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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as well as the engagement they have been good enough to give their time to before Report. Let me start with the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The UK Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are carefully considering the design of the licensing scheme. A recent joint call for evidence asked detailed questions about implementation. This included specifically inviting feedback on whether applications for existing businesses should be treated differently from those for new businesses, and whether factors such as the location and density of retailers should have a role in granting licensing. I know, particularly from the debate today, that the question about existing businesses is a matter of concern to noble Lords. We are aware that, under reforms to alcohol licensing through the Licensing Act, existing compliant businesses were indeed brought on to the new system, as noble Lords have referred to before, using grandfathering arrangements. I can assure noble Lords that we are considering this carefully alongside the feedback from our call for evidence, and we will invite further feedback when we consult on our proposals. However, the main point I would like to emphasise—a number of noble Lords have asked about this, and rightly so—is that, as I have said before, the Government do not wish to create a scheme which arbitrarily puts law-abiding retailers out of business. That is absolutely not the intent of this policy. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, along with other noble Lords, raised questions about specialist tobacconists, which we have discussed, and rightly so, on a number of occasions. With regard to various regulations that we have spoken about, and on specialist tobacconists broadly, as the noble lord, Lord Johnson, acknowledged, I gave the assurances on day 1 of Report last week, and I hope they have been heard. We want a scheme that is proportionate and fair, as I believe noble Lords do, particularly to the many existing businesses that operate responsibly—I emphasise that, because they deserve credit—but we also want to deter those who break the law, which was called for by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Again, feedback on our proposals will help us strike the right balance. While I cannot accept the noble Earl’s amendment, I hope I have provided some reassurance that we are considering the details of this scheme in a way that is sympathetic to his aims. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for tabling Amendments 24 and 25 and to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 21A. I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to achieve with these amendments. We agree with the need to introduce more rigour around who can sell these products and to minimise additional burdens on retailers and local authorities as far as possible. We also share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to ensure that retailers have enough time to prepare for the new licensing scheme. However, I believe these amendments are not needed as they are about how the scheme is implemented effectively. This is something we need to consider properly—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to this—through consultation. I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as I have before, that we are in regular contact with retail associations on implementation of the Bill, including the design of the future licensing scheme. This work will continue. I know how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, feels about the point that he is raising. We have engaged with the UK’s main independent vaping bodies—the UK Vaping Industry Association and the Independent British Vape Trade Association—and that engagement will continue. We will continue to hear their considerations and those of their members, but ultimately our policy decisions on future regulations will be guided, as noble Lords are aware, by evidence to protect and improve public health. I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which is different from the one that I am suggesting, but I hope he can be reassured about our engagement directly with those bodies because we feel that is the right thing to do. I want again to reference our call for evidence, which asked about what support retailers and local authorities may require. It encouraged feedback on what works for existing licensing schemes. It also asked a specific question about how long is required to implement the scheme. These are all things rightly of concern to noble Lords in this group. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a point about timings, how the timetable will go and including a lead-in time. We are considering these issues carefully and will reflect on the feedback that we have received before consulting on our proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, understandably asked for an update on the feedback in the call for evidence. That is important because the feedback will, as the noble Earl knows, inform our proposals for consultation. I am not able today to provide the update that the noble Earl rightly seeks, not least because we are still considering the returns from the call for evidence, which closed at the end of last year. But I can say that in our view there is no need to introduce legislative requirements, as in these amendments, before consultation has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about the amendments being somewhat premature, but I know they have the best of intentions. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is fair and reasonable time for businesses to adapt to any new regulatory regime. Turning to Amendments 31 and 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, I am again sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve. Where a business is found to have not complied with tobacco and vape legislation, it makes sense to bring into question whether that business is acting responsibly in relation to other products. However, any action that licensing authorities take against businesses should, as we would all expect, be justifiable and proportionate. A decision to suspend or revoke a business’s licence might have a significant impact on its livelihood and should not be taken lightly. Noble Lords have rightly made that point in this Chamber. We are talking here about different products; it might not always be the case that non-compliance with one licensing scheme means that a business is non-compliant with another. It is important that licensing authorities take decisions with evidence of the business’s capability to sell specific products in line with the objectives of the respective licensing schemes. However, I agree that breaching a tobacco and vape licence may indeed be a useful signal for licensing authorities to more closely investigate a business’s compliance with their alcohol licence or vice versa; this is something that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about. Licensing authorities can and should use their judgment and knowledge of a business’s track record to inform the level of scrutiny that they apply. This includes, where there are concerns that a business is not complying with one scheme, carrying out additional checks to ensure compliance with other licences that it may hold and taking appropriate action where needed. I hope that noble Lords have been reassured not only today but in the engagement that we have had prior to today, and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.