Baroness Northover:

Moved by Baroness Northover

10: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—“Transparency of tobacco sales data(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring every manufacturer and importer of tobacco products to publish, on a quarterly basis, data relating to the sale of tobacco products in England and Wales.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision requiring publication of—(a) the volume of sales of tobacco products, broken down by product type, brand and geographical region, and (b) such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of assessing tobacco consumption and its effects on public health.(3) Data published under regulations under this section must be made publicly available in a format accessible to public health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant bodies.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco companies to publish sales data, to improve transparency and support public health policy.

My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide quarterly sales data to assist public health activities. These regulations may include information about, for example, volume of sales, geographical area and product type.

Tobacco is not like any other industry, as we have been discussing. The products sold by the industry kill around two-thirds of long-term users and the harms are widespread and well-documented. Yet the industry treats its data as a commercial secret, leaving public health authorities in the dark. The information already exists. The tobacco industry holds it. This amendment would ensure that the data are harnessed for the public good.

I note that, although Amendment 10 outlines areas where regulations could be brought, it does say “may”—there is flexibility there for the Government. All that is required is that they make progress in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, noted in Committee that HMRC and the Department of Health currently have access to some data. However, we do not feel that that is sufficient. We have heard from those working in public health that there are gaps which, if filled, would benefit activities on the ground.

Smoking is responsible for deep health inequalities, with modelling from Cancer Research UK, for example, showing a 25-year gap between the most and least affluent communities in this country in achieving smoke-free status. That is a shocking illustration of health inequality, reflected in nearly twice as many smoking-related cancers in the poorest areas compared with the wealthiest. Access to sales data would help local authorities, trading standards and public health agencies target resources effectively, monitor patterns of use and respond quickly to emerging threats.

Other countries do this. Canada’s Tobacco Reporting Regulations require manufacturers to report on over 20 ingredients and 40 emissions, along with sales and promotion data, to assist Health Canada in policy decisions. Australia requires companies to report on sales volumes, product pricing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship activities and expenditure, alongside information regarding ingredients.

Mandating transparency—we were discussing transparency earlier—is the right step. It holds the tobacco industry more accountable and ensures that public health can act on the evidence, rather than wait for other data sources. For these reasons, I urge the Government to support this amendment and commit to improve transparency for an industry that has avoided accountability for decades. I beg to move.

My Lords, I covered Amendment 17A, in my name, in Committee, so I will be brief.

Currently, the vast Majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws-worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. In the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That is equivalent to 6,000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary Constituency every day. Each plastic butt can take up to 10 years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they have polluted the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. Worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around £40 million a year fighting a losing battle—money that many would argue could be better spent on vital front-line services. The industry could have made a change, but so far has not gone far enough.

Banning plastic cigarette filters is supported by the public, including smokers. In polling commissioned earlier this year by the Parliament News website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, 2,000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked:

“Would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable alternative”,

almost nine in 10, or 86%, agreed, while just one in 20, or 6%, disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority—77%—supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found that eight in 10 people support the government levy and additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers. Some 84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment.

I do not think that this is a party-political issue. It was discussed by MPs, who voted on an amendment that was supported cross-party, including by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Reform, independents and unionists. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the change that was being put forward. If we are going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an important change.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics and public health, including the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. As I will come to later, my Amendment calls for banning filters altogether.

Very often in your Lordships’ House, I find myself acknowledging that something that is being proposed is not exactly what I want but would be an improvement. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the ban on plastic filters that the noble Baroness proposes would be an improvement. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which I am not going to reprise, but, basically, we have a problem, in that the term “biodegradable”, which is what is being proposed, is exceedingly unclear and is not defined. There is very clear evidence that these so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones, leach harmful chemicals and remain in the environment for a long time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. Although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction.

Amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed in Committee, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the Government to act now and ban all cigarette filters, which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and, of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Liberal Democrats for Amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. I am absolutely delighted, for the second group in a row, to say to the Minister that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which mean that the Government are preparing the way for banning filters in the future, is a significant step forward.

However, I want to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why this action must be taken now. The problem of so-called guilt-free littering makes the littering problem even worse. Companies that manufacture so-called biodegradable filters continue to make profits only if people continue to consume tobacco; the biodegradable filters proposal is essentially coming from the tobacco industry.

This country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be—we hear the phrase world-leading so often in your Lordships’ House—the first country in the world to ban so-called cigarette filters. We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit.

The World Health Organization has said that it believes a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less, and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.

I recognise that in Committee the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point. There are now academics working on that very point. I am sure they will be reaching out, and I will make sure that the noble Baroness hears about that as well.

While I agree with the Minister that the long-term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use—that is obviously the ambition that pretty much everyone can sign up to—with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action. I am glad to see that the Government’s position has again shifted on this since Committee. I thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, as well as the academics who have been highlighting this issue and moving this forward.

Finally, and briefly, I express Green support for Amendments 10, 204 and 133, and particularly for the suggestion in Amendment 133, which I spoke on extensively in Committee, for warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. Again, this is a place where we would not quite be first in the world, but we would certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that has been shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we are all after.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank them for their support for this important amendment. This amendment proposes a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused. The principle is simple and widely accepted: when an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm.

Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacture of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control and healthcare for those suffering from smoke-related illnesses. Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight.

This is not a new charge on consumers. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public’s health than it has ever contributed. Four companies control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly-like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm. Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK.

Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including a cost of £1.8 billion to the NHS and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely £6.8 billion—only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The “polluter pays” principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment. It is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in England.

Public support is very strong. Some 76% of adults back a levy on tobacco manufacturers, with that same margin across political parties. They understand that the current situation is unsustainable and unjust. A well-structured levy could raise up to £700 million or nearly £5 billion over five years, according to modelling done by ASH and the Universities of Sheffield and Bath.

Critically, the design ensures that costs cannot be passed to consumers. Manufacturers’ wholesale prices would be capped to allow a reasonable return, with excess profits forming the levy. Thus, the burden falls on the company’s profits, not smokers’ pockets. This approach prevents price manipulation, protects low-income smokers and creates a secure, ring-fenced source of funding for public health.

Similar regulatory principles already apply in sectors such as energy and water; it is perfectly possible to apply them here. Some have voiced concerns about enforcement. We believe that the levy can be implemented effectively and can create stable revenue. This is not an anti-growth measure. Ending the UK’s dependence on tobacco would strengthen, not weaken, our economy. Research shows that eliminating smoking could create 135,000 jobs and add £10 billion to UK GDP, as spending shifts to other goods and we improve productivity and reduce health costs.

The moral case is unanswerable. Smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death, as the Minister has said, and is the biggest cause of health inequality and poverty. No other legal industry profits so richly from selling a product that kills so many when it is used.

In these stringent financial times, when we have long NHS waiting lists and the Government face stark financial choices, it is logical that we do something more on this front to provide much-needed funds to deal with these enduring problems from excess tobacco use. Tobacco companies have the means, the responsibility and a duty to contribute. We believe that this amendment is proportionate, fair and workable. We would like to see the Government take further action on these measures.

I turn briefly to Amendment 76 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, we had a good debate in Committee on cigarette filters. This is a complicated area, and we should be cautious before we rush to legislate in it. It is the world’s most common litter item, and we should take more action. I have come back with a new amendment—I have rowed back from my position in response to the conversations that we had—and I am calling for a review of cigarette filters to examine their public health, behavioural and environmental impacts and the feasibility of biodegradable or alternative designs. I previously thought of having a ban, so I have moved away from that position in the hope of making progress.

I welcome the Government’s amendments in this space—I think I counted 24 in the Bill—and I am very grateful for those. I am looking for some further words of reassurance from the Minister that beyond enabling powers, which we welcome, there is a clear intention from the Minister to take action. The Government taking action is where we all want to get to and, in our view, that is the best outcome on this issue.

My Lords, my Amendments 129 and 133 would place a duty on the Government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or the inserts within them but on every single cigarette, by printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whose great work on this Bill is much to be admired, said that this was something the Government could look at in future but not something they were looking at now, and that secondary legislation could provide for this in future. I ask: why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin?

This idea is not new or untested. It was first endorsed by the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health in 2021, and then in the Khan review commissioned by the previous Government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers, with demonstrable impact. Australia followed suit last April, albeit with warnings only on the filters. The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers responded to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking: cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message—and it is the wrong one.

I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to introduce pack inserts that direct smokers towards quitting support. I argued strongly for this when we debated the Health and Care Bill. It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often offered from someone else’s packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack-based measures simply do not.

This effect of warnings on individual cigarette papers has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on it or may have an insert in future. Printing warnings directly on the cigarette would ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off-putting for young people.

It is sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood. Action on Smoking and Health found in an analysis of its survey data that younger smokers, the very people who would benefit most from this measure, were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My Amendment would help them give up every time they handle a cigarette.

More importantly, it would help prevent people smoking their very first cigarette. The evidence shows that, the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to reduce the harm it causes to smokers, their families and everybody else.

Finally, I know the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that, in some countries where this has been implemented, they appear only on the filter. The UK could do things differently if we choose, as in Canada. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could display to this Chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I hope she will say not just that this measure might be considered in future but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.

My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group. Before coming to those, I will say a word about Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I was initially attracted to. Like many other noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ASH, where we listened to health experts explain that filters do not prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they have ingredients in them that might be damaging. Far worse, because of the filter, smokers inhale more than they would have done had there not been one, as they think it is safe. It may be that the 25 government amendments achieve in a rather roundabout way what the noble Baroness seeks to do in Amendment 77. We will listen with interest to the Minister when she speaks to her amendments.

Amendment 133 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As I have said before, when I was a Health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt putting a warning on cigarettes and it declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic. This was not an argument I found very persuasive. Here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something that at the time was world-beating, although I understand that I have now been overtaken by Canada.

Amendment 204, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sits rather uneasily in this group, which is otherwise about filters, in that it is about the tobacco levy. I want to make a number of points. First, previously the Government ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014. Indeed they did, but this is a very different model from that which they consulted on. Crucially, in the one they consulted on, the levy would have been passed on to the consumer, with all the impact on RPI or CPI. This model has been constructed to avoid that; it would control the price that tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and would not allow tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers as they do at the moment. It would raise revenue. One estimate has been £5 billion. Even if it is a fraction of that, it is money well worth having.

The scheme would not be complex to administer. As the noble Earl said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PPRS, controlling medicine prices, with far more manufacturers than are involved in tobacco. Crucially, the Khan review, already referred to, which was initiated by Sajid Javid when he was Health Secretary, pointed out that the Government were not going to hit their then target of a smoke-free England by 2030. It recommended the levy—this was an independent review commissioned by the last Conservative Government—and reinvesting the money in media campaigns targeted at those elements of the population who were still smoking.

Finally, I know that the Minister will not mind me reminding her of what she said when a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships’ House by 213 to 154. She knows what I am going to say; she supported and voted for that amendment, saying that it would

“provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped

Well, that is what we are asking for today. She did not persuade me in Committee when she gave the reasons why she had changed her mind. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why she will now urge the House to reject what she thought was a good idea four years ago.

My Lords, since this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I declare my interest as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, and we sometimes run seminars on evidence behind public health policy.

This has been an interesting debate on several distinct proposals for new requirements for the tobacco industry and for tobacco products. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for bringing forward enabling powers to prohibit the supply of cigarette filters. As many noble Lords have said, research increasingly suggests that filters offer no meaningful reduction in health risks to smokers. As my noble friend Lord Young said, they could in fact increase the harm to smokers through encouraging deeper inhalation, but also through the environmental harm caused by them and their fragments.

I will not repeat the debate we had in Committee, but we had an interesting exchange of views. My sense from that debate was that although the myth surrounding filters as a means of lessening the damage done to smokers needs busting, which several noble Lords have done very well this evening, there was a recognition that a pre-emptory ban on supply might perhaps be unrealistic, certainly in the immediate term. For the Government to have taken powers in this regard seems the right and proportionate response—which is why, I am afraid, I cannot support Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, well-intentioned as it is.

It would be helpful, none the less, if the Minister could inform us further about the evidence base on which the department has relied in this area, and whether there are issues on which Ministers will maintain a watching brief. I would also be interested in the Minister’s response to Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 76 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which deserve consideration.

Although I understand the intention behind Amendment 10—transparency in public health policy is, of course, a legitimate aim and I would like to see far more of it—I am afraid I am not drawn to the idea of imposing frequent and prescriptive reporting obligations on tobacco manufacturers and importers in the way it proposes. Obligations of this kind could be imposed on industry where there is a clear public health gain. I am prepared to consider this further, but I am afraid I am not yet convinced that the amendment passes that test. Having said that, I look forward to the Minister’s responses to other noble Lords.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I will start by addressing the government amendments tabled in my name. The issue of filters, as we have heard in this debate, has been raised throughout the Bill’s passage, both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum.

However, there has not been a consensus on a single approach, and it is that that we have sought to deal with. That is why we are taking a suite of powers to enable secondary legislation to regulate filters, should evidence suggest that it is necessary. Although these powers could enable the banning of filters in the future, they also enable us to regulate filters in other ways, such as regulating their packaging, advertising, display in stores and free distribution.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to, there is evidence that people incorrectly believe that some cigarette filters make cigarettes less harmful. There is absolutely a risk that this could influence smoking behaviours. The fact of the matter is that cigarette filters provide no protection from the health risks of smoking.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Government’s intention to take action. On that point, and more broadly, the evidence base about the direct health impact is still in formation. We will explore commissioning further research to understand the harms and, based on that, consider further consultation. For these reasons, we are not able to accept Amendment 76 from the noble Earl.

Since we are taking these powers on filters in the Bill, Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are therefore not required—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Should we choose to ban filters, we would indeed be the first country in the world to do so. It would be a significant step, and noble Lords will understand that, before making any such decision, we need to interrogate the issue fully and ensure that all potential consequences are considered. However, we will now have the powers to act through these government amendments if and when the evidence emerges.

Specifically on Amendment 17A, evidence currently suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable can still leach harmful chemicals into the environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. There is also evidence to suggest that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them, as noble Lords have said.

I turn to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I am sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency of the tobacco industry. I therefore understand why she brought this forward. However, Clause 95 already provides powers to make regulations that could require producers or importers to provide specified information. This could include sales data, as well as market research, from producers of any relevant products within the scope of Part 5, not just tobacco products. This clause also enables us to make provision about when and how the information must be provided, and the publication of any such information. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will consult on these requirements as we develop the necessary regulations.

I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 204, tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp. However, as I said in Committee, again in answer to the point the noble Earl raised, we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco in the form of tobacco duties. The UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation at the Autumn Budget 2025. This duty raises about £8 billion a year.

I appreciate that the amendment proposes combining a levy with regulating prices, but the reality is that, because of the ongoing structural decline in the UK tobacco market, we are sceptical that there is the suggested level of profit available in the system. Regulating pricing would also be a complicated and resource-intensive policy to design and implement, and which we believe is unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives, such as raising additional revenue. It would be challenging to design restrictions that industry could not circumvent, for example, by shifting focus to products not included in the cap or avoiding tax through international transfer pricing. Therefore, as I stated previously, our preference is to continue with tobacco duties—an understood approach which incentivises those who currently smoke to quit and generates revenue that can be put back into a full range of public services.

Finally, Amendments 129 and 133 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for strong tobacco control. However, with respect to these amendments, we already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products which could enable us to mandate health warnings in the future. We already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on cigarette packaging, emphasising health harms. They include the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. We have announced that we are introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. Therefore, we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did acknowledge in his contribution, the Government will continue to monitor the evidence.

I hope that this provides reassurance to noble Lords that the Government are committed to evidence-based policy to tackle the harms from tobacco use and that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, this is a vital Bill, even if we are seeking to improve it further. We have clearly made progress on filters and there are a number of other areas where progress can be made under the Bill. I note the Minister’s encouraging words in relation to my Amendment on data and transparency. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.20 pm.