Lord Lansley (Con)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the last group of amendments in Committee. I hope that the smiles evident on the faces of Members, because we have reached this point, will encourage a positive response to this final amendment to be debated. This amendment is rather neat in the way it fits in at the end of our discussions. In listening to the debates on this Bill—particularly in relation to vaping and nicotine products—we have heard on many occasions, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, an emphasis on the requirement for the production of evidence. The Minister rightly said that the Government are undertaking a research programme—that is a good thing—but we need to emphasise that we are not simply strengthening the tobacco control regime and seeking to create another regime that parallels it; we are seeking to create a regime that is particular to the circumstances of vaping and nicotine products. They should not be treated as the same as tobacco, nor should they be treated the same as drink—they should be treated in their own terms. What I hope we might consider at this stage in Committee is that, on Report, we will increasingly identify how the vaping and nicotine products regime should be justified in its own terms—that is, not referencing the other regimes, with which parallels have been drawn, but looking at what is appropriate in relation to these products, their circumstances and the evidence pertaining to them, as well as how the regime should be established. Amendment 197 is structured to say that there should be an independent expert panel. Why do I think this would be particularly helpful? First, the requirement for independence is illustrated in the amendment itself, in that it will not include those people who are responsible for the production, supply, distribution or sale of vaping and nicotine products. Happily, the industry is supportive of this, as it recognises the value of not seeing the advice that is given to government and Parliament—and, indeed, the advice that will then, I hope, be used as a basis for explaining in public communications what steps are being taken and why. As the discussion we just had demonstrated, these things should not be trammelled by being directly involved with the people who benefit, financially and otherwise, from the advice that is given. So independence is a first, straightforward step. Secondly, this is not simply a scientific panel. It is really important that we deliver into the regime as much evidence as we can about health harms and the scientific basis for understanding the impacts of vaping products and nicotine addiction over time. But, as the amendment makes clear, we should also include in the expert panel people who understand all the behavioural science aspects of trying to structure a regime that is about seeking to influence behaviour.