burning their fingers and dropping them in places they do not want to, which could become an increased cause of wildfires, which are becoming an ever more prevalent problem. The litter will still exist and the nicotine in the cigarette butts will still exist. I do not buy the argument that removing filters would improve health outcomes in any way at all. I find it hard to see that a cigarette without a filter is in any way healthier than a cigarette with a filter. It may not make any difference, but I certainly cannot see how it can be argued to be in any way better.

My amendment is well argued and supported. I am open to working with the Government around the timelines that I would put in place. It might be that the Government feel that those timelines are too short. On reflection, maybe I should have allowed for a bit more time for it to take place.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 141 and 143 would require the Government to consult on introducing health warnings on each individual cigarette by printing them on the cigarette papers. These amendments are necessary because the Government have not yet committed to consulting about these warnings, let alone insisting on them, as I believe that they should.

Warnings on individual cigarettes, also known as dissuasive cigarettes, were recommended by the APPG on Smoking and Health in 2021 and in The Khan Review—Making Smoking Obsolete in 2022. The Government should take heed of Dr Javed Khan’s report in particular, which was commissioned by the previous Government to examine how we could get to our smoke-free target by 2030. Canada has already seen remarkable success with this approach and Australia has just followed suit with regulations coming into effect in July this year.

Research commissioned by Health Canada into the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes with health warnings showed that these cigarettes were perceived as less appealing than cigarettes without health warnings. The converse is, of course, also true. Cigarettes that did not have health warnings on were viewed as being less harmful. The impact was particularly notable among young people, who reported that when they were offered single cigarettes in social situations, they were not exposed to the warnings on the cigarette pack. With warnings visible on every cigarette, this would no longer be the case. Cigarettes may not be able to be sold individually, but they certainly can be handed out individually to others at parties and social events.

It is very welcome that the Government are introducing pack inserts, for which I have long argued and which signpost smokers to quitting information inside the packets. But I find it ironic that it is the tobacco industry, which of course shortens the lives of half its customers, that warns that there may be dangers from the ink printed on the cigarette papers. These papers would, of course, be printed with non-toxic ink and would discourage people from taking up this habit, which proves fatal and damaging to so many people.

We do not want to make smoking any more harmful. We want fewer people to take up the habit, and we want to help the majority of smokers, who are struggling to quit as most are. So, I urge the Minister to consider this additional complementary and necessary measure. It may help those people who need to be deterred from accepting a cigarette offered from someone else’s packet and who may then begin a habit that shortens the lives of half the people who take up that invitation to become a smoker.

Some people, particularly those in the tobacco industry, still suggest that, at this point, we all know all about the harms of smoking. However, the evidence is clear: the more strategies we use to inform consumers, the more chance we have of preventing people starting smoking or of helping people quit, as most smokers try to do repeatedly. My late noble friend Lord Ashdown frequently told me that he gave up smoking three times a day. He found it, as most smokers do, highly addictive and very hard to give up. We need to know that what is compelling for one potential smoker may not be workable for another smoker. So, given how lethal tobacco is, we need to use every tool at our disposal to deter smoking and to help people quit.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Vaccination Programme

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on securing this important debate. We have heard from her about the need to ensure that all infants receive an equitable offer of protection from the respiratory syncytial virus, and that the maternal RSV vaccination programme is fairly new, having been introduced in Scotland in August 2024 and in England in September 2024. It is important now, therefore, to monitor its uptake in detail and to assess the protection that it gives.

We are grateful, therefore, to the UK Health Security Agency—UKHSA—for the monitoring undertaken so far, which has already provided vital insights. From this, we are encouraged to see that the level of vaccine uptake has increased, month on month, since its first implementation. For England, the UKHSA’s first annual report on the programme, published in July, showed that 42.8% of all women who had given birth in the six months after 1 September had received an RSV vaccine prior to delivery. Progress is being made, because, for the month of April alone, the figure reached 54%, with most regions showing a pattern of increasing monthly uptake.

However, as we have heard, there were significant differences in uptake in different commissioning regions and among different ethnic groups. For the month of April this year, the UKHSA reported that the highest coverage of the vaccine was in the south-east of England, at 63.4%, while the London commissioning region reported the lowest level of coverage, at 44.8%. For the Midlands, the coverage was 51.3%. The variation across ethnic groups was much wider. The “Other ethnic groups—Chinese” category showed the highest coverage, at 70.6%, while the “Black or Black British—Caribbean” category reported the lowest level of coverage, at just 25.6%. Greater efforts must therefore be made to improve take-up of the vaccine, and they must be targeted effectively.

Will the Minister let us know more about how the Government will help to address the disparity in coverage by region and ethnicity? The figure for “Black or Black British—Caribbean” is alarmingly low. Can the Minister tell us whether any research has been undertaken to see if there is a difference between the point in pregnancy at which people of different ethnicities present themselves to GPs or midwives? What may be the cultural differences or barriers relating to access? Is there an issue about less time being available for a working mother as opposed to one not in employment? The vaccination is most effective when offered around the 28-week antenatal appointment, or within a few weeks of this, to provide babies with the best protection for their first six months of life. Those who present late may be less protected even if they ultimately receive the jab.

I am aware that the UKHSA is planning further investigations. Can we know whether such crucial questions are being looked into? We know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, Ashley Dalton, has stated that UKHSA monitoring is a “key tool”. She promised that an update to the UKHSA’s immunisation equity strategy is “forthcoming” to ensure equitable access, but could we possibly know when? Meanwhile, the production of RSV antenatal vaccine information leaflets in over 30 languages and in various formats is a very positive step.

Significant issues about the vaccination rollout have been raised by the Royal College of Midwives. Clare Livingstone of the RCN noted in January that midwives had more work to do to respond to concerns and questions around vaccinations. She acknowledged that it was not always possible for midwives to provide all the information, reassurance and support needed, often due to lack of time to discuss each vaccine in detail. The RCM has suggested that there are more challenges about these issues in some regions than in others. We need to know if that is because of staff vacancies, which may vary by region, or because of the number of patients on each midwife’s list, or both factors, as these issues are obviously connected.

There is an urgent need to recruit more midwives. Some midwives have raised concerns about workforce capacity and training availability. Some maternity services face considerable challenges in implementation, and they are being required to send women to their GPs instead. The Royal College’s previous calls about having the right staff in the right place, with the right education and training, must be heeded. Training materials, including webinars for midwives and patient-facing publications, have been made available in collaboration with the UKHSA and NHS England. Will these now be updated in the light of the questions that are being asked over the first year of the programme?

We need to know if there is any link between hesitation about having the RSV jab and hesitation about having other jabs, such as the Covid and MMR vaccinations. Much seriously damaging misinformation has been circulated about vaccinations, including very recently, and we all, in responsible parties, need to help to counter it.

Eligibility for the RSV vaccination is an issue. NHS England has acted on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. This was based on safety, efficacy, cost and how many people of different groups become really ill with the virus. Initially, the programme is for pregnant women, preferably around the 28th week for maximum efficacy, and for older people aged between 75 and 80. A recent study in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health journal has shown the maternal RSV vaccination to be 58% effective in preventing hospitalisation of infants. This figure, as we heard, increases to 72% if mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery. The UKHSA confirms that this evidence clearly shows that the RSV vaccine for pregnant women is highly effective.

However, the criteria for older people, currently set at the ages of between 75 and 80, appears to many people to be arbitrary and questions are being asked about it. Ministers have said that the JCVI will be monitoring the current criteria alongside evidence of serious infections among those not currently eligible. Can the Minister please say when the joint committee’s next investigation will be published? Will it be considering the case of people who are immune-suppressed and who may therefore be at greater risk of serious illness if they catch the virus?

Prostate Cancer

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, many men and their families should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for this debate, which will increase the profile of prostate cancer and illustrates the need for screening.

We have heard moving stories about prostate cancer. I have very strong and close relationships with friends from my university days some 45 years ago. Several male members of this group now have personal experience of prostate cancer. Thanks to screening, early diagnosis and the latest treatments, most of them are okay. But one close friend, who is my age, has advanced stage 4 prostate cancer. The very latest and experimental treatments are helping to keep him going for a few more years than we dared hope. He was unlucky, because he had screening but the disease developed rapidly in between screenings.

The experience of my male friends means that I ask for a PSA test now when I can, sometimes when I have other blood tests concerned with diabetes. But we have heard how some GPs are discouraged from discussing this threat with some of those at highest risk. The risks are highest with black men and those with a family history of the disease. Those from the most deprived backgrounds are almost a third more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage incurable prostate cancer.

The PSA screening test is not perfect by any means. We need, as and when we can, to move to saliva/spit tests. We need to use AI with blood and urine tests and use multi-parametric MRI. But in the meantime, it seems that we should get GPs to proactively offer PSA testing to men at high risk. It will save lives, and I hope that people are listening.

Diabetes: 10-Year Health Plan

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right in his observations, which play to the point of the NHS that we want to see not just now but in the future. Noble Lords may have heard the announcement earlier this week that the Government are committing the necessary funding to screen babies early in their lives through the use of genomics, in order to, as the noble Lord said, identify underlying conditions that can be dealt with early on. There are some that cannot be prevented, but if they are diagnosed and anticipated, their management will be much better.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, continuous glucose monitoring and Mounjaro have helped me to come off insulin after 20 years of daily injections and have greatly improved my diabetic control. Such innovations are undoubtedly a cost saving to the NHS in the long run. Does the Minister think we are looking far enough into the future when we consider the cost-benefit analysis of their use? How can NHS spending plans take into account their long-term benefits to the economy by keeping people in work and getting many people back to work?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows that it is always good that we hear about his own experience, because he epitomises the changes that are possible. I believe there is an understanding—not least because, as noble Lords will know, the Chancellor very recently gave the department a settlement that was, in large part, because of not just immediate need but looking to the future and the kind of NHS that is fit for the future we will see identified in the 10-year plan when it is published. Technology is certainly a huge part of that, which is why CGM and the hybrid closed loop system—the latter of which began to be rolled out in April 2024—are so important. There have been huge advances and they will be part of that NHS of the future that we seek to build.

Cardiovascular Illnesses

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for arranging this Question for Short Debate on cardiovascular disease and for sharing his emotional and personal experience. The statistics about cardiovascular disease paint a stark picture of a health crisis that demands urgent and comprehensive attention. My thanks go to the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association, Diabetes UK and the House of Lords Library for excellent briefings.

The facts are that every day in the UK 240 individuals wake up to the catastrophic reality of a stroke. Stroke remains the fourth-leading cause of death in our nation and a primary cause of disability. Every three minutes, a family loses a loved one to cardiovascular disease and CVD causes more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.

However, nearly nine out of 10 strokes are preventable, often associated with modifiable risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking and physical inactivity. High blood pressure alone is the largest risk factor for stroke, contributing to 50% of all strokes. The number of people living with diabetes, or pre-diabetes, now exceeds 12 million in the UK, equivalent to one in five adults. Their risk of death from CVD is 4.2 times higher than for those without diabetes. Each week, diabetes leads to 812 strokes and 568 heart attacks. It is therefore vital that we optimise the detection and management of high-risk conditions such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and high cholesterol.

As part of that, we need strongly to support the measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to further reduce the prevalence of smoking in this country, as we have done through successful regulatory measures over the past few decades. We need to support the reduction of other modifiable risk factors, including drinking alcohol to excess and obesity. The measures put forward by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, need to be given much more respect by the Government than has so far been the case.

The current system for health checks, such as NHS Health Check, has the potential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, but more needs to be done to expand those checks, particularly to those at highest risk, including individuals under 40. It remains alarming that millions of people with diabetes are missing essential health checks annually which are crucial for detecting and preventing serious long-term complications.

Beyond prevention, we need to consider many issues concerning treatment and care. There is still a critical lack of imaging capability for diagnostic testing, all of which delays patients’ access to specialist stroke units and time-sensitive treatments such as thrombectomy.

We need to ensure 24/7 access to acute stroke treatments, including thrombectomy and thrombolysis, through pre-hospital video triage and access to specialist stroke units. We need a dedicated plan to drive action to address CVD and its risk factors. I know that the Government have committed to a 25% reduction in deaths from CVD and stroke by 2035 but, to achieve this, we need steps to reduce disability.

Scientific research and innovation are the basis of progress in this field. The British Heart Foundation, a leader in cardiovascular science, funds more than half of independent cardiovascular research in the UK. It has powered advances that have nearly halved the number of people who die each year from cardiovascular disease. We are in an era of immense scientific opportunity, with revolutionary advances in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics and regenerative medicine. BHF-funded scientists are already using AI to better predict heart attack or stroke risk.

For those who have suffered a stroke, prioritising and investing in rehabilitation, in line with national guidelines, is critical to prevent recurrent strokes, as one in four survivors will experience another one within five years. Every stroke survivor should be offered a six-month post-stroke review to tailor recovery plans. Beyond this, we must continue to inspire the nation to learn CPR and continue to ensure greater provision of public-access defibrillators, as survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are significantly higher in countries where bystander CPR is more prevalent. We must address the basic glaring issues of health inequalities in order to address these problems.

Health: Ultra-processed Food

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the Government’s efforts in this regard. I believe we have to consider the role of ultra-processed foods, but that has to be based on evidence and scientific truth, rather than speculation. That is why the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has shown concern but cannot prove a direct link. It is not necessarily about the processing, but we know that high fat, salt and sugar is a problem for healthy living, and that is mostly a very good description of UPFs.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, in February last year, the British Medical Journal reported research involving 10 million people that found evidence highly suggestive of diets rich in ultra-processed foods being linked with the increased risks of premature death, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, diabetes, obesity and sleep problems. What is the timescale for the Government’s further research on the dangers of ultra-processed foods? How will reversing aspects of the ban on junk food advertising help?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, we are committed to implementing the TV and online advertising restrictions for less healthy foods and drinks. That is one of a number of steps that we are taking to tackle obesity, as per the question from the previous noble Lord. There is a direct link between advertising and intake, particularly with children, so I am glad that we will be introducing regulations to take effect in January—in fact, the industry has agreed to comply in advance of that, which shows a constructive approach. As for further information, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will consider evidence again in 2026, next year, and make dietary recommendations. The Government continue to invest in research through the NIHR and the UKRI.

Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I share some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As the Minister so carefully explained, it is essential that we preserve the existing regulations until they can be replaced. However, does she accept that, although an argument frequently used by supporters of Brexit was that they did not like so much regulation, what is happening now in our very successful life sciences industry—which wishes to do business abroad as well as in the UK—is that its products may become subject to both UK and EU regulations?

EU regulations have generally been recognised across the world as a basis for doing business, making it relatively easy for UK-based producers of medical devices to export them. Would it not be better in future to achieve regulatory alignment with the EU, so that businesses producing new products will not have two different sets of regulatory processes, and two sets of costs to contend with, when they innovate and improve their products? Will having separate UK regulations in future not run the risk that such businesses become more reluctant to innovate, and will this not be detrimental to patient care? If we want to improve patient safety and do all the other things the Minister outlined, would not this be done best in alignment with our major trading partners, using standards that are generally agreed internationally?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Rennard Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, an argument we have heard over the years from those opposing measures to reduce the prevalence of smoking is that those who smoke are harming only themselves. But, as we have frequently heard today, they are not. When I was 16 and preparing to go to school, I could not wake my mother. She had died suddenly and unexpectedly from hypertensive heart disease, in which her heavy smoking was a factor. It was not her choice to become addicted to tobacco, nor to make her three children orphans.

There are many victims of smoking beyond those who smoke who suffer from the consequences, including ill health, poverty and death. Families suffer and the country suffers. Today smoking is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments a year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion a year and local authorities almost £4 billion a year in social care costs.

The claims about the cost of enforcing measures in this Bill do not stand up when the costs of smoking and the savings made by reducing smoking levels are considered. It is in everyone’s interest to reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking. Let us create a future in which today’s children will never smoke tobacco and the country will benefit enormously from the habit gradually coming to an end.

From all parts of the House, we have pressed previous Governments to do more to regulate the smoking and vapes industry. It is because of the exceptional deadly deceit by the tobacco industry that we need legislation that can respond flexibly. I tabled amendments during the passage of the recent Health and Care Act that sought to provide health warnings within cigarette packs, so I am very glad that the Government are moving forward on this. Such inserts can highlight routes to smoking cessation services that are effectively targeted at those who need to receive those warnings the most. I hope the Government can be persuaded to go further and put warnings on the cigarettes themselves, as happens in Canada and is soon to be the case in Australia. This will help to deter young people being offered their first cigarette from beginning the addiction.

Raising tobacco taxes has been successful in reducing tobacco consumption. Claims about the proportion of illicit cigarettes should be seen in the context of the vast reduction in the volume of cigarettes sold as a result of cumulative smoking cessation measures. Many of these claims are based on the tobacco industry’s purported concerns about illicit sales. The truth is that the tobacco industry itself has been directly responsible for tobacco smuggling. The claims of its lobbyists about illicit sales have been clearly refuted by National Trading Standards and HMRC.

We should therefore be mindful of the fairness of increasing taxes on many smokers, some of whom are made poor by their habit, while not further increasing taxes on the very rich tobacco companies which have profited from their ill health. Why not make the tobacco industry pay from its vast profits towards the cost of helping its victims to quit? It would make us a healthier nation, with fewer of the costs of smoking passed on to the taxpayer, and help us provide a boost to economic growth as more people will be healthy enough to work.

Integrated care boards have been told to cut running costs by 50%. This financial year is the first in which budgets for smoking cessation services in the NHS are rolled into the baseline budgets of ICBs. Smoking cessation services are being funded on a slow drip feed only, with future funding uncertain. Meanwhile, big tobacco companies reap £900 million a year in profit and pay shockingly little corporation tax. Therefore, it should not be assumed that, with these big profits, an appropriate levy would not raise much money. A tobacco levy could go a little way towards filling the black hole the Government speak frequently about. It will be filled further as smoking rates reduce further.

Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Report

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, our debate has created much passion and many personal emotions for me, including in thinking about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and his experience of giving up alcohol 43 years ago. We have had a fairly wide consensus across the House on many measures that are needed to help reduce the large gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in this country; to reduce the figure of two in every five children in England leaving primary school above a healthy weight; and to lessen the financial and other burdens placed on people who are overweight and on the nation as a whole. But we have also heard constant frustration about the Government’s very limited response to the excellent report. Indeed, I think the flavour of the debate has been largely to describe the response as pitiful.

Thirty years ago, I was 40 kilos heavier than I am now—or, to put it another way, I am now more than six stone lighter. My weight is still going down, but it has been an issue throughout my life and a source of depression. It made me a target for bullying from school onwards. I consider myself fortunate to now be classified as “overweight” rather than “obese”, but we cannot just hope for good fortune to reverse the escalating scale of the problem with obesity and its links, for people like me, to type 2 diabetes and other health conditions.

In discussing the Government’s response to the excellent report of our Select Committee, so brilliantly led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, our debate has highlighted much of what I feel that I have learned personally, and often painfully, as I used to let my own health get completely out of control. We have highlighted very strongly how the Government really must take forward more of the many practical and positive suggestions in the report. We know that they have some determination to do so, but that this determination is still very limited.

I mention my personal struggle with weight and diabetes because one of the things that we must address is the stigma that accompanies these conditions as we address educating children, and their parents, about such issues. The approach of personal responsibility and “pull your own socks up”, if I might thus describe the approach set out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is not just unhelpful but deeply counterproductive.

I learned nothing about nutrition at school. I am probably one of the few Members of this House who had free school meals. I always chose the options with chips, but I see much worse options being chosen these days, as children leave school in the early afternoon, not having had any form of lunch, and pour into the nearby fried chicken and burger shops. In relation to food generally, I prefer the French approach described by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer.

I am pleased that more fast food outlets will, in future, be blocked from selling cheap, unhealthy, high-fat products so near to schools, but in my view they should really be banned from selling such products in close proximity to schools altogether. I welcome the long-overdue restrictions on the advertising of their products targeted at young people. But, as my noble friend Lady Suttie said, parents do not have information or understanding about sugar content. We really must properly address issues of labelling.

Only the provision of healthy and nutritious free school meals will really help to address the problems we are talking about. In the meantime, I welcome the greater provision of breakfast clubs, which I hope will offer healthy alternatives to white toast and sugary cereals.

Boys and girls, men and women can all suffer from body image issues, as well as from the health conditions that arise from being overweight, including the greater likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes. Schools need to address these issues while doing much more to promote health education, cookery skills, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and physical activity in schools and after school.

The resulting ill-health caused by being overweight or obese is, for many families, a major factor in their relative poverty. It limits their capacity to work, their life experiences and their emotional well-being, and puts significant burdens on the state through our health and care system. It results in damage to the economy, as there is far more reliance on the state and there are fewer tax contributions. The Institute for Government estimates that the economic impact of obesity in this country is between 1% and 2% of our GDP.

Healthier food is, sadly, more expensive than the least healthy options. Families are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty causing ill health, which makes it harder for them to get out of poverty and live more healthily. That is why I and my party strongly support scrapping the two-child limit for universal credit or tax credits. But we are going in the wrong direction this week with the Government’s new measures, which will push 50,000 more children into poverty and a total of 250,000 people altogether.

The Government’s response to the report accepts that

“mandatory regulation can drive change”,

and says that parts of the industry welcome the setting of a level playing field to avoid the most unscrupulous in the food and drink industry seeking competitive advantage. But we should also ask why action that was promised after the Covid pandemic highlighted the dangers of being overweight was suddenly rolled back. The answer is the unscrupulous lobbying on behalf of parts of the industry, adopting tactics with which some of us are familiar from the tobacco industry. They seek to scare MPs and those who work for them into thinking that action to improve the nation’s health may be damaging electorally. Such lobbyists use their dark arts via well-funded think tanks, which, unlike political parties, can keep their sources of funding secret. Those who lobby in this way must be forced in future to declare their sources of funding and to list them, together with all their contacts with Ministers, parliamentarians and those who work with us. The soft drinks levy has proved hugely successful and we need such a measure now for foods, especially for ultra-processed foods.

Some of what the Government are doing is welcome, but there is widespread agreement about the problems, as the report clearly shows. The Government can and should go further and faster and be more radical as we seek to tackle the epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

NHS Dentistry

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I welcome the suggestion from the noble Baroness, and I will raise that with the Minister, Stephen Kinnock. What I can say is that strengthening the dental workforce is absolutely central, as we have to rebuild NHS dentistry in this country. Integrated care boards have started already to recruit for dental posts through a golden hello scheme. That means that up to 240 dentists will receive payments of £20,000 across three years to work in those areas that need them most. Already, as of 10 February this year, 35 dentists have commenced in post, a further 33 dentists have been recruited, and hundreds of job posts are currently advertised. There is a long way to go, but we have made a very strong start.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, next and then the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the promised extra 700,000 appointments will mean just two extra appointments a month for each NHS dentist in England. The Health and Social Care Select Committee concluded in 2023 that the current dental contract is not fit for purpose, so will a new dental contract stop penalising dentists who take on more units of dental activity or patients with more complex dental needs?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very strong case for reform of the dental contract. The Minister concerned is very alive to the points he makes but, again, I will draw his attention to them. I do not quite recognise the figure that the noble Lord referred to on the number of extra appointments. If I can give just one example: out of 700,000 extra appointments, in the Midlands that will mean 143,424 extra appointments. I also emphasise that it is 700,000 extra appointments every year. If the noble Lord would let me have the figures to which he referred, I would be very happy to look into them.