Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, which I support in principle, but I am interested to hear the Government’s response to the points about practicality, apart from anything else. There is a real issue here. Fundamentally, people are pointing to a very real issue that needs to be tackled, either through the approach in Amendment 33 or a variation on Amendment 34. I am interested to hear how the Government think they should tackle it.

I am picking up on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made when she was talking about whether the intention is about littering or health. I have no objection to joined-up government, and it is a good thing to be doing that. I will speak later today on the Planning Bill urging planning to take account of health; health should also take account of environmental impacts of things in this way.

To conclude, I have one question with three parts for the Minister. Do she and the Government recognise and accept that filters have no positive impact on health and—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said—possibly have a negative impact with people breathing in harder? Does the Minister accept that most people who smoke do not know that filters have no impact and, indeed, think that they may be saving themselves to some extent? The third part is: if the Government believe those things, it seems to be something they should be tackling in some way within their tobacco plans and I am not aware that they are. I leave those questions with the Minister.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.

When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.

My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found

“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.

This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, it is clear that the very word “filter” is the most misleading of epithets. It leads many people to believe they make smoking safer. I would take a lot of convincing that people are not led to believe it is safer by the use of that very misleading epithet. It is not the point that filters do not make smoking more dangerous—incidentally, some of the early filters actually contained asbestos, so there were certainly some at an early stage that did make smoking much more dangerous. Leaving that on one side, the whole point is that people are misled into believing that smoking with filters is safer. That is the reason for Amendment 33.

There is a logic to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I find compelling. The fact that we can do something in relation to the environment as well as to health is not a reason for not acting; it is a reason for acting. The suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the state has no role here or only a qualified role and should not be entering this area, I find staggering. There is every reason we should be doing so in my humble opinion. Therefore, I strongly support Amendments 33 and 34.

On Amendments 141 and 143 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, there is unimpeachable logic in putting a warning on something if you are trying to deter people from using it. I do not think it is sufficient that it is on packets; there are many people who will have a single cigarette proposed to them. They will see the warning there, and there will be publicity given to that warning. It is not just the warning on the cigarettes; the fact the Government are doing that will mean it is more widely known.

There is a great logic, and I urge the Minister to be bold. It is not sufficient that we are having this generational ban, important though that is. There is a reason for moving more quickly and forcefully in relation to the amendments, and an unimpeachable logic to trying to iron out the position on filters, which are indeed a giant fraud.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 148, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide sales data by geographical area. Before the Minister says that there is already such a power, let me refer to Amendment 148, which seeks to change “may” to “must” for the requirement to make regulations and to publish data.

Tobacco companies collect rich data tracking the sales of their products which currently exist only to serve commercial purposes. Modelling from Cancer Research UK shows that those living in the most affluent areas of the UK should be smoke free this year, whereas those in the least affluent will not achieve that until after 2050—25 years later. That inequality has devastating consequences. Hence, there are nearly twice as many cancer cases caused by smoking in the poorest areas in England compared to the wealthiest.

Data collected by companies on sales and distributions could be used to inform public health. They could also give insights into different pricing strategies that companies use and would therefore complement a “polluter pays” levy, which I know many people rightly support. The data would also have value in setting up a new licensing system, helping local government understand the pattern of sales in its communities and make judgments about whether availability was appropriate. Trading standards would also benefit, using insights to support enforcement activity and improve the intelligence that local authorities have to assess local problems with any illicit sales and to identify upticks in illicit tobacco use.

Action on Smoking and Health, in its written evidence on the Bill, also flagged the issue of cigarillos, saying that surveys have

“recently identified that cigarillos are increasing in use among young people. With timely access to industry sales data public health agencies and researchers could have identified this trend far more quickly. These products have fewer restrictions on them than other tobacco products, something that will be addressed via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, but lack of knowledge has inhibited swift public health response”.

Industry data have been shrouded in secrecy—what a surprise. Thank goodness that Professor Sir Richard Doll had the cancer registries to demonstrate the causal link between smoking and cancer. Since public health academics started analysing industry profits, they publish only very limited data. Mandated publication of sales data would ensure that this industry, which sells a product that kills two-thirds of long-term users, is appropriately regulated and monitored given the harms it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I want to speak to Amendment 192, which proposes the introduction of a levy on tobacco manufacturers.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. That principle was introduced by previous Conservative Governments; the landfill levy was introduced in 1996 and the soft drinks levy in 2018. After the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Government, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his conclusions. He wrote:

“Introduce a ‘polluter pays’ industry levy on profits from cigarette sales, which can directly fund the full range of comprehensive measures to help us reach smokefree 2030 and make smoking obsolete. This is my preferred option … A tobacco ‘polluter pays’ levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied as a percentage of these profits”.


It would not impact on the CPI or the cost to the consumer, and it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022, Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said about that amendment:

“This new Clause … would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 287-88.]


That is precisely what Amendment 192 proposes.

Responding to the amendment, the Minister, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of her party, said:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


She was as good as her word: she supported the amendment, along with the Leader of her party and the Chief Whip, and the amendment was carried, later to be overturned in another place. I was therefore surprised that the noble Baroness did not add her name to this amendment when I tabled it, and I look forward to her compelling speech in its favour.

Amendment 192 would require the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. Tobacco is a uniquely addictive and lethal consumer product, and this creates a perfect storm for consumers. The tobacco industry in this country continues to be in good health, unlike its customers, and companies continue to make significant profits: an estimated £900 million per year in the UK alone, with average profit margins of around 50% compared to 10% for manufacturing margins.

There are various estimated costs to society of smoking. That from ASH is £43.7 billion a year—perhaps the Government could share their own estimate—and it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab: costs to the NHS, costs to social care, lost productivity to our economy, and higher welfare bills. A “polluter pays” levy ensures that those who can and should pay, do, and implementing it would raise up to £700 million a year.

So how would it work? The Treasury consulted on a levy in 2014 and did not proceed, but what is proposed now is quite different and, crucially, it would not allow the industry to pass costs on to the consumer and would have no impact on the RPI.

The levy model proposed by the APPG on Smoking and Health would introduce a price cap on tobacco similar to what we do with utilities. That would limit the prices to manufacturing costs plus, say, a 10% profit margin. This would be in line with other consumer products and more than generous for an industry responsible for such high levels of harm. The Government would then introduce a new levy on the industry, to be paid for from its profits.

A consultation would allow this model to be “tested and shaped”, providing a much-needed boost to public finances. The public too share our support for this proposal, with 76% of adults in England in favour of a “polluter pays” levy.

I note that the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this same subject proposes to put the proceeds into

“a dedicated fund held by the Department of Health and Social Care”.

I have not included such hypothecation in my own amendment, but I fully support what he seeks to do. Some £700 million a year could be used to support 2 million more smokers to quit just in this Parliament and accelerate progress towards a smoke-free future. It is likely that funds would be left over, which could be used for other public health activities, helping the Government achieve their mission of reducing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.

This is a measured, fair and practical proposal. It would protect the consumer, prevent industry manipulation, provide much-needed funding for the Treasury, and ensure that those who profit from an addictive and lethal product made a proper contribution to repairing the damage it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 194, on a tobacco industry levy and new industry obligations, offers a vital and practical mechanism to make the Bill stronger, fairer and more effective in public health and social justice terms. I am sure there is not a Member present whose family has not been impacted by nicotine addiction, and my family is no exception. The Bill presents an important opportunity to redress the balance between corporate profits gained from selling products that by their very nature kill two-thirds of their users and the burdens placed on wider society that are felt by our health and care systems. Other amendments in this group are based on similar ways of addressing these wider problems and I welcome them. These are problems that, if not addressed, will persist long after the Bill is passed.

My amendment would quite simply make those who profit from harm contribute directly towards repairing it. The tobacco industry continues to generate vast profits from the products it sells and it has huge economic and human suffering costs. I acknowledge that accurate statistical data in these areas is complex, but it has been estimated that the four largest tobacco manufacturers made approximately £900 million in profits annually in the UK, according to one 2023 estimate. I well recognise that tobacco duties are a significant source of government revenue, raising an estimated £8.1 billion in 2025-26, which represents 0.7% of all government receipts and is equivalent to 0.3% of national income. However, this revenue goes towards general taxation.

The health impacts of smoking and nicotine are estimated to cost the UK economy billions of pounds annually, with estimates for England alone reaching up to £43.7 billion if the total societal costs are included and some £2.5 billion in direct service costs for the NHS. These figures are significant and productivity loss and health impacts have big societal impacts. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a levy on companies’ profits derived from income from the manufacture or sale of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. The levy would apply annually and would be based on profits attributable to tobacco sales here. The funds raised would be paid to a dedicated ring-fenced account held by the Department of Health and Social Care. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, every penny collected would be used solely for the purposes of either smoking cessation services, public health campaigns focused on reducing tobacco harm or healthcare services to treat people living with smoking-related diseases.

It is worth stressing what this amendment would not do. It would not set the rate or the structure of the levy. I have left these details entirely for the Government to determine. The measure is not prescriptive; it would simply establish the legislative framework and would allow Ministers to design and introduce a fair and proportionate levy. It would give the Government flexibility to decide, for example, whether the levy should be assessed by company profits, by market share or by a combination of the two approaches. It would equally be left to the Treasury to investigate and decide, with Ministers, the best way to implement it. The principle of the amendment is the important point, and it is clear. The principle is that the tobacco companies, and not the general taxpayer, should contribute directly the greatest proportion of the cost of the harm that their products cause. It would align, as has been said on other amendments today, with the “polluter pays” model, which is endorsed by health experts across the field. The estimate is that £700 million could be generated annually to help transform smoking cessation services and public awareness campaigns, services that have been hit by cuts.

Although the level of smoking is reducing, some 13% of the UK population still smokes. This has significant impacts. For example, Imperial tobacco holds 40% of the UK market; that market is worth £30 billion annually. Meanwhile, on the other side, the NHS and the Treasury have to deal with the societal consequences of what tobacco does.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.

Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.

I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.

I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.

Moving on to Amendment 12—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Houdini would be jealous of the way the Minister ingeniously escaped the trap I set for her earlier, as she tried to reconcile her previous position with what she is now saying. But does she accept that the amendment does not at all ask the Government to introduce a levy? It says:

“The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability”.


That would enable the Government, and indeed others, to look at some of the issues that the Minister has raised. The 2014 exercise she referred to consulted on a totally different levy, which would have been passed on to the consumer. The difference between the “polluter pays” principle as we propose it and the one that she proposes is that in the case we prefer, it would be the tobacco manufacturers that would pay, whereas relying on the duty, as the Minister seems to, means that the consumer pays.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree that Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, would require the Government to consult on introducing a tobacco industry levy, but, as a former Minister himself, he will be aware of the use of consultation. It remains the case that we believe that the most effective model of dealing with tobacco products is through increases in tobacco duty, so it would not be logical to accept an amendment that requires a consultation on something the Government do not wish to pursue. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Government to make regulations to introduce a tobacco industry levy.

Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to publish quarterly data relating to the sale of tobacco products across England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require regulations made under Clause 95 to require the provision of certain information, including sales data from producers or importers of relevant products. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke in support of these amendments.

This is perhaps an opportunity to refer back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I heard her concerns about what I said on day one. This is not a question of labelling an industry in any way, but we take very seriously our obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I and the Government are very sympathetic to attempts to increase and improve the transparency of the tobacco industry.

I certainly agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We know that deprived areas are more likely to have lower life expectancy and higher smoking rates. That is why we particularly need to press forward with this legislation. It is also why we routinely and proactively publish correspondence received from and sent to the tobacco industry, and have produced guidance for the Government on engagement with the tobacco industry, which protects health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry and encourages transparency in all interactions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28, which concerns free samples of tobacco and vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her support.

Although I understand that Clause 15 will take action on this issue, it is such an important matter and such a significant gap in current regulation that I wish to address it directly with my amendment. The promotion of tobacco and vaping products through the distribution of free samples is wholly unacceptable. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, with which I was involved, explicitly banned that practice for tobacco. It is exactly what I saw in Africa when I was a DfID Minister, with primary age children given cigarettes as the tobacco industry saw its market decline in the West and sought to addict children in other parts of the world. If vapes were really only used for smoking cessation, why would they be so clearly targeted at children, as we have heard?

Since vapes have come on to the market, there have been multiple reports of such products being handed out to young people to get them addicted to nicotine. It is the route that my nephew, to whom I referred on Monday, and his friends, who are now unable to kick the smoking habit, arrived at cigarette smoking—via colourful vapes. It would be useful to publish the sales data, and we will see whether we have some useful data on potential upticks among children smoking as a result of vapes.

Public health campaigners have long called for the closing of the loophole that allows vapes to be given to children as part of a promotional activity. As far back as 2010, the Guardian reported that a 17 year-old had been given a free sample of BAT’s vape brand, without being told that it contained nicotine or being asked for age verification. Such promotions are often carried out by third-party marketeers at festivals, train stations and in city centres, with young, vibrant staff enticing people with their free products—but with limited explanation of the risks. Trading standards can do nothing about this, as vapes are not currently covered by existing restrictions.

My amendment came as a result of sitting on the Tube on 7 May this year and looking up and seeing the advert for Zyn that I am holding up. I know we are not supposed to use props, but this makes the point. Zyn, it says, is a “flavour you feel”. “No smoke, no vapour, no tobacco” is what that advert says in large type. Sounds benign, does it not? However, there is an asterisk to very small print that says it is derived from tobacco. Then there are the flavours: chilli guava, icy blackcurrant, citrus, black cherry, cool mint. Then it says, “Claim your free sample today”, with a double asterisk to another tiny warning and a minute warning underneath saying that it is not risk free—an understatement—that it contains nicotine, which is addictive, and that it should only be used by adults who would otherwise continue to smoke or use nicotine. Oh yes, just look at this advert. Do they put those warnings in bold colours and letters? Oh no, they do not. So do not tell me that this is not targeted at young people.

I was so angry to see that and that is why my amendment came forward. How can anyone justify seeking to draw children and young people in with an advert like that and sleep soundly at night? It is welcome that this Bill will finally address this issue, but it has taken an unacceptably long time to reach this point. The industry is, as ever, using all sorts of arguments to water this down, and we should not buy that. Young people who have never smoked should not be using vapes, as my noble friend Lord Russell has just said. Yet, 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping and 160,000 children at least vape daily.

I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the following. First, will the Bill be robust enough to capture any future innovations the industry might devise? We have seen time and again how the tobacco industry exploits loopholes and adapts products to evade regulation. It is essential this practice of giving out free samples to hook young people on to addictive products ends with this Bill. Secondly, could the Minister comment on the timeframe and the reasoning behind it? I note that no further regulations are required but that the measure will come into force six months after Royal Assent. Is there any possibility that we could bring this forward? We have already waited five years for this change. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about time slipping on this. This is one of the most insidious forms of marketing, and we should crack down on it as swiftly as possible.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. Amendment 16 is about age. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that young people are sensible. I agree with that. I think it follows from that that they are sensible enough to understand that Parliament may have prescribed different age limits for different activities, so I do not find that argument wholly conclusive but, on a more conciliatory note, I agree with what my noble friend said about Clause 12.

“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine … is available for use”.


However, there is no provision for any exceptions.

My noble friend made a case for those mental health hospitals that have vending machines that enable patients to remain smoke free. Is it the case that, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to take those vape machines out and go through the whole process of licensing to be able continue to sell vaping products? Is it the case that, under Clause 16(3)

“The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (1) or (2)”.


Is that the “get out of jail” card we need to solve the problem my noble friend rightly drew attention to?

My noble friend also touched on Amendment 17A, which relates to vaping machines in non-age-gated premises. The explanatory statement says that the amendment

“would permit the sale of vapes and other nicotine products through vending machines in only those premises that are already restricted to adults only”.

I wonder what those premises are, because younger people can go into pubs and clubs. What are these age-gated premises? I can think of nightclubs and the Chambers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but it would be helpful to hear in slightly more detail exactly what these exemptions might be.

I am cautious about any exemptions, because I see vaping products as a smoking-cessation tool. Allowing vaping products to be made available in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or wherever, tends more towards the recreational use of vaping, which I think we all want to downplay. I give way to the noble Baroness, who will explain what these age-gated premises are.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The point of vape vending machines in a lot of nightclubs and late-night premises—of which I hear tales and know nothing—is that, when people are out and about, very often they recreationally smoke. That is how a lot of young people start smoking: they have a cigarette with a drink. The idea therefore is that people should at least have the option of vaping. Young people are actually lobbying for this. I know how keen everyone is on giving young people what they want. That is the deal.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The noble Baroness destroys her own argument by saying that nightclubs are premises where young people go for recreation and then saying that they might use the vaping machines and start vaping. The last thing we want is for young people, who do not want to smoke, to start vaping because they are in a recreational atmosphere where other people are vaping and there is an opportunity for them to join in. I repeat the point that I see vaping as a smoking-cessation tool, not a recreational exercise.

Finally, while I am normally on the same page as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this, I find his argument—that we need to fix a price that is so high that it is out of the reach of young people with pocket money, but so low that we do not penalise those in poor communities where smoking is prevalent—to be an impossible circle to square. He indicated some flexibility, but flexibility does not solve the problem, because the easier we make it for the smoking communities to start vaping, the easier it is for young people. I am not sure that price control is an area that is going to solve the problem, but I accept the environmental consequences that he spoke so fluently about.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to the amendments from my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Russell and I laid Amendment 21 to probe the issue of the affordability of vapes for young people. Currently, the evidence of the number of young people below the legal age of 18 accessing vapes indicates that they are currently affordable. Not all young people are getting them on the black market, because about half of them state in surveys that they get them from a shop. This certainly raises the question of why retailers are selling vapes to young people without proof of age.

It also raises the role of price. Minimum pricing is a mechanism that has been used for public health reasons to increase the price of alcohol and decrease the amount that people buy. Why do we not take the same approach for vapes? Besides, as I understand it, if the price of vapes is seen as a barrier to quitting, a patient can have them prescribed to them by a doctor. Is that true? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.

We want to use this Bill to protect the use of vapes as an effective tool for quitting smoking. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I do not think there is any contradiction between that and wanting to protect young people from taking up vaping, especially as it sometimes leads to smoking tobacco as well.

We are aware that a vape liquid excise duty will come in next October, which will increase the price of vapes. A smoker who wants to use vapes as a quitting tool will not be deterred from buying vapes if they continue to be cheaper than cigarettes because clearly they can afford cigarettes, so of course they can also afford vapes. Can the Minister reassure us that the concurrent increase in the tax on tobacco will maintain that gap and keep tobacco more expensive than vapes? Do the Government have any granular research on the effect of the price of these products as a deterrent?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I had the privilege, before being an MP, of working as a director of one of the major advertising agencies. We had, as clients, one of the tobacco companies. I have seen the tobacco industry for 50 years and have watched what has been happening where it has been responsible and where it has not. On the whole, the industry has been responsible. I look at the NHS and the work that was done jointly with the industry on education, particularly with general practitioners, which has worked. We all know it has worked. That is why there has been a steady decline thanks to our GPs being the voice, helped by the industry itself.

On statistics, I have an upper second in economics from the University of Cambridge, but HMRC does not have a track record—whether it is a Conservative or Labour Government—of being terribly good at its forecasting. I read that, according to the brief, HMRC says that the loss from illegal importation et cetera is £2.2 billion. We have the figures from at least as good an organisation, if not better: the ONS. Its consumer spending data suggests that the figure is over £6 billion. Either way, it is a huge figure for the current Chancellor to look at very seriously. In my judgment, it is clearly nearer the £6 billion figure than the £2.2 billion.

Lastly—nobody has raised this—have His Majesty’s Government looked at what Sweden did in terms of educating young people? The success of the Government in Sweden on their particular challenges has been the in-depth education of young people in that country about the evils of smoking. If His Majesty’s Government have not done that yet, might I suggest that it is high time they did. I believe the amendments before us are worth supporting. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly a lot better than the case history we have from Australia, which is really worrying.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speeches from my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Bethell. This group of amendments is probably the most important one that confronts this Committee because it challenges a major plank underpinning the Government’s approach to this by challenging the generational ban. It is appropriate that this group contains not just the first of the marshalled amendments but the last.

A long time ago, I held the position of the Minister as a Health Minister. From 1979 to 1981, I was in charge of the negotiations with the tobacco industry—the Tobacco Advisory Council as it then was—and I adopted a fairly aggressive negotiation tactic. When I suggested that the health warnings should not be just on the packets but the cigarettes, they told me I could not do this as the ink was carcinogenic. In 1981, my tactics proved a little too much for the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who moved me to a less confrontational position on that issue.

I have listened with respect to the arguments made by my noble friends in favour of Amendment 1, which would basically substitute the generational ban with a ban for anyone under 21. As my noble friend Lord Howe said on Second Reading, these issues involve a balance between personal freedoms on one hand and health gain on the other, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Noble Lords may come down on different sides of the argument in free vote territory, but it seems to me the weakness of the amendment is simply its lack of ambition. It does not appear to bring to an end the harm done by the tobacco industry which is the whole point of the generational ban. As the former Prime Minister said last week, it was one of his proudest initiatives of those he introduced when he was Prime Minister.

It is worth just reminding your Lordships that the Bill passed the other place twice, once with a majority of 415 to 47. Last year, when my party was in government and had a free vote, I noted that the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the Bill, with just 67 voting against, and only two members of the Cabinet of about 30 voted against. So I hope that the broad policy introduced by the previous Government will continue to be carried through by this one and that a free vote will be allowed on my side for those who take a different view. I also recognise that the Bill is actually a little different from the one that was introduced last year.

This amendment would indeed reduce the harm done by smoking, but the Government’s own assessment concludes that a generational ban promises a far greater effect on smoking prevalence and broader support among young people. We should not want a smaller scale of ambition for a product that has killed a million people in this country over the last 50 years. The increase in the age of sale was a bit of policy conceived on evidence and based on long-term public health reform. It has strong public support, and it is backed by experts.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, this does not impact current smokers. The impact on personal freedom is less under the Government’s proposal than under the amendment. The rewards from this are substantial: fewer young people taking up smoking, fewer families suffering avoidable disease and loss, and a future in which our economy and NHS are no longer burdened by the toll from tobacco.

I will say a quick word about the black market. I can do no better than to quote what Victoria Atkins said when this point was raised when she introduced nearly the same Bill last year. On the point about

“the age of sale and the black market, tobacco industry representatives claim that there will be unintended consequences from raising the age of sale. They assert that the black market will boom. Before the smoking age was increased from 16 to 18, they sang from the same hymn sheet, but the facts showed otherwise. The number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25%, and smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/24; col. 188.]

So I recognise the concerns of some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party, but I remind them that crash helmets were made compulsory under the Heath Government in 1973; seatbelts became compulsory for drivers under the Thatcher Government in 1983 and for all passengers in 1981 under John Major. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So the generational ban is consistent with my party’s approach to public health over the last 50 years and I hope it will be sustained in this Parliament.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I just make a few points that have been raised in the debate. Noble Lords will soon find out that I do not take the same view as my noble friend Lord Scriven; I take the same view as my noble friend Lady Northover. Some of the aspects of this Bill are indeed a free vote for my party.

In this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, intends to remove the generational element. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Young, have just mentioned, this is not prohibition for those already addicted to tobacco. In fact, the reason why the generational ban and the way that it works through is a good idea is because it is considerate to people who are already addicted to tobacco. It allows them to have plenty of time to quit if they so wish—the fact is that most of them do, but many find it very difficult. Retailers have been mentioned. The same thing applies to retailers: this gives them an opportunity to gradually adjust their business plan as demand falls. This is a good way of doing it for them as well. Taxation has been mentioned. Of course, taxation on tobacco does not nearly cover the damage that it does, but we will come to “polluter pays” later.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been shouting fire about the illicit market but, on the illicit market, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and I have some helpful amendments that we will discuss in a later group, which may help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, said, the central point of the powers that the Government are taking is to stop people starting in the first place and thereby reduce the market, both legal and illicit. Sadly, the Government have taken so long to bring this before us in Committee that 120,000 young people have started smoking since the Bill was first introduced. Something must be done. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, a public health crisis.

My noble friend Lord Scriven talked about the difficulty where you have two people who are very close in age but have different rights of choice. However, if you move the age limit to 21, you have the same problem with the 20 year-old and the 22 year-old. Really, it does not make any difference to that point. A very small choice restriction on one person’s freedom of choice is for the greater good and their own good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 17. The bulk of the amendments in this group are to do with age verification, but mine are not, and I do not intend to speak about age verification. However, the process of numerical determinism that governs our actions and procedures means that I have the privilege of speaking first in this group.

My amendments are to do with the question of whether certain regulations should be approved and made by the affirmative or negative process, which I hope is a relatively uncontroversial topic. Indeed, I hope that it will find support across the Committee, because I wish to move from the current arrangement whereby these regulations are made under the negative process to the affirmative process, which generally finds favour among your Lordships.

Both amendments require certain specific regulations—not all regulations—to be approved by the affirmative process. Amendment 3 relates to tobacco sales and Amendment 17 relates to vape sales. The activities subject to these regulations are what constitute a defence by the retailer if charged with an offence under the Bill. In other words, these regulations state how a retailer must operate if they are to have a defence under the Bill from the charge of making illicit sales. To be effective, these must be highly technical and challenging regulations which will require the broadest consultation with representative bodies, including those representing not only retailers but trading standards and enforcement officers, which I think would benefit greatly from parliamentary scrutiny.

This would involve issues such as—we will come on to this—what sort of age verification would be acceptable and other matters of that sort. As I say, they are likely to be very technical and they will have to work. If they are going to work, the greater the scrutiny they are given, the better. In that sense, the argument makes itself.

I hope that the Government see that there is nothing mischievous about these amendments; the Bill and the operation of it would benefit by accepting them, and there should be little difficulty in doing so. I am not proposing to speak on the broader question of age verification that will come up in the course of this debate, but I wish to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, tabled in my name, would create an offence of selling tobacco products online. This is a probing amendment.

If the generational ban policy is to be effective, or the alternative policy of an age limit of 21, there would be a clear loophole if tobacco could be bought online, as roughly 9% of sales are at the moment, without any form of age verification. Such a policy would be unusual for the UK, as there is not currently a product that is available for sale in a bricks and mortar shop that you cannot legally purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to introduce this measure: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, France and Greece, to name a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet, so there are some clear international precedents.

Banning the online sale of tobacco was recommended by the Khan review in 2022 and the World Health Organization, which argued that internet sales constitute

“display at points of sale”

and

“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.

Today you can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarket websites or shopping apps and see reviews, such as:

“Quite nice for relaxing on a summers day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps or at a test match”,


as one purchaser of Pall Mall Flow Red Superkings commented. Last time I went to a test match, smoking was prohibited.

Separately from the point about the delivery of smoking products, are these the messages that we want smokers to see about such a lethal product, given that such advertising was banned on television some 60 years ago? When retailers sell tobacco products, they are not permitted to display them, yet there are pictures of products online. This seems inconsistent. Products such as heated tobacco and cigarillos have colourful packaging, as they are not captured by plain-pack laws, which seems to be a regulatory oversight. I appreciate that the Government may be doing something about this, so perhaps the Minister can give us some details—but it feels like the online world is somewhere where rules are often bent with little repercussion, and the amendment would address that.

At the moment, online sales are not heavily exploited by underage individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we should be mindful of that possibility in the future. If the Government are minded to resist the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain how age verification will be secured at the point of delivery. Someone born after 2009 can order their groceries online and include tobacco, but they could not buy it in the shop. How might this be enforced without the amendment? Does the Minister plan to go down the route that we have taken for the delivery of knives? Since 2022, a retailer has to verify the age of the purchaser before he or she sells a knife and, if that knife is delivered after an online order, it has to be checked at the point of delivery. Does the Minister have that in mind for tobacco sales? Who will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy if tobacco products are available online? I look forward to her reply in due course.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for introducing this group of amendments, and I agree with his proposals relating to the mechanism by which the House looks at statutory instruments. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the desirability of further constraining online sales. However, I do not want to talk at length about those; I want to talk simply about age-verification technology and the potential that it offers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment is grouped with Amendment 199, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 193, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I repeat my declaration of interest that my wife is a non-executive director of Tesco. I will speak to my own amendment and leave it to others to speak to theirs.

I remind noble Lords that the ambition of the Bill is nothing less than the wholesale eradication of smoking. I laid out the costs of smoking to our society in my Second Reading speech: the immense economic impact on our national finances, the relentless pressure on our health system, the toll on our human capital and the deep corporate injustice that sees tobacco companies profit while society, particularly the poorest, pays the price. I also laid out the benefits of getting rid of smoking, so I will not detain noble Lords by restating that.

The purpose of my amendment, and the opportunity presented by the growth of vaping, is a natural extension of the Bill’s intent: a logical, fair and legally robust endpoint, in 2040, to the regulatory ratchet that is already contained within the Bill. It would give clarity and confidence to consumers and industry alike, deal with the long tail of divided rights between generations and be fair to retailers, offering certainty, managed transition and guidance towards new business models.

We know that a hard stop with a long run-up can work because we have done it plenty of times before. Under John Prescott, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 completed a phased ban that took nearly two decades and provided industries with time-limited exemptions and sunset clauses. Today, I am pleased to say that workplace asbestos exposure has fallen by 80%. Another example of a full-stop measure was the phase out of leaded petrol, initiated in 1987 and completed in 2000, which gave manufacturers and motorists 15 years to adapt. I am pleased to say that lead levels in urban air have fallen by 94%. Thirdly, the elimination of CFCs under the Montreal protocol, signed in 1987 and implemented through UK regulations in the 1990s, relied on structured deadlines and support for innovation. I am pleased to say that global CFC consumption has dropped by 98%.

Each of those measures that tackled toxins that poisoned our society followed the same formula: clear deadlines, fair transitions and decisive action. Each was thoroughly opposed by the industry. There were warnings of economic collapse on each occasion, but none of that came to pass. Instead, we emerged with a healthier, safer and more innovative society.

Let me explain how this amendment—the “extinction 2040” amendment—might operate in practice. Proposed new subsection (1) would provide for the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to any person in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2040, thereby establishing a complete stop date for smoking. Proposed new subsection (2) specifies that all licences to sell tobacco and tobacco retail registrations would be invalid as of midnight on 1 January 2040. In other words, the licences currently administered by local authorities under powers anticipated in Clause 58, which establishes a national tobacco licensing regime, would be ended. Local councils in Scotland already operate such schemes under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and similar powers will be extended to England and Wales on Royal Assent.

Proposed new subsection (3) would impose a mandatory duty on the Secretary of State. It states that, within 12 months of the Act passing, the Secretary of State would

“lay before Parliament a strategy for … implementing the complete prohibition”.

This strategy must address four elements. Proposed new subsection (4) would require

“provision for a phased reduction in tobacco product availability beginning not later than 1 January 2030”.

This would be delivered through progressive amendments to licensing regulations issued under Clause 58, reducing the number of retail authorisations by geographic area, imposing proximity restrictions near schools and health facilities and ultimately restricting sales to larger retailers with compliance infrastructure. This task would fall jointly to the Department of Health and Social Care, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training.

In practice, phased reduction means progressive tightening of retailer licensing, initially capping licensing numbers per local authority, then applying proximity restrictions and ultimately withdrawing licences from smaller retailers, while allowing supermarkets to transition shelf space to vaping devices and alternatives—products that the Government already support as harm-reduction tools. This plan aligns with changing consumer behaviour. Smoking prevalence is falling and retailers are diversifying, as we have discussed.

On enforcement, proposed new subsection (3)(c) would require

“strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent illicit trade”.

This responsibility falls to HMRC under the existing powers of the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) Regulations 2019 and Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2020, which authorises civil penalties and empowers HMRC to deactivate economic operator identification numbers. Trading standards officers provide complementary enforcement. Critically, this system already exists and is cost neutral, as penalties, duty recovery fund operations and phased withdrawal of the legal market actually reduce illicit activity by cutting demand.

Finally, proposed new subsection (3)(d) would mandate

“enhancing smoking cessation services to support individuals ahead of the 2040 prohibition”.

The Government have already committed £70 million annually to local stop smoking services, distributed to upper-tier local authorities based on smoking prevalence. This funds the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training and NHS community pharmacy services, which offer nicotine replacement therapy and behavioural counselling. Scaling this architecture over 15 years would ensure that, by 2040, the vast majority of current smokers would have been supported to quit, minimising enforcement costs and public backlash.

This amendment would work with the grain of existing systems, emerging technologies and declining smoking rates. It would assign clear responsibilities to established agencies: local authorities for licensing; HMRC and trading standards for enforcement; the DHSC and OHID for cessation. It would grant a 15-year transition period, ensuring fairness to industry and retailers. A complete prohibition by 2040, with phased reductions and cessation support, would generate measurable productivity gains for our economy, savings for the NHS and reduced economic inactivity, likely reducing the costs of our national debt within a decade. Crucially, this amendment could be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

We stand at a crossroads. This Bill could be remembered in two ways: as a high point for incrementalism, a policy that is cautious and takes a century to work, that is not registered economically and is complex; or it could be the beginning of a more emphatic approach to regulation where Britain stops tinkering and starts deciding. I believe that we should choose the second path—the evidence supports it and so do the public. It is not my intention to push this amendment, but I urge the Minister to consider it seriously. If she cannot find a place for it in today’s Bill, could she comment on how the department might study such a measure for a future Bill?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 193 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, covers much of the same territory as Amendment 199. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smoke-free country every five years. It lacks the ambition of my noble friend Lord Bethell, who provides not just a road map but a destination and a date. If we were to agree with my noble friend, that would be worthwhile progress.

This group of amendments is important because, although the Bill is a step forward in promoting public health and reducing the numbers who start to smoke, as it stands it does very little to help the 6 million smokers who are already endangering their health. The amendment reflects the latest APPG on Smoking and Health report, which calls on the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country. The Labour Party promised to publish such a strategy in its health mission document, Build an NHS Fit for the Future, saying it was important that no one should be left behind. It said:

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


I hope this amendment will find favour with the Minister. Can the Government confirm that they have the same target as the last one, to achieve a virtually smoke-free England by 2030?

As I said, the rising age of sale will not affect current smokers but, as the legislation is progressed with, we should not forget them. Smoking is not evenly distributed across our society. There are higher rates of smoking in nearly all groups experiencing disadvantage and high rates among people with mental health conditions, those on low incomes and those living in social housing—the people most at risk of being left behind, whom the Government have rightly said they will look after. In turn, these differences fuel the gaps in healthy life expectancy between different groups in our society and undermine progress on addressing inequality.

To end this inequality, the Government need a clear plan or road map on how we can achieve a smoke-free future for all parts of society. That road map should include clear targets. For example, the APPG on Smoking and Health has called for a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament. Is that something that the Minister could sign up to? If such a reduction were achieved, the country would be on track to have less than 5% smoking two years later and could continue progress to make smoking obsolete within 20 years, within shooting range of my noble friend Lord Bethell’s target.

There should also be specific targets for vulnerable groups with high rates of smoking. Under the last Conservative Government, the target to reduce smoking among 15 year-olds was achieved. The previous Government also set a target to reduce the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy to 6% or less by the end of 2022. That target was not met, but it helped mobilise significant support for pregnant women, which has led to a reduction—it fell at the fastest ever rate last year.

The last Government also committed to other targets—for example, using the pioneering Swap to Stop scheme. It is welcome that the Government have maintained their commitment to some of these initiatives, but they should be part of an overall strategy so that we have a clear vision of where we want to go and how the various components help us reach that target. There is also a risk that, once this legislation has passed, the Government, both locally and nationally, are lulled into believing the job has been done, so we need a clear plan now and every five years until we have created a smoke-free country.

I understand the pressure on the NHS, but the astonishing decline in smoking among pregnant women was achieved by embedding support in hospitals alongside financial incentives. However, these services are now threatened with cost pressures in the NHS, seeing some ICBs reduce or decommission those vital services. Within a road map to a smoke-free country, the role of ICBs could be clearly laid out and the importance of these services in helping to reduce the incidence of smoking could be clarified.

So the Bill is ambitious. It is world leading when it comes to stopping the start, but we need the Government to have a similar ambition for supporting the current 6 million smokers in the UK to quit for good.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, there are two Bills that we debate this week, both of which originated with the last Conservative Government—the other one being the Renters’ Rights Bill—so this should be a harmonious few days in your Lordships’ House.

I recognise the concerns that some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party may have about this Bill. They may feel that it is an intrusion on the freedom of the individual and an excessive intervention by the state. I want to try to allay those concerns. Like others who have spoken, I was a Health Minister, nearly 50 years ago. I recall a conversation that I had in the context of the debate about seat belts with a consultant at St George’s Hospital, which was then at Hyde Park Corner. He was preparing a patient for an organ transplant; the patient had a rare blood type, and it had taken him some time to procure the supplies. Just before the patient was wheeled into the operating theatre, there was a traffic accident at Hyde Park Corner. The driver, not wearing a seat belt, had life-threatening injuries. He was wheeled into St George’s and had the same rare blood type as the transplant patient, so the patient’s operation was postponed. That shows that, in the interconnected world in which we live, a decision by one person to take a personal risk has consequences for other people.

I say to my friends that the Conservative Party actually has a proud record in the history of public health. In 1973 the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets was introduced by the Ted Heath Government. In 1983, under the Margaret Thatcher Government, seat belts were made compulsory for drivers, and in 1991 they were made compulsory for passengers. As my noble friend Lord Lansley has said, the coalition Government took further steps, and the last Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So this measure is perfectly consistent with my party’s approach to public health over 50 years.

The Bill that we are debating, unlike others to which I have referred, would not impact on the freedom of anyone today. The Bill, as published, enables adults who buy cigarettes and smoke legally today to continue to be able to do so. My criticism of the Bill is that it does not do enough to discourage existing smokers to stop or to discourage new smokers starting. The Minister referred to the Government’s three-pronged approach to health—switching from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention —but that latter switch requires resources, currently in short supply.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. Again, that is a principle introduced by previous Conservative Governments: the landfill levy was introduced in 1996; the soft drinks levy was introduced in 2018; and, after the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Conservative Government, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his recommendations. His preferred option was a “polluter pays” industry levy. A tobacco “polluter pays” levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied to a percentage of profits. It would not impact on the CPI, nor on the cost to the consumer, but it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022. Responding to Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, the then shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, stated:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


The noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that that commitment will be tested when we reach Report, to make this an even better Bill than it is now.

NHS Dentistry

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve access to NHS dentistry.

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

My Lords, we are tackling the challenges for patients trying to access NHS dental care by providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments per year, with integrated care boards delivering those extra appointments from 1 April 2025, which is not long away. We will recruit new dentists to the areas that need them most and to rebuild dentistry in the long term we will reform the dental contract with the sector and shift to focus on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I very much welcome the 700,000 extra appointments, which will begin to make an impact on the 2.2 million people who now need urgent care, but did the noble Baroness read the leader in the Times on Monday which said

“the scandal of NHS dentistry has dogged successive governments without resolution”?

It mentioned the 30,000 children each year who go to hospital to have rotten teeth extracted under anaesthetic and the 18 million adults and children who cannot access an NHS dentist. Does she agree that at the root of this problem is the 2006 dental contract, which has driven dentists out of the profession? When might a new contract be introduced? Given that the most effective public health measure is to add fluoride to the water supply where it does not exist naturally, when will she roll out the programme that has begun in the north-east?

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to explain the significance of Amendment 64 in my name, which aims to cover the situation of both young carers and young children in a family where a care and treatment plan is being prepared for their parent. I thank the Carers Trust for suggesting this amendment and providing a briefing on this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for the amendment and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who has just spoken of her support for it.

Briefly, the amendment adds the requirement that a practitioner preparing or reviewing a care and treatment plan must ask whether there are children in the family and take actions to respond if the children need help or protection from harm. This amendment would, as I said, cover young carers, but it would also cover young children where there may be safeguarding concerns—a topic which the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel highlighted as a theme in its latest annual report.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just touched on, young carers are so often hidden, and often their needs are identified only when there is a crisis. Even then, the extent of their caring role and the impact it has on the child’s development may not be recognised quickly or fully assessed. This amendment would help to ensure earlier identification of children who might be in need of information, support or protection from potential harm. It would mean staff asking the right questions early on to ensure that the right information is recorded and actions taken. It would help with adequate signposting of information and a chance to offer appropriate support to avoid a crisis or manage it appropriately.

The amendment also mirrors the new wording in the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, which covers adult social practitioners:

“When staff are providing services to adults, they should ask whether there are children in the family and take actions to respond if the children need help or protection from harm. Additional parenting support could be particularly needed where the adults have mental health problems”.


There is evidence that having a parent with a mental health problem is one of the biggest risk factors for a first episode of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents.

This is not inevitable. Research suggests that intervention can enhance parenting skills in households affected by parental depression, and it can change the way that children cope. In turn, this can reduce the risk of children internalising problems that may threaten their life chances. The amendment is designed to enhance the ability of agencies working individually and together to identify and respond to the safeguarding needs of families. It is about supporting the challenging work of finding out what is happening to children and anticipating risks and harm, of knowing when action is needed. In most cases, children receive the support, help and protection they need, but sometimes children are seriously harmed or, worse, they can die because of neglect.

Policy initiatives in recent years have called for a wider family focus on safeguarding children so that all staff recognise that meeting the needs of family members who may put children at risk benefits the child, the adult and the family as a whole. This amendment would support those efforts. The amendment is in keeping with guidance from the Social Care Institute for Excellence to “Think child, think parent, think family”, to ensure that the child is heard and their needs are met.

The Carers Trust believes that the amendment would unlock additional support from mental health professionals to work with parents and children to enable the child to have age-appropriate understanding of what is happening to their parent and information about what services are available for them in their situation and how they can access them.

To illustrate the need for the amendment, I have two short case studies. Aidan was four when his mother was first sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Throughout his childhood, Aidan’s mother was regularly sectioned and would sometimes be in hospital for a number of months. There were many occasions when the police were involved because his mother had disappeared, which was particularly scary for Aidan. In his words:

“To me, you only ever saw the police if you’d done something wrong, so I remember when they turned up at our house, I thought mum was in trouble”.


Seeing his mother being taken into hospital on a regular basis meant that Aidan had lots of questions and worries. In his words again:

“There were so many times where I wondered whether mum would ever come home. I knew she’d been sectioned but I had no idea what that actually meant or if she would ever get better”.


Staff at the hospital who were treating Aidan’s mother would regularly see him visiting. Despite this, none of the staff there told Aidan or his father about support that might be available or asked whether Aidan might need any help. It was only when Aidan was 12 and his attendance dropped at school that he was identified as a young carer.

The second case is Vamp’s story. This is a pseudonym chosen by her family. The case study is taken from a recently published child safeguarding practice review which found that a 13 year-old girl died as a result of taking drugs sold to her in a park. It was identified that her mother had had a period of serious mental illness, and that illness was identified as the catalyst for things deteriorating for the young person. Tragically, two years on, the young person had died. This is taken from the relevant extract from the child safeguarding practice review:

“Vamp’s mother did not feel that her daughter had been a young carer … as the mental illness was short term. However, Vamp’s sister described the situation as being so difficult for both. When their mother was discharged home from hospital, it was only Vamp and her mother at home. Vamp’s sister was only a young adult, and with her own baby to care for. She … said she felt that no one checked in on their mother. Vamp’s sister … said that professionals expected her mother to manage to parent Vamp, which she was not able to do alone, she needed professional help”.


This is a simple but important amendment to protect young carers. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider it, and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and shall speak briefly in support. I have not contributed to this Bill before, but I have sat through many of the debates. Without sounding pompous, it struck me that this was our House at its best, dealing with a complicated Bill in a sensitive and non-partisan way and drawing on the unique expertise we have in our House.

As I listened to the earlier debates on detention and community treatment orders, I asked myself how the children in the families concerned would be informed and what the impact on them would be. We have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, the impact on Aidan when his mother was sectioned. By definition, the people covered by the Bill are vulnerable people; many of them will have carers, and many of those carers will be young carers. As the noble Baroness has just said, this amendment simply helps improve the earlier identification of children of parents being detained under the Act and to ensure that they have access to support, if they need it, and are safeguarded where necessary.

The 2021 census showed that there are 50,000 young carers caring for over 50 hours a week. An astonishing number—3,000 of them—are aged between five and nine. The Carers Trust has shown that those young carers at school are at risk of a poorer attendance record, lower academic achievement and more liable to social isolation and, sadly, bullying, if they are not identified early. As the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, just said, having a parent with a mental health problem is actually one of the biggest risk factors for depression in children and adolescents. But it is not inevitable: research suggests that intervention can reduce that risk and change the way that children cope.

As a vice-chairman of the APPG on Young Carers, I know that we took evidence last year from young carers, and we heard that on average it takes three years for a young carer to be identified, with some of them taking over 10 years before being identified. Improving early identification is one of the top priorities of the all-party group, so that they can access support and not be negatively affected by their caring situation.

This amendment will help to tackle the issue, which is reported by young carer services, that many potential young carers are not identified by adult mental health services. For example, one young carers service, the Young Carers Alliance, reported that 20% of the young carers it supports are supporting a parent with a mental illness, yet they did not receive a single referral from the adult mental health services in the space of an entire year.

In our inquiry, we also heard from the charity Our Time how, when it comes to identifying young carers by mental health professionals, we are way behind countries such as the Netherlands and Norway. Both those countries have introduced requirements for health professionals to consider whether adults with mental health problems have children. This referral may not be a one-way process; if the child is a carer, he or she may have an insight into the events that trigger an episode in the parent and may actually help the professionals to identify an appropriate treatment pathway.

A final benefit of this amendment is that it would help adult mental health in-patient units ensure that they are complying with the duty under Section 91 of the Health and Care Act 2022 to consult with any carers, including young carers, before discharging an adult from hospital. Again, last year, we heard of patients being discharged without the young carer being informed, often where they were the principal carer. For these reasons, I hope that the Government can support this amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Social Care Reform

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform social care.

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

My Lords, adult social care reform is critical to achieving this Government’s aim that everyone lives well for longer. Our vision is to create a national care service underpinned by national standards and delivered locally, supporting people to live independently for as long as possible. We will also establish the first-ever fair pay agreement for care professionals. We will engage widely with the sector and people with lived experience to inform these plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the proposals to improve pay and conditions for those working in the adult care sector that the noble Baroness just announced. But is she aware of the widespread dismay at the cancellation of the proposals for reform, due to come in next year, without anything being put in their place, particularly against the background of what Wes Streeting said during the campaign:

“We don’t have any plans to change that situation and that’s the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage”?


The former Health Minister, Lord Warner, said that the Government’s announcement was “misguided”. He went on to say, on the plans for reform:

“A Royal Commission and a vague aspiration for a National Care Service is … kicking the can along the road”.


So should the Government not adopt the proposals put forward unanimously by two Lords Select Committees, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and make progress straightaway?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that, whenever there is a change in direction, there is concern. I take the noble Lord’s point. The inherited commitment to implement the adult social care charging reforms, which would have been on course for next month, was undeliverable because the previous Government did not guarantee the money to do that. It would have cost nearly £1 billion next year, rising to £4 billion by the end of the decade. There were many false dawns in respect of this long—and repeatedly—promised change. It is also the case that there was not adequate preparation to implement the charging reforms. Councils warned that they were impossible to deliver in full in the previously announced timeframe. With all that in mind, I am sorry to say that we, as the new Government, had little alternative but to say that these were not funded or on course to be delivered. We will have to ensure that we offer a national care service, along with a new deal for care workers. We will continue to consult and listen to those with lived experience in order to get it right.

Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to move what the Minister has correctly identified as a fatal amendment that the House do not approve this order. This is on two primary grounds: the lack of democratic oversight and the concerns of the medical profession.

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the existence of physician associates or assistants, or their anaesthetist colleagues. I am not opposed to their regulation—indeed, I am keen to see them regulated—and I respect the efforts of current and future PAs and AAs who complete their studies and have the student debt to prove it.

I also want to be clear that, unless I get an indication from the House that it wishes me to do so, it is not my intention to put this amendment to the vote. My intention in tabling it was to ensure that the many hundreds of voices of concern that have reached me personally and the more than 21,000 doctors and patients who wrote to their MPs opposing this order are heard, and that the Government consider—seriously, I hope—whether they should go forward to regulate PAs and AAs in this manner, with this order.

I will first address the second part of my fatal amendment, about the views of doctors and patients. Sir Robert Peel invented the concept of policing by consent. I want to adapt that for these circumstances by saying that we must have regulation by consent. I am sure that all noble Lords engaged tonight are aware that the British Medical Association, the Doctors’ Association UK and the EveryDoctor group are opposed to this statutory instrument, for reasons on which I am sure we will hear much more from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, with their regret amendments.

One of the very serious concerns is about clarity for patients and the confusion introduced by the title “associate”. On that I turn to a report from the BBC, an interview with Marion Chesterton, the mother of Emily, who tragically died after being seen twice by a PA and misdiagnosed. Marion said that her daughter

“didn’t know she hadn’t seen a doctor”.

Marion added—and this is something that I think people should focus on:

“Physician associate sounds grander than a GP”.


I pick up a point made by the Minister about PAs and AAs having been around for 20 years, an often-cited statistic. If we look back to 2014 and 2015, there were fewer than 50 PA and AA graduates. There were literally handfuls in the system. It is only when you get to 2018 that you start to see the figures leaping up to 400 graduates, and the Government’s aim is to head towards the figures that the Minister cited. So we may not have seen much confusion, but there were few people to be confused about within the system. This is a situation that is arising now, and that demands a reconsideration.

However, I will largely leave the arguments about titles, and the General Medical Council as regulator, to the regret amendments. What I want to focus on is the word “consent” and the concerns of doctors and patients in the context of the state of our medical system.

We debate as junior doctors are in the middle of their 10th strike action. We debate as one in seven British-trained doctors is working overseas. We debate after a BMA poll found last year that around 40% of junior doctors plan to leave the NHS as soon as they can find another job.

We need to make changes to the system. That is something on which the Minister and I, and I think pretty well everyone, are agreed, but we can make changes to the system only with the consent of all those involved. There is a moral argument for that, but also a very powerful practical argument. The Government need to work co-operatively and sensitively, and to listen to our medical professionals rather than ride roughshod over their serious concerns—concerns that are shared by many patients and that have filled my social media feed in recent days.

The first part of my amendment is about democracy. The order got virtually no scrutiny or consideration in the other place. We, of course, have no opportunity to amend it to tackle the issues that the noble Baronesses will focus on in their regret amendments. We have only the extraordinarily rarely used option of rejecting it. I have not had any indication from the Labour Party that it would support that, and I assume that its silence on the Order Paper means that it supports the Government’s path, but I ask the Labour Front Bench to consider whether we have to take this back to the drawing board. That is a question I put to it directly.

The Minister raised the report of our hard-working and, I fear, underappreciated Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which makes it very clear that this is not just about PAs and AAs but is meant to be the model for broad and widespread changes to medical regulation in the future. The committee’s report says that this is

“the first use of powers inserted into the parent Act by the Health and Care Act 2022 to give the GMC direct powers to make and amend standards and procedures for these associates”,

while, as it says in bold,

“removing the process from Parliamentary oversight”.

It is interesting that the Committee says:

“The Explanatory Memorandum should have been more explicit on this point and on what safeguards remain”.


In testimony, under questioning from the committee of your Lordships’ House, the department confirmed that

“changes in registration processes etc will no longer be laid before Parliament in any form, they will just be posted on the GMC’s website … however members of either House can respond to consultations if they wish”.

I am glad about that.

This has really not been made clear through the process, as the committee highlights. I think it is worth focusing on the fact that had it not been for the amendments from the noble Baronesses and me we would not even be doing this in the main Chamber. We would be in the secondary Chamber, getting, as we all well know, very little attention at all.

I particularly want to highlight, in case noble Lords did not receive it, the briefing from the Professional Standards Authority, which has responsibility for overseeing the GMC’s activities. It said, in what I think one would describe in bureaucratic terms as a carefully worded briefing, that we

“need to keep under review as the reforms are rolled out the accountability framework proposed to balance the increased autonomy for regulators with greater accountability”.

I wish to make a final point to address the fear and concerns of many patient groups and communities—which the Minister alluded to—that their communities and their families will lose ready or perhaps any access to doctors and be relegated to a second tier of NHS services, with PAs with two years of medical training versus GPs with 10. In the letter following up the very useful briefing that he arranged last week—and I think him very much for that and for the letter—the Minister makes reference, as he did in his speech, to the Government’s aim of doubling the number of medical places in England to 15,000 by 2031-32.

The Minister gave, I believe, the same figures as were reported in the Observer on Sunday. These were in a leaked letter from the Health Minister and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education to the independent regulator, the Office for Students. The figures in that letter have been interpreted as significant back-pedalling on the Government’s final aim and total. I ask the Minister whether he remains confident and can guarantee to the House that we are on target to achieve that final figure, given that we do not seem to be taking very strong steps in that direction.

The way those figures came out can only amplify the fears of many communities that those who can pay can go private, as increasing numbers of Britons feel they are forced to do. Patients at the centre of well-serviced areas where doctors can supplement their NHS pay with private work will keep access to a service like that now available, while other areas—the kinds of areas that are often talked about as being in need of levelling up—will get a second-class service.

We have to think about the context of this. Our NHS is battered by privatisation, with nearly 10% of services, including more than half of under-18 inpatient psychiatric services, now provided by for-profit providers. We have seen the disaster of PFI schemes, now set to cost £80 billion for the original £13 billion investment—the equivalent of £1,200 for everyone in the UK. We have seen this jewel in the British crown worn away by austerity—a decade in which investment in infrastructure and new technology collapsed and the pay of junior doctors and midwives in particular plummeted in real terms.

Please let us not deliver another blow. Please withdraw this order either tonight or afterwards. Take the path of consensus. Take the path of democratic oversight. Bring this forward as legislation that can be debated, amended and properly scrutinised. Please listen to the fear of communities. I ask everyone in this debate but particularly the Labour Front Bench to consider that approach and the wisdom of it. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Brinton, by reason of pre-emption.

NHS Dentistry

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the availability of NHS dentistry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

My Lords, since the pandemic this Government have taken decisive action to recover services. There are signs of recovery, with the amount of activity delivered and the number of patients seen increasing, but there is more to do. Our recently published plan to recover and reform NHS dentistry will make dental services faster, simpler and fairer for patients and will fund around 2.5 million additional appointments and more than 1.5 million additional courses of dental treatment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the recent Statement but, with 80% of NHS dentists not accepting new patients and with 190 hospital operations every day removing rotten teeth from children, clearly a fresh initiative was needed. However, the dysfunctional, discredited 2006 dental contract, which is driving NHS dentists out of the business, and which was described by the Select Committee in another place as not fit for purpose, remains in place. When will it be reformed? Given that everyone has a right to register with a GP and if they cannot find one the ICB has to find one, why is there not an equivalent right to register with a dentist if dentistry is an integral part of the NHS?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising this and declare my interest as my wife is a dentist, although she is not currently practising. It is accepted that we have made sensible improvements to the dental contract, but a fundamental longer-term overhaul is needed. In terms of the ability to get registered with a dentist, that is what the mobile trucks are all about. We realise that in certain areas it is difficult to get that registration. The idea is for mobile trucks to go into a neighbourhood where there is a particular shortage to resolve the problem.

NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I felt that today’s Statement deserved a slightly warmer welcome than it has received so far, particularly from the noble Baroness. At a time of enormous pressure on public expenditure, more resources have been found to target the people in the areas who need dental treatment.

I shall raise an issue that has not been raised in exchanges so far. The single most effective public health measure that the Government could take to reduce tooth decay, particularly among children, is to add fluoride to the water supply in those parts of the country where it does not occur naturally. The Health and Care Act 2022 transferred the responsibility from local authorities to my noble friend’s department. Since then, until today, nothing has happened. I welcome the announcement that there will be consultation on extending fluoride to the areas in the north-east where tooth decay happens to be at its highest. Can my noble friend give some idea of the timescale of that consultation and whether there are any plans to extend fluoride to other parts of the country where it is urgently needed as a public health measure?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely correct that the benefits of water fluoridation are well proven. The consultation for the north-east of England, which will bring in 1.6 million people to this, is starting very shortly. The idea behind that is that we can really try to get moving quite quickly on that. I was surprised to learn that the level of water fluoridation in England today is only at about 6 million people. I know that a lot of people think that their water supply has fluoridation, but there is obviously a long way to go on that. The 1.6 million in the north-east is a good extension to that, but there is a lot more that we plan to do in this space.