Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)

My Lords, following on from that very useful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it goes without saying that the amendments in this group on the tensions between the Bill and the Windsor Framework are crucial. I want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for leading on this issue, because she has brought to light something that we need to understand. It gets to a general concern about the Bill that I have, which is a worry about its workability—legally and when it comes into contact with reality—because I fear a rude awakening. A part of that will be the unintended consequences of the Bill, which a lot of us have tried to draw attention to in Committee and so on. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 206, which calls for periodic reviews of the Act in terms of its operation as well as its effects. I have also tabled my own amendments on the impact of the Act on domestic production and supply chains, which I will discuss later. Just before I explain why, I am of course glad to see that the Government also recognise the need for a review, and that is very positive. With all due respect to the Minister, I am afraid that Amendment 205 is just not extensive enough. I was particularly disappointed that the consultation is limited to the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—what about all those other stakeholders who would be affected and what about the research? I would really urge the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to incorporate parts of my own amendment and that of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Norton of Louth, into her amendment to make it have some substance and not just be written down for the sake of it. Amendment 206 gives a concrete shape to what should be reviewed. I appreciate its focus on independently conducted research, particularly now that there have been complaints that, “You cannot trust that research because it is by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association”. I have similar views when I read research by ASH. The noble Lord who cited it, as though he was a kind of neutral observer, is part of another lobbying group. I would rather have neither as my trustworthy go-to. But I feel that quite a lot of important information is missed if we do not have research, so that is why I like it. I felt frustrated during our deliberations in Committee that so much information had been overlooked. For example, many neutral academics who have researched the health impacts of vaping, in particular its efficacy in helping people quit smoking and the epidemiology of vaping versus smoking, had been overlooked by the Government. These would be invaluable sources and insights had they been consulted. In Committee, I also suggested that the Government should look at research coming out of assessing the impact of the single-use vape ban that came into force last June. My amendment was rejected, but, interestingly, early evidence and research, as well as market indicators, show that the majority of adult vapers have transitioned to compliant reusable products. I did not think they would, but they have. That is interesting, because it goes against what I intuitively thought. However, recent evidence shows that 9% of daily vapers admit purchasing illegal single-use vapes and, more worrying, 15% of former single-use vapers report that they have returned to smoking and/or increased their tobacco use. This sort of research and information is important for us to understand why we need careful monitoring, and with this Bill, we are going to need a lot of careful monitoring. That is why I commend the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which asks all the right questions to review evidence to discover whether the Act will actually reduce rates of smoking. Will it reduce rates of vaping among young people and children? Will the legislation reduce the use of vaping products for adults? That is not a good outcome, but will that be what happens? What will the economic impact of the law change be on small and micro-businesses? That is something I am really worried about in terms of family-run convenience stores and so on. The amendment also usefully differentiates between tobacco, nicotine and vape use, which are too frequently in discussions elided without distinction. The suggestion of assessing “the behavioural responses to the regulatory regimes introduced under this Act” is key, as the Bill makes a number of suppositions based on the idea that everything in this Bill will have a certain impact on the behaviour of consumers, retailers and other parties. But as this is a novel policy that nobody else has done before, there is no evidence from anywhere else in the world that it will work. We are yet to see whether behaviour will change in the way the Government allege and the supporters of this Bill imagine, so the review will check reality. My Amendment 207 is more focused on an aspect of the Bill’s impact that we have not really talked about before now. It seeks a structured parliamentary scrutiny of the Act’s practical effects on domestic production, supply chains and market behaviour and enforcement in relation to nicotine products. There is a whole new industry that has grown up domestically around nicotine products, and it is going to be hit by the Bill. The Bill represents a significant regulatory intervention in a rapidly evolving market. Regulator interventions on this scale can produce structural consequences beyond their primary intent. Often, when Bills are passed, we see problematic effects afterwards, such as compliance costs altering competitive balance, enforcement capacity not being aligned with legislative ambition, lawful operators facing disproportionate burdens and illicit, dodgy suppliers adapting more quickly outside the law than lawful businesses striving and straining to comply with law changes. One area of concern is whether the relatively new, innovative, domestic industry associated with nicotine products will be strangled almost before it gets off the ground.