Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Tuesday 26th November 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 415 / Noes: 47 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today, across the UK, 350 young people aged 25 and under will take up smoking. It is a decision that the vast majority will later regret. They will try to quit again and again, but most will not be able to break their addiction. They will suffer strokes, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, stillbirth, dementia or asthma as a direct result of smoking. For two in three of those young people, the habit they are beginning today will eventually kill them.
Smoking takes 80,000 lives a year and causes one in four deaths from cancer in England, a hospital admission almost every minute and 100 GP appointments an hour. It is the leading cause of sickness, disability and death in our country. And today, Members of this House can consign it to the history books.
The Bill before the House will raise the legal age of the purchase of tobacco by one year every year, creating the first smokefree generation and, eventually, a smokefree nation. The Bill will enable the Government to extend the current indoor smoking ban to certain outdoor settings, and we will consult on banning smoking outside schools and hospitals and in playgrounds, protecting children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoke.
The Bill will come down on the vaping industry like a ton of bricks, to prevent a new generation of children and young people from getting hooked on nicotine. Taken together, these measures add up to the most significant public health intervention in a generation. They are a giant leap in this Government’s mission to build a healthy society and, in doing so, they will help to build a more healthy economy too.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State imagine the plight of a shop assistant, some decades hence, when a middle-aged or elderly person presents themselves seeking to buy a packet of cigarettes? Is that shop assistant really expected to demand their bone fides?
Wes Streeting
I can not only imagine it, but I recently experienced a similar situation. There I was in Barkingside Sainsbury’s one evening, only weeks ago, buying a bottle of wine to have with dinner and, to my surprise, I was asked for my ID. I am afraid it is just a burden that those of us with youthful vim and vigour in our early 40s have to bear, and it is a price I am willing to pay—for good moisturiser. However, there is a serious point. Along with many others that I am sure we will encounter during the passage of the Bill, this is one of the cynical arguments being deployed by the mendacious smoking lobby, which would have us believe that, decades hence, there will be people who are at the margins—one aged 41 and one aged 40, for example—being asked for ID on the sale of cigarettes. The point is that the Bill will create a smokefree generation. Young people growing up in our country today will not be smokers, because we will have stopped the start. We will do everything we can to support adults who are currently smoking, because the vast majority want to break the habit but struggle to do so.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
If only proof of age was still asked of me.
The Secretary of State knows that I support the Bill and will vote for it this evening, but he will know that rural pubs are increasingly marginal in their operations. He has referred to further powers, post consultation, that may stop smoking outside in particular places once the Bill is on the statute book. Will he put the minds of rural MPs, from across the House, at rest by saying that he does not envisage at any point, either now or post-Royal Assent, the inclusion of a ban on smoking outside rural pubs? That would be a further nail in their business model at a time when we need them.
Wes Streeting
I was going to address that point later in my speech, but let me address it now. It is not often that a Government comment on leaks or welcome the events following a leak; I do not want to encourage future leaks, either. However, it is well known and a matter of accurate reporting, in this case, that we were considering an extension of the ban on outdoor smoking to include outdoor hospitality, including pubs, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Because of that leak, representations were heard from Members from across the House, including the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and others. We took those representations very seriously because we know the hospitality industry has been through a torrid time, and not just in rural communities. I accept that rural pubs face a big challenge, but even high street pubs in towns and cities are struggling.
Our approach to public health always has to weigh up the upside benefits to public health against the downside consequences elsewhere. It is not in the national interest to see our high streets further suffer, so I reassure the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hospitality industry—although I think it feels reassured on this already—that we will not be consulting on extending the powers to outdoor hospitality spaces. I hope that reassures people, as we embark on consultation on the measures that I am outlining today, that the Government listen, engage and consult seriously. Consultation is genuine with this Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not comment on how young I look, but I still get asked for ID when buying non-alcoholic wine.
It is 10 years since the smoking ban came into operation and there are 1.9 million fewer smokers in the UK. Does that show the Secretary of State the difference that a Government that take the matter seriously can make?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am really proud of the impact that the last Labour Government made in reducing smoking harms and the prevalence of smoking in our country.
That brings me on to the next point that I wanted to make. President Truman famously said that it is amazing what you can accomplish
“if you do not care who gets the credit.”
When I first sat down with Rachel Sylvester of The Times in January 2023 and flew a kite to start a debate that a Labour Government might introduce a ban on children and young people today ever buying cigarettes, of the type introduced by our sister party in New Zealand, I was not necessarily convinced my own side would buy it, but I thought it was a debate worth having. I never imagined, in a million years, that I would tune into a Conservative party conference speech by a Conservative Prime Minister announcing his intention to legislate for such a ban. I will do something I do not often do with Conservative party conference speeches and quote extensively—and approvingly—what the then Prime Minister said.
“As Prime Minister I have an obligation to do what I think is the right thing for our country in the long term. And as Conservatives, we have never shirked that responsibility.”
I say that bit through gritted teeth.
“We have always been at the front of society, leading it—”
Who wrote this?
“And when we have the tools at our disposal…to do for our children what we all, in our heart of hearts, know is right, we must act, we must lead…we must put the next generation first.”
In that spirit, I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for picking up the proposal and running with it despite opposition from his own party. That took courage. While we have taken steps to improve this Bill compared with the one put forward by the previous Government, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will follow his lead, showing that the one nation tradition still has a constituency in the modern Conservative party, and vote for this Bill in the national interest.
The Darzi investigation into the NHS set out the twin challenges facing me, my Department and this Government. The national health service is broken; it is going through the worst crisis in its history. At the point we came into office, waiting lists stood at 7.6 million. We had worse cancer survival rates than most comparable countries, ambulances not arriving on time, the number of GPs falling and dentistry deserts across the country.
Some of the most shocking findings in Lord Darzi’s report, however, were about not the sickness in our NHS, but the sickness in our nation. Children are less healthy today than they were a decade ago. Life expectancy was extended by three and a half years over the course of the last Labour Government, but in the past 14 years, it has grown by just four months. Brits now live shorter lives than people in any other country in western Europe, and we spend fewer years living in good health, becoming sicker sooner. Those are huge costs, borne by all of us as individuals. It means less time in which we are able to live our lives to the full, to do all the things we love and to spend time with the people we love. Sickness is forcing many of us out of work long before retirement age, leaving us dependent on welfare, ridding us of the purpose and belonging that work provides, and for everyone else, it means higher costs to us as taxpayers. Our sick society is holding back our economy, and that is why we should act.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Wes Streeting
I give way to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran
In the spirit of cross-party working, I want to congratulate Members on the Conservative Benches for deciding, when the former Prime Minister put this policy forward, that it was a priority. It shows how important it is that No. 10 gets behind this kind of thing, and I hope we learn that lesson for the Government’s missions.
I gently say, however, that it is not just the evil tobacco lobby that has concerns about the age escalator. I completely agree with everything that the Secretary of State says, but if smoking is that much of an issue, why are we not just banning it for those under an age of, say, 25? That would have been another way to go. What is the thinking behind an age escalator, as opposed to a ban for those under a particular age so that people do not need new ID every time?
Wes Streeting
I recognise that there are people who have the freedom and the liberty to smoke today, the vast majority of whom, by the way, want to stop and struggle to do so. That is why we are announcing support to enable people to do that, with £70 million of investment in smoking cessation services. That is important, but for a future where people are no longer able to smoke, a phased approach is the right thing to do. It is also essential for the health of the individual, the nation and our economy.
Since 2018, our productivity has dropped by £25 billion due to worsening health alone. Some 900,000 more people are off work than would have been on pre-pandemic trends. That is more people than are employed by Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda put together. Smoking alone accounts for more than £18 billion in lost productivity. The rising tide of ill health, coupled with our ageing society, presents an existential challenge to our health service. If we do not act now, ever-increasing demands for healthcare threaten to overwhelm and bankrupt the NHS. That is the choice that we face.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Surely the Secretary of State realises that banning things rarely works. When tobacco was banned in South Africa during the covid pandemic, 95% of the trade went underground. Surely we should be promoting the concept of freedom with responsibility and allowing people to make choices about their own lives. I am glad that he goes shopping in Barkingside—he should go and speak to the shopkeepers in Collier Row, where local retailers will lose a lot of potential business if the ban comes in.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the intervention, because I anticipate that there will be similar arguments made from the Opposition Benches, particularly from a right-wing libertarian perspective. I want to engage seriously with those arguments.
Wes Streeting
I will just respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
There is no liberty in addiction; there is no freedom in addiction. The logical extension of the libertarian argument the hon. Gentleman puts forward would be the end of the ban on indoor smoking. If we should take a live and let live approach, why not legalise cannabis? Why not legalise cocaine? We prescribe certain harmful substances, and there is, I think, an unanswerable case on tobacco because it is uniquely addictive and uniquely harmful. That is why we will take a tougher approach with this harmful substance than we would with something such as alcohol, or other harms such as gambling.
Jonathan Davies
The Secretary of State stole my line when he said that there is no freedom in addiction. I just want to thank him for his pragmatic approach to the hospitality industry, which has made representations to me on this matter. May I also impress on him that vapes are a valuable quitting aid for many adults, but many young people are now taking to vaping when they have never actually smoked at all? Can he say a little bit more about how we will address that?
Wes Streeting
I will certainly come on to the action that we are taking on vaping, and the case for it. I welcome the contribution that my hon. Friend has made in his first few months as a Member of this House. He brings enormous expertise and experience, particularly on health, which we very much value here in the Chamber.
One choice would be to continue paying an ever heavier price for failure. That is the road that we were heading down, under the previous Government. Our NHS already takes £4 for every £10 spent by the Government day to day. We are on course to go from being a nation with a national health service to a health service with a nation attached to it. It is projected that by the end of this Parliament, 4.3 million people will be on sickness benefit if we fail to act. Smoking could cause 300,000 patients to be diagnosed with cancer over the next five years, including 3,000 for whom that is the result of exposure to second-hand smoke. That is what happens if we only ever treat the symptoms of ill health. We end up spending more on the NHS than ever before, but with worse care for patients, a ballooning welfare bill due to more and more people being out of work, stagnant economic growth, and the heaviest tax burden in 70 years. In short, we will be paying more, but getting less.
Britain is like a ship with a hole. We are constantly battling to chuck enough water overboard to keep us afloat, as more and more floods in. We must break out of this cycle. Britain can break out of this cycle, but only if we are serious about tackling the causes of ill health, and shift our focus from treating the symptoms to preventing them. Plugging the hole in the ship is how we get back to growth, how we reduce the burden of taxation, and how we ensure that this Government can intrude more lightly on people’s lives.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The argument that the Secretary of State puts forward is essentially one for banning smoking altogether. What he said earlier was misleading; he suggested that people of a particular age group will not be able to smoke. They will not be able to buy cigarettes, but they can still smoke. They can cadge cigarettes off other people. Is this not a half-baked measure?
Wes Streeting
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not accusing me of misleading the House. The argument that he puts forward is used against all sorts of laws and prohibitions. Most people in this country are law-abiding citizens who follow the law. In my constituency today, there will be people dumping fridges and mattresses on street corners—fly-tipping—because they are irresponsible and not law-abiding citizens. We will not always catch them, either through closed-circuit television or local authority enforcement, but that does not mean that we should not tackle them when they do those things.
By phasing in a generational smoking ban, we are taking a measured and reasonable way of creating a smokefree country. That is the right way to proceed, and it is sensible. I know that he does not agree, but he must accept the trade-off—the choices that he is making for the Opposition. First, he is accepting that people will pay a higher price for their healthcare, either through taxes, if he still believes in the national health service, or through the cost to the individual of their healthcare. Secondly, he must concede that, through the harm caused by smoking, he is fuelling welfare dependency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had a point when she said earlier that Labour is the party of work, and the Conservatives are the party of welfare. That is the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman’s opposition.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this once-in-a generation public health measure. As he acknowledges, too many people are dying young from the effects of smoking. They are losing out on being grandparents and on the opportunity to live a long and healthy life. Smoking is a leading cause of health inequality, so does he agree that the proposals will help close the shocking gap in life expectancy between the rich and poor?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that one of my first experiences of death was watching my grandmother die a very long, slow, painful death from lung cancer as a result of a life of chain smoking. That is the consequence of this cruel addiction. People who start smoking come to regret it. They struggle to stop, and I am afraid that the stolen years that they could have spent with children and grandchildren are only part of the cost. Part of my argument today, particularly to some Opposition Members, is about better use of public money and reducing the taxation burden. Other arguments, too, may have some currency with Members who might be opposed to these measures for libertarian reasons. We should not forget for a moment the impact of this cruel addiction and the harms caused by smoking on people’s quality of life, family life, and memories.
Wes Streeting
I must make progress, otherwise we will not hear from anyone else in this debate—and I think that it will be a debate.
Taking action requires a reforming Government who are unafraid to take on the orthodoxies of both the right and the left. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary is today proposing radical reforms to the welfare system. Earlier this month, I set out a package of reforms to drive better productivity in the NHS. Today, we are proposing the biggest public health reform in a generation: phasing out smoking for the next generation by raising the legal age at which tobacco can be sold by one year every year, so that anyone aged 15 and under today will never legally be sold cigarettes. That will phase out smoking altogether.
Almost 20 years ago, the last Labour Government introduced the ban on smoking indoors in public places, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said. We heard many of the same arguments, frankly, from opponents of that measure as we hear from opponents of the Bill today. They are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that Opposition Members who oppose the Bill are also proposing scrapping the indoor smoking ban. We have political consensus on the issue because of its success. The year after the ban came into force in 2007, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 1,200. Admissions for children with asthma had been rising by 5% a year before the ban. After it was introduced, admissions fell by 18% in just three years. Since 2007, smoking rates have been cut by over a third, and as our understanding of second-hand smoke grew, the ban sparked a cultural change. People no longer thought it acceptable to smoke in front of their children, and many stepped outside, even in their own homes. It is time to build on that success.
No smoker intends to cause harm to others, but that is unintentionally what they do through second-hand smoke. The harms from second-hand smoke are less than from actively smoking, but the evidence shows they are still substantial. If people can smell smoke, they are inhaling it. Smoke near schools and playgrounds exposes children to smoke. Hospitals, by definition, have high numbers of medically vulnerable people on their grounds. The Bill will allow Government to extend the ban on indoor smoking to certain outdoor settings, and we will consult on banning smoking outside schools, playgrounds and hospitals to protect children and the most vulnerable.
As we act to prevent harms from smoking, we must also tackle the rising problem of youth vaping. It has more than doubled in the last five years, and one in four 11 to 15-year-olds tried vaping last year. A new generation of children is getting hooked on nicotine, and there should be no doubt about the cause, and no illusion that this has happened by accident. On any high street in the country, we can see shop windows filled with brightly coloured packaging for vapes, with flavours like blue razz lemonade and tongue twisters sour apple. Those products are designed, made, packaged, marketed and sold deliberately to children. This industry has cynically targeted its harmful products to kids.
Action is long overdue. We promised to stamp out youth vaping in our manifesto, and the Bill delivers the change that we promised. It will close loopholes that allow vapes to be sold or given away to children, provide powers to regulate the flavours, packaging and display of vapes, and introduce on-the-spot fines of £200 for under-age sales. Just as we took action on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, we will bring the law into line for vaping products, too.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not know whether the Secretary of State will still be in the Chamber when I talk about Spice-spiked vapes. I see a gap in the Bill: it does not talk about refills. The harmful practice of spiking vapes with Spice comes from the refills. I hope that the Government will listen to my concerns and be flexible, as they have already shown themselves to be in other places. Perhaps, during the passage of the Bill, we can include something about refills. Would he agree to that?
Wes Streeting
We want to work in a genuinely collaborative and cross-party way, and I know that is true right across the House. As I look at the Opposition Benches, including Conservative Benches, I see long-standing campaigners for action on smoking and vaping. We want to listen and engage.
I feel strongly about the matter, as does the Prime Minister. In our manifesto, we set out Labour’s mission to improve the health of the nation. We will be far better served as a country if this is a truly national mission, and if we come together in common cause for action on public health.
Wes Streeting
In that spirit, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—and then to some of my hon. Friends.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State tell us if there is any place for vapes as a step-down, in the context of the addictive aspects of tobacco? I seem to remember that when vaping first came along, it was heralded as a way to help wean people from their tobacco addictions. Sadly, it has turned into something else, as he describes, and starts children on the road towards nicotine addiction, but does it have a role as a step-down?
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Member is right to make that distinction. As a stop-smoking tool, vaping has a part to play. For smokers, vaping is a better alternative—a route away from smoking. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What we are interested in tackling is the scourge of youth vaping and the extent to which young people have been cynically addicted. It is important to say that we do not yet know the full extent of the harms caused by vaping, but we do know two things: first, it is better to vape than to smoke—that is why we are striking the balance in this legislation—and secondly, vapes are harmful. Ask any teacher in the country; they will talk about the signs of nicotine addiction that they see in their pupils, and about having to monitor school toilets to stop children congregating to vape. It is urgent and necessary to act today to protect this generation of kids from a new addiction, and that is exactly what we will do.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
As an ear, nose and throat surgeon, I can attest to the absolutely desperate trouble that cigarettes have caused over many generations. Implementing this measure is one of the best things that this Parliament could possibly do, and I expect that the measure will be widely supported all over the House. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for introducing it.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because of the expertise that he brings to the House as a clinician. We are well served by his expertise in debates on the health of the nation.
Opposite me sit many opponents of the Bill and of the Government’s prevention agenda. I acknowledge that their opposition is based on genuine, sincere beliefs about the limits of government and the size of the state, but I appeal to them by saying that the Bill is in the national interest and, ironically, in their ideological interest.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for making a number of times the point that this is a truly national Bill that applies across the United Kingdom. I thank him for including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in the measures. When we in this place consider measures to promote health, we should do so equally for the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Wes Streeting
That is a very helpful intervention because it gives me the opportunity to say thank you to my counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a genuinely four-nations Bill, and through it, we have an opportunity to create a smokefree generation in every corner of our country.
I say to people who have an ideological objection to the Bill that if they believe in lower taxes, as they say they do, and in maintaining a national health service, as they say they do, they cannot duck this simple equation: an ageing population plus a sicker society equals more spending on the NHS, paid through higher taxes. The Bill is just one measure, but it will make a significant difference to the health of our society, and to the balance of that equation.
The question that opponents of the Bill must answer is this: if they want our health and care services to continue having to spend £3 billion every year on the symptoms of smoking, are they willing to accept that that means higher taxes or higher healthcare charges for their constituents? Are they happy for their constituents to shoulder the welfare bill for smokers falling out of the workforce? Those are the consequences of what we are voting on today. Higher taxes and higher welfare are not the Labour way.
There are arguments about liberty from those who oppose based on libertarian belief. They say that the state should not deny individuals the choice to smoke if they want to, but three quarters of smokers want to stop and wish they had never started. It takes a smoker an average of 30 attempts to quit before they manage it. By definition, an addict is not free; there is no choice, no liberty and no freedom in addiction. Nor is choice afforded to anyone inhaling second-hand smoke. Tobacco is not only highly addictive but uniquely harmful. Yes, some smokers can quit, but most who want to cannot. Those who have help to quit are three times more likely to succeed. That is why the Government are, as I said, investing £70 million in smoking cessation services—an investment that will pay for itself several times over—but prevention is better than cure, and that is why we are taking action, through the Bill, to stop the start.
In conclusion, this Bill marks the start of a decade in which we will shift the focus of healthcare from treatment to prevention; take serious action on not just smoking, but obesity; reform the NHS, so that it catches problems earlier and gives patients the tools that they need to stay out of hospital; harness the revolution taking place in life sciences; and fundamentally transform the NHS, so that it predicts illness and prevents it from ever taking hold. That is the future available to us, and it is the future we must realise if we are going to put our welfare system, health service and public finances on a sustainable footing. It starts with this Bill. Smokers are more likely to need NHS services, be admitted to hospital, drop out of the workforce and on to welfare, and need social care years earlier than if they did not smoke. By taking the measures set out in the Bill, we are putting the UK on the road to becoming smokefree, building a healthier, wealthier nation with a health service fit for the future and leading the world as we do so. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I do not always do this, but I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the tone he has adopted in this debate and for recognising the strongly and sincerely held views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of it. I am also grateful to him for being typically willing to share with the House in support of his points something as personal as what happened to his grandmother. Sadly, it will not surprise him that no one asks me for my ID these days—I will have to take some tips from him on the moisturiser that he uses. [Interruption.] I will ignore the unkind comment that he has just made.
In many ways, this Bill is like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts—indeed, it is good in many parts—and started from a place of good intentions. As the Secretary of State set out, smoking has a huge cost to society and to individuals. We know that smoking is the single biggest entirely preventable cause of ill health, death and disability in this country, and we see in our NHS the impact of smoking every day. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths in the UK each year and is estimated to cost the NHS and social care more than £3 billion a year, including 75,000 GP appointments every month. As the Secretary of State said, almost every minute someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking. It substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions throughout people’s lives, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, cancers, dementia and asthma.
As the Secretary of State has alluded to in the past, it is often people in more deprived areas who have higher smoking rates, lower healthy life expectancy and higher mortality rates linked to smoking. Some 230,000 households are estimated to live in smoking-induced poverty, and children of smokers are three times as likely to start to smoke, potentially perpetuating the cycle. Over 80% of smokers started before they turned 20—many started as children—yet more than half of current smokers want to quit; as the Secretary of State said, three quarters say that they would never have started smoking if they had the choice again. Let me be clear: reducing smoking, giving people the information and support to quit, and helping to protect children in particular are worthy ambitions.
Among all the doom and gloom, there is some positive news: smoking rates are falling anyway. While around 6 million people in the UK smoke, the number of smokers has been falling for decades. In 2023, just 10.5% of people aged 16 and over smoked, compared with 20.3% in 2010, 20.7% in 2000 and 30% a decade before that in 1990. Likewise, the number of children who smoke is falling. While this trend is welcome, it is understandable that there is a strong desire to see continued action to further drive down the prevalence of smoking and tackle the recent rise in vaping among non-smokers, especially among young people, and to protect future generations.
As was evidenced by the interventions that the Secretary of State kindly took from many hon. Members, I am sure that many of us in the House have been alarmed by the surge in youth vaping, which has doubled in the past five years. Despite it already being illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s, a quarter of children tried vaping in 2023. While nicotine vapes can and do play an important part in helping adults to quit smoking, we are clear that children who do not smoke should not take up vaping. The nicotine content makes those products highly addictive, while the long-term impacts of the colours and flavours being inhaled are highly unlikely to be beneficial. Of course, the full effects may not be known for some years yet.
The uptake in youth vaping has been driven in part by the branding and promotion of products clearly aimed at children, with vapes, packaging, descriptions and marketing all designed to appeal specifically to young people. Grown adults trying to quit smoking are unlikely to see the appeal of cartoon characters on their vapes, but of course, children and young people will. Likewise, the bright colours and fruit flavours are far more likely to appeal to children than to those looking to quit tobacco smoking.
For those reasons, the last Government introduced a Bill that primarily targeted our interventions at young people. It would have restricted who could purchase tobacco products without impacting current adult smokers. It sought to tackle youth vaping by restricting flavours, introducing plain packaging and changing how vapes are displayed in shops so that they do not appeal to children. It would also have prohibited the sale of non-nicotine vapes and vaping alternatives such as nicotine pouches to under-18s, just as it is already illegal to sell nicotine vapes to children. In parallel, it would have introduced new fines for rogue retailers in order to tackle the illegal market, seeking to make sure that the law—such as age restrictions on purchasing vapes—was properly enforced.
That approach was targeted at the next generation of young people and aimed to prevent the take-up of smoking and vaping and break the cycle of nicotine addiction before it had even started. That Bill was not about demonising people who smoke or curtailing current smokers’ rights or entitlements in any way. None the less, it had challenging practical implementation impacts.
I have a lot of respect for the public health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne)—I think that is his new constituency name—and know him well. I hope that when he winds up the debate, he will address some of the points I am about to make. My first point is about the impact on shopkeepers, particularly small shopkeepers, of enforcing and operating within increased restrictions, and the extent to which those restrictions are practically enforceable. In the context of what the Bill sets out to do, how does one avoid the existence of, or an increase in, a black-market economy in vapes or cigarettes?
We introduced our Bill before the general election. Since then, the new Government have introduced a Bill that may have the same name, but is not quite the same Bill that was introduced back in March. The Bill before us today gives the Secretary of State new, or significantly modified, powers under the Health Act 2006. It runs the risk of piling an unknown number of regulations on to retailers through a new licensing scheme, and it creates a whole new registration scheme. The challenge is that right hon. and hon. Members will not be told in detail what those schemes will look like, the specific impact they will have on businesses, or the detailed impact they will have on smoking and vaping rates until after the legislation has been passed. A hefty impact assessment—all 294 pages of it—has been produced. Given that the public health Minister has signed it, I fear he had to read every one of those pages before doing so. However, even with that impact assessment, the detailed impact of the individual regulations that may follow is unclear.
For example, clause 136 amends the Health Act 2006 to give the Secretary of State the power to extend smokefree places to some outdoor spaces. Of course, adults should be mindful and thoughtful about where they smoke or vape to be considerate to those around them, especially in areas with children or vulnerable young people, but the Bill risks giving the Secretary of State expanded powers to expand smokefree areas with minimal oversight. I acknowledge that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used, but as we in this House know, a statutory instrument and the procedures that accompany it are not as rigorous in their scrutiny as primary legislation.
Unlike previous laws, which banned smoking in confined areas such as pubs and bars, the Secretary of State is talking about bans in open spaces where the risks of second-hand smoking may be more limited. Page 64 of the delegated powers memorandum states:
“Under Section 4 of the 2006 Act, the Secretary of State could make regulations to designate additional places as smoke-free provided that they were of the opinion that there was a significant risk persons present in such a place would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke without a smoke-free designation…Section 5 of the 2006 Act gave the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.”
It goes on to say:
“Clause 136 amends the existing power in section 4 of the 2006 Act by omitting the risk condition.”
I would be grateful if the public health Minister could explain in his winding-up speech—I suspect he will be able to do so—why that condition is being removed. It was there for a reason: to give a sense of proportionality to anything that was done and to ensure that a particular bar had to be met, given the impact. Its removal effectively gives the Secretary of State much greater discretion to do as he wishes at a future date. I note that the Secretary of State has said today that he changed his mind on banning smoking in pub gardens or outside hospitality venues. I know him well, and he is an honourable man, so I take him at his word on that, but there is nothing in this proposed legislation to prevent a future Secretary of State from coming back, consulting and expanding beyond the areas where he proposes to restrict smoking to other venues and settings at a future date. Under clause 136, that could be done without the crucial risk criteria being applied. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point, because it is hugely important. Members are being asked to decide now whether they support expanding smokefree places to an unknown list of outdoor spaces in the future, so it genuinely raises significant challenges and concerns if that gateway is not in place.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. Some 13% of adults in Bracknell smoke, but we know that more than half of smokers would like to give up, so what I and my constituents are listening for is a commitment that his party will back concrete measures to end the public health epidemic of smoking once and for all—or are they just going to wrap up their objections in sophistry?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for most of what he just said. I will address precisely his point in a few paragraphs, but I say to him that my party brought forward legislation in March, which was debated in April, that did not have the mission-creep that I fear the Secretary of State is demonstrating with clause 136 and various other measures in this proposed legislation.
I must also challenge the Government on how they anticipate this measure being enforced. Will members of the public be encouraged to call the police if they see a parent smoking in a prohibited place? If there are no children in a park or playground, will it still be prohibited?
Concerns are also raised by the new licensing and registration schemes. While it is right that we had planned to expand the existing notification scheme to include non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products involved in the supply chain, this Bill goes a number of steps further. The Secretary of State will be able to create a new licensing regime for retailers for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. Over 70% of convenience stores selling vapes and tobacco products are independent shops. How will they fare and how will they be assisted with the layers of added bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with the Bill? Do local authorities, which are already under pressure, have the capacity and additional funding allocated to administer such a licensing scheme in their areas?
Again, my fear is that we are unable to make a fully informed decision about the impact because the regulations will be set out only after the Bill has passed. The impact assessment states:
“A more restrictive licensing scheme would be expected to have a greater impact on public health and a greater economic impact on businesses.”
However, we simply do not know if that is what the Secretary of State has in mind or what the regulations will look like. Likewise, there is no detail on the impacts of a new registration scheme for all tobacco, vaping, nicotine and herbal products, as well as tobacco-related devices.
In the few months that the Government have been in office, they have sadly shown that they are not particularly a friend of business and have broken a number of their pre- election promises. Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State as an individual and as a right hon. Member of this House, I ask him to forgive the cynicism of those on the Opposition Benches over any attempted reassurances from the Government that they will take businesses’ concerns into account as they consult on their plans.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), if a Division is called, in line with the precedent set last time this will be a free vote; each Conservative Member may vote as they choose. The Bill, as I have said, comes from a good intention to keep the population healthy, to ease costs for the NHS and to prevent children from taking up addictive habits that may follow them for the rest of their lives. I support those objectives, but I call on the Minister for public health, when he winds up, to give the reassurances I seek and roll back the additional measures that have been put in place, over and above what we were proposing.
It is important that information is available so that people can make informed decisions and that support is available for those who choose to stop smoking. Adult individuals are best placed to make decisions about their own lives, but we recognise that the same is not true for children. I look forward to the responses from the Minister for public health, which I hope will be constructive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to be collaborative and constructive in his approach to the legislation.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Dr Cooper
I thank the shadow Secretary of State. As a public health doctor, I am delighted to hear him speak so freely, openly and positively about all the great things that this legislation will bring, but I remain unclear whether he will be voting in support of this generation-defining public health Bill this evening.
Edward Argar
That will depend on whether the Minister for public health gives the promises I seek that he will withdraw a number of the measures that the Government have added to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who will take the Bill through Committee on behalf of the Opposition, and I know that she looks forward to constructive and collaborative engagement with the Minister. I hope he can offer reassurances when he gets up to the Dispatch Box in a few hours’ time.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Just over a year ago, I welcomed the previous Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill. As the House may know, I have called for a smokefree generation for many years. I was not best pleased when the Conservatives voted down my amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill in 2021. Those amendments called for a ban on flavours and packaging targeted at children, which the shadow Secretary of State has just brought to the House’s attention. If they had not been voted down, we would already have regulations to protect children from smoking and vaping.
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) on bringing the Smoking and Vapes Bill forward, but it was regrettable that the previous Government did not fast-track it in the wash-up before the general election. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Labour Government for bringing this Bill forward. It is stronger than the previous legislation, and it responds to many of the issues that I and others raised in Committee with the previous Bill.
The comprehensive regulation of all vaping and nicotine products is important for addressing the concerns that vaping has become too widespread among young people. I strongly support regulations to reduce the appeal of such products, but we must ensure that the regulations are enforceable, robust and fit for purpose. My first of many questions to the Minister is this: will he confirm that a detailed policy paper will be forthcoming, setting out the policy objectives on vaping and how the new regulations will deliver against the objectives?
The Labour manifesto made a bold commitment on halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England. Tobacco control is the best way to close the gap. We cannot say it enough: the range of diseases that smoking causes is extraordinary, from stillbirths and asthma in children to heart disease, stroke, dementia in old age, poor mental health and many cancers.
It will never cease to amaze me that there are people in this place who are happy to be lobbied by the tobacco companies—including, I am guessing, the shadow Secretary of State—some of whom we have heard from already, knowing full well the damage caused to individuals, families and communities, as well as to our health services. That includes communities such as mine in the north-east of England, where smoking is still the key driver of health inequalities and has been the cause of 26% of all deaths in the last 50 years and the cause of 125,000 deaths since 2020.
In my constituency of City of Durham, smoking costs us over £95 million a year, and more than £3 million is spent on healthcare. In County Durham, smoking costs us over £500 million a year, and over £21 million is spent on healthcare. In the north-east, the cost is over £2 billion, with healthcare costs at over £93 million. Nationally, smoking is still the greatest cause of preventable death, still the leading cause of premature death and disability, and still responsible for half the difference in healthy life expectancy between the rich and poor. That is why I have asked time and again in this Chamber for action.
It is a tragedy when we consider the further health implications. According to Cancer Research UK, the most deprived communities will not be smokefree until 2050. I urge the Government to restate their intention to publish a road map to a smokefree country and outline how support will be targeted at those who most need to quit. Smoking is also directly and indirectly linked to poor mental health. Nearly 40% of those who have a severe mental health problem smoke, and smoking accounts for two thirds of the reduction in life expectancy among that group.
I want to touch on the “polluter pays” levy. The Darzi review found that our health service is in real trouble. The Secretary of State is right that to rebalance supply and demand in our healthcare system, we need a major shift from sickness to prevention. The Khan review and the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have advocated for a “polluter pays” levy, which could raise £700 million a year to create a smokefree fund. That would ensure that the tobacco companies—not the public—pay for the harm that they inflict. Will the Minister consider that approach to fund the work needed to reduce smoking across society and to protect the NHS?
I should add that public health initiatives to tackle smoking are remarkably good value for money and that failing to fund efforts to tackle smoking is a false economy. Initiatives such as Fresh—the north-east’s tobacco control programme—have led the way in tackling smoking in our region. Fresh and others could provide best practice for the Department.
The Minister will know that the UK Government are party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. Article 5.3 seeks to protect policymaking from industry influence, but we have already seen that influence even at this stage of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will live up to their obligations under the FCTC and commit to protecting the Bill from industry influence throughout its parliamentary process and the following regulations?
I am proud to vote for a Bill that will improve people’s lives and extinguish the injustice that smoking causes to individuals and society. Smoking is never about choice, and it is pathetic that some Members have argued that this is an issue of freedom; it is absolutely nothing of the sort. Tobacco companies target children and young people. Smoking is an addiction, and the only free choice is that first cigarette. When someone is in hospital, struggling to breathe because of smoking-induced lung cancer, where is their freedom? Today, we have the opportunity to give people the freedom to live healthy lives, free from disease and the inequalities that smoking causes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I can confirm that it has been a very long time since anyone has asked me for ID to make a purchase—a moment that is even further into the past than the last time I bought a packet of cigarettes. That experience will inform some of my comments today. I support this legislation, but it will be a free vote for my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and I will use my speech to explain why.
First of all, the Bill is split into two sets of measures: one to deal with smoking and one to deal with vaping. We are 100% supportive of the set of measures dealing with vaping, which is in line with our party policy that was passed at our 2023 conference. I think everyone in this House is united in agreeing that the targeting of nicotine products at young people and children through bright colours and attractive flavours is a shameful practice. Measures need to be taken to prevent that.
I am the mum of a teenager—lucky me—and he reports that some of his friends are unable to concentrate through a 40-minute lesson, because they have been exposed to such high levels of nicotine in the vaping products that they use that they are even more addicted to nicotine than someone who might have taken up smoking many years ago when I was young. We welcome the changes to prevent the targeting of vaping at children, and the recent ban on disposable vapes. We also acknowledge that vaping is an important part of smoking cessation, and legal vaping needs to continue into the future.
The introduction of a phased smoking ban is problematic, and not because Liberal Democrats want to see people smoke themselves into an early grave—far from it—but because it raises issues of practicality and civil liberties, which I will run through on behalf of my colleagues. The first question is, practically, how will this work? My son was born in January 2009. He will be one of the first people to benefit from a smokefree generation, and I sincerely hope that he never takes up smoking, but if his friends who are just a few weeks older choose to take up smoking, they will be able to continue to do that for the rest of their lives. Under this Bill, those future adults will be able to buy tobacco products for themselves but it will be illegal for them to pass them on to others a few weeks younger, such as my son. Problematic enforcement causes some concern and leads us to question why there was not an alternative way, perhaps by setting a very high minimum age to buy cigarettes, so that most people get through the flourish of rebellious youth and do not take up smoking in the first place. The concerns about practicality are legitimate.
The Bill also raises the spectre of an ID card, because those people who choose to start smoking will potentially be forced to carry an ID card or some other form of ID with them for the rest of their lives. That is a concern for the Liberal Democrats, who are strongly opposed to requiring people to carry ID around with them, for various issues of privacy and personal liberty. There is also an ideological point about discriminating between two people because of their age. We are generally opposed to that as a society, but the Bill does that.
The concerns about retailers suffering abuse are also legitimate. They are already suffering from a wave of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. Some of the abuse directed at them comes from the enforcement of age legislation for things such as alcohol and existing tobacco legislation. We need to be cognisant of the decimation of community policing under the previous Government. We need to be sure that those retailers are fully protected. The Bill creates an extra risk for them.
Finally on the risks, there is a concern for the licensing authorities, which presumably will be local councils, although we do not have the detail on that yet. Lots of local councils are unable to carry out much more than their statutory duties currently, so I would appreciate confirmation that licensing will be fully funded for them, so that they are not put in charge of enforcing something that will be impossible.
I want to touch on what for me is quite an important area: the creation of a black market. Criminal gangs exploit young people in North Shropshire by getting them hooked on cannabis. It is an extremely difficult problem. Young people get into debt to those criminal gangs and are hooked into criminality for life. They see things people should never see and are extremely damaged by that exploitation. I share the concern that progressively banning tobacco products will increase the scope for the black market and the risk to children.
For all those reasons, as some Members may be aware, I abstained on the vote last time the legislation was brought through the House. It would be a legitimate question to ask me why I have changed my mind. I met somebody called Linda Chambers, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Hull, who came along to an event organised by Action on Smoking and Health to encourage Members to support the Bill. Linda was devastated when she lost her husband of 50 years to cardiovascular disease. As with a number of other speakers at the event who also spoke very powerfully about their experiences, her loved one had tried on several occasions to give up smoking but had been unsuccessful. The speakers at the event explained that the nicotine addiction had taken away the personal choice of their loved ones to live the lives they wanted to live. They were not exercising their personal choice any more. For a liberal, that is a very powerful argument. Personal choice is so important, and addiction really does take that away.
As the asthmatic daughter of two smokers who have repeatedly tried and struggled to give up over the years, Members might perhaps have expected me to understand that argument a little bit earlier. Typically, as the daughter of two smokers, I took up smoking myself. I did not smoke very much and did not smoke for very long, but I still occasionally have the odd craving for reasons I cannot explain, especially when I am in a traffic jam. But it is not funny, is it? Tobacco is uniquely harmful and uniquely addictive, and that is why I support the measures we are taking to address that.
Another really important, persuasive and powerful argument I heard in the previous Parliament was when Dame Andrea Leadsom, the responsible Minister at the time, and Chris Whitty took the time to provide a briefing to the Liberal Democrats. One point they highlighted was health inequality. A point that struck me—at the time, I was the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss—was that 21.1% of pregnant women in the most deprived areas of the country are likely to smoke while pregnant, whereas in the least deprived parts of the country only 5.6% are likely to be a smoker. That huge difference correlates to a horrifying differential in the rate of stillbirth. Women who smoke while pregnant are more likely to have a stillbirth, and stillbirth rates in the most deprived areas of the country are 50% higher than in the least deprived areas. If we are serious about tackling health inequality rather than just paying it lip service, we have to take additional measures to tackle those inequalities.
For all the reasons I have outlined, I will support the Bill. However, I retain a few concerns, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in his wind up. The powers in the Bill effectively allow the Secretary of State to make any public place or workplace a no-smoking area. That is very far reaching. I would prefer to introduce measures in Committee that would require him to come back to Parliament before extending the areas affected. That would protect the hospitality industry, which, as hon. Members have pointed out, is struggling, particularly in rural areas. I will also point out the obvious, which is that anybody who is currently over 16 could potentially be a smoker for life.
There are many, many people who took up smoking and who want to give up but are unable to. We must reverse the cuts to the public health budget and the smoking cessation budget to enable those people to benefit from stopping smoking. The Conservatives have slashed the public health budget since 2015. We would like the Secretary of State to use the money provided for health in the Budget to address that problem. A quarter of cancer deaths are caused by smoking and 75,000 GP appointments every month are for smoking-related illness. Many women who smoke during pregnancy will continue to smoke for up to another decade.
Despite my concerns, I will support the Bill to ensure that people like Linda do not have to lose their loved ones to an addiction they were unable to end. I urge the Secretary of State to look at measures to deal with the practical considerations we have outlined and to support the current generation of smokers to quit if they want to.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I may not be able to stay in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, owing to a long-standing appointment this evening.
Although smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death and ill health, there are still more than 6 million smokers in the country. While the Government are right to press on with the Bill in the current Parliament, I hope that it can be improved even more compared with the version presented by the last Government. It will help the country to become smokefree by 2030.
As Members may know, I am a strong advocate of vaping, and I will concentrate on that in my speech. I have witnessed many of my friends and family members make the switch from smoking to vaping, and it is my honour to chair the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group. Vaping is 95% safer than smoking, according to both King’s College hospital and the former Public Health England, and it is the most successful tool to help smokers to quit. According to data from ASH, 3 million adult vapers are ex-smokers. I fully support the health message that those who smoke should change to vaping, but “if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”. However, we now need urgent Government action to prevent youth vaping, which has become far too prevalent in recent years. We have already heard the statistics this afternoon.
In campaigning on vaping, I have been privileged to work with the vaping industry. I was disappointed that during the passage of the earlier Bill the last Government did not engage with the industry to find the best solutions to tackle both youth vaping and the illicit trade, which is largely responsible for children and young people having access to the vape market. At a forum held recently by the UK Vaping Industry Association, its director general, John Dunne, praised our Front-Bench team for the way in which they had already engaged with the industry, whose proposals will, I know, help the Bill achieve its objectives.
Like the industry, I have always supported the introduction of a licensing scheme as a helpful tool for better enforcement of the market, helping trading standards to identify non-compliant businesses, impose tough penalties and close down premises. I do not understand why restricting the number of shops and supermarkets selling vapes increases regulatory compliance. Shops and supermarkets that sell vapes responsibly should not be penalised, and we need to ensure that specialist vaping retailers can continue to operate, especially as they provide a such a critical service in helping smokers to quit. Flavour names that appeal to those under 18 are unacceptable and must be banned, but flavours are a key factor in helping smokers to make the transition to vaping. Research shows that about 65% of adult vapers find fruit-flavoured or sweet liquids preferable. If only tobacco flavours are available, many ex-smokers will return to smoking.
According to the Government’s own impact assessment, restricting vape flavours could affect 87% of adults who vape. Hopefully, meaningful consultation on flavours will lead to a safe solution to curtail youth vaping while also ensuring that vaping is an attractive alternative for adult smokers. It may well be that increasing fixed penalty notice fines to £200 is not a strong enough deterrent to irresponsible retailers and pales into insignificance compared with the profits made from the sale of cheap vapes on the illicit market, and I hope that the Bill can be amended to increase the fine significantly so that it acts as a real deterrent to those who now happily sell vapes to children.
Keeping in mind the UK’s 6 million smokers, who need help to quit, it is important to ensure that as we bring in the strongest possible measures to prevent under-age access to vaping products, the Bill must not over-regulate and, in doing so, undermine the power of vapes as a smoking cessation tool. I have been pleased to learn recently of new technical solutions that could help the Government to end youth vaping. Current laws require age verification at the point of sale, which has fundamentally failed to stop young people getting hold of vapes. The Government could go further and require continuous age verification at the point of use.
I recently met representatives of a company that has developed open-standard technology that can be applied by all manufacturers. It meets regulatory requirements for security and privacy, and can lock or unlock a device at the point of use. Vapes on sale in the UK market could be required to have secure Bluetooth technology installed—a low-cost chip that can be integrated into vaping products. Such chips provide a simple on/off switch that can be controlled via a mobile app. Users would have to verify their age via the app, in the same way as when accessing other services. This simple and straightforward approach would mean that no matter how a child got hold of a vape, they would be unable to use it. As the process would be quick and user-friendly, it would not prevent adult vapers from using vaping products as they do currently. I hope the Minister will consider looking at this technology in more detail as the Bill progresses.
The Minister knows that I am not a lobbyist for the vaping industry—some people may I think that I am, but I can categorically say that it is not true. I do not even vape myself, but I do want the Bill to be effective. I genuinely believe that including the vaping industry as a consultee is essential to ensure that this Bill helps meet the Government’s aim of creating the first smokefree generation, and I hope that the Minister can confirm today that the industry will be consulted during the progression of the Bill.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, and I think the country should welcome it and salute the Government for effectively taking on the Bill—they have polished and finessed some elements—that was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) under the previous Government. The gracious remarks of the Secretary of State in his opening speech will have resonated on the Conservative Benches and been appreciated.
A lot has happened in our country’s relationship with tobacco. I am pretty certain that had we known in the past what we know now about the harms of tobacco for so many thousands of our citizens, both societally and in terms of health, Queen Elizabeth would have probably said to the merchant adventurers, “Thank you very much for bringing it over, but please take it back.” It would not have taken root, but it has done. We have moved through a time when medics were paid by the industry to tell us of the beneficial effects of tobacco—for example, the idea that menthol was good for clearing people’s lungs. As we know, the medical profession has very much changed its tune. Rather like the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), my late father-in-law was an ENT surgeon, and I well remember talking to him about the devastating impacts that he saw on people’s health and the cost that such terrible and avoidable conditions can have, both to the economy and to the health service.
As I mentioned to the Secretary of State, I am no longer asked for proof of ID when I go into shops to buy anything. However, I can well remember that as a young schoolboy —this just goes to show how this country’s relationship with tobacco has changed—the headmaster at my local primary school seemed to be addicted to Piccadilly cigarettes. I do not know whether they are still made, but it was my job every morning—I obviously had a trustworthy face—to trot up Wyndham Crescent, go round the corner into Severn Road, go into Tony’s, the newsagent, and pick up either 20 or 40. I knew it was going to be a bad day if my headmaster needed two packets of 20. It is amazing that a nine-year-old schoolboy could be given cigarettes, but so trusting was Tony, the newsagent, that we did not have to pay. We did that on Fridays, and there was always 10p left over, which would allow me to have a comic, two packets of crisps or a bag of Chewits. When I say this to my children, who are either in or approaching their teenage years, they look at me with glee but also as though I am talking about a different age, which of course I am. What on earth can we buy for 10p these days?
As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, I welcome the Bill. I was grateful to him and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), for a brief conversation we had today about the Government’s intention not to include within the scope of this Bill—or, indeed, in any future consultation—a prohibition on smoking outside a hospitality venue. I entirely take the Secretary of State’s point that it is not just the rural hospitality sector that would be affected, but a number of publicans in my constituency have said to me that it really would be the death knell for their business if smokers were not allowed to have a cigarette and a pint outside the pub, in the designated smoking area. Their businesses are very marginal, as the Minister knows and as the Secretary of State recognises, so I am grateful to them for that.
The licences that the Bill envisages will be useful for providing a record of who is doing what, where, for the benefit of officialdom in its many guises, but I urge the Government—and local government, if this gets passported down to it—not to see those licences as a cash cow. They should not be a profit centre, and the requirements to secure a licence should not be onerous. The constraints of the Bill are clear. Hon. Members have asked why, if smoking is so bad, we do not just stop sales completely. The Government are not going down that route, so those who are going about a legal business should not be made to feel like criminals or societal pariahs for selling what is still a legal product to those who are legally entitled to purchase it.
I disagree almost fundamentally with the assessment of vaping from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon). I have three kids at our local high school, and too many of their cohort have got entrapped into vaping, brought in by the colours, the flavours, the smells, the packaging and the novelty factor. I understand entirely the intention for vaping to be a passport away from tobacco, but for too many, it seems to be an entry to smoking, and then moves them on to tobacco. That is entirely not what was envisaged, so I support fundamentally the robust approach that the Bill takes to the vaping sector.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concerns raised about smuggling. One can make something illegal, prohibit it or narrow access to it, but that does not necessarily, in the first instance, choke off market demand, and people will seek it. There will clearly have to be some robust empowering of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs agents and others to ensure that we do not see a burgeoning black market in tobacco products.
On the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend’s point, I remember hearing a presentation from British American Tobacco, and a point that resonated with me was that there are legal vapes, the ingredients of which we know and are listed, and then there is a huge black market for vapes, principally from China, and nobody knows what the hell is in them. I think an awful lot of parents think that those vapes are just producing steam, and have no idea about their dangerous chemical composition. I think too many teachers and headteachers also thought that, and the learning curve has been steep.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I have an interesting thought on the supply and demand issue, and the challenges it will pose from a control perspective. The hon. Gentleman paints a nice image of a day gone by when one of the kids could be sent down to the shop to pick up something for an adult, and I ask Members to consider what kind of world and country we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country where we could send one of the kids down to the shop to pick up something for us, or do we want to live in a country where we are forced to police each other’s behaviour in parks? We should think very carefully about the Government’s remit.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman takes me neatly to my closing point. If I understand him correctly, he is making an argument about civil liberties and freedoms. One does not have to be a libertarian to cherish freedom and liberty, as I hope we all do in this House. Libertarianism is the extreme form. It is the difference between liberty regulated and controlled—parametered, if one will—and liberty laissez-faire. It strikes me as rather incongruous for a libertarian to wish to become a lawmaker, because most laws are there to control, prohibit and regulate. It seems masochistic: “I am a free market libertarian, yet I have decided to put myself in the shackles of lawmaking in order to restrict the liberties that I cherish.” The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but we have to deal with society as it is, rather than as we might like it to be. Things have changed.
The ultra-libertarian would ask why we force people to wear seatbelts, as people should be free to hurl themselves through their windscreen at speed. Why do we have speed limits? The libertarian would say that we should be absolutely free to drive at whatever speed, irrespective of the conditions. I remember, back at university, hearing an eccentric American—that can sometimes be a tautology—questioning, from the extreme wing of libertarianism, the merits or otherwise of ages of sexual consent.
I suggest that all we do, and our inspiration for doing it, is benign and kindly. Too often, it is interpreted as being paternalistic and patronising, but I like what the Secretary of State said about this approach to lawmaking being in the proud one nation tradition of the Conservative party, because Tories like order, not disorder.
Simon Hoare
Here is a man who adores order nearly as much as he adores Margaret Thatcher.
Andrew Rosindell
One of my reasons for getting involved in politics is that I believe in a free society, and I believe that people should make choices about their own life. I do not believe that the state should govern how people live their life, but that does not mean I am an extreme libertarian. It just means that I believe in freedom with responsibility.
As my hon. Friend has said, attitudes to tobacco have evolved over the years. People have naturally decided not to smoke and, speaking as a Conservative, surely it is better to educate and let people make their own choices than to impose decisions on them.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I readily accept that it has a huge intellectual underpinning, but we have had public health campaigns for years on the dangers of smoking tobacco. In some instances, it has worked. We have also used taxation and the pricing mechanism. My late father told my mother that he would give up when cigarettes reached 10 shillings a packet. He eventually gave up when smoking was banned in public buildings and the like. The question that remains is: do we allow unfettered freedom if it harms only the individual who is exercising it, and step in when the exercise of that unfettered freedom has negative impacts on society?
The Secretary of State and others have dilated, perfectly correctly, on the impact on demand and supply in the national health service. A disproportionate amount of resource goes to dealing with smoking-related diseases, illnesses and conditions. We can do something about that. We know full well the negative impact of passive smoking on other people’s health, so the impact of the exercise of that liberty is not limited to the individual. I suggest respectfully that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would have a stronger point if it was limited to the individual. Then we could say, “Provide the information and let the individual take the decision.” However, that decision impacts many other people. It affects the productivity of the nation and the national health service, and the health of family and society.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is an entirely Conservative instinct to say, when all the levers have been pulled and buttons pushed—when there has been public information, education and some forms of prohibition—“It has worked up to a point, but not enough and not at the right speed. We will have to do something else.” I accept that not everybody who describes themselves as a Conservative, as my hon. Friend and I both do, will make the same analysis and arrive at the same position as me. I voted for the Bill in its last iteration, and I will vote for it again today, because I think it is the next lever that we need to pull and the next button that we have to push.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have an NHS and a Government who are expected to provide and pay for treatment when people are ill, so there is a duty and an onus on the Government to try to keep people healthy, and to provide information about well-known dangers to people’s health? This is not about having a nanny state, but about nudging people to make the right choices, because it costs money to treat people, and we want to save money as well.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One can nudge, prod, push and exhort as much as one can, but the Bill is probably the final stepping stone in quite a long line of stepping stones to try to wean people off their dependency on tobacco.
The House has been generous with its time, as have you with your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. In closing, I echo and endorse the point made by the Secretary of State and other contributors from the Government Benches: people who have an addiction are not free. They are trapped by their addiction, and that affects many areas of their life. If someone is terribly well off, they can afford the addiction to tobacco, and it will make not a jot or tittle of difference to the household budget or income, or to their standard of life—
Simon Hoare
I will not, I am afraid, because I want to conclude. The disproportionate hammer blow is felt by families who would describe themselves as poor, on low or fixed incomes. When the choice between feeding the addiction and feeding the children comes into play, then feeding the addiction seems to have the trump hand. The Government are right to have picked up the ball and taken the Bill forward. It is an entirely Conservative measure. This is not a restriction of liberty in the abstract. The Bill is about public health. It is about taking the data, extrapolating the facts and recognising the harms, and, as responsible legislators, responding to that to make a difference to all our communities up and down the country.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Like previous speakers, I have not been challenged on my age, even though I use moisturiser; perhaps it is my receding hairline. I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for his eloquent speech about the Conservative party’s one nation tradition and his support for the Bill. It is absolutely the case that this legislation comes on the back of decades of other Bills and Acts that have acknowledged the challenges around smoking in our society. He eloquently articulates that evolution in our body politic.
I celebrate the fact that the Bill follows other landmark Acts of Parliament under the previous Labour Government, one of which had an impact on me when I worked in the retail industry. The ban on smoking in workplaces made a fundamental change to many people’s lives and overnight improved the life chances of many millions of our citizens. As has been said by Members across the Chamber, there is a consensus that smoking remains one of the leading causes of death, claiming 80,000 lives annually and costing the NHS billions of pounds, with some estimates putting it at between £3 billion and £5 billion.
Andrew Rosindell
On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman also ban alcohol? Would he ban all types of unhealthy foods, or chocolate—where does it end?
Tristan Osborne
We have age restrictions on alcohol sales and the Bill proposes doing the same. Similarly, for other substances in society, we look in a proportionate way at their health consequences; for instance, we class particular categories of drugs as A, B and C. All those things need to be taken as individual elements. Certainly, we will look at other proposals, but on this particular element, smoking and tobacco have been widely acknowledged as a public concern over many decades.
The vaping industry has seen some positive outcomes, with people transferring from cigarettes to vaping, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) pointed out. Indeed, that use for those products has been acknowledged by the NHS. As a former teacher, however, I have also seen the consequences for young people and that has been acknowledged by many parents in the Chamber. I have unfortunately seen in the classroom, through confiscation and the illicit behaviours of some young people, that blue razz lemonade, watermelon bubble gum and strawberry raspberry cherry ice are all flavours of vapes. They are being marketed at young people, whether directly or indirectly, because we know, as does the tobacco industry, that young people are where the use of tobacco-based products starts.
I have seen at first hand the consequences of the proliferation of vaping in schools and its ubiquitous presence across my area in Chatham and Aylesford. I agree that the Bill’s removal of disposable, single-use vapes, which are currently so easily accessible and cynically marketed, is a sensible move and should reverse the recent trend of young people who have never smoked turning to vapes as an initial access point. It should also stop vapes being seen as a gateway to other types of drugs. Sadly, I have to report that cannabis-based products and other illicit products are gaining ground among disposable vape products.
At the same time, millions of single-use electrical devices blight our local landscapes. Many disposable vapes are deposited on roadsides and in parks, and while it is not specifically part of the content of the Bill, the reality is that vapes have environmental consequences.
The branding of some flavours has been a key driver of youth take-up. To prevent under-age appeal, flavours should be adult-focused and restricted to such flavours as tobacco, menthol and a handful of responsibly branded fruit flavours. I note that some in the industry are already promoting that agenda.
The age restrictions are sensible, and I think that the rising age escalator will be enforceable. Indeed, many supermarkets already have an age limit well above that which is legally required and challenge at the point of disposal.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the upper-age escalator could prove difficult later on, particularly in respect of the ability of those who sell tobacco? At the moment, if a young person sells alcohol, they have to get a supervisor who is older to allow it. When the people selling alcohol are in their thirties, but were born after 2009, and everyone else in the shop is in their thirties, who will be allowed to sell the tobacco? Does he have any thoughts on that?
Tristan Osborne
The licensing regime will be looked at in detail, but the reality is that, when I am buying alcohol in a supermarket, I might be challenged on my age by someone at the counter who is over the age of 16. I think I am correct in saying that I would then have to prove my age at point of sale. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.
Enforcement is very welcome. As a former council portfolio holder for licensing, it was always very difficult to respond to emails from residents seeking redress around the sale of vaping products. Some products were being sold over the counter in unlicensed premises, so enforcement was very difficult. Other products were being marketed using very aggressive advertising. I welcome the licensing element of the Bill and look forward to hearing more details. Councils, I believe, are ready to take on the mantle of licensing. They license many other types of premises, and I suspect that this latest measure will just be an addition to the existing regime. The measure will challenge bad faith actors and illicit products. I have been asking questions about a digital tax on vaping products to see whether we can treat this sector in a similar way to other tobacco-based products.
I welcome the Bill because it will put us back on the front foot as a world leader in tobacco harm reduction, and help us lead the way in improving standards in cigarette alternatives. If we get this right, which I believe we will with this Bill, we can maintain a healthy balance, with vape usage targeted at the adult market and used as a means to reduce addiction to other nicotine-based products. The Bill balances the liberty of individuals to make choices with the responsibility of the state to uphold the public health of the most vulnerable and our young people, and I urge colleagues to support it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
May I declare my interest as a former chair, for nine years, of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health? In this new Parliament, I co-chair the same group with the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).
I am passionate about preventing young people from starting to smoke and encouraging people who do smoke to give up because of my personal experience. The Secretary of State related his personal experience, and I think it is right that I should relate mine. Both of my parents died from smoking-related cancer. My late mother was only 47 when she died. She was a very heavy smoker all her life. I was then left as a 23-year-old with three younger sisters to bring up as a family. I do not want any family in this country to go through what our family went through. So this, for me, is personal as well as political.
I listened to the Secretary of State when he talked about the speech that the former Prime Minister made at the Conservative party conference. If he examines the Westminster Hall speech that I made some two months earlier, he will see that it was almost the same—word for word. I have not called my right hon. Friend out for his plagiarism before.
This House has a very long history of tobacco control. Those measures have been introduced mainly from the Back Benches. I know that the Government will proclaim that a Labour Government brought in the ban on smoking indoors, but it should be remembered that it was a senior Labour Back Bencher—a former Member of this House—who said that unless the Government introduced the measure, he would table a cross-party amendment to the Health Bill and it would be carried by a heavy majority. He did not need to do that, and I welcomed the provision.
I am delighted that this Bill builds on the Bill that was presented in the previous Parliament. I was proud to speak in that debate and to sit on the Bill Committee as we tried to improve the Bill. The then Minister, Andrea Leadsom, took away many of our amendments and said that she did not yet have the authority to agree them, but was willing to review them in the round. Clearly, we did not get to the point of doing that. It is important to remember that from 2011 to 2023, the number of people smoking dropped from 20% of the population to 11.9%, which is a big fall. The previous Government should be commended for that. Indeed, the last Government made it illegal in 2012 to display tobacco products at the point of sale. I remember that I led a debate in Westminster Hall in September 2013 calling for the standardisation of tobacco products to be made mandatory. Both the Conservative and Labour Front Benches opposed the position. Two years later, it was passed by this House. That shows how the Back Benches lead and Governments often follow.
At the same time, children were protected from harmful second-hand smoke by a law that made it illegal to smoke in a vehicle containing anyone under 18. That is difficult to enforce, and I remember many colleagues saying, “If you can’t enforce it, it won’t happen,” but most colleagues will remember sitting in a car where their parents were smoking and suffering that second-hand smoke. We won that argument. It was once again a Back Bencher—the senior Back Bencher Alex Cunningham—who brought that forward, and we were proud to support it.
We won the argument on the smokefree generation. The then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), built the cross-party consensus then, and we reached the consensus on raising the age of sale for tobacco by one year every year. In the vote on Second Reading of the last Tobacco and Vapes Bill, it was rightly backed by a huge majority across the House.
I welcome the new measures, which include the amendments tabled to the original Bill. It takes into account most, if not all, the amendments we proposed last time in Committee. The Government have not yet met the standards set by the last Government, though, in addressing smoking among the 5.6 million smokers in England. The last Government committed £15 million in funding for mass media campaigns, £30 million for enforcement and £70 million for local stop smoking services. I note that the Secretary of State mentioned the £70 million for smoking cessation services, but not the other items. When the Minister responds, will he commit to the same level of support for the “swap to stop” scheme to support adult smokers to switch to vapes and a national financial incentive programme, particularly aimed at pregnant women who want to stop smoking?
Today, the Government confirmed funding for stop smoking services and enforcement. That is welcome, but only if the funding is sustained for the next five years in line with the commitments made by the previous Government. I am also concerned that while the enforcement duties in the Bill are greater than before, that has not been matched by additional funding. Will the Minister confirm that a full assessment of the cost of enforcement will be undertaken as a matter of urgency and that the funding will be reviewed following that and the passage of the Bill?
Between 2022-23 and 2023-24, we saw the biggest single drop in maternal smoking rates since records began, from 8.8% to 7.3%—an 18% decline in the number of women smoking during pregnancy. The fall was a credit to the services established under the last Government to support women to quit. Keeping up that level of progress will not be easy, but by maintaining the world-leading national financial incentive scheme, that rate of decline can be maintained, giving children the gift of a smokefree start in life. However, the funding for the scheme is due to come to an end in March next year. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will extend the scheme and ensure that every baby gets the best possible start in life—something I know his predecessor would have strongly supported?
Most of the Bill comes from the Khan review. One item is not in the Bill that certainly should be. The difficult fiscal environment that the Government find themselves in means that discussions on funding can lead to tense shoulders on the Government Benches. However, I bring good news: there is a way to raise revenue, by passing the costs directly on to tobacco companies—those responsible for the blight on our population’s health and wealth. Will the Minister agree to come to the APPG and address the matter, so that we can talk about the implementation of a “polluter pays” tobacco levy on the profits of big tobacco, which would address issues with market prices and limit the profitability of the industry? That can all be done without impacting the cost of tobacco to the consumer or, indeed, on the wholesale market.
As co-chair of the all-party group, I congratulate the Government on adopting so many of the amendments that we tabled in the last Parliament, including on the introduction of a licensing scheme. I am pleased that the Bill indicates that that scheme will be more robust that the current scheme for alcohol, meaning that it can be used to improve public health, which I am sure we all agree with. At the Committee stage of the previous Bill, I also tabled an amendment to require age verification for everyone who purchases tobacco. That would aid enforcement and simplify the process for shop workers, who would not have to guess whether customers were over the legal age of sale or explain to some why they were being asked for proof of age. The requirement to ask for proof of age has been strengthened but not mandated, so in Committee will the Minister consider introducing mandatory age verification?
I welcome the ban on vape sponsorship and advertising, which was, once again, discussed in the previous Bill Committee. The promotion of vaping products for anything other than smoking cessation does not support public health goals. However, I am pleased that the Bill ensures that public health organisations can still promote vapes as a quit-smoking aid. Can the Minister confirm that the Advertising Standards Agency will work with public health organisations to ensure that that works in practice, so that smokers are still informed about the benefit of switching and, more importantly, of giving up tobacco altogether?
The Bill includes new powers to extend and designate smokefree places as vape-free. It is a shame that a consultation on where those powers should apply was curtailed before the Bill ever reached Parliament, because we need an open debate on that subject, and it would be better led by evidence rather than by decisions made behind closed doors at the Department. Will the Minister consider that aspect and see whether we can have a proper consultation so that all members of the public can participate?
The Bill consolidates many existing powers around tobacco control and brings them into one place, and I welcome that proposal. It will, I hope, ensure that legislation is future-proofed against any loopholes or escape clauses. We know how hard big tobacco works to get around the legislation we pass in this place. An issue that I do not believe is covered by the Bill—although I stand to be corrected—is that of chewing tobacco. Paan, for example, is often mixed with tobacco and sold with different products in different outlets, and it is sold loose, so it is difficult to monitor. Often, existing laws on oral tobacco are not enforced properly, so the populations who use those products, who tend to come from the Indian subcontinent, do not realise the risks that they are running. We know that mouth and throat cancers are particularly prevalent among people from the Indian subcontinent. We must combat that by ensuring that such products are properly regulated. Will the Minister consider regulating all forms of tobacco and ensuring that trading standards and others have the resources to enforce the regulations properly?
I congratulate the House on the continued consensus on reducing smoking, and take this moment to mark the significance of the Bill’s return to Parliament. I am very proud that it was a Conservative Government who first introduced the policy. No other consumer product kills up to two thirds of its long-term users; it is uniquely lethal and requires a regulatory approach. Government intervention is justified against this addiction, which steals the health and wealth of our population. To those who say that this is a matter of freedom of choice, I say that there is freedom of choice only in taking the first cigarette, after which people are addicted for life and either have to try to quit—some try up to 30 times, as we have said—or face shortened lives and horrible deaths.
We in this country have been a world leader in tobacco control, standing up to big tobacco’s repeated efforts to block our progress. The creation of a smokefree generation would have been absolutely unthinkable a few years ago, but it is so close—we can see it coming now—and it will be a credit to this Parliament and the previous one. I remember the Minister saying that it would be a Labour Government who created a smokefree England by 2030. Let us hope that we can do it faster than that.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I start by welcoming this Bill, which will create the first smokefree generation. Children turning 15 this year will never legally be able to be sold tobacco.
As we look to reform and transform our NHS and improve health outcomes for our country, we cannot do so without tackling the root causes. The long-term chronic health issues that stem from smoking and the impact that they have on our NHS are well known and have been well covered today; they do not need rehearsing by me. It is worth noting that fewer young people take up smoking each year, which is good news and should be welcomed by Members. The proportion of adults aged 16 and over in the UK who said that they smoked cigarettes decreased significantly from 12.7% in 2021 to 11.2% in 2022, continuing the downwards trend seen since 1974. Recent research by Go Smoke Free shows from analysis of Office for National Statistics figures that between 2015 and 2023 the percentage of adults who smoke in Suffolk has declined to 10.6%, down from 16% in 2016.
That positive downwards trend does not mean that young people are safe from the addictions of smoking or that further interventions by this Government are not needed. Alongside the decrease in young people taking up smoking and the decline in adults in Suffolk smoking, we have seen an increase in young people and children taking up vaping. The vaping epidemic among children and young people should be a great concern to us all on both sides of this Chamber. In 2023, 20% of children had tried vaping, which was almost double the figure in 2020, before the first covid lockdown. This rapid trajectory is frightening, and I share the concerns of many parents who have written to me about the availability of vapes and the marketing of them, which so often seems as if it is targeted directly at children.
We know that disposable vapes are the products of choice for the majority of children vaping today, and I therefore welcome the ban on disposable vapes that this Bill will bring forward. The new legislation will not only protect the environment, but help to make huge strides in reducing the appeal of vapes to young people and help to keep them out of the hands of the most vulnerable children. I also welcome the Bill’s drive to ban the advertising and sponsorship of vapes and nicotine products and allow regulation of the flavours, packaging and display of vapes so that they cannot be marketed to appeal to children. It is astonishing that it is currently legal for vapes to be sold from locations such as the back of taxis, toy stores and confectioners. This practice must stop, and I am glad that the Bill seeks to tackle that—in particular, it will be hugely welcome to constituents in Suffolk Coastal.
In my constituency, we have vape shops clearly targeting children and young people and advertising products along with sweets in a clear attempt to market and sell them to those aged under 18. Residents in Felixstowe have been rightly outraged by the recent opening of an American sweet and vape store right on the high street in a prime location that is so clearly targeting children. I hope that under the terms of the Bill, stores such as that will be in breach of the law. I will follow the detail closely. I am also reassured that the £200 fixed penalty notice will enable trading standards officers to act on the spot to clamp down on under-age sales.
This Bill is welcome, and it should be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. I look forward to voting in favour of it later, and I will do so on behalf of the residents of my constituency who have expressed their direct concerns to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
After the next speech, I will impose a six-minute time limit.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate about a Bill that seeks to change the way in which our society approaches smoking and vaping particularly for future generations.
I have never smoked in my life, and I would not wish my children or anyone else’s to pick up the habit. Smoking is undeniably dangerous, highly addictive, and a significant burden on public health. The Government data is stark: smoking causes 80,000 deaths in England every year and costs the NHS and the economy billions.
At the same time, however, I firmly believe in individual choice. It is not the role of the state to dictate every aspect of a person’s lifestyle. Like alcohol, smoking is harmful. Some Members have made the argument that the justification for banning smoking is that the practice also harms others. I ask those Members why we do not also ban the consumption of alcohol, which places a massive burden on the NHS as well as contributing to violent crime, including—with yesterday’s White Ribbon Day in mind—domestic violence. Should we not also look at gambling, which is also highly addictive and destroys families all over the country? Instead, we educate people and provide support for those who wish to quit. I believe that is the balance that liberalism stands for—freedom with responsibility.
The Bill takes a much-needed step forward on vaping. We know that vaping is increasingly marketed in ways that appeal to children, from brightly coloured packaging to sweet, toy-like flavours. That is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats have long called for tougher regulation of vapes, and I welcome the provisions to ban advertising, restrict packaging and flavours and enforce age restrictions. These are sensible measures that will protect young people without penalising adults who use vaping as a tool to quit smoking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of this, but there are a lot of safety issues with vapes and smoking, especially for young people. One of the issues seems to be that it is unknown just yet what effect vapes may have on adults, but even more so on children. For that reason, does the hon. Gentleman agree that further consideration must be given to the safety issues before we can let young people fully use vapes?
James MacCleary
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has already raised the issue of spiced vapes in a debate in this House. I think there are a lot of safety concerns relating to vaping, and hopefully this Bill can start to address some of those issues. As a party, we earlier supported the Government’s move to ban single-use vapes on environmental grounds. Vaping has a role in smoking cessation, but as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it has to be regulated to prevent harm to children.
On smoking, however, the Bill ventures into more contentious territory, in my view. The proposal to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 is somewhat problematic. While I appreciate the ambition behind creating a smokefree generation, I worry about the long-term implications of this measure. For one, history teaches us that outright bans often lead to unintended consequences. As we have seen with other prohibitions, a black market can emerge, making it harder to regulate the quality and safety of tobacco products. Then there is the question of principle: should the state prevent grown, consenting adults from engaging in legal activities? I believe we must tread carefully when legislating against personal freedoms, even when those freedoms carry risk. A more effective approach would be to invest in public health measures, such as smoking-cessation programmes, early cancer detection and better treatment facilities.
The Bill also grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to declare any public space smokefree. While I support protecting children in playgrounds, schools and hospitals, these powers go far beyond that, removing the requirement that a space must pose a significant risk of smoke exposure to be designated as smokefree. This raises concerns about potential overreach, which is understandably creating concern in the hospitality and night-time industry sectors. I urge the Government to clarify this issue when the Bill is in Committee.
Smoking rates in this country are already declining, particularly among young people. In 2021, just 1% of school pupils reported smoking regularly, compared with 30% in 1996. That trend is encouraging, suggesting that education and public health initiatives are working, so while I share the Government’s goal of reducing smoking and vaping rates, I believe this Bill goes beyond what is necessary or proportionate. We should focus on supporting people to make better choices, not remove those choices altogether. There is much to welcome and commend in the Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on bringing it forward. I hope the Government will consider refining their approach in Committee in some of the areas I have raised, balancing public health priorities with the liberal principle of individual freedom.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate and to hear the broad consensus across the House on this excellent Bill. We have come a long way since the 2004 White Paper proposed a smoking ban in almost all public places in England and Wales. Smoking on public transport and in workplaces now feels inconceivable thanks to decades of work by campaigners and public health professionals and bold action from Government.
As a public health consultant, I pay special tribute to my public health colleagues who have worked so tirelessly in this area, from the seminal 1956 research undertaken by Sir Richard Doll and team that first established the link between smoking and lung cancer—something we take for granted today—through to the smoking cessation advisers who work daily to help people combat this destructive addiction.
Mark Twain is reported to have said:
“Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world…I’ve done it thousands of times.”
In my career to date I have been fortunate enough to undertake smoking cessation training and I can testify to the incredible amount of hard work and determination that both the quitter and the adviser put in to overcome the nicotine receptors that demand to be fed. This is an addiction, not a choice.
So it is better by far not to start this destructive habit in the first place. Currently, every day about 350 young adults still start smoking and about 160 people are diagnosed with cancer caused by smoking. Smoking is still the leading cause of premature death and disability in the UK, and is responsible for half the difference in healthy life expectancy between rich and poor. Other Members have talked about the appalling health inequalities in this country and how the Bill will really contribute to reducing them.
So it is right that this Bill will phase out the sale of tobacco and create a smokefree generation. Already ever fewer people smoke, and this legislation will increase the rate of decline. By increasing the age of sale by one year every year we can expect smoking rates among 14 to 30-year-olds to reach zero by 2050. As a mum of two young sons, I greatly welcome that.
I welcome, too, the increased powers to tackle vaping in the Government’s Bill. Vaping can be an effective aid for adult smokers to quit, but much tougher measures are needed to regulate products designed to appeal to young people. As ASH puts it:
“Vaping is an adult quitting aid, not a children’s toy.”
The chief medical officer further underlines this by stating:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; marketing vapes to children is utterly unacceptable.”
This Bill will give the Government far greater control over the marketing and design of vapes and the flexibility to adjust regulations in the future if the market or evidence changes.
Robin Swann
Does the hon. Member agree that that is also why it is important that we control vending machine sales?
Wera Hobhouse
We should also look at online sales. A lot of young people purchase products online. May I ask the Minister what the Bill says about that?
Dr Cooper
I do not disagree. The Bill will give the Government far greater control over the marketing side of vapes and the flexibility to adjust regulations in the future. Life evolves outside this Chamber, and we need to be able to evolve with it flexibly.
Alongside the measures in this Bill, this Government have made important commitments to integrating smoking cessation into routine care and ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups are not left behind as we move towards a smokefree Britain. When I was undertaking my training in public health, a director of public health told me that our profession is where medicine meets politics—I am not sure how he would feel about me going into politics, but there we go. In this Bill, I am delighted to see the evidence and data provided by my profession working in synergy with this Government’s policy development to bring forward a Bill that will allow our young people to enjoy healthier futures and allow us all to live in a healthier environment. I thank all Members across the House for their work on this issue, and I offer my wholehearted support for the Bill.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I rise to speak as a not yet reformed smoker, being in the pre-contemplative phase of my addiction, but I am pleased to speak today in favour of this Bill, part 2 of which specifically relates to Scotland. While this is only its Second Reading, the Bill certainly looks to be a promising piece of legislation that will benefit lives across the UK. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in both Scotland and the UK. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to safeguard future generations from the addiction of smoking and to reduce preventable deaths across the UK.
My unique contribution is this: I am concerned by what I see as the rise in the number of leading actors in television and film whose characters are featured as smokers. If I am right, I invite Members to consider that the next time they enjoy their favourite programme or film. It seems to me that it is the most subliminal form of product placement on our screens these days, and I often wonder to what extent the tobacco industry might be behind it in the form of indirect sponsorship.
Turning to the matter at hand, as Members will know, healthcare is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government’s record on smoking controls is excellent. Scotland was the first UK nation to introduce and endorse the smoking ban. Scotland led the overhaul of the tobacco sale and display law. Scotland established the UK’s first tobacco retail register in 2011, and Scotland is in the process of implementing the deliberately ambitious goal of a tobacco-free nation by 2034.
I pay tribute to my party colleague, Kirsten Oswald, the former Member for East Renfrewshire, who dedicated a significant amount of her time and effort in this place to this important issue. During the debate in the last Parliament on the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, Kirsten powerfully stated that
“any arguments put forward about personal choice or personal freedom make no sense at all when we are talking about children and a highly addictive substance. Smoking is not a free choice; it is an addiction.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 208.]
With this Bill, we have the opportunity to directly address not only preventable deaths, but youth vaping. While decades of research have shown the harm that smoking does, we are only at the very beginning of our understanding of the harm that might be caused by vaping. There is emerging evidence in this area, but as yet, we simply do not know enough. However, we can act in a preventive way, and I heard what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said about vaping being 95% safer. I am not so sure that the evidence supports that; I am more inclined to agree with what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said on that point.
The rise in youth vaping across the UK is concerning. Vaping products are not intended to be used by children, but we know all too well of the shocking usage of these products by children. In 2022, 3% of 11-year-olds, 10% of 13-year-olds and 25% of 15-year-olds in Scotland said that they had used an e-cigarette in the last 30 days. To that end, the SNP welcomes the range of new powers in the Bill to regulate the sale of vapes aimed at young people and to tackle youth vaping. Measures to tackle youth vaping cannot come soon enough. The SNP supports the new minimum age regime for tobacco sales, meaning that no one born in 2009 or later will ever legally purchase cigarettes. That will aid in the Scottish Government’s goal of a smokefree Scotland, as I have already alluded to.
The Bill follows lengthy work and co-operation between the UK and devolved Governments, including a UK-wide consultation on tackling smoking and vaping, and I am pleased to see that that work was productive. I note that Scottish Government requests have been added to the Bill, such as in clauses 52 and 53. The Scottish Government previously laid a legislative consent memorandum in the Scottish Parliament, and will do so again. Intergovernmental work and co-operation are vital on this island, especially on a topic as important as tackling preventable deaths. For Scotland, it is vital that the UK Secretary of State sets out as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill, and in consultation with the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments, his plans to make best use of the various UK-wide powers contained in the Bill. That is particularly important for the powers relating to the specifications and sale of vapes, which are vital in tackling youth vaping.
To conclude, I am happy to support the Bill, as are my colleagues in the SNP. I look forward to seeing further co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments to tackle this important issue.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a Government who are creating the first smokefree generation and protecting the British public. This Bill will protect my constituents from avoidable illnesses and death, so I very much welcome it.
Like other Members who have spoken throughout the debate, I am one of those people who can only dream of being asked for ID these days. In fact, I am so old that I can remember growing up seeing huge billboards and bus stops with cigarette advertisements on them, and cigarette companies sponsoring entire sporting events. What a different time we live in now, and that is because our knowledge has progressed so much. We now know that there is no safe level of exposure to smoking or even to second-hand passive smoking. As the Secretary of State set out, we know the consequences, which are 75,000 GP appointments attributed to smoking every single month; 80,000 smoking-related deaths each year; and one person admitted to hospital every minute because of smoking. That is all at a cost to the NHS of more than £3 billion a year, adding to the pressure on it when we know it is at breaking point.
There is also the economic cost, with £18 billion of productivity squandered each year—dare I say, £18 billion up in smoke? Phasing out this harmful addiction is not just a health priority but a societal and economic necessity. The urgency is especially clear in Southampton, where we have had 527 emergency hospital admissions per 100,000 people for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a disease from which my mum died, despite never having smoked but being the child of heavy-smoking parents. Compare that rate to the average in England of 326 per 100,000—that represents a 61% higher rate in Southampton. There is clearly an urgent need for the Bill to bring change nationally and in my city. I do not want the children of Southampton Itchen to have to grow up vulnerable to the same smoking-related health issues that my generation and the generations before us did.
This excellent Bill will rewrite the culture around smoking and vaping, freeing our next generation from addiction, from school-age pressures and from harmful trends. Despite the troubling statistics, there is great work going on locally to tackle this issue. Before the election, I visited Professor Kath Woods-Townsend and her team at a research-based project called LifeLab, which is a collaboration between the University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton and the National Institute for Health and Care Research biomedical research centre. The project is centred around improving the health education of young people through practical visits to its labs at the hospital and involving them in its research processes. One of its recent studies found that some vaping brands are designed to mimic sweets and that some children are persuaded that there is an element of healthiness to fruit-flavoured vapes.
Imagine being a company that plays on that. Imagine being a company that knows about the risks of vaping—knows that it can cause lung-scarring and asthma as well as bringing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, exposure to chemicals and breathing in metal in the aerosol—and yet wraps its product up in bright colours and fruit flavours and deliberately markets it towards our children, knowing the addictive nature of vapes and knowing the vulnerability of children and the social pressures they face. The job of business is to contribute to the economy, to innovate and to create jobs and wealth, not to run rampant with our children’s health to make a quick buck for shareholders. Effective educational programmes such as LifeLab, working in tandem with the Government’s sensible legislation and action, will promote better understanding and reduce harm.
We have seen before what legislation can do: when smoking under 18, proxy purchasing and advertising on cigarette packaging were banned, all those vital steps drove down the smoking rate. Now, it is time to stub out this habit—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—once and for all.
The Labour Government are doing what is right by the youth of today by prioritising health over profit and ensuring that the next generation can grow up free from this addiction and its preventable diseases. Today, with cross-party support, I hope that we will take another ambitious step towards a future where our children’s wellbeing comes first. I am proud to be part of that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the Government on their very strong stance on tobacco and protecting children, but—the Minister will know what is coming—when it comes to refillable vapes, the Bill is missing the mark. Research by Professor Chris Pudney at the University of Bath discovered that one in six vapes confiscated in schools contained the synthetic drug Spice—a highly addictive and dangerous drug commonly found in prisons. It causes very dangerous health conditions, including damage to vital organs. On our streets, users are often slumped in a semi-conscious state, unable to function. In our schools, children are collapsing. Some are rushed to intensive care; others are left battling lifelong addiction. The highly addictive nature of Spice makes it a gateway to criminal activity, coercion and abuse.
I have spoken about this alarming issue on several occasions, and I have had some assurances from the Government, but so far I have not seen anything on it in the Bill. It will not do anything to stop the trend of Spice-spiked vapes in schools, because the vapes that contain Spice are almost all refillable. Refillable vapes are rechargeable and feature an empty pod that can be filled up with a liquid of choice. Banning disposable vapes will not address that problem. Many of the confiscated vapes containing Spice were made to look exactly like a normal product from a shop, and they are usually sold as containing THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—also an illegal product in this country. Children are inadvertently consuming Spice under the impression that it is cannabis.
Vapes containing THC are widespread in parts of the United States where they are legal, but importing them to the UK is costly and difficult. Spice, however, is cheap, readily available and highly addictive. Dealers exploit that by passing off Spice as cannabis, preying on young people and putting them at serious risk. This drug has the potential to condemn young people, in particular vulnerable young people, to a life of crime and addiction.
When such Bills come along, we have the opportunity to make them as strong as possible. There are other issues associated with Spice-spiked vapes, but I urge the Government to really look at what they can do to strengthen the Bill to address this serious problem. There are opportunities in the Bill, but focusing solely on disposable vapes risks backfiring; it may push demand towards refillable vapes, which are even easier to tamper with for illegal use. Have the Government really prepared for the potential unintended consequences? I hope that they acknowledge the points that I have raised. I look forward to seeing them addressed as the Bill progresses. I support the Government on their very strong stance and on what they want to achieve, but I hope that the Bill can be strengthened.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
This piece of legislation carries immense significance for the health of our nation, and I welcome the steps being taken to protect people from the harms of tobacco, to create a smokefree generation and to tackle youth vaping. We are all too aware that smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and death in our country, with decades of evidence in support of that. One in four cancers is driven by smoking. Around 160 people every day are diagnosed with a smoking-related cancer. Smoking causes asthma, stillbirths and dementia. The evidence around second-hand smoke is overwhelming; it causes increased rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—the list goes on.
Tobacco consumption is a primary driver of health inequalities right across the country. In the most deprived areas, the mortality rate ascribed to smoking is more than double that in the least deprived areas, as we have heard. This Bill is about not just health but alleviating the economic burden on our healthcare system. According to Action on Smoking and Health, smoking-related illnesses cost the NHS £1.9 billion each year in England alone. In Mid Cheshire, the cost of smoking exceeds £52 million annually, and more than £2 million in direct healthcare costs alone. By curbing tobacco use, we can alleviate some of that financial strain and redirect those resources towards more urgent health needs. Investing in prevention is far more cost-effective than treating diseases caused by tobacco.
In the time that I have, I want to focus on the regulation of vaping in the Bill. It is important to strike the right balance between reducing harm from tobacco and protecting young people. Vaping has a role to play in helping adults to quit smoking, and there are estimates that as many as an extra 70,000 people in England quit smoking by using vapes as an aid. However, youth vaping has more than doubled in the last five years, while almost six times more 11 to 17-year-olds vape now than did a decade ago. Many vaping products have very clearly been targeted at children through their packaging, flavours and marketing. While vaping is less harmful than tobacco, the vast majority of vaping liquids still contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and more impactful on children’s brains when they are trying to quit. Many of the long-term health effects of inhaled ingredients such as colourings and flavourings are unknown.
It is our responsibility to safeguard the health of our communities, particularly our children, who are vulnerable to the allure of smoking and vaping. I certainly welcome the Bill’s emphasis on more responsible regulation of vaping products. The power for the Secretary of State to require producers to produce studies on the ingredients of their products will be a vital tool in demonstrating the long-term effects of what is being put into vaping liquids.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a crucial piece of legislation that aims to tackle a critical public health challenge. It will promote informed choices and alleviate economic burdens, and ultimately help us achieve our ambition of creating a smokefree UK. That is why I am proud to support this important Bill.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I noticed from the opening comments that the Opposition have a free vote on the legislation, as do the Lib Dems. I assure the Minister that the Ulster Unionist party group in this House is 100% behind the Bill, which means: I am.
I sincerely hope it is second time lucky for the Bill. Prior to getting elected to this House, I was the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland in the re-established Assembly when it came back in February 2024. The Bill was then going through this House. Despite hugely challenging pressures, there was a much appreciated latitude from the public health Minister, Andrea Leadsom, who worked with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill had a four-nations approach. I thank the Government for continuing that approach. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) described happening in Scotland, a legislative consent motion went through the Northern Ireland Assembly. More importantly, it received the full support of the four parties in the Northern Ireland Executive.
It was only right and proper that the profound public health benefits be extended to Northern Ireland. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland was included in the UK-wide consultation exercise, which closed in December 2023. There was particularly strong support for the measures from the people back home. The consultation received a proportionately higher response rate from the Northern Ireland population than the UK-wide population. While 62.5% of UK respondents were in favour of an ambitious smokefree generation proposal, the Northern Ireland figure stood at 79%. That was by far the greatest support from among the UK regions. Support was also much higher in Northern Ireland for a range of other proposals, such as restricting vape flavourings and displays.
Some of the flavours that attract children have been mentioned. There is also a move towards flavours, labels and names that appeal to older age groups. We now have “Brain Freeze” and “Killer Kustard.” The producers are moving on from young people who are already addicted to early teens, and are making sure that their addictions embed. It is important that this Bill addresses that.
While I am glad of the support that many of the measures have received across Northern Ireland, we need to remain mindful of the fact that if passed, the Bill will be a literal lifesaver for decades to come. Tobacco use is a leading cause of health inequalities in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy, but an avoidable one, that the lung cancer incidence rate in the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland is about two and a half times the rate in the least deprived areas. A recent health inequalities report from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland showed that the gap between the healthy life expectancy of women in the most deprived areas and those of women in the least deprived stood at 14.2 years—not months, but years. That differential will be dealt with by this Bill and others like it. Moreover, smoking rates in the most deprived areas are typically almost three times higher than the rate in the least deprived. I therefore fully support any and all efforts to dissuade people, especially young people, from taking up the habit in the first place.
This Bill goes even further than the one that fell before the last general election. I will be honest and admit that at the time, I was hugely frustrated that the previous Bill was not given the time to succeed, and I feared that a once-in-a-generation chance to do something transformative might have been missed. Looking at the Bill now, however, I am pleased to see that, rather than potential being lost, it has the potential to be even more impactful, given all its enhancements. Mike Nesbitt, my successor as Minister of Health and the leader of my party, has been able to use the little extra time to consider the licensing provisions carefully. While Northern Ireland’s tobacco retailers register is a helpful enforcement tool, it has limitations, and a new licensing regime would be another significant step forward for my constituents.
I acknowledge that, like its predecessor, this Bill is complicated by our somewhat messy post-Brexit arrangements, but I take reassurance from this Government and the last Government on that, because surely they cannot both be wrong.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow such powerful contributions from Members on both sides of the House—from my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Worthing West (Dr Beccy Cooper) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—as well as the entire Ulster Unionist party delegation in the form of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann).
I support this landmark legislation, which is an important step towards delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment to ensuring that the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes, and to creating the first smokefree generation. This is an overdue natural step towards tackling the scourge of smoking, which claims about 80,000 lives a year in the United Kingdom. Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in our United Kingdom, and it is responsible for one in four cancer deaths, killing up to two thirds of smokers. In Wales, tobacco causes 3,100 cancer cases every year, and smoking is still the leading cause of cancer there. However, cancer does not respect borders, so the Bill will serve the health interests of our entire United Kingdom. I welcome that, and I also welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to supporting this legislation and bringing it into force in Wales from 2025.
In fact, the Welsh Government have been well ahead of the curve on this issue. As far back as 2016, my constituency colleague Mark Drakeford presented legislation that would have banned cigarette use in public spaces, but it fell owing to shameless politicking on the part of Plaid Cymru—whose Members, I note, have not been present at all for this important debate. Rather than agreeing with the Welsh Government and introducing what would have been landmark public health legislation, Plaid Cymru’s Members were joined by the Welsh Conservatives and the Members of the United Kingdom Independence party—remember them?—all of whom described it as unnecessary Government regulation. Plaid Cymru sided with the populist right in Wales to make a political point, and the people of Wales were worse off because of it.
Undeterred, in 2021 the Welsh Government launched their tobacco control action plan, which includes actions to protect children and young people from the dangers of vaping, such as tighter regulations on advertising and on the sale of e-cigarettes. That is a clear sign that the Welsh Government take this issue seriously, and it is our responsibility here in Westminster to support and complement those efforts. This Bill illustrates that this Government take seriously their commitment to create the first smokefree generation, and to protect children from becoming hooked on vaping.
Let us be clear: vaping is not harmless. In 2023, Action on Smoking and Health estimated that 20.5% of children aged 11 to 17 had tried vaping. Although vaping can be an effective way for adults to quit smoking, vaping cannot be recommended for children, as it carries a serious risk of addiction and future harm. Accordingly, rather than being a deterrent to smoking, vaping will see more children, not fewer, being exposed to nicotine if left unregulated. That is why the measures set out in the Bill to implement a total ban on vape advertising and sponsorship, and, subject to consultation, on the sale of vape flavours that overtly appeal to children, are so important. I fully support them.
This Bill is legislation that our teachers, headteachers, medical professionals and health services are all calling for. The vaping industry has been allowed to attract kids with different flavours and bright packaging. We would not allow that with any other addictive drug, and we should not allow it with vaping. In addition, the Bill does not deal with an aspect of vaping that I would be grateful for the Government to consider as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. Currently, police officers do not have specific powers to confiscate vapes from children—a power that they do have with traditional cigarettes, pursuant to section 7(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Having spoken to South Wales police officers and police community support officers, I know that the power of confiscation is an important tool that they use to deal with antisocial behaviour in designated areas of Cardiff, but their work is neutered if they cannot confiscate vapes. Although I recognise that if this Bill is passed, such powers will not be necessary in time—indeed, it will omit section 7(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 from 2027 onwards—I ask the Government to consider whether it would be useful to retain the power of confiscation and expand it to include vapes for the period between now and 2027, so that our police officers have the same legal powers across cigarettes and vapes as a tool in their armoury to combat antisocial behaviour.
Aside from that specific point, I reiterate my support for this important piece of legislation. Not only will it align this Parliament with the progressive actions of the Welsh Government on such important health matters; it will bolster our commitment in this place to safeguarding public health. In so doing, it will save many thousands of lives from the scourge of cancer and protect children from becoming hooked on vaping.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I will vote for this Bill. I admit that I am sceptical about the enforceability of the age escalator, but fundamentally the legislation addresses a huge problem in our society. There can be no doubt that smoking is a killer, so it is our responsibility to seek to diminish the death toll. Vaping is a totally unregulated sector, and I fear that it is a gateway to smoking for many young people. Therefore, it is right that it, too, comes within the ambit of the Bill.
The Secretary of State said this afternoon that this is a “four-nations Bill”. I welcome that, and I trust that it is right. That is the point I want to test in my contribution, and I will seek reassurance from the Minister about it. The reason I want to test it is that Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone, is still subject to the EU’s tobacco directive. We are subject to the EU’s tobacco directive because it is one of the 289 EU laws listed in annex 2 of the protocol—or the Windsor framework, as it is now called—that remain in force in a part of this United Kingdom. Article 24 of the tobacco directive says:
“Member States may not…prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”.
Does this Bill, by its necessary steps, restrict the placing on the market of tobacco? If it does, it will fall foul of the tobacco directive and will therefore be unenforceable in Northern Ireland, because of our ridiculous subjection to foreign laws that we do not make and cannot change.
We have an illustration of what might happen, because in 2022 Denmark sought to introduce almost identical legislation. It had to withdraw it, and in withdrawing it, the Health Minister told the Danish Parliament on 6 April 2022:
“The ministry…therefore considers that a ban on the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to people born in 2010 or later would require an amendment to the European Tobacco Products Directive”.
On that basis, they withdrew it. Earlier this year, the Irish Republic was minded to introduce legislation like this, but it did not proceed for the same reason.
If we are in a situation where a part of this United Kingdom quite absurdly cannot be governed by laws that this Parliament wishes to make, we are in a very sad situation indeed. It is my fear that, like in Denmark, the imprimatur would not be forthcoming from the tobacco directive and we could therefore have a situation where laws that we want to make and apply throughout the United Kingdom cannot be applied because of our subservience to foreign jurisdiction. If that is so, it will be an appalling situation. The House will have an opportunity to do something about this when my private Member’s Bill comes before it on 6 December, and I trust that Members will take that opportunity to liberate Northern Ireland from the bind of foreign jurisdiction and foreign law.
There are vested interests who will try to challenge the Bill’s applicability in Northern Ireland because of the tobacco directive, and I am fearful of the line that the courts might take, because we have had some examples. This House passed—for better or for worse—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It also passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. I am not commenting on their merits; I am making it clear that when they went to the High Court in Belfast, both were declared inoperable in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the supremacy of EU law.
If that were to happen with this Bill, it would be an absolute scandal. We would not be able to afford the people of Northern Ireland the same health protections that the Bill will afford to everyone else in the United Kingdom. And why not? Because we are subject to a foreign jurisdiction. It is the lifting of that jurisdiction that will bring us liberty to be governed as this House would wish us to be governed, and I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that those fears are unfounded, that the Danes were wrong to withdraw their Act, and that our courts will—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I fully understand his concern. That is why this Government need to give credit to the previous Government, who worked so hard to make this a four-nation approach. I want to give him and the House the assurance that it is the responsibility of the UK Government to ensure the compatibility of the Bill with the Windsor framework. The Government have taken into account all domestic and international obligations in bringing forward this Bill today.
Jim Allister
It gives me no assurance if the Government’s commitment is to ensure compliance with the Windsor framework, because it is the Windsor framework that imposes EU law on Northern Ireland. Because the tobacco directive is one of the laws listed in annex 2 that continue to apply to Northern Ireland, it could trump this Bill. There is no point in the Government saying to this House, or to my constituents, that they will abide by the Windsor framework, because the Windsor framework binds us to EU law. It is only by setting it aside that we can have liberty.
Andrew Gwynne
I am sorry to detain the House, but I make it clear that this is a United Kingdom law. It covers all four nations of the United Kingdom, and we are assured that it complies with the requirements of the Windsor framework. This law will stand.
Jim Allister
The previous Government told this House—and Government lawyers probably said the same—that the Rwanda Act would apply to Northern Ireland and that the legacy Act was unchallengeable, yet it turned out that both fell under the supremacy of EU law. On the face of it, the tobacco directive suppresses this Bill and still has legal force in Northern Ireland. If that is how it turns out, I would like to hear a commitment from the Minister that the Government will override any suppression of this law in Northern Ireland and stand up for UK sovereignty in my part of the United Kingdom.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on a Bill that delivers on our manifesto commitment to finish the job started by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) at the back end of the last Parliament. We should be proud that, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will be the most advanced legislation of its kind in the world.
I should declare at the outset that I was a smoker, and that experience gives me particular clarity on the need for change. I am also honoured to be vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I will use my six minutes to say a little about why this Bill is so necessary and—I hope the Minister does not mind —to gently set out where I think it could go further.
We often hear that smoking is about choice. The only choices I made were to have my first cigarette at the age of 15 and then, almost 15 years and thousands of cigarettes later, the much more difficult choice to finally give up.
According to the wonderful Action on Smoking and Health, which has been quoted widely in this debate, the majority of smokers wish they had never started, and it takes, on average, 30 attempts to quit. This legislation will ensure that future generations in this country, including in Dartford, will not have their freedom to choose stolen by a deadly addiction.
The latest figures, before their collection was interrupted by the pandemic, show that in Kent, nearly 6,000 people died from smoking between 2017 and 2019, with 10,000 hospital admissions due to smoking during 2019 and 2020 alone. Before being elected to this place, I was, for many years, a local councillor working on public health issues, and I saw at first hand the burden that smoking places on my local community. Now that I have the great honour of representing the wonderful constituency of Dartford, I see smoking taking a similar toll.
No matter where we are in the country, we will hear the same stories of loved ones lost too soon, of people becoming addicted as children and of the most disadvantaged groups bearing the heaviest burden. We cannot, and must not, accept a situation in which more than 74,000 deaths a year are attributable to smoking. We now know, with more clarity than ever, the damage that smoking causes. Smoking can lead to at least 16 different types of cancer, and it cost England £21.8 billion in 2023, mainly in lost economic productivity.
We have a chance to change this. Modelling by the Department of Health and Social Care estimates that raising the age of sale by one year every year will prevent almost 500,000 cases of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and other lung diseases by the end of the century. It will save tens of thousands of lives and help untold numbers of people to lead healthier and more enjoyable lives.
An issue that often comes up when discussing measures of this nature is how we make them enforceable. The legislation enjoys widespread public support, with 69% of the public in favour of the measures, according to polling undertaken by YouGov for ASH earlier this year, and even a slim majority of smokers in favour, which indicates that many smokers recognise that we do not want the next generation to grow up addicted to smoking. The measures command high levels of public support, and when such policies are done with and not to people, compliance is self-enforcing and high.
Turning to where the Bill might go a little further, I welcome the additional powers to create smokefree outdoor spaces and to designate smokefree places as vape-free. However, I admit slight disappointment that the Government seem to have ruled out hospitality premises from the scope of the regulations, rather than setting out options via a consultation about how we might proceed. I hope the Minister will recognise that there are options other than an outright ban.
As the number of smokers in the UK continues to decline, there are discussions to be had about how we use public spaces and protect individuals from second-hand smoke, particularly children and those with health conditions. From my time in local government, I know that councils can play a vital role in improving the health of their communities. Councils across the country have used the pavement licensing system to create smokefree outdoor spaces. That has proved popular with businesses and customers, particularly families with children. I gently urge the Minister to consider whether the Bill might be amended to allow local authorities to decide which additional spaces, beyond those regulated nationally, they might like to make smokefree in the best interests of communities.
My final point, which reflects those made by other hon. Members, is about the “polluter pays” principle. We all know that public finances are under significant strain. If the funding we desperately need to create a smokefree country cannot be found in our existing budgets, I would urge Ministers to consider the imposition of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I was a smoker for 15 years, I have vaped for 12 years and I have three children under 12, who I hope will follow neither habit. I support the ambition to create a smokefree society. The harm to individuals is clear, as smoking causes 80,000 deaths per year, and the cost to the country is just as clear, with smoking costing the economy nearly £22 billion a year.
However, I have concerns about the ability of retailers to enforce the age escalator proposals. Will the Minister look at increasing the age at which people can buy tobacco by a year every year, rather than linking it to when a child is born? That would mean that people of the same age would have the same right, rather than two people being 37, for example, and one not being able to purchase tobacco because of exactly when they were born during the year.
My biggest concern about the Bill is the inclusion of vapes, alongside tobacco. Vaping is the fastest growing smoking-cessation method, and evidence has found that it is twice as effective as other tools used to stop smoking. I took part in the statutory instrument debate on 13 November and I support the ban on disposable vapes that that regulation enacted. The regulation will reduce the number of children vaping, the amount of dangerous fake vapes and the impact on the environment.
However, the Bill could go too far on vaping. The all-party parliamentary group on responsible vaping has provided a useful briefing. I believe the House will pass the Bill’s Second Reading later today, so I ask hon. Members to look at the briefing before we get to Committee. Part 5, clause 92 of the Bill has the ability to undo the Government’s ambition of a smokefree country, by potentially banning flavours under a future statutory instrument. A study of more than 20,000 vapers showed that those who start with flavoured vapes or move from tobacco to flavoured vapes are more likely to quit smoking.
That was my experience too. I first purchased a refillable vape in France, which came with a tobacco flavour and a cherry flavour. I went back to the gîte with my friends where we were on holiday. I knew what tobacco tasted like—I had my cigarettes in my pocket—so I tried the cherry flavour and enjoyed it so much that I never opened the tobacco-flavoured vape pot. I took the cigarettes I had in my pocket back home to England. They were on my bedside table for six months, after which I screwed the packet up and threw it away. I have not had a cigarette since.
I honestly feel that the provisions in the Bill for Ministers to be able to ban flavours for adults goes too far. For the record, I vape something called blueberry sour raspberry. It is not aimed at children—I buy it from a specialist vape shop where customers have to be over 18. I have the bottle in my pocket and it has no bright colours or fancy graphics on it. That is my preference as an adult to vape and it stops me wanting to pick up a cigarette again. If the Bill passes its Second Reading this evening, clause 92 should require that vape flavours are regulated with a balance between the impact on adults who would otherwise be smoking and the potential for youth uptake. Hon. Members should remember that disposable vapes have already been banned by the statutory instrument passed a couple of weeks ago.
Finally, before Ministers use the affirmative resolution procedure on any of the Bill’s parts or clauses, I urge them to undertake a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to vaping regulations. I will not vote against the Bill at this stage, but I hope the Government are open to practical amendments in Committee that support the ambition to have a smokefree generation without penalising those who already rely on vapes to lead a healthier lifestyle.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have three remaining contributions from Back-Bench Members. This is fair notice for colleagues who have contributed to the debate to make their way to the Chamber for wind ups. I call Kirith Entwistle.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I declare that I am a member of the responsible vaping APPG. This is a long overdue and important piece of legislation, and I commend my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for bringing it before the House.
My home of Bolton is confronting a dual crisis: the devastating impact of smoking and the escalating problem of youth vaping. Smoking continues to ruin lives and places a heavy burden on our NHS, which many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from across the House have also mentioned. In Bolton North East, the crisis is deeply personal. More than 14% of our population still smoke, which is well above the national average. Tragically, between 2017 and 2019, smoking claimed the lives of 1,147 people in our community, including beloved parents, siblings and friends, leaving behind grieving families and stolen futures. Beyond its devastating human toll, smoking imposes an immense economic burden on Bolton North East. Nearly £100 million is drained every year in lost productivity and increased demands on health and social care. We desperately need that money to rebuild services and support local families.
I am proud that the Bill takes critical steps to address the harms of smoking and works towards creating the first smokefree generation. Yet while smoking is a crisis we know well, there is a new and growing threat: the epidemic of child vaping. In the latest Greater Manchester: Testing and Research on Emergent and New Drugs young person survey, 76% of respondents reported using a nicotine vape in the past year. Schoolchildren are now twice as likely to encounter nicotine through vaping as through cigarettes or tobacco. Flavours such as bubble gum and rainbow candy paired with colourful, cartoon-like packaging are blatantly targeting children.
Flavourings play an undoubtedly important role in helping adults to quit smoking, but we must be honest about how too many vapes are being deliberately designed as a gateway to nicotine for children who have never smoked. I welcome the measures included in the Bill outlined by the Secretary of State earlier, and I am pleased to see our Government taking the issue seriously. As a mother, I look forward to further discussions on how we can protect our children while continuing to support adults who are using vaping as a tool to quit smoking.
What concerns me most is how easily young people can obtain vapes, many of which are illegal and unregulated. In Bolton, we now have the second highest number of vape stores per capita in the country. That is more than twice the national average. Although most stores operate within the law, this widespread availability creates opportunities for illegal vapes to enter the market—vapes that violate safety standards, contain unsafe ingredients and pose serious health risks to our children.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that there is a real problem with vapes being used in the coercion of children for grooming purposes as well?
Kirith Entwistle
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and, yes, I share those concerns quite deeply.
Bolton council has been doing excellent work to clamp down on illegal vapes. In September, 350 vapes were seized in raids across five locations in Bolton. Just this month, a shop received a closure order for selling illegal tobacco and vapes. I am pleased that this Bill responds to the needs of councils such as Bolton by introducing new powers for trading standards officers that will tackle the black market while protecting legitimate businesses.
The Bill is a commitment to the health and wellbeing of our communities and our future generations. It takes into account the need for the safeguarding of our children. For the families who have lost loved ones to smoking-related illnesses, for the schools that have been overwhelmed by the vaping epidemic, and for the young people being targeted by unscrupulous marketing, this Bill is for them and I commend it to the House.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a rare thing in politics to have a moment when there is an absolute right thing to do, but consigning smoking to the history books for our children, our grandchildren and every generation that follows is one of those times. We should be under no illusion that the decision that we take today will, at some point in the future—long after we have left this place—result in a time when nobody smokes. That will be the legacy of this decision today.
I ask the House to indulge me for a moment. Let us imagine that, at that point in the future, somebody brings forward a Bill to decriminalise smoking, and the Minister, clutching their impact assessment, tells the House that it will kill only 80,000 people a year, that it will cost our NHS £3.6 billion and that 80% of the people who take it up will be under 20. Which one of us would vote for it? Which party leader would refuse to direct their troops in such a vote? Who would argue that it is freedom of choice to smoke in those circumstances? It is nonsense. The decision we are taking today is clear and it is for the good of this country.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Member talks about choice. I agree with what he has said so far, but does he agree that, when it comes to the banning of smoking for people born after 1 January 2009, there is no removal of choice in the Bill, because they cannot smoke anyway at the moment? Therefore, there is no removal of choice from those people.
Mr Brash
The hon. Member is completely correct in what he says, and it is the proportionate way to do it. Some of the arguments that I have heard today about freedom of choice are genuinely confusing. One Member asked earlier why we do not ban sugary foods or alcohol on that basis. I say that we have to draw the line somewhere. That is an argument for the decriminalisation of everything—cocaine, heroin, you name it, let’s go for it. No, we have to draw the line somewhere and, given the statistics around smoking, it is clear that this is the right line to draw.
I do not want to say a great deal more on this issue other than to reflect on the conversations that I have had with my children. We have been on a long journey when it comes to smoking in this country. I remember telling my children that they could eat a meal in a restaurant, and that those on the table next to them, in the smoking zone, would be smoking while they ate. They thought I was mad. I remember going to school on the bus and seeing the little cigarette holders in front of me because people used to be able to smoke on the bus. My children think that is madness. I can only hope that not long in the future children will look back and think that it was mad that we smoked at all.
I was asked about this Bill soon after I was elected by a friend, who is a parent. He knew it had fallen prior to the general election. He asked, “Will it be back?” and I said, “I am confident that it will be back.” He said, “But will it be in time?” and I said, “In time for what?” He said, “In time for her” and pointed to his teenage daughter. I am pleased to say to Mark, Kim and their daughter Bella that we are bringing it back in time and that it will make a massive difference to the lives of people in this country.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I would like to place on the record my support for the Bill, which the Government are right to describe as the biggest public health intervention in a generation. As someone who grew up around the NHS, with my first job being at Bolton hospital, I have seen at first hand the huge cost of smoking and vaping in my constituency. In Bolton, smoking claims around 380 lives a year. Across the UK, that number is 80,000, and tobacco-related illnesses put tremendous pressure on the NHS, with smoking responsible for one in four cancer deaths. Indeed, every single minute someone is put in hospital because of smoking. The appointments, the scans, the treatment—it all adds up. Smoking costs the taxpayer over £3 billion each year in healthcare bills.
The tide of public opinion has turned irrevocably. Eight in 10 Greater Manchester adults support ending smoking, according to the Make Smoking History campaign. I suspect that many have had family or friends impacted by smoking-related harms. Five years ago, the previous Government announced their ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030. Despite a stark warning from the Khan review in 2022 that
“without further action, England will miss the smokefree 2030 target by at least 7 years”,
I find it regrettable that the Conservatives did not get round to these literal life-and-death reforms before it was too late to legislate before the general election.
I am delighted that just a few months in we are already delivering on our manifesto pledges. A generational ban on purchasing tobacco for anyone born after 1 January 2009, new regulations for the extension of smokefree areas to include our schools and hospitals, and new restrictions on oral tobacco products such as snus are hugely welcome in our fight against smoking-related illnesses.
The Bill is hugely important, and I will focus the remainder of my remarks on vaping in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) noted, Bolton is regrettably one of the two vaping capitals of the UK, with over 20 vape shops registered per 100,000 people according to reporting in the Bolton News. Vaping can be a genuine aid for those seeking to wean themselves off smoking, but while it is clear that vapes, in combination with behavioural support, can support quitting, the health advice is unambiguous: children and adults who have never smoked should never vape.
What disturbs me is that vaping products are obviously marketed at children. Indeed, a number of vape stores in Horwich and Westhoughton in my constituency are not only garish eyesores but directly associate vapes with sweets and toys in their shop fronts. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues in the Chamber will be familiar with similar stores in their own constituencies. It is clear that bubble gum and candy floss flavours are not aimed at those adults genuinely trying to wean themselves off tobacco. This is not harmless; youth vaping has more than doubled in the past five years, while Bolton council has been told that children as young as 13 are unable to go an hour at school without vaping. Just last Friday, I visited St Catherine’s primary school in Horwich and was shocked to hear children no older than 11 directly raise their concerns around vaping with me. St Joseph’s high school in Horwich, which I had the pleasure of meeting last week here in Parliament, has had to install vape sensors, while the headmaster Tony McCabe has said he has already seen a rise in young people acquiring vapes from the black market. I hope the Minister will consider how to tackle the already expanding black market for these products. That is why I especially welcome the measures in the Bill to provide the Secretary of State with powers to regulate vaping products, including their content, flavour, packaging and product requirements.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about illegal tobacco and other substances. It is really important that we bear down on that illicit trade. Illegal tobacco not only deprives the Exchequer of funds but means that all kinds of other nefarious activities can take place in the shops that sell it. Also, the illegal cigarettes sold do not extinguish. A few years ago in my constituency there was a house fire with fatalities as a direct result of illegal cigarettes.
Phil Brickell
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I will take assurance from the Minister on that when he winds up.
I place on record my enthusiasm for the separate ban on single-use vapes from June 2025, which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) mentioned. As other Members have noted, not only are they particularly cheap and therefore accessible to young adults, but they are an inefficient use of critical resources, difficult to recycle and frequently littered around the countryside.
By introducing these world-leading reforms, we can create a smokefree generation and break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering this legislation.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Prevention is better than cure. As we have heard, smoking is a cause of many premature deaths and much serious ill health. That was why the previous Government introduced legislation to tackle it and restrict access to tobacco purchases for those born after 1 January 2009. This Bill builds on many measures in the previous one.
As we have heard, this is a Bill of two parts: tobacco and vapes. Those two parts have been received differently, a bit like Marmite and chocolate spread—part controversial, part pretty universally liked. The section on smoking and tobacco has proved to be a bit like Marmite—some people have liked it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke eloquently of his passion for stop-smoking measures, his successful campaigning, and the previous Government’s success in reducing rates of smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) spoke eloquently about the balance between libertarianism and choice, and the need for order, societal norms and the protection of others in society. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the dangers of smoking and the difficulties and challenges for people trying to quit.
On the other hand, other Members expressed concern about the Bill. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about how the Secretary of State might use powers relating to outside places where people may smoke. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) shared his concerns about how measures on the age of sale will work in practice. Those will indeed be clunky measures for shopkeepers to try to enforce, and will have an effect on the cohort of individuals who are just either side of the threshold, who will require ID throughout their lives. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke about how that measure will work in Northern Ireland, and although he received some assurances from the Minister, I am not sure that they were completely effective.
Although I confess that I do not like Marmite, it is a free vote this evening for Conservative Members, and I will support the Bill. The Secretary of State said in opening that 350 young people will start smoking today, most of whom will regret it, so why was 1 January 2009 chosen? I appreciate that that was the date in the previous Bill, but why did he choose it for his Bill too?
Let me move on to the area of chocolate spread—the part of the Bill on vaping. I think it was universally welcomed, and was supported by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. It includes measures to tackle vaping among children, on which I have personally campaigned. As others have said, the chief medical officer has been clear that for someone who smokes, vaping may be better, but if they do not smoke, they should not vape. As a Member of Parliament and a children’s doctor, I have been increasingly concerned about the sharp increase in children addicted to vaping and, more recently, to other nicotine products such as pouches. Schoolteachers have reported that children are unable to concentrate, or even complete a whole lesson, without visiting the bathroom to vape.
Sir John Hayes
I very rarely disagree with my hon. Friend. She is of course right about vaping, the effect that it has on children and the difficulty that schools have in managing it, as headteachers will no doubt have told Members across the House, but can she really go into the Division Lobby to support the Bill with this nonsense about age? The idea that someone aged 30 could smoke and someone aged 29 could not, and the idea that that could be policed or managed in any practical way, is just nonsensical. It was daft when the last Government introduced it, and it is daft now this Government have done so.
Dr Johnson
The challenge is that if we were to ban it altogether, we could risk criminalising people who were already addicted to tobacco products—adults who had made that choice. That is the reason why both present and past Governments put forward a measure to increase the age gradually, but I understand the points that have been made about the difficulties for shopkeepers and others in enforcing it over time.
I return to vaping. Doctors report a growing body of evidence suggesting that children may be having difficulty in school and suffering health problems as a result of vaping. A report from Healthwatch said that 31% of the more than 4,000 under-18s it surveyed were regularly vaping. Nicotine is a powerfully addictive product. Young people are particularly susceptible to it, so it is very important that we protect children from vaping and other nicotine products. After all, vaping is an adult activity; it is apparently designed to help smokers quit. While the industry may argue that the flavours and colours are enjoyed by adults—and they may well be—I struggle to understand why adults would want a vape flavoured like a unicorn milkshake, whatever a unicorn’s milk tastes like. The Healthwatch survey showed that fruit flavours are very popular with children, and the same has been repeated by various teaching unions, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, Cancer Research UK and even a Government report from last year. I also do not see why an adult stop-smoking device needs to be disguised in the form of a highlighter pen, which could perhaps be hidden in a child’s pencil case, or created in the shape of a children’s cartoon character. Enticing and luring children into a lifetime of unwanted and potentially harmful addiction is immoral.
The Secretary of State is taking powers to regulate the flavours, colours and packaging of vapes, but how will he ensure that he stays one step ahead of an industry whose income depends on a new generation of addicts? He has taken quite extensive powers, which I know is of concern to some hon. and right hon. Members, but how and when does he intend to use them? What support will be given to children who are already addicted to vaping to help them quit?
Finally, while this is a free vote issue, I am pleased on a personal level to see some of the proposals that I put forward on the last Bill being incorporated into this one, particularly on the sponsorship and advertising of vending machines. Whatever our views on this Bill, it is a bold piece of legislation of good intention. It aims to improve the health of our nation and of our children in particular and to reduce smoking and prevent nicotine addiction in the young. It is not clear whether it will work, but we have to hope, for the health of all of us and our children, that it does.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and, on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Lewes (James MacCleary), for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for South Antrim (Robin Swann), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), for a series of outstanding contributions this afternoon. Many of us on the Labour Benches remember the last Labour Government’s proud history of public health measures—indeed, some of us were in this place at the time. From the indoor smoking ban to putting an end to cigarette advertising, we took the bold action to drive down smoking prevalence, and the country is still feeling the benefits of those policies today. However, after 14 years of public health neglect, we have seen much of our hard work squandered. Health inequalities have grown worse, and life expectancy is stalling. Most appallingly, life expectancy is going into reverse in some communities.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill. Some 6,000 children in Greater Manchester take up smoking each year, allowing tobacco and vape companies to profit from increasing health inequalities. If we eradicate smoking, Greater Manchester’s economy will gain over £2.5 billion each year, funds that could be allocated to our health and social care sector. Does the Minister agree that if we follow the recommendations of the smoking review by Professor Javed Khan OBE, who did an excellent job on that review, we have the unique opportunity to both save lives and reduce poverty, creating a healthier and more equal society?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, not least because it allows me to place on record this Government’s thanks to Javed Khan for the work he did in his review of smoking. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, because in the parts of Greater Manchester that he and I represent, health inequalities are stark and visible. We are going to turn them around. Our health mission pledged to tackle the social inequalities that influence health, and to ensure that children have the very best start possible, in which they are given the building blocks for a healthy life. That will be an immense challenge, but every member of this Government is up for the battle.
Colleagues have made a number of points, and I will try to answer as many as I can in the time we have left. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East for the work he has done on this issue over a number of years. I assure him that all tobacco products are covered by this Bill, including the chewing tobacco product that he referred to. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who has also been a passionate spokesperson for tackling smoking harm, is absolutely right to raise the issue of article 5.3. The new Labour Government take very seriously their obligations as a party to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, and we remain fully committed to that convention, including the important commitment, under article 5.3, to protecting public health policies on tobacco control from
“commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), referred to the powers to bring in smokefree places. We will consult on extending smokefree places to include areas outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals in England. We believe that strikes the right balance between protecting the most vulnerable and recognising the pressures facing the hospitality sector. I want to make the shadow Secretary of State aware, though, that the Bill was designed in full consultation with, and to meet the needs of, the devolved Governments across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a UK Bill, with powers that meet the requirements of each of the component parts of our country, and I reiterate that as far as England is concerned, this Government will seek to consult on schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals only.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Harrow East, raised the topic of stop smoking services. We are putting an extra £70 million into local stop smoking services, which could help with up to 200,000 successful quits a year. We are still rolling out a smokefree pregnancy incentive scheme, which will support pregnant women in quitting and ensure that more babies do not suffer a hit to their life chances before they are even born.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am very sorry that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. I have very strong views on this matter, because my father died of cancer—I quit 20 years ago, thank God. It occurs to me that we have heard from other people who have quit, and that we who have quit could be mobilised to help others quit. Why do the Government not use us? We could do a lot of good and provide a lot of help.
Andrew Gwynne
I think the hon. Gentleman has just talked himself into a job. He is absolutely right that the best people to advocate for stopping smoking are former smokers.
We will still encourage adult smokers to switch to vaping through Swap to Stop in England, and I am delighted that localities have asked for over half a million starter kits so far. On advertising regulations, of course the consultation will take place after Royal Assent, but I hope that I can assure the hon. Member for Harrow East that we will take away his point about ensuring that the NHS can still advertise Swap to Stop under those regulations. On a tobacco industry levy, fiscal matters are for the Treasury, but I am sure that his views and those of others have been communicated to Treasury Ministers.
The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the rise of the black market. This is a line that has been parroted by the tobacco industry for years, so we need to spell out the facts. Whenever Governments of any guise have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, the black market actually has not prospered. Consumption of illegal tobacco has gone from 15 billion cigarettes nearly 25 years ago to just one 10th of that amount last year, and when the last Labour Government raised the age of sale from 16 to 18, the number of illicit cigarettes fell by a quarter. However, this requires better enforcement, and we will use every second of the generously long buffer period to support businesses in preparing for and implementing the changes, including through information campaigns. We are providing £10 million to trading standards to increase their capacity and capabilities next year, and there is £100 million for Border Force and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the next five years to tackle illicit and under-age sales. The Bill also allows trading standards to issue on-the-spot fines of £200, and to reinvest the proceeds of those fines, and indeed the licensing regime, back into further enforcement.
Bob Blackman
Will the Minister consider ensuring that the fines are raised by at least inflation each year? Fines could be increased on a scale, to make sure that they keep progress with changes.
Andrew Gwynne
We have already doubled the fine proposed in the previous Government’s Bill, which is a step. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and he might wish to pursue it in Committee, should he be fortunate enough to be a Committee member. I look forward to the debates we might have.
A number of questions about the licensing regime were posed by the shadow Secretary of State, as well as by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and others. I reassure the House that across the sector, there is broad consensus among retailers about a licensing scheme; more than four fifths of them have expressed their support. Unlike alcohol, there is no licensing requirement for tobacco. A lot of people outside this House would find that hard to understand. They assume that convenience stores, supermarkets and other places that sell alcohol are licensed in a similar way to sell tobacco products, but that is not the case. We will bring in a licensing scheme, because we know that will have a huge public health impact, as other licensing regimes do.
Tristan Osborne
When I was on a council, I had a portfolio managing licensing. Councils already manage significant licensing functions, so it would be very convenient to simply add this function to those. That would not necessarily be a significant bureaucratic hurdle, as has been said.
Andrew Gwynne
Local government will take the lead on this matter, and we will consult widely on how we bring forward the licensing regime, and on how we implement it through secondary legislation, following that consultation. An impact assessment will be prepared before the secondary legislation is introduced, but I want to work with local government across England—I am sure that ministerial counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom seeking to bring in a licensing regime will do the same—to ensure that we get this right for local government. That includes ensuring that the cost of running a licensing regime is met by the regime itself.
Mr Brash
We have mentioned the fact that local government is responsible for public health. I have had our director of public health email me just today to say how supportive they are of this Bill. Local government wants this opportunity to try to improve the health of local people. The fears that local government would be under pressure are simply wrong, are they not?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From the engagement that I have had with members across all parties in local government—elected members, officers and directors of public health—I know that they want these measures. They are up for introducing them, and for helping us to get them right.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire raised the issue of ID checks, as did a number of others. I gently say to those who expressed a degree of scepticism that most retailers already follow recommended practice and regularly ask customers for ID. We are stopping people from ever starting smoking, and 83% of smokers start before the age of 20. That means that someone who has never previously smoked is highly unlikely to want to take up smoking later in life. Our published modelling shows that smoking rates in England for 14 to 30-year-olds could be close to 0% as early as 2050 with the measures in this Bill.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a former teacher, I hope that the Government are working across Departments. Will we work with the Department for Education to ensure that these conversations are had in our schools, right from the beginning, at primary level, and all the way through?
Andrew Gwynne
That is absolutely crucial. With this legislation, we have to make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal when it comes to education and informing the next generation of children of the harms of smoking and vaping through our public health initiative.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South need a health service that moves from sickness to prevention, so can my hon. Friend confirm that this UK-wide Bill will impact my constituents? Has he had discussions with the Scottish Government about ensuring its implementation north of the border?
Andrew Gwynne
That is an important point, and it allows me to place on record my thanks to the Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for how they have approached our desire to bring all parts of the United Kingdom together to make a smokefree United Kingdom, not just a smokefree England, through this legislation. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have had incredibly fruitful conversations with the Health Minister in the SNP Scottish Government. She is as wedded and committed to this Bill and its measures as we are in this House today. I am reassured that across the whole United Kingdom, we will be walking in step to ensure that the next generation of children never takes up smoking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way now, as I have to end my speech. I know that you are keeping a careful eye on the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If I had had more time, I would have talked about the huge public health benefits of the Bill that will do so much to prevent death, dementia and disability in old age. I could have gone into further detail about the economic benefits of the Bill, such as getting people back into work and saving untold sums of money for our NHS, but, from my perspective, the single most important thing that the Bill will do is tackle those stark inequalities across our country, because this fight is personal to me.
I have seen the harmful effects of tobacco on the people around me my entire life. As a schoolboy, I was educated about the harms of smoking, but it did nothing to stop a number of my peers from getting addicted to cigarettes. As an MP, I have seen at first hand how tobacco has devastated deprived communities across our country, not least in Greater Manchester. As the Minister for public health, I am determined to end the cycle of poverty and ill health, the blight of addition, disease and despair caused by smoking. No longer will it sap the strength of our cities—Stoke, Sunderland, Salford and so many others. This is the will of His Majesty’s Government, this is the promise of the Bill, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote with us to protect their constituents and do the right thing.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.co.uk; please switch electronic devices to silent; and teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 10.25 am Chief Medical Officers for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 10.55 am Action on Smoking and Health; Action on Smoking and Health Scotland; Action on Smoking and Health Wales; Cancer Focus Northern Ireland Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 11.25 am Cancer Research UK; Asthma + Lung UK Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 2.40 pm Local Government Association; Association of Directors of Public Health; Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, Executive Director of Public Health and Strategic Partnerships, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.10 pm Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Royal College of General Practitioners Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.30 pm National Trading Standards Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.50 pm British Retail Consortium Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.10 pm Department for Education’s Secondary Headteacher Reference Group Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.30 pm Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.50 pm Professor Linda Bauld OBE, Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health, University of Edinburgh Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.10 pm Department of Health and Social Care
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. Given the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without a debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 26 November 2024) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 January;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 January;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 January;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 January;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 16; Schedule 1; Clause 17 and 18; Schedule 2; Clause 19; Schedule 3; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 4; Clauses 22 to 40; Schedule 5; Clause 41; Schedules 6 and 7; Clauses 42 to 64; Schedule 8; Clause 65; Schedule 9; Clauses 66 to 84; Schedule 10; Clause 85; Schedules 11 to 13; Clauses 86 and 87; Schedules 14 and 15; Clauses 88 to 127; Schedule 16; Clauses 128 to 141; Schedule 17; Clauses 142 to 146; Schedule 18; Clauses 147 to 152; Schedule 19; Clauses 153 to 157; Schedule 20; Clauses 158 to 160; Schedule 21; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 161 to 171; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 30 January.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Committee members by email.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start putting questions to the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My mother has some shareholdings in British American Tobacco, but that links to my parents’ having worked for Imperial Tobacco 50 years ago.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I am an officer of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as an NHS transplant and vascular surgeon. My wife is a lung cancer doctor.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a public health consultant and a member of the British Medical Association.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a practising pharmacist. [Interruption.]
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I cannot hear everything because of that noise, but I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I declare an interest as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Professor Sir Michael McBride and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
Sorry about the distracting noise; we are trying to sort that out.
We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer for England; Sir Francis Atherton, chief medical officer for Wales; Professor Sir Michael McBride, chief medical officer for Northern Ireland, who will participate via Zoom; and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith, chief medical officer for Scotland. We have until 10.25 am for this panel.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you to the Committee for inviting me to give evidence. I think this is an incredibly important step. I have been concerned—
The Chair
I apologise, but I think people are struggling to hear over the noise; I certainly am. Could everyone enunciate more clearly and speak a little louder?
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you for the invitation to provide evidence. I think this is a really important step that we can take to protect children from vaping. I am very clear in my mind that vaping has a place in helping those already smoking to stop smoking. It has a place in smoking cessation, but children, young adults and indeed adults who have never smoked should never start vaping; there are too many uncertainties about the health consequences of vaping for that to be encouraged.
In restricting children’s access to vapes and reducing the attractiveness to children of some of the vaping products currently marketed, the Bill will protect children from the potential health consequences of vaping itself and from the potential of vaping to be a gateway to the use of other nicotine products, for which there is emerging evidence. I am certain that the Bill will help to protect children from the dangers associated with starting to vape.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think the first thing to say is that second-hand smoke is a very serious problem. I think that is underestimated among the general public because, if I am honest, the cigarette industry has been very successful in muddying the waters on this.
There are three key things that really make a difference. The first is the degree of concentration of the smoke. The second is the duration of exposure—let us say you sit next to someone for half an hour; the effect is more significant than if it had been just a couple of minutes. The third is the vulnerability of the people being exposed to it. That is one of the things that this Bill will help with.
Over 88% of the population do not smoke. There are roughly 6 million smokers still. There are significantly more people in the UK, non-smokers, who have medical vulnerabilities that mean that the smoke is particularly dangerous to them, perhaps acutely. They can be exposed to smoke and have an asthma attack, and that lands them in hospital. In severe cases it could land them in a very dangerous situation. The situation may also be chronic—for example, people living with diabetes already have a disease that is going to accelerate things like cardiovascular disease. If people are smoking on top of that, it will accelerate those things still further.
Although outdoor smoking is less in terms of passive smoking than indoor smoking, in most situations if you are close to someone, exposed for a long period or vulnerable, it can have very significant health impacts. In broad terms, if you can smell smoke, you are being exposed to significant amounts of smoke, and that is one of the things that the Bill is aiming to address.
I would like to make one additional point: the cigarette industry has been extraordinarily good at trying to pretend that to be pro-smoking is to be pro-choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smoking is highly addictive. Most smokers wish they had never started and want to quit, but they are trapped by addiction. Their choice has been taken away deliberately by these companies as part of their policy. And if you are talking about second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors, the person downwind or next door has no choice at all at any point. They are exposed to the risks with no advantages at all. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. Frank, do you want to add to that?
Sir Francis Atherton: The only thing I would add is that there is no safe level of smoking. As Chris says, if you smell it, you are breathing it in, and there is no safe level. Obviously, indoors is worse than outdoors. The dose response is a big issue, but there is no safe level. I think that is a really important point.
Sarah Bool
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I might ask Michael to come in. I can have the first go and Michael might want to come in after that, because this is a critical point. Historically, the cigarette industry, despite what it claims, has always targeted children. It always deplores it in public, but if you look at its internal documents you discover that that is what it has been aiming to do. Most people, the great majority, start as teenagers before they are 20—you are, of course, correct. To refer back to Dr Johnson’s original question, the same thing is now being done with vaping and exactly the same playbook is being followed. You get people at their most vulnerable and you addict them. That is the aim.
However, were we to stop at, let us say, 21, the cigarette industry, which is extraordinarily good at regrouping around whatever regulations are in place, would simply regroup around 21. To go back to my very first point about addiction, if you are a 21-year-old and you start, you become addicted and then you wish you had stopped. That does not change the fact that your choice has been taken away. So the logic of saying 21, 25 or 30—various people have looked at various ages—is no better than the logic of the current situation.
The advantage of the current model, which was first put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Mr Sunak, to whom we should all pay great tribute on the basics of the Bill, was to ensure that current children are not addicted and do not have their choice taken away, but that rights are not taken away from existing smokers. That is the reason why this particular model was chosen. Michael, do you want to add to that? You are on mute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: May I take one impact that extends my previous points about outdoor smoking, and then maybe pass on to Sir Gregor and Sir Frank? For outdoor smoking, the previous Bill—the very good Bill put forward by the previous Government—did not have anything that addressed the needs of current smokers. It also did not address the needs of people exposed to smoke, despite the fact that, like over 88% of the population, they are not smokers and many of them are medically vulnerable.
The Bill allows the Government to take powers to prevent outdoor smoking, first with additional public consultation and then additional measures in Parliament. Ministers—you, Minister, have demonstrated this in the House of Commons—have indicated the areas where they intend to use these powers to reduce the risks of passive smoking. These are the areas of the greatest vulnerability: around hospitals, where some of the most medically vulnerable are highly concentrated; and around children’s playgrounds, where children are—I think everybody who does not have shares in cigarette companies would agree that exposing children to second-hand smoke is an unacceptable thing to do. That is one area where the Bill has gone further than the previous one. Maybe Sir Frank might want to add to that.
Sir Francis Atherton: In Wales, we have had smoke-free hospitals, schools and play areas since 2021, under our earlier public health legislation, and it is completely non-controversial. There are clearly issues around implementation and enforcement, particularly around hospitals, but if you go now to schools and hospitals there is no controversy whatever. So that will not make a huge amount of difference in Wales.
The one thing that will make a difference, I think, is aligning the vaping legislation with the smoking legislation. I say that because, going back to the earliest question, vape use among young people in Wales has shot up over recent years—8% of 11 to 16-year-olds regularly vape, up from 5% and a bit in 2021. It has absolutely shot up. Bringing together vaping and tobacco legislation in terms of vape-free and smoke-free places is a really important thing and one for which I have been arguing for quite some time.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Perhaps I can begin this answer; my colleagues may then want to come in. Alignment in this respect is really important, partly because of the clarity of message that exists to the public around about what is legally acceptable in relation to smoking and to vaping. Alignment across tobacco smoking and vape use is similarly important across the four nations.
Public health messaging is incredibly important. Having a consistent message across our four nations helps to ensure that the message is much more clearly understood and adhered to by the public. I welcome the attempts by Ministers to ensure that alignment exists within the Bill, so that as we go forward we give protection to those who do not smoke in the way that we are planning on doing with the Bill as it proceeds.
One of the most important aspects is to make sure that, although in Scotland, for instance, legislation prevents smoking within 15 metres of the likes of public places such as outside a hospital, we bring that much more closely in line with where the Welsh position is—so to the whole of the hospital grounds. Extending it to protect, as Sir Chris has said, more vulnerable places such as play parks is something I would certainly welcome in Scotland. We should do that in step across the four nations. I again emphasise that public messaging is incredibly important in making sure that we get the adherence we seek.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have already given my view that, although I have a lot of sympathy for choice and freedom arguments in many situations, tobacco addiction and second-hand smoking are not among those.
Sir Francis Atherton: If anything, choice is undermined by the addictive nature of nicotine. It is incredibly addictive. We know that now; we have known it for many years, actually. The tobacco industry has known it for many years, which is why the industry, through vaping and other means, is quite keen to have the next generation of people in our countries addicted to nicotine. Choice is completely undermined and taken away by the addictive nature of the product being marketed.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Nicotine addiction is horrific. Nearly 9,000 people a year still die in Scotland as a result of tobacco-related health issues. Two thirds of people who begin smoking are potentially at risk of dying as a consequence of their addiction. We know that the industry targets both the younger age spectrum and vulnerable groups to sustain their industry.
If you have ever spoken to a patient with a serious tobacco-related illness such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who is now suffering from the consequences of that—the limited ability to live their life—and the addictive nature of the disease, you soon begin to learn that they are filled with nothing but regret and guilt for the part that their addiction has played in the development of the disease. The stigma associated with tobacco-related disease is quite terrible for those who experience it. The basis of that is this lack of choice that they have developed as a consequence of the addictive nature of the nicotine products.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: If I could just add a specific example from—
The Chair
Sorry, Sir Chris, but before we go further, I am trying to establish whether Sir Michael McBride has contact with us yet. If you can speak, Sir Michael, then we will know whether we have connection. It is as simple as that, really.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. The problem is not on my side, so I asked that you unlock me. I think I have now been unlocked, so perhaps I can speak.
The Chair
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I just wanted to add an illustration of this, because it is such a fundamental point. I suspect that all doctors on the Committee, as well as my colleagues on this side of the table, will know this. I can remember the first time I was a vascular surgery house officer, watching people who had had one leg chopped off because they had smoked weeping as they had to take another cigarette, which was inevitably going to lead to their other leg being chopped off—and, incidentally, they were smoking over people coming into the hospital. It is an appalling addiction, and people who say this is about choice have never met someone who is seriously addicted to smoking.
The Chair
Sir Michael, now that we have a connection with you, do you have any observations or comments to make in relation to any of the points that have been raised?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes, thank you, Chair, and apologies for the connection problems earlier. Following on from Sir Chris’s comments, all of us who have worked as clinicians on the frontline—I know members of the Committee have experienced that as well—know only too well the horrors of smoking tobacco, the premature death and illnesses that it causes, and the impact that it has on the next generation.
We know for instance that, despite the fall that there has been in smoking, as per one of the Committee’s earlier questions, there are still 127,000 people each year in the United Kingdom who start smoking cigarettes as a result of the effectiveness of the tobacco industry’s marketing—blatant marketing—to children and young people, not just of tobacco and nicotine products, but of vapes.
I too have seen at first hand the impacts of that. I know, as someone whose father was a smoker who died of an acute myocardial infarction aged 46, the impacts that it has on children—the next generation—who are three times more likely to take up smoking tobacco. This is a once-in-a-generation, lifetime opportunity, and we collectively need to seize it to prevent future harms for those who are most vulnerable, for children and young people, and for future generations.
The Chair
I will go to Gregory Stafford first, and then I will move over to the Government side.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: That is a very important question. I think everybody would agree on two things, and then there is a way of making sure that we get to the exact middle point of this argument.
First, as you imply, in this country—it is not universally true—there is a strong view that we should try to continue our support to allow current smokers who are finding it very difficult to get off because of their addiction, which has taken away their choice, to move to vaping as a step in the right direction. I think that is broadly accepted in this country. As I say, there are some countries where that is not accepted so, to be clear, that is not a universal view.
At the other extreme, as you imply—or state directly, actually—I think everybody would agree that the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent. I think almost everybody would agree that marketing vapes to people who are current non-smokers, given that we do not know the long-term effects of vapes because we have not had them for long enough, is a big mistake. We should not allow ourselves to get into a position where, in 20 years, we regret not having taken action on them.
The question then is: how do you get the balance? In my view, this is sometimes made more complicated than it needs to be. I think it can be very simply summarised: “If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and marketing to children is utterly abhorrent.” That is it, although it is sometimes made a lot more convoluted. Our view is that the Bill gets that balance right.
In general, if people’s profession is getting people who are current smokers off, they tend to be more at the pro-vaping end, because they see the dangers for current smokers. People who deal with children, such as Dr Johnson, who has taken great leadership in this area and is very much in the centre of her profession, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health take a very strong anti-vape view, because they have seen the effects on children. It is getting the balance between those two, and I think that the Bill does that.
But—and it is an important but—the Bill takes powers in this area, and that means that if we go too far in one direction or the other, there is the ability to adjust that with consultation and with parliamentary secondary legislation. That allows for the ability to move that point around if it looks as if we have not got it exactly right. It may also change over time as the evidence evolves.
Dr Cooper
Q
Professor Sir Michael McBride: That is a really important question. We talked before about the blatant marketing of tobacco and vapes. There is also the preying of the industry on those more socioeconomically deprived areas.
If we look at smoking rates in those more socio- economically deprived areas, they are two to three times higher than in less socioeconomically deprived areas. If we consider the death rate from smoking-related conditions, it is twice as high. If we look at lung cancer rates, they are two and a half times as high in those areas. That is a direct consequence of the smoking incidence in more socioeconomically deprived areas. The health inequalities associated with the consumption of tobacco are significant and great.
If we look at smoking in pregnancy and all its consequences in terms of premature birth, stillbirth and low birthweight, we see that smoking among women from more socioeconomically deprived areas is four and a half times higher than among those in less socioeconomically deprived areas. The health inequalities argument and the case to be made for addressing that within the Bill is huge. This is an opportunity that we must not pass up to narrow the adverse health consequences.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is my very clear view that the provisions within the Bill will help us to tackle some of the inequalities associated particularly with tobacco smoking. If I look at the situation in Scotland, 26% of our lowest socioeconomic group are smokers, compared with 6% of our highest socio- economic group.
The gradient that Sir Michael has spoken about in terms of the subsequent tobacco-related disease that those groups then experience is really quite marked, whether that be cardiovascular disease or the numerous cancers associated with smoking. All of those can be addressed by trying to tackle the scourge of these tobacco companies preying on more vulnerable groups within our society, whether that be those who experience socioeconomic circumstances that are much more difficult and challenging for them, or whether that be particular groups that are more likely to experience mental health conditions.
All of these must be tackled; people must be assisted not to develop addictions that lead to lifelong smoking and problems with their health thereafter. I am very clearly of the view, both in terms of smoking and, it is important to say, of vaping, that the targeting of those groups that creates those inequalities within our society is something that this Bill can address.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: The issue of flavours and colours speaks to the issue of marketing towards children that we have been speaking about so far. I have no reason to believe that taking away colours and flavours that are appealing to children would remove vaping as a stop smoking tool. It remains an important tool in the box that we have to have alongside nicotine replacement therapy and alongside education, and it will remain an important tool to stop people smoking.
The prime aim here, of course, is to stop the marketing towards children. If you think back to when tobacco was advertised in shops, we saw big gantries in shops, and what we have seen in recent years is that we now have vape gantries in almost all our shops. Taking away that marketing opportunity towards children—the colourful and flavoursome displays—can only be of benefit to reducing childhood vaping and the nicotine dependency that comes as a consequence of that.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Let us be really clear about this: the vaping industry will claim it is not marketing to children while putting in flavours, colours, cartoons and placements that are clearly aimed at children. You just look at them—you do not need anything else—and you see the rates going up in children. It is very clear that the industry is doing that, and it needs to be tackled.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: If you look at products with names “gummy bear” and “rainbow surprise”, who are they actually aiming those products at? Our Public Health Agency did research with more than 7,500 children and young people in Northern Ireland, using focus groups and online surveys. Some 77% of them told us that what appealed to them about vapes was the colours and flavourings. The public consultation had the strongest and highest support for banning flavours and colourings. More than 75% of the population in Northern Ireland supported that ban. We should not delude ourselves about the exploitative marketing of those products.
In terms of next steps, it is really important that those who want to use vapes to quit smoking, as Sir Frank has said, can continue to access them. The Government undoubtedly will consult carefully on those measures to ensure that we do not—as the question is rightly exploring—restrict access or discourage individuals from using vapes to quit smoking.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I am not sure we have the data or the evidence to back that up, but I have certainly heard people claim that in the past about the addictive nature of nicotine. One of the important aspects of this issue is the very rapid re-emergence of that addiction by small exposures after people have managed to quit. Certainly we should be in no doubt about the addictive nature of nicotine and the risks—going back to the harmful effects of passive smoking or being in the company of people who smoke—associated with the re-emergence of that addiction and of people’s tobacco smoking habits. That is something very real. Therefore, the best protection is never to start in the first place. If we can prevent people from taking those first nicotine products and prevent the addiction from forming in the first place, there is obviously a much greater chance that they are not going to suffer the health consequences.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Our view is that the benefits of preventing people who are not currently vaping, particularly children, from vaping through what is proposed in this Bill significantly exceed that risk. However, that risk exists; we all accept that. To go back to a previous point I made, that is why having these powers gives us the advantage that if, as a result of where we get to—remembering that this change will come after consultation and there will be secondary legislation going through Parliament—it looks as though we have gone too far, it will be possible to ease back. Our view, though, is that at this point in time, and subject to what the consultation shows, the net benefit in public health terms is positive for the prevention of children starting smoking, over any risk for adults.
The area of greatest uncertainty is on flavours. There is some genuine debate around that, with a range of different views from people who are quite seriously trying to wrestle with this problem—rather than doing marketing masquerading as wrestling with this problem—but in all other areas, most people think that the benefit outweighs the risk.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will give a view, and I think Sir Gregor will want to add to it. It will make a very substantial difference. The thing to understand is that not only does cigarette smoking cause individual diseases, but many people as they go through life have multiple diseases from smoking. They will start off with heart disease, for example, as a result of smoking, and will go on to have a variety of possible cancers, and they might have chronic obstructive airway disease, and they will end up potentially with dementia. All of these would have not happened at all or would have been substantially delayed had they not smoked. Of course, this is heavily weighted towards areas of deprivation, people living with mental health conditions, and other areas where I think most people would consider it really unjust in society. All of us, and anybody who has looked at this in public health terms, would say that if you could remove smoking from the equation, the chronic disease burden would go down very substantially, and be delayed, and the inequalities of that burden of disease would also be eroded. The arguments for this are really clear.
To give some indication of the numbers involved, we have thousands of people every year—millions over time—going into hospitals and general practices only because they are smoking. Had they not smoked, they would not have to use the NHS, and they would not have the chronic disease burden that disbenefits themselves, disbenefits their families and, of course, because of the impact on wider society, disbenefits everyone else as well. Undoubtedly this Bill—if it is passed by Parliament—will reduce that burden and have an enormous impact.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Thank you for raising this as a question, because it is a very important point to understand. I will speak to the experience in Scotland. The Scottish burden of disease study published by Public Health Scotland suggests that from now to 2043 we are going to see a rise of 21% in overall burden of disease across our society in Scotland. That burden of disease is very much weighted towards a number of conditions such as cancer, dementia including vascular dementia, cardiovascular disease, and others. There is no doubt in my mind that smoking contributes to those.
Chris’s point about the multimorbidity that people experience is really important in this context. There are more people in Scotland who experience multimorbidity under the age of 50 than those who do over the age of 50, and much of that is related to smoking. Anything that we can do to reduce that burden of disease on people will not only make their own lives so much better, but make them more productive—they will be able to spend more time with their families, they will be economically active for longer, and they will also use health services less. So there is both a compelling health argument and an economic argument here on the preventive nature of stopping smoking and stopping people from beginning to smoke, which is really important to understand in the context of that projected increase in the burden of disease.
The last thing to remember is that our experience of disease can sometimes be cumulative. As Sir Chris alluded to, people who have developed diabetes for other reasons but who smoke as well, will have accelerated disease as a consequence. Removing as much as we can, step by step, the risks that are associated with the development of that accelerated disease—you will have seen it very clearly in your role as a vascular surgeon—has to be a step that we take to maintain both the health and the economic prosperity of our nation.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: The numbers that I was looking for—
The Chair
I am sorry, Sir Chris. Just for the purposes of timekeeping, which is my job, we have about 20 minutes left and five people wish to ask questions, so can we keep the questions as tight as possible, and within reason the answers as well?
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I wanted to give the exact numbers, which I just found in my notes. Some 75,000 GP appointments a month are caused by smoking—just think of that when you phone up the GP—and 448,000 admissions to the NHS: again, think of that when you look at these areas. So the impact of this is really very substantial.
Jim Dickson
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have a very strong view. The tobacco industry is extraordinarily adept at pretending that it is on the side of the angels, and that it is trying to help with the problem. This goes along with slimline cigarettes, filters, low-tar cigarettes—many other marketing things, all of which claim to try and help with the health effects. Tobacco is extraordinarily dangerous, as well as being addictive. The heated tobacco products have probably slightly lower levels—they do have lower levels of the multiple chemicals that are toxic: multiple, not just one or two, but they are way away from safe levels. So heated tobacco products, while arguably being slightly lower in terms of the risk if someone had exactly the same amount, are a long way short of anywhere near safe, and they are still addictive. They also have some side-blow areas where they will have some issues for people around them as well. So the idea that this is some kind of solution only makes sense if you have shares in a company. So I would very strongly argue against trying to exclude these and carve these out.
Sir Francis Atherton: Nicotine is addictive however you take it—whether it is in heated tobacco, in cigarettes, in snus, in chewed tobacco or in shisha pipes—so in terms of protecting the next generation, the great value of this Bill is the flexibility to deal with not just the issues that we see in front of us, but the things that may well come down the pipeline in the future. I believe the Bill is flexible enough to allow us to protect the next generation from these terrible problems that flow from addiction.
The Chair
Sir Michael, you were nodding. Did you have any comment to make?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: I simply echo Sir Frank’s comments on the flexibility that the Bill affords us, and again confirm my agreement with Sir Chris’s comments. Let us be clear: there is no other product that causes life-limiting addiction, that kills two thirds—kills two thirds—of the people who use it. It is staggering, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to address a scourge on our society. There is no safe tobacco product —none.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Would Sir Michael like to go first?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. Thank you for the important question. You are quite right that the evidence on the potentially harmful effects of vapes is still developing, and we are not at the stage that we are with our knowledge of tobacco. Certainly, as we have said already, the harmful effects of vapes are, and are likely to be, significantly less than those of tobacco, but are unlikely to be zero. This is an area in which there is ongoing research. The World Health Organisation has raised concerns about the potential impact, particularly in children, in terms of brain development. I know you will hear more about that later from other panellists. That is something that we will obviously need to continue to keep under review. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to introduce further measures, should that be required.
However, in all this there is a need for balance. Obviously, the Government—and certainly the Northern Ireland Assembly, when they will be debating this in the coming weeks—will wish to ensure that there is a balance between ensuring that vapes are accessible to individuals to assist cessation of smoking and help them to quit, but also that we are guided by the evidence to ensure that any legislation that is introduced is proportionate. That is incumbent on all of us at this time. Certainly, should further evidence of harmful effects become available, there is the opportunity and flexibility within the Bill to look at this again.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I would add only that it took us some decades to work out the extraordinary impact of smoking. Much of that tends to be cumulative over time, so you do not see the major effects of someone starting to smoke in their 20s till they are in their 50s, 60s and 70s. What we do not want is to be looking back in 20 years’ time and saying, “We knew these were addictive; we knew that people were smoking things.” Things that go into the lungs are much more dangerous than things you eat, for a variety of reasons. Just basing it on lab studies is not a safe way to proceed. I think all of us were therefore thinking that the sensible thing to do, while maintaining vapes as a smoking quit aid, is to avoid a situation where people who are currently not smokers take up vapes, because they will definitely get addicted—the nicotine is there, and there is a high chance in our view that they will have harms, although the size of those harms is currently difficult to put an exact number on over time. Some people come to extreme harms quite quickly, actually, but those numbers are fortunately relatively small.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is very difficult to disentangle the evidence about vaping, because so many of the people who are currently vaping are either current or ex-smokers as well. To do some form of longitudinal study that actually gets to develop the evidence base for any potential harm that is caused by vaping is difficult—although there are attempts to try to do that, such as through the Our Future Health study. At this moment, I think the provisions within the Bill represent a proportionate and reasonable approach with the flexibility that exists within it to be able to respond as new evidence develops, either towards or against the harms that are associated with vaping. I think it is proportionate in that it maintains vaping as a potential tool in the armoury to help people to stop smoking, but similarly it is proportionate in stopping the abhorrent marketing of vapes to children, which Sir Chris has already mentioned, and in allowing the position, which I think is correct, that if you have never started vaping or smoking, you should not. The proportionality of the provisions just now is heading in the right direction, but with the ability to flex as future evidence emerges.
The Chair
We have one more question, which I am afraid is probably the last one to this set of witnesses, from Liz Jarvis.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: It is important to be realistic about the fact that—as I suspect you will all remember from your schooldays, and if you have children, you will know from them—people do not stick exactly to the current law as it is. The idea that, magically, there will be a cut-off and people will exactly follow it strikes me as flying in the face of lived reality. However, as the age of sale moves up over time, I am very confident that it will lead to a significant reduction over time in the number of children buying cigarettes, because it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. It will not be illegal for them to possess cigarettes—that is an important distinction—but it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. If you are a 17-year-old you can usually pretend to be an 18-year-old, but pretending, or even wanting to pretend, to be a 30-year-old is a different thing completely. Over time this measure will become more effective.
The impacts will be seen first in things such as children’s asthma and developing lungs. It will probably next be seen in birth effects, because the highest smoking rates are in the youngest mums: the rates are up to 30% in people who have children before they are 20, but much lower in people who have them in their late 20s or early 30s. In that younger cohort, the effect on stillbirths, birth defects, premature births and so on will be the next big impact that the Bill will have, and gradually it will roll over time.
It is not a perfect mechanism—I do not think any piece of law that has been designed is a perfect mechanism—but, as a way of gradually driving smoking down in a way that does not take away anyone’s existing rights, it seems to me a reasonable balance between those principal aims. To go back to my first point, in reality the borderline will probably be a bit fuzzy, because it always is, but over time the effects will be very substantial.
The Chair
I have about three minutes left, so I will ask Mary Kelly Foy to ask a very brief question with a very short answer, because we will be finishing spot on 10.25 am.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will suggest that Sir Frank takes this question, because it is his very last answer to a parliamentary question; he is about to stop as chief medical officer, so he is going out on a high.
Sir Francis Atherton: What the Bill does is to simplify matters, making it as simple as possible: a smoke-free place is a vape-free place as well. That does not take away people’s ability to go into a place where smoking and vaping are allowed, but it helps to disentangle the confusion that currently exists about where people can legitimately use those products. It is a simplification that can only help to lead, in the long term, to that reduction that we need. In Wales, 13% of people continue to smoke. Our ambition is to get to 5% by 2030; we will struggle to get there, but this Bill will help us to get there.
The Chair
I am afraid that that draws this particular session to a close. I thank our witnesses, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Sir Gregor Smith and Sir Michael McBride, for their attendance and for their helpful contributions, and I thank Members for their helpful questions. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health; Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland; Suzanne Cass, chief executive of ASH Wales; and Naomi Thompson, health improvement manager at Cancer Focus Northern Ireland. We have until 10.55 am for this panel. I call the first Member to ask a question—the Minister.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: We are all delighted to see this Bill return, and in such a strong form. There is complete consensus across the ASHs of the four nations that this is a Bill that is needed, wanted and workable.
As the chief medical officer said in the previous session, the improvements in this Bill are that there are more provisions that will assist in reducing smoking among people who are already smoking and in protecting those exposed to second-hand smoke. It also creates a comprehensive set of regulations around all tobacco and nicotine products and provides us with that future-proof—the flexibility to respond to evidence as it emerges and changes and to the market as it emerges and changes over time.
The Bill is enormously welcome for its comprehensiveness and robustness, and therefore for the opportunity to significantly reduce the uptake of smoking among the next generation and to aid people in quitting. The Minister will not mind me saying that I think there is more that the Government will need to do to accelerate that progress, in terms of investing in support for those who are already smoking and ensuring that we have the right strategy in place for that, but the Bill is a really good step in the right direction.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Sheila Duffy: We have seen that tobacco control measures work. We have seen that they have reduced adult smoking rates over time. The points made by the chief medical officers were well made: we are looking to the generation growing up now in the UK; we are looking to protect them from addictions that so many now regret and that are claiming lives unnecessarily.
Suzanne Cass: I would add that tobacco control policies that are put in place are popular, and are really welcomed among members of the public; they are also welcomed among people who smoke. There is a huge surge of public support for tobacco control policies, and that grows—it does not diminish—as we introduce new policies; it grows, and that public support increases.
Naomi Thompson: In Northern Ireland, we are working towards a smoke-free Northern Ireland by 2035, and the reality is that tobacco control over the past 10 years has managed to bring things down to a stage where 2035 has potential. That is why tobacco control needs to continue. A Bill like this is just brilliant to keep that focus. If we can prevent people from starting, that will be absolutely key to making Northern Ireland, certainly, smoke-free by then.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Suzanne Cass: As you know, ASH Wales and the Welsh Government have been at the forefront of implementing smoke-free spaces. We campaigned for smoke-free playgrounds and smoke-free school gates, both on a voluntary basis. Luckily, the foresight of the Welsh Government has made that provision legislation when it comes to hospital grounds, playgrounds, sports grounds, mental health units and a raft of other smoke- free spaces. We are obviously delighted that the Welsh Government has implemented that legislation.
The legislation has made a huge difference, in that it has allowed a platform for communication—communicating the message that it is not okay to smoke around children. There is a massive amount of public support for that messaging, and we have had the opportunity to communicate it. When it comes to smoke-free hospital grounds, a lot of us are looking at that legislation and the possibility of implementing it.
We have obviously had the legislation in place in Wales since 2021, and what we would say on the lessons learned is that there has to be a package when it comes to implementation. We cannot just legislate; we need to be looking at the support that is in hospitals for smokers to quit, we need to have trained staff and we need to have enforcement on the ground. There needs to be a whole package that comes with that legislation. That is the enormous lesson that we learned.
We implemented that legislation in 2021—in the midst of covid, which was tricky—but we have had problems around enforcement and problems around compliance. It is a very different kind of tobacco policy from that in the other smoke-free spaces. When it comes to the other smoke-free places—playgrounds, sports grounds and other areas like that—there is a lot of compliance, but when it comes to hospital grounds, you have to do a bit more of the legwork. But it is well worth it, because what comes with that is on-site hospital support for stopping smoking, and the message to everybody coming on to that site that smoking is not okay and that there is support available if you want to quit. So it comes with a whole raft of measures that support that smoke-free message.
The Chair
I call Caroline Johnson—apologies; I should have called you before the Minister.
Dr Johnson
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: That will be a really crucial question as this Bill progresses, and it was touched on by the chief medical officers. The nature of this Bill is that we are taking powers across a range of areas, which we know will help us to prevent the uptake of vaping among children, which we are all concerned about. We are restricting the marketing of vapes and the way they are branded, and taking powers around the design of products and in relation to flavours. It is important that those powers, as was discussed in the last session, are broad in the Bill and defined through further consultation and regulation, giving us that flexibility to shape policy going forward. We know from our experience in reducing smoking among children that the things that will work are reducing the appeal, reducing the availability and reducing the affordability of products. The Bill, alongside the excise tax that is planned for 2026, will take us a long way on that journey to addressing those aspects and reducing the appeal among children.
We also want to ensure that products remain available for adult smokers to switch to. We know from our own research that adult smokers have very inaccurate views at the moment about the relative harms from vaping compared with smoking. Part of the issue is the way in which products are branded and pushed in people’s faces when they go into every corner shop up and down the country. That prevents the understanding that these products might be valuable for smoking cessation and promotes the idea that they are a kind of lifestyle choice for teenagers. Removing the branding and the displays in shops will allow the message that these products could be valuable to help people stop smoking, and will allow that message to land more easily than it currently does. That will hopefully realign those misperceptions and get us back to the position that we were in in, say, 2019 or 2020, where these products were being used as a smoking cessation tool and not really being used by other groups in the population. If we can get back to that, that would be the ideal scenario. Hopefully, the legislation takes us a bit closer to that.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sheila Duffy: We see that socioeconomic inequalities and smoking rates are closely patterned. ASH Scotland’s work with low-income communities in Scotland suggests that people regret beginning tobacco, but find it hard to move away from it. It also identified the dangers of less regulated novel products such as e-cigarettes in enticing their children and grandchildren into the kind of addiction that they themselves so regret. One of the real strengths in the Bill is the ability to bring some of these tobacco-related products into the kinds of control and regulation that we have fought so hard over decades to get for tobacco products.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: The purpose of the legislation is to reduce smoking. The Department’s projections in the impact assessment clearly show that, even on conservative estimates, it will achieve that goal over time. So the question then is, does that lead to displacement into other products? Given that the legislation is comprehensive in relation to tobacco products, it is to be hoped that it will not lead to displacement into other kinds of tobacco products, but it might lead to some displacement into other nicotine products. As the chief medical officer said in the previous session, it is unlikely that nobody will take up smoking in the affected age group. Some people will; some of the 15-year-olds who will be affected by this legislation have already tried smoking. So we need there to be a legal nicotine product that those people will be able to use, with the restrictions that are coming into place in relation to vaping and other nicotine products in this legislation. One would not expect the overall consumption of nicotine to be greater than it otherwise would be, if that makes sense, but there may be some displacement into other nicotine products as we transition away from smoked tobacco and from tobacco being used widely in that group.
Sheila Duffy: Dual use is a real concern in Scotland. Nearly 43% of people are dual-using cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The international longitudinal cohort evidence clearly shows a higher risk of progression to using combustible tobacco for young people that start vaping. I think this legislation has the real potential to move us away from that.
Suzanne Cass: We also have to remember that the killer in the room is tobacco. The generational ban is the most crucial part of this legislation that we need to push forward. Therefore, we need to keep our eye on the ball when we are looking at the health impact, and the potential public health impact, of this Bill, and to make sure that we focus on driving down that tobacco use.
Naomi Thompson: Just to reiterate what Suzanne has said, tobacco is the issue. The impact of tobacco was repeated multiple times in the previous session. If young people start, they continue, and they find it very difficult to stop. Therefore, if we can sort that, it is a great first step. There may be a small move towards other nicotine products, but we can work on that. Tobacco is the one that kills.
The Chair
Can I just, as is my job, remind everybody that we are finishing at 10.55 am, which is in about 15 minutes or thereabouts? I have six people who wish to ask questions, so can I ask that the questions and responses are as tight as possible? Thanks.
Dr Cooper
Q
Suzanne Cass: In Wales, we have obviously implemented smoke-free legislation. We have seven different health boards and various approaches to that legislation when it comes to the implementation alongside vaping. When it comes to indoor spaces, there is already a huge amount of compliance with voluntary bans. People generally do not smoke in indoor spaces, so there is already that public consensus in those areas. When it comes to the outdoor spaces, there is not necessarily a consistent approach across Wales regarding smoking and vaping, which can cause confusion among the public.
I think that we need to be considering this very carefully, in terms of providing as much support to smokers as possible in these areas. We need to be considering exemptions to vape-free spaces, particularly in smoke-free spaces in hospital settings, mental health units and places where vulnerable patients who smoke are situated. That would be the message: we need to really consider those exemptions.
Sheila Duffy: In Scotland, we put medicinally therapeutic products front and centre with smoking cessation. Smoking cessation is vital, but we need to remember that there is no medicinally licensed e-cigarette product anywhere in the world, and that medicinally licensed products have a very different set-up. With e-cigarettes, you are talking about more than 30,000 different variants listed with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and four or five generations of devices, with very different health profiles.
Most of the comparisons are made with the toxins in tobacco, but there are different additional toxins in e-cigarettes, and there is new research—for example, AI modelling—on the impacts of heating some of the chemicals in e-cigarettes to vapour point, where they produce highly toxic outcomes. We need to bear that in mind. We also need to look at the research on air quality, because e-cigarettes conclusively contain the kind of particulates that we worry about for air quality and that cause harm to health. I think that that is an issue arguing for vape-free spaces.
In Scotland, we are supporting people to quit smoking in whatever way works for them—we are supporting individuals—but we are actively recommending only medicinally licensed products, because they have that context of appropriate use, safety and quality control, which e-cigarettes do not have.
Sarah Bool
Q
Suzanne Cass: Absolutely. I think we need to consider the vulnerable smoker at the heart of this and how they are managing to abstain from that addiction. It comes back to that addiction all the time. With smoking, nicotine is such an addictive substance that it is very difficult just to tell somebody that they cannot do it. You need to give them the right support, as well as the support that they want. When it comes to choice, that is where we need to be looking at what their choices are and how they choose to move away from that deadly tobacco use.
Hazel Cheeseman: On the mental health settings, we have done a lot of work in England with mental health trusts, and vending machines have been one way in which they have been facilitating access to vapes in quite a large number of mental health trusts. It is certainly something that we would be interested in looking at, because it will make it a bit more challenging for them to implement smoke-free policies in mental health settings if the vending machine rule applies across the NHS estate.
Also, going back to Dr Cooper’s question, in mental health settings and those places with vulnerable smokers, vapes have been really important in England in facilitating. We do not have legislation in relation to smoke-free grounds in England, but obviously it is the policy across the NHS estate that they are smoke free. Allowing vaping, particularly in those mental health settings, has been very facilitative of creating smoke-free grounds and supporting those people to maintain their smoke- free status as they move out of mental health settings as well.
Sheila Duffy: Scotland already has a ban on e-cigarettes in vending machines and has had for some years.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
“The government should make good on their pledge to publish a ‘roadmap to a smokefree country’…with a strong focus on tackling inequalities.”
I am from the north-east region, where we have high deprivation and high smoking prevalence. It is the only region that has a clear vision—if you like—and declaration from Fresh and the directors of public health for how to achieve a smoke-free country. Could you explain a bit more why we need that vision and that strategy going forward?
Hazel Cheeseman: The legislation is fantastic; it is world-leading and brilliant, and it will really set us on that path toward being a smoke-free country. However, it will not be the last word in how that is achieved. We have 6 million smokers across this country, and we need to ensure that all of our agencies are lined up to do the job that they need to do to help those people stop smoking—the NHS, local government and integrated care boards across the system need to have the right approach. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to do that too. The Government have committed to the funding in stop-smoking services in local government, but we also need to see funding in mass media campaigns. The chief medical officer was talking earlier about people’s waning understanding of the harms of second-hand smoke. One way to address that would be to go back on TV and radio and explain to people what the harms of second-hand smoke are. That package of measures alongside this legislation would really help us to accelerate progress.
The Bill will massively raise the saliency of the harms of smoking with the public—there is no doubt about that. There has been, and there will continue to be, a strong public debate on the measures in this Bill. By really riding the wave of that public understanding through that coherent strategy and that investment, we could really see smoking rates start to drop, particularly in those disadvantaged populations where we continue to have persistently high levels of smoking.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Suzanne Cass: We obviously have an issue when it comes to the understanding of and the misconceptions around the harms of vaping. In particular, the most worrying stats are among smokers considering them as harmful as or more harmful than tobacco. That is that a significant issue. This legislation allows us to reset the clock and promote these products as smoking cessation products, using health professionals to promote them and getting the right language around them. Rather than their being seen as a recreational toy, they can be seen as a product that is going to help people to quit smoking. When it comes to the positioning of these products, it is essential to readdress those misconceptions and re-place this product.
On standardised packaging, what we did with tobacco was put it in the ugliest packaging you could ever imagine. We are not talking about that when it comes to vaping products; we are talking about plain packaging—something that is informative but not necessarily attractive to young people. There is a big difference between something that is repulsive and something that is not attractive. That is where we see the difference, and that is where we see this legislation coming into its own and allowing us to reset and to have that different conversation.
Hazel Cheeseman: I am sure we will tease more of it out through the consultation process that will follow this legislation, but some of the early research that has been done has indicated that you can, to some extent, have your cake and eat it on this. If we remove some of the attractive branding elements on packaging, which we know appeal to children, that does reduce the products’ appeal to children, but it does not damage their appeal to adult smokers and it does not damage harm misperceptions. We can progress with this legislation, via the consultation and looking properly at the evidence, to make sure that we get the balance right.
There are also provisions in the Bill to allow public health bodies to do marketing and public health messages around vapes as a smoking cessation tool. It will be important that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Advertising Standards Authority work with public health bodies to make sure that they have the right guidance to be able to do that and to give smokers directly the right information about how vapes can be used as a cessation tool.
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid this will probably be the last question before the next panel of witnesses. Tristan Osborne, we have about two and a half minutes left.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: Currently, vapes are much less expensive than smoking, and that is the kind of gap that we need to maintain. As the excise tax comes into force in October 2026—that is its planned enforcement date—the intention is to raise the tax on tobacco at the same time to maintain the price differential. That is crucial. We do want to find a sweet spot for the price of these products that makes the entry level for young people and non-smokers higher. It is a dissuasive technique so that people who do not need to be using these products do not use them. We obviously want them always to be cheaper than smoked or combusted tobacco, so that there is always that incentive for people to switch from the more harmful to the less harmful.
As has been repeatedly said, there is flexibility in the legislation: it allows us to calibrate. In particular, unlike the previous Bill, it allows us to regulate around product design and the size of products, so you could, for example, look to make them more expensive by changing the minimum size of the amount of liquid that could be sold. All this needs to be looked at once the Bill has passed. There is an awful lot of work to be done to calibrate around things like price, branding and so on, as the Bill passes and we move on to the secondary regulations.
Sheila Duffy: Absolutely—
The Chair
I do apologise, but I have to bring the session to a close as the time has been used up. I am sorry for interrupting. I thank our witnesses Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson for their evidence, and I am grateful for the questions that have been asked.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Ian Walker and Sarah Sleet gave evidence.
The Chair
We have the third panel of witnesses from now until 11.25 am. We will hear evidence from Dr Ian Walker, the executive director of policy at Cancer Research UK, and Sarah Sleet, the chief executive officer of Asthma and Lung UK.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sarah Sleet: In general, there is very little evidence around vaping, and we need a really considerable effort to get the evidence in place, but we do know that nicotine in general is not healthy for children, and vaping nicotine products will not be good news. We have some evidence about the harms that it causes—we know that nicotine in particular is very problematic for very young children and developing brains—but we do not have the same level of evidence base that we have with tobacco. That is why this Bill and the precautionary approach that it takes in terms of restricting children’s access to vapes and the attractiveness of vapes to children is very important.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Ian Walker: First, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I start by thanking Parliament for boldly introducing this Bill; it is genuinely world leading. I have spoken to organisations across the world that are envious of the position we find ourselves in. That is a very important question, and the answer is absolutely yes—I think this Bill will be very important in reducing the number of cancers caused by smoking tobacco. We know that there is no bigger thing we could do to actually influence that going forward for the next generation and generations thereafter.
As you have heard this morning, we know that we still have 6 million people smoking across the UK, and we know that we can expect hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer caused by smoking over the term of the next Parliament. As we move towards a truly smoke-free generation over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, we will absolutely expect to see the number of cancers caused by smoking—and, alongside that, the number of other illnesses associated with smoking—reduce.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Ian Walker: To start with smoking and cancer, the links between passive smoking and cancer, particularly lung cancer, are very clear. It is fair to say that there is less evidence around different scenarios that you might predict through this Bill, such as different outdoor environments and so on, but that is more because those studies have not necessarily been done. It is an important point to make that there is an absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence.
You heard from the CMO of England this morning that if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are exposed to it. The direct risk, then, is linked to how long you are exposed to it, how concentrated the environment is, how close you are to it and so on. Nevertheless, passive smoking is harmful—not just for cancer, but for vulnerable people with many other conditions as well—so we are very much supportive of the introduction of smoke-free places and the ability to restrict people smoking in particular outdoor spaces.
Sarah Sleet: When it comes to people with lung conditions, second-hand smoke is incredibly important; it is a well-known, severe risk factor for people with lung conditions. About one in five of us in the UK will experience a lung condition—there are around 7 million people with asthma and about 1.6 million people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are two major conditions that are profoundly affected by second-hand smoking, and are clear risk factors in terms of deaths from asthma and people being hospitalised with exacerbations, so it is incredibly important that we deal with the issue of second-hand smoking. People said earlier that there is no choice about second-hand smoking, and yet it profoundly affects those with lung conditions. It is incredibly important that we ensure that we protect those vulnerable people as far as possible.
When it comes to the discussion about how far we should go in terms of smoke-free and vape-free places, we would consider going further than what has been suggested already and looking at other areas to make smoke-free. I know there has been discussion about hospitality and trying to balance the potential economic impact that has been talked about if we make the outside of hospitality places smoke-free. However, we think, given the balance between the public health impact and what we have seen with smoke-free indoor spaces and its impact on business, we could go further and should go further, there.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Sarah Sleet: People with asthma and lung conditions are in the middle, where they are affected by both smoking and vaping. It is really important to get the balance right. Smoking is terrible—it is terrible for people with lung conditions—and we need to make sure we can drive down smoking rates as much as possible.
Vaping can play a part in helping with smoking cessation, but it should only be used for smoking cessation. People who have never smoked, and definitely children, should not be taking up vaping. We see vaping as a staging post to being completely nicotine-free. It is important to get the balance right between making vaping available for those who need smoking cessation and not encouraging people to try vaping or to keep vaping longer than they need to.
The legislation is good in allowing that flexibility for adjusting over time, as we get more evidence in. It is really important to put evaluation in place and make sure that robust evaluation does flow through over time, so we can adjust and respond to it. Traditionally—certainly in respiratory diseases—there has generally not been enough research and evaluation, so we need to correct that now.
Dr Ian Walker: First, I want to confirm that we are very much supportive of taking those powers. I think one of the real strengths of the Bill is the ability to adjust, moderate and titrate those powers and the actions that we take over time, not just as new evidence emerges, but as the tobacco industry and new products may emerge to try to circumvent the regulation that is in place. That is a really important part of the Bill.
I think the crux of the question was about what is important to consider through the consultation. From our perspective, it is important to get a balanced view on what the right actions are in this area. Of course we all agree that we want to limit, reduce and stop access for children and young people and to limit the appeal to never-smokers, while balancing that carefully against making cessation tools available to people who are trying to quit. It is important not to forget the 6 million people who are currently smokers and the long-term health implications ahead of them. We need a balance so that it is as easy as possible for those people to quit when they have chosen to do so. There will be many balancing features and balancing points of evidence that will be really important through the consultation in coming to the right outcome.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Ian Walker: Critical. Without a doubt, there is no single bigger action that you could take to reduce the cancer burden on the country. The cancer burden sits at a very personal, individual level for people getting their own diagnosis; it sits at a family level and at a friend level. It also sits at an economic level for the country and at an NHS level, in terms of the burden that smoking-related illnesses cause for the NHS.
From my perspective, this is a world-leading piece of legislation. It is absolutely an opportunity for generational change and a long-term legacy that will see our children and grandchildren never able to legally buy tobacco in the UK and never exposed to the harms that that would cause them.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Sarah Sleet: As I said earlier, the research evidence around vaping harms is currently very poor. There has not been enough. It takes a long time to build up evidence of things that are generally very progressive rather than having an immediate impact, so we will have to wait. We need to put that in place, and we are going to have to wait to get that evidence back.
We have had anecdotal reports from our beneficiaries and those who contact the organisation about places—particularly in closed spaces, but sometimes outside—where there is a concentration of vaping. It is that classic thing where you go through a door and suddenly everybody around you is vaping immediately outside it. We get reports that that exacerbates people’s asthma and sometimes their COPD, but they are anecdotal. We really need the evidence base to support what is happening.
Dr Ian Walker: The only thing that I would add specifically from a cancer perspective is that although there is very little long-term evidence, because the products have not been around long enough and the cumulative effects have not been seen yet, what we do know, based on the current evidence, is that vapes are far less harmful than cigarettes. You heard the advice earlier that if you smoke it is better to vape or take other nicotine products, but if you do not smoke you should not vape, because we do not know yet what the long-term effects will be. In particular, we are very light on evidence on what the impact of vaping will be on bystanders.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Dr Ian Walker: The impact of the Bill will reach every sector, on the face of it. Obviously the aim of making a smoke-free UK will impact everybody in whichever sector, but I think you are probably referring specifically to increasing smoke-free places, or places where smoking is not allowed. For people who are exposed unavoidably by their working environment, of course this will be good news and a good expansion.
As you heard from Sarah, we did not quite get to hospitality in the Bill, but it will be interesting, as we go through consultation, to review the evidence and understand the sentiment. Clearly, people working in hospitality are likely to be exposed to smoke in their work environment, even if that is outside. The Bill makes important steps in increasing the number of smoke-free places and reducing exposure to tobacco smoke.
Sarah Sleet: As the CMO said earlier, it is about the duration as well as the density of smoking. If you work in hospitality in those outdoor spaces, the duration will clearly be longer; if you work on a coach concourse, you will be exposed for longer. It is really important to remember that.
Another issue is inequality. There is a concentration of working lives that are more exposed to second-hand smoking, which is exacerbated by inequality.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
Sarah Sleet: That is a tricky one. We know that a lot of people who use vaping to stop smoking end up dual-using for a while. Some then move on to just vaping, and some eventually move completely away from it. We seriously need a comprehensive programme for nicotine cessation and smoking cessation to support people on that journey and make sure that people who go on that journey do not come back in. We heard earlier from ASH Wales about some really good measures that have been put in place, but without that wider context it is hard to cement the behaviour needed to move completely away from it. We need to think broadly about the whole support structure to help people to get off smoking and eventually to move away from nicotine altogether.
Dr Ian Walker: I agree. The real killer in the room, if you like, is cigarettes and tobacco. There is no safe way of consuming tobacco. The alternative of smoking versus vaping is very clear; even though we do not know the long-term health implications of vapes, we know that you are much better off vaping than smoking. Having said that, of course we do not want young people and never-smokers to vape either.
The power of the legislation is its double-pronged approach: preventing people from ever smoking in the first place by raising the age of sale by one year every year, and putting in place a comprehensive package of measures alongside that to control vaping, particularly the access to vaping and the appeal of vaping for young people, to reduce uptake in those communities. All those things together, alongside—you will forgive me for saying this—the investment that will be required for smoking cessation services and to support enforcement by Border Force, HM Revenue and Customs and retailers, will be important components of the Bill’s ability to drive the change that it can make.
Jim Dickson
Q
Sarah Sleet: Health inequalities relating to lung disease are profound. The three conditions with the biggest gap in health outcomes between rich and poor are lung conditions: asthma, COPD and lung cancer. All three are profoundly affected by smoking, and smoking is concentrated in socially and economically deprived areas. Those in the poorest part of the country are twice as likely to smoke as those in the richest part of the country.
It is even more profound in certain segments. We heard that young mothers are four times more likely to smoke in poorer parts of the country than in richer parts. If we can drive down smoking, particularly among young people, the impact will be greatest in those areas that are most in need of help and support. This is probably one of the biggest things that can be done to tackle health inequalities. For that reason, I think the Bill is probably the most important public health measure being passed through Parliament in a very, very long time.
Dr Ian Walker: Thank you for the question, which I think is a really critical one. At CRUK, we have done a lot of research and work on cancer inequalities, which are part of broader health inequalities and which generally mirror similar trends. We know that people in the most deprived communities have higher incidences of cancer. They typically present at a later stage, they typically engage less with screening, they typically have worse outcomes and they typically do not get optimal treatment —it is a pretty difficult story right along the pipeline. The reasons behind that can be very complex and involve lots of different things.
Despite all that, the one thing we do know is that higher smoking rates, particularly among children and young people in the most deprived communities, are a really significant contributor to health inequalities. It is very clear from the evidence that the most deprived communities across the UK are the ones that suffer most from the impacts of tobacco.
This Bill is clearly not a magic switch—it will not change those things overnight—but it sets us on the pathway to fundamentally reversing some of those inequalities and to reducing some of the cancer inequalities that we see across the UK. Alongside the important measures in the Bill, a really clear, targeted set of actions around health marketing interventions in those communities and the effective funding of cessation services where we need them most will contribute to reducing health inequalities much more quickly and much more effectively. Again, it is a very positive story in terms of the potential impact on health inequalities.
The Chair
Thank you very much. As there are no other questions from Members, let me thank the witnesses, Ian Walker from Cancer Research UK and Sarah Sleet from Asthma and Lung UK.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment: Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.10 pm Professor Linda Bauld OBE, Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health, University of Edinburgh Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.30 pm National Trading Standards Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.50 pm British Retail Consortium Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.10 pm Department for Education’s Secondary Headteacher Reference Group Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.30 pm Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.00 pm Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Royal College of General Practitioners Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.20 pm Department of Health and Social Care
That the Order of the Committee of 7 January 2023 be varied by leaving out from “Aneurin Bevan University Health Board” to end of table and insert—
This amendment is in order to accommodate witness availability. It would take Professor Linda Bauld at 2.40 pm and move the witnesses representing the royal colleges to start at 4.30 pm. This will add an extra 10 minutes to the last two panels, concluding oral evidence at 5.20 pm.
Manuscript amendment agreed to.
The Chair
I welcome the panel again, although I was not here for this morning’s sitting. We will now resume by hearing oral evidence from David Fothergill, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board, Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, executive director of public health and strategic partnerships and vice president of the faculty of public health at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, and Alison Challenger, tobacco and vapes lead at the Association of Directors of Public Health.
For this panel, we have until 2.40 pm. The floor is now open to any members of the Committee who wish to ask questions, but we would traditionally ask the Opposition spokesperson to ask the first question, so, Dr Caroline Johnson, the floor is yours.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
My first question is: do the local authorities have the resources they need to enforce these measures, if brought in? If they do not, what further resources do they need?
David Fothergill: I will take that one, if I may. First, thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to you. From a local authority perspective, we welcome the legislation, and we welcome the fact that it has been cross-party legislation—with the previous Government, and now with the current Government. The legislation will only be as good as the enforcement, and the question you ask is really important: have we got the resources to do it? We have to be sure that it is not a new burden—on either local authorities or retailers—that we cannot fund.
Therefore we would ask that we have time to implement, because we need to be able to consult with our retailers and our public to make sure that we implement in the right way. We would ask that it is viewed as a new burden, so that we can have additional moneys coming into the local authorities. We would also ask that we set up an apprenticeship scheme for trading standards services, to ensure that we are bringing through new people into trading standards—and environmental health, of course; we have to mention them. However, with time, focusing on those three areas, we will have the resources to make this successful.
Dr Johnson
Q
David Fothergill: The important thing is that we have the right consultation and the right plan for bringing through new trading standards. I think we would be alarmed if you said you were going to introduce this on 1 January next year, but if you said we had two years or slightly longer to implement it I think we would be much more comfortable.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
David Fothergill: We argued at the previous Committee hearing under the last Government—I think you may have sat on that Committee—that we needed a licensing scheme to make it effective. We still hold that view. We think that it is right. What we should not do, though, is to overcomplicate this. We already have licensing schemes. Many of you will have sat on licensing committees at local authorities. We have good local people who license alcohol outlets, taxis, gambling and gaming. We believe that licensing is the right route to go. While we think the legislation should be consistent, we do think there need to be local variations we can look at, so that we can bring in what works for our communities, very much as we do with the alcohol schemes.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Q
Alison Challenger: The short answer is yes, I think they do. The need not to have children exposed to the marketing of vapes is very important. At the moment we see that children are exposed to that marketing and are encouraged to get access to vapes, so it is important that this is brought into the Bill. I think what is currently in the Bill will help us to address that significantly.
David Fothergill: I concur. From a local authority point of view, we have argued long and hard about vapes and have spoken with your colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about disposable vapes, which we have been very concerned about; so it is great to see this legislation moving forward.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: From the public health community, it is widely accepted and supported. It gives us a great opportunity not only to increase the conversation, but to broaden it. How we embed the legislation into practice will be key: making sure that we are getting it to the point of delivery where we can effect change in terms of protecting our populations in the most effective way, making sure that we have a focus on smoking cessation, that we have a consistent and unified approach, and that we have the agility and adaptability to target different cohorts and different populations effectively. From the public health perspective, though, the Bill is hugely supported.
Alison Challenger: Similarly, from the Association of Directors of Public Health, the Bill is very much welcomed. It will represent a sea change in reducing harm caused by tobacco, which is still our biggest killer. Significant numbers of people continue to smoke and are still addicted to smoking. The product itself is not only extremely dangerous but extremely addictive at the same time. We welcome these measures to address that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Q
David Fothergill: The engagement has been really positive and constructive. We have faith in the Bill and that it has the right intention, the right measures and the right provisions. Our concern is around the funding, the timing and the pipeline of trading standards. The key thing for us is that it is an empowering Bill; it empowers local authorities. If you tried to legislate for every single local authority to implement it in the same way, we would run into some quite difficult conversations and difficult times; it would make enforcement more difficult. Allowing local councils to do what is right for them is the route to go.
People who sit on licensing committees have local understanding. I can give you an example. Should we ban the sale of tobacco within 100 metres of a school? That would be quite easy to do in an urban area, but I look after villages. If you do that, they have lost their only shop. People would not be able to go to that shop to buy legally. So you have got to have local knowledge. It is the right Bill, but we need to make sure that it is an empowering Bill for local authorities to implement in their local communities.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
David Fothergill: It is very much about keeping our feet on the ground. Let us be honest: trading standards are under a lot of pressure and have been cut over the last 10 years. Trading standards have responsibility for enforcing over 300 pieces of legislation, so there is a lot of pressure on trading standards; but I think that by working with retailers and building the relationship locally and ensuring that we use enforcement as the final tool, we can work very well in our local areas.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: It is a really useful question. It is about looking at it through multiple lenses. So there is the enforcement element of it, but there are also the elements that go behind that. If you take hospitals as an example in terms of having NHS smoke-free sites, enforcement is part of that, but it is also about having cessation services in place. If you have people going in for elective surgery, for example, you have got a period of time where you can put in a smoking cessation intervention. It is a “waiting well” method, if you like, so that people go in for surgery in a way that makes for the best possible outcomes, and have an opportunity to either get towards a quit or at least not go in smoking. That enables patients not to be going outside and using cigarettes and so on, which enables that smoke-free site and also creates better outcomes for our patients. So, we do need to think about that.
There has to be a common-sense approach. We know that vaping is a tool towards quitting smoking; we recognise that is part of the process. Where we can get people off tobacco smoking, that is crucial, particularly around health and wellbeing. The open spaces element and the public spaces element is a part that we have really focused on in Wales. The learning from that is still going on; it is not the end of the road. We are learning all the time, adapting to new evidence and making the changes that we need to make to enforce that more consistently, but in a fair way for our population.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
David Fothergill: We would like to see a licensing scheme that is very aligned with the alcohol licensing scheme, although there clearly cannot be a single scheme. The four provisions within the alcohol licensing scheme brought in by the Licensing Act 2003 were preventing crime and disorder, ensuring public safety, preventing public nuisance and protecting children from harm. If we can build those provisions into this legislation for the licensing of the sale of tobacco and vapes, that will give us enough to work on. I would also say that the flexibility we need at a local level remains critical.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
David Fothergill: I will take the fines element first and then talk about the cost of licensing for those retailers. A fine of £200 is quite a low figure. I think it was £100 previously, so it has been increased. If you pay within 10 days, it goes from £200 to £100. If you sell 40 vapes in one day, you have paid your fine. Some retailers—very few, because the vast majority are scrupulous—will take the view that they could sell more vapes to under-age people and those they should not be selling to, and pay that £100 fine within 10 days. So yes, we view it as too low. We would like to see a review brought in within a year to see whether it should be increased.
If we can align the cost of licensing fees with alcohol licensing, that would enable us to find a way to reduce the burden, because the vast majority of people who are selling alcohol are also selling tobacco. We need to work with our businesses to reduce the cost of applying for those licences, which is why we need the consultation period over the next few months, before we bring in legislation, to ensure that we have worked with our retailers, the public and our communities in order to deliver a scheme that actually works.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Q
Alison Challenger: We are ultimately trying to reduce the harm caused by smoking—that is the big killer, and we really would not want to lose sight of that. The Bill also brings in elements around the second-hand smoke agenda. It is important to recognise that there are many vulnerable people who would potentially be harmed by breathing in second-hand smoke, so we welcome the fact that the Bill includes that element. As for whether it will increase vaping, it is really hard to know at the moment how that will work out. Potentially more people might switch to vaping, but ultimately, the Bill brings in a progressive approach to taking out smoking tobacco, which is to be welcomed.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Q
Alison Challenger: I do not have the actual figure, but it is significant. One of the early benefits of the Bill going through will be the impact on children, particularly around asthma. Obviously, second-hand smoke will be exacerbating some of those respiratory illnesses, particularly for children. There is a considerable burden on the NHS as a result of breathing in second-hand smoke. We must also consider those who have cardiovascular disease and those who have existing respiratory illness. It is not always evident that somebody is vulnerable, so it is really important that the measures in the Bill serve to protect those who are vulnerable from inhaling second- hand smoke.
Dr Chambers
Q
Alison Challenger: We are very mindful of that. Some of the statistics we give around smoking prevalence are an average smoking prevalence for often quite large geographical areas. For my own area in west Sussex, our local survey suggests there is a variance of 4.3% in our most affluent area compared with 16% in our least affluent area. Those are still averages. We also know that in households in the most deprived part of our area, 40% of children are exposed to cigarette smoking from a parent or carer. That is through our own survey.
The point I am trying to make is that there is very much a health gradient, and in those who are most disadvantaged and living in our most disadvantaged areas, we see both higher rates of smoking and more children exposed to that smoking. Those children are more likely to take up smoking if they have been exposed to it.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
David Fothergill: We have discussed this outside the room, and I think the area we would be most concerned about is illegal sales online. Our local teams could not get into those, and therefore we might need more national resources to break into how people are bringing illegal substances into the UK.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: That is exactly the focus: reducing health inequalities and ensuring we get good health equity across all of our populations. When we look at preventable premature mortality, we know that smoking is a huge driver around that. We need to think about this across the life course. If we can stop the harms that second hand smoke causes to children, we can then think about deprivation across the life course and people who are dying early from preventable harms, with smoking being one of the risk factors.
We need to focus really narrowly on that, because it is not just about life expectancy, but about the number of years we live in good health. In my patch across Gwent in Wales there is huge variance, with up to 14 years’ difference in healthy life years between the richest and the poorest parts of the population. It is about not only the health outcomes around that, but the economic part of it, in terms of work productivity and work days lost. When we think about the cost of the NHS, which we often do, that is the cost of healthcare, but if we look at the economic picture of employability, productivity and those kinds of things, it increases that sum tenfold. We need to think about this so that when we look at the inequalities associated with smoking, we do so through a social, cultural, economic and environmental lens, to ensure that we get the full cost impact. It is something that we need to be mindful of.
Alison Challenger: I wanted to make a point about household income. We know that cigarette smoking is incredibly expensive. If one or both parents smoke in a household with a low income, that will have a considerable impact on the family’s spending capability for other things. It is not a matter of choice, either; smoking is an addiction. Seven out of 10 smokers really do not want to smoke, but it is incredibly difficult because of the level of addiction. If one or both parents smoke in a family household, that has huge repercussions for the funding of all the other household commitments.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
David Fothergill: That is where local knowledge comes in. Taking that shop in the village, we would not say that it should not sell tobacco, but we would say that it should not be selling tobacco during these periods—for example, 8.30 am to 9.30 am, or 3.30 pm to 4.30 pm. Knowing the local communities and being able to put in local restrictions would help us to really have an impact. Clearly, in urban areas it would be very different.
When the Minister asked questions about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should have said that what we would really like to see—it is in the Scottish legislation—is verification, where people are required to verify their age. Challenge 25 seems to work really well with alcohol, and we would like to see that brought in. We understand that that is in the Scottish legislation, and we would like to see it brought in in England as well.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence today, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Professor Linda Bauld gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Linda Bauld, who is a Bruce and John Usher professor of public health and co-head of the centre for population health sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Thank you for being flexible and appearing earlier in today’s session. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm. If Members want to refer to Professor Bauld’s contribution and evidence, it will appear further on in your packs.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for the question. The first thing I would say is that I very much welcome the legislation. I also welcome the fact that it was introduced by the previous Government and then brought back by the current Government. I welcome the cross-party support I have seen. The academic community has contributed a lot of evidence to inform this legislation.
What I meant by those remarks was based on the previous Bill. There were areas that could be strengthened, and that is what we have seen in the current proposals—new measures are being introduced, many of which will need to be consulted on, and there are powers that can be acted on. In those remarks, I was thinking more about the implementation of the legislation and the regulations that will be required. A lot of that will need to be consulted on, but we need to ensure that we strike the right balance between what I see as the two primary priorities in this legislation: protecting young people and preventing smoking uptake. We must also protect young people from the harms of vaping, while also recognising the needs of the 6 million smokers we still have in the UK, who we need to support to quit.
I think the proof will be in the pudding. As all Members know, a lot of action will need to be taken forward to ensure that we get it right at the regulation stage. Certain elements of that will need to progress at pace to make sure we seize the moment to get it right.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: As you know yourself, it is one of the leading causes of premature morbidity and mortality for the mother if she continues to smoke during and after the pregnancy. It is also a major cause of complications in pregnancy and for the baby, in terms of low birth weight and even stillbirth, along with a variety of other complications. The consequences of low birth weight are manifold in the health outcomes for the baby and the child. Finally, as you have heard from other witnesses, if the mother continues to smoke, or if other members of the household are smoking, that child is exposed to second-hand smoke in the home and is also three times more likely to become a smoker themselves.
As I think we heard from the CMOs—it could have been other witnesses—one of the great promises of the legislation is this prevention piece for young mums and partners, even pre-conception. We know that if we prevent smoking uptake earlier, the parents of the future are far less likely to smoke. The levels of smoking we have in pregnancy now are at around 9% or 10%. They have reduced a lot, but we can drive them down even further. It is important to make the connection between the smoke-free generation measures in this Bill and reducing smoking in pregnancy.
Dr Johnson
Q
I had a look at the evidence for how good people are at establishing how old somebody is. We are often told, “Don’t try to guess someone’s age—you can get yourself into a lot of hot water by doing that.” The research I found online showed that we are remarkably not very good at establishing how old somebody is. We are quite good at establishing if someone is of a similar age to ourselves, but beyond that, it is not that easy. What information do you have on the research in that field?
Professor Linda Bauld: I will speak just to the Scottish scheme. As we have heard from the previous witnesses, Challenge 25 is quite easy to implement. It is widely used and highly effective. The benefit of Challenge 25 is that you have got people who are obviously a number of years older than the legal age of sale for the product they are buying, be it alcohol or another product, and it includes anybody who looks roughly around that age, so asking to check age verification is actually very effective. As the regulations in this Bill are taken forward across the four nations, ensuring that we have robust age verification as part of the scheme could be effective.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I think we also heard this from previous witnesses, but as the legislation comes into place, it is really not about 34-year-olds versus 35-year-olds; it is about acting on the age of sale gradually, so that we are de-normalising tobacco use and stopping the start at an earlier stage.
By the time we get to the difference between the 34-year-old and the 35-year-old, you will have far lower smoking rates than we do at the moment. The modelling for the legislation that was carried out by the University of Sheffield for the Department of Health and Social Care suggests, as I think Hazel Cheeseman said earlier, that by 2040 we will have reduced the smoking rate among those aged 14 to 30 to 0.4%—down from 0.6% by 2030—so I think you are going to see very low rates. To go back to Challenge 25, age verification is something that we can build in, and, irrespective of how old you are, actually seeing proof of age will support this.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for that question, Minister. I have been working in tobacco control for almost 30 years, and the impact has been phenomenal. If you look back to the late 1940s and 1950s, 80% of men smoked in the UK. We have driven that down gradually over the years. We started to measure it in about 1974, and the level of smoking in the UK is now about 12% or 13%—the second lowest in Europe. The reason that we have achieved that is in line with what is being proposed in this legislation. It is about using comprehensive measures and implementing them over the years to regulate what I often call the four p’s: the product, the place, the price and the promotion. You are taking action on potentially all of those—including price, with the levy that is coming in, or the tax on vapes.
We have made a lot of progress, but we are not there yet. I think what you will hear from my clinical colleagues later is that in line with keeping that firm focus on prevention, as you are doing in this Bill, we also need to keep the focus on cessation and particularly on marginalised groups, deprivation, mental health and so on. The key is comprehensive tobacco control. Keep doing it, and that is what the Bill is adding to.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: If I can start with the second part of your question, in terms of not deterring adult smokers, we need to continue making the products available for smoking cessation. We are not banning vapes—that has happened in a number of other countries, as the CMO for England was saying—but we are recognising the things that make them appealing, attractive and affordable to young people, and taking action on those. It is fine for the adult smoker not to be able to see a wide array of advertised products on the shop front, on the billboard or at the point of sale, but to know they are there behind the counter and ask for them. I also do not think that the adult smoker who is trying to quit cares about gummy bears or Coca-Cola flavours—maybe they want some flavours, but not all of them. It is about striking a balance.
Finally, although we are not here to talk about the funding of smoking cessation services today—certainly in England, you have made previous announcements about that—it is important that in clinical settings and through stop smoking services we can give good information about vaping and other cessation aids, and support people to quit that way.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: It is very ambitious on tobacco. We will be the first in the world—after unfortunate events in New Zealand, from my personal perspective—to introduce the smoke-free generation policy, and the world is looking at us. That is good. In terms of protecting people from vaping, the Bill has a proportionate set of measures, but if I come back to the answer that I gave to the shadow Minister, we really need to keep our eye on the regulations and—going back to the Minister’s questions—make sure that we are striking a balance. Given the evidence that we have for much stronger regulations on vaping, I think this strikes the right balance, but we need to make sure that we do that in a proportionate way. Finally, to go back to the comments from the previous set of witnesses, we also need to make sure that local areas have the flexibility around some of the measures to adapt them for their local circumstances.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Dr Ahmed, you know—as Sir Gregor Smith said earlier—that smoking rates in our most deprived communities in Scotland are about 26%, compared with 6% in the least deprived. That is a very big number, and we see that pattern across the UK.
The Bill will make a difference in several respects. First, on preventing smoking uptake by gradually raising the age of sale, the evidence that we have from studies done by my colleagues at University College London and elsewhere is that previous rises in the age of sale have not exacerbated inequalities but have had a benefit in terms of preventing uptake. We know from the evidence that we have that those measures should be useful and helpful, and should not exacerbate that. The other thing is that, to go back to my earlier answer to the shadow Minister, by preventing smoking uptake in the groups that are likely to be future parents who are already likely to smoke, which are highly concentrated in our most deprived communities, we are going to have an impact there.
I do not see any signs in the Bill, when I look across the measures, that we will be exacerbating inequalities with it. I think that we will probably have the biggest impact in the areas where we have the most smokers which, unfortunately, are our most deprived communities.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I do not have in front of me the cost to the NHS—other witnesses will probably have it at the tip of their tongue—but it is substantial. If you look at the number of admissions to hospital from smoking, there are over 500,000 every year in England, and we still have over 75,000 deaths. By reducing smoking prevalence, you are going to see very significant impacts and cost savings.
The other thing we know from our research, as previous witnesses have said, is the effect on productivity and workplace absence. As you all know from your constituencies, smoking is also driving some of the loss of people from the workforce in their 50s, early 60s or even younger that we have seen recently. I think that you will see cost savings and an impact on productivity.
The final thing that I would say on that, despite not having the figures in front of me, is that this is an area that causes such a burden to the NHS. One of the things that our CMOs did not make clear earlier, although they said it indirectly, is that if you look at non-communicable diseases in the UK, smoking is the only risk factor that is linked to all four of our NCDs—respiratory conditions, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is the only one that is directly linked to all of those. If you think about all of those diseases, and the burden of disease that Sir Gregor mentioned, of a 21% increase by 2040 in my own nation of Scotland, we are going to make an impact on that, and that will achieve cost savings for the NHS—and, importantly, for social care.
Dr Cooper
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I think there are political aspects to that, which I will not comment on, but obviously the understanding was that it was a very comprehensive and ambitious set of measures that was introduced. Like this Bill, it was about not just the smoke-free generation but other measures as well, including, interestingly, on the density of retail outlets, which might be something for another day or another, potential future measure. A new Government came in and decided not to take it forward.
The learning that we need to take from that, from my understanding and from speaking to colleagues there, goes back to the CMOs’ evidence about the lobbying that is going to occur. The tobacco industry and partners around the industry are very powerful, so persuading colleagues that this is undermining choice and that it will be a burden in terms of regulation, cost to retailers and so on—those were the arguments that were used in New Zealand.
We need to keep a watchful eye, as we think ahead to the regulations and the next steps for the legislation, that we do not open that door too widely and allow those arguments to become too powerful. As you heard earlier, that industry is continually looking for new recruits to replenish those it loses through morbidity and mortality, and that will happen in the UK as well unless we get this right.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: This is quite a comprehensive piece of legislation, with lots of different pieces, so I will give a couple of examples. One area we looked at was protecting more places from second-hand smoke, and the health benefits of that to people who are vulnerable—people with asthma, respiratory conditions and cardiovascular disease—are very immediate. When the smoking ban came in in England in 2007, I did a study looking at admissions to hospital from myocardial infarction after the legislation was introduced, and in the first year we saw substantial reductions in admissions to hospital for heart attacks. So I think some things will be quite quick.
In terms of the pregnancy question, if a woman is not smoking during pregnancy—some of the measures encourage that—the health benefits to the mum and the baby are immediate and long lasting. I also mentioned the modelling statistics on driving down prevalence, which is obviously going to take more time. There are then the regulations to protect young people from vaping, some of which will, I think, have quite a big effect if they prevent somebody from taking up vaping at all, and some will take a bit longer in terms of driving down the rates. It is a balance.
The final thing I would say is—this is my opportunity to make this point, as you would expect—please, let us make sure that we do the research. We must support the academic community to do the research to monitor how the Bill is implemented, so that we can provide evidence that what colleagues have put forward and decided to do actually makes a difference. Other countries will then be able to look at that evidence and make up their own minds.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Secondly, linking to the economic argument you made earlier, you are right that deprivation is key. There is more smoking in deprived communities. I have asked all the witnesses this question. Is there a concern that because of the concurrency of people vaping and smoking, the people who are doing both will move to an economically cheaper option—that is, pick up smoking again because vapes might become more expensive because of other measures that are introduced? Has that concern been raised in academia?
Professor Linda Bauld: Let me start with the first part of your question. Those data come from the Action on Smoking and Health survey covering Great Britain, which was funded by Cancer Research UK and conducted by YouGov for ASH. Those harm perceptions are really concerning to me because we do not want people who have never smoked or young people to be vaping but, from the evidence I have seen, if more of those 6 million smokers could switch to vaping, we would see health benefits. I think those misconceptions are largely driven by the media and some of the myths—the really harmful stories that get the front page. We need to deal with that and make sure that health professionals and others are empowered to give accurate advice about vaping. We have got a distance to run on that, and anything that the Bill can do to assist that would be welcome.
On whether people who are dual using, which is a significant proportion of smokers, are more likely to switch to smoking if we take action on, for example, removing point-of-sale displays or take other measures on vaping, I am actually not sure about that. The key point is that we need to continue to make smoking more expensive than vaping and to make sure that we address the availability of tobacco in our environment and in different settings. If we can keep that balance to show that vaping is a good option for cessation and is more affordable than cessation, while we keep doing the research on it, I would be optimistic that we are not going to see masses of smokers who are currently vaping to cut down just switch back to smoking in its entirety—hopefully.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Can I ask people to speak into the microphone if they can? We are often finding it difficult to pick things up, and the volume is on maximum as it is. Thanks.
Professor Linda Bauld: I think that the legislation, as currently put forward, is good. There are not areas where I would say that the research community—the colleagues I work with—would suggest that the right measures have not been put forward; I think they have been put forward. But I will come back to the point I made at the beginning: I think it is about the implementation, and making sure that we get that right.
Again, I would come back to the four F’s that I mentioned at the beginning. Just thinking about implementing this, I think there are things that need to be considered in how we sequence things. For example, in the last session, you heard from witnesses about the licensing scheme; we already have a register in Scotland that works pretty well, and we are going to move to a conditional register. As those licensing elements and so on have been consulted on, let us at least get retailers in England and Wales on a register, so that we know who is selling vapes and tobacco, until we move to that next step.
Thinking about the promotion aspects, and in-store promotion in particular, let me just give you one figure from a recent study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Stirling—the Cancer Research UK-funded vaper study. When they asked young people where they were seeing the promotion of vaping products, it was on shop fronts and in shops. At almost two thirds, that is the most common area where they see advertising promotion, and then on posters and billboards. There are also concerns about social media and so on. So, again, if you are thinking about what you might implement first, some of those in-store promotions are important. Then, on the product, I think that removing those promotional characteristics from the packaging and labelling is particularly important. Those are the kinds of things that I think need to be brought forward first, as well as thinking about really getting the regulation right.
The only other thing I would say is that, in terms of the different products in this Bill—and it is very flexible—let us not forget the categories that maybe you have not asked about yet. I think one colleague mentioned shisha, but there are also smokeless tobacco products, which are used in some of our communities in particular and which often get through the loopholes. I have done a number of studies on oral tobacco, which we know is very harmful and is linked to mouth cancers and head and neck cancers. So let us make sure that we just keep a focus on the range of tobacco products, even though the dominant product used is the cigarette.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: That is an interesting question. My colleagues at UCL did a study that looked at what happened when they raised the age of sale from 16 to 18. I have to be honest with you: at the time, the tobacco control research community would not have pointed to that as the most ambitious measure that you could do; we did not think that changing the age by just two years would make an impact. But, from the data, it actually created 1.3 million more people who could not be sold cigarettes. We also know that, at the same time, due to the action on illicit tobacco, which is really important, the amount of illicit tobacco consumed fell by about 25%. So it is about those two things in partnership: tackling illicit, which of course is really important, and changing the age of sale.
The promise of the smoke-free generation is more ambitious, however. Rather than just raising the age of sale by a few years, we are gradually changing it over time. That protects future generations, because we do not have the big jump to being suddenly ineligible to be sold cigarettes. To go back to the evidence in the annexe to the legislation, which shows the modelling done by my colleagues for the Department of Health and Social Care, it looks pretty robust. I think that this will have a big impact over time. I hope that is helpful.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: That is interesting. I think a similar question was asked earlier. I do not think that history bears that out. Often, a concern is that if we take action on one product, we displace youth use to other products. With action that we have taken on smoking over the years, we have not seen a dramatic increase in, for example, youth alcohol use or use of other legal products. There are still major issues with young people consuming alcohol but, actually, the number of young people drinking at harmful levels has reduced in recent years, at the same time as tobacco measures have been introduced over time.
I do not think that we will see a big displacement to other substances by introducing this set of measures, but we need to keep our eye on getting that balance right. In terms of the other products that we are concerned young people might use—obviously, there are illegal drugs, which we have separate legislation on, and we need to keep an eye on alcohol control for young people—all those things need to happen together. But I have not seen any evidence to suggest that taking this kind of action will cause some other public health issue that we need to be overly concerned about.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness, Professor Bauld, for her contribution. We will move on to the sixth panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Lord Michael Bichard and Wendy Martin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Lord Michael Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, and Wendy Martin, director of National Trading Standards. We have until 3.30 pm with this panel. As you can see, because both the earlier panels finished earlier than expected, we have a fair bit of extra time for these two witnesses, if they wish to use it or if Members wish to ask more questions.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Good afternoon. We will try to be provocative, so we can keep this going until half-past three. It is as long as a piece of string, in a way. If you compare the penalties to those in some other legislation, they are a bit low. On the other hand, trading standards can prosecute if we find, for example, that someone is a repeat offender, and then I think the fines are up to £2,500.
The only thing we thought might be possible would be to have a higher level of fine for a second offence. I think the first offence is a £90 fixed penalty, but you could have a couple of hundred for a second offence. But we enforce; we do not fix the fines—we just do what you tell us. It is not an unreasonable figure, although it certainly could go up, rather than down, and we could have something for a second offence. Also, we could take action through prosecution for someone who was constantly offending.
Dr Johnson
Wendy, do you have any thoughts—
Lord Michael Bichard: Sorry, I did not hear that. The sound is not—
Dr Johnson
Q
Wendy Martin: Lord Bichard has spoken about the rather varying levels of fines that do exist. The other point worth making is that the issuing of a fixed penalty notice is not automatic anyway. A lot of the work, especially around first offences, would be to try to support businesses with advice on how to comply with the law. It is not the case that, immediately you find something wrong, there will be a fixed penalty notice. There are a lot of drivers for compliance, especially with legitimate businesses that want to comply. As we said, prosecution is an option and you have the £200 fixed penalty, but for longer-term or egregious offences—definitely for repeat offences—prosecution through the magistrates’ court is likely to be an option.
Lord Michael Bichard: One of the problems with prosecution is that it costs money. Therefore, if you can train retailers not to offend, that is a better outcome than having to issue a fixed penalty. For local authorities in particular, with their resource situation being what it is, the last thing they want is more bureaucracy around fixed penalties, prosecutions and all the rest.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Do we welcome that? Yes, I do. It is our task to take a proportionate position. Some people make mistakes, and there is probably no point in even a fixed penalty notice if someone has just made a mistake. As Wendy has said, training is probably a better option. However, if someone is clearly determined to flout the law, you need to increase the penalties.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: This is not complex legislation. One of the points we want to make on behalf of trading standards is that we are used to doing this sort of stuff. We are used to doing it for tobacco and illicit cigarettes. It is not complicated. The main issue is, as you say, age identification. People are increasingly used to having to provide some identity or proof of age for all sorts of things. In terms of training retailers, that is about it: if they have any doubts, they need to seek identity.
Dr Johnson
Q
Wendy Martin: No training exists at the moment, because the law is not in place yet, but you are quite right that Challenge 25 is the industry standard in terms of current age-restrictive products, no matter what they are. Certain industry organisations, such as the Association of Convenience Stores or the British Retail Consortium, put on a lot of training programmes for members. There has been Government-funded training in the past. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute hosts a site called the Business Companion, which has good, simple guidance and information that is designed specifically for small businesses and is easy to read and digest.
There needs to be a change of mindset around needing to ask for a date of birth, rather than asking, “Are you 18?” There does need to be information out there, as long as it is not complex. It is a case of reinforcing that, but I think those routes do exist via those websites, industry groups and pre-existing information that needs to be updated. There should be as much communication as possible with the public and businesses as the Bill goes through and gets Royal Assent about what to expect and what is required.
Lord Michael Bichard: Again, we want it to be proportionate, because small businesses cannot afford to spend a huge amount of time in training rooms. I do not think personally that this requires profound, long-term training. It is pretty simple stuff. A lot of it can be done informally.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I try to make it a principle of my life not to go around asking for more money from Government or the Treasury, so that would not be my first response. However, you have to look at this in context. Trading standards resources have been reduced by about 50% over the last decade, and staffing in local authority trading standards has gone down by about 30% to 50%, so we start from a very low base.
The suggestion that has been made is that trading standards should get £10 million to implement and enforce the legislation. That sounds like a not unreasonable figure, but the way in which it is distributed is quite important. If it is going to be done on a one-year rolling basis, that makes it difficult for local authorities to employ staff; you need some stability if you are going to employ staff. We think that, if it will be £10 million, it needs to be on a four-year cycle so we know that for four years we have that money and can employ the staff.
The other issue to be concerned about is that local authorities that I know—I am a local authority man originally—have been under huge pressure. There is always a temptation to take whatever money is there and use it on the highest priority. If this money is to go to tobacco and vaping, I am afraid that it probably needs to be ringfenced. I know there are some local authority former members here who will not agree with that—I do not normally agree with it, because I think local authorities should have the space to make their own decisions—but if you want this money to go to tobacco and vaping, it will probably need to be ringfenced.
I will make two final points. I know it sounds like a detail, but quite a lot of money has to go on storage and disposal. We think it is about 50p to £1 for every vape. That has to come out of the £10 million. Finally—this is really important—some investment has to be made at ports of entry. That is probably the most important intervention of all. We depend on UK Border Force in particular to give us the intelligence to enable us to target our efforts. We are already responsible for product safety at ports, so we rely on UK Border Force. That needs to be properly resourced because, as you will appreciate, it has a lot of other important priorities. If it is going to be effective at port level, we feel that about 20% of whatever money we get needs to be spent there.
I say that with some knowledge, because I visited a couple of ports before Christmas just to see how the product safety stuff was dealt with, and I was pretty shocked. I went to Southampton and Dover, and I must say that on occasions I felt that whether or not we were successful was pretty random. As I say, we were often not getting the intelligence from UK Border Force to enable us to target our resource, and I understand why. We only have a very small number of staff at these ports. We should not underestimate how important port entry is and some money has to go to that. That is a long answer to your question: £10 million sounds like a lot, but if you put in storage, disposal and ports, that makes it look rather less generous, and it probably has to be ringfenced and done on a four-year basis if it is going to have an impact.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, that is a really helpful answer. We know that vapes are very difficult to dispose of and to recycle.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I think we do feel we will have the right powers, based on the fact that we are already doing some of this quite successfully. We seized something like 2 million vapes last year; we carried out 400,000 test purchases—which is how we check whether or not the legislation is being enforced—and we seized, I think, 19 million illegal cigarettes. So in a way, this is not new stuff for us; it is just bigger. We have the powers and we use them quite effectively. We know that HMRC thinks we are pretty effective in relation to tobacco. We like to think we are a good delivery agency.
Wendy Martin: There has been a lot of work in the development of the Bill and the associated Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs legislation around the ban on single-use vaping products with officials, so we have worked together with them to try to get this to a good place in terms of enforcement powers.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: No. Our experience of the illicit tobacco market is that it has reduced rather than increased, despite the additional regulation, the price rise and all the rest of it, so we do not think that is a serious issue. We think that there are a number of myths around illicit tobacco and illicit vapes that do not stand up to close scrutiny. So no, we do not think that is a serious problem.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Yes, I think we feel that. You might also consider an increase for second offenders before you move to prosecution. I do not think anyone wants to move to prosecution, because it is such a time-intensive process. I know we have limited time, but one thing we have not talked about is retailers. We also ought to be concerned about the online market—or rather, you should be concerned, as we are. It is a difficulty for us and for local authorities, because no single local authority thinks it should be responsible for enforcing legislation in an online marketplace.
We have a solution to that, which is that we have a lead authority that we think could deal with this and avoid the problem with individual local authorities. I think that will become an increasingly important element of the vape marketplace.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: It seems to me that it is now such a part of life that it is not as big a problem as it was; I think it is a problem that will diminish.
Wendy Martin: Certainly the retail violence is of concern and has been well publicised. It is clearly a policing issue rather than a trading standards issue. I guess it needs activity to make sure that everyone understands what is being done and why it is being done, and to make sure that there is a policing response, if possible, where there are issues. I know that local authorities work through community safety partnerships and things like that in local areas if there are particular incidents. Again, it is not specifically a trading standards response, but local authorities and local police forces will work together to do their best to address these things, because nobody wants anyone to be threatened with violence.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: We think it does. You have to look at the package, because you do not just have age regulation or display and promotion regulation; you also have the proposal for licensing—which, by the way, we do not see trading standards being equipped to do; that is a local authority business and, as a former local authority man, I would have to say “with the resources”, because there is always a danger that you give local authorities more power but you do not give them the money.
You have regulation, you have licensing and you have registration of products. If you put all that together, I think it is quite a powerful package, but it does need to be backed up with the resources, because it is delivering it that really matters. We are all used to legislation that sounds great and never gets delivered.
Wendy Martin: I agree; we think the balance is there, hopefully with good communication to businesses. Again, in a similar way, this is not going to be entirely new territory—certainly for those businesses that are already involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco in particular—in understanding where to go for support and the kind of controls that are in place. Certainly, if the changes are made to the product registration scheme, which should then make it more effective for businesses to be able to check that a product they are stocking is legal and compliant—if the package is right, as Michael said—it should not be too complex for businesses to comply with it.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Secondly, in the United States, you can have products with up to 60 mg-worth of nicotine; that is a standard product in the United States. In the UK, it is 20 mg, or significantly less. Is there an awareness within trading standards of just how much we are potentially out of kilter with some of the key markets that we are aligned to? Our limit is significantly lower than those of other major economies, so do you think that we might therefore have a problem with products perhaps coming in from other sources that are not the same as tobacco? Is that a concern for your Department?
Lord Michael Bichard: I will pass that one to Wendy, if it is not unfair. On the first point, you are right that we think that that is going to make regulation enforcement easier but I will have to leave the second question to Wendy, I am afraid.
Wendy Martin: Just to reinforce Michael’s point around the digital stamps, I am not close to this myself, but I know that trading standards colleagues who are operational experts in this field are working in response to the various HMRC consultations about the implementation of excise and tax stamps, and those sorts of things. I know those conversations are happening, and I think the view is that that kind of simple identification is really important for trading standards.
In terms of the 60 mg versus 20 mg, I am afraid I do not have any detailed knowledge of that personally, but I would certainly anticipate that those kinds of challenges and issues would be built into the guidance and information being put to officers and any planned training programmes once we know the final form of the Bill, the excise duty and all the other changes coming over the next few years as the Bill and other legislation progress. I am sorry that I do not have a detailed answer.
Lord Michael Bichard: But we can get it for you.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I do not want to sound complacent, because I am not. But this is something we are used to doing, so we do not see that as a major issue or a major problem. That is what we do.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: No, the point I was making was about enforcement.
Wendy Martin: To add to that, as part of the programme that DHSC has been funding for the last 18 months, we tested out a number of issues, and one was online under-age sales. I think we tested 312 purchases, and there was a 10% failure rate. That was significantly lower than premises-based sales. There was a lot in the platform’s corporate website design to try to ask the right questions and kick purchasers out. It is very much about who does it and who takes responsibility, rather than a major problem in itself.
We also work quite closely with the Advertising Standards Authority, and it does a lot around broadcast and published media, and website compliance and claims. That is quite a well-established mechanism for enforcement. It is about the structure of enforcement, as you have rightly identified.
Lord Michael Bichard: It is probably worth pointing out—it does not relate to the online point—that I said earlier that last year we carried out 4,000 test purchases, and 26% of those were failures. Compared to the 10% online, it is significantly higher. This is a very practical point, but some of the other changes that are going to happen will make it easier for us to do test purchasing. At the present moment, we can only use children or young people, so we have issues of safeguarding and we can only do it at certain times of the day. It should become easier, in that sense, for us to enforce the legislation.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: It will be enforced in the same way we enforce it for tobacco and other things. This is not new. Trading standards officers employed by local authorities are constantly visiting premises, and they will therefore deal with any offences that are being committed. They also have their own local intelligence networks. We cannot afford, because we do not have enough staff, to just have a random system where we pop in every now and then. We depend on people giving us intelligence. Some of those people are members of the public, and some are from other agencies. We try to target what we do. When you visit a shop—there are something like 60,000 outlets—you can see whether the current legislation, or future legislation, is being implemented. We can take action against the retailer if it is not.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Absolutely. I was going to say that if you are making a case for trading standards to have more resources, I am absolutely with you. I think that trading standards does an amazing job with limited resources. One borough in London now has no trading standards officers, and that is a great worry. We are there to protect consumers in all sorts of ways, but we are also there to try to establish a fair marketplace, so we are working on behalf of legitimate businesses. A lot of retailers want to support us in dealing with bad practice among their competitors. Yes, we need more resources.
Wendy Martin: Clearly, the responsibility is on businesses to comply with the law, first and foremost, and the hope would be that the vast majority of those outlets do so, because they are either part of bigger businesses with corporate structures to ensure compliance, or part of trading associations where that training and information is available. Generally, most people want to do the right thing. What that means is that the additional resources are necessary and can be focused on those sectors where there is intelligence from consumers, enforcers and other businesses—businesses will complain, and rightly so, about competitors who are flouting the law. That enables targeting, rather than feeling the need to try to inspect 60,000 or 70,000 premises. That would not work, and it does not need to work like that.
Lord Michael Bichard: Local trading standards officers know the problem retailers, where the problems are. I started my career doing prosecutions for trading standards, so I know a bit about how they work on the ground. They know where to target their efforts. I should also point out that there is a committed workforce here. Recently, we did a survey of the workforce, and 80% of them supported the legislation. It always helps.
The Chair
One final quick question from Jim Dickson, before we have to go on to the next panel.
Jim Dickson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I cannot see that it would not be useful, but it is not something that has come across my desk.
Wendy Martin: Mine neither, but intelligence-led enforcement means the more that intelligence is available, the better one is able to target. I do not know exactly what tobacco companies collect, but generally any intelligence is useful.
The Chair
I thank both panellists for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Inga Becker-Hansen gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Inga Becker-Hansen, who is policy adviser for retail products at the British Retail Consortium. For this panel we have until 3.50 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. The question was about age verification, I think—sorry, it is a bit quiet for me here.
Dr Johnson
Yes; what are the challenges in implementing the new regulations?
Inga Becker-Hansen: One of the key challenges of age verification is this idea of the rolling age for the smoke-free generation. At this point it is quite identifiable, with those under the regulation being 15, but in 30 years’ time if you have someone who is 45 versus 44 from the date of January 2009, it may lead to ID for each sale of a given product, if that makes sense. This will eventually lead to potential issues. Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop workers, so it is a real concern for retailers that that could be an issue in the future in terms of the smoke-free generation and the ageing of that generation.
We would also like to highlight that a digital ID could possibly make things easier. The Department for Business and Trade is promoting the use of digital ID for alcohol consumption. That could potentially be included as a means of age verification to make the process easier for the average consumer and member of the public.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Specifically for under 30 or 40 years old, I do not think we have anything. I imagine that with the Bill something would be implemented.
The Chair
Could I ask everybody to speak louder, please? The microphones are not very good at picking up the sound.
Inga Becker-Hansen: Okay, no problem. In terms of age verification for product sale, our members have lots of experience of the sale of tobacco and alcohol products. They have till prompts looking at the date of birth of the customer in the store. There are also badges, posters and mystery shoppers to ensure that they are compliant. Challenge 25 has been implemented since 2009, and our retailers are very compliant with it. There are due diligence procedures that are agreed with primary authorities. I imagine that in terms of identifying sales for people under 30 or 40, it would be a matter for retailers to discuss with their primary authority to identify the best route for that in store.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: In terms of the licensing scheme for smaller retailers, it is more about the administrative burden that there will be, and the cost of that. Smaller retailers may not have as much capacity with regard to the licensing scheme. It is quite difficult to comment on it at this point, because we do not know the full detail. If the licensing scheme were to bundle alcohol and vapes and tobacco, or if they are separate or together—those are all the kinds of questions your smaller retailers will have to take on board with regard to the licensing schemes and what they can and cannot provide for their customers.
It will affect revenue for smaller retailers, so it is something to bear in mind. There will be increased bureaucracy and increased costs. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss and contribute to the design of the scheme, but we do not know the full detail, so it is quite difficult to comment on how it will or will not affect smaller retailers specifically.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Retailers are quite comfortable with the licensing scheme for tobacco at this point. That is something we are used to as a whole. One aspect of it is the fact that your larger retailers, for example, who have multiple premises do not have to worry about individual licenses for those individual premises. That is something we are quite concerned about with the licensing scheme, and what that could mean. If individual licenses had to be applied for, that could lead to divergence across a retail brand, and that affects your overall public retail image for customers.
We would also like to highlight that if the licensing scheme were to follow something such as the tobacco licensing scheme—the idea that licensing authorities could approve or deny certain applications—that could affect long-standing, established, compliant retailers, and that could lead to a loss of revenue for them. We appreciate the need for the legislation. We appreciate the need for a level playing field, and that is what we would encourage through the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Currently, retailers are used to the idea of over the age of 18, simply because of tobacco and alcohol sales. The identification of January 2009 is more difficult, in terms of the rolling age and how that will look in the future. Currently, it is quite identifiable. I would say that January 2009 is more difficult for retailers to handle in the future per se.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Yes, currently that is true. However, in the future, if somebody walks into a store and they are 45 or 43, I would not be able to tell that at face value.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: From their ID, you would. What I am trying to say is that it raises the thing of eventually becoming “no ID, no sale”, which is a concept that retailers would have to follow. But it would also mean that consumer-wise, you would require a consumer-facing public awareness campaign to identify and illustrate to the general public that it is “no ID, no sale”, if that is the angle that the Government are focusing on.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Ideally, with a cohesive guideline illustrating to retailers how to implement the legislation. We would also encourage alignment across the regulations in terms of new regulations coming through, such as secondary legislation on the licensing scheme, and consultations on any secondary legislation so that both larger and smaller retailers may contribute their ideas. Ideally, there would be constant communication with industry to understand how these changes are made, as well as a public awareness campaign so that the public is aware of the changes, which would hopefully reduce any potential violence against or abuse of retail workers.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: We would like to see a licensing scheme as a level playing field where small, independent and larger retailers are viewed on the same level. Again, we would encourage the multi-stores to require only one licence rather than looking at individual premises licences, because that will make things more difficult.
In terms of the tobacco scheme, ideally things would be grouped together so that there is less administrative burden and therefore less cost for retailers, so that, if the aim for the Government is to transfer from the idea of selling tobacco to people to selling vapes because of the health benefits, that transition is made easier for retailers. Adding on an additional licensing scheme with additional costs and a separate administrative system makes it more difficult for retailers to handle those things at the same time, particularly smaller retailers and independents.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: It is a bit difficult for me to give you specific details, but in initial response my thinking would be that it would be a discussion between retailers and their primary authority and how that is handled, bearing in mind smaller retailers versus larger retailers. I am happy to follow up in writing and give evidence that way, but I cannot give specific details currently.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Again, I cannot give a conclusive answer at this point, but if you have different shops under one retailer that have different licensing schemes, it devalues customer confidence in the products they are selling across the country, if that makes sense.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Okay.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: If you have certain branches of a certain brand selling alcohol in one shop, and then in another shop, they are selling alcohol and vapes, when you are going to purchase your product, you will think, “Okay, I will just pop to the shop”, but they may not have exactly what you need. But if you see it as a national product per se for the brand, then you have confidence in going into the retailer.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Precisely. But then it should be up to the business or the retailer to decide that strategy for themselves rather than it being implemented.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: It is difficult for the BRC to comment on that, given that we are not public health experts or behavioural economics experts. I would therefore ask that you confirm that with public health experts, rather than the BRC.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Some of the challenges with the restrictions on advertising will be at the point of sale of products for some retailers. There is also a query from retailers about how recycling schemes for vapes can be implemented if they cannot be advertised, and about how the Bill and the Government can support recycling initiatives alongside the reduction in advertising of vapes. Retailers appreciate the need to restrict advertising. Again, there is this idea of creating a level playing field among all retailers, rather than focusing on specific ones.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Again, I do not have specific details, so I cannot comment. I am happy to follow up in writing.
John Whitby
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: I think the key would be guidance for retailers on implementation and how the measures will be carried out. Again, there is the idea of encouraging a consumer-facing public awareness campaign that highlights the new restrictions and the safeguards for shop and retail workers so that, when the new regulations go through, the public are aware of the changes.
In any new secondary legislation, we would encourage alignment within the regulations themselves and across the devolved nations so that it is clear and consistent.
The Chair
We can squeeze one more in if anybody wants to ask a question. I thank the witness for giving evidence.
Examination of Witness
Matthew Shanks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Matthew Shanks, who is the chair of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group and chief executive of the Education South West multi-academy trust. For this panel, we have until 4.10 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: That is quite a large question, but I can answer it from an anecdotal point of view and from talking to colleagues around the country.
Vaping is a bigger problem than smoking within schools. Children who would not contemplate smoking—sporty children, dancers and so on—engage in vaping because they see it as harmless. It is easily accessible. It is very difficult to detect in schools in a way that cigarette smoking is not. It is seen as very fashionable in terms of the way it is advertised and promoted. I am not saying that this is happening in every school, every day, but we can report instances of children going out of lessons to vape in toilets or various places. Vaping is difficult to catch, because there is no smell, unless they use bubblegum, grapefruit or other such flavours. It is having a huge impact on discipline within schools—on ensuring that children are in lessons, or are in school in the morning on time, and not off-site at lunch time looking for places to vape and so on.
Dr Johnson
Q
It is difficult to prove what is in vapes. Again, there are instances of vapes containing illegal substances, but that is difficult to prove, because of their small size and where they can be secreted or hidden. There is evidence out there of drugs being contained in vapes—snus or Spice in the vapes—being quite addictive. Any kind of addiction leads to misbehaviour, particularly if you put that into secondary schools or among older children in primary schools.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: To speak frankly, those vapes are not marketed at 40-year-old people who are trying to give up smoking. I do not think that vaping is marketed at people who are giving up smoking—it is not a cessation tool: it is a tool to encourage young people to engage in something else. I have talked before about this—it is almost the gateway from chewing gum to the next stage. Half a mile down the road, if you walk towards Trafalgar Square, a shop on the right-hand side—I passed it walking in—is full of colourfully arranged vapes, which do not look harmful; it looks like a sweet shop.
Marketing and selling a vape that looks like a mini pen drive or a highlighter is only done so it can be secreted and make it difficult to catch students with them. We have had instances where part of the vape can be slipped into a bra, so we cannot search and find it. As I was saying, it is difficult to know what is in the vapes or whether people are actually vaping, which leads to confrontation between teachers, children and parents.
More recently, one of the things we have found is that, although they are still fashionable, we have seen a lack of fashionableness around the single-use vapes, because of the impact on the environment and the hope that they will be banned. There is far more reluctance—with arguments caused—among children and parents not wanting to give up larger vapes, because they have paid for them, and that therefore brings parents into conflict with teachers when they want to claim back their children’s vapes. Sometimes those vapes are their parents’ vapes or, sometimes, vapes that they have spent a lot of money on. My view and that of colleagues that I am representing is that vapes are not being advertised to help people to cease smoking; they are being advertised to encourage people to take up a habit.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: At the moment, there is a vacuum around an understanding of what vaping is and what it can and cannot do. I cannot talk to the health aspects, because I am not a health expert, but it is something that is not clear. Because it is not clear, that is enabling children to engage in it and parents to encourage children to engage in it. There are instances of parents giving it as a reward because it is not a cigarette and they therefore see it as being “safe”. I think the Bill will help with that.
What is really important is the messaging and the education around the harm that vaping can do to young people and to adults as well. We need to bring it back to the original reason why vaping came about in the first place, which, as far as I was concerned, was about ceasing smoking. Lots of my friends took up vaping to cease smoking. They do not vape any more or smoke, but lots of children vape who would never contemplate smoking.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: Children are very clever, and they will find a way round. On the other hand, far be it from me to sit here as a teacher and talk about funding, but vape detectors would cost money. Smoke detectors are in schools anyway, so it is far simpler. I think children will find a way around it. We saw a real decrease in cigarette smoking with the advertising and marketing. I have been teaching for 30 years, and we saw a decrease in that, but you cannot win an argument at the moment with parents or children talking about the dangers of vaping. That is the hardest thing.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes—very much so.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: I think it will, but for some it will not unless it has the education behind it as well. I also think it is too easy for children to purchase vapes. It is all very nice to think of shopkeepers not allowing children to buy vapes or tobacco if they are under age. I am not denigrating them, but we have instances, for example, of a year 9 child who had a loyalty card for a vape shop. She is 13 years of age—she did not look 18—yet she is being sold that at the local shop. You go in and talk to the local shop and they say that no, of course they have not sold it to her, and then there is conflict there. We need to look at the legality of it and sterner punishment, for want of a better word, for people who are found to be selling.
The drop box online purchasing industry also needs to be looked at. I do not know how, but again, we know that people purchase vapes from those places. The education side is for parents, because parents and older brothers and sisters think it is safe and will therefore give them a vape. The Bill will help, but there are other things that could help as well.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Packaging and flavouring is really important. As I said before, it is set out as if it were sweets and bubblegum. Why would you need these different flavours? Why are they making something more attractive that is meant to help you stop doing something, so that if you do not like one flavour, you can try lots of them, and collect the different coloured vapes, or build them up into towers? Addressing all those things would help. Linking vaping with smoking, in terms of not being able to purchase it as you go up the age range, would also help.
Vape-free zones are really important. People are vaping indoors. I have seen it today in London on the tube, in pubs and other places—I have not been in a pub today, by the way; that was over the Christmas period, but people are vaping in pubs in the way they used to with cigarette smoke. Again, it is not seen as something dangerous.
If you put all that out there and then put children into the mix and they are looking up and seeing the colourful packaging, the flavouring and so on, why would they not do this?
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes. My question would be: why would we not?
The Chair
Looking at the number of Members who wish to ask questions and the amount of time that we have left, I ask Members to be short in their questions and the panellist to be short in his answers.
Liz Jarvis
Q
Matthew Shanks: I would say yes to the second point, but I would aim the campaign at everybody, because we also need to educate parents to get them to understand. On the first point, I think people who want to find ways of rewarding people to get them to join things that are not appropriate will find something, and vapes are something that is being used at the moment. I am not saying that this Bill will stop that happening, because people will always find ways, but it will certainly help the majority of people to see that vaping is not something they should engage with.
Dr Beccy Cooper
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes, I think the online area is hugely influential for children. It is where they spend a lot of their time—a huge amount of their time—so it would be really good if this Bill could look at that as well. I do not receive any online marketing adverts for vaping, but I am not 13 years old. I bet if I was, I would, so I think that is an element to look at.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Matthew Shanks: I think the appearance and location of vape shops are important, so there could be better regulation around that. We have talked already about sponsorship bans. We have talked about raising the age of sale for vapes. I think vape packages should have the same kind of warnings that cigarette packages have on them. I really think so, because at the moment, they do not—and why would they not, if it is a cessation? “You are going to stop that, but you could still get this, so actually, we want to stop that.” Ultimately, that is what we should be aiming for.
I think the young people parenting support provisions are engaged in that, because as I have said, parents see this as a way of enticing children back into school or helping them or taking away an argument. You have to appreciate that I am not criticising parents, because they have a tricky job to get them back in. They see this as something safe and think they are caring for their child, so if we make it clear that actually it is not, that will be really important.
I have talked about vape detectors being useful in schools, but would it not be good if actually these things were banned? Then they could not be there. From that point of view, I think it is important.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes, but not on its own. It would help, but people will find a way to get something if they want it—we know that. The price hike without the education might increase other instances of unpleasantness between people, such as bullying, bribing, theft and so on. It has to come alongside education. The whole message needs to be that vaping is not something for children to engage in. It is something to help people to stop smoking. That is my view and the view of educators.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: It is not that they are not an issue—
Euan Stainbank
I meant that I was pretty surprised that they are such a predominant issue. I would have presumed that disposable vapes were the predominant issue.
Matthew Shanks: Oh yes, they are a huge issue.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: The reason disposable, single-use vapes are more popular is that there is less to carry, so it is easier to secrete, hide and get rid of. Refillable vapes are fiddly to fill up, for a start. That is something that is not appealing, if you do not have that speed—I am conjecturing here around it. However, the flavours and colours are certainly something that influences and impacts children using vapes. As I say, I think the size of the single-use, disposable vapes is an issue. We have said, for example, that single-use vapes are banned anywhere on site, which means that parents cannot bring them in as well. What we have then seen in some of our schools is more children bringing in their parents’ vapes, and when you catch them with those, that brings conflict in. I was not trying to imply that people were not still using them, we just cannot necessarily know.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: At the moment I would take anything that is not coloured and does not make it look like it is candy, to be honest, in the American version. They are like sweets, and when you walk in to shops, they are in your face with the way they are placed. They are not behind a screen shutter. Yes, the health benefits are not known in the same way, but I would like to see a move towards that for packaging. I would welcome anything that tells children that this is not something that is safe or recreational or a reward, and it will not help them to have a better life or to study better within school because it relaxes them—all those things.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: No, with the refillable ones it is the way that the flavours are displayed, as well. It is not just the disposable vapes; it is all vaping. You can go into a shop with a refillable and buy four different flavours in four different colours to refill at a different time, and you all have a different toke of a different type of flavouring. That is exciting and different, because it is a reward and it is pleasant and it can help you to be calm.
The Chair
I thank Matthew Shanks for his evidence today. It has been very interesting and stimulating for those of us who do not know much about vapes. I am sure we will take a lot of what he said into consideration in our deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Dr Laura Squire OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
Now that things have settled a bit, I welcome Dr Laura Squire OBE, from whom we will now hear evidence. She is chief healthcare quality and access officer for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For this panel, we have until 4.30 pm, which is obviously 20 minutes.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Laura Squire: Thank you very much for that question—I welcome the chance to answer it. As you say, we are a healthcare products regulatory agency. That is what we are about. When a medical product comes to us, it has a medical purpose. For example, it might be something that is prescribed to help someone deal with issues of nicotine withdrawal and to get them off a product. That would be licensed as a medicine because the active ingredient in it is a medicine. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 sometimes come into that too.
In order to give a licence to a product such as that, the manufacturer that has produced it will need to give us a dossier that has clinical and quality evidence in it—all sorts of things that go through a detailed assessment by our very skilled assessors, some of whom are medics and some of whom are skilled in pharmacy and also look at quality.
It is important to say that when we license any medical product, we do not say, “This product is safe.” We consider the risks and benefits of the product, and if the benefits outweigh the risks, we will give it a licence. We always say that medicines are not safe things, so if you do not need them for the benefits, do not take them.
The approach that we take on consumer products is very different. That is not an assessment process; it is a notification scheme that we undertake under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, whereas before I was talking about the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medical Devices Regulations. Under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, we basically have a notification scheme. The manufacturer of a consumer e-cigarette would have to come to us and show that the product has the 20 mg, and that the refill container has no more than 10 ml, and then there are some limited labelling requirements. But we do not inspect or test that product; it is a data check to see whether those things are true, and then it goes on to the register. It is a very simple notification scheme, which is very helpful in terms of having a single record of what is out there on the market, but it is nowhere near the sort of assessment that we would do if it were a prescribed product that was proven to help people stop smoking.
The other role, once any product within our remit is on the market, is post-market surveillance. We have something called the yellow card scheme—people may have heard much more about it during the pandemic—whereby anybody can report a problem with a product. That covers consumer vapes, medical e-cigarettes and other nicotine-containing products that we might license.
We examine all the reports that we get, and if there is a signal that there is a problem, we sometimes issue a safety communication. We did that a couple of years ago when there was some evidence of lung damage. We have that role, and we often co-operate with other organisations where there is a need for enforcement. We heard from trading standards earlier, which does that. The roles are very different.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I do not have any evidence of that, but it does worry me. We are an organisation that is about healthcare products, medicines, medical devices and blood products—that is our business—and it concerns me that people might think that vapes are safe. When I talk about risk-benefit, what I mean is that vapes are safer than tobacco; I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. However, vapes are not safer than nothing—and we do not actually know how unsafe vapes are, because there is a need for much longer-term study and understanding of the damage that they could cause.
My feeling is that, yes, there is potentially a misleading position with an organisation like ours, which is basically about healthcare products, running this scheme.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I think we heard earlier about the different elements you need to make something work—licensing, regulations and registration—and I agree with that. I think it was also mentioned that registration is important to allow compliant businesses to check that the product that they have is compliant.
The significant problem with the notification scheme at the moment is that there is not an easy way to take something off the register once it is already on it. That is a problem, because if people are checking the current register, there might be something on it that we would quite like to take off but cannot.
There are powers to take things off the shelves, so if there was a recall issue, that could be dealt with. However, the main problem, or the primary thing in the Bill that I think needs to change, is having powers to take things off the register. Obviously, we must consult on the regulations themselves, but we welcome that change.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I think somebody talked earlier about the package; the Bill is more than the notification scheme, and I think the whole thing works together to make a much safer environment. I was particularly pleased to see that there is a requirement to carry out studies and a requirement to carry out testing. We are sometimes asked about testing. Testing at the point of registration is one thing, but you need to know that the product remains compliant.
Obviously, there must be consultation about exactly what will go into the regulations, but I would expect that there would be an awful lot more linked to the other requirements of the Bill, and that will make it tighter. I think that would be an improvement, because at the moment the Bill is very light-touch.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: For a medicines licence?
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: That is a difficult one. We had one product that was given a medicines licence in 2015, but it has never been marketed. We continue to try to encourage people to come forward to get medicines licences. However, the reality is that there is such a huge discrepancy between what you can do with a consumer product if you are a manufacturer, in order to get it out there and get it on the market, and what you would have to do to get a licence for it as a medicine—and that is quite right.
What this scheme does is to make it more demanding to be a manufacturer of a consumer product and put more requirement on it. To a certain extent, that reduces the differential between the two, which is welcome. We really continue to encourage people to come forward and talk to us about licensing products. One of the things that will be interesting is the impact this will have on the narrative out there—which was talked about by the previous witness—that vapes are safe. This will perhaps change that narrative and make people realise. All I can say is that we stand ready for more applications for medical licences. We put out some detailed guidance in 2022 to try to encourage manufacturers to do this, and we actually have one coming through the pipeline at the moment. So it will be interesting to see but hard to predict.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: With the current notification scheme, we have the resource that we need to do that. As the registration scheme becomes more detailed and demanding, and as there is more in it, I would expect that to require more resource. That is something that we need to continue talking to the Department of Health about as it develops the policy, and we will do that.
Also, as part of that, the impact on us will depend on not only what is in the regulation but who does it. I know that there are conversations about where it is best done, and there are registrations for other consumer products that already exist, so there are conversations happening with the Office of Product Safety and Standards. It is important to learn from those sorts of schemes that are already happening. Where that goes is a policy decision for the Department of Health and Social Care, and we will continue to work with it. I think it would also involve being clear about what resources we might need if we carry on and need more. At the moment, we have what we need to do what we need to do under the current law.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: They would do if it was a licensed product.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: There are not, which is why that is the way we would prefer to do it. Again, if we licensed these consumer products as a medicine, there are very strict requirements on labelling and on what needs to be given to the patient to explain what the product is and its risks. That is not there with these consumer cigarettes. It is going to get stricter under the new rules, but my preference would be that we give people more information.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Dr Laura Squire: It depends on what happens with the actual regulations. At the moment, we do not have powers to test consumer e-cigarettes—that power sits with trading standards. Again, if we license something as a medicine, we go into absolute detail about what is in it. At the moment, it depends on what is in the regulations that come round. We do not do testing at the moment, and it would be important to think about the point at which any testing is done. If it is done at the point where something goes on to the register, that is fine and it tells you that the sample we saw at that point was compliant. But what happens later down the track? I think the role that trading standards has in doing that testing is really important, because it can do it post-market at any point. The question really is about the role of the MHRA—a medicines and healthcare products agency. Is it getting deeper into these consumer products where the risk is not outweighed by the benefits? That is an uncomfortable position for a medicines regulator.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I do not have a view on whether a vape should be a medicinal product. I have a view on the role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in regulating products that are not medical products, which is a little confusing at the moment. As I said, when something is a medical product, as with any medicine, you would not take it if you were not ill, because the benefits are not outweighed by the risks. That is really my point. I am pleased to see the strengthening in this area. There are conversations that are still to happen, as the consultation goes through and we understand exactly what the new registration scheme will involve, as to the best people to do this, to give the right message out to the public.
The Chair
Are there any more questions to this panellist? If not, I thank Dr Squire on behalf of the Committee. I am sure that a lot of your evidence will be taken into consideration.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Steve Turner and Professor Sanjay Agrawal gave evidence.
The Chair
For this panel we have Professor Steve Turner, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Professor Sanjay Agrawal, the special adviser on tobacco at the Royal College of Physicians. We have until 4.50 pm for this panel.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Steve Turner: I will answer that question. Thank you for accommodating me; I have flown a long way. I thank Professor Bauld for reshuffling the order of the panels. I am passionate about this issue, and I am grateful to be able to contribute.
Vaping is harmful for children, and the evidence is accumulating. Vapes contain nicotine, which is harmful to us as human beings. You have heard previously from Matthew Shanks of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group about the impact of vaping on children’s education. There are evidences of children coming to harm from vaping devices bursting into flames. There is a lot of talk about something called popcorn lung, which fortunately is very rare, but it is very serious and can affect children who vape. Collectively, there is already a substantial burden of evidence that vaping is harmful for children.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The Royal College has 24,000 paediatricians in the UK and overseas, so we are a substantial college. We strongly support the Bill as it is. We believe that it provides the right protection for the most vulnerable members of our society—our children, who are our future—and that it is proportionate. We think the Bill as it stands addresses all the concerns that you just raised, and others.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: The majority of adults who vape have smoked, so they are using vapes to quit smoking. The amount of research that looks at populations who have never smoked, who have only vaped, is actually quite small—the longitudinal studies are still not there. We know from shorter-term studies that vaping can lead to things like coughing and throat irritation, but it is important to consider the alternative, which is continued smoking.
I estimate that, in the roughly 30 years since I qualified and started professional practice, about 3 million people in the UK have died from smoking tobacco. The intensive care unit in which I work and the lung cancer clinics that I do are full of people who have come to harm from accrued smoking. There should be no doubt that smoking combusted tobacco is the key thing that we want to prevent future generations being subjected to. There are still 6 million smokers in the UK, and we need to help as many of them as we can to stop smoking. Vaping is one means by which they can stop smoking, and that is really important.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: There are a few things to unpack there. First, a lot of people who smoke and who want to give up use vapes because they have tried other products and have not been able to give up, be that nicotine replacement therapy or tablet pharmacotherapy. One thing those people want to get away from is the taste of tobacco, and having flavours allows them to do that. Actually, other NRT products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours—it is not just vapes. Flavours are an integral part of helping people to get away from smoking.
Equally, as we know, flavours attract young people to smoking, so it is really important that we limit the number of them. However, the flavour descriptors are perhaps more important: I think we need to make them bland. The Bill, as it stands, provides powers to restrict all sorts of elements related to vaping, such as the number of flavours, the descriptors, the packaging, the appeal and the advertising. Having bland descriptors and eliminating flavours that we know are popular among children would be really helpful.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: First, there is good survey evidence of what is popular among adult smokers who are using vapes to try to quit, so that is one helpful factor. Then there are flavourings that are potentially associated with harm. Cinnamaldehyde has been associated with harm, so that would be one, for example, that you would remove.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: No.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Smoking is bad whether you are an active smoker or a passive smoker. Sadly, there are lots of children who still actively smoke, but there are many hundreds of thousands of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home. There is undeniable evidence that that exposure is harmful. I do respiratory paediatrics. Asthma admissions are very common and are clearly associated with exposures.
We can look at natural experiments. For example, in Scotland we had the “Take it right outside” campaign, which was a smoke-free homes initiative. After that, there was a reduction in the number of children coming into hospital. When we brought in the ban on smoking in cars in Scotland, there was another reduction. On that whole-population basis, there is a lot of evidence of benefit to the population, particularly children, from smoking interventions. There are also benefits to the birth weight of children.
There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of harm from second-hand smoke, and anything that reduces the population’s exposure to second-hand smoke will benefit the whole population. As we heard earlier from Matthew, the headteacher, it is part of a package, and it is part of education as well. Smoking continues to be something that children should not do. Children should never vape. Children should never smoke. They continue to do so, and anything that we as a responsible society can do to stop that is to everybody’s benefit.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Children are very susceptible and can be easily influenced, and they are learning all the time. If they see that it is okay to watch your child’s football match and smoke, or to smoke outside a pub, they will very quickly adapt and think that that is a social norm. There is a powerful social norm exercise there about what we as a society expect is normal, and approving smoking outside hospitals seems to be such a bad, conflicting message. To me, that argument in itself is very powerful.
There were a number of people back in the early noughties who felt that the smoke-free legislation might not have much benefit on pregnancy—why on earth would that reduce low birth weight and premature delivery? Well, it did. That was probably the snowballing effect of stopping smoking in pubs, for example—I think the whole of society changed its attitude and behaviour around smoking. So, going back to the original question, I think that putting restrictions in public spaces will change that social norm to everybody’s benefit.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: That is a really good question. I think that the balance in this Bill—between supporting the 6 million smokers to quit and not engaging children in nicotine addiction—is the right balance. Going back to what I was saying earlier, getting the message across to young people is a multifaceted intervention that requires education as well as legislation. It is a really difficult balance, but I do believe that the Bill, as it is, has that balance just right.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The impact on the whole of society of second-hand smoking in children is complex, but there are various pieces of the jigsaw. First of all, children come to the clinic, are admitted to hospital, come to the emergency department, or go and see the GP, so there is that healthcare side. If any of you have children, however, when your child is off school, that has implications for you as a family; there are some difficult discussions over breakfast about who is going to work and who is not. Therefore, there are a number of different impacts on us as a society, economically and to the NHS from second-hand smoking.
I am not clever enough to put a number on it, but it is a lot bigger than I think people know. I do know that £46 billion is the number cited as the direct health cost to the NHS of smoking—it is almost too big to consider—but I suspect that the wider societal cost will probably be a magnitude greater than that.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home are over-represented among children with respiratory symptoms. Parents do not want their children to smoke, so they feel torn. They are conflicted: they are addicted to nicotine, but they do not want their children to smoke, and having a smoke-free generation will address that almost impossible parental conflict.
John Whitby
Q
Professor Steve Turner: I support the Bill as it stands. I think that the onus has to be on the vendor not to sell, not on criminalising the customer or the child.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
I am particularly thinking about vaping here, given that I think there is pretty unanimous agreement on the tobacco side. Therefore, just on vaping, is there any more that you think the Bill could do, not necessarily in terms of vaping as a cessation tool to support the transition from smoking, but in terms of preventing people—obviously children, but even just adults—from beginning that journey and vaping in the first place?
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: From my standpoint, there are the online harms—for example, through social media, gaming and music videos. It is a wild west out there—regarding both tobacco and vapes, actually—and there are lots of depictions that lure people in. There is a lot of advertising and promotion of both tobacco and vaping products. I think that that online and social media area is the one area that we could do much more with. That would strengthen the Bill further.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: I have not yet had the chance to say this, but first, I think the Bill is really well balanced. It is bold and world leading; all nicotine products and non-nicotine containing vapes are part of it. The people who put this together should be congratulated, but we also have to be aware that industry never sleeps. It will try to adapt to regulation and legislation, and we need to be wary of that and make sure that we use the powers in the Bill in the future, depending on how industry responds.
For example, with disposable vapes, which are due to be banned later this year, I am sure that there will be a lot of companies right now changing their products to make them look as though they are not disposable vapes when, to all intents and purposes, they are. There will be lots of adaptation by industry that we must be wary about. The Bill provides those future powers for us to adapt to industry.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Touching on what I have said before, there are communities, invariably the poorer communities, in something called the tobacco map. If you look at the areas where tobacco use is greatest, it maps totally on top of deprivation. We have an opportunity to break that generational social norm of, “It’s okay to smoke.” The people who come to the greatest harm from cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction are invariably the poorest. What is proposed here will be a good step towards narrowing the divide we see in this country in health outcomes, which is totally determined by poverty.
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: We estimate that around 350 children a day start to smoke. A lot of those will be from the most deprived communities. In addition, smoking in the UK brings around a quarter of a million families into poverty, and those families have children. The Bill will go a long way to not only reducing the health harms to individuals, but reducing poverty and hopefully smoking-related deprivation.
To answer one of the questions earlier about the cost of smoking to the NHS, it is estimated that it costs secondary care about £1 billion a year. With primary care in addition, that is a total cost of £2.6 billion to the NHS, around £20 billion a year to social care, and about £50 billion a year in lost productivity. That is the overall cost of smoking to our society, whether at the level of the individual, poverty, deprivation, social care or workforce productivity, and that is why the Bill is so important.
Jim Dickson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: These additional measures warn people away from smoking—those who might be looking at the packaging or the individual cigarette. Remember, an individual cigarette—every time someone takes out a cigarette—is an advertisement for cigarettes. Lots of times, children are sold cigarettes on a per-cigarette basis, and they have never actually seen the packet; they have only seen the cigarettes. Therefore, having on-cigarette warnings is another measure that we can introduce to warn people off the harms of smoking. It would be great to see that.
The Chair
I was incorrect; we have until 5 o’clock, rather than 4.50 pm, which is now. Do we have any more questions from Members? No. In that case, I thank Professor Turner and Professor Agrawal for giving evidence, which I am sure will be useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The next panellist happens to be the Minister. Instead of asking questions, he will come under fire from his own Committee.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Gwynne MP gave evidence.
The Chair
For the record, our final witness is Andrew Gwynne MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention at the Department of Health and Social Care. We have until 5.20 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Thank you for that question. I was not actually on the Bill Committee when the previous iteration of this measure went through Parliament, because I was the shadow Social Care Minister—I had been bumped away from public health, only to return to it in government.
The starting point is a recognition that the previous Government brought forward a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was incredibly foresighted of them. I thank those—including you—who supported that proposed legislation. We have to be mindful of the fact that the first thing we are seeking to do is to make the United Kingdom smoke-free, and smoke-free as soon as possible. As we heard from the chief medical officers from the various nations that make up the United Kingdom, tobacco is a killer. Our first target has to be driving down the instances of smoking and, as a consequence, of tobacco-related death and illness, and the harms caused by second-hand smoking. That is why the measures in so far as tobacco is concerned are far weightier than the measures in respect of vaping.
The other thing I would like to say in answer to your question—this is an important point; we are concerned about nicotine addiction—is that we need to get the balance right. We recognise that vaping is an important smoking cessation tool—as the CMO said, not all countries share that point of view, but in the United Kingdom we see it as an important part of the package to help people to quit smoking. There has been a very successful scheme in this country, the Swap to Stop initiative, and that is an important part of this.
We are really concerned about the scourge of child and youth vaping, however, and that is why we think that the measures in the Bill are proportionate, because we are tackling a specific issue: stopping children taking up vaping and trying to dissuade adults who have never smoked from taking up vaping. As the CMOs have said, vaping is better than smoking, but not vaping and not smoking is the best option of all.
This is a proportionate measure. As you know, we are seeking quite far-ranging powers, and that is to ensure that, across the four nations, we can react as industry reacts to these changes so that this Bill will be future-proof. If we were overly prescriptive, we would then have to come back to Parliament with further primary legislation. While we are not seeking to be nicotine free at this moment in time, there will be powers in the Bill that allow, at some stage in the future, the Governments that make up the United Kingdom to consult to go further. The aim now is to stop smoking, to get to our smoke-free targets and to crack down on childhood vaping.
Dr Johnson
Q
My other question is about advertising. You will be aware that I put forward an amendment to the Conservative Bill to try to restrict advertising, because I think it is important to try to restrict advertising to children. How will health professionals who are promoting vaping as an alternative to smoking specifically in a medical setting, not necessarily on the tube or the side of a bus, be protected from being criminalised?
Andrew Gwynne: This is an area in which this Bill really does build on the previous Government’s iteration of the Bill. I want to take the politics out of it and thank Members such as yourself who really pushed this last time round. We are able to do this because it was a commitment of the Labour party in the 2024 manifesto that we would ban the advertising of vapes and the promotion of vapes in sponsorship. There is 75% support for an advertising ban on vapes.
In terms of being able to promote vapes as a quit aid, of course, you will have read in part 6 of the Bill that it is only an offence if advertising is done in the course of business. That excludes the promotion of vapes as a quit aid. That is something that hopefully you will welcome.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Oh, you will get me on my hobby horse, having mentioned bongs. All tobacco products will be covered by the measures in this Bill. Shisha is covered. Shisha is a harmful product, as are other tobacco products. In respect of paraphernalia, I have raised with officials and colleagues in the Home Office what I see as a potential issue: if this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, and there is further consultation on the packaging and display of vapes, we could end up with a situation where vapes, like cigarettes and other tobacco products, are hidden behind cabinets in plain packages, but those same newsagents have bongs in the window. I am assured by my officials that bongs and grinders can also be used for the consumption of tobacco, and therefore will fall within the scope of the measures in this Bill in that they will not be able to be displayed.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Well, we cannot easily do so. The powers in the Bill mean that we have a statutory duty to consult. As we have already heard, Wales already covers the areas that we wish to consult on in respect of England. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have their own consultations. But as far as England is concerned, the Government have been very clear that, should this Bill pass, we will consult on implementing smoke-free areas outdoors around children’s playgrounds and schools and outside hospitals.
Given the media interest and speculation over the summer as to outdoor areas to which the Government might extend the outdoor restrictions, including hospitality, it would not be possible for any Government to just wake up one day and decide they were going to extend these measures to x, y and z and for nobody to notice. It would be on the front cover of every newspaper and all over X, Facebook, Bluesky and other social media. People would be very aware of a Government’s intentions to extend outdoor smoking and we would be under a statutory duty to consult and to pursue secondary legislation, which is ultimately subject to a vote of the House.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is a really important question. It is why, at every opportunity today, I have been asking those with an interest in public health in Wales what lessons we can learn. We want to get this right. The reality is that alongside the package of enforcement we will bring forward—the registration; the licensing scheme; the fixed penalty notices—we have to approach this with a degree of proportionality, particularly to ensure that there is as good a compliance with the regulations as possible.
Most people are law-abiding citizens, and we saw with the indoor smoking ban introduced in 2006-07 that most people complied from day one. I really expect that most people will comply in respect of children’s playgrounds, schools and hospitals. I would hope that the enforcement agencies use a degree of discretion and proportionality at the outset to ensure that those not complying understand that they are potentially breaking the law and should stop doing what they are doing.
The Chair
We have about 15 minutes left, and five Members wish to ask questions. Could they do that briefly, and could we have brief answers too?
Liz Jarvis
Q
Andrew Gwynne: The short answer to both those questions is yes. We have committed to an investment across HMRC, trading standards and Border Force of £100 billion over the next five years to enforce these measures—sorry, it is £100 million. The Treasury will be having a fit; I am getting my billions and millions wrong. I wish it was £100 billion.
As far as public health campaigns are concerned, just this week we committed £70 million for smoking cessation. For this new year, I have signed off a concerted public health campaign for smoking cessation on social and broadcast media. As this Bill progresses and becomes law, there will be a huge public health publicity campaign so that everybody is aware of our Smokefree 2030 target ambitions.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Secondly, could you make a wider comment on the historical context of the Bill? In 2006, it was a Scottish Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament who set in train some of the processes that we are trying to finish today. Over those 14 to 15 years, we have seen many positive short-term and long-term public health outcomes. What do you think will be history’s judgment on this portion of that journey?
The Chair
Could you make the answer shorter than the question?
Andrew Gwynne: Those are two very good questions. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation. I think it will be the biggest advance in public health for a generation. It will be a truly historic thing. What a wonderful thing to say that, in the near future, no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be able to be sold tobacco. That leads me on to your first point: tobacco is a killer. It kills about 80,000 people in this country a year. It is responsible for a quarter of all cancers. It puts enormous pressure on our NHS and our economy.
The death rate for somebody in a more deprived part of our country is more than two times higher as a consequence of smoking. There is no reason beyond smoking why the life chances of somebody living and growing up in Richmond are so much better than those of somebody growing up and living in Blackpool. It is because the smoking prevalence for somebody growing up in Richmond is about 4.6%, whereas for somebody living in Blackpool it is over 20%. This will save lives. This will narrow health inequalities. That is what all of us, irrespective of our parties, were brought here to do.
Dr Cooper
Q
Andrew Gwynne: We wanted to have a proportionate approach. We recognise the difficulty that the hospitality sector has gone through and is in. We listened to the voices of concern. I cannot speak for ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but, as far as England is concerned, we decided that we wanted to target outdoor smoke-free places to areas where children and the most vulnerable people are likely to be. That leads to the logical conclusion that we should target the outside of hospitals, where a lot of vulnerable people go through the doors, outside schools and outside children’s playgrounds.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
Andrew Gwynne: It is. The four nations that make up our United Kingdom have gone at different speeds and to different depths in terms of tobacco control over recent years. Zubir was absolutely right to point out that it was the Scottish Labour Government that first introduced the indoor smoking ban, and we followed suit soon after, but it is really important that the four nations stand together on this, not least because some of this does require a four-nation approach in legislative terms. It also means that we can meet this ambition together, and that we are all in this together, because, for me, a health inequality in parts of Greater Manchester is just as important as a health inequality in Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast.
We need to tackle these inequalities, because they are a scourge on our society. That is why a four-nation approach, alongside the permissive nature of this Bill, means that the four nations can go forward together, but also diverge on the basis of extending consultations and so on. That is why we have the support of the devolved nations and the Ministers, who come from different political persuasions across Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; we are all in one, as far as this Bill is concerned, and we have shaped it together.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is really important, and I want all Members to understand that a key aspect of reaching our smoke-free ambition is to drive down the prevalence of current smokers. That means a real investment in smoking cessation, a close eye on what is happening on the ground, and using the flexibilities in the Bill, should they be needed, to ensure that we reach that smoke-free ambition.
We announced £70 million of stop smoking funding this week, which has been weighted towards the areas with highest deprivation and smoking prevalence, so that we can try to drive down those inequalities. Obviously, future years funding is subject to the usual processes of the spending review, but let me make it clear that it is a priority of this Government to invest in stop-smoking services. We will ensure that local authorities and the public health functions of the country have the resources needed to reach a point where we are smoke free.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is an interesting question. First, there has been really close engagement between the UK Government and the devolved nations. We have the full support of Mike Nesbitt, the Northern Ireland Health Minister, who has helped shape the Bill, as have his officials. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are in close dialogue with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we discuss at length and in detail the cross-border issues. We will continue to engage with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the Bill works. Only time will tell whether the Republic of Ireland will decide to follow suit, but the Bill will be a game changer and other countries will want to follow the United Kingdom’s lead.
The Chair
In the short time we have left I cannot allow any more questions.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 9th January 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 January 2025 - (9 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To those to whom I have not already had the opportunity to say so, happy new year.
Let me first set out a few housekeeping arrangements. Please switch off all electronic devices. We do not want phones ringing; I hope mine is off. No food and drink is permitted during sittings, apart from water. If anybody needs anything else, will they please leave the room and obtain it from the usual places? If Members have speaking notes, they are always useful to Hansard, particularly if they refer to a name or a business in a constituency or anything like that. That just about deals with that bit of it.
We are about to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Good morning; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise on a point of order about the groupings for our discussions today. They are normally provided in good time, but at about 9 o’clock last night my team were provided with two versions that differed slightly: one from the Government and another from the Clerk. That did not give adequate time for the groupings to be properly considered. As you know, Sir Roger, this Bill is really important to me, but it is also important to the House and to our constituents. It aims to revolutionise their health and wellbeing. It is really very important that we get it right.
Another set of groupings has now been provided this morning. It was not delivered until about 9.30 am, and it is different from both the sets delivered last night. I think only the Minister, the Government Whip and I are the only Committee members who were MPs before July last year. I seek your guidance, Sir Roger, on how we can ensure, particularly for new Members, that there is proper time to scrutinise and appraise each clause and each group properly before the debate.
The Chair
Exceptionally, this is a matter for the Chair—normally, points of order have nothing to do with the Chair at all.
First, I have a note prepared by the Clerks, which I will read because it is relevant to part of what has been said. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office work on behalf of the Chairs—my colleagues and me—to prepare a provisional selection and grouping of amendments. It is very important that that is accurate. For those who have not served on a Bill Committee, I will come on to why that is done, which may help further downstream to explain the process of line-by-line scrutiny.
This is a very big Bill. A significant number of amendments have been tabled. Not entirely unusually, the Committee took oral evidence on Tuesday. Inevitably, such situations generate the late but timely—in the sense of being within the time limit—tabling of amendments.
Where the Clerks have to preside over the oral evidence sessions as well as trying to do all the rest of the work, it inevitably places a great strain on the system. It is no criticism whatever of the Clerks, who are formidable in the work that they do, that this has pushed it right up against the wire.
I know that the Government and, I believe, the Government solicitors and the Opposition received notice of the provisional selections fairly late last night. That is regrettable. It is always the case in such Committees that wherever possible all members, particularly the Government Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, should get material in as timely a fashion as possible. That is a given, but there are exceptional circumstances, and these were exceptional circumstances.
I can only apologise on my own behalf—because my colleagues and I are ultimately responsible for the selection—for the fact that the grouping was late. I appreciate that that has created some difficulties, although not insuperable ones. If anything arising from that requires attention, we will deal with it as we go along, because part of our job is to be as flexible as we reasonably can.
I will seek advice on the hon. Lady’s second question about the groupings.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. There is a second point that I want to raise; I have given notice to the Chair. Because of the aforementioned delay in getting the groupings, I have not had time to scrutinise all the clauses of this very big Bill, as you have described it, but it strikes me as unusual that amendments 75 and 76 have been linked with clause 1.
In my experience, it is unusual to discuss amendments to one clause while considering another. My amendments 75 and 76 would amend clause 69 on page 36. Clause 69 is essentially a relative of clause 2, in so far as it tries to make things equivalent across the United Kingdom. I therefore wonder whether as Chair you might agree that amendments 75 and 76 would instead be best considered at the same time as clause 2.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady; that is very helpful. I fully understand what she is saying. This is an arcane process and it is an art, not a science. Personally, I am more than willing to consider grouping amendments 75 and 76 under clause 2 rather than clause 1. Because the selection list has been published, that requires the leave of the Committee. If the Committee is happy to do so, I am minded to accept the suggestion.
As I hear no objections, the hon. Lady has won her case. Amendments 75 and 76 will therefore be taken under clause 2 with amendments 58 and 59.
Dr Johnson
It is a point for the Chair, and it is procedural. I have not seen this sort of thing happen before. Normally, we agree the groupings and then they just flow.
I have not had the opportunity to go through all the pages and pages of the Bill and see whether there are other issues like the one with amendments 75 and 76. Will there be a further opportunity to amend the sequencing as we go?
The Chair
There will be a further opportunity to raise a point of order. It will be up to whoever is in the Chair at the time to decide whether to take the kind of action that, on the Clerk’s sound advice, I have just taken. I appreciate that this is a complex Bill and we may well find that one or two amendments are more comfortably located under other clauses. If that is so, sensibly and flexibly, we will endeavour to accommodate that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. The loop system in this room does not appear to be working, at least not for my hearing aid. I do not know whether somebody can get it switched on or, if not, whether Members could please amplify when they speak.
The Chair
That request, I understand, has been remitted. We will do the best we can. Will hon. Members be kind enough to ensure that they speak clearly for the sake of the Minister and anybody else in a similar position? Exceptionally, I am more than prepared to make sure that the person speaking is addressing the Minister rather than the Chair, as would normally be the case, because sometimes in these circumstances it helps to see somebody’s lips. Again, I can only apologise that the system ain’t perfect.
I am well aware that there are hon. Members present who have not taken part in the Bill Committee process before. First, on code of dress, it is fine if anybody wishes to take their jacket off. You have the permission of the Chair to do so. You are supposed to seek the consent of the Chair before doing so; you have that consent.
Hon. Members who wish to intervene may do so in the same way as on the Floor of the House. It is up to the Member who has the Floor whether to give way, but it is customary in Committee. Unlike on the Floor of the House, it is not uncommon for a Member to seek to intervene more than once on the same subject for further clarification, if necessary. That is a given. I trust that Members are aware that—again, unlike on the Floor of the House—they are permitted to speak more than once during the debate on each grouping.
That brings me on to the groupings, about which we have had quite a lot of discussion already. This is an arcane process. Groupings on amendments and new clauses are tabled out of sequence, but in recognition of the subject matter under discussion. You will find that there are groupings with a lead amendment, which is the only one that will initially be moved. It is not uncommon for hon. Members to say, “Hang on a minute, I want to move that other amendment.” The answer to that is, “Later.” You move the amendment when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill; amendments are not necessarily moved immediately. If anybody wishes to press an amendment that is listed, but that is not immediately called as the lead amendment, will they please let the Chair know? It is not our job to try to prevent you from causing a Division if you choose to do so, but we do need to know. Otherwise, it may not get called.
Government amendments and some new clauses will be called in sequence as we work through the Bill. Although they may be debated this morning, they might not be called to be voted on—divided on—for two or three weeks. If you are in any doubt, ask. That goes for anything else as well. This is a difficult process to master. Whoever is in the Chair will be more than willing, if we do not know the answer, to take advice—the Clerk always does know—and make sure that you get the answers you want. In other words, if in doubt, ask. Do not sit there floundering.
That was intended to be helpful. I do not know whether it was or not. We will now commence line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
Clause 1
Sale of tobacco etc
The Chair
We begin with the group led by amendment 17. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who tabled all the amendments in the group, is not a member of the Committee and therefore cannot move them. Is there anybody present who has taken ownership of the amendments and wishes to move the lead amendment on behalf of the hon. Member?
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 23, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out
“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”
and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 44, in schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out
“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”
and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 48, in schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 45, in schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 46, in schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi” to “a” in line 39 and insert
“yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 39, in schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 40, in schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 41, in schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 42, in schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out
“born before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“over the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 43, in schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 25, in clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 26, in clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert
“under the age of 25 (‘the customer’) to be aged 25 or over”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 27, in clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert “under 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 28, in clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 29, in clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 30, in clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 31, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 32, in clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 33, in clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 38, in clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 49, in title, line 2, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Dr Johnson
The amendments do not stand in my name, and they are not amendments with which I agree, but they relate to a very important part of the Second Reading debate that goes to the heart of the principles behind the Bill. I have moved the lead amendment so that the debate can be heard in full and so that hon. Members can establish for themselves whether they wish to support the amendments.
I will refer to these amendments as the Maguire amendments, if that helps, as they were all tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who is not on the Committee. It is, of course, the Whips who choose who goes on the Committee—[Interruption.] Sorry, can you hear me?
Dr Johnson
Thank you. I am aware that the Whips choose who gets to go on Committees. Sometimes that is a blessing; sometimes it can be less welcome, particularly if it is a long Committee that goes on for months. For someone who is passionate about a cause, but is not aligned with the Whips’ view and is not chosen for a Committee, it can be frustrating not to have something discussed that they believe important. We are all here to represent our constituents and to think carefully about the legislation in front of us. Although the amendments were tabled by a Member who is not a member of my party, and I do not actually agree with them, I want to ensure that they get a proper hearing.
Amendments 17 and 18 would amend clause 1, which will introduce a prohibition on selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to any individual born on or after 1 January 2009. The Government’s intent is to create a tobacco-free generation by progressively restricting access to tobacco-related products for younger age groups as they age. This is a measure that was first discussed in the Khan report and was brought forward in the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was introduced by the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who wanted to ensure that we eliminate smoking as far as possible, for people’s health, but that we would not impose a criminal penalty on people who already smoke and thereby criminalise an addiction that is so difficult to give up. That is the reason for the rolling sale.
Under clause 1, sellers will be required to verify the buyer’s age using acceptable identity documents, which are listed as being passports, UK or EU driving licences or proof-of-age identity cards, known as PASS cards. If the seller relies on valid-looking ID showing that the buyer was born before 1 January 2009, or if they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to avoid an offence, they have a legal defence against prosecution. Violating the clause is an offence punishable by a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale; I am sure we will come on to what that means later. It is currently capped at £2,500.
This measure is part of a broader strategy to combat smoking by reducing access among younger generations and curbing the initiation of tobacco use. By enforcing strict age verification and imposing financial penalties, the clause aims progressively to eliminate tobacco use, contributing to long-term public health improvements.
New clause 17 would leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert in its place
“under the age of 25”.
That would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.
The Chair
Order. For the sake of clarity, we are referring to amendment 17, not new clause 17.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Sir Roger. I am very grateful for your guidance. I think spending much of the night trying to get to grips with the various drafts has left me a little tired. I appreciate the difference. As you said, the process is somewhat confusing, but at least we are moving through it steadily.
Amendment 17 would significantly alter the scope of clause 1 by replacing the birth date-specific restriction of 1 January 2009. Instead of targeting individuals born on or after that date, the new provision would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to anyone under the age of 25. That modification would shift the focus from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit similar to the one that we have already.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that we disagree on the principle of clause 1, and my objection is primarily to creating two tiers of adults. One of the benefits of the Bill, as it is currently written, is that it is at least a time-limited measure. In other words, when that generation dies out, every adult will be one tier again. With amendment 17, however, we will effectively have two tiers of adults forever, so a 19-year-old will always—or until we change the law again—be able to drink but will not be able to smoke, and that will be set in stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if she thinks we should create two tiers of adults for public health purposes, we should try to delimit that as much as possible, and therefore the principle of the amendment should not be accepted by this Committee?
The Chair
Order. Another thing colleagues might notice is that that was quite a long intervention. Customarily in Committee, as opposed to on the Floor of the House, it is not unusual for a Chair to allow a fairly long intervention, because quite often that obviates the need for a speech later. Be aware of that flexibility.
Dr Johnson
Once again, Sir Roger, I am very grateful for your guidance to the Committee. I was explaining the change in amendment 17, and my hon. Friend, like the very wise chap that he is, brings something forward that I had not really considered, despite my attention to this Bill over some time—and Members will be very much aware it is something that I have taken a long interest in.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: some people argue that the Bill creates two tiers of adults—some who are allowed to smoke and some who are not. In fact, that is exactly what it does. Eventually, of course, people get older and older. I saw that the oldest person in the world sadly passed on in the last week or so, and she was 116. I am not quite sure about the age of the current oldest person in the world, but I suspect their age is similar. Therefore, I suspect that it will take quite a long time before my hon. Friend’s ideal of all adults being treated the same is once again achieved. I suspect that I will certainly be long gone before it does, and I anticipate that the rules we are proposing will last the rest of our lifetimes here today.
This modification shifts the approach from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit that applies universally, regardless of the buyer’s birth year. That simplifies enforcement because sellers would need only to confirm whether a buyer is under 25, and they would not need to do the mental arithmetic in their head that says, “Okay, that is their birthday, but how old would that make them?” The Minister, in his questions on Tuesday, raised the point repeatedly with one of our witnesses about whether it is simpler to have a date of birth or an age. My understanding is that a lot of tills nowadays will give a prompt to the person working behind the till to say, “If you are born before or after this date, that is where the 18 cut-off is.”
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotion—I shall mention it the Chief Whip and see how that goes!
Sadik Al-Hassan
My training and experience as a pharmacist over two decades involved working with systems such as tills that teach people how to ask for age verification. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister is spot on and that actually this is a moot point, because the software, support and training is already there across the country, including in independent shops, and age verification is quite easy to do?
Dr Johnson
I think it is straightforward to have an age and a date of birth to check. It could become more confusing if we ended up with a range of age-restricted products and the age for each of them was different, as that would require people to look at a whole spreadsheet of dates of birth.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Software systems I have worked with already have the facility to differentiate by product, including for razor blades and alcohol products. That already exists across retail and in a variety of retail premises.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention highlights the fact that in Parliament we benefit from the experience of so many different people. Each of us comes to this place with our own history, backstory and experience of working in a whole range of different professions and jobs. That is one of the reasons why we go through these Bills line by line. It may seem to some extent slow and plodding to go through things so methodically, but that means that each person can, as he has, bring their experience forward and explain the ways that tills and such things work, which is really beneficial. I thank him for that intervention.
Jack Rankin
I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for North Somerset. It seems to me that over time, we have been getting more consistent in our understanding of what an adult is. Obviously, I am quite a young man, but when I turned 16, I could buy a lottery ticket, I could get married without my parents’ permission and I could join the Army. I could then learn to drive at 17. Many of those have been regularised in the last few years, so the age for buying lottery tickets is now 18 and one cannot get married before 18 either. That is part of ensuring consistency about what an adult is.
It may well be true that pharmacies have such technology, and I understand why, but most cigarettes are bought in small newsagents and I would not necessarily expect them to have the same technology. We should be supporting consistency in what an adult is—that is the direction in which legislation has been moving—and not creating added complexity.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I do not know whether any Member present has worked in a small corner shop and could tell us whether they have the same level of technology. Perhaps the Minister or his officials know whether the same level of technology is used in shops across the board. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Johnson
Yes; if my hon. Friend knows the answer, I would be delighted to hear it.
Gregory Stafford
I do not know the answer to that question, although I suspect that many such shops do not. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about the thrust of the Bill, something that does concern me comes not from the retailer point of view but the consumer point of view. At the moment—please do not disabuse me of this view—when I go and buy a bottle of wine or a pint of beer, I am very rarely, if ever, IDed. But I accept that if, on the rare occasion that I am IDed, I do not have a form of identification, it is not the biggest problem in the world. Most of the time, however, people can see that I am over the age of 25 or over the age of 18, so it does not happen.
If the Bill were to go forward in its current form, every smoker would essentially have to carry a form of ID all the time. Some, especially the older generation, might not have a suitable form of identification and some—if they are, like me, a civil libertarian—might not want to carry ID, so how do we get around that point in the Bill to ensure that we do not end up having ID cards for older people by the back door?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some people are averse to carrying ID—it is not something that bothers me personally, but I am aware that for some people it is a sticking point. In a previous debate before the election, the former Member for Norwich North, Chloe Smith, made the point that not all adults will be affected by this legislation, but only a relatively narrow band of them.
The last time I was carded for ID, I was 38. I was not buying the typical basket of a 17-year-old; I was buying flowers—orchids—and a bottle of champagne for someone’s housewarming, as well as some strawberries, because she had phoned to ask me to get some when I was on the way, as she was running out at the housewarming party. I was IDed, so I was not able to buy the champagne for her, because the supermarket would not let me. That was disappointing for both of us, but I accepted the fact that if ID could not be shown and they genuinely believed that I looked under 25, that was the law and it had to be accepted. That is not universally the case, and I am aware—as we heard in evidence—that retailers can sometimes receive significant verbal and occasionally violent abuse when they ask for ID in that way.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is having a good morning, having not had a particularly great evening last night. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Windsor, who made this point in his intervention, by the time that the age of sale is legally his age, we hope that smoking prevalence in that age group will be next to zero, and therefore it will not be an issue.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I am not sure what he is implying about the age of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor—
Dr Johnson
Wisdom or age, but I shall be cautious not to answer too closely.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I accept the view that having to provide ID will be inconvenient and frustrating for some people, but all the expert witnesses on Tuesday pointed out that many smokers do not wish the younger generation to continue smoking. I think that most of them would probably be of that view that the slight infringement of their civil liberties in having to carry ID is a small price to pay for the knowledge that they are preventing smoking from being taken up.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right that the measures have broad support. Certainly, the pollsters who have investigated people’s views of this legislation—that proposed by the previous Government and the legislation as it is now, with some tweaks to it—have found the public to be overwhelmingly positive. We legislate because we are elected by those people. On the basis of their opinions and given that policing in this country is done by consent—
Jack Rankin
On the civil liberties point, I disagree with my hon. Friend entirely, as she well knows. The point about civil liberties is that they need protecting not when the majority agree, but when the majority do not agree. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that all the experts agreed. We listened to a cohort of experts who were from a variety of fields, but they were also all in some way paid for by the state and had some vested interest in the Bill—they were not retailers, consumers and so on— [Interruption.] We had one person out of 15. It was really not a well-balanced affair at all, so I disagree with that point.
Dr Johnson
I think that comes back to the issue of choice. The chief medical officer said that the only choice we make is the choice to have that first hit of nicotine; after that, our choice is taken from us by the profound addiction that we experience. One of the challenges with stopping smoking is that people get powerful cravings. Despite their overwhelming desire to stop, the cravings drive people to have a cigarette that they do not really want or would rather not have because of their addiction.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
May I de-aggregate the two separate, distinct points about the age that will be defined on a driving licence or passport versus the concept of having ID?
On the first point, most identity documents will contain a defined birth date, which makes it easier for a retailer or sales individual to check the date. They do not contain an age, per se, but they have the date of birth, which creates an easier means of assessment.
The second point about having ID is a separate, distinct issue. In some countries in Europe, they put identity cards on the back of credit or debit cards, for instance. The question of how we would define that identity is a separate element or, perhaps, a separate amendment to the clause that may expand the list of identity that would be bona fide, but we nevertheless use the concept of identity already in many cases to purchase products.
If we are against identity cards or any form of identity, how are we supposed to look at any product with regard to sales, including ones that we might be challenged on, such as when the shadow Minister was purchasing her orchid in a venue? We accept the premise of identity when we sell any licensed product at the present time, so we are merely extending the same premise.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. I should be clear that I do not have an issue with carrying my driver’s licence or ID with me, although I am aware that some people genuinely do. If he wants to intervene again, I would be interested to hear whether that means that he is comfortable with voter ID, because his party, prior to the general election—I appreciate that he would not have voted on it, because he was not—
Dr Johnson
I merely make the point that ID is used for purposes other than to buy cigarettes and tobacco, Sir Roger.
I want to return to a point raised in an earlier intervention about the group of people who would be asked to carry ID. If somebody’s birthday is, like mine, in 1977, it is sadly unlikely that anyone will think that I was born in or after 2009. The cohort affected will be those born around 2006 or 2012. I do not see this as an ID for old people through the back door, because, as I view it, there will be a cohort of people within five or even 10 years on either side of the 2009 boundary who will find themselves required to carry ID if they wish to smoke. If they do not wish to smoke or use any tobacco, cigarettes or smoking products, they will not be affected.
Jim Dickson
Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.
Dr Johnson
It is certainly the case, as I am sure we will come to when we discuss clause 1 itself in more detail, that where tobacco control measures have been brought in—on place, price, display or age group—they have led to a fall in smoking, which is a welcome and intended outcome.
I have been lumbered with a lot of interventions and I did not get to answer one point in full, which was on the issue of adult consistency. Amendment 17 would create two groups of adults—those aged between 18 and 25, who would be unable to smoke or use tobacco products, and those over 25, who would. The previous Government sought to say, “This is when you become an adult—when you turn 18. Before that, you are a child, and we will use child protection and safeguarding measures, so you cannot get married or buy a lottery ticket.” We sought to create consistency across the board, because consistency helps people to understand what the law is, which makes it easier for them to follow it and give a greater level of consent to it.
Let me turn back to the amendments. I cannot speak directly for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who tabled the amendments, but one of the reasons that has been given to me for increasing the age to 25 is that people normally begin smoking when they are young. Most people begin before they are 16, and many more before they are 21. That means that in principle, if we raised the age to 25, we would find that people did not start smoking in any great numbers, because their brain and their thinking process would be more mature, so they would be less likely to start. It is also the case that if someone starts smoking at a younger age, they are more vulnerable to the addictive properties of nicotine, as we heard in the impact assessment and in medical evidence.
Tristan Osborne
One of the challenges with introducing an age restriction of 25 is that a 19-year-old can smoke today, but that rule would suddenly take away a right that they previously had. However, the proposal on the table is for a sliding scale, whereby they will never have had the right to smoke. We are not taking away a right that someone might have had previously. Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a slight difference between having an age restriction of 25 and a sliding increase in age?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, in my personal view, to say that. As we heard before, the previous Government wanted to ensure that in bringing forward a Bill, they were not going to criminalise people with an addiction to a product that they could not quit, and therefore leave them in a situation where they could no longer buy the product they needed to feed that addiction. Obviously, we want them to stop, but we do not want to make them stop by making them criminals. So, yes, I would be concerned that sticking in a sudden increase to 25 would mean that any smokers legally accessing tobacco products between the ages of 18 and 25 would find themselves somewhat stuck. That is not something I would wish to see.
Gregory Stafford
As a point of clarification, what the proposals in the Bill, and indeed the amendment, deal with is the selling of tobacco products, not the consumption. So when we are talking people not being able to smoke, they would be able to, but a retailer would not be able to sell them tobacco products. I say that just so we are clear what we are talking about.
Dr Johnson
Under this clause, it is true that somebody would not be able to purchase tobacco, but clause 2 means that somebody cannot purchase tobacco on behalf of somebody else. It would not be possible legally for somebody under the age of 25, if the clause was amended, or somebody born after 1 January 2009, if it was not, to buy tobacco, but it would also be illegal for them to use it because, under clause 2, which provides for proxy purchase, the person who gave the younger individual tobacco would themselves have broken the law.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Can we acknowledge that youth initiation often starts before the age of 18? Moving the age to 25, as this amendment proposes, would not automatically shift the dial on when youth initiation starts by seven years. The Bill permanently demarcates a smoke-free generation that we are specifically targeting.
Dr Johnson
When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.
Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.
Dr Johnson
I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year-old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke-free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.
Jim Dickson
On the point made the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, a common maxim applied to our public policy on harmful substances is that we permit. Even having a permission to smoke and buy cigarettes after the age of 25 means that society is effectively saying that that is fine to do, albeit harmful. We do not do that with very many other harmful substances, so it would seem odd to do it with cigarettes.
Dr Johnson
I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.
There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.
Sarah Bool
Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non-smoker.
Dr Johnson
I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.
On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law-abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.
Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
in clause 1 and insert the words
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date-specific restriction to a general age-based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.
Sarah Bool
I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age-restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.
Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
with the phrase
“under the age of 25”.
That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke-free generation to a fixed age of 25.
The Chair
Before we proceed, I shall not be in the Chair this afternoon, but I would be grateful if the shadow Minister could indicate whether she wishes to press amendment 18 as well as amendment 17, whether it is only amendment 17, or whether she may decide in due course not to press either. That is a matter for later, but it would be helpful to know if she wishes to press either.
Dr Johnson
It was my intention to ensure that the debate, even if it is on issues I do not support, got a hearing and that Members of the House who wished to contribute were able to do so. The purpose was to allow the amendments to be debated. I do not intend to push any of them to a vote.
Jack Rankin
I would like to support those amendments, if that changes anything, Sir Roger.
The Chair
We will have a debate first. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to push the amendment to a Division if he chooses to do so, but not yet.
The only other thing I need to know before I call the Government Whip, which I assume is my next move, is to say that, ordinarily, when I am in the Chair, we have a thing called a clause stand part debate at the end of each clause—on the question that the clause, as amended, if it is amended, stand part of the Bill. I have always taken a fairly relaxed view: you can have a debate on clause stand part or you can debate clause stand part during all the amendments, but you cannot do both; you cannot have two bites of that cherry and just say the same thing all over again.
Ordinarily, under these circumstances, my impression already would be that by the time we have been through all these amendments, there would be no need for a clause stand part debate. I would then move straight to putting the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, but—I am afraid it is a big “but”—in this instance, the clause stand part debate is linked with two new clauses and two more stand part debates, so we will have to have it at the end. I would urge—and I expect that my colleague who takes over in the Chair this afternoon will wish to observe this—that we do not repeat the arguments that have been made on clause 1 stand part during the bigger debate at the end. I hope that is clear. If not, Members should, again, seek advice.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 14th January 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2025 - (14 Jan 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 3—Age verification policy—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business, and
(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on the tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises (‘the business premises’) from which—
(a) tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products are, in pursuance of a sale, despatched for delivery to different premises, and
(b) no other tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business is carried on from the business premises.
(3) Before the specified date, an ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, vaping product or nicotine product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(4) After the specified date, an ‘age verification policy’—
(a) in relation to a tobacco business or herbal smoking product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers that the customer may have been born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy);
(b) in relation to a vaping product business or nicotine product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product, or a nicotine product, on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(5) In relation to times before the end of 2033, the reference in subsection (4)(a) to the customer being born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy) has effect as a reference to the customer being under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (3) or (4)(b).
(7) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—
(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,
(b) documents that may be shown to the person selling a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product as evidence of a customer’s age,
(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product,
(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed in the premises,
(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.
(8) A person who carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business must have regard to guidance published under subsection (7) when operating an age verification policy.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(11) In this section—‘the appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
‘herbal smoking product business’ means a business involving the sale of herbal smoking products by retail,
‘nicotine product business’ means a business involving the sale of nicotine products by retail,
‘the specified date’ is 1 January 2027,
‘tobacco business’ means a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail,
‘tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business’ means a business which involves any one or more of the following—
(a) a tobacco business,
(b) a herbal smoking product business, or
(c) a vaping product business,
‘vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail.”
This new clause introduces a requirement on businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping/ nicotine products, or cigarette papers. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland to be amended by the Bill.
Amendment 68, in clause 50, page 25, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 4A (Sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18) insert—
(a) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a recorded police warning.’”
This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Amendment 69, in clause 50, page 26, line 26, at end insert—
“(ba) in subsection (7), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’
(bb) after subsection (7) insert—
‘ (7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”
This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to a failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 2 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Clause 50 stand part.
Clause 68 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Before we were rudely disturbed by the weekend—I hope that all Members had a good one—we were coming to the conclusion of the debate on this grouping. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to discussions last week; I will continue to respond to the outstanding points raised in the previous sitting.
On the Windsor framework, we are proud to say that the Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in partnership, in full, with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. This Government, and I hope this House, intend the smoke-free generation policy to apply to all four nations.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have a quick question for the Minister about some of his answers last week about the clause. He said that tobacco products would include bongs, and was quite passionate about that. But clause 48, which is meant to be read in relation to clause 1, defines “tobacco product” as something that contains tobacco. I have seen bongs made of glass, ceramics and various other things, but I have never seen one that contains tobacco. It is certainly easy to make one that does not contain tobacco. I am therefore interested in why the Minister believes that the Bill equates bongs and tobacco products.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that. We will come on to those issues in more detail when we eventually reach those clauses, which given the rate of progress so far may be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, if Members decide so. The only reason why such paraphernalia is on display and legally sold is to consume tobacco, but we will get more information on that for her when we get to clause 45, which covers that issue.
I was talking about the Windsor framework. We believe that this policy is in accordance with our international obligations. In terms of what products are in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, including shisha, cigars and heated tobacco. That is because all tobacco products are harmful. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For example, tobacco smoke from cigars leads to the same types of disease as the smoke from cigarettes. In England alone, around five times as many people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, as did a decade ago, and children are a part of that increase. Shisha, to which the hon. Member for Windsor referred, also causes the same diseases as cigarettes, including cancer, respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The volume of smoke produced in the average 45-minute shisha session is estimated to be the same as around 25 cigarettes’-worth of tar, 11 cigarettes’-worth of carbon monoxide and two cigarettes’-worth of nicotine.
Finally, there is clear evidence about the toxicity of heated tobacco. The aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens, and there will be some risk to the health of anyone using those products. The crucial point is that, unlike with vapes, there is no evidence that heated tobacco supports smoking cessation. We must ensure that the Bill is future-proofed to include new or novel products, such as heated tobacco, to protect the public from the harms of tobacco use.
Although cigarettes are the most used form of tobacco, we do not want to create loopholes in the Bill so that the tobacco industry can pivot and continue addicting people to tobacco. As I said previously, the issue is about saying, “The market share you’ve got now is it. We are stopping the conveyor belt.” As we know, if we block one road, the tobacco industry finds another route through. We are making sure that the Bill is as watertight and future-proof as possible so that the tobacco industry can no longer continue to trade with another product that harms and addicts future generations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to look specifically at clause 1(3), which relates to identity documents. In the previous sitting, the Minister said that he would have powers to change the list of identity documents; I think he was referring to clause 46. But at the moment the definition of identity documents is very tight; only the six listed are permitted. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned veterans cards, and this would be an ample opportunity to include those, as was the intention, because the definition is very strict—people will be able to use only the listed documents.
A further question that has been raised is that the list rules out digital forms of identification, as those listed are physical. I want to understand how retailers can best enforce the measures in practice.
Andrew Gwynne
I do not want to go over the arguments that I have already put to the Committee in an earlier sitting, but there is an ability to use other forms of identification, as I set out. We will be working with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get in place procedures that retailers are confident with. They will be able to ask for veterans cards, for example.
Andrew Gwynne
Can the hon. Lady let me finish answering the point she put to me? In fact, I have now forgotten the point she put to me—[Laughter.]
Sarah Bool
I was talking from a legal perspective. Clause 1(3) is about what “identity document” means, which obviously means that those listed are the six that people are allowed to use. I take the point that later the Minister could introduce regulations to allow for veterans cards, but legally a retailer’s defence would have to be that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document, which means:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
The clause is very specific. Whatever the intention, the retailer would not technically be able to use having been shown a veterans card as a defence. Hence I am asking whether we should consider the issue at this point, rather than relying on the regulations mentioned in clause 46.
Andrew Gwynne
I stand by what I have already said. The intention is to work with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get the mechanisms in place that allow them to adequately enforce the measures in the Bill. We do not want to get this wrong. I politely say to the hon. Lady, however, that in the first instance it is highly unlikely that a veteran born before 1 January 2009 will seek to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products and be queried about their age. I will take on board what has been said and, if what I said earlier is incorrect, we can perhaps come back to the issue.
I want to come back to tobacco products because the point is crucial. We want to ensure that the tobacco industry has that conveyor belt cut-off. It is therefore rational for all the products that I have mentioned to be included in the smoke-free generation legislation. That will prevent anyone from taking up use of the products in the first place.
As I stated in my opening speech, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for bringing the discussion before the Committee, but while I appreciate his intention, it is not something the Government support. In relation to the amendments, I say to the Committee that the Government do not believe it is appropriate to establish a more lenient penalty regime for the offences, or to introduce a mandatory age-verification policy.
The clause seeks to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products. The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and putting us on track towards a smoke-free UK. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. May I ask a procedural question? I heard some Members shout, “Aye”, and some Members shout, “No”. In the previous session we recorded what Members said, but we have not done so this time. Can I inquire as to what the reason for that is? Last time there was a vote that was then recorded for Hansard, but that has not happened this time.
The Chair
That is because a Division was not called. I made the decision that the Ayes had it in this particular case and that the Noes did not. If a Member wished to challenge that at the time and call a Division, they were free to do so. They did not—
The Chair
They would just indicate that they wished for a Division—keep shouting, in effect.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I would like the chance to put my No on record, so I would appreciate a Division.
The Chair
Regrettably, we have moved on.
Clause 2
Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or provides for a discretionary caution.”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 56, 57, and 58, prevents penalties under sections 1 and 2 beyond level 3 for a first offence and provides for a discretionary caution.
Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 seek to amend clause 2. Will we get the chance to debate clause 2 later, Mr Dowd?
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 go back to the principle of proportionality. I know the Minister gave his views on that last week, so I will not go on at length. But there is a difference between the individual shop assistant who may make an intentional error, and a shop that continues to repeatedly and recklessly sell to children or people who are too young to buy an age-restricted product. That is the principle of the amendments—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Can we be clear? If Members want to speak in the debate they should bob, just like in the Chamber. If you wish to intervene, Ms Jarvis—I assume you do, but I do not know—you could bring your request for the intervention to the person who is speaking.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Mr Dowd, I was just going to ask the shadow Minister to speak up because I cannot hear her at all.
Dr Johnson
My apologies. I was explaining the principle behind Opposition amendments 58 and 59, which are in my name. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Eastleigh was present on Thursday afternoon. Clause 2 refers to a “person” but does not specify who that person is, and there is as yet no guidance. The Minister said that the person could be the shopkeeper, the shop worker, the chief executive officer or whoever trading standards decided was the right person.
The fines to deter or punish illegal behaviour would necessarily need to be significantly larger for a large corporation than for a young chap of 19 working a few hours in the corner shop on a Saturday afternoon, for whom some fines would be quite punitive. The amendments allow for first offences to be treated leniently, in comparison with repeat offences, and their aim is to encourage the Government to think more carefully about guidance. When the previous Bill was introduced last Easter by the Conservative Government, with very similar wording in many cases, that Government produced guidance on how those charges would be applied. I am trying to encourage the Government to do the same thing. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I will endeavour to speak a bit louder. I do not know whether the hearing loop is working—
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As we have already argued, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of purchasing tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone under age—commonly known as proxy purchasing. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person could face for committing that offence, if it was the person’s first offence. The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable, on summary conviction,
“to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”,
which is £1,000, or liable instead to a discretionary caution in England and Wales or to a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the fine for which someone who committed that offence would be liable under the current legislation in England and Wales—level 4, which is £2,500. It is two levels lower than in Northern Ireland, where the fine would be at level 5, which is £5,000.
The amendments would have a similar effect on first-time offences as amendments that we have already discussed. If the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself as the rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same as that for amendments that we have already covered.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 75 and 76 have the same principle behind them, so I will not repeat myself. They relate to clause 69; as hon. Members will recall, clause 69 amends Northern Ireland legislation that is similar to the legislation in clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We are considering amendment 59 to clause 2, which was debated with amendment 58 to clause 2. Dr Johnson, have you decided whether you want to press amendment 59 to a Division?
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd, I just wanted to understand. In this morning’s groupings, which were sent by the Clerks, it appeared that not only amendments 58, 59, 75 and 76, but amendments 19 to 21 and 34 to 37 were to be debated before clause 2 stand part. Why were those latter amendments not called?
The Chair
As I indicated, the point had already been debated, so it was my decision that we would move on.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
These clauses make it an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for someone over the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for someone born on or after 1 January 2009. That is called proxy purchasing. Clause 2 replaces the current offence under the Children and Families Act 2014 of someone aged 18 or over buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone who is under 18 in England and Wales.
Clause 69 amends the offence of proxy purchasing in Northern Ireland to align to the change in the age of sale. That applies to tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister said that this measure was to prevent people from buying cigarettes, cigarette papers or tobacco products for people under the age of 18. Obviously, when the Bill is first passed, that will be true, but with every progressive year, it will prevent buying for people aged 19, 20, 21 and 22. Why has the Minister not made a differential in law to ensure that, once the Bill is in place, there is a separate and more serious offence of buying tobacco products for someone under 18, however far in the future, and a separate offence of buying them for an adult who is ineligible to have them?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The Bill ensures that no one over the age of 18 is legally able to purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone under the legal age of sale, and there is a differential over time there. The age of 18 was chosen as it avoids criminalising children. This measure applies to all adults, and it does not allow for any ambiguity in law in the future. For example, it captures a situation in which someone over the age of 18, but under the legal age of sale for tobacco, attempts to buy products for a child. This action would be restricted, and the liability would not only be on the person selling the tobacco product, but also on the adult attempting to buy that product for the child.
These clauses align proxy purchasing offences with the new age of sale restriction for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They provide a defence if a person charged with this offence can prove they had no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009 or they can prove that they had no reason to believe that the other person intended to use the cigarette papers for smoking, which is in line with existing defences. These clauses are essential to ensure that there are no loopholes in the age of sale legislation, and they build on what works in the current age of sale legislation. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 2 makes it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to make a proxy purchase of tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for a person born on or after 1 January 2009. It essentially stops an older person going in and buying those products for a younger person, which we are aware has been happening for many years with both tobacco and alcohol. If found guilty, the person committing the offence faces a level 4 fine on the standard scale, which hon. Members will recall is £2,500.
The clause replaces the current offence under section 91 of the Children and Families Act of someone aged over 18 buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone aged under 18 in England and Wales. In many ways, that seems a sensible consequence to clause 1. If we want it to be illegal for people born after a set date to have tobacco, it makes sense to ensure that people cannot buy it for them.
However, I have some questions, particularly in relation to cigarette papers. I did not particularly talk about cigarette papers in our discussion of clause 1 because they are more rightly talked about in relation to clause 2, which treats cigarette papers differently, in so far as it makes them illegal unless a person can prove that they are using them for something else. I looked into what that something else might be. I naively thought that cigarette papers were essentially just bits of paper of a particular thinness that could be rolled up and stuck together with a little gum arabic once somebody had rolled whatever they wanted to roll inside them; in fact, that turns out not to be the case because of the law.
The papers contain ethylene-vinyl acetate, which makes them more fire-resistant. The sad situation is that every year people smoke in bed or in their armchair, fall asleep and cause themselves burns, and sometimes even cause death or house fires. The ethylene-vinyl acetate—a sort of plastic—added to cigarette papers helps them to self-extinguish and reduces the risk of fires; we know that some particularly dreadful fires, such as the Kings Cross fire, are believed to have been caused by loose cigarettes.
The cigarette papers are essentially made from plant fibre, such as bamboo flax and rice, but they can be flavoured and coloured. In the evidence given to the Committee last Tuesday, we heard about the tobacco industry’s aim of ensuring that younger people are enticed by colours and flavours. A quick look at Amazon—other sellers are, of course, available—reveals that people can buy cigarette papers in a whole range of bright colours. People can also buy cigarette papers with pictures of cherries, apricots, bubbles and all sorts of things on them. I thought it was interesting that that has not been covered in relation to cigarette papers. Why give an exemption allowing them to continue to be sold when the reality is that they will continue to be used for rolling either illegal tobacco or other forms of illegal drug?
Gregory Stafford
Is my hon. Friend saying that cigarette papers have a specific definition in law and therefore that the papers she talks about, which have chemicals to make them fire-resistant and so on, will be banned, or is she saying that the clause will ban anything that could be used as a cigarette paper within the law? If she does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister can pick that up when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Clause 48, which we obviously have not come on to yet, gives the interpretation of part 1 and all the definitions. The definition of cigarette papers in the Bill includes
“anything…to be used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.
Different chemicals are put in, believe it or not, to make the ash whiter—people are concerned, when they have burnt their cigarette, with the colour of the ash that has fallen from it, which seems remarkable to me. Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and titanium oxide can be added to affect the colour of not just the paper, but the ash produced. Seignette salts—sodium potassium tartrate and sodium citrate—are also added to make it burn faster, so that people go through cigarettes slightly more quickly. Then there is the glue of the acacia gum.
As far as I can tell, it is impossible to find out what is in the cigarette papers that one might wish to purchase; if one looks online, it is very hard to work out what is in them. I have seen medical reports of people allergic to the ingredients having: cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips; circumoral—around the mouth—inflammation; and finger dermatitis. If one is selling a ham sandwich, it is important to include the ingredients so that people know what it is in it, but it seems that for cigarette papers that is not the case and I am not entirely sure why. It is also the case that some commercially available papers contain copper, chromium and vanadium. As they burn, the pigments can lead to very high levels of exposure. These are not inexpensive; Amazon sells a random choice of eight flavours for £9.99. The issues are worth considering. It has been proposed that individual cigarette papers have on them a message saying “Smoking is bad for you” or something along those lines, but does that not involve adding further chemicals to the paper and therefore further risk?
Clause 2(3) states:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”
of proxy purchasing
“to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking”,
To which the somewhat obvious question is, “What on earth else would one use cigarette papers for?” With some trepidation, I asked Mr Google. Initially, all I could find was that they are used for smoking joints of cannabis, which did not seem to me a particularly good reason—the smoking of another illegal substance—for the Government to exclude them. Then I found out that some people use them for woodwind instruments. They place them underneath the key and press the key down, which allows extraneous water to be soaked up. They then release the key and pull the paper out. That helps to dry the instrument, prolong its life and prevent damage. Clarinet players—I did learn the clarinet but I did not know this; maybe that is why I was not so good at it—or players of the oboe, bassoon, flute or saxophone can buy cigarettes papers for that purpose.
The question of whether the Government need to provide an exemption for cigarette papers hinges on whether there is an alternative for the public to use for their woodwind instruments—and there is, of course. It is obvious in some respects that the market would provide one were cigarette papers banned. Connoisseurs of such instruments tell me that cigarette papers are not ideal to use for this purpose because of the additional, potentially toxic chemicals they contain—one is potentially inhaling bits of the chemicals back in—and because it is not ideal to get traces of the gum on one’s instrument. It is possible buy Superslick Pad and Yamaha cleaning papers. As far as I can tell, they do not contain toxic chemicals, because nobody would be interested in whether the ash burnt from them was white or otherwise since no one is going to set fire to them. Is it therefore really necessary to have a specific exemption for the use of cigarette papers for instruments, when in practice that is unlikely to be what they will be used for? There is an alternative and the most likely use—I think the Minister will understand this—is that they will be used for smoking joints.
Sarah Bool
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. My first question was, “Well, what else they would be using cigarette papers for?” The second question—which maybe the Minister can answer—is about the level of proof. This comes up not only in clause 2(3), but elsewhere in clause 2. I know that the Minister will say, in relation to clause 2(3), that this is in line with legislation as it currently stands, but if we are tightening up on the whole, perhaps this is an area that we should consider tightening up further?
Dr Johnson
Indeed, it does seem contradictory, if not counterintuitive. It also leaves us with a bizarre situation where, were someone to be a bassoon player, for example, and they wished to buy these products to use for the alternative purpose of drying their keys, then they would have to get someone else to buy them because they would not be able to buy them themselves. For a child born after 1 January 2009 and learning to play such an instrument, either the market will need to provide another opportunity to buy such a product, or the child will need someone else to buy the product for them. That does not make sense. The rolling age of sale that we discussed in clause 1 means that, over time, the number of individuals wanting to buy the product for their instruments but not allowed to, compared to the number of people allowed to, would inevitably diminish. We would have a larger group of people trying to find an ever smaller group of people to buy their cigarette papers for them for that purpose. To some extent, it would be more sensible to remove subsection (3) all together because it creates a loophole that will be used almost entirely for illegal uses of these papers. There is a market already providing a reasonably priced alternative for people to use for their instruments—which in practice are better for instruments in any case.
The final point is on the burden of proof. As a defence, someone purchasing the product on behalf of another has to prove they have no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009. What does that really mean? Is that a reversal of the burden of proof? Is it saying a person has to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove them guilty? In what circumstances would it apply? In what circumstances is it necessary for someone to buy cigarette papers, other than the oboe player or the saxophone player? I guess if someone in his or her 70s attends a corner shop but has forgotten their ID, they could ask somebody older to buy the papers for them; I guess that would be okay. They may find that they have come with a veterans card, thinking that they can use it because it is usable for voter ID, but that particular type of ID is not included; we have discussed widening the scope of those documents.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I understand that the term “cigarette paper” clearly indicates that the primary use for such an item is likely to be tobacco usage. However, it is not exclusive. As a model maker, I use cigarette papers in model making. I understand they are also used in art and in other activities. Although I am not suggesting that there are no alternative products to cigarette papers, it is not 100% exclusive. With respect, I think the clause refers to a person buying cigarette papers for another individual for a purpose other than smoking—if that can be proved. I accept what the hon. Lady is saying, but think she is stretching the point quite a lot.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I searched quite extensively for other uses of cigarette papers and had not come across that one; that is very interesting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks they need to have pictures on them—perhaps that helps with the art. I think there is still a difference in a cigarette paper that contains extra toxic chemicals to help it burn a particular colour, for example. I am not sure whether there is any particular art or model making application for having the cigarette paper with all the chemicals in, as opposed to any other type of paper that is produced for the purpose. Inevitably, the market would produce a non-cigarette paper for the purpose, which would reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that are used and therefore also the amount of toxic chemicals in our environment—given that, inevitably, once they finish being used, they get wasted.
The point stands that the papers themselves contain toxins that would not be required for any other uses, whether that be for models, art or music. Therefore, since such products are available on the market to buy separately from cigarette papers, though they may currently be slightly more expensive, the Minister may want to consider removing that exemption, because it inevitably creates a loophole for these products to be used for the smoking of illegal tobacco or a joint.
Gregory Stafford
It is interesting—now that we have moved on to the alternative uses—to note that anyone who has ever had children knows that pipe cleaners are an essential part of any craft kit. Obviously, they can be used for cleaning a pipe, as well as making a spider or whatever else. The Minister has not sought to ban pipe cleaners in the same way. I wonder why he has picked out cigarette papers, which have alternative uses, but not pipe cleaners, which clearly have alternative uses as well.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is bringing back painful memories of trying to create things with pipe cleaners for my children, and trying to make them stand up straight when they simply are not quite that stiff—but some fun memories, too. Yes, I do see that they are used in art. That suggests another question. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that the Government have chosen to ban cigarette papers because they want to reduce the amount of people smoking illegal tobacco; it is also an opportunity to reduce the amount of availability of papers for smoking cannabis and other illegal products, but why have they not included filters?
For many years, the tobacco industry has implied that smoking through a filter is safer and many in the population believe that smoking through a filter is safer, but it is a single-use plastic—and I am sure the Minister is very worried about the environment and the use of single-use plastics. The previous Government banned quite a lot of single-use plastic items to reduce waste. The cigarette filter is the most littered item globally every year and it is a single-use plastic. It contains a cellulose acetate filter, which I am told is a plastic pollution. It also increases the risk of a particular form of lung cancer, because the tiny little itty bits of plastic are inhaled into the individual who is smoking. They also increase the way that people draw on a cigarette, which means they could take in more of the toxins when there is a filter than when there is not. Will the Minister discuss whether he plans to include filters on Report?
Let us look at international examples. In 2011, the United States said that all cigarette papers should have Food and Drug Administration approval for their ingredients. Is the Minister considering publishing the ingredients on the packet here in the UK, so that if they are to continue to be sold, people are aware of the toxins they contain? Further, where these products are being used for modelling or art purposes, perhaps such steps will start to reduce the number of toxins contained in them.
As part of clause 2 we are also going to discuss clause 69 stand part. Clause 69 substitutes for article 4A of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That is, essentially, identical to clause 2, except for the fact that subsection (4) states someone guilty of an offence under the article is liable to a fine “not exceeding level 5”, whereas clause 2 says “not exceedingly level 4.” As the Minister is looking for consistency across the four countries of the United Kingdom, could he explain why he has chosen to have a lower level of fine for the proxy sales offence here than he has in Northern Ireland?
It should be noted that, although we have already discussed clause 50, that part of the Bill provides for legislation for proxy sales in Scotland, where the fine threshold is also set at level 5. I understand that the Minister is a fan of devolution, and wants devolved nations to be able to have different fines, so why has he chosen the fine level for this particular part of the country to be at level 4, which is lower than in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Additionally, section 5 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 says that it is illegal to buy, or attempt to buy, for oneself if under 18. Is it the Minister’s intention to amend that? That is my final question on clause 2.
Jack Rankin
I do not intend to go over the scope of the clause in great detail, because I think the principles largely flow form the principles of clause 1, but I will pick up on the cigarette paper point that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister made, and talk about clause 2(3):
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of cigarette papers to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking.”
I commend the shadow Minister’s researchers, because I can feel her thoroughness—I know a lot more about cigarette papers than I did an hour ago, and much more about cigarette papers than I thought there could possibly be to know, so she has answered some of my question.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has found today interesting. Does he also find it interesting that some of these papers that can currently be bought legally from major retailers in the United Kingdom are not just coloured and have designs on, but flavoured? That is clearly not necessary for someone using them for a model or artwork. They may make people smoke more, because they disguise the taste of the tobacco and make smoking more pleasant.
Jack Rankin
I believe that is the case, and it is something I did not know before today. My questions were along the lines of: is this not just paper, and, if so, why is it excluded in some sense? I was racking my brain for legitimate reasons, and, in her speech, the shadow Minister gave some legitimate reasons, whether that is the woodwind instruments, or the model making mentioned by the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It seems to me that—even though I disagree with the principle of the Bill—those extra properties would not be necessary for those legitimate uses in this instance.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the market should be able to make a difference. Clause 2(3) should be struck from the Bill, because it does not seem that there is a legitimate use for cigarette papers that would not be picked up in another way, shape or form if that subsection were removed. I understand from the guidance I received as a new Member on my first day here that I have to three days to table an amendment before discussion, but I would suggest the removal of subsection (3). Perhaps the Government will consider whether the provision should remain fully in the next iteration of the clause later in this process.
I also want to speak to the term “no reason to suspect”, because I am not clear where the burden of proof sits. If someone goes into a newsagent to order cigarette papers, the overwhelming likelihood is that they will use them to smoke cigarettes. I accept that other reasons exist, but is the shopkeeper supposed to ask? The Bill says “no reason to suspect”; I would expect shopkeepers to have every reason to suspect that people who buy cigarette papers smoke cigarettes. It seems a little woolly. What would the Minister expect the shopkeeper to do in those instances? Is he supposed to ask? If the person says, “I am using this for a woodwind instrument,” is that sufficient? If I were a person who wished to get around the law, I could pretty easily work out that that would get me around the clause.
Andrew Gwynne
I shall answer some of the points made, which were valid. To answer the shadow Minister, cigarette papers are within the scope of the existing legislation. They are included because burning them adds to the volume of smoke and because, with their bleaches and dyes, as she rightly set out, the range of toxicants in the smoke contributes to the additional risks to smokers.
On filters, I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s premise. Although cigarette filters have historically been marketed to make smoking safer, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. All tobacco products are harmful. However, as with all regulations, it is important that measures are considered fully and that the evidence base is there, with no unintended consequences. I do not want to give the tobacco industry the opportunity to greenwash and to say, “Not only are filters healthier for you, but they are healthier for the environment.” We absolutely do not want that. We have powers in part 5 of the Bill to restrict the flavours in cigarette papers, so the argument set out by the shadow Minister is covered. On single-use plastics, it is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to legislate, and it already has powers that enable it to consult on single-use plastics in cigarette filters.
As we have heard, a number of relevant products—for example, pipe cleaners and cigarette papers—can be used for musical instruments, as well as for crafting, art, model making and a whole range of other uses. We do not want to restrict those uses; we want to make it more difficult for people to access such products for the provision of smoking. As we said when we discussed clause 1, we are not making the smoking of tobacco illegal; we are preventing the next generation from getting hooked. The restrictions therefore strike a proportionate balance. A current smoker will be able to smoke until the until the day they die. Although we will do everything we can to give them the opportunity to give up, they will be able to access the products legally, but the Bill will introduce restrictions on them.
We think we have got the balance right, but we will take away the arguments and consider them, because they are valid arguments about how a musician, or someone who wants to use them for crafting and modelling, will still able to access these products if they want to use them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I have quick and pragmatic point about the different uses of cigarette papers. I am a mum and a saxophone player myself, and I suggest that other materials can be used in the place of cigarette papers. I appreciate the debate, but I do not think this is about a pragmatic use.
Andrew Gwynne
That is precisely the point I was coming to. We will take the argument away because it is a reasonable argument, and we will perhaps consider returning to this issue on Report.
I know that the shadow Minister has every sympathy with the fact that cigarette papers are dangerous when used for the consumption of tobacco, which is what we want to bear down on. As I have said, there are powers in part 5 to restrict the flavours of cigarette papers, but we want to get the balance right so we will take the argument away and consider it.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I am reticent to extend the discussion about cigarette papers; I was unaware it was possible to discuss something to such an extent. I am not legally trained, so I ask this for my own understanding as someone who is not a learned Member. If the exact same product was renamed and rebranded as model paper or musical instrument paper, would this law still apply to it?
Andrew Gwynne
That is a good question. Of course, if it was to be used for the consumption of tobacco, it would come within the scope of the Bill. We have to be clear that many of these products have dual uses, as we have heard. I am as guilty as anybody of making pipe-cleaner characters for my children and grandchildren—grandchild, rather, because I have only one so far.
We want to make sure that those who want to continue smoking are able to do so, but that obvious restrictions and boundaries are put in place regarding the accessibility of these products, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be sold them.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for engaging in this discussion, because although it is somewhat technical to discuss cigarette papers, it is important. The hon. Member for Worthing West made the key distinction, which is that it is about the ingredients that are in a product. It would be possible for the Minister to devise legislation that sought to ban cigarette papers, without preventing a market in a similar product that would be ineffective as a cigarette paper but useful for the average modeller.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps we will return to that on Report. I have every sympathy with what the shadow Minister says. We do not want to prevent the legitimate use—indeed, a whole variety of uses—of these products, which is why we have the exemption in the Bill. If we are able to do what she suggests under the powers in the Bill, that would be great; if we can do only some of what she asks for in respect of flavours, that would go part of the way, and we will need to look at how we can strengthen that. If the shadow Minister can be a little patient, I think we can come back to this on Report.
The Chair
Order. I do not mind Members seeking clarification, but when the Minister has sat down we need to leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Tobacco vending machines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses restate the ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and extend it to include vending machines that sell cigarette papers. The prohibition came into force in 2011 in England and in 2012 in Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the amendments made by the Bill it will be an offence for a person with management or control of a premises to have a vending machine available for use from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarettes may be bought.
The prohibition was originally introduced because tobacco vending machines were largely unsupervised and allowed under-age access to tobacco. In 2010, 8% of 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly smoked said that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes. The policy has successfully contributed to reducing smoking rates in young people and has been effective at enabling the age-of-sale restrictions to be implemented and enforced properly.
The existing legislation is consolidated in the Bill to replace the regulations that cover an automatic machine from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers may be bought. With all the restrictions that apply to such products covered in one Act, those who are affected by and who apply the legislation will find it easier to access them. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 3 outlaws the use of vending machines that sell tobacco or tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I note that there are no amendments to clause 3, presumably because it is somewhat settled and established law.
In the same way as vapes and other nicotine products, which we will come to later, vending machines make it much easier for people under the age of 18—or, under clause 1, those born after 1 January 2009—to buy age-restricted products that they are not legally allowed to purchase. They are self-service machines, so it is difficult to prove age and easy to get around if it is machine led. Historically, such machines have often been unsupervised by staff in a shop, thereby providing easy opportunities for younger people to buy from them.
It was coalition Government legislation—the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010—that banned the sale of tobacco products from vending machines from 1 October 2011. That statutory instrument was made under section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which was inserted by section 22 of the Health Act 2009. That is a complex chain to follow, so having this clause where everything is in one place is much simpler. The clause also adds herbal smoking and cigarette paper vending machines to the legislation—on a personal level, I welcome that, for the reasons I have given already—and clarifies the penalty, which was more difficult to establish when looking at the previous trail of legislation.
However, the clause does change the terminology. Previously, it was illegal on the basis of sale “from an automatic machine”; the Bill talks about an “automatic machine from which” products “may be bought”. It seems that they are the same thing, but of course we heard repeatedly in evidence how the tobacco industry tries to get round these things.
I found a trail of people discussing online how to get round the vending machine legislation, which raised various questions. If I buy a product from a major retailer online, I can choose to get that delivered to my home, I can collect it from one of its stores, and I can also pick it up from our local Co-op, the local post office, or from a box with a keypad door, at the garage and in other locations. If one were to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers using an online app, and collect them from a dispensing machine—an automatic machine that dispenses cigarettes—in a pub, would that be covered by this legislation, or is that a loophole that could be exploited? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, because we have heard how inventive the industry is. Would it be possible for people to circumnavigate the Bill’s intent by creating a machine that does not sell the product but simply gives to a person the product they have already bought?
Clause 70 applies to Northern Ireland. It will insert into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the new article 4B, which is essentially the same as clause 3, so the same questions and comments apply. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that in Northern Ireland we have a level 5 offence, and in England and Wales we have a level 4 offence.
I wondered briefly why there was no clause for Scotland, but section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to have an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco products, regardless of whether the machine also sells other products, with a level 4 fine, so Members can be reassured that that is covered. I do not think the Minister answered this point in relation to the previous clause: clearly he chooses the fine levels for England and Wales in the Bill; why has he chosen to have the same penalty as Scotland but a lower penalty than that in Northern Ireland?
Sarah Bool
Clause 3(1) says:
“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a tobacco vending machine is available for use.”
My first point goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about the concept of that person, because that leads to some questions and confusion about where the liability sits. When it comes to the person who has management or control of the premises, we might expect there to be a landlord and a tenant, in which case perhaps the tenant has control legally under the terms of their lease. But if the landlord has a managing agent—the hint is in the name—could they be caught within the scope of the Bill if they have not done enough to prevent the machine from being on the property?
What about cases in which a landlord who is a licensor has a licensee? The concept is slightly different: it is not as official as a lease, but someone has the right to use the premises but not exclusive use or possession of the premises. We could potentially argue about who actually has the management and control of the property in that instance. It would be interesting to know whether in future landlords could be in trouble if they do not include in the lease a provision that bans the location and siting of a vending machine in the property. I do not think that would be where landlords currently stand, but that is perhaps worth considering. It seems pedantic but, knowing the way the legal system can go when people want to find defences, we do have to stress test the wording we use, so we need to examine the concept of a person having management and control.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point that I had not fully considered: who is responsible where you have a larger corporation with a group of shops beneath? You have the board level, the regional managers, the local shop manager, the shift supervisor and then the shop worker, so who has the control? Is that something the Government have a fixed position on, or would each company individually need to prove who that was? If trading standards was prosecuting such an offence and chose the wrong individual, would the Government allow the corporation to get off scot-free?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is something we are duty-bound to explore and test, to make sure we can avoid any problems with the roll-out and implementation of this.
Jack Rankin
The nub of clause 3 is age verification. The reason the Minister and the Government do not want tobacco vending machines in operation is not that they do not want convenience for the customer, but rather that they want to make sure that people are of a suitable age under the law. Without somebody to check, that is a problem.
In my youth, I used to play snooker in what was the Minister’s constituency. There was a little area of the club, with a little gate, where the gambling machines were, and there was a tobacco vending machine in there. The only thing preventing us from going in there was honesty. Whereas it stopped me as a teenager, I do not suppose that it would have stopped adults in the same way—if you wanted to restrict adults from being a smoker in the future, that would not serve as a deterrent.
My question is about nicotine products, which I was hoping the Minister could come to, perhaps when he winds up. Nicotine products are defined separately from tobacco products in this legislation, so it would still be acceptable for things such as nicotine patches to be sold through vending machines. That does not sound unsensible, because it does not seem to me that people trying to evade this law would be attracted to nicotine products in the same way they might be to other tobacco cessation devices. Perhaps the Minister can comment on how he proposes to treat them when he winds up.
Andrew Gwynne
Let me first say to the shadow Minister that we are aware of the new type of machines she mentioned, and we are concerned by their presence. The Department is looking to ensure that there are no loopholes in this legislation and that these machines, which may seek to bypass the age of sale restrictions, are not able to. Secondly, she has already answered the point about Scotland: the reason these measures do not appertain to Scotland is that Scotland already has legislation covering them.
To other Members, I say that we are overcomplicating this. As I said in opening, the clauses merely restate the existing ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are consolidating the legislation to make it easier to understand the law but also to enforce it from one place—and that is it. This is the consolidation of existing powers that are working now.
The hon. Member for Windsor is absolutely right when he says that we want to ensure that age of sale is absolutely enabled to be enforced. As he said, when he was playing snooker in my old constituency, he would have been able to purchase tobacco products from a vending machine, and it was basically on the basis of trust that people were able to do that. That is no longer acceptable. We are bringing in the age restrictions, and we therefore need to make sure that they are adhered to.
I do not wish to stray on to nicotine products, because those are subject to a debate further on in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw a distinction in the way he has. That is why the whole Bill treats nicotine products separately to, and very differently from, tobacco products, for reasons we will get to in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Sale of unpackaged cigarettes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
These clauses restate that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. Selling unpackaged cigarettes is currently an offence in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and these clauses re-enact that offence. The prohibition was originally introduced to reduce smoking among children, because there was evidence that children were being sold single cigarettes. The clauses ensure that the sale of loose cigarettes continues to be prohibited and that cigarettes are sold in the appropriate packaging. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 4 makes it against the law to sell cigarettes that are not in their original packaging, so that individual or small amounts of cigarettes cannot be sold separately. That is in part because cigarette packets now have standardised formats, warnings and information designed to alert the smoker to the health problems caused by the smoking habit, and selling cigarettes outside the packets means the smoker avoids that information.
I asked the Minister earlier about proposals for warning notices about smoking on the cigarette paper itself, but I did not hear his thoughts. The notices might ensure that, were individual sales to happen despite the law, the warning would still be received by the child or smoker, but there is also the risk of adding additional chemicals to the paper. Where does he think the benefit or balance of risk lies in that respect?
Everywhere else the Bill makes it an offence for a “person” to do something, so why does the clause mention a “tobacco retailer” rather than a “person”? If the Minister does not wish cigarettes to be sold individually, why would it be more of an offence for a proper tobacco retailer to sell them individually than it would be for an individual who is not a tobacco retailer? Why the change in wording? I do not understand. If someone is not a tobacco retailer, it would clearly be illegal, because they would have no licence. Why not have this additional offence for the most reckless people, so that they can be dealt with more severely?
As the Minister says, the minimum pack size of 20 was brought forward in 2017, because it was felt that packs of 10 were closer to the level of pocket money and were encouraging the uptake of cigarettes by children. When we come to vaping, we will discuss the pocket money nature of some of these products.
Jack Rankin
Certainly in my experience, the only reason people sell unpackaged cigarettes is to make them cheaper for schoolchildren, so I find it strange that subsection (2) states that the fine is level 3 on the standard scale. If I understand what my hon. Friend said in the last sitting about the standard scale, level 3 is lower than the level 4 fine for sale. A sale could have been in error, but unpackaging cigarettes to sell to schoolchildren seems deliberately malicious, so I am surprised that it is not treated more severely. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on that.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right that the offence of selling a product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 is something someone could do unintentionally. They could genuinely believe the ID in front of them, or that the person looked so significantly older that it was not even necessary to ask them for ID, whereas selling cigarettes outside the packaging requires the deliberate act of removing them from the packet and selling them individually, in a way that is not normally done. I think my hon. Friend is right, and it is perhaps surprising to have a deliberate act at a lower fine level than a potentially unintentional one.
Sarah Bool
Why are we limiting this to cigarettes? Forgive me, I am not an expert—I have never bought herbal smoking products—but if we are applying the same rules and we just want an outright ban, perhaps we should apply it generally, in case there are rule changes, to the sale of not only unpackaged cigarettes but unpackaged herbal smoking products. That would add further to the emphasis on changing the term from “a tobacco retailer” to “a person”, as my hon. Friend suggested.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to talk about the quantity. If the principle behind this clause is to ensure that the quantity of sale is such that it restricts younger people from purchasing these products with their pocket money, what consideration has the Minister given to the quantities of herbal cigarettes, or herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers, so that they would be purchased in quantities not easily accessible to young people?
On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about the fine levels, the fines are level 3, which in this case is consistent across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Clause 51 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to add proposed new section 4E, which essentially has the same effect—it is different wording, but it has the same essential effect of banning the sale of loose cigarettes. Clause 71 adds proposed new section 4C, which is essentially the same as clause 4, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to have the same effect. Again, it has the same fine, so there is some consistency across the four nations of the country, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters. Again, it is a case of perhaps overcomplicating what the clause does. As with clause 3, clause 4 merely restates that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. We are not talking about proxy purchasing, or somebody breaking up a packet of cigarettes and selling them as an individual; we are talking here about retailers. This practice used to be quite common, but thankfully, because of the measures that are already in place, it is already an offence and we are reaffirming that offence in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it has been illegal for some time and that is an offence to sell loose cigarettes, and of course it has been. However, we heard in evidence from the Royal College of Physicians last week that the sale of loose cigarettes to youngsters was still a problem—it is an entry way into cigarettes. Does the Minister have any comment on whether reaffirming the offence with this legislation will actually help to enforce it to any greater degree?
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, I believe it will. Of course, this measure is not being taken in isolation, and it is not just a stand-alone measure. This is part of a whole package of tobacco control measures that form this part of the Bill. Taken together, these things will ensure that we drive down even further smoking prevalence in young people. However, we do not want to undo the legislation as it stands; we need it to be part and parcel of the whole raft of measures we are bringing forward.
Sarah Bool
I am concerned about whether we are accidentally and inadvertently creating a loophole here. If we are not going to ban someone from breaking down a cigarette packet and selling it, that is the way they will go about doing it. We should be going for consistency and tightness on this. I appreciate that that is the law as it stands, which is why we have applied it, but have we had the foresight to ensure that we do not create a loophole? It seems quite possible that we have.
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady is not talking about retailers breaking up packets, which is illegal, she is talking, effectively, about proxy purchasing—an adult buying tobacco products for children, splitting up the packet and selling those products on. It is already an offence for those children to get cigarettes—whether a full packet or part of a packet—even if they are not from retailers. It is proxy purchasing, and we have already covered that.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of messaging on individual cigarettes. I am not sure whether she was under the misapprehension that it is not covered in the Bill. The Bill restates the existing power to make regulations on the appearance of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only that, but it goes further by extending the power to other products, including cigarette papers. Although we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time, as we believe we already have strong health warnings in the existing measures, we will continue to monitor the situation. We do leave an open door to it, and the powers are there. We will, however, mandate pack inserts into cigarette packs. We believe that that is proportionate at this time, while not closing the door to going further.
Lastly, the shadow Minister noted that, in some cases, fines are consistent across the United Kingdom, but that, in others, there are differences. I am afraid that that is the result of the devolution settlement. We have built into the Bill the ability for all four nations to walk together on making our country smoke-free, but the levels at which fines are levied are entirely a matter for the devolved Administrations. That is why there is sometimes an inconsistency in fine levels.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Age of sale notice at point of sale: England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clauses 5, 6 and 72 replace the requirement for age of sale notices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to reflect the new age of sale for tobacco products. Clause 55 provides Scottish Ministers with the power to set requirements about warning statements, which are notices that reflect the new age of sale requirements there. Age of sale notices are required under current legislation and must state in a prominent position:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18.”
The Bill will replace that requirement with a requirement for notices to reflect the new age of sale, stating:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.”
The notices must comply with any requirements set out in regulations on the size or appearance of those notices. This updated wording on age of sale notices will support tobacco retailers in implementing the new age of sale restrictions by helping to clarify and underline them for customers and staff. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 5, 6, 55 and 72 make provision for age of sale notices. Clause 5(1) makes it clear on which premises the notices must be displayed. In some respects, that is obvious, but the fact that the Bill makes clear that the notices must be on the same premises where the tobacco is being sold is perhaps a sign that the Minister has the measure of the tobacco industry: if that was not clearly stipulated, there would be temptation to display the notices in head office or somewhere else where no one could see them. The fact that it is thought necessary to state what is blindingly obvious—that the notice must be displayed in the right place—is somewhat sad.
Subsection (3) deals with positioning. The statement that the notice must be prominent and readily visible at each point of sale is relevant to shops that have more than one till at the counter. One sometimes goes to the counter of a large supermarket, or similar, and sees a whole row of tills. It is therefore important that the signs are visible from all the tills, not just the one closest to the tobacco.
What the notice must say is provided for in subsection (2):
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.
That is clear, simple and informative, which is good. However, it does not mention cigarette papers or herbal smoking products. Why has the Minister chosen not to include the other items included in the rolling age of sale and the Government’s smoke-free generation on the notice for clarity? That is important because we heard in evidence, and have all read in the news, of examples where people who work in our retail sector have been treated in an abusive—sometimes violent—fashion or people have been very rude to them.
If the purpose of the notice is to be clear on what the law is, providing clarity that it also includes herbal smoking products and cigarette papers would enable the public to be aware of the law and the retailer to point to the sign and say, “I can’t do this—look.” The message as currently drafted does not do that, and that could cause shopkeepers or shop assistants more difficulty. I notice that under subsection (4), any aspect of the notices, including the appearance and wording, can be amended, so that could be done at a later date if the Minister feels that the shopkeepers’ evidence is that herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are proving a challenge. Why has he chosen not to do that at the outset?
Subsection (7) talks about a defence of having taken reasonable steps. I have two questions on that. First, is “It fell down and I hadn’t noticed, your honour” an adequate defence? How does the Minister envisage the reasonable steps defence? What are the reasonable steps? If the Government choose under subsection (4) to change the appearance or wording—perhaps if they discover it is inadequate in some way—what steps will need to be taken to ensure that all retailers are aware of those changes, and within what timeframe will retailers be expected to react to those changes?
The impact assessment says that the cost of putting up a new sign is not prohibitively expensive for an individual business—it is about £4 per retailer—but it means that there is an overall cost to small and micro-retailers of around £124,000 in England, and £143,000 in the UK. That is a cost to business overall, even if a small one to individual businesses. The impact assessment also notes the cost of staff training and awareness. There are an estimated 42,582 convenience stores in England, each with a store manager who would have to disseminate that information to the estimated 299,957 members of staff. Of those stores, 71% would be considered small or microbusinesses.
The cost of amending those things means that the Opposition invite the Minister to get the notice right the first time so costs are not incurred twice. There is an estimated cost of around £2 million in total on training. Although the cost to any one small or microbusiness is likely to be small—around £70 on average—that cost combined with £4 for a sign, at a time when small businesses are being squeezed by other budgetary measures the Government have brought in, is another potential straw to break the camel’s back.
The fine is at a level 3, and the person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail is the person who is liable. But what does it mean to be
“a person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail”.
Is it the director of the business? Is it the store manager who is on duty that day? Is it the overall store manager, or is it the licence holder?
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend has previously sought to amend the Bill in various places to add the qualifier “save for the first offence”. It seems to me that, particularly in the first instance, this could be a genuine oversight and that it would be appropriate for a council officer or someone from trading standards to simply bring it to the attention of store management and ask them to rectify it over a period of time. Does she think this clause should be tweaked in such a way, on the same principle on which that she has sought to amend other clauses?
Dr Johnson
I am going to disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. There will be licensing for tobacco products, and part of the due diligence of setting up to sell such products includes familiarising oneself with the legislation as it stands and thus with the regulations around signage, buying and putting up the appropriate signs, and providing the appropriate training. The challenge occurs if the Government seek to amend the notice, at which point they would need to ensure that they had given adequate notice and information to the company to ensure that it had the time, resources and information to put up the correct signs.
Tristan Osborne
On signs, if we accept the premise that the law is changed—as we have done in clause 1—to include a rolling scale with the date being 1 January 2009, signs will have to be updated in any event to reflect that. The current signs about being 18 would have to be removed. On the definition on the signs—tobacco products versus relevant products—is it not clearer to the public, who are going to be the purchasers of the products, if it is tobacco products? It does not preclude extra signage, which exists in many stores, of what can and cannot be purchased. While I accept the premise of the idea of relevant products versus tobacco products, for the public it would be clearer if it were tobacco products.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that those selling tobacco products legally now will need to change their signs to have the date of 1 January 2009 on them, as opposed to the age of 18, because that will be the law: that clause has now passed, and I expect that it will continue its passage through the House and the other place, because it has broad support among the public and within Parliament.
Dr Beccy Cooper
I just wanted to clarify something with the hon. Lady, because she is talking about the size of the signs in Wales, under clause 6, I think. Clause 6(4) says:
“The notice must comply with any requirements set out in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers”.
I presume that that is the response that she is looking for: the Welsh Ministers will absolutely be able to decide on the size of the signs.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making, I think, an important point about whether Ministers, either in England or in the devolved Administrations, can put signs together in order to reduce the burden on a business of having multiple, potentially confusing signs. I understand the point about devolution, but most ordinary people will look for a single regulated sign for this. I wonder whether there is any discussion—even if the Minister cannot legally enforce it within the Bill—about working in tandem with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that there can be a standardised sign, so that it is abundantly clear, whether someone is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, that that is the sign, and that it is both clear to consumers and it is clear to businesses what they are supposed to be displaying.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is of course correct that we have devolution, and the hon. Member for Worthing West is of course right that Welsh Ministers—in the same way as Scottish Ministers, and, as I will come to, Northern Irish Ministers—have the capacity to deal with changes to the signs, but it will be easier to have clarity. I am merely suggesting that the Minister could discuss these details with his devolved counterparts and put such measures on the face of the Bill now, rather than not do so and then require, for example, as I said before, the Scottish Ministers to then introduce an SI for something that could be changed much more cheaply with drafting now. It would require much less time and energy from the civil service in Scotland—and spend less taxpayers’ money—to achieve that.
I am interested by the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about joint signs. The point I was making was about the display space: if someone has to put a lot of different signs up—particularly given that the Minister has shown reluctance on the principle of a nicotine-free generation, which I suspect is where we will end up—and we need to do that at a later date, we will end up with yet another sign with yet another date on it. There comes a point at which the amount of display space available to retailers starts to become smaller, given the required font size.
Before I finish, I have one more quick point, which is just to note that clause 72 is the Northern Irish equivalent added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, so it is the same as clause 5, with the same effect.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 14th January 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2025 - (14 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 6, 55 and 72 stand part.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
At first sight, the clause can appear to follow on naturally from the rest of the Bill, and in some sense it does, but I think it is important. We heard from shopkeepers in the evidence session last week, from the British Retail Consortium, and in the representations to us made in writing that it can be difficult for younger shopkeepers to hold the line on this, and they might be at the wrong end of unacceptable verbal abuse. In my view, the Bill will increase that risk.
With younger people often manning retail stands, in the future we might have 18 or 19-year-olds having to refuse to sell tobacco products to people a decade or so older than them. That will be increasingly challenging, even compared with the existing situation. I have spoken about being opposed to the principle of the Bill and finding it somewhat unworkable, but putting that to one side, I think that if we are to proceed with it, we have a particular obligation to make things as easy as possible for shopkeepers. I am sure that everyone agrees.
The language used, or proposed to be used, in the age of sale notice in subsection (2) is quite legalistic, being presented as:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.
That is a statement of fact. It mirrors what we see today, but it is very legal. I think it would benefit from being a bit more practical. For example—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made this point—it is illegal to sell herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and not just cigarettes, but cigars. We might help our shopkeepers if we made the list a bit more practical, so that the shopkeeper could turn around to say, “Sorry, guvnor, but this is the law,” whereas with the Bill saying “tobacco products”, the verbal altercation might include, “These are not cigarettes, though.” Perhaps we should move away from legalistic language to help staff, especially younger members of staff. That is particularly necessary, given what seems to be a general coarsening in our society, I am afraid to say.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The regulations will need to be enforced not just in a large supermarket, where the shop assistant has the benefit of a security guard and other—
Dr Johnson
I am sorry, Sir Mark. The regulations will need to be enforced whether one is a shop assistant in a small shop or in a large shop. In a large shop that sells tobacco, such as a large supermarket, one might have the benefit of a security guard, additional staff and many more people around. Alternatively, a 19-year-old might be trying to enforce the regulations on a Saturday evening in a rural shop many miles from the local police station, with no security guard or anyone else around.
Jack Rankin
That is exactly the kind of situation I am thinking of. The language could be a bit more practical, less legal and it might aid that shopkeeper to point to an external source for validation.
I have two further points. One is a point of ignorance for me as a new Member, for which I apologise. I do not know what subsection (5) means when it says that
“Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
I hope someone can help me with that. Clause 6 is being taken together with clause 5, because clause 5 applies to England and clause 6 applies to Wales. To me, they appear to be exactly the same, apart from the age of sale notice described in clause 6(2) and the fact that clause 6 obviously also includes the Welsh version. I am going to take at face value that it says the same thing in Welsh, although I do not speak Welsh. It would be nice to clarify whether it is either/or whether it is both together. That is of interest.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to follow up on the points made on clause 5(3) and clause 6(3) in particular. Both specify that
“The notice must be displayed in a prominent position”.
I agree with many of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made about what that means in practice. In the information pack that we have been given, there is a quote from the Scottish Grocers’ Federation, which I want to read for the record. It explicitly states:
“In most convenience stores, space is at a premium and the suggested wording set out in UK Government proposals will require a significant surface area in order to be legible and accessible to all customers. The complexity of a moving ban will require very clear public messaging. Appropriate and mandatory signage is essential for good practice and the sale of age restricted items, SGF is concerned that multiple messages throughout the store relating to various product ranges and items could potentially create confusion and lead to challenging interactions between customers and staff.”
To protect our retailers, we must ensure that we enforce these regulations correctly. When making the regulations, the Secretary of State should take into account the voice of the retailers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. In responding to points that have been made, I want first to reiterate that these two clauses do not relate to enforcement; they concern the nature of the signage that will be required to be displayed. We can come to those other matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I remind Opposition Members of what has been said in previous debates: we will use the very long lead-in time to engage fully with the retail sector to ensure that we get the delivery in shops right and to ensure that the Bill’s provisions can be implemented without any hiccups.
I also reiterate that we abhor any violence and abuse towards retail staff—or anybody else—and it is the intention of this Labour Government to introduce a new offence in this respect. Given the comments that have rightly been made in the course of this and earlier debates, I hope that it will command full support from all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Windsor asked what is meant by “negative resolution procedure”. It is the procedure for the statutory instrument that will be have to be made to introduce these regulations. The fact that it is “negative” means purely that it will not require a parliamentary debate. It will be done through the usual secondary legislation processes.
There were questions about the nature of the clauses relating to different parts of the United Kingdom, and why we are approaching this with slightly different methods. I must say politely—particularly to the shadow Minister—that we have to respect the devolution settlement. These matters are entirely within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. Some things remain reserved for the UK Government, but for a lot of the measures in the Bill, the legislative competence rests with the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments.
Dr Johnson
I have at no point suggested that I do not respect the devolution that is in place. I made two remarks that reference devolution. One was about the different penalties that apply for the same offence in different parts of the United Kingdom. While I recognise that Ministers in other parts of the country have the competence to change the penalties to make them different from those that apply in England, it is clearly the Minister here who decides what the draft legislation should say with regards to the penalty in England. My questions focused on why he has chosen to make it different in England from other parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if the Northern Irish had chosen a higher penalty, it is up to him if he wishes to join them, or to have a lower penalty.
The other issue I have raised regarding devolution was in relation to clause 5. The Bill as drafted says that tobacco cannot be sold to people born on or after 1 January 2009, and much effort has gone into ensuring that that is replicated in Scottish legislation all the way through, even though the Scottish Parliament could do that itself if it wanted to. It makes sense to do it in one go here because that is more efficient in terms of both time and financial expenditure for civil servants across the country. So my question was why the Minister has chosen not to include in the Bill the change to the notice in clause 5, saying that tobacco cannot be sold to people under 18. Why not change that now?
Dr Johnson
I am defending myself, as the Minister has accused me of something, Sir Mark.
Dr Johnson
I am merely suggesting that changing the notice in clause 5 to
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
instead of “under 18” now would be more efficient, and help our Scottish colleagues, rather than implying they are not capable of doing so.
Andrew Gwynne
Sir Mark, the hon. Lady protests too much here, because while it is true that she was questioning why, for example, the English fines could not be the rate of the Northern Irish fines, she was also pretty much calling for us to legislate for Scotland and Wales to bring consistency across the whole United Kingdom. Likewise with clause 5, she asks why we in this place are not legislating for Scotland in respect of the notices that will be displayed in Scotland. It is not our job to legislate where the Scottish Government do not want us to do so.
Andrew Gwynne
No, I will answer the hon. Lady. My officials and I have been in contact throughout the production of this Bill with officials and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. I have had umpteen meetings personally with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and there is an open offer. They are genuinely excited, Sir Mark, that we are able—as far as possible—to legislate with their consent to make smoke-free UK a reality, and we have sought to design this Bill in co-production with the devolved Administrations. None the less, there are some things that the devolved Administrations do not wish this Parliament to legislate on. For example, in respect of clause 5, on the notices, the Scottish Government have made it very clear that this is something they wish to do in their own way, in their own time, notwithstanding the fact that they have given us assurances that the measures will be in place to give enough time for retailers north of the border in Scotland to implement them. It is not for me to overrule the will of Scottish Ministers, who have the legislative competence to do this, if they do not wish this Parliament to do it on their behalf.
I hope that that answers future similar questions about the differences in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are legislating with the permission and consent of the three devolved Administration Governments, and we are not going to overstep. I have already said to my ministerial colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom that if, during the course of the Bill through this House and the other place, they think, “That is not quite right and we need it to be amended,” or, “You know, it does make sense for Westminster to do it all in one go and do it for us,” we will respect that.
I have given Ministers my promise that if, as an afterthought, they want us to do some of this for them on their behalf during the Bill’s progress through its stages in both Houses, we will facilitate that. However, I am not going to overstep the powers given to me by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers to legislate on their behalf and to ensure that we have a United Kingdom-wide Bill that meets the separate and different needs, ambitions and expectations of our devolved settlement.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for making clear that the reason that the text contained within the age of sale notice is not being amended at this stage is because Scottish Ministers have told him they would prefer to amend it themselves at a later date.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for that, and if any offence was caused by my earlier comments, I apologise to the hon. Lady. We need to set out clearly that we are doing something quite ingenious, and that is only because of the goodwill and the desire of Ministers from different political backgrounds in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get this legislation through the United Kingdom Parliament with the ability for them to then differ on consultations and other matters once the legislation is on the statute book. That would have been unheard of in years gone by, when relationships were not necessarily as good as they currently are between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government.
The same argument applies to clause 6. The sign will be a matter for Welsh Ministers. Although the framework of the sign is set down in the Bill for Wales, because that was how they wished us to approach it, any changes would be a matter for Welsh Ministers. The hon. Lady asked the hypothetical question whether, if we changed the notices again, there would be adequate consultation or time for retailers. We are not planning on making life difficult for retailers. We think that the wording here is the right wording. I do not take it to be legalistic and technical in the way that the hon. Member for Windsor seems to think it is. It is the same wording that applies now, with the exception that rather than talking about people “under the age of 18”, it will say
“anyone born on or before 1 January 2009”.
I think that is pretty clear.
The wording on the signage was tested during the public consultation in January, and more than 70% of respondents supported it. Many respondents noted that we need to mirror the existing wording to ensure accessibility. Other products are more niche and were not deemed to be necessary on the sign, but I think most people understand what a tobacco product is, and a cigar is certainly a tobacco product. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Ban on manufacture of snus etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 9, page 5, line 10, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 61, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 62, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 60 and 61, prevents penalties for a first offence under section 9 being a fine beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clauses 56 and 57 stand part.
Amendment 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Amendment 71, in clause 58, page 29, line 21, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Amendment 72, in clause 58, page 29, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 70 and 71, prevents penalties for a first offence under Section 58 (pertaining to restrictions on the possession of snus with an intent to supply in Scotland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Clause 58 stand part.
Clauses 73 and 74 stand part.
Amendment 77, in clause 75, page 39, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Amendment 78, in clause 75, page 39, line 21, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Amendment 79, in clause 75, page 39, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or conditional caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 77 and 78, prevents penalties for a first offence under Section 75 (pertaining to restrictions on the possession with an intent to supply of snus in Northern Ireland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a conditional caution.
Clause 75 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate. Amendments 60 to 62, 70 to 72 and 77 to 79 would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of possessing the relevant oral tobacco product, for example snus, with intent to supply it to another person in the course of business in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, by creating an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing that offence if it is their first offence.
The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction or indictment to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or provide instead for a discretionary caution in England and Wales, a recorded police warning in Scotland or a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is lower than the current maximum penalties, which are, on summary conviction, imprisonment for up to six months in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 12 months in Scotland, a fine, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
The amendments would remove the distinction between summary conviction and conviction on indictment for first-time offenders, meaning that the severity of the offence committed would not be taken into account in those cases as it would under current provisions. In creating a first-time offence, the amendments would have a similar effect to amendments that we have already discussed, so, if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as my rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment remains the same.
Dr Johnson
This group of clauses and amendments all apply to snus, which we are trying to ban, so the first question is: what is snus? Snus is a tobacco product predominantly used in Sweden and, to an extent, in the USA. When the Health and Social Care Committee, which I was a member of in the last Parliament, visited Sweden at around the time the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill was introduced, we saw shops with massive displays of different types, brands and flavours of snus, which came in small round pots similar to those that we see nicotine pouches in; they were mostly kept in the refrigerator.
Snus is produced using tobacco leaves, salt and alkalis such as sodium bicarbonate or sodium carbonate. The alkali is there to help the nicotine to be absorbed more easily into the mouth and therefore into the bloodstream of the person using the product. Producers also potentially add a flavouring. As we have seen in cigarette papers, flavourings are used to improve the palatability of tobacco products. The mixture of tobacco leaf, salt, alkalis and flavouring is ground up, steam-pasteurised to inhibit the growth of bacteria, and then supplied loose or in small pouches.
The loose form is a moist, powdery product, which I understand is rolled between one’s fingers to create a sort of cylinder shape known as a pinch. It is placed under the upper lip, where it is held for about 30 minutes while the nicotine is absorbed into the bloodstream. Its moist nature helps to facilitate the absorption of nicotine and makes the nicotine hit faster; it is absorbed more quickly than it would otherwise be.
The second way that snus can be supplied is in a small pouch resembling a very little teabag, which comes in two formats: original and white. The original version is a sachet of material that is kept moist and is brown in colour. Again, the moistness allows a quick release, but the tobacco product does not need rolling and pinching; it just needs putting into one’s mouth, and it stays in its little pouch. The white version is not in all cases white, but the genre is known as white snus. It has a milder taste and a slower release because the powder in the pouch is dry. The dryness means that one needs to get it moist in the mouth before it will dissolve across the membrane and give the nicotine hit, which means that the dry snus is a slower-release product than the original. The American snus is a lower moisture product, again provided in a variety of flavours to suit the customer.
Why did I and others not know what snus was? I am sure you are familiar with it, Sir Mark. This specific form of tobacco product has been banned in the UK for some time. It was banned by the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992—I was still at school—and then EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 created a European-wide ban, which was incorporated into UK law by the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. The Committee might be interested to know that Sweden has a derogation specifically for snus under that EU regulation, so snus is still sold there, as I described.
Advocates of snus believe it is less harmful and causes less respiratory disease and less cancer than does an inhaled form of tobacco. They try to market it as an alternative to smoking that is less harmful. However, the evidence shows a risk of cancer, particularly of the cheek and gums. Perhaps that is not surprising, given where it is placed to be used. Oral squamous cell carcinoma, a form of cancer of the mouth, often occurs in the site at which snus is commonly placed. It has also been shown that snus causes increased blood pressure, particularly in females, and despite not being inhaled it can contribute to an increased rate of asthma.
Aside from all that, snus contains nicotine, which we know is addictive. Regardless of the form in which it is taken, it creates the addiction and cravings that rob people of the choice not to use the product, which the Minister spoke about so powerfully last week. It is important that we consider this carefully, because otherwise people will become addicted to snus as another form of nicotine.
Jack Rankin
The shadow Minister is a doctor, so she is learned in this area, and she makes the case that snus is harmful in the same way as tobacco. What does she know of the relative harm? I am concerned that, in taking quite a studs-up and puritanical approach, we are taking away things that might not be as bad as cigarettes that could allow people to effectively tier down. Does she have any thoughts on that?
Dr Johnson
That was the second question I considered when preparing for the debate on this clause. My first question was: what is snus? My second was: if it is a tobacco product, why is it treated differently? We have talked about all sorts of different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, snuff—yet this one has particularly robust regulation and a robust legal framework. The only reason I could find was that it is new, trendy and coming forward very quickly, and there were concerns that it would quickly take over the children’s market in the same way as vaping. That is the only suggestion I was able to find. I am sure the Minister will be able to help us to understand why snus is treated so robustly, although I am not sad to see that.
Clause 7 makes it an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products. Oral tobacco products are defined quite particularly as those that are for oral use but not intended to be inhaled or chewed, so they do not include chewing tobacco, which would be included under clause 1. They also have to be in either powder or particle form—as I said, they are in the form of ground tobacco. Currently, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 define “tobacco for oral use” similarly, as tobacco “intended for oral use”, not to be inhaled or chewed, and
“in powder or particulate form or any combination”,
whether presented in a
“sachet portion or a porous sachet, or in any other way”.
Regulation 17 provides for a UK-wide ban on the production and sale of snus. Schedule 6 to the Bill, which we will come to, will repeal that measure and replace it with clause 7.
I want to ask the Minister why it is an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products in the UK, and not an offence to manufacture other tobacco products. He has talked about the need for a smoke-free generation and his worries that smoking tobacco harms individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to choose, but he has not chosen to ban the production of other tobacco products. I found that the last time an English-produced cigarette rolled off the production line was at the Horizon Imperial Tobacco factory in Nottingham in May 2016, and the last UK-made cigarette was produced at Japan Tobacco International’s plant in County Antrim in October 2017. He may feel that such a ban is unnecessary because we are not producing any tobacco products, but I am interested in his thoughts on the matter.
The penalty here is the most severe so far. We have had some debate about different clauses containing fines at levels 3, 4 and 5 on the standard scale, but this clause contains a much more severe penalty for a product that may or may not be less harmful than cigarettes, although it has not been suggested that it is much more harmful. The fine for breaching clause 7 on the ban on manufacture of snus is, on summary conviction, imprisonment of six months, a fine or both. Six months is based on the current upper limit in a magistrates court, but the Lord Chancellor announced in October last year a plan to increase the maximum penalty for a magistrates court to 12 months’ imprisonment, which would presumably apply to this Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is the case and whether there have been any convictions under the existing legislation. The penalty for conviction on indictment would be imprisonment not exceeding two years, a fine or both—again, quite severe penalties when compared with other aspects of the Bill and other tobacco products. I am interested to understand why.
Sarah Bool
I apologise to my hon. Friend. I might have misunderstood, so may I clarify the intended purpose here? If snus is illegal under earlier regulations, what is this further provision? Is it to ensure that nicotine pouches are also caught? The UK has already banned the sale of all oral tobacco products, including snus, under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which implemented European Union directive 92/41. I am hoping for some clarity about that, but perhaps it will come from the Minister.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—I am sure the Minister will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill does not apply to nicotine pouches per se, because nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. As I understand it, the brands we see in our local supermarket in similar round pots contain nicotine, and they are put in the mouth and absorbed in a similar way, but they are not tobacco products. As I read the Bill, clause 7 will not apply to them, and obviously they are not currently illegal, because they are widely sold.
Andrew Gwynne
I can easily clarify that point. The clause applies to relevant oral tobacco products, which are defined as tobacco products intended for oral use, not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and that consist wholly or partially of tobacco. It does not apply to tobacco-free nicotine pouches, which are sometimes informally referred to as snus; the Bill classes nicotine pouches as nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for clarifying that so comprehensively.
Clause 8 deals with the sale of snus. Clause 7 having made it an offence to manufacture snus, clause 8 bans the sale of snus, which it defines, in the same way as described by the Minister, as a “relevant oral tobacco product”. In wording that is slightly different from that in other clauses, clause 8 also describes the offence as not only to sell, but to
“offer or expose…for sale”.
I had to look up what that meant. To help the Committee, apparently, to offer or expose something for sale means to expose it to attract an offer of purchase from the public. Something is put in the shop window—in the same way as the bongs the Minister described in a shop window the other day—to be visible to a customer and the customer may then choose to make an offer for the purchase of the product, and the product is thereby exposed for sale. In essence, this provision will make putting these products in a shop window an offence.
I am interested to understand why the wording in clause 8 is different from that for all the other tobacco and nicotine products in the Bill, where that wording is not used. If the Minister could explain that, I will be grateful. Again, the defence offered by clause 8 is “all reasonable steps”, but I am not sure what such steps would be, so I will be grateful for clarification on that, too, please.
The penalties for disobeying clause 8 are quite severe. The penalty on summary conviction is
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit”
in a magistrates court, which is six months, potentially rising to 12 months based on what the Lord Chancellor has said over the past few months, or a fine—of how much, the Bill does not state, so perhaps the Minister could help with that—or both. On conviction on indictment, the penalty is
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”
That means that we have a contradiction within the Bill. For virtually any other tobacco or nicotine products that may not be sold, but are sold by an offender, the offender is liable for a fine at level 3, 4 or 5, but clause 8—the sale of snus, as distinct from all other tobacco products—creates an offence that carries a penalty of significant imprisonment. I am not saying that that should not be the case, but I am interested to understand the rationale for the difference, because, notwithstanding any devolution differences, the decision on what to do in England and Wales is clearly for this Government and this Minister.
Clause 9 concerns possession with intent to supply in the course of business of a “relevant oral tobacco product”, as has been defined in clauses 7 and 8. I am interested in what is meant by “the course of business”. If one looks at section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where possession with intent to supply is most readily thought of, it is the intent to supply it to another person. However, does “the course of business” imply that money must change hands? If one had the intent to supply to another without being paid, would that not be in “the course of business” and therefore be legal? Also, does the word “business” itself imply a properly regulated business? It could not be a properly regulated business in so far as it would be an illegal sale. Does the Minister therefore make a distinction between the product being sold from a business premises as opposed to being bought down the pub from an acquaintance?
Amendments 60, 61 and 62 to clause 9 basically look once again at the principle of proportionality. If, for example, we were to prosecute someone for the sale of cigarettes to a 19-year-old born on 1 January 2009, and it was that person’s first offence, we would give them a fine—so why would we wish to consider imprisoning somebody at the first offence for selling snus? The crime would appear to be somewhat similar but the penalty is very different. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, although other hon. Members may wish to, but they are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of different offences, and the inconsistency between the penalties for different offences that may appear to be very similar. Amendments 60 and 61 insert the phrase
“save if it is a first offence”
and amendment 62 says:
“A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence…is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
I will be interested in the Minister’s comments.
Jack Rankin
I am sorry if this is my ignorance as a new legislator, but clauses 7, 8 and 9 applied to England and Wales. However, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply the same measures to Scotland, and then we have the same for Northern Ireland. In previous clauses, we have also seen that replicated for Wales. Does that mean that clauses 7, 8 and 9 apply to both England and Wales, and how come that devolution is treated differently? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows the answer to that, or maybe the Minister could clarify.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I believe that the Bill specifies somewhere which clauses apply under which jurisdictions, but I cannot remember exactly which page that is on. I am sure the Minister in his summing up will be able to identify where my hon. Friend can look to review that, but some of the clauses will apply to different jurisdictions. Some will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and others will apply to England and Wales, or England alone, depending on various different factors. My hon. Friend will be able to look at the relevant part of the Bill to find that out. My understanding is that clauses 7, 8 and 9 will apply in England and Wales, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that point in his summing up.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has identified, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply to Scotland; they essentially replicate clauses 7, 8 and 9. Clause 56 prevents the manufacture of snus, clause 57 prevents the sale of snus and clause 58 prevents the possession with intent to supply of snus. Amendments 70, 71 and 72 to clause 58 replicate amendments 60, 61 and 62 and say that there should be proportionality in relation to penalties.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. Although I appreciate her intention to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders, these amendments are not appropriate. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously. We do not want to weaken the penalty regime for these offences, including offences relating to snus, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone who has committed these offences. We do not want to remove the ability of the court to issue a higher-level penalty, where that is viewed as proportionate for a particular case, for anyone convicted of these offences.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments on clauses 7 to 9, 56 to 58 and 73 to 75. Those clauses make it an offence to manufacture, sell or offer for sale, or possess with the intent to supply, a relevant oral tobacco product, such as snus, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A relevant oral tobacco product is something intended for oral use—the clue is in the name: it is not intended to be inhaled or chewed and it consists wholly or partly of tobacco in powder or particulate form. That includes snus.
As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, snus has been banned in the UK and the EU since 1992. Snus was banned as it was a novel tobacco product that is harmful to health. Snus contains harmful compounds that have been demonstrated to cause cancer, including cancers of the mouth. The manufacture of snus with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is currently banned, as she rightly pointed out, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. These clauses re-enact that ban on manufacture but, unlike the 2016 regulations, do not limit it to supplying the UK or travel retail sector. In effect, that extends the ban to include manufacturing snus for export. That simplifies enforcement and reduces the possibility of such harmful products being available within the United Kingdom.
Andrew Gwynne
I will have to get back to the hon. Lady on that point. We will write to Committee members to update them, because I do not have that information to hand or in my mind.
As I was saying, the supply of snus for consumption in any part of the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is also already banned under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, and these clauses recast the existing ban as a general ban on sale. The ban on possession of snus for intent to supply support the ban on sale, while preserving the current position under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which allows possession of snus for personal use.
Under these clauses, it will not be an offence to possess snus for personal use or for personal gifting to friends and family; this is not about criminalising individuals who possess snus for personal use. These clauses maintain and simplify the ban, in place since 1992, on the sale of a harmful tobacco product. The clauses also make the prohibition on snus more comprehensive and make the legislation clearer and more accessible. We have no intention of allowing a banned and harmful product into the United Kingdom market. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
The hon. Lady asks about “all reasonable steps”. As we have already discussed, it will be for the discretion of trading standards as to whether all reasonable steps have been taken. As we know, they take a proportionate approach to these matters, and we know that their current procedures work. There is no expectation that they will not work with the legislation before us.
What would prevent a retailer from just giving some of these products to a customer, rather than selling them, to get round the law? Well, there is “brand promotion”, which includes free giveaways anyway. That covers all tobacco products—so it covers that situation.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for going through the questions thoroughly. I did not want to risk his getting to the end of his speech without answering the question of why snus is treated differently from other forms of tobacco. Is it merely a historical artefact?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady need not worry so much, because I have notes to clarify her points. Many people ask why we are banning snus but only gradually raising the age of sale for cigarettes, given that snus is less harmful than cigarettes. Consumption of any tobacco product is harmful. We heard that—[Interruption.]. We heard that very loudly and clearly from somebody upstairs, but also from the four chief medical officers. They made it very clear that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and that tobacco is uniquely harmful as a product in whatever form it is consumed.
It is this Government’s policy to support people to quit all forms of tobacco. Snus has been banned in the UK and across the EU since 1992. It was banned because it was a harmful novel tobacco product at the time, and it still is. It was agreed to prevent this new harmful product from ever coming on to the market. Why on earth would we now decide to give the tobacco industry a get out of jail free card and allow a product that has never ever been allowed on the market in the United Kingdom to enter the marketplace, irrespective of the age of sale?
Dr Johnson
To be clear, I am not suggesting that it should be on the market, as the Minister well knows, because I support both helping people using tobacco to quit and preventing people from starting to use tobacco. I merely want to understand why there is a difference in treatment. On the basis of what the Minister has said, why not make the penalties for cigarette sales the same as the robust penalties that already exist for snus sales? It is his choice.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady teases me, Sir Mark, and I get her desire for scrutiny of the issue of fines and of the measures we will take to enforce these laws in England, where they stand at different rates to other parts of the United Kingdom. There are different rates for different products as well. If somebody wants consistency across the four nations and consistency of approach across all products, I get that—that is laudable—but we believe that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and workable. If they turn out not to be—if they turn out to be an incentive rather than a disincentive—Ministers can come back and can look at these things again.
On territorial extent, the earlier clauses refer to England and Wales and the later clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the shadow Minister pointed out to the hon. Member for Windsor, a full breakdown of the territorial extent of clauses can be found in the annexe of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which hopefully will then be able to clarify in his mind which bits are UK legislation, which bits are devolved legislation and which bits have territorial extent across England, England and Wales, Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
Clause stand part.
Clause 59 stand part.
Amendment 80, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Amendment 81, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or conditional caution.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Clause 76 stand part.
New clause 10—Age verification requirement for online sales of vaping devices and products—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) carries on an online vaping product business, and
(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of online sales of vaping products and devices.
(2) An ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish and ensure the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product (the ‘customer’) is not under 18 years of age.
(3) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (2).
(4) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—
(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,
(b) documents that may be used as evidence of a customer’s age,
(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling vaping products,
(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed on websites; and
(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(6) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(7) In this section—
‘the appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
‘online vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail online.”
This new clause introduces a requirement on online vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy vaping products online. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland.
Dr Johnson
The amendments in this group are similar to previous amendments and are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of the offences. Like other such Opposition amendments, amendment 63 would amend clause 10 to add
“, save if it is a first offence”.
Amendment 64 would amend clause 10 by adding that if someone has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause they are liable for a fine at level 3 of the standard scale of caution. We are making a suggestion that the Minister could consider more lenience for someone who commits such an offence for the first time as opposed to someone who recklessly and repeatedly flouts this important legislation.
Did you want me to discuss the whole of clause 10 at this point, Sir Mark?
Dr Johnson
Clauses 1 to 9 of the Bill have predominantly dealt with tobacco products of varying kinds. Clause 10 moves on to the sale of vaping or nicotine products to under-18s, distinct from the measures on a smoke-free generation and the date of birth of 1 January 2009.
The first question is what are the vaping products of which we speak. Clause 48 deals with the interpretation and definitions within part 1. It defines a vape as
“a device which…vaporises substances, other than tobacco, for the purpose of inhalation through a mouthpiece”.
That applies whether it vaporises tobacco as well or not. It excludes medical devices, although we heard in evidence that no vapes are medically approved in the United Kingdom, and medicinal products that vaporise, including any aerosolisers. The clause also refers to an item that is intended to form part of a device, including anything to be attached to a vaping device with a view to imparting flavour. As the Government have already brought forward legislation to ban single-use vapes, it is important that individual components of reusable vapes are covered by the Bill.
A “vaping product” itself means a vape or vaping substance. A vaping substance means a substance other than tobacco that is intended to be vaporised by a vape. Vapes themselves can either contain nicotine or not and work essentially by heating up a liquid that creates a vapour to be inhaled. A nicotine vape typically contains nicotine, propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and flavourings, which we will come to discuss because of their importance in enticing children.
Nicotine products are also relevant to clause 10, on the sale of vaping or nicotine products. Clause 49 defines nicotine products as
“a device which is intended to enable nicotine to be delivered into the human body”,
part of a device that does that, or anything that contains nicotine. That is important because we have heard again and again how the industry will continually evolve to entrap people in a lifetime of nicotine addiction. This wide definition of anything containing nicotine helps to future-proof this legislation such that it does not have to be revisited again and again as the industry continues to evolve.
The main type of nicotine product currently on the market, other than vapes, is oral nicotine pouches from brands such as Velo and White Fox. These are a tobacco-free product placed between the lip and the gum for oral nicotine absorption. They are similar to Swedish snus, which we have discussed; they are pre-portioned pouches and they are produced in a variety of flavours. We have seen flavours such as lemonade razz and others that are designed with childlike descriptions, perhaps to influence children to use them. Certainly, when I talk to teachers, they say that they starting to see them used in the classroom. They look to parents very much like a small square of chewing gum, and some parents may not be aware of the hazards that these items pose.
The nicotine content within oral nicotine pouches can vary and is typically between 4 mg and 18 mg of oral nicotine per pouch. That is important; I have seen amendments suggesting that they should be limited 20 mg, but 20 mg is a lot. When we look at the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, we have to look not at the amount contained within it in its packet, but at how much is absorbed by the end user, the customer, when actually smoking it. The amount absorbed by the end user is much smaller than the amount in the cigarette. When brands imply that the amount within a pouch is similar to what is in a cigarette, they are talking about the amount within the cigarette itself, not how much the person smoking it will absorb from the cigarette.
The difference is quite marked: people may only take 1.2 mg from a cigarette when they smoke it in the usual way, so 18 mg in an oral nicotine pouch is an awful lot of nicotine. Some online retailers will sell products containing up to 150 mg of nicotine per pouch, with examples of flavours including black cherry, citrus and coffee. The release of nicotine from oral pouches is similar to, or faster than, from smokeless tobacco products and, given the Minister’s robust approach to snus and novel products designed to create addiction, I hope he will take a strong approach to these too.
Oral nicotine pouches sit alongside other novel nicotine products such as nicotine toothpicks and nicotine toothpaste that have emerged on the market. They are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Under those regulations, there is no age of sale requirement for retailers to impose. As such, individuals aged under 18 can legally purchase nicotine pouches, as opposed to tobacco and vaping products, which require all purchasers to be aged over 18. Clause 10 will help to deal with that.
Furthermore, oral nicotine pouches are not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, since no medical claims are made, and they are not an alternative to an authorised medicinal nicotine product—something like Nicorette gum, for example. I should note that some supermarkets have a voluntary age of sale; some supermarkets and larger retailers, or even smaller retailers, will voluntarily not sell these products to under-18s, but there currently is no legal requirement for them not to do it.
There is also no restriction on the amount of nicotine contained in an oral nicotine pouch under the current legislation, as such new products sold within the UK can contain levels of nicotine exceeding other nicotine or tobacco-based products such as cigarettes. We have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine; the higher amount transmitted so rapidly into the bloodstream is clearly stronger in its effect and therefore undesirable because it will remove people’s choice not to have those products.
What about the health impact? The health impact of nicotine is another reason why we need to invoke clause 10. Some people say, “If you take the nicotine out of the tobacco, maybe that will be safer.” However, it is safer but not safe. According to the impact assessment produced by the Government in response to the Bill, a recent scoping review found that oral nicotine pouches claimed to be less toxic than cigarettes and that they deliver comparable amounts of nicotine. However, the data for that review was mainly available from industry-funded studies. Despite potentially lower toxicity than cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches still contain nicotine, and that still has harmful effects.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight all the problems of vapes, especially for children, and the lack of evidence out there, other than that produced by the industry itself. Is she aware of any independent studies, either in the UK or abroad, that have done any substantive investigation into how harmful vapes are, either for adults or for children?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Last Tuesday, we heard in evidence from various medical sources, and both the Select Committee and our processor Bill Committee heard in evidence that nicotine is, of itself, harmful, and that the chemicals added to vapes are harmful. In some cases, they are extremely harmful. I will talk more about vaping chemicals later. Indeed, sometimes the products do not contain what they are expected to contain, and that can be worse still. I will return to that subject later, too.
Nicotine is highly addictive and can permanently affect the development of the adolescent brain. We have heard how the industry targets young people, and that is because the adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable. Nicotine can permanently affect its development. Nicotine also fulfils all the criteria for drug dependence. Giving it up is very difficult, and withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Symptoms associated with nicotine and dependence are often not recognised by novice smokers, particularly if they are young.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
On the subject of how nicotine affects the brain and brain development, one thing we have not really touched on—and we have touched on many physical health issues—is the incidence of smoking among people with mental health issues. One submission was from the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which said that 45% of people with a serious mental health issue smoke, and around 25% of people with clinical anxiety. It would stand to reason that the impact on a young person’s brain could also start to lead to serious mental health issues, as well as all the physical health and development issues.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of managing nicotine dependence for those with mental health conditions. We know that smoking, in particular, is more likely to take place among people with mental health conditions or those who are in mental health in-patient units. I am sure we will go on to discuss the issue of vending machines.
Last May, in the previous Bill Committee, we heard evidence from the Mental Health Foundation about the myth that tobacco helps with anxiety, and how that myth needed busting. We also heard about the importance of giving extra support to people with mental health conditions to enable them to kick the habit of nicotine—whether that habit is smoking or vaping—because it will help both their physical and mental health. However, it can be more challenging for them to complete. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue.
Returning to clause 10, a study considering the effects in adolescents of nicotine dependence after the initiation of smoking cigarettes found that the symptoms of nicotine dependence can appear only a few days after initiation. Given that oral nicotine pouches contain similar or higher levels of nicotine, similar symptoms may appear following initiation of oral nicotine pouch use, which is why it is particularly important for children that we pass clause 10 and ensure that children are protected from these nicotine products.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I applaud the hon. Lady for her admirable history lesson on the background of vaping. Can I ask how it is relevant to what we are discussing in terms of the penalties and the sale of products?
Dr Johnson
It is relevant because we are discussing a product in the UK that we are considering essentially doing away with, and banning completely for children. The hon. Gentleman may note that we discussed the history of tobacco when we debated clause 1, on tobacco, and no less than two Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party talked about how interesting and relevant that was—[Interruption.] At least one of those individuals appeared very genuine.
Let me go back to Hon Lik, who invented the first e-cigarette as a way to cure his own smoking addiction and to try to prevent deaths such as his father’s from lung cancer—and we have talked much about the potential for smoking to cause lung cancer. The basic concept of mimicking smoking via vaporising liquids remains the same. The company he started was later bought as a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco, which again demonstrates that the industry will continue to try, where it can, to be involved in nicotine addiction.
The World Health Organisation proclaims that it does not consider electronic cigarettes a legitimate smoking cessation aid. It demands that marketers immediately remove from their material any suggestion that it considers electronic cigarettes to be safe and effective. In 2011, the WHO released a report on e-cigarettes recommending that they be regulated in the same way as tobacco products. Clause 10 will do some of that, inasmuch as it will bring e-cigarettes in line with the legislation on tobacco products so that they cannot be sold to under-18s. However, it does not go so far as to bring it in line with the new smoke-free generation legislation. The Minister may wish to comment on why he has not done so.
In the last Bill, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment that would have included nicotine products in the smoke-free generation legislation, banning them for those born after 1 January 2009 rather than just for under-18s. Her concern, as I understand it, was that the industry would pivot to other forms of nicotine that did not contain tobacco, hook a new generation on them and use similar marketing techniques to hook them on a lifetime of nicotine addiction, as it once did with tobacco. The Minister could seek to avoid that by preventing non-medicinal products containing nicotine from being used by anyone born after 1 January 2009. That power is within his grasp. On a personal level—this is not necessarily my party’s view—I would like him to seize that power.
The sale of vaping products to under-18s is addressed in clause 10. One of the reasons for restricting the sale is the range of pulmonary and coronary conditions—lung and heart conditions—that can occur for people who vape. To help us to understand why they are so damaging, it is important to understand what is in vapes per se. This is not just about nicotine products; it is also about vaping products.
As I say, nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that disrupts brain development in adolescence. Because adolescence is a critical time for neural development, it makes young people particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of nicotine. Adolescence is marked by substantial neurodevelopment, including synaptic pruning and the maturing of the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that governs decision making, impulse control and emotional regulation. Nicotine exposure during this period can disrupt those processes, leading to lasting cognitive and behavioural impairment. Research indicates that nicotine alters the neurotransmitter systems, noticeably those using acetylcholine and glutamate receptors, affecting the neural pathways essential for learning and memory development. Nicotine exposure during adolescence has been linked to deficits in attention, learning and impulse control. Studies have shown that adolescents using nicotine products exhibit diminished cognitive performance and are more prone to mood disorders, including depression and anxiety.
Another reason to get rid of these products, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, is that they can lead, in and of themselves, to problems with mental health. As hon. Members will know, these issues can adversely affect academic achievement—as we have heard from teachers’ evidence in the past and evidence to this Committee—and social interactions, potentially leading to broader physical challenges.
The Chair
May I ask the shadow Minister to shorten her very interesting and detailed explanation of why nicotine and other substances are harmful and focus more on the legislation and less on the historical and scientific background?
Dr Johnson
You will be pleased to know that I have concluded my remarks on history for now, Sir Mark, but with your leave, I want to talk about a couple of the chemicals that are found in vaping products. It is important for hon. Members to understand the reason for banning vaping products per se, as opposed to just nicotine products. There is a reason why both are included, rather than just one. That is why I wanted to discuss nicotine and its effects, as well as the effects of some other chemical constituents of the vaping product.
Propylene glycol is another main constituent of vapes. It is used in antifreeze, paint solvents and artificial smoke for fog machines and helps the vape to carry the nicotine and flavours to the user. When used in small amounts it is considered safe, but when used in high doses or over prolonged periods it can accumulate and cause lactic acidosis, depression of the nervous system and haemolysis, the destruction of red blood cells. When one’s red blood cells are destroyed, one becomes anaemic, which makes one tired and can make one very unwell.
Another component in some vapes is diethylene glycol, a toxic compound found in antifreeze that is associated with lung disease. It can be used as a sweetener, but it has resulted in many epidemics of poisoning since the early 20th century, perhaps most famously when it was found in wine and many bottles of wine had to be recalled. Believe it or not, some vapes also contain formaldehyde, which is classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, showing once again that the products that clause 10 seeks to ban are not as benign as some may believe or as their pretty colours and flavours may suggest. It can also cause respiratory and skin irritation on exposure.
The Chair
Order. May I ask the shadow Minister to cut down on some of the detail? Just tell us that it is harmful and give us the reason, without going through a full paragraph on every chemical.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Mark. Other chemicals found in some vapes that can be harmful are acrolein, which is a herbicide, and diacetyl, which is found in flavours such as chocolate milk and toffee because it has a buttery taste. Another is benzene, which is found in car exhaust fumes and is a carcinogenic chemical that can cause such things as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—all conditions that we certainly do not want children, or indeed anyone, to get.
It is also worth noting that, because e-cigarette heaters contain a coil and cartridge with a metal component, the vapour can contain some heavy metals, including cadmium, which can cause chest pain, shortness of breath and cancer; nickel, which is carcinogenic; lead, which we know causes health problems; and chromium. That is a non-exhaustive list. My speech originally contained such a long list that I feared it would take up all the Committee’s time. I do not want to do that, Sir Mark, or to test your patience, but I want to emphasise that these findings come from the research that has been done on vapes so far. It took time for the scientific community to establish the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are harmful to health and the ways in which they are harmful. We are already finding the health challenges of vaping, so it is important for us to take these steps today.
On 8 February 2023, I presented the Disposable Electronic Cigarettes (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill that highlighted the challenges that vapes pose to the environment and to children’s health. I am pleased that the Government have now taken steps to ban them. Things have progressed, and I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House. It is important to see the progression of legislation on vapes, which is so important not only to me but to Parliament and the country.
On clause 10, it is already an offence to sell nicotine vaping products to under-18s in all parts of the UK, but it is not an offence to sell nicotine products to them. Currently, local authority trading standards in England can bring a prosecution under section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for the under-age sale of tobacco products or cigarette papers; magistrates courts can impose a fine of £2,500 on conviction and prevent the individual from selling those products for 12 months. Under the Proxy Purchasing of Tobacco, Nicotine Products etc. (Fixed Penalty Amount) Regulations 2015, trading standards officers can issue a fixed penalty notice of £90 to individuals for purchasing or attempting to purchase tobacco and nicotine products for someone under 18. However, it is the adult making or attempting to make the purchase who commits the offence, not the retailer.
Jack Rankin
We are talking specifically about under-18s. I disagree with some of the later regulations on vaping, but when it comes to under-18s being given vaping products, I am aligned with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that if companies are giving away free products to Members of Parliament and staffers who are over the age of 18—some of them may be smokers—they are actually supporting the Government’s aim of getting to a smoke-free generation, which is very different from what we see in clause 10? I agree with the Government’s aim.
Dr Johnson
I think my hon. Friend highlights something common across our party. Many members of our party are uncertain, as I understand my hon. Friend is, about the changes to tobacco legislation for adults with the competency to make risk-based decisions. I understand your points; I do not necessarily share them, but I understand them.
Dr Johnson
Sorry. Equally, I note that the vast majority of Members across the House, both in my party and in other parties, strongly agree with clause 10 and the other clauses that seek to ensure that children do not have access to these products. If someone sells a vaping or nicotine product to a purchaser who is under the age of 18, it is an offence. Under clause 10(2), the seller can defend themselves on the basis
“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and it confirmed the purchaser’s age as at least 18 years old, or…that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”
The Minister has talked about the simplicity of the smoke-free generation and his view that it is easier for shop workers to look at a piece of identification and establish whether someone’s birthday was before or after 1 January 2009 than to establish whether someone was born 18 years ago by doing the mathematics in their head from the person’s date of birth. That brings me again to the question of why we will not have a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free generation. Would it be classed as a reasonable step? If a shop worker had asked for ID, taken the proper ID, as defined in clause 10(3), and done the mathematics wrong in their head, would they have taken all reasonable steps or would their arithmetic error mean that they were to all intents and purposes a criminal? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Acceptable identity documents for the purpose of buying nicotine or vaping products if one is over the age of 18 include a passport, a UK driving licence, a driving licence from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, a European photocard driving licence or a proof-of-age standards scheme card with a hologram. During the discussions of voter ID, there was a debate about how many people had access to different forms of ID. Passports are reasonably expensive and not everyone drives a car, so how would someone who did not drive a car or have a passport provide ID? When it came to voter ID, the previous Government looked at a number of reliable sources of identification that could be used, which included the veterans card, certain travel documents and the like.
Sarah Bool
Recent announcements from the Home Office have confirmed that businesses will be able to legally accept the use of digital proof of age for alcohol products. I would like to see that approach extended to these products, to make the life of retailers easier as far as identification goes. It would be good to have further consistency and an extension of the definition of identity documents to allow for digital forms.
Dr Johnson
Digital ID is not something that I am particularly familiar with, but nevertheless it sounds sensible, where ID is reliable, reproducible, not easily faked and easily identifiable by staff. Broadening the forms of acceptable ID would ensure that when somebody is old enough to legally purchase a product, it is not excessively challenging for them to obtain an ID to do so. Clearly the Minister would want people to be able to buy age-restricted products if they are old enough, so I am interested to hear his view not only on my hon. Friend’s intervention about digital identification, but on veterans cards, bus passes and other cards that demonstrate the age of the user and include a photograph for added reliability.
Clause 10(4) states:
“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
On a personal level, selling vapes and nicotine products to children is a dreadful thing to do, as I am sure the chief medical officer has said. I am more than happy for the Minister to increase that fine if he wants to, but I am interested to understand why he has set it at that level. Notwithstanding any changes across the four nations, it is important that we look at the choices that the Minister has made. That is what we are here to scrutinise.
The problem that clause 10 seeks to address is vaping among children. Are children vaping? Yes, I am afraid to say that they are, in large quantities. The biggest report of which I am aware that looked specifically at rates of youth vaping was published in 2023 by Healthwatch Blackpool. It looked at over 4,000 children and found that just under a third of them—31%—said that they
“currently vape or sometimes vape”.
Of those children, 65%
“expressed a preference for fruity flavoured vapes”,
which we will deal with later in the Bill. There is clearly an issue that vapes are being directly marketed to children with bright, attractive colours. Some of the most popular flavours include bubble gum, cotton candy, strawberry ice cream and unicorn milkshake. What does unicorn milkshake taste like? I have no idea, but it is easy to see the appeal to children.
An investigation by The Observer in 2022 found that ElfBar, a company that makes vapes, was promoting its products to kids via TikTok. The TikTok platform is apparently used by half of eight to 11-year-olds and by three quarters of 16 to 17-year-olds. When I found that out, I had a look at the screen time of my own children to establish that they were not getting on it.
Jack Rankin
I support my hon. Friend wholeheartedly on restricting flavours aimed at children, which I think is the Minister’s intention, but does she agree that vape flavours that are being advertised more generally, so long as they are straightforward and descriptive, can help people to shake smoking and can be firmly aimed at adults? The Government should not restrict the flavours so generally that the smoking cessation tool is weakened.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid that once again I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that those who advertise brightly coloured vapes shaped like highlighters or SpongeBob SquarePants, or flavoured as unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear, are advertising them for the consumption of adults. I do not doubt that there are some adult smokers in their 40s who enjoy the flavour of unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear—perhaps those flavours are nice—but I do not believe that adults are the target audience for that marketing at all.
Jack Rankin
Perhaps I explained myself ineloquently —or maybe my hon. Friend was being mischievous in her characterisation. I agree with her wholeheartedly, but I would say that raspberry is a perfectly legitimate flavour for an upstanding vape seller to sell to an adult smoker as a cessation device. I would not want to go too hard on that so that we do not cut off that legitimate smoking cessation route.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying his intervention but, again, I am not sure about that.
The Chair
Order. Flavours will come up later in the Bill. The question really is not pertinent to clause 10.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend can ask me later, when we come to the colours and flavours.
To summarise, clause 10 is an important clause that seeks to stop children getting hold of vapes and nicotine products and, in so doing, aims to reduce the number of children who get hooked on nicotine, which has very harmful effects, and who may even damage themselves using vapes. In one school in my constituency, eight children collapsed after using vaping products. Lincolnshire police examined five of the vapes confiscated from the school and found that they contained antifreeze, poster varnish and other chemicals such as trichloroethylene, 2-methoxyethyl acetate, Steol-M and diethylene glycol diacetate—some very harmful chemicals that have no legal place in vapes at all. Some of those chemicals are banned, but are nevertheless being put into these products.
Clause 59 is similar, but, given the principle of devolution, applies to Scotland. It provides for the same principle of an extension of offences to vaping and nicotine products, but does so in recognition of the fact that Scotland has different laws by amending the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. It adds various substitutions to ensure that it is not possible to buy tobacco and vaping products in Scotland, in order to protect the children of Scotland.
Clause 76 provides continuity across the United Kingdom based on the principles of devolution in Northern Ireland and of working together to protect the interests of children. That is very important. The clause adds article 4H, on the sale of vaping and nicotine products, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 after article 4G, which is itself inserted by clause 75. This provision essentially inserts the same provisions as those in clause 10, except that once again we see a higher penalty in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is clearly more concerned with punishing those who sell vaping and nicotine products to children than the Minister appears to be.
Amendments 63, 64, 80 and 81 look specifically at the proportionality of penalties and the balance in choosing them—whether they be as punitive as those in Northern Ireland, or those in place for snus for people who are reckless and do it often as opposed to those who have committed a first offence and do not do it so often.
Sarah Bool
I echo what my hon. Friend is saying, particularly in relation to online sales. I think we are all very aware that one aspect is being in the shop and physically trying to buy a product with ID; I take it from the ingenuity of our younger generation that they will always find ways around that, especially online, so we should perhaps give some further thought to how we can ensure that the companies are operating effectively—that there is robustness without over-regulation and that we have the methods to ensure that people are not following another loophole.
The Chair
Order. Before we proceed, let me explain that Sir Mark has had to leave the Chair and I am taking over for the duration—for as long as you choose to sit. I have, however, been briefed, so I am sure that nobody in the room will seek to take advantage of a change of Chairman to cover the same subjects all over again.
Dr Johnson
That is very kind of you, Sir Roger. It is good to see you in the Chair, and an honour to serve under your chairmanship again. As you have been briefed, we are discussing clause 10, the importance of banning the sale of vaping and nicotine products to children. We had just moved on to new clause 10, which is part of this group of amendments. It was tabled by the Opposition and looks at the online marketplace, because there is concern that the industry seeks every single workaround and loophole as creatively as possible. The new clause seeks to ensure that guidance is provided to prevent advantage from being taken in the online marketplace, particularly because we have seen adverts for “no ID” sales, which clearly are designed to entice children to buy products that they should not be able to get.
Subsection (4)(d) of the new clause talks about
“the form and content of notices…displayed on websites”,
so it looks at the messaging. I suppose that is the equivalent of clauses 5 and 6: “What should our billboard notice say?”
New clause 10(5) says:
“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”
The Minister may wish to change that—it was the opening point for that offence—but again there clearly needs to be a penalty for people who do sell in the online marketplace.
Subsection (6) says:
“Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
We did talk about the negative resolution procedure—my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is temporarily not in his place—but essentially the affirmative resolution procedure means that regulations would require, I believe, a vote in the House to push them forward.
Just to clarify, subsection (7) says:
“In this section…‘the appropriate national authority’”,
which would be able to provide the regulations and produce the guidance, would be the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.
The principle of this proposal is that vaping businesses that operate online should be subject to the same regulations, rules and laws, enforced with the same stringency and severity, as corner shops, supermarkets and the like.
Sarah Bool
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, on banning those who are under 18 from vaping. Many know about the health risks of smoking. They see it as a bad habit and disgusting, as the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon noted, but vapes are seen as being new age and social. Parents are in danger of encouraging vaping by buying something that they think is safer than smoking or drugs. We must be very careful about that, so this ban will be important in restricting sales. Children fear being excluded, so, through peer pressure, they are forced into vaping. We need to stamp out this practice.
Children are often confused about vaping. The problem is that they get an accidental addition to nicotine and struggle to pay attention in school, which has a negative impact not just on them but on their classmates. Apparently, children vape to deal with stress and anxiety—they are almost self-medicating, which is appalling. It is right that we protect our children by introducing this offence.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend talks about children self-medicating, but are they not making the situation worse? The use of vapes and nicotine products may exacerbate, rather than ease, any mental health symptoms that they have.
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a medical professional, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and we need to stop it as soon as possible to protect children.
Gregory Stafford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I want to make two points about this part of the Bill. First, I support new clause 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It is essential that we close off all avenues for children to purchase vapes. In the Bill, the Government have done a very good job of dealing with physical retailers, but there is a gap in relation to online retailers. I hope the Minister is minded to support the new clause, either when we come to a vote on it in a few moments, or by inserting something similar into the Bill on Report to ensure we close off online retailers.
In my opinion, online retailers are more dangerous than physical shops. A child—especially a very young child—has to depart from their guardian or their adult to go and buy something in a shop, whereas they can purchase products online on their phone or computer in the comfort of their own home, and it is very difficult for a parent or a senior person in their family to spot that. We know that that is where a number of children and young people are getting these products, so we have to close off that avenue.
My second point is about a more fundamental issue with the clause itself. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister has said this quite extensively, but it bears repeating so that we get some answers from the Minister. It does not seem obvious why the Government decided to ban vapes for anyone under the age of 18, whereas for other tobacco products it is for anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. I completely accept that vapes can be used as a smoking cessation tool; it is important that they are used in that way.
When we come on to vending machines, there are medical settings in which people require some form of intervention to help to stop smoking, and we should be looking at that. However, it is not beyond the wit of the Bill’s drafting to apply 1 January 2009 to tobacco products, and then to create an exemption specifically for smoking cessation. I want to understand why the Minister has decided to make this distinction. Does he not see the potential risks in doing so? Hopefully, we all want people not to be addicted to any products that are harmful to them, but both retailers and consumers, when faced with two sets of rules for very similar products, could become confused and accidently fall foul of the law. Because of that confusion, the law might not be enforced as the Minister would like it to be. I very much hope the Minister addresses those two points in his closing remarks on these clauses.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me, I have only just taken over as Chair, but the hon. Gentleman was not in the room for a chunk of this debate. Is that correct?
The Chair
In that case, I do not think it is quite appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak. I will allow him to speak very briefly, but I do mean brief.
Jack Rankin
I disagree with the Government on some of the clauses dealing with vaping, but I will come to those later, when it is more appropriate. I agree with what the Government are trying to do in clauses 10, 11 and 12 to toughen things up for under-18s. To that end, I encourage them to support new clause 10, tabled by the shadow Minister, which tries to make purchasing more difficult for under-18s online. We talked earlier about the principle of vending machines, which is addressed in clause 12 and by trying to ensure age verification when there is no one else present. It seems to me that new clause 10 is entirely in line with that, so I hope the Minister might consider supporting it.
Andrew Gwynne
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Sir Roger. Before addressing these amendments, the respective clauses and the proposed new clause, I want to make it clear that I will be using the generic term “vapes or vaping products” throughout to refer to vapes, e-cigarettes or nicotine vapour products. Likewise, I will use the term “nicotine products” to refer to consumer nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches. I am not referring to licensed nicotine-based medicines, which will not be further restricted by the Bill.
Under clause 10 it will continue to be an offence to sell a nicotine vape to a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales, and anyone who is found guilty of the offence will be liable to pay a fine of up to £2,500 if convicted. It is a defence if the person can prove they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser that showed they were over 18, or that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid committing an offence. The clause also extends this age of sale restriction to consumer nicotine products and non-nicotine vapes, as we know that children are accessing those products. There are currently no age of sale restrictions on those products, and non-nicotine vapes can easily have nicotine solutions manually added to them.
Clause 59 refers to Scotland and extends existing offences in Scotland for selling vaping products to under-18s, proxy purchases on behalf of under-18s, and failure to operate an age verification policy related to vaping products, so nicotine products are also covered in those offences. By amending that legislation, we will align the approach across the United Kingdom, which is the wish of the devolved Administrations. The clause amends Scottish legislation by replacing the term “nicotine vapour products” with the term “vaping products”, thus aligning the definitions across the UK.
Another of the changes to Scottish legislation in this clause makes it an offence for any person managing or controlling a premises to have a prohibited vending machine available for use. This effectively maintains the existing prohibition in Scotland on vending machines selling vaping and tobacco products; indeed, it extends it to include machines from which nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers can be purchased. Again, this aligns the approach across the UK.
Clause 76 applies similar measures in Northern Ireland to those in England and Wales, meaning that it will be an offence to sell a vaping or nicotine product to a person in Northern Ireland under the age of 18, thereby expanding current Northern Ireland legislation to cover all vaping products and nicotine products. Anyone convicted of the offence will be liable to a pay a fine of up to £5,000. All these measures for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will come into force six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give retailers time to introduce them.
These clauses will play an important role in ensuring that we can tackle youth vaping successfully. They provide businesses with certainty as to who they may legally sell products to, and they reinforce our health advice that children should never vape.
However, the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister would undermine that approach by creating a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling vaping or nicotine products to someone under age. They would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would either be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is, a fine of £1,000—or be given a caution instead. Level 3 is one level lower than the level 4 fine of £2,500 that someone who commits this offence is liable to under the current legislation.
Dr Johnson
The Minister knows me well enough to understand that I would never seek more lenient penalties for those selling vapes to children; there is no excuse for selling vapes to children. However, I am concerned that there may be sales in the online marketplace that are not adequately covered by the regulations as they are currently drafted. The principle of new clause 10 was to ensure that such offences are properly covered, so I would be grateful for his reassurance in that regard.
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to that; I am just spelling out why I am concerned about the consequences of the shadow Minister’s proposals in the amendment, because they would lead to more lenient penalties for those committing an offence for the first time than they are liable to under the current legislation. Again, like the amendments that we have already discussed, the effect would be to create a first-time offence, and if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as the rationale for my asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 10 would introduce an offence in England and Wales for businesses selling vaping products online without applying an age verification policy. It would therefore create a requirement for businesses selling vaping products online to take steps to establish and ensure that any customer attempting to purchase those products online was above the age of 18.
Although I am incredibly sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intentions, as I said earlier, the Bill already makes it an offence in England and Wales to sell a vaping or nicotine product to anyone under the age of 18. As with in-person retail, online retailers must take all reasonable steps to avoid selling vaping products to anyone under age. Alongside the Bill, we are exploring how we can enhance online age verification to further tackle online under-age sales. The office for digital identities and attributes, which sits within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, is creating a framework of standards and governance, underpinned by legislation, which will enable the widespread use of trusted digital identity services. We are working closely with DSIT to consider how its work to enable the use of digital identities can best support retailers selling tobacco and vapes, whether online or in-person. It is for those reasons that I commend clauses 10, 59 and 76.
Gregory Stafford
I may have missed the Minister’s explanation, but why has he decided not to have the incremental increase for vapes when he has it for smoking? Does he feel that there is something fundamentally different about vapes, beyond the smoking cessation element, that could have been an exemption from the progressive age range that he has for tobacco?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman should panic not; I had not quite come to the end of my contribution. I was merely saying that it is for those reasons that I commend clause 10, clause 59 and clause 76 to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady will allow me to first answer her hon. Friend, it may well be that I answer her thoughts in the course of answering him. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a difference here between our approach to tobacco and to vapes. The hon. Lady—the shadow Minister—has, rightly, always been, and will continue to be, a doughty campaigner for a nicotine-free generation and for a smoke-free generation. That may well be where we end up at some stage in the future. However, we believe that the measures in the Bill are entirely appropriate and proportionate. We are not planning to raise the age of sale for vapes in a similar way to that for tobacco; let me explain why.
Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. No other consumer product kills two thirds of its users. It is therefore entirely appropriate to create a smoke-free generation, as we are seeking to do in this legislation, and to gradually phase out tobacco so that it is a thing of history. Although vaping is not harm-free—I will come on to the harms in due course—it is less harmful than smoking and, currently, we do not believe that a generational age of sale restriction on vapes would be an appropriate response to the current evidence in relation to health harms. Instead, the Bill contains strong measures to stop the promotion and the blatant advertising of vapes to children, and so bring about definitive and positive change to stop future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.
It may well be, over the course of the coming years, that greater evidence emerges about the harms of nicotine. Lots of studies of vaping are taking place and it may well be that we have to take further action; that is why the measures in the Bill are permissive. The tobacco industry has often, after having one route closed off to it, sought an alternative route to maintain market share and market presence. It may well be that the vaping industry employs exactly the same tactics—all the evidence so far would suggest that it does. That is why the measures in the Bill are not just proportionate for the here and now but future-proof, so that Ministers can come back to Parliament, on a whole range of issues, and seek to close off other routes.
I would hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon understands that there is a very big difference between tobacco and vaping. However, we reserve the right to return to Parliament and to utilise the powers in this Bill, should we be granted them, to ensure that, if there is evidence of harms, we can immediately respond to those.
Jack Rankin
I commend the Minister on making the evidence-based point about the difference between a smoke-free generation and a nicotine-free generation. Does he agree—I think he does, given the comments he has just made—that there are some somewhat sweeping powers here, which could be used to come back and ask for more legislation against vaping companies? Does he agree that that potential lack of certainty for legitimate vaping businesses might impede investment in this space, which is actually contributing to the benefit of a smoke-free generation?
Andrew Gwynne
There is nothing in the Bill that we are proposing to do that will restrict the legitimate sale of vapes. As a Government, we recognise that vapes have been used, and continue to be used, as a stop smoking tool. Our advice remains very clear: vapes are not harm free. We do not yet know the full extent of the harm, but as we heard from the chief medical officers from the four nations, it is unlikely that they are harm free. Indeed, there is limited evidence showing some harms, and there are lots of studies and research taking place to ascertain what the long-term impacts of vaping might be.
Our advice remains clear: if a person has never smoked, not smoking, and not vaping, is the best thing. If a person has smoked, vaping is safer than smoking, but it is not risk-free, and as a smoking cessation tool, it has proven to be successful for some. We do not want children to ever take up vaping—ever, and not in adulthood, either. Vaping is for people who have been smokers who want to give up; vapes are a safer product than tobacco.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for clearly explaining that children should never vape. In fact, if children are smoking and wish to quit, they can get support from their GP and others, but they should not use vaping, because vaping is bad for children.
To take the Minister back to my question about new clause 10, before he took the two previous interventions, he said that he is working with DSIT to provide regulations and legislation that would cover new clause 10 and ensure that online sellers of age-restricted products are obliged to check a person’s age before selling them. Will he advise when he expects such regulations to be available? Will they be in time for his smoke-free generation in a couple of years’ time?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely hope that the measures will be worked on at pace and will be available for that. Officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are working closely with colleagues in DSIT to ensure that these matters are included in the online age verification legislation that it is seeking to introduce.
A couple of other points were raised in the course of the debate. On the issue of fines and why there are inconsistencies, I do not wish to over-labour the point, but the maximum fines that the shadow Minister quoted are consistent with existing tobacco and vapes legislation. We believe they are proportionate to the severity of the offences. There is a bit of a pushmi-pullyu argument here, because on the one hand we have had amendments that seek to have more lenient penalties, and on the other, arguments for harsher penalties. We believe that the current fine levels in England are appropriate, which is why we are remaining with them. It is for trading standards to take a proportionate approach to enforcement, deciding the appropriate action to take for a given case to achieve compliance based on the evidence before it.
On TikTok and advertising, I understand that the Advertising Standards Agency has issued an enforcement notice to vaping companies and brands instructing them to stop any advertising on TikTok. To date, it has reported around 300 posts, approximately 80% of which predated the notice to TikTok for removal.
On the issue of enforcement with physical sales, and online sales with age verification, it was interesting that in the evidence session we heard from National Trading Standards that it has undertaken test purchasing both in brick and mortar premises and online and that the failure rate in brick and mortar premises was 26%, compared with 10% online. We do not want any breaches of the law, but that puts into context that the current issues tend to be on the ground rather than online—although we need to cover all bases. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendments and proposed new clause.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for providing the extra information. Amendments 63, 64, 81 and 80 were designed once again to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties across the different clauses of the Bill. Sometimes the penalties are different for the same offence and, inexplicably, sometimes they are the same for different offences that perhaps one would expect them to be different for. However, I will not press those amendments to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
PURCHASE OF VAPING OR NICOTINE PRODUCTS ON BEHALF OF UNDER 18S
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 63, 64, and 65, prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 10 and 11 being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 82, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Amendment 83, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”.
This amendment, together with amendments 80, 81, and 82, prevent penalties for a first offence under sections 76 and 77 (pertaining to age of sale restrictions for vaping and nicotine products in Northern Ireland) beyond level 3 and provides for a caution.
Clause 77 stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 65 and 66 apply to clause 11. In line with other Opposition amendments tabled to various clauses of this Bill, they seek to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties. They encourage the Minister to look in detail at those penalties before Report—specifically, to consider the differences between the shop worker, the shopkeeper and the shop owner in terms of the level of fine required, and also to consider the individual who inadvertently commits an offence on one occasion versus the person or company that deliberately and repeatedly flouts the law and require different handling.
Amendment 65 amends clause 11 to add at the end of page 6, line 5,
“, save if it is a first offence.”,
while amendment 66 inserts:
“A person who has admitted guilt”—
that is, a person who has owned up—
“of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
I think I have explained what those are for.
Clause 11 makes it a criminal offence for a person aged 18 or over to purchase, or attempt to purchase, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of someone who is under the age of 18—essentially stopping adults from buying vapes for kids. Clearly, buying things for children that are so potentially harmful to them is not the action of a responsible adult.
If a person is charged with this offence, they can defend themselves by saying that they had no reason to suspect that the person they were buying for was under 18. It is not really clear to me when that sort of a situation would occur. If someone is under 18, it should be fairly obvious that they are quite young. Any responsible adult who knew the child would have an idea of how old they were, and any responsible adult who did not know the child would surely guess that there was a risk in buying something for someone who looked young, in case they were under 18 and incriminated themselves. I understand why the defence is there, but I am not really sure how it would be used. The Minister may be able to enlighten us further.
A person found guilty in relation to this offence is liable to a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, which amounts to £2,500. This clause is very important, because we must stop children getting access to vapes. Popular culture tells us that vapes are very accessible to children. For example, we were all glued to our screens—I know we were in the Johnson household—watching Luke Littler, the recent BBC young sports personality of the year, win the PDC world darts championship. It was fabulous to see someone so young achieve such an amazing feat.
Luke Littler won half a million pounds, which is a wonderful thing for that young gentleman, but he reportedly said that he would celebrate by vaping. Of course, he is actually a 17-year-old young man, despite his great achievements. He is a sports prodigy, a national hero, and a wonderful example to young people of what can be achieved at a young age, but presumably, until he turns 18 very soon, he will need someone else to buy vapes for him. That will be illegal under the new law.
On a more serious note, we know through the various different reports that on county lines, where people are selling drugs, they are often giving vapes to children as a way of enticing them into feeling that they are favoured by those adults. They are using children’s addiction to nicotine and desire for further vapes, and for access to further vapes, as part of a grooming process to get them into dreadful situations with county lines. Clause 11, which prevents children’s access to vaping and nicotine products via a proxy adult, is a very sensible measure that I will support.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support. Clause 11 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales. The clause replaces the existing restrictions, which only apply to nicotine vapes.
Similarly, for Northern Ireland, clause 77 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in Northern Ireland. The clause replaces the existing restrictions that only apply to nicotine vapes and extends them to non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Anyone convicted of the offence would be liable to a fine of up to £5,000. Both of these clauses contain the defence for those charged that, if they can prove they had no reason to suspect the person they were buying the product for was under 18, that would be considered.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 65, 66, 82 and 83 were specifically there to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalty portfolio across the Bill. The Minister has clarified his position on that. It is very important that we see those who are selling vapes to children or, in the case of clause 11, buying vapes for children, appropriately deterred from doing so or appropriately punished. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Vaping and nicotine product vending machines
Sarah Bool
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 12, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 78 stand part.
Sarah Bool
This amendment states:
“The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”
I tabled this amendment on the basis of the evidence provided to us. I put on record that the Committee received a letter by Peter Terry, a
“Smoke Free lead in a large Mental Health Trust in the North West of England”.
In his letter, he says,
“As you may be aware the success of hospitals and Trusts becoming smokefree environments (especially Mental Health units) is particularly challenging. Mental Health service users due to their conditions have little or no motivation to stop smoking. On the units of my trust the prevalence of smoking is consistently between 70-77%.”
He goes on to say:
“To ensure we allow service users who are hospitalized a safer way to manage their nicotine addiction...my Trust would require Vending machines. These would allow service users to purchase a closed pod system device, which is a lot less harmful than tobacco smoking. On admission they would be offered either free NRT products or to purchase a vape as described above.”
He is asking that we make an exemption.
The exemption was also supported in another submission from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS foundation trust. Ben Kingsbury, the tobacco dependency lead in that trust, wrote to express his concerns over the ban on the sale of vapes from vending machines. He indicated that his trust had installed vending machines back in May 2024
“to ensure that vapes are available to staff and patients at all times.”
He stated:
“Since installation of the vending machines in our Trust we have had over 2400 individual vends. Each vend represents a staff or service user making a positive decision to improve their health. 2400 individual vends in just 6 months represents a saving to the Trust of around £12,000.”
He argued:
“Removing the machines will reduce patients’ independence in buying their own devices while in hospital and will have a financial implication to our Trust, as wards would be expected to fund more vapes.”
He was also concerned that
“a lack of vape provision on our Trust premises may result in patients returning to smoking”,
which I am sure we all agree we do not wish to be the result. He also asked that we consider the financial implications, as well as health and wellbeing of service users, by implementing the exemption.
We can all empathise with those who are admitted to mental health units. They may have difficult and complex conditions that they need to work through, and coping with a potential addiction may be too much for them. There may be a logic to listen to the voices of the experts—especially if we end up having smoke-free places around hospitals and how that will work out—asking us to allow a mechanism to help someone with smoking cessation.
The Minister himself has just said that vaping can be good to help someone quit, but if they do not have access to a vape they may face difficulties such as cravings, anxiety, trouble concentrating and all the other elements that go with it, including potentially going back to smoking tobacco in its pure form. Taking away the option from those in mental health units will only make their recovery harder, longer and more expensive for the NHS. I heartedly commend to all members of the Committee that we all consider this amendment thoroughly, to ensure that we are not doing additional harm by taking an aggressive approach in this regard.
Gregory Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for moving the amendment. One thing we have seen across the debate thus far, and indeed during oral evidence, is that we have been led by the evidence—the Minister has clearly said that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has provided is from medical experts. These are not vape peddlers or people from the industry, or people who want to make a quick buck out of those who are addicted to nicotine. These are health professionals who are trying to ensure that there is a balance between what is absolutely right—we do not want to see people vaping—and the reality of the situation in medical settings, especially in mental health settings, where the ability for patients to have a certain amount of autonomy is often vital to their mental recovery.
My hon. Friend also made the valid point that if we remove smoking and tobacco products from in and around hospitals, which is a suggestion in the Bill that I think I support, we must ensure that those who are addicted—and we accept that it is an addiction—are dealt with appropriately. Obviously, in most regular acute trusts, that would be dealt with through a nicotine patch, but for mental health services, as I said, the requirement for autonomy should sometimes outweigh the functional nature of a nicotine patch. Indeed, my understanding is that nicotine patches do not work for everyone, because some of the addiction is in the holding as well as the imbibing.
I welcome the Minister’s response. As I have said to him on previous amendments, even if he is not happy with the precise wording my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has put forward, I hope that he can bring in some kind of exemption on Report, so that the medical professionals who have written to us are satisfied that their concerns have been heard?
Dr Johnson
Amendment 96 and clause 12 relate to vaping and nicotine product vending machines. I support the clause; indeed, if one looks at proceedings on the previous, Conservative iteration of the Bill from earlier this year, one will see that new clause 4, which was signed by just under 40 Members proposed a ban on vaping product vending machines, and the lead name was mine. I was concerned that vending machines would be used by children to obtain vaping and nicotine products. That loophole in the law that would make it easy—as we have seen with cigarettes in the past—for youngsters to circumvent the age-restricted product legislation designed to protect them, by allowing them to buy things from a machine that was not checking how old they were. I am therefore clearly supportive of this legislation.
Clause 12 makes it an offence for a person who manages or controls a premises to have a vending machine that sells vaping or nicotine products—
“an automatic machine from which”
vaping or nicotine products “may be bought”. Again, I ask the Minister to look at the principle of machines “from which” these products “may be bought” and to reconsider the wording to ensure that the industry cannot sell products using an app or online platform that can then be collected from a dispensing machine, in the same way as someone might buy something off a retailer and collect it from another retailer or a lock box collection point.
Banning the sale of vaping products, nicotine products and cigarette papers from vending machines would, by virtue of the various clauses in the Bill, including clauses 12 and 17, be a UK-wide provision. That would be beneficial because it would have consistency across the UK in a positive direction. The clause introduces a new offence, as there are currently no restrictions on the use of vaping or nicotine product vending machines in the UK, in the way that there is with tobacco vending machines. This is a new offence, and in my view a welcome one.
Self-service vending machines provide an anonymous, unregulated environment where individuals under the legal age could otherwise purchase vaping or nicotine products without any face-to-face interaction with a retailer, clearly increasing the risk of under-age sales. The offence will come into force six months after Royal Assent, which means that premises that currently contain a vape or nicotine product vending machine will have time to remove it or to stock it with a product that can legitimately be sold to younger people.
The primary rationale behind the restriction on vape vending machines is to reduce vaping rates, particularly among minors and children. The Government’s aims, as I understand them, are to protect young people from the harmful effects of vaping by limiting their access to vaping and nicotine products. Vape or nicotine product vending machines, which may also be used for pouches, are seen as a mechanism to bypass the responsibility of retail staff in ensuring that restrictions are met, contributing to increased sales.
The fine is level 4 on the standard scale, which is similar to that for selling over the counter. That makes sense to me, but I want to ask the Minister who qualifies as a person who manages or controls a premises? If it is a tenanted property, does that mean the landlord or the tenant who has control of the premises? If it is a larger retailer, such as a large supermarket, who controls those premises? Who takes the blame there? Is it the person who was on shift as the supervisor? Is it the store manager? On a more general basis, is it the regional manager or the managing director of the company? Who is responsible for managing and controlling those premises? The Minister needs to provide guidance on that so that people understand their responsibilities and so that, in the event a crime is committed and a vending machine is put in place, fingers are not pointed in every direction, making it impossible to work out whose responsibility and fault it was, such that nobody is held to account for the breach.
The Department of Health and Social Care has produced an impact assessment for the Bill, and paragraph 477 says:
“Regulating vape flavours, packaging, and presentation, as well as point of sale displays, and banning vending machines which sell vapes and nicotine products is expected to reduce the number of people taking up vaping, and therefore it is expected that there will be environmental benefits from reduced litter from vaping products.”
The clause will therefore benefit the health of not just our children but the environment in which they live and grow.
Paragraph 781 of the impact assessment highlights the following information about vending machines and under-age sales:
“A survey conducted by ASH”—
which gave evidence to our Committee last week—
“found that 6.6% of 11–17-year-olds who currently vape used machines as a source of vapes.”
Given that vaping vending machines are not currently that common, that seems quite a high figure. Without a ban and the implementation of the clause, that figure will surely increase.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making and those that other Members have made. As I understand it, we already have a law that bans people from purchasing vapes from a customer-managed vending machine. The only vending machines that should be selling vapes are managed by someone else. Can I just clarify that that is the case, because I think there is some confusion about how people are getting these vapes at hospitals and particularly in mental health settings? I have a concern about that because it puts vulnerable people, in a sense, with an addictive product. Can I just clarify that vending machines for vapes are currently not allowed in this country, except where they are not individually customer operated?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to amendment 96 and the mental health aspect shortly, but I will deal with the clause first, which makes sure that these vending machines are not available. At the moment, one can buy nicotine products in a vending machine where those exist. As I said, the ASH survey showed that 6.6% of 11 to 17-year-olds who currently vape have access to vapes through a vending machine, so this is happening in the UK already. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that, until this Bill passes, it is not illegal to sell nicotine products to children. Some responsible retailers have a voluntary scheme for not selling to under-18s, but it is not a legal requirement. Some irresponsible sellers do sell vapes to children.
Paragraph 782 of the impact assessment says:
“There is limited evidence presented on the number and locations of vape vending machines, however it is suggested by online retailers that they are currently predominantly placed in locations such as nightclubs, bars and pubs. It is anticipated that”
without this legislation
“the market will develop further and vape vending machines will become more prevalent in other locations such as supermarkets, train/bus stations and other locations accessible to under-18s.”
In my mind’s eye, I remember recently seeing a vape in a vending machine alongside sweets; I just cannot quite remember where it was, but it was certainly somewhere that was easily accessible to people.
The aim of the clause is to protect children and to ensure that vending machines—commonly found dispensing food and drink in child-friendly establishments such as canteens and leisure centres, and easily used by young people—are not available. The machines protect anon—anonymity; I might have to put my teeth in, Sir Mark—
Dr Johnson
It is catching—it is the time of day, I think.
Paragraph 787 of the impact assessment says:
“We know that one of the main reasons children take up vaping is due to peer pressure…It is therefore worth considering that instances of vape vending machines in easily accessible areas might be an enabler for those who would not otherwise seek out a vape or who would be deterred by having to speak to an adult”.
Children would have to seek out an adult to make a purchase, because they have to go to a till or counter to get the vapes. Under the new legislation, that adult would look for ID, while a vending machine would provide a circumnavigation, so this is a sensible clause.
Most of us recognise that the vending machines currently selling disposable vapes have a finite lifetime, because this Government have banned them in the future under a statutory instrument in the competence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, British American Tobacco has already stated that it is working on a product to sell the Velo brand—one of its nicotine pouches—via “age-gated vending machines” and is hiring for the product. Again, that is taken from the impact assessment.
That further highlights the need for a blanket ban on vending machines, particularly given that, as things stand, they are clearly advertising tools for vaping. Wherever the machines are placed, they are visible to the consumer, and the consumer needs to know what is in the vending machine in order to choose what to buy. Given the regulations appearing later in the Bill, we will be looking at the display of such products. It therefore seems nonsensical to have restrictions on the display of products, but to allow vending machines, which allow the display of products, in contravention of that. One aim of the Bill is to ensure that non-smokers do not begin vaping and get hooked on nicotine. These provisions strengthen that through age verification and on the marketing front.
I will now deal with some of the issues to do with mental health hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said that the 2,400 vends were evidence of 2,400 positive choices. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. The evidence is that 2,400 vapes were bought, but not that those individuals had ever smoked. We do not know whether the vending machines are being used by people who smoke or people who do not—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor comments from a sedentary position; if he wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so. A proportion of people out there smoke, and a proportion do not.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. Based on the behaviour of vape companies now, which is similar to that of tobacco companies previously, this proposal would allow further expansion of vending machines and further display on vending machines in more and more places. Is that the point that the hon. Member is making?
Dr Johnson
In essence, in relation to clause 12, yes. I do not think that vending machines including tobacco and nicotine products or vapes are a good idea, and I moved a new clause for inclusion in the previous Bill because a ban on nicotine and vaping products in vending machines had not been included at the outset. Without such a measure, we will see an expansion of vending machines as a way of selling products to children and getting children addicted. It will be done as a way of making products more available to adults, but its effect will be that the products are more available to children. I do not want to see such products available to children, because they are clearly harmful for them. All the medical evidence we have had states that clearly.
With regard to individuals in mental health hospitals, some may be there as voluntary patients, and some under a mental health section. When someone’s liberty has been taken from them because they are being treated for a mental health condition, we need to be careful that we are not restricting them in other ways in which we would not restrict other people. That is a fair point to make.
We also have to be mindful of the staff. As we go through the Bill, the Minister will rightly be looking at exposure to vaping inside hospitals and at extending the tobacco regulations that limit smoking in public indoor places to cover vaping in indoor public spaces. Indeed, he and you, Sir Roger, will have seen the signs placed in the Tea Room by the Speaker, who rightly wants to see that we do not have vaping there. The public do not want vaping in their tea rooms or in the public domain either, so that is the right thing to do. We need to consider that there are staff and other patients in mental health hospitals who may not wish to vape and should not be inadvertently and unnecessarily exposed to vaping products.
I do not support the idea that 2,400 vends means that this is a positive choice. For some of these people, vaping may have been a positive change from smoking, but for others it may have been a decision to vape.
Sarah Bool
I appreciate that; those were the words of the NHS trusts themselves when they talked about positive decisions. We cannot always be sure exactly why someone made that decision, but we have to hope in the first instance that that move away from smoking would turn into vaping and, ultimately, into a smoke-free generation.
I am minded to tighten the wording of my amendment on Report to ensure that the vending machines are in those mental health units for the purpose of facilitating smoke-free policies and smoking cessation, because I do not necessarily want nurses and those working in those units to be exposed to any unnecessary products. When we are dealing with addiction, we all appreciate how difficult it is, and I want to ensure that a process is in place that means that we deal with both the mental health issues patients are dealing with and the addiction in a suitable and balanced fashion.
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend’s heart is in a good place when she thinks about how we can protect individual mental health patients who also have an addiction to nicotine. She said that having no vapes on the hospital site could lead to patients taking up smoking, but there are of course no cigarettes on the hospital site either. I do not support the idea that the removal of one product will automatically lead to the use of another unavailable product.
If a member of the Committee, for example, wanted to leave the room now and go and get some vapes, they would need to leave the House, go and find a shop, and purchase them, and the same is true of an average patient: they would have to leave their home, find a shop, buy their vapes and come home again. The availability of a vaping vending machine on a ward in a mental health hospital would make vapes much more available to an individual and much more proximal than they would be under normal circumstances, which may lead to a greater consumption of nicotine than would be the case if the vapes had to be accessed elsewhere.
As we have mentioned repeatedly, nicotine is a very addictive drug, and I will not reiterate that beyond saying that if one is in a hospital unit and unable to leave because one is on a section, and one is used to using nicotine, the cravings would be extremely unpleasant and the withdrawal could be very nasty indeed. With that in mind, we wish to ensure that those individuals are cared for, and I know that the Minister wants to ensure that they are cared for too, but I remind the Committee that other nicotine replacements are available.
Several treatments are available from shops and pharmacies to help to beat the addiction, and those are available on prescription to individuals currently residing in a mental health unit, voluntarily or otherwise. Essentially, they are nicotine replacement therapies, by which I mean a proper medicine, as opposed to a consumer product, that provides somebody with a low level of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. They help to reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, and may affect mental health treatment too. They can be bought from pharmacies and shops, but a doctor can prescribe them and NHS stop-smoking services can provide them, and they are available in a whole range of forms. There are skin patches that provide a slower release, chewing gum and little inhalators that look like a small plastic cigarette. There are tablets, oral strips, lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays.
There is a huge variety of different nicotine replacement therapies. Some, such as the inhalators, gums and sprays, act quickly to provide nicotine, and some, such as the patches, release nicotine slowly. The treatment depends on the stage of craving and the stage of giving up that somebody is at, and on what is most suitable for them. Sometimes patients find that the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy is to have a low-dose patch that is worn all the time, with top-ups from a gum, inhalator or nasal spray if they have particular cravings. Treatment with such nicotine replacement therapy usually lasts eight to 12 weeks before the dose is reduced and eventually stopped.
Jack Rankin
I supported clauses 10 and 11 because I agree with the Government that under no circumstances should children be taking up vaping. I was heartened by the Minister’s comments on the principle of clause 10, the general point about evidence and balance when it came to vaping, and treating vaping differently from cigarettes and tobacco products.
However, I cannot quite go along with the Government on clause 12, because there they have the balance slightly wrong. I accept that vape vending machines should be prohibited, for the same reason that tobacco and cigarette vending machines were prohibited: vending machines cannot provide for age verification. That balance is well struck. However, I do not support the related measure for nicotine product vending machines. The Minister may seek to correct me, but I am not aware that any of the products described by the shadow Minister, such as nicotine patches and gum, is used recreationally or is attractive to children.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, if other items are restricted, people will end up buying those items? We are going to restrict what is available, and that will surely open them up as an avenue if we do not close it now.
Jack Rankin
I do not think that nicotine products are attractive to children in any way, shape or form today. My concern is that, as the Government are seeking to stop children using them by restricting them in vending machines—I do not think they should be using them—
Dr Johnson
May I clarify the point that my hon. Friend is making? When he says that he does not think nicotine products are attractive to children, does he mean the medical nicotine replacement therapy products, as opposed to other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches or vapes?
Jack Rankin
I mean the former: nicotine patches and gum. The stated intention of the Bill, supported by the House on Second Reading, is to move to a smokefree generation, so it would seem sensible to make nicotine products pretty widely accessible, in so far as they do not attract children. We should largely welcome a vending machine selling nicotine patches or gum if the intention is to move to a smokefree generation. I do not think the Government have the evidence and the balance quite right on that point, so I cannot support clause 12 as it is currently written.
I would make a similar case in support of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. She has read to us evidence from a relevant professional, who has a legitimate concern. It might be sensible, in the interest of broader public health, to have such a vending machine. If the Government are concerned about evidence and balance, those are exactly the kinds of voices they should be listening to, and they should accept the amendment, which is very much in line with their intent.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that there is a restriction on access to stop smoking products now? In my experience as a pharmacist, I have not seen that.
Jack Rankin
I do not think I can talk to that point, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it.
We have to find a balance. The Government can use their majority in the House to cast aside my hon. Friend’s amendment, but it seems to me that it is in line with the principle of the Bill, so it is a sensible thing to do.
Dr Johnson
I understand that my hon. Friend thinks that the amendment is sensible, but Dame Andrea Leadsom, the public health Minister in the previous Government, asked Mark Rowland, the chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, the “chicken-and-egg question”, as she put it:
“Does smoking make you depressed, does depression cause you to smoke or is it both?”
He said:
“it is difficult to disaggregate exactly for many people, but we know that both are a real issue. We talk about this cycle of smoking increasing the risk of poor mental health and poor mental health increasing the chances of smoking and the number of cigarettes someone smokes. People with mental health problems smoke far more, and that addiction then exacerbates psychiatric symptoms. Those psychiatric symptoms also then lead to increased poverty and increased chances of being unemployed, and that leads to poorer mental health. It is a complex picture, but we are really starting to see the causal drivers of mental ill health.” ––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 116, Q179.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that one should not say that those in mental health hospitals need access to vapes or nicotine in the form of pouches from vending machines to ease their mental health? In actual fact, it may do quite the opposite.
Jack Rankin
I had not heard that remark, but I thank my hon. Friend for putting it on the record. To add to that theme, I would make the point that these things are multifaceted. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, who is the successor to Dame Andrea, was making is that people have quite a lot to be getting on with, so they do not need this added stress.
Dr Johnson
Does my hon. Friend see it as an added stress or an added opportunity to add in-patient support to quit smoking to further benefit the individual’s mental and physical health?
Jack Rankin
Perhaps it is an added thing that doctors in mental healthcare can try to address, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire read out a letter from someone at the coalface, who takes the opposite approach from that of the shadow Minister.
Sarah Bool
I will say a little about the intention behind the amendment. We have obviously stressed throughout this debate how addictive nicotine is, but I want to ensure that if we are trying to deal with mental health issues, we are not creating an extra burden. The intention was not to encourage people to smoke, vape or take up other bad habits, but to make sure that we offer the best possible healthcare in the round, which means giving support.
Nicotine is addictive and so stresses are associated with it. Perhaps there are alternatives to give patients, but if they are not suitable for a particular patient or they do not work as well for them as nicotine, they will effectively be going cold turkey, which has its own issues. The intention behind the amendment was purely to encourage us to listen to the evidence from trusts themselves, to try to come up with a practical solution to enable this transition and allow us to get to a smokefree generation.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I agree with everything she has just said.
I will just finish my remarks to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. She talked about this measure being a further opportunity; I would suggest that the easy availability of nicotine products in certain instances would be an aid on that journey.
We should be working pragmatically on amendments such as this in Committee, to ensure that the evidence is considered and that the right balance is struck. I will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. Because the nicotine product vending machine measure is part of clause 12, I will vote against clause 12 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
Clauses 12 and 78 prohibit vape and nicotine product vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and similar provisions are made elsewhere for Scotland. However, it is really important that the Committee understands that Scotland already specifically prohibits vape vending machines.
Clause 12 makes it an offence for any person managing or controlling a premises to have a vaping or nicotine product vending machine available for use, which effectively prohibits the sale of vapes and nicotine products from vending machines. I will try to clarify this point for the shadow Minister. She asks, “Who is responsible? Who is that person?” The offence is linked to the person with management control of the premises, as that is the most appropriate mechanism; they have control over whether the vending machine is present. That is the answer to her question.
This Government will stop the next generation from becoming hooked on nicotine. To do that, it is essential that we stop children from accessing harmful and age-restricted products. Prior to the prohibition of tobacco vending machines, we know that children who smoked regularly used those machines as their source of cigarettes. We cannot allow the same thing to happen with vapes.
Vending machines do not require any human oversight, so it is much easier for determined individuals to bypass age-of-sale restrictions and, crucially, to undertake proxy purchases on behalf of individuals under 18 because there is a much lower chance of their being challenged about such a purchase. Additionally, by their very presence vending machines advertise their contents and the Bill will ban the advertising of vapes. We need to ensure that children are protected from harmful and addictive products. Ensuring that we remove the ability of children to access age-restricted products is an essential part of that approach.
I turn to amendment 96, regarding the exempting of mental health units from the vending machine prohibition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for bringing this important issue before the Committee today for discussion. Her amendment would allow vape and nicotine product vending machines to be available for use in specialised mental health units in England and Wales.
I am very sympathetic to the needs of adult smokers and vapers in mental health facilities, and I know that this topic came up during the evidence session. However, we do not currently believe that there is a need to exempt mental health settings or other healthcare settings from these requirements. Scotland did not exempt mental health units from its vape vending machine ban, and it has had no issues. I want to be clear, because it is really important that I make this point: we are not banning the sale of vapes and nicotine products in mental health settings. We are only prohibiting their sale from automatic machines that provide no means to prevent proxy purchasing. Facilities that contain shops will still be able to sell vapes to patients and staff. Additionally, patients in mental health settings may be able to benefit from stop smoking services and the swap to stop scheme.
The majority of in-patient trusts, both acute and mental health, successfully deliver stop smoking support to smokers. As part of the swap to stop scheme, localities can request free vaping starter kits to provide to adults engaging with their local stop smoking services. Awards have now been made to individual services in a range of settings, including NHS and mental health settings, and to specific populations. It will still be legal and possible for vending machines to dispense medicinally licensed nicotine replacement therapies such as gums, patches and inhalers. These important medicines will still be available to patients who are looking to quit smoking or who are struggling with their nicotine addiction.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for making the arguments on vending machines. From a public health consultant point of view, I have listened and think there is a reasonable debate to be had. I am convinced by the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister has given, but I would ask that following the debate the conversation continues as the Bill progresses and that the Department of Health and Social Care continues to have these conversations.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. This debate will not stop here at Committee stage; I am almost certain it will be raised on Report. If it is not concluded to the satisfaction of those who wish to see such provisions in the Bill, I have no doubt that it will be raised in the other place, too.
However, it is really important that we do not end up with unintended consequences. We have to get this legislation right. The smoking cessation services available are far-reaching in these settings, and I see no reason for an exemption, given that nicotine replacement therapies such as gums, patches, inhalers—important medicines—will still be still be available to patients with a nicotine addiction in mental health settings. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Bool
I would like to press my amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 14 stand part.
Clause 61 stand part.
Clause 79 stand part.
Before we embark on this debate, because there is a series of stand-part debates coming up, I will make the point that it is not actually de rigueur to speak in every stand-part debate if you have no desire or need to do so—you do not have to read things into the record.
My second point is that we may be coming to a conclusion of the business on the Floor of the House fairly shortly, although I do not think we have yet got on to the winding-up speeches. I must make the point to the Committee that if a Member is on their feet when a Division is moved—and there will then be a sequence of Divisions, so we could be talking about an hour or an hour and a half—I shall have no choice but to suspend the Committee, unless the adjournment has already been moved. I call Dr Caroline Johnson.
Dr Johnson
In the provisional grouping provided by the Clerk, you have clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 together. Would you like to—
The Chair
Order. I do beg your pardon; I am wrong. I am never wrong! But this time I am. I call the Minister to speak first.
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Sir Roger. I was doubting my officials, but perhaps I should have had more trust in the notes that they gave me, which say “AG to open”—heaven forbid that you, in the Chair, would ever be wrong.
Clauses 13, 14 and 79 provide a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, to regulate the display of relevant products, including prices and empty retail packaging, within retail establishments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Tobacco product displays are currently regulated under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This Bill repeals and replaces that Act, so tobacco display regulations will be made under this new power for when the repeal takes effect.
Clause 61 provides Scottish Ministers with powers to regulate the display of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, and their prices, in retailers in Scotland. The powers also allow regulation of the display of empty retail packaging or anything that represents the products. It is slightly different to the equivalent clauses for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which also cover tobacco products. Tobacco products are not included in clause 61, because Scotland has made its own provision on tobacco displays under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010.
Evidence shows us that vapes and nicotine products are currently too easily accessible to children within shops. Vapes are sometimes displayed alongside sweets and confectionery in retail environments, and often promoted in shop-front windows. These products are too easily seen and too readily available for children. That is unacceptable. We must reduce the visibility and the accessibility of vaping and nicotine products to protect children from getting hooked on nicotine.
These clauses provide each of the devolved Governments with the power to regulate such displays and ensure that they are proportionate to the risks that these products pose to the audiences within retail establishments. They also ensure that the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers, will be required to consult before making regulations. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
Let me just explain: the clause stand part is Government business, so it is absolutely correct that the Minister is entitled to move it. He is allowed to move it formally if he chooses to do so. He does not have to speak to it, but by moving it formally, he can then open the debate and come back later if he so chooses. He has chosen to take the path he has gone down and he was absolutely right to do so.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Sir Roger. I am grateful for your guidance as Chair on the order of doing things. It has been, at times, quite confusing.
Clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 regulate the display of products in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not take much to realise why that is necessary. Simply take a drive down a high street in any small town across the country, and one will come across a shop with an entire front window blocked out with pictures of sweets, other confectionery and chocolate, usually an energy drink or two thrown in, and a whole host of brightly-coloured vaping devices. The clear message is that these are fun and exciting products—not stop-smoking devices, but recreational products—and is clearly designed to entice children into purchasing them.
I had cause to go to a major service station on the A1-M25 junction, and as I came out of the bathroom I noticed that, at the eye level of about a six-year-old, there was a whole pile of coloured vapes in a shop front. Going into a major newsagent to purchase a newspaper, one will also find a whole load of pictures behind the counter. I have even seen electronic video displays advertising a vaping product in WHSmith—I think it was a Lost Mary—so one cannot get away from the advertising of those products even if one wishes to. It is clearly necessary for the display of those products within stores to be regulated to ensure that children are not enticed—the industry would say inadvertently, while others would suggest very deliberately—into wanting to buy them.
Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with powers to regulate the display of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. It also regulates their prices. I wonder if the Minister could comment on what that means, and how the prices of all those products will come under some sort of Government control. Will the Government fix the prices and therefore the profit, or will they apply additional taxation to the product—something that they seem to like to do, although it would not necessarily be as unwelcome in this case as some of the other taxes they have applied recently—so that they create an overall price? How does the Minister intend this price fixing, as it were, to work?
Clause 13 also gives the capacity to regulate the display of empty retail packaging or anything else that represents the product, whether that be putting up a video display or large versions of the products at an entrance, so that the products can be kept away from children. Under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and regulations made under it, there are already restrictions on the display in the course of business of tobacco products and pricing, but not specifically nicotine and vaping products. Given all we have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine, the enticement of children into taking such products, and the harm they may cause children particularly in adolescence, this is a welcome change.
Clause 13(6) confirms that before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult who he or she considers it appropriate to consult. I am interested to understand whether the Minister believes that such a consultation should include the tobacco industry and/or the vaping and nicotine product industry, whether that be medical or otherwise, and whether he sees a distinction between the two.
Clause 13 creates an offence for failure to comply with the regulations, and anyone convicted of an offence under this clause on indictment can be subject to imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both. If they are convicted of a slightly lesser offence on summary conviction, they can be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a general limit in a magistrates court, or a fine, or both.
I refer the Minister to my previous remark that the general limit in a magistrates court is apparently going to double after the Lord Chancellor’s statement in October. As such, is the Minister content to have a fluctuating limit or would he prefer a fixed one? Perhaps that is something to consider before Report. Clearly, deliberately advertising vapes in a way that may be attractive to children requires a reasonably stiff penalty.
Under clause 13(1), the legislation explicitly allows for the regulation of physical displays of these products, including empty packaging and pricing information, which are often used to draw attention to them. Subsection (2) defines the “relevant products” pretty comprehensively, encompassing not just tobacco and vaping items but accessories such as cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. The broad definition ensures that the regulations cover a wide array of potentially harmful products. Subsection (3) further strengthens that by extending the rules to include representations of these products, such as promotional materials or images that might signify them at the point of sale, which is again welcome.
Currently, vaping products are often displayed prominently in retail settings, frequently at checkout counters or in bright, attention-grabbing displays. That placement encourages impulse purchases and can make those products more appealing to young people. Unlike tobacco products, which have strict display restrictions, vaping and nicotine products remain accessible and visible in shops, and the standard packaging laws for cigarettes do not apply, for example, to their shape and colour. Clause 13 aims to address that disparity by introducing measures to regulate the visibility and presentation of the products.
The collaborative approach to the consultation will hopefully strike the right balance between public health objectives and the interests of businesses, but I urge the Minister to give further information on how we can strike that balance while maintaining that the important thing is to protect the health of the public, particularly children, from vaping products. Both nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, unlike tobacco, are currently allowed to be displayed at the point of sale in shops on countertops, in eye-catching displays on the shop floor, and in the windows. It is somewhat ironic that sweeties and chocolate have been banned at the till because of the pester power of children, only to be replaced in some shops by vapes. I suggest that, if any parent were given the choice, they would rather their children were having sweets than vapes, which are clearly addictive and much more harmful. There is much to be considered on the nature of unintended consequences, as well as the nature of the industry with which we are dealing.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case that we should not be advertising vapes, or their pricing and products, to children. What she is not doing is making a case for banning the display of products or prices of vapes to adults. Does she think it is incongruous to treat tobacco products and vaping products in the same way in this clause?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Part of me wants to say, “Well, what do you do when the child goes into the newsagent? Put a blindfold on them?” If the displays are visible to adults, they will be visible to the children who are walking beside them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we can ensure that, when walking into an average newsagent, children cannot see something that grown-ups can.
Jack Rankin
I suggest to my hon. Friend that advertising a vape with Mickey Mouse is obviously aimed at a child, but it would be very much aimed at an adult, and not attractive to a child at all, to advertise a vape with, “This is what smoking 40 cigarettes a day costs you over a year. This is what our product costs. This is what you would save.” That would very much be in line with the aims of a smoke-free generation.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which goes to the principle of advertising, and whether there needs to be an exemption for medical advertising of vaping as a stop smoking tool by health professionals, for example in doctors’ surgeries, where it may also be visible to child patients. That is not really the aim of clauses 13 and 14, which focus on the display of products in shops. They are less about how the products are advertised and more about where they are displayed and how visible they are to someone shopping.
To some extent, my hon. Friend has a point about how we convey the message to smokers that vaping devices are items they can use to help them quit smoking—a message given by the chief medical officer—and about the distinction between that advertising and the sort of advertising that sees sports stadiums and sports shirts emblazoned with the brands of vaping companies, such that young children watching their heroes on the pitch, playing football or rugby, see vaping as a good thing. We will come to that later, but it is distinctly different from clauses 13 and 14.
At the moment, the legislation most relevant to where products are displayed is probably the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, known as the TRPR, which brought EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 into law. The regulations, which are now in the form of retained EU law, set standards for nicotine vapes, including limits on nicotine strength, bottle and tank sizes, and rules on packaging and advertising. But when it comes to the display of vape products, there are no specific regulations. They are openly displayed in stores, in large and small shops, both household names and individual retail outlets. They are also displayed in outlets that we might not expect. I noticed that the place I took my son for a haircut was selling both haircuts and vapes, and that a shop in the local town that repairs mobile phones and sells second-hand devices also sells vapes. The number of places that sell vapes and display them in their shop window is remarkable.
The Department of Health and Social Care has expressed concern about the lack of regulation, warning that children can easily see and pick up vapes due to them being displayed within aisles close to sweets, and on accessible shelves and display towers on the shop floor close to children’s eye level. A particular concern to me—and no doubt to many others in the Committee—is the visual similarity between a vape display and a shelf of sweets. Vapes are often displayed in an array of eye-catching colours. It is not uncommon to see them in a rainbow, with a range of sweet and fruity flavours on offer, including specific sweet brand names like Skittles, Starburst and Sour Patch Kids. The way they are sometimes presented as a safe alternative to smoking—which we understand that they are for smokers—can mislead consumers into thinking they are risk free, which is concerning considering that they contain nicotine and other harmful chemicals. I have also noticed a fashion for an increasing number of products to be advertised as pure, fresh, natural and organic, potentially to give the impression that they are less damaging than they are.
Finally, I have not seen this raised before, but I would like the Minister to consider that the fact that these highly addictive products are so easily accessible on the shop floor and at children’s height makes it easy for children to pick them up and walk out with them, particularly if they want to avoid being asked for ID by the shopkeeper. Putting them behind the counter where they are less accessible to children may reduce that temptation.
Clauses 14, 61 and 79 relate to similar regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I do not intend to go through them and repeat my arguments.
Andrew Gwynne
I reassure the shadow Minister that the measures in clauses 13 and 14 will regulate only the display of pricing, not the actual prices. We are not yet in the realms of fixing prices for products—I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Windsor, too.
On engagement with the tobacco industry and the vape industry, the UK is party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control, so we have an obligation to protect the development of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. We take that commitment incredibly seriously and, in line with the requirements of article 5.3 of the FCTC, we summarise the views of respondents with disclosed links to the tobacco industry when responding to consultations.
With respect to the display of vapes, we know—and the shadow Minister has expressed very powerfully—that research on vape packaging has shown that reduced brand imagery can decrease the appeal to young people who have not previously smoked or vaped, without reducing the appeal of vapes to adult smokers. That is why I believe the measures in clauses 13 and 14 are appropriate and measured, and will have the outcomes that both the shadow Minister and those of us on the Government side of the Committee desire. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Free distribution and discount of products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jack Rankin
I have supported the Government so far on the principle of not allowing under-18s to vape, but I am concerned that, as we get to these clauses relating to distribution and discount—we have just talked about display, and I will not talk about flavours and marketing in depth, because I know they will come later—we are at risk of moving away from the evidence, and from the balanced approach that the Minister talked about when he delineated between vaping and tobacco.
These clauses give quite wide scope to Ministers on all of these products together, but I think the products should be treated differently. There should be scope for legitimate, responsible vaping companies to offer free distribution and discount of products, in aid of the Government’s stated aim. We do not want to create new vapers, but vaping is a powerful tool to realise the aim of a smoke-free generation. As with most products, it is possible to promote price savings in a responsible way.
We have received a huge weight of correspondence on this topic and I cannot say that I have had the time to read everything that has come across our desks, but I read the letter from VPZ, which I understand is a vaping company. It talked about its partnership with the NHS in Essex, which had put out to tender for a process to help people successfully quit. There was a £55 voucher from the NHS associated with that partnership. As I understand the letter—perhaps the Minister knows more about this than I do—VPZ used that voucher to offer a cashback scheme such that that money came off the price of vapes. VPZ did not benefit directly, because it did not think it should be doing so from a public source, but it passed that saving on, and I suppose that counts as a discount on a product.
I might contend to the Minister that that is exactly the kind of thing we want responsible, legitimate vaping companies to do. I understand that he wants, through this mechanism, to strictly limit advertising to, and targeting of, children and new vapers, but—
Gregory Stafford
I accept the point that my hon. Friend is making: there might be an argument for some kind of promotion around the use of a vape for cessation from tobacco products. However, the reality is that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of medicines that we do not advertise in this country, because they are generally prescribed by a medical professional, and those that are not—those that can be bought over the counter—are generally harmless so long as they are taken according to the instructions. We would not want a situation like that in America, where specific drugs are promoted to the general public, because I think that would send us down a very difficult route. Does my hon. Friend not think that what he is suggesting on vapes is something like that, and that for products prescribed by a doctor for smoking cessation, or at least for over-the-counter products, we should not have advertising, marketing or promotional products?
Jack Rankin
It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I do not agree with him. The last thing we need is more people going through our GP surgeries. We should allow legitimate use of these discounts in a public health manner. Some of the problems I have with the structure of some of the clauses from here on in is that they give quite sweeping regulatory power to Ministers, perhaps through secondary legislation. The Minister might say that the Government do not necessarily want to restrict those things, but the lack of certainty may result in a chilling of investment by legitimate vaping companies. If we want genuinely to move to a smoke-free generation, I do not think that is something we should encourage; we should be advocating such responsible investment.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about the availability and visibility of products, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about the availability of vaping products as medical products. However, the Committee heard evidence from the MHRA that there are no medically approved vaping devices currently registered in the United Kingdom. While it continues to encourage vaping companies to come forward with a vaping product for regulation and medical assessment, that so far has not come to fruition.
Jack Rankin
I take the shadow Minister’s point, but I think the Minister said in summing up the clause 10 stand part debate that while vaping potentially was not harm-free, given its harm compared with cigarettes, that was something that the Government would want to see.
Clause 15 does not say that there should not be discounts on products for children or products for recreational use; it leaves the scope quite broad. I think the Government have got that wrong, and that it might have a direct adverse effect on the kinds of partnerships I described. I saw some polling recently that showed that the general public thought vaping was as dangerous as smoking, and this is the kind of messaging that gives that wrong impression, which is against the Government’s stated aim.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 62 stand part.
Clause 80 stand part.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.
In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for his birthday felicitations. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.
Andrew Gwynne
I was just about to say, Sir Roger, that might be one thing that we have to divide on later. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford all the best for today and hope that he gets home in reasonable time to enjoy with friends and family what is left of his birthday.
I thank hon. Members for their speeches on these clauses today and earlier this week. The Government have two objectives on vaping. The first is to tackle youth vaping. Too many children are vaping and vapes are attractive and accessible to them. The Bill will bring about definitive and positive change to prevent future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine. The second objective is to support adult smokers to access vapes to help them to quit smoking. As the chief medical officer says:
“If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2025; c. 11, Q8.]
I concur with that entirely.
In support of those aims, the clauses do not apply to licensed medicines and there is a defence available when any free vaping or nicotine product is given out in accordance with arrangements made by a public health authority or a public authority. That means that smoking cessation services will be able to continue to support adult smokers to quit smoking, for example by providing free smoking cessation quit aids where appropriate. That includes our national swap to stop programme that continues to help smokers move from cigarettes to vapes.
I also stress that we will continue to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to support applications from industry for vapes as a licensed medicine. As Dr Laura Squire, the MHRA chief healthcare quality and access officer, stated in the evidence session, there may be progress in this area. I hope that that assures hon. Members that we continue to take a balanced approach to vaping, both through the measures in the Bill and our wider work on tobacco control.
More generally, the clauses make it an offence to give away any tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers if the purpose or effect is to promote any tobacco, herbal smoking, smoking-related, vaping or nicotine product to a member of the public of any age—for England and Wales, in clause 15, for Scotland, in clause 62, and for Northern Ireland, in clause 80. The maximum penalty for the offence will be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
The clause also extends to coupons and vouchers and to selling a product at a substantial discount. These measures mean that disreputable actors cannot bypass the restriction by offering a free voucher for a product instead of a free product. The clause also covers products that promote any of the aforementioned products—for example, t-shirts with vape company branding to promote vapes cannot be freely given away. On discounts, we are only prohibiting substantial discounts, so we can make sure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point at which the price is no longer relevant. Businesses can still discount products if they choose to. Clause 62 also includes a power for Scottish Ministers to create additional defences.
It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could be legally handed out for free. This is one of the many avenues by which industry is addicting our children. It is for these reasons I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Clause 22 stand part.
Clause 85 stand part.
Schedules 11 to 13.
Dr Johnson
I put on the record my good wishes for a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dartford. He shares a birthday with both my daughter and my son’s science teacher, and I wish them all a happy birthday. While fully enjoying and engaging with this very important piece of legislation, I understand his urge to celebrate his birthday later, and I hope he will be able to do so.
This is quite a big group of clauses. They provide for the licensing regime for retail sales of various products, tobacco products and others in England and are quite complex.
Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the granting of personal and premises licences. It establishes a licensing system for the sale, storage, exposure and supply of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England and outlines the requirement for individuals and businesses involved in the retail of those products to hold specific licences.
The clause can essentially be broken down as follows. Subsection (1) establishes that individuals in England are prohibited from selling, displaying for sale or possessing certain relevant products, such as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, unless they have a valid personal licence. That ensures that all transactions are regulated and aims to control access, ensure compliance with legal standards and promote accountability among retailers in handling those products.
Clause 16 also effectively creates a licensing framework to monitor and enforce sale practices. That is important, because we have heard evidence—and seen for ourselves when we walk down the street—that virtually every shop, whatever it sells otherwise, sells vapes. The clause will help to reduce the number of outlets selling those products and ensure that they are being sold responsibly and only to those above the age of sale.
Subsection (2) mandates that premises cannot be used for certain activities involving the relevant products, including storing, displaying or supplying them without a valid premises licence. Again, that ensures that the locations themselves are regulated by requiring a licence, which allows for oversight of operations, ensures compliance with health and safety and legal standards and prevents and reduces unauthorised and illicit sales. That will help to enforce accountability and the responsible handling of regulated goods.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to create by regulations exemptions to subsections (1) and (2) if he or she wishes to do so. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to create regulations governing the granting of both personal and premises licences. That provision is essential to establish clear criteria and procedures for individuals and businesses seeking licences to sell, store or display relevant products. Subsection (4) will ensure that those activities are conducted responsibly and legally, aligning public safety standards and allowing for consistent oversight, as I said. It ensures that there is a thorough process in considering input from those who are directly affected by or have expertise in the matter.
Subsection (7) specifies that regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have talked about before. Subsection (8) defines key terms, such as “personal licence”, “premises licence” and “relevant products”, ensuring that there is clarity in the interpretation and application of the provisions so that individuals subject to them understand what their duties involve.
Schedule 1 concerns the retail licensing scheme for England only. To tackle the illicit market and protect legitimate businesses, the Bill provides powers to introduce a new retail licensing scheme in England for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The schedule details the regulations for a retail licensing scheme and explains the regulations that the Secretary of State can implement under the powers granted in clause 16, which mandate that retail sales of those products in England must be licensed.
There clearly needs to be a licensing authority, and the regulations will designate a local authority as the responsible body for granting licences to retailers that wish to sell tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. With regard to yesterday’s statement on the changes to some local authorities, it is important that the provisions in the schedule work, even in the event that the local authorities change as part of that process.
The regulations on licensing conditions can prevent the granting of licences in certain areas—for example, near schools—limit the number of licences in specific areas and require premises to be inspected before a licence is granted. The licensing authority can charge a fee to cover the cost of administering and enforcing a licensing scheme, and a portion of those fees may be allocated to other bodies involved in the enforcement process, especially if licensing and enforcement are handled by different authorities. The regulations will also do other sensible things; they mention the licence duration, public disclosure and how to renew and appeal any licence that has been either granted or refused. The Secretary of State will be able to provide guidance to the local authorities providing the licensing duty on how to carry out their duties in that respect.
The impact assessment on the Bill, which was published by the Department for Health and Social Care in November 2024, notes:
“A retail licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products would support enforcement (and in turn, public health) by:
a) strengthening retailers’ adherence to existing regulations”
and by
“b) providing the opportunity to introduce further restrictions…in the interest of public health, for example conditions relating to retail density.”
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
For clarity, does that notice give notice of the amount of the penalty or just that a penalty will be imposed? Can the retailer appeal to the weights and measures authority about whether they will get a fine, or are they simply told the amount of the fine that they are likely to get? If my hon. Friend does not know, perhaps the Minister might.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.
Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty. To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so.
The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed. If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid. Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.
Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales. As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products. In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.
Gregory Stafford
I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.
Dr Johnson
I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon. Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important, however, that those who are selling online and those who are selling in shops have to have a licence to do so. I hope that the Minister does not intend to exempt online retailers from the need to have a licence to sell such products—he is shaking his head, so I suggest that is not the case, which is good.
One reason for tabling new clause 10 was to highlight the importance of ensuring that online retailers are held to the same standards as those real-world retailers. We have talked previously about ensuring that online apps and online sales cannot be used as a get-around—similar to vending machines, for example. It is important to ensure that the online world is not used to get around the Government’s intention to prevent smoking and the purchase of smoking, vaping and nicotine products by under-age individuals.
To return to clause 19, subsection (5) requires Welsh Ministers to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations, which is sensible. Subsection (7) specifies that the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which for Wales means that the proposed regulations must be formally approved by the Senedd before becoming law, increasing democratic accountability and providing an extra layer of scrutiny. Respect for Welsh devolution, as we talked about in the last session, is therefore included within the Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for retail licensing schemes in Wales, making provision regarding the granting of a licence in Wales, including provisions meaning that a licensing authority cannot grant a licence to premises in a particular area, for example, in proximity to a school, and limiting the number of licences within a particular area. We heard previously that specifying that licensed premises should not be near a school could cause difficulties in some rural areas where there may be only one shop in that village and no shops for many miles around it. That is one of the reasons decisions are made locally, because the local individuals providing those licences know the local circumstances, and that would need to be done cautiously. The regulations will also specify the duration of the licence, how it is enforced and the appeals process.
Clause 20 relates to offences in connection with licences in Wales and sets out how offences are committed, along with the penalties that may be put in place. I will not go through that in any more detail.
Clause 21 talks about the financial penalties in Wales. We have talked previously about how it is a matter for the devolved nations to decide how high those penalties should be. Subsection (1) grants the local weights and measures authorities in Wales the powers to impose those financial penalties relating to a breach of conditions attached to a personal or premises licence.
Schedule 4 outlines the procedure for local authorities in Wales, such as trading standards, to impose financial penalties for breaching licence conditions. Again, before imposing a penalty, authorities must issue a notice of intent and allow time for it to be challenged. If a penalty is imposed, a final notice is issued, which can be withdrawn or reduced, and the person can appeal the decision or the penalty amount to the magistrates court. Unpaid penalties can be recovered as if they were payable under an order of the county court and proceeds, after enforcement costs, are returned to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
Clause 22 is the repeal of register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. It proposes to repeal chapter 2 in part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which established a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. Clearly, if this Bill passes, that provision will no longer be required because the clauses in the Bill provide for new provisions. Clause 22 repeals that chapter of the 2017 Act so that it can be replaced, which is sensible.
Gregory Stafford
I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon. Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Chapter 2 of part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which is being repealed by the Bill, establishes a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. That Act requires the creation and maintenance of a register for all retailers of tobacco, cigarette papers and nicotine products. That register has to include detailed information about each registrant, such as their name, residential or business address, and the location of the premises. It also specifies whether the retailer sells tobacco, nicotine products or both. For mobile and temporary premises, such as stalls, tents or vehicles, the register must record the relevant local authorities where the business operates, if there is more than one.
Welsh Ministers may be designated as the authority responsible for overseeing the register, with additional details about registration requirements subject to regulations. To register, businesses must apply to the registration authority and provide comprehensive details about their operations, including the type of products sold and the methods of sale, such as online transactions or delivery services. Applications must comply with a prescribed format and a fee may be required. The authority must grant registration unless legal restrictions, such as restricted premises or sale orders, apply. Approved applications result in updates to the register.
Registered retailers are obligated to notify the authority of significant changes, such as modifications to business details, the cessation of operations at specific locations or the discontinuation of mobile operations in a local authority area. Notifications must be submitted within 28 days and the registration authority is responsible for revising the register to reflect the changes or correct any inaccuracies. Before amending or removing a registrant’s entry, the authority must provide notice to explain the reasons and allow time for the registrant to respond.
The chapter of the Act that is being repealed includes provisions to enhance the regulation of tobacco and nicotine businesses by ensuring access to the retailers register and enforcing compliance. The registration authority is required to publish a list identifying registered businesses and their premises. For businesses operating from moveable structures, such as stalls or vehicles, the list must specify the local authorities where operations occur, instead of physical addresses.
Local authorities are granted full access to information on the register relevant to the premises within their jurisdiction to enable effective monitoring. Certain premises may be exempt from the Act’s provisions, as specified in regulations. The application of the provisions to moveable premises may be modified if deemed necessary by Welsh Ministers.
Conducting a tobacco or nicotine business without registration is an offence, as is operating at locations not listed in the register. Exceptions apply to moveable premises, but failing to notify the authority of a change in business operations without reasonable cause also constitutes an offence. Offenders face fines proportional to the severity of the breach.
To enforce compliance, local authorities may appoint authorised officers and grant them powers to investigate potential offences. Officers may enter premises at reasonable times, provided that they suspect violations and need access for verification. Entry into dwellings for such a purpose requires a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which remains valid for 28 days. Warrants may also be granted for other premises under specific conditions, such as denial of access or risk of compromising an investigation.
Authorised officers have extensive inspection powers, including examining premises, taking samples and copying documents. They may also secure properties for analysis where necessary. Obstructing officers or failing to co-operate with a reasonable requirement is an offence. Fixed-penalty notices can be issued for minor breaches, offering offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution through prompt payment. Those measures, in the chapter of the Act that is being repealed, collectively aim to uphold public health standards and ensure the responsible sale of tobacco and nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.
Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.
Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.
Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.
The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.
There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.
Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.
The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.
Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.
Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.
Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.
Jack Rankin
In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.
I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.
On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.
Sarah Bool
I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor.
The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions. I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations. It mentions in written evidence that
“The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws. A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.”
I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.
Dr Johnson
It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.
Sarah Bool
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.
Evapo also says that
“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”
That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.
I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. What does she think about the idea of having a single licence? If a shop—for example, a small convenience store—is selling alcohol, tobacco, where it is still permitted under the regulation, and vapes for those over 18, would a single regulatory process and licensing scheme be more efficient and more beneficial both to the customer and the retailer?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business. We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank Members for their contributions.
Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.
Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.
Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.
The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.
I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to Scotland in due course.
Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority. In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.
The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance. It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date. That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations. For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.
Dr Johnson
Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?
Andrew Gwynne
Where we know an area is moving from a two-tier to a unitary authority, the clue is in the name: the unitary authority will be the licensing authority because there will be only one local authority covering that area.
Gregory Stafford
I am sure the Minister has much greater understanding of his own Government’s policy, but my understanding is that there will be some devolution of powers to parish and town councils. Will they potentially become the licensing authority when there is a downward devolution of power?
Andrew Gwynne
No. The local authority, not the parish council, would be and will remain the licensing authority, as is the case at the present time. Notwithstanding that there may be a quasi-additional tier in the form of a mayor and a combined authority, where areas move from a two-tier to a unitary authority, it will be the local authority that is the licensing authority. That is what happens in my constituency in Greater Manchester, where we have effectively had unitary authorities since the metropolitan county council was abolished in 1986. Tameside metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council are both unitary authorities. They are both the licensing authorities for their respective parts of my constituency, even though we have a Greater Manchester combined authority and a Great Manchester metro mayor. I hope that clarifies the issue.
Schedule 1 also establishes that regulations may make provisions regarding the granting, duration, renewal and revocation of licences, and enables the licensing authority to charge a fee for the granting of a licence. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor, the fee structure may be set at a level that takes into account administration and enforcement costs. The local authority will be able to use the fee to help cover the cost of granting licences and enforcing the scheme. That is the closest I can get: we intend it to be cost-neutral for the purpose of operating the scheme.
Schedule 1 establishes that regulations can place conditions on the licence. Retailers that breach those conditions will be subject to civil financial penalties. Regulations may make provision for licensing authorities to publish information about licences, such as the addresses of licensed retailers, and, to maintain fairness, regulations must include an appeals route, so that retailers can, for example, appeal decisions on the granting of a licence. Finally, regulations may require that a licensing authority must consider guidance published by the Secretary of State to support the smooth implementation of the scheme.
Clause 19 and schedule 3 establish the same power to introduce a licensing scheme in Wales, with the same framework for the regulations. The schedule establishes the licensing authority in Wales to be the council of the county or county borough. Clause 85 achieves the same in Northern Ireland by inserting a new clause into the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, while schedule 11 establishes the same framework. In Northern Ireland, a council will be the licensing authority.
Clause 17 creates offences in relation to the licensing scheme in England. It makes it an offence to sell, expose for sale, or possess for the purpose of sale any relevant products without, or not in accordance with, a personal licence. The clause also makes it an offence to use a premises in England for the storage of relevant product for the purpose of retail sale, the exposure for sale, or the supply of any relevant product to a retail customer without, or not in accordance with, a premises licence, and knowingly to provide materially false or misleading information in a licence application.
Anyone found to be committing a licensing offence may be issued with an unlimited fine on conviction. As an alternative to prosecution, trading standards may issue a £2,500 fixed penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine. Regulations can confer on courts a discretionary power to suspend or revoke a licence on conviction. The court may order relevant product to be forfeited and destroyed, to prevent a business from continuing to sell or unlawfully selling product.
Clause 20 establishes the same licensing offences in Wales, and clause 85 establishes the same licensing offences in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, district councils will enforce the licensing scheme. People convicted of a licensing offence face a fine of up to £5,000. As an alternative to prosecution, councils in Northern Ireland can issue a fixed penalty notice, the value for which will be determined in regulations.
Clause 18 creates civil financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions in England, to ensure that licensed retailers continue to follow the rules. Breaching conditions is a civil matter, not dealt with by the courts. The value of the civil financial penalty cannot exceed £2,500. The clause also provides a limited and specific power to update that value to account for inflation, to ensure that the value remains relevant. A civil penalty cannot be issued if the breach of the licence condition already constitutes a licensing offence. That is to ensure that someone cannot be subject to double punishment for the same licence breach.
Dr Johnson
The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent. Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?
Andrew Gwynne
As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation. That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 24 to 27 stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
No, it is too late; I am sorry. Members have to understand that if they wish to make a contribution, they must make that clear by standing up; otherwise, I push forward. It is too late. The clause is debated.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
Sorry, Sir Roger. We had wanted to adjourn at clause 22.
The Chair
But we have just agreed clause 23. It is done. Whether you like it or not, the Committee has said yes to clause 23, so it stands part of the Bill. We cannot go back; there is no retrospective route in Committee. If Members wish to debate clauses 24 to 27, which technically have not been moved, they may do so, but they cannot debate clause 23.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Hang on, not now! This is like trying to herd kittens. When you come back this afternoon, you may, if the Chairman chooses to allow you—you will be pleased to know it will not be me—speak to clauses 24 to 27, before you vote on those. But you cannot go back over clause 23.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place
“whether made—
(a) by the offender or any other person, or
(b) by means of any machine”,
and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of
“any one or more of the following—
(a) tobacco products;
(b) herbal smoking products;
(c) cigarette papers;
(d) vaping products;
(e) nicotine products.”
They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.
Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:
“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”
Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:
“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—
(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—
(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);
(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);
(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);
(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—
(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);
(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”
For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?
I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?
Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine
“(a) the occupier of the premises, and
(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”
Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?
Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?
Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?
Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence
“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”
If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.
Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.
That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?
Sarah Bool
Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.
Dr Johnson
When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?
Sarah Bool
I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches the age of sale and vending machine restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. The clauses are based on and replace existing legislation.
A restricted premises order is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling from a vending machine, at least twice within the previous two years. The person who brought the proceedings for the sales offence makes a complaint to a magistrates court to apply for a restricted premises order in respect of the premises where the offence was committed.
Clause 24 requires notice to be given to people who might have an interest in a restricted premises order being made in England and Wales, and sets out situations where an interested person might challenge a restricted premises order. An interested person is the occupier of the premises or someone who has an interest in it, such as the manager or owner. The clause sets out the circumstances in which notice should be given to an interested person where a restricted premises order is being applied for. Interested persons are allowed to make representations to the court to try to prevent a restricted premises order from being issued, or at least to try to vary it. This is a safeguard so that suitable steps are taken before a restricted premises order is made, and to maintain fairness so that a relevant person is informed of an impending restricted premises order.
Clause 25 provides those in receipt of a restricted premises order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. This is important to the function of enforcement in the Bill as it enables businesses to appeal against a restricted premises order, such as where they feel they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. This provision maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 26 makes it an offence to breach a restricted premises order in England and Wales. The offence is committed when a tobacco, herbal smoking product, cigarette paper, vaping or nicotine product whose sale is prohibited under a restricted premises order is sold on the premises. The offence occurs if a person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the sale was in breach of the order. It also provides a defence for the person charged, where they prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid a committing the offence. Making it an offence to breach a restricted premises order gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
Finally, Clause 27 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to add to the offences for which restricted premises orders can be issued, in addition to what is already prescribed in the Bill. Offences added must be in relation to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products only. This re-enacts an existing power for Welsh Ministers, who must consult before making regulations under this power. The clause is therefore important as it maintains existing powers that enable legislation in Wales to be kept up to date to ensure that restricted premises orders can continue to be used as an effective enforcement tool.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that if you want to talk about the clauses, this is the point at which you should do so.
Andrew Gwynne
In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.
Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.
Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.
If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?
With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.
The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.
Sarah Bool
I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.
The Chair
I will call the Minister. He may well wish to respond on the points related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 rather than the other points that have been raised, which can be taken up at another place and another time.
Andrew Gwynne
I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.
First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.
That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.
On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.
On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.
On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.
I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Dr Johnson
I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.
Dr Johnson
I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?
Andrew Gwynne
It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.
In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 33 and 34 stand part.
Clause 81 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
The clause places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in part 1 of the Bill and any display regulations in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities. It provides local weights and measures authorities—meaning local authority trading standards in England and Wales—with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity.
Those investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises. Trading standards officers are experts in enforcement, and it is vital that we provide them with the appropriate powers to perform their duty. The clause ensures that local authority trading standards can use the same investigatory powers that are used now, and known to be effective, to enable successful enforcement of the new legislation.
Clause 33 provides a requirement for local weights and measures authorities in England, meaning local authority trading standards, to consider a programme of enforcement action and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement for offences under part 1 of the Bill and display regulations, on a yearly basis. The clause is important to the Bill as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider appropriate action to enforce tobacco, vapes and nicotine product regulations in their local area.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister is outlining clause 33. Under subsection (2), it is clear what the programme of enforcement action might involve, but what is not clear is what the consideration means in this case. In the local authority, is that decision made by a certain department, by the cabinet or, if a combined authority, by the mayor? What is due consideration under the Bill?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because that very much depends on the constitutional make-up of the local authority. The governance of that local authority will determine the way in which that is considered. As licensing functions tend to be quasi-judicial in their nature, enforcement required to ensure that those licensing conditions are met means that, in effect, elected members across the authority have some role in and responsibility for giving consideration to those points. I hope that clarifies the matter for him.
Gregory Stafford
It does in the most general sense, but I am trying to get to the specifics of this, if the Minister does not mind. The clause is very clear. It says in subsection (1) of clause 33,
“Each local weights and measures authority in England must, at least once a year, consider”
and so on. Presumably, the Department has some idea of what that consideration would look like, and it is presumably the Department’s job to enforce that the local authority has made some consideration. It must have some benchmark as to what that consideration would be, otherwise how on earth will it enforce that part of the Act once passed?
Andrew Gwynne
Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.
The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?
Andrew Gwynne
Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.
If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—
Dr Johnson
Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?
Andrew Gwynne
All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.
Dr Johnson
With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?
Andrew Gwynne
Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.
This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.
Dr Johnson
I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?
Andrew Gwynne
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland.
Clause stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.
I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.
However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.
The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.
The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.
The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.
The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.
I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.
Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.
A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.
Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.
On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.
Dr Johnson
I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.
Dr Johnson
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Fixed penalties: use of proceeds
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.
This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert—
“such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.
Clause stand part.
Liz Jarvis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments.
The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health. We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.
Gregory Stafford
As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health? Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?
Liz Jarvis
That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs. We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations. Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.
Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges. Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Would the hon. Lady’s amendments affect the financing of the actions of trading standards, and would more money need to go in to offset that?
Liz Jarvis
I do not know the answer to that, so I will refer that question to the Minister.
Liz Jarvis
I am sorry; I do not know about that.
Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.
Liz Jarvis
I have one sentence left.
The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.
I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.
I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with
“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,
so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to repeat too many points that other people have made. This a well-meaning, but ill thought-through amendment, as has been highlighted by the two hon. Members who spoke before me.
I was a local government councillor for 17 years, and served on many health and wellbeing boards. I do not recall them ever having a separate fund, so this would be a new innovation. It would not necessarily be an innovation without good intention, but using central Government legislation to enforce a completely new set of financial arrangements on local authorities could have a wider impact than those who have tabled these amendments have anticipated. The Minister, either in his summary or on Report, might find a way of achieving what those hon. Members want via other means, because clearly we would all want the moneys from continued enforcement to be used for things as close to health and public health improvements as possible. Will the Minister address that in his response?
Andrew Gwynne
I will first discuss the clause and then move on to the amendments. Clause 38 sets out how proceeds from the new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales must be used. I will also discuss the amendments that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The clause states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issues in relation to the licensing offences in the Bill must be returned to the relevant Consolidated Fund once the costs of investigating the offences and issuing the notice have been deducted. That will ensure that these fixed penalty notices remain cost-neutral and will not cause local authorities to incur additional cost burdens for enforcing a future licensing scheme. For all other offences, which carry a fixed penalty notice of £200, proceeds will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under this Bill, part 1 of the Health Act 2006, part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016. That means that if local authority trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice—for example, to a retailer selling to someone under age—the local authority may retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That will allow local authorities to cover the enforcement costs for issuing fixed penalty notices and to reinvest any remaining funds into their enforcement regimes.
The amendments to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh seek to ringfence the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences for public health projects. They would achieve that by making it mandatory for any proceeds received by local authority trading standards from these fixed penalty notices to be allocated by local health and wellbeing boards to public health projects. Although I admire the hon. Lady’s ambition to further support public health—and who would not?—it would not be appropriate to enable local authorities to retain the fixed penalty notice proceeds in that way.
Councils already have a ringfenced budget for public health in England. The proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices for licensing offences were never intended as a revenue-generation mechanism. The fixed penalty notice is introduced to support the enforcement of the future licensing scheme and tobacco and vape sales regulations. It should continue to be the choice of trading standards officers to determine the appropriate enforcement action to take in a given case to achieve compliance. Enabling retention of fixed penalty notice proceeds for a different purpose risks distorting the operational priorities of the licensing scheme.
The £200 fixed penalty notice introduced by the Bill for offences such as under age sales are an exception. We worked carefully with His Majesty’s Treasury during the development of the Bill to enable trading standards to retain that relatively small value in order to support their procedures. To ensure that the future licensing scheme can be sustainably implemented, we have established that local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee to support them in covering the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing scheme, and that trading standards can deduct the costs of investigation and issuing fines from the FPN proceeds before returning the remainder to the Consolidated Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the fact that the provision is not compliant with the reality of seeking to apply to both England and Wales, in that it makes specific reference to bodies that do not exist in Wales, namely the health and wellbeing boards, which only appertain to local authorities in England. I want to be clear that local authorities are receiving not just their public health grant but, in the financial year 2025-26, an additional £70 million from central Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England. We expect that investment will support our aim to help around 360,000 people to make quit attempts, and up to 198,000 successful quits a year.
Decisions for future years are subject to the spending review process, but that money, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, in part comes from the Consolidated Fund. So there is a virtuous circle of the kind that the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly wants to see, in that there are direct correlations between money that my Department gets from His Majesty’s Treasury and money that the Treasury will get from not just those fixed penalty notices in the future, but other sources of income generation, including fines and penalties.
That money, in one form or another, almost certainly will be recycled into public health measures determined by Ministers and by Parliament and given to local authorities to determine how to spend at their local level. That could be through the public health grants, or through direct grants such as the smoking cessation or the drugs and alcohol grants that we make available to local authorities. But rest assured, there will be investment in public health, and that will come from money that my Department receives from His Majesty’s Treasury through the usual routes. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw her amendment.
Liz Jarvis
I will not be withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment 2 negatived.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Power to change amount of fixed penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.
Dr Johnson
I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.
Andrew Gwynne
We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 42
Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Power to extend Part 1 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.
These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.
The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.
Dr Johnson
My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?
Andrew Gwynne
I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.
I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.
The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible. In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary. Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one. That is why this is a landmark Bill.
The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf. That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon. Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Power to amend lists of identity documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.
I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.
Gregory Stafford
I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?
Dr Johnson
One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?
Andrew Gwynne
We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.
Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.
I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.
Dr Johnson
Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?
Andrew Gwynne
That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.
I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.
On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st January 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2025 - (21 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 16 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill.
Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons.
That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue.
My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case.
Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says:
“In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”.
I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision
“as it applies to other persons.”
Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope.
Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about how the snuff is given out. At the moment, the snuffbox sits with the Doorkeepers near the No Lobby entrance, and it is available to Members. Obviously—or perhaps not obviously—there is no charge to Members. In fact, my understanding from the Doorkeeper who had the snuffbox last week is that the stuff that they have currently was provided by the BBC—[Interruption.] I can see that is a surprise; it was a surprise to me too, but that is where I was told it came from.
It brings into question the earlier clauses that relate to sale, because clearly the Crown may purchase it—I suppose the BBC is funded by taxpayers—and it is in a royal palace, which is a Crown site rather than a retail site, and it is not being sold to Members. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to consider that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.
Dr Johnson
That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided.
I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 47 asserts that part 1 of the Bill and any regulations made under it bind the Crown, but makes it clear that the Crown is not criminally liable under those provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Instead, acts or omissions by the Crown can be declared unlawful by the High Court. The key Government implication for this clause is ensuring accountability. By binding the Crown, clause 47 ensures that the Government are not exempt from adhering to the same standards and regulations that they set for others, which is entirely appropriate and demonstrates a good commitment to transparency and fairness.
There is also a symbolic commitment by the Crown to public health. Including the Crown in these provisions sends a strong signal. The Government recognise the urgency of tackling public health issues and the issues associated with tobacco and vaping, and the Opposition support that wholeheartedly. When we legislate in this House, we need to ensure that the public feel that we are legislating not only for them, but for ourselves as well. Given that the Bill now applies to us, this clause strengthens public confidence in its objectives.
On the role of judicial oversight, clause 47 enables the High Court to declare acts or omissions unlawful, which ensures that there is a mechanism for oversight. That preserves the rule of law and offers a balance of powers. However, there are some potential challenges to this clause. While the Crown is bound by the legislation, clause 47 explicitly exempts it from criminal liability, as far as I understand. Some may argue that that creates an imbalance, as individuals and private entities remain subject to prosecution whereas this House does not have criminal liability. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
On practical enforcement, applying the legislation to the Crown could raise questions about how enforcement agencies would address non-compliance in Crown-operated facilities, such as this House, Government offices, military bases, and so on. Can the Minister let us know how law enforcement agencies, trading standards and the police would enforce the Bill on Crown properties? Granting the High Court jurisdiction to declare Crown acts unlawful could increase its workload. What discussions has the Minister had with the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice on overburdening the courts with such matters?
Clause 66 amends the Crown application of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ensuring that its provisions extend to Crown entities within Scotland. That amendment reinforces the principle of equal application of public health laws. The key implications of this clause are to do with consistency across the jurisdictions, as we have talked about on other clauses. Extending the application of the 2010 Act to the Crown entities ensures that public health measures are uniformly applied across Scotland, irrespective of whether the premises are privately owned or Crown-owned.
The clause also enhances legal cohesion. Aligning the legal obligations of the Crown with those of private entities enhances the coherence of Scotland’s public health framework, reducing the ambiguities that might arise were this clause not in the Bill. The clause also promotes accountability. By amending the 2010 Act, it eliminates any loophole that might allow Crown entities to operate outside the scope of the tobacco control measures. However, there are some challenges around what I would describe as intergovernmental co-ordination—that is to say, co-ordination between the Westminster Parliament and the offices and authorities that act for it, and the devolved Administrations.
Implementing these provisions will require significant co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK and the relevant Ministries and Departments in the devolved Administrations. I was heartened by what the Minister said about cross-devolved-Administration working. It would be good to know whether that continues to be the case on these provisions. As we all know, working across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with their various different bodies, does create challenging and resource-intensive actions, due to the fact that they all operate slightly differently and have slightly different thresholds for legal prosecution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, when it comes to charging, there are different levels of fine and sentencing in the different administrations. While health is a devolved matter, this clause’s intersection with those reserved powers could prompt debate about the limits of legislative competence between those authorities.
Clause 134 is the Crown application of advertising and sponsorship restrictions and extends advertising and sponsorship restrictions under the Bill to Crown bodies.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes the point, which I had not raised earlier, that clause 134 applies to part 6, on advertising and sponsorship. Clauses 4 to 7 and 66 essentially apply to part 1. We do not appear at this time to be discussing the other parts as well, so presumably the Crown is bound in a similar way by each of those.
Gregory Stafford
I make the same assumption as my hon. Friend, given what I have read of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister clarified that matter. It would be appropriate to ensure that this does cut across all other parts of the Bill.
Clause 134 is critical in ensuring that the Crown entities adhere to the same advertising standards as private organisations. We need to have fair competition. It would be a nonsense to say that people could not advertise vapes from a commercial point of view, but that the Crown would be able to advertise. I cannot imagine what that might look like—I doubt Windsor Castle will be emblazoned with a banner advertising vapes, or that Buckingham Palace will fly a tobacco flag, but one never knows. However, it is important that this clause does cover the Crown as well to ensure that there is a level playing field, and to prevent the Crown entities from gaining an unfair advantage through less stringent regulations.
Dr Johnson
In a previous sitting I raised that in the last couple of years there have been events within Parliament at which free vapes were given out to Members and staff. Would this clause, given that it applies to the Crown, extend to all palaces? Could such events also still continue?
Gregory Stafford
My reading of this clause is that those events will be restricted under this clause and clauses 66 and 47. It would be useful if the Minister clarified whether or not that is the case. If it is not, would he consider inserting a provision to ensure that it is, either later in our discussions in Committee or on Report? I do not think the public will have any time for us in this place if we regulate those outside but do not hold the Crown Estate and Crown authorities to the same standards.
The unified public health messaging in this clause is helpful. Extending the restrictions to Crown bodies strengthens the overall impact of the Bill, ensuring that the advertising provisions are consistent with the public health messaging that we are putting out across the country. It prevents mixed signals. Allowing the Crown bodies to advertise tobacco or vaping products would undermine the Bill’s whole objective. Clause 134 ensures that the Government’s stance and the stance of all Members of the House of Commons present here is not contradicted by its own entities, such as the Crown Estate.
Dr Johnson
Is it not also the case that the Crown is extremely unlikely to wish to sell tobacco products, vaping products, herbal smoking products or indeed anything else covered by the Bill, or to advertise them, since members of the royal family attribute such importance to public health and have, sadly, suffered from ill health themselves in recent times? They have done a lot of work with various charities in relation to health, including on cancer and other conditions, so it seems unlikely that these provisions would be required.
Gregory Stafford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, although it depends what we mean by the Crown; it can have two meanings. Clearly, it can mean His Majesty the King and members of the royal family, and I entirely agree that the work the royal family have done for many years to support charities and organisations that look after the health of the nation is extraordinary and commendable. In that context, I entirely agree that it is unlikely that any members of the royal family would want to promote tobacco or vape products. However, the other meaning of the Crown is, essentially, the Crown as it sits with entities: the buildings, this place—the Palace of Westminster—and so on. As I said, even though it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons authorities, for example, would want to have some sort of promotion of tobacco or vapes, it is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever we do to the public out there is mirrored in this place, to ensure consistency of public health messaging and to show that we are not being held to a different standard from the general public.
In clause 134 there are still a couple of potential challenges, which I hope the Minister will respond to. The first is oversight and compliance. Monitoring compliance within Crown entities could be complex. It is relatively easy to see if someone is selling vapes to children: people can be sent in to do mystery shopping, there can be reporting and the Minister—I have not yet said “bongs” in this debate—can see bongs in a shop window. However, how would these provisions be enforced in the Crown Estate, where there is not the same level of public access?
Jack Rankin
Is my hon. Friend also concerned that there might be a power imbalance in that set of circumstances? Windsor castle is in my constituency, and lots of deference is given to it. A lot of that is understandable, but I cannot imagine someone from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead trying to enforce on Windsor castle; it would not be in their culture to do so.
Gregory Stafford
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has two Windsor castles in his constituency: the big one where the royal family lives and a Lego model of it at Legoland. The enforcement of this clause should apply equally to Legoland and the real Windsor castle. But I agree that there is a power imbalance: it is unlikely that trading standards enforcement officers from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will go into Windsor castle.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
What does the hon. Member think happens currently? On various issues, there is obviously enforcement across the board, including tobacco control, and the Crown Estate has to comply. How would this extension of that enforcement differ from what happens now at Windsor or any other Crown Estate?
Gregory Stafford
I very much hope there is no difference, and that is precisely my point: we need consistent enforcement across the piece—across the country—in line with the restrictions we already have on the sale and advertising of other items. That does not take away from the point that doing that will be a very complex procedure. As we are moving towards a tobacco-free generation, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know how that enforcement will be done across Crown entities and the Crown Estate.
The second point is around the legal ambiguities. Applying advertising restrictions to Crown entities might create legal ambiguities, particularly where such entities operate under multiple regulatory frameworks, which goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about who might be enforcing them and where.
The final point is about resource allocation. Ensuring compliance with advertising restrictions may require additional resources both within Crown entities and among enforcement agencies. To be frank, I do not know how current licensing laws are enforced here in the Houses of Parliament, for example, but if we bring in this Bill, which I very much hope we do, there may be some resource allocation within the Crown for that.
The inclusion of clauses 47, 66 and 134 in the Bill underscores its commitment to governance and legal fairness. However, as I said, their successful implementation hinges on addressing several broader considerations. First, there is what I call enhanced intergovernmental and interparliamentary collaboration. Effective implementation of these clauses will require close collaboration between UK-wide and devolved authorities. Establishing clear channels of communication and joint enforcement mechanisms will be crucial.
The second consideration is transparent compliance frameworks. The Government should develop transparent frameworks in order to monitor and enforce compliance within Crown entities. Those frameworks should include clear guidelines, reporting requirements and accountability measures. I do not expect there to be a vast burden on the judiciary but, as I mentioned, we may need to address any potential increases in judicial workload. Additional resources should be allocated to the High Court and other relevant judicial bodies to ensure that cases related to Crown compliance are handled efficiently and quickly.
Finally, there needs to be a public awareness campaign. Raising awareness about the application of the clauses can help to foster public support for the Bill by demonstrating to the public that we in the Houses of Parliament and across the Crown Estate are being held to the same standards.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making several good points. It is important that the law is applied equally to all. He may remember that when previous legislation was brought in around tobacco advertising, an exemption was made for Formula 1. It was not clear why such an exemption was made, but I believe that a substantial donation had been received around that time by the Labour party—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That was harmful at the time to trust in equality, so it is important that everyone—from His Majesty the King to every one of his subjects—has the same law applied to them.
Gregory Stafford
I do not know the answer to that question, but it is an important one to raise. I am not particularly a Formula 1 fan, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and Motorsport, so maybe she will be able to intervene at some point and give me the answer.
Clauses 47, 66 and 134 represent critical components of the Bill’s governance framework. By applying the Bill’s provisions to the Crown, they reinforce the principles of accountability, fairness and consistency. However, their successful implementation will require careful planning, adequate resources and ongoing evaluation. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass uphold the highest standards of governance, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support these clauses and to advocate for the measures necessary to address their potential challenges. Together, we can ensure that the Bill not only advances public health, but sets a benchmark for legal and governmental accountability.
Jack Rankin
Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point.
As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.
Dr Johnson
Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The point I was trying to make is that although, as Members have heard, I do not necessarily agree with all the impositions on civil liberties in the Bill, any that we choose to apply must apply equally to ourselves. To reiterate my hon. Friend’s point, they also have to apply to our friends and anybody else associated with us. All of us in this House have a responsibility to rebuild the relationship and the trust between ourselves and the public.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 specifically talks about Crown liability in this regard. It states that the Crown can have application only if it is applied to private individuals as well, so this entire conversation has already been covered in previous legislation.
Jack Rankin
I thank the hon. Member for providing that clarity. That is good to hear, but it is important to put on the record that we in this House should apply the same rules to ourselves as we apply to our constituents.
Again, as a non-lawyer, I ask the Minister for some clarification on the implications of the non-criminal liability of the Crown in clause 47(2) and how that sits alongside the reference to
“persons in the service of the Crown”
in subsection (4). What I am seeking is consistency between what applies in the real world and what applies to the Crown. Perhaps the Minister could say what that provision means in laymen’s terms, so that I can say to my constituents that what we are applying to them also applies to us.
I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will be a bit parochial to illustrate the point. I said earlier that the Crown is quite a nebulous concept for a legislator, and where it begins and ends is difficult to understand. It is often taken to mean the state more broadly, but I have another example, from my constituency. Windsor Great Park is Crown Estate—the arm’s length Government body that the House has been legislating on in the past weeks—but the castle itself is owned and managed by the royal household. In my casework and when dealing with stakeholders, I often find that different rules apply to the Crown Estate and the royal household. The royal household seems to have much more personal control from the monarch, whereas the Crown Estate is very much run by the trustees, effectively on behalf of the Treasury.
It would be good to understand what we mean when we talk about the Crown. It is clear from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s remarks that we are talking about the palaces, but it would be good to know whether the clause applies to all these different arms of the British state in some way, shape or form, or whether other provisions apply to them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions on these clauses, which are entirely technical and appertain to the treatment of the Crown in relation to the measures in the Bill. They follow a general Crown application, being broadly similar to, and mirroring pretty closely, the way other Acts of Parliament deal with the Crown. I am not sure whether the fact we have spent more than half an hour debating them shows Parliament at its best or at its niggliest, but we are having the debate none the less.
Gregory Stafford
I take the Minister’s point that the clauses are technical, but if we are not here to ensure that legislation is drafted correctly and appropriately, what are we here for?
Andrew Gwynne
We are here to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book. I was under the impression—perhaps the misapprehension—that at least the two Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, were supportive of the measures in the Bill. If so, we seem to have spent an extraordinary amount of time discussing matters that do not really affect the Bill, except in relation to the Crown.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
I will make progress and answer the points that were made. Why are clauses 47 and 137 necessary parts of the Bill? The presumption is that legislation does not apply to the Crown unless expressly stated as doing so. The clauses clarify that provisions in parts 1 and 6 of the Bill, and in the regulations made under them, bind the Crown. They ensure that all bodies and persons acting as public servants of the Crown are held to the same standards as businesses and private citizens in England and Wales. They ensure consistent application of the Bill across the public and private sectors.
Does the Bill bind Parliament? Yes, it does. Parliament was consulted and was content with clause 159, in particular, being included. We have already had the debate about snuff, and it will be up to the House authorities to determine the rules of the House. There is absolutely nothing to prevent there being a box at the entrance to the Chamber with the latest chief Doorkeeper’s name engraved on it—that tradition can remain for evermore—just as we have a Smoking Room, which we can no longer smoke in but which is still called the Smoking Room. That is tradition. I really do not know why Members are overthinking these matters.
Members asked why there are differences between Crown applications in the devolved Administrations. As we have already discussed, the Bill brings together legislation from across the four nations. I believe it is a triumph, because it shows the close working relationship between the Labour Government and the devolved Administrations, irrespective of the parties in power in Cardiff Bay, Holyrood and Belfast. Because health is a devolved matter, and because the Bill builds on legislation dating back nearly 100 years in some cases, there are some differences in the provisions for each nation.
Members asked why only some parts of the Bill apply to the Crown. The fact is that clauses 47 and 134 explicitly provide that parts 1 and 6, and any regulations made under them, apply to the Crown. Other measures in the Bill also apply to the Crown without the Bill’s explicitly stating so because those provisions amend existing legislation, and the Crown application reflects whether the underlying legislation applies to the Crown.
There is an established precedent that smoke-free places legislation does not apply to the Crown in England and Wales, and that it is the responsibility of the Department responsible for running the relevant part of the Crown Estate to determine what is appropriate. That is precisely what the House of Commons did when it determined that the smoking ban would apply to the royal Palace of Westminster. The same is true of all the measures in the Bill.
Members asked which parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. Part 1 and regulations made under it apply to the Crown by virtue of clause 47.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about Northern Ireland. Part 3 amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland, and it does not apply to the Crown. That is an existing precedent, which the Department of Health in Northern Ireland wishes to retain. Part 2 amends the existing legislation in Scotland and part 1 amends the legislation in England and Wales. That is why there is a different approach to different parts of the United Kingdom in respect of the Crown.
Members asked why we need clause 66, the technical clause relating to the Scottish Government. It is because it corrects an omission in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and it is being made at the request of the Scottish Government. It is a convention that in an Act of the Scottish Parliament those responsible for the enforcement of the legislation are explicitly identified as being able to make an application to the Court of Session for the purposes outlined in the clause. Scottish Ministers may take over enforcement under the 2010 Act, so it is appropriate that they are listed alongside local authorities, which is what clause 66 achieves. The clause inserts a provision into the 2010 Act, which is Scottish law. There are no impacts on the law in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The clause is narrow and relates only to provisions in part 1 of the 2010 Act.
Members asked about overburdening the court. We are working the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the Bill does not introduce a significant burden. This is about regulatory change—and, look, most citizens are law abiding and will follow the law.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Notwithstanding that Division, which I chose to call, I should make it plain that I shall from now on be inclined to take decisions on the basis of the voices, which were pretty clear.
Clause 48
Interpretation of Part 1
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 49, 60, 63 and 64 stand part.
Schedule 8.
Clauses 83, 112, 113, 132 and 135 stand part.
Dr Johnson
This is quite a chunky group of clauses. Clause 48 provides a series of definitions that are to be used to interpret part 1. That is important; if the law is to be enforced, we must understand what the law means by each phrase it uses. The phrase “cigarette papers” is self-explanatory. It means anything that is
“used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.
We talked about cigarette papers previously. Likewise, “herbal smoking product”
“means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco”.
That is fairly straightforward.
The phrase “medical device” is important, and I will explain why in a moment. The clause refers to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618), which state that a medical device is
“any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, together with any…software…necessary for its proper application, which—
(a) is intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of—
(i) diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,
(ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,
(iii) investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or
(iv) control of conception; and
(b) does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, even if it is assisted in its function by such means,
and includes devices intended to administer a medicinal product”—
this is part of why it is relevant—
“or which incorporate as an integral part a substance which, if used separately, would be a medicinal product and which is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device.”
That is relevant to clause 10 onwards, on nicotine products.
In evidence on 7 January, Dr Laura Squire, from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told the Committee that one vape product received an MHRA medicines licence in 2015, but was never marketed. Theoretically, others could be marketed in the future. They would be exempt under the definition provided in clause 48, which I have just explained.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the shadow Minister for the points she has raised. Definitions are needed to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted with an appropriate understanding of the technical terms, and we have opted to take a co-ordinated approach to definitions across the four nations, which will hopefully ensure clarity for the public, retailers and enforcers.
As we know, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, particularly for adolescents whose brains are still developing. As mentioned in the Bill, a nicotine product means any device, part of a device, or substance containing nicotine that is intended to deliver nicotine to the human body. There are currently no age of sale or advertising restrictions for products such as nicotine pouches—and, unlike vapes, there are no set nicotine limits. Nicotine strengths can vary from 2 mg per pouch to, in some cases, 150 mg or more. Like vapes, they can come in a variety of flavours and colourful packaging designed to appeal to children. The use of nicotine products such as nicotine pouches is increasing, particularly among young men. As we are committed to doing everything we can to protect children from becoming addicted to nicotine, it is only right to take action to control these products.
Dr Johnson
On the point about nicotine pouches, it is of concern that they may be the next way in which this industry seeks to make our young people addicted to nicotine. We have seen in places such as Sweden a plethora of these products, which are now expanding across the UK as well. I know the Minister will be looking at some proposals to restrict the amount of nicotine in the pouches. When he does so, will he consider not just how much nicotine is in them compared with a cigarette, but how much is absorbed into the body? The amount in a cigarette that is absorbed as a proportion is much lower than that of a nicotine pouch.
Andrew Gwynne
Those are important considerations for when we are developing the regulations, and I take precisely the same view as the shadow Minister. These things have to be part of that overall analysis and equation when we come to look carefully at the regulations.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. First, she asked whether a provisional driving licence would be applicable, and the simple answer is that it would. She also asked whether there is a loophole here with medicinal products, and whether children could be restricted from purchasing vaping substances for a future vape that may have medicinal approvals. Of course, it is important to point out to the Committee that to date no such vape exists. As per all licensed medicines, if one existed, it would be regulated by medicine regulations, which are subject to higher standards set by the MHRA.
The health advice is that nicotine replacement treatment, for example, is most effective when provided alongside expert advice. That is really important, and that is why we are putting money into smoking cessation services and why measures in the Bill will permit the distribution of free vapes by the NHS and public health authorities; we think that is entirely appropriate.
There is no age of sale restriction for nicotine replacement therapies. In extreme circumstances, for example, were there a MHRA-approved vaping device that met the criteria of a medical device, I suppose the vaping liquid could be prescribed to a child if that were appropriate. That is all hypothetical because there is not such a device approved by the MHRA; therefore, there is not the loophole the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham thinks there might be, although she is right to raise it.
Dr Johnson
To clarify the point about there being no device available, that had been my understanding as well, but Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA said in evidence to the Committee that in 2015 a vape had been approved for medical use, but had never been marketed. Has the licence for that product lapsed in some way so that it is no longer available?
Andrew Gwynne
I do not know, but I will ensure the Committee is informed by officials. My point is that it is not marketed. Therefore, there is no medical device on the UK market, and all that is currently hypothetical. We have to legislate for the future, which is why I said that nicotine replacement therapy is the most appropriate form of treatment for children. Were there a device at some stage in the future that was available for the NHS to use in a medical context—as opposed to swap to stop—then it would be appropriate for a doctor to be able to prescribe that should they wish to. However, that would be within a highly regulated medical setting, as opposed to just getting liquids from a vape shop.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 48 and 49 exempt the medicinal product and medical devices. I understand why the Minister has done that, but how is he going to ensure that the industry does not find ways of making the nicotine replacement products that are currently legal and used only for medical purposes lemonade, gummy bear or unicorn milk-flavoured, and therefore attractive to children? The Committee has heard repeatedly about the way the industry behaves.
Andrew Gwynne
We absolutely have thought about that, which is why the measures in the Bill and the powers it gives to Ministers across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom enable regulations to be made to ensure that we always keep up with where the industry is going and—importantly—where the evidence is going. This is not just about where the industry might go; it may be that at some stage in the future there is new medical research showing that even the levels we are talking about lowering to have safety issues, and we will need to react to that.
That is why I will defend the way the Bill has been drafted, ensuring that Ministers will be able, at any stage in the future, to return to Parliament or the devolved legislatures to seek changes to secondary legislation to ensure that the measures are always relevant to the circumstances of the day.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I apologise to the Committee; this is quite complex, even by my standards. Amendments 25 to 31 were debated under clause 1. The lead amendment, which was similar, was negatived by the Committee on a Division, and so I am not selecting them for a separate Division. That is in my gift.
Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 50, page 25, line 34, at end insert—
“(ba) in subsection (5), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”
(bb) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”—(Dr Johnson.)
This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence of selling tobacco products to person under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
Clause 52 repeals the offence of purchasing tobacco under 18 in Scotland, as per the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010; clause 52(2) would omit section 5, concerning purchasing tobacco products by people under the age of 18, from the 2010 Act. This is a reasonable thing to do, because clause 50 replaces the current age of sale with the rolling age of sale and extends to those over 18.
However, subsection (3) of clause 52 is interesting, because it refers to the presumption of products in the contents of a container. Section 33 of the 2010 Act essentially says if a person has seen someone sell a packet of cigarettes to somebody, and the person can clearly see the packet of cigarettes, they do not have to prove that it contains cigarettes; they just have to see it. I suppose that prevents people from the defence of saying that they were selling empty boxes, that it was just role play, that the boxes only contain sweets, or that they do not really contain tobacco—they are just boxes. In some respects, those are fairly implausible defences, but perhaps those defending them could prove reasonable doubt on that basis. Section 33 presumes that cigar boxes contain cigars, for example, or that cigarette boxes contain cigarettes; in the context of their being bought that seems fairly obvious, but it is interesting that the Scots felt it necessary to have this section previously.
I respect that this is a devolved matter and the Scots’ wishes to amend section 33 of the 2010 Act, but could the Minister perhaps explain, from the conversations that I am sure he has had with Ministers in Scotland, why the Scots introduced it in the first place? Was it perceived that it might be an issue, or was it actually an issue that people were pretending or suggesting that what was in boxes of cigarettes was not cigarettes, and therefore, “It’s not illegal to sell a box; it’s only illegal to sell the cigarettes in it, and you can’t prove they were there, your honour.”?
Why has the Minister not chosen to replicate such a provision in England? Although I respect what he says about devolution, and the Scots have the competency to do as they wish in Scotland, in England it is up to him and he has the levers of power. Can he say in the rest of the UK where this defence has been used before? Has section 33 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 ever been used as a defence in litigation? If it has, was it successful? If it was, why does he not want to replicate the provision in England? It is a somewhat peculiar situation.
Andrew Gwynne
In answer to the shadow Minister, clause 52 will repeal the offence for someone under the age of 18 in Scotland of buying or attempting to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers. It means that it will no longer be an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy those products in Scotland. That is because Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which it is an offence for those under 18 to purchase tobacco products. The repeal will align the legal approach across the whole United Kingdom. It is being done after consultation and with the full consent of the Scottish Government. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer deemed necessary to retain this provision, as the age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products.
Clause 53 will repeal the power for constables in Scotland to confiscate tobacco products or cigarette papers from someone in a public place whom they suspect to be under 18. Both provisions were originally made in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. Repealing them will ensure that legislation in Scotland is in line with legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer considered necessary to retain the provision, as age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products. As we have already debated, that will ensure that we do not criminalise children.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Extension of tobacco legislation to herbal smoking products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 54 will extend tobacco legislation to cover herbal smoking products, which are products made from plant material and intended for smoking that do not contain tobacco. It will amend section 4 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act, which governs the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18, by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product” in subsection (1). This will mean that the sale of herbal smoking products is subject to the same restrictions as tobacco products and is prohibited to persons under 18.
The clause will also amend section 4C of the 2010 Act, which deals with the sale of tobacco-related products by persons under 18, by adding “herbal smoking product” so that individuals under 18 are also prohibited from selling herbal smoking products. This is distinct from the ability to buy them, for which there will be a rolling age; it applies to the selling of these products.
The clause will also modify section 6 of the Act, which addresses the purchase of tobacco products on behalf of individuals under 18, otherwise known as proxy purchasing. It will amend subsection (1) by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product”, making it illegal for anyone to purchase herbal smoking products on behalf of individuals under 18.
Finally, the clause will insert into section 35 a definition for herbal smoking products. This was covered in clause 48 and clause 1; clause 54 will add it to Scottish legislation. It specifies that a herbal smoking product is one that is made entirely or partially of vegetable matter and that is intended to be smoked, but that does not contain tobacco. Given our previous debate, these seem reasonable changes to make.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not detain the Committee on this question. As the shadow Minister says, these are reasonable changes to make and are in line with the clauses that we have just discussed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Possession of snus etc with intent to supply
Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
Clause 65 introduces schedule 9, which will amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to broaden the scope of the retailer register and make related provisions to include herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, alongside tobacco. The amendments that it makes aim to regulate businesses that sell those products in a similar way to tobacco products.
Essentially, in schedule 9, the key changes are as follows. There will be an expansion of the register: section 10 of the 2010 Act will be amended to require the Scottish Ministers to maintain a register of businesses that are selling tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products. It will ensure that all those categories are subject to the same regulatory framework as respects the register.
There is clarification within the schedule of a “registrable business”, which is now defined to include any businesses dealing with tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products. The term is used throughout the Act, ensuring that all relevant businesses are captured under the regulations.
The amendments that schedule 9 will make to section 11 of the 2010 Act require applicants to specify which type of registrable business they intend to operate at each premises —essentially, which products they wish to sell. Can the Minister confirm that that means that some businesses could register to sell some products but not others under the Act? Perhaps they could sell tobacco products but not nicotine products, or vice versa. The registration process will be updated to reflect those additions.
Section 12 of the 2010 Act, which deals with certifications and notifications, will be amended to require certificates of registration to specify the type of product that a business sells. Additionally, under section 13, businesses must notify the Scottish Ministers of any changes, such as if they no longer desire to sell a specific type of registrable product. The Act’s provisions concerning banning orders, offences and public inspection of the register will be updated to reflect the inclusion of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products alongside tobacco products.
In addition, schedule 9 will add new definitions, including of “herbal smoking product business” and “nicotine product business”, ensuring clarity in the application of the law.
Andrew Gwynne
I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments. Of course, health is a devolved matter. Scotland has a long-established and functioning register of tobacco and nicotine vape product retailers. The Bill will expand Scotland’s registration scheme to include retailers selling herbal smoking products and nicotine products. The Scottish Government’s view is that introducing a licensing scheme at this time would put undue pressure on local authorities and the retail sector in Scotland. In line with the Scottish Government’s tobacco and vaping framework, the technical infrastructure of the register is being improved, which has been welcomed by stakeholders. Each of the nations of the United Kingdom is taking forward an approach that best suits its population.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Sir Roger. There is an hon. Member outside who wishes to come in. I know that the doors have been locked for these Divisions, but is it possible to open the doors so that he can come in and vote on the rest of the motions?
The Chair
It is up to the Whips to let the Chair know if there are Members who they want to be here. Otherwise, I will assume that everyone who should be here is here.
Clause 77
Purchase of vaping or nicotine products on behalf of under 18s
Amendment proposed: 82, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
Clause 84 is a short clause that extends the retail register provisions in Northern Ireland. It states:
“Schedule 10 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (c. 4 (N.I.)) to extend certain provisions about the registration of tobacco retailers so that they apply in relation to retailers of vaping products and nicotine products.”
Schedule 10 ensures that retailers selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are covered by the scheme.
Andrew Gwynne
As the shadow Minister says, the clause extends the existing registration scheme by expanding it to businesses that sell relevant products. The register will be expanded while the new licensing regulations are introduced, ensuring a stronger and consistent enforcement regime at all times.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Power of officer of Revenue and Customs to seize and detain snus etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 89 is such an important clause in that it forms a whole part of the Bill, part 4, by itself; whereas other parts contain multiple clauses, part 4 only contains clause 89. The clause deals with the power of a Revenue and Customs official to seize and detain snus, which the Bill defines as an oral tobacco product that
“is not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.
Hon. Members will remember that snus is a tobacco product that the Bill treats differently from all other tobacco products; there is a much heftier penalty for sale and a complete ban on manufacture. In line with the fact that it is dealt with differently from other tobacco products and that it will be illegal to manufacture and import, there needs to be provision for customs officials to deal with the snus if they find it.
Subsection (1) allows a Revenue and Customs officer to
“seize any relevant oral tobacco products that have been imported and detain them for no more than 48 hours.”
I presume that 48 hours is standard; the Minister may be able to expand on that. Any products seized and detained under this clause
“must be dealt with during their period of detention in such manner as the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may direct…For the purposes of calculating the 48-hour period mentioned…any period falling on a non-working day is to be disregarded.”
The Minister will be able to confirm, but I presume that is essentially saying that, if a product were seized on a Friday at 4.50 pm, they would get all of Saturday and Sunday and until late on the Tuesday to deal with the snus and would be able to seize it for that period.
The clause says that non-working days are Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays; that is fairly straightforward. A relevant offence is an offence under clause 9 of the Bill in England and Wales, section 9C of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which is inserted by the Bill, and article 4G of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which is also inserted by the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
The shadow Minister quite rightly asked the Minister why there is a 48-hour period; it would be helpful to understand if that is just a standard period. What I am not clear on is what happens during, or indeed after, that period. Is the 48-hour period for some kind of destruction of the illicit substance? Is it for investigation? If His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for whatever reason breaches the 48-hour period, what recompense can the importer receive? Should they receive any kind of recompense, given that they are likely to be importing a banned substance?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right to probe the Minister on those questions. It is important to understand why things are chosen. The Minister has sometimes referred to things being chosen because that is the way they were before, but the writing of new primary legislation offers a not-frequent opportunity to change things that may not be working very well. When items are seized at the moment, is the Minister’s advice from his civil servants that 48 hours is an adequate period of time in which to deal with all the paperwork that presumably needs to be done? Is it too long, and could it be shorter if it needed to be?
The commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for dealing with the relevant oral tobacco product during the period of detention, but that will not prevent the importation of snus for personal use. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?
Andrew Gwynne
It is not illegal to consume snus in the UK—I got told off for pronouncing that in Mancunian as “snuss” earlier, but each to their own—or to possess it for personal use. Clause 89 is that is intended to form part of a robust legislative framework in relation to oral tobacco products, and specifically helps to enforce other provisions of the Bill that prohibit possession with intent to supply in the course of business. It is common practice for customs officials to seize suspected illicit goods at the border. That will now also be applicable to snus products imported into the UK. The 48-hour period is standard practice, but after 48 hours the enforcement agency is able to decide on what action it wishes to take. I hope that answers the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.
Dr Johnson
I want to understand how a customs official would make such a decision. The Minister has been clear that it is not illegal to possess snus—I hope I pronounced that properly—for personal use. However, it is an offence to manufacture it under clause 7, to sell it or offer it for sale under clause 8 or to possess it with intent to supply under clause 9. How would the Minister quantify an amount for personal use? Under ordinary circumstances, one could say—
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 23rd January 2025
(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2025 - (23 Jan 2025)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 100 stand part.
I apologise for my voice—it is probably divine intervention trying to stop me speaking in the Climate and Nature Bill tomorrow.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 99 relates to testing. The clause allows the Secretary of State powers so they may by regulation require a person specified in the regulations, such as manufacturers, importers or other relevant parties, to carry out tests on the products to ensure they comply with any of the registered requirements. Testing is a sensible thing to be able to do, subject to making provision for far more new tests to be carried out, because it is important that testing is done properly.
Some examples of where the Secretary of State has given flexibility include the timing and methodology; where, when and how the tests are to be done; who is authorised to carry out testing on behalf of the specified person, so whether a manufacturer or a third party can undertake testing themselves; how the products are to be tested, for example if all products are to be tested or just a sample; whether samples are required to be provided to a third party for testing; and whether there will be any charges for tests, which could be set based on the costs involved or other regulations.
Subsection (3) states that charges will apply and subsection (2)(e) allows regulations to specify how those charges will be used, including provision on whether the fees collected can be kept by the authority responsible for testing or whether they should be paid into a consolidated fund via the Government’s general revenue. Subsection (4) states that any regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so voted for in Committee.
I have a few points to raise. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a person who would be required to carry out the test. It is important to clarify who that person might be, and whether it refers to manufacturers, importers, independent testing bodies or other stakeholders. As I have already mentioned, it would not be reasonable to get big tobacco companies to mark their own homework, so how will the Secretary of State determine who is specified for those tasks?
Additionally, once the product is tested and deemed compliant, will there be any follow up or long-term monitoring of product safety and health impact over time? There is post-market surveillance for medical devices, but what mechanisms will be in place to monitor the ongoing compliance with consumer products post market? At the moment, it seems that all a company needs to do is say what is in a product, be believed and be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Currently, that happens simply on a company’s word. I am sure that in most cases—perhaps almost all—the company’s information is fair and true, but, in some cases, as has already been shown, that has not been the case, so it is important to consider that issue.
Furthermore, the phrase
“selection of products for testing”
in subsection (2)(c) is vague and could be exploited. The provision could allow a situation where only certain products are selected for testing, potentially skewing the results if products likely to fail are excluded from the testing process. If it is not properly regulated, that could result in cherry-picking, where only the “cleanest products” are tested to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
There will clearly be some cost to industry for testing. Does the Minister have any further information on how much those costs will be? Based on the impact assessment, costs for the testing requirements and the testing of individual components could be quite high, so will the Minister provide more information about that?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am sure the shadow Minister can come in after me if she wishes to opine on clause 100.
Clause 99 grants the Secretary of State the authority to introduce and amend regulations concerning tobacco and vaping products. The provision ensures flexibility and responsiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of tobacco control that we have talked about previously. It is vital to ensure that the UK’s tobacco and vape regulations remain robust and up to date, especially given the increasing prevalence of vaping among young people and the emergence of new tobacco alternatives.
There are a number of real positives about clause 99. First, it provides adaptability to emerging public health concerns. The regulatory flexibility allows the Secretary of State and his Ministers to swiftly address any new health risks. A 2021 study by Action on Smoking and Health UK found that youth vaping rates had risen from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2021, so, by ensuring that new products can be regulated promptly, clause 99 provides a mechanism for responding to those emerging trends.
The clause aligns us with international partners and best practices, and with global tobacco control standards, such as the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. Nations such as Canada and Australia have successfully implemented similar regulatory powers to adapt quickly to the new threats posed by novel tobacco products, demonstrating that adaptable regulations lead to better public health outcomes.
The final positive of the clause is the stronger consumer protections. Without the ability to introduce rapid regulatory amendments, harmful substances may enter the UK market. As I have mentioned, in 2019 illicit vaping products containing vitamin E acetate led to serious lung illnesses, noted in the US. By strengthening the regulatory framework, Government can proactively prevent such issues.
I have a couple of potential challenges. First, as I mentioned, there is always potential for malign industry influence. The tobacco and vaping industries have a history of lobbying against stringent regulations. Indeed, since this Bill Committee has been sitting over the past week or so, my inbox has filled with such representations. The UK must ensure transparency and public health prioritisation in all its regulatory decisions.
Secondly, in balancing the public health and economic impacts, we have to be careful about over-regulation possibly stifling innovation within the vaping industry, which some argue plays a role in harm reduction by helping smokers quit traditional cigarettes. Opposition Members have made that point a number of times: we want to ensure that the regulations are effective and robust, but, where vaping is being used as a smoking cessation tool, the regulations must be flexible enough to allow novel products to come on to the market, which could in future help smokers even further.
Clause 100 clarifies the scope and the applicability of the Bill, which means that it ensures coherence of enforcement. A clear definition of which products and businesses fall under the new rules will prevent, I think, ambiguity in their implementation. The positives of this clause are that, where there is clear application, the reduced ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement means that businesses will understand their obligations and consumers will know their rights. That is absolutely essential.
For example, the smoke-free public places legislation that came into effect in 2007 clearly benefited from the defined scope, which reduced any legal disputes. By defining the reach of the Bill, clause 100 allows authorities to target enforcement promptly. Without clear application provisions, which we see in this clause, regulatory loopholes could be exploited. The clause closes them.
Likewise, tobacco companies may attempt to bypass our regulations by selling non-compliant products online from overseas suppliers. Again, the strong application in clause 100 ensures that the law extends to online and cross-border sales. However, perhaps the Minister will outline how he understands that that will be enforced.
That brings me to my real concern, or I suppose question, about clause 100. The risk of online sales makes enforcement much more complex than it would have done had we introduced such a Bill 10, 15 or 20 years ago. How will the UK work with other international bodies to curb illicit cross-border sales, especially when things are sold online? Also—I have mentioned this point before, but I will continue to do so—when small retailers are struggling with compliance, there has to be some form of education and support for them from Government so that they can comply. The majority of the vaping industry, where we have decided it is legal, obviously needs a clear set of guidelines from the Department and the regulatory bodies to comply with the regulations.
Dr Johnson
Clause 100 concerns product safety, which is important. Even when a product is not safe, it should still be as safe as it can be and should contain only those things that are expected. When Lincolnshire police took a sample of vape devices from children from a school in my constituency, they found that many of the vapes contained dangerous ingredients that should not have been in there, including, in one case, I believe, an ingredient banned in the UK for many decades.
Clause 100 is important: the Minister must ensure that items on the market are safe. I come back to the evidence from Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA. She said that licensing a medical product does not mean that it is safe, and that these vapes are not medical products either. I am grateful to the Minister for saying in the last session that he is looking for a new home for the licensing and registration process for vapes and vaping products, because “MHRA-registered” suggests to the consumer that those things are in some way safer and more fully tested than they have been.
Clause 100 suggests very sensible regulation, but it gives the Minister the power to do that without significant oversight, even though the affirmative procedure applies. Since clause 90, all the Bill has done is to confer powers on the Secretary of State to regulate without actually providing a huge amount of detail on the Secretary of State’s intent. One never knows what the intent of a future Secretary of State could be in this regard.
Will the Minister comment on why regulation will be in secondary legislation rather than being detailed in the Bill? I understand the need to be agile and to think quickly to try to stay ahead of an industry that will try to adapt to addict more people to nicotine in other forms, but it would have been possible for the Minister to put much of that detail in the Bill, and to have taken a power in a final clause to amend parts of those regulations by statutory instrument. Most of the intent and most of the regulation would then have been known very quickly, but could be altered and adapted later. Why has the Minister taken the approach that he has, rather than a more up-front approach?
Clause 100(1)(a) requires
“producers or importers to have processes in place”.
Again, this is an important point. Most of these products seem to be made overseas, where of course the UK courts do not have jurisdiction. It is at the point of import, and with regards to the person who is importing, that we may need to be more responsible than with a producer where the items are made overseas.
I also urge the Minister, echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, to consider online sales. We see already that some regulations that are in place for the real world rather than the virtual world create loopholes for regulations to be circumvented. Clearly, public safety has to be the Government’s first priority. The testing in clause 99 and the product safety regulations in clause 100 are a welcome initiative, but clearly the devil will be in the detail and the detail is not available to us today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am sorry that your croakiness is getting the better of you, Sir Roger, but hopefully you will be on fine form tomorrow for the private Member’s Bills—I am not sure whether the Whips on either side of the House are praying for that.
On clauses 99 and 100, I will go through the questions posed by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. It is the responsibility of trading standards to test products if they believe a product contains illegal substances or could contain too much nicotine. Trading standards currently test products on an ad-hoc basis, which is contingent on funding. We aim to establish a testing regime to regularly check that products on the shelves are what they say they are. That will support overall enforcement, will ensure that registered products are safe for consumers and will allow retailers, in both brick-and-mortar establishments and online, to have greater clarity about and confidence in the products that they are able to stock to sale.
It is really important to consider online sales as a growing area. These measures have to be taken within the wider context of clauses and measures that we have already debated, in that any product for sale in the United Kingdom, whether in a shop or online, will have to be registered, and any retailer, whether a shop or online, will have to have the appropriate licences in place. There are clear and substantial penalties for breaching those licensing arrangements, and there are real and substantial consequences for selling products that are not in accordance with the descriptions on the registration of those products. When all of that is put into context, and testing is added in, we believe that this will be a robust regime.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 101 and 102 deal with the treatment of, and matters dealt with by, the 2016 tobacco regulations. Again, they provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations. Whether or not that will be done well, we are not really sure at this stage.
I understand the point the Minister made in response to the last debate, and it is of course true that regulations can be different in each part of the United Kingdom. In his discussions with Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they may have wished to proceed with regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill. However, that does not explain why the Minister has chosen to do the same, and I would be grateful if he could explain his choice to make regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill, with the power to modify. I ask particularly because we are now into, I think, the 12th consecutive clause that provides powers to regulate and that offers detail only on what any regulations might or might not say, rather than necessarily on what they will say.
In that vein, clause 101 outlines provisions to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to, or corresponding with, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. That is to be done under a new regulatory framework, which would seem to be designed to cover gaps that may exist in the powers under those regulations. Subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision…that is similar to or that corresponds to any provision of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016…other than Part 7 of those Regulations”.
Part 7 of those regulations deals with electronic cigarette advertising. The Minister may feel that later parts of the Bill will deal adequately with this point, but I would be grateful if he could explain why that part has been taken out. That is not instinctive, because other aspects of those regulations could be too. What is the reason for excluding that part? Otherwise, I have no particular points to make about clauses 101 and 102.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 101 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to any provisions set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 —the TRPR, which we discussed in our debate on the earlier clauses—thereby amending them if needed.
In 2016, the TRPR implemented the 2014 EU tobacco products directive. The TRPR deals with the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products, including herbal products for smoking, nicotine, vapes and refill containers, as well as smokeless and novel tobacco products. However, it does not regulate all products. As we know, new nicotine products such as nicotine pouches have emerged on the market—we discussed such things in our earlier deliberations—and we currently have no powers to change the regulations. We are also limited in what we can do within the existing powers—for example, on vape packaging.
The Bill builds on the TRPR and allows us to go much further, with new powers on, for instance, packaging and flavour requirements, and new registration powers that could be extended to non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco devices and cigarette papers. As we have ascertained, the tobacco and vaping industries are extremely innovative and have previously attempted to circumvent regulations and exploit loopholes. The clause helps to stop them doing that by allowing us to amend the TRPR if necessary.
Clause 102 enables regulations to be made under powers in part 5 of the Bill to amend provisions in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations that are within scope of those powers. This is a technical provision because, as I said in the previous debate, we have limited powers to amend the TRPR. For instance, if we introduce new vape packaging requirements using powers in the Bill, the clause will allow us to amend the TRPR if necessary, so that the new packaging requirements fit with those imposed under the TRPR.
The shadow Minister raised issues relating to secondary legislation. The technical and detailed nature of many of the Bill’s requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. For example, we may need to amend those requirements in response to market changes. It is also necessary to include detail on the circumstances of when products must be recalled, which will change over time.
There is a broader point here: with all the regulations that we propose to bring before Parliament, we want to get the measures right. We have a statutory duty in the Bill to consult before bringing in regulations, which is in part why we are making the measures in the way that we are. Part 7 of the TRPR is excluded because those things will now be in part 6 of the Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Sub-delegation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 105 states:
“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions.”
I confess that I do not understand what that means. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation.
Clause 106 is about the power to make provision binding on the Crown, which we have discussed at some length. My only point is on subsection (4), which clarifies that public servants are still accountable under the regulations. Some may have concerns about the enforcement of regulations within Government bodies. Could the Minister say anything further on that?
Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State power to make amendments to this legislation through regulations. It is quite a broad and flexible position: the Government can remove outdated laws that are inconsistent with new regulations established under the Bill and ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve. To some extent, that makes sense. Again, the Government seem to be keen to ensure that they can stay one step ahead of a very adaptable industry and try to protect the country from nicotine addiction. However, the clause is quite broad. I would be grateful if the Minister could further elaborate on his intent in it.
Clause 108 provides for the consequential removal of section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 because it is no longer needed. Clause 109 is about enforcement.
Clause 110 is about the consultation process. The requirement to consult before making regulations promotes transparency and accountability in the decision-making process and allows for adjustments and feedback from various groups, in the same way that line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill allows adjustment in line with discussion. It ensures that regulations are fair and based on a broad range of insights and evidence. However, I would be keen for the consultation not to be so long as to delay bringing in the regulations. As I have said before, much of the Bill hinges on the regulations the Government can provide. If the consultation processes are very long and drawn out, it could be a long time before any of these measures come into force to protect our children, in particular.
Andrew Gwynne
Sub-delegation allows functions to be carried out by someone who is not named in the primary legislation. We believe that that is vital for flexible implementation of Government policy and to keep the wheels of Government turning. Sub-delegation is a long-accepted part of the legislative process, and having the ability to allow technical experts to undertake technical tasks, or to set out very detailed technical criteria in guidance instead of using parliamentary resource, will allow us to get on with implementing the measures in part 5 of the Bill.
The shadow Minister is right to be concerned about having safeguards to ensure that any sub-delegation of authority is not abused. Sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I have previously said, there is also a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under part 5. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.
On the wider consultation the shadow Minister referred to, the Government chose to include consultation clauses because we want valuable input from different stakeholders on our proposals before they are introduced. As is conventional with such clauses in primary legislation, the clause does not prescribe the specific people the Secretary of State must consult. That is to ensure that the Government can consult appropriate stakeholders, and the list may evolve over time.
UK-wide regulations made under part 5 might deal with devolved matters. The UK Government are therefore required to seek consent from the devolved Governments. My Department will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments on proposals for UK-wide regulation of products. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Publishing advertisements
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 114, page 63, line 16, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 88, in clause 115, page 64, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 115 stand part.
Amendment 89, in clause 116, page 64, line 30, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 116 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 117, page 65, line 18, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 117 stand part.
Amendment 91, in clause 118, page 66, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 118 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 119, page 67, line 8, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Amendment 93, in clause 119, page 67, line 24, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 119 stand part.
Before I call the shadow Minister to speak to amendment 87, I should indicate to her that, since the clauses each have amendments proposed to them, it would be helpful to know as we work through the debate whether she wishes to press them to a vote.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 87 is to clause 114. This group of clauses represents a substantial part of the Bill, as it applies to advertising and sponsorship. Those became an issue as part of the Health and Social Care Committee review of vapes back in the last Parliament. They were also discussed during debate on the last iteration of the Bill last Easter. In fact, I tabled a fair number of amendments on the subject in the last Parliament.
Clause 114 creates an offence where a person, acting in the course of business, publishes an advertisement in the UK promoting certain regulated products such as tobacco, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. To commit the offence, the person must know, or have reason to suspect, that they are publishing advertisements for such products and that the advertisement will promote those items.
Subsection (2) outlines the penalty for this offence, which is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. For summary conviction, the penalties vary by jurisdiction, with different maximum prison terms in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a fine may be imposed in all cases. The clause aims to regulate the advertising of tobacco and nicotine products by placing responsibility on businesses and individuals publishing such advertisements, to ensure they comply with the law.
I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire regarding use of the word “publish”, and I have in mind particularly the online environment. Could the Minister confirm who is the publisher of, for example, a TikTok video? Is it the individual who uploaded it, or is it TikTok itself?
I also have a question about the words “purpose” and “effect”. Are they too vague? Could they lead to overreach and confusion about what constitutes promotion? It is unclear whether an advertisement needs to explicitly promote a product or whether a more subtle influence will be sufficient. How broad does the Minister intend the interpretation of “purpose” and “effect” to be? Can an advertisement for a lifestyle product that features someone smoking or vaping in the imagery be considered as promoting a tobacco product, even if it is not the main focus?
Another issue arises from the clause’s reliance on subjective knowledge or suspicion. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they know or have reason to suspect that the advertisement has the purpose or effect or promoting the product. In cases where the individual involved in the publication of an advertisement did not have direct knowledge of, or did not suspect, the advertisement’s purpose, what level of proof is required to say that they “know” or “have reason to suspect”? For example, if an advertisement is published by the third-party platform or agency, perhaps online, can a person who did not directly control the advertisement’s creation still be held liable? This is really important when it comes to the online world, where the sheer volume of hosts may make it incredibly challenging for an online provider to look at every single post that is put up.
On advertising, the impact assessment provided by the Government says on page 101:
“Despite advertising restrictions existing for nicotine vapes in some settings including television, radio and through information society services, such as internet advertising or commercial email, evidence shows advertising is noticed more by young people, and this has increased in some settings in recent years. Additionally, despite being prohibited under TRPR, the ASA report social media is increasingly being used to advertise vapes to children.”
I note the differences between the devolved nations. Under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, Scotland has powers to go further on advertising and sponsorship—for example, powers to ban nicotine vape advertising in more settings than those in TRPR, to ban sponsorship agreements involving nicotine vapes, and to introduce regulations on brand sharing.
Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:
“CRUK estimate the annual cost of advertising for the sector in 2019 was £32m. Under this policy proposal, no advertising would be permitted so this previous cost would be saved by businesses, and partially offsetting their lost profits from reduced vape sales outlined in the monetised costs section.”
Paragraph 666 states:
“Similar to the monetised benefits above for vapes, businesses who currently fund advertising of nicotine products, herbal smoking products, and/or cigarette papers will save this money”.
Of course, advertising companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. To me, it seems sensible to restrict the advertisement of these products, as I said before.
We must remember that young people are at the heart of this Bill, and the impact assessment also notes how susceptible young people are to advertising and why this clause is of particular relevance. Paragraph 499 highlights a survey conducted by Cancer Research showing that advertising is more noticed by young people. The survey results reveal that
“for all types of media analysed, apart from ‘email/SMS’, youth (16 to 19 years) noticed advertisements more than adults (18 years and older) in 2018 in England. The locations and media channels surveyed included: inside shops selling cigarettes; kiosks; web/social media; billboards/posters; newspapers/magazines; events/festivals; bars/pubs; and email/SMS. The largest difference in the two age groups was seen for 'billboards and posters’ with 31.4% of youth noticing marketing compared to 5.9% of adults.”
It also notes that
“youth (16 to 19 year olds) never users (who have never smoked or vaped) report higher noticing of vape advertising across all media types, apart from email/SMS compared to adult exclusive smokers”.
Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that
“more than half (55%) of 11 to 17-year-olds are aware of vape promotion in shops compared to 37% two years ago, while 15% see adverts on billboards, up from 12% two years ago.”
It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.
Amendments 87 to 92 ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that people who are smokers understand the information that is available to help them quit. At the moment, a smoker might go into a doctor’s surgery or an antenatal clinic and see information on smoking being bad for them, which is appropriate. They may also see information on opportunities for nicotine replacement therapies, or even on vaping as an alternative. If the Minister is keen to ensure that people who are smokers can use vapes as an alternative, which is believed to potentially be better for them than continuing to smoke, how will they be given that information if the products cannot be advertised or promoted?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is eloquently articulating the necessity of controls around advertising. Does she share my concern about the risk of creating a loophole, whereby advertising could still happen if there were warning notes on adverts? The Bill seeks to reduce any type of loophole through which an advertiser might promote vaping—with words underneath that this is a smoking cessation device—in all settings. Does she also agree that the NHS is already able to articulate smoking cessation methods to patients, without the need for brand advertising?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman and I agree that we need to restrict the advertising of these products, because we do not want people, particularly young people and children, to start becoming addicted to nicotine. We agree on that. However, the Bill does not say an advert needs to promote a brand of nicotine product to be considered promotion or illegal under the Bill. It simply says “a nicotine product” or “a tobacco product”. I am keen to ensure the Minister clarifies that a doctor—I declare an interest as a doctor—or other health professional such as a pharmacist, like the hon. Member for North Somerset, will not find him or herself on the wrong side of the law for promoting vaping to individuals who smoke.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Current medicine regulations do not allow products to be advertised, but do not get in the way of smoking cessation clinics that currently take place at GP surgeries or pharmacies. The amendments the hon. Lady is proposing are, therefore, not needed. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggests, they could be used as a loophole for advertising by an industry that has been shown to be very successful at finding ways around legislation to increase market share and the numbers of smokers and vapers.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He comes to this debate with significant experience as a pharmacist himself. In bringing forward this amendment, it is not our intention to create a loophole. None of us wants to see children vaping or using nicotine products and developing an addiction they struggle to quit for the rest of their lives, with the associated costs to their health and their purses. However, I want the Minister to assure the Committee that he has considered the position of pharmacists and people who will legally be selling these products as a stop smoking device, perhaps in a hospital clinic or as a health professional, and made sure they will not be criminalised.
If we are to follow the chief medical officer’s advice—that vaping is not suitable for children but is suitable for adults who smoke as a harm reduction measure—and are to have that harm reduction process in place, which I believe is the Minister’s intention, it is important to consider how it will continue under these regulations. It is important to consider how pharmacists and other health professionals will be able to have discussions with their patients or clients in which they may wish to say, “Vaping is better for you,” and in so doing effectively promote the process—not a specific product, but the genre of products.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I share the concerns expressed by the shadow Minister and by my hon. Friends about inadvertently creating a loophole, which we know the tobacco industry and others will drive a coach and horses through. I understand that part of the purpose of tabling the amendments is to get reassurance and clarity on certain aspects of the Bill, but on the point she was just making, is not the relevant provision subsection (1)(a), which refers to the person
“acting in the course of business”?
I am sure the Minister will clarify later, but perhaps the clause deals not with medical practitioners, pharmacists or doctors, but with media agencies or companies whose reason to exist is as a business for selling media, for publishing, for design. They do not operate cessation services and are not medical professionals or pharmacists themselves. In the realm of instructions to a service industry, whether it be a publisher or a business that designs advertisements, does this provision not simply make it crystal clear that, no caveats, they cannot do anything that is listed in the clause, because to do so will be an offence?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but while pharmacists are highly trained clinicians with the capacity to prescribe a number of products in specific cases, they are also businesses. One’s local pharmacy is a business. Pharmacists sell products; they take money and make variable amounts of profit. A GP is a private entity, as the Minister will have learned during the national insurance contributions debate. Some GP practices are dispensing practices—the GP prescribes a product, which is dispensed from that practice. There are also private clinicians who provide GP surgery or stop smoking services at a price. I do not think that “in the course of business” necessarily provides the distinction that the hon. Member for Cardiff West hopes it does, but perhaps the Minister will provide further clarity.
It might be possible for the Minister to include an extremely narrowly drafted exemption for medical professionals providing advice in relation to stop smoking services and antenatal clinics giving advice to a current smoker, but perhaps he feels that those clinicians are covered already. One of the reasons for tabling the amendments is to have this debate and ensure that the clauses are carefully considered. All of us, on both sides of the Committee and the House, want to improve the health of the nation; we all want the Bill to improve the health of the nation. If the chief medical officer’s advice is that for adult smokers, vaping is better, those products need to be available to adult smokers.
I will move on to clause 115, which extends the offence in clause 114 of publishing advertisements to those who design the advertisements for regulated products, such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. As in clause 114, to commit the offence the person must know that the advert has the purpose of promoting one of the regulated products and that it will be published in the UK. The latter part is important. Again, I would like the Minister to ensure that there is no loophole for people to design things and say they are expecting them to be promoted abroad, and then they are promoted in the UK. That could be quite a significant loophole. Businesses could get around that with contract clauses, I suspect.
Subsection (2) establishes the penalties for the offence, which are a conviction on indictment of two years, a fine or both. Summary convictions carry varying penalties based on the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. That does leave the situation where somebody who has committed the same offence in England, Scotland and Wales by publishing it across those jurisdictions could face several different fines in different jurisdictions for exactly the same advert.
Another question is about the designers. Individuals may be involved in the design of advertisements, but not have full control over the final content or how the advertisement will be published. Should liability be extended to individuals working on the design, or should it lie more squarely with the business or entity that ultimately publishes it? Is it fair to hold designers accountable for advertisements over which they have limited control? If they have only designed part of the advertisement, and it is not the bit in which the product is promoted, will they still be liable for the whole advertisement?
Clause 116 introduces another offence, this time for businesses that print advertisements that promote tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. They must know or have reason to suspect that they are printing an advertisement for those products—if they are printing it, they should know what they are printing—and that the advertisement will be published in the UK. Again, that will presumably have to be dealt with by contract law and involve some quite significant fines.
Clause 117 makes it an offence for persons acting in the course of business to distribute the advertisement. The question here is about physical and digital adverts. If a person is distributing the adverts on a sheet of paper, putting billboards on the wall or driving around a truck with a billboard on the back, it is clear that they know what they are doing and it is clear who is doing it. If adverts are appearing online or being distributed online, can the Minister specify who will be held responsible? Could somebody sharing an image that was produced by somebody else be a loophole?
Clause 118 expands the scope of responsibility to those who cause advertisements to be published and distributed within the UK. That seems sensible.
Clause 119 is the Government’s attempt to focus on the businesses that provide internet services. The provision is quite broad. Not all providers are UK-based, though. If they are not, how can they be held accountable? The provision could be seen to apply to various types of online platform, including social media search engines and website hosts. The key issue is whether a business that merely provides a platform or service for the publishing and distribution of advertisements can be held liable for content that is uploaded or shared by third parties, particularly where there is a huge volume.
The clause places responsibility on service providers that know or have reason to suspect that advertisements promoting tobacco or vaping products will be distributed through its services. That could apply to a wide range of internet service providers, from major global tech companies that are household names to the smaller, niche providers that operate in the UK market. I understand why that is important, but will the Minister say more about the person who is paying for the advertisement? The Bill covers publishing, designing and distributing an advert and providing it on the internet, but what about the individual paying for it? Ultimately, an advertisement rarely comes for free. How is that to be regarded?
The measures to reduce advertising for vapes and smoking products are sensible public health measures to reduce uptake. As we discussed in the debate on diet and obesity earlier this week, advertising clearly works. I recalled in that debate some of the adverts I remember from my childhood, such as “The red car and the blue car had a race” for Milky Way—I was pleased that the blue car won in that case, Sir Roger—and “A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat”. Those memories stick in the mind for many years. Advertising is effective and induces children to try products, so banning advertising for vaping and smoking products should be very beneficial, but I urge the Minister to consider whether he has covered the full scope of those who are responsible for adverts and at the same time excluded those who may play only a very small part in the advert and not realise that it will later become an advert for a smoking or vaping product. Has he considered carefully how a medical professional, clinician, pharmacist or similar person can still provide and openly discuss vaping products with their patients and clients, so that they can use them as a quit aid?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I just want to go through something again. Obviously, the purpose of part 6 of the Bill is to establish the rules about advertising, which I completely understand. It sets out that it is an offence for a person in the course of business to publish an advertisement, to promote products, to design advertisements, to print an advertisement, to distribute an advertisement, to cause publication, design, printing or distribution in the UK, or to provide an internet service by means of which an advertisement is published or distributed.
Gregory Stafford
I do not intend to opine for very long on these clauses, because they have been covered amply by my hon. Friends. I caveat everything I am about to say with an absolute commitment: I continue to believe that this is the right Bill, that the clauses that we are discussing are the right clauses, that we should be trying to stop people smoking tobacco products and that people under 18 should not have any access to vapes.
However, I have mentioned on a number of occasions that vapes could be and are used as a smoking cessation tool. This is why I perhaps go further in my desire than the shadow Minister does in relation to the amendments that she has put forward. I do not know whether she will press them, but I do ask the Minister to think about the issue of smoking cessation. The shadow Minister talks about how someone who is promoting smoking cessation might fall foul of these rules as they are written—the Minister shakes his head, and I am sure that he will be able to give us reasons for that in a minute.
I would go one step further. For example, we allow the promotion and advertisement of gums and nicotine patches, because they are classed as a medical product, being effective smoking cessation tools. Of course we do not want anybody who does not smoke, either an adult or a child, to be chewing nicotine gum or wearing nicotine patches—to be frank, I am not clear whether there is any evidence that they do, but I suspect they are not seen as, to use the word I think the Minister used last week, “sexy”. I do not think anyone thinks that chewing gum is particularly sexy, and certainly a patch on the arm is not sexy, so I accept that those are not in the same bracket as a vape with colourful packaging and so on. However, gums and nicotine patches are monitored by the MHRA.
I know that the Minister has indicated that a new home is being sought for vapes, but as it stands in the law, they would be monitored by the MHRA. If we are going to say that they are in a similar vein to a patch or a gum in terms of smoking cessation, it is possible that we might want to be able to promote and publicise them, maybe through something in a doctor’s surgery or in a maternity ward, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, that says, “Don’t smoke. Instead, use a vape, a patch or a gum.” If that advert in a doctor’s surgery said “gum” or “patch”, there would be no problem, but if it said “vape”, my understanding is that it would fall foul of these clauses. As my hon. Friend said, they may not want to fall foul of the law, but we might want to be able to advertise vapes as a smoking cessation tool in that very limited circumstance and in an appropriate place—that is, in a pharmacy or a doctor’s surgery.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I want to add something to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, which is interesting and relevant, about smoking cessation services and how they currently work. I have run and managed smoking cessation services. As it stands, when a smoking cessation adviser is talking to a person who wants to stop smoking, they discuss nicotine patches, gum and whatever other options may be available. They do not promote vapes or actively say that they are an option.
The reason for that is the public health evidence. In public health, we apply the precautionary principle, by and large, where we think that there may well be harms ensuing from using a particular product, but the evidence is not yet sufficient. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, in the case of smoking, using vapes is much more preferable for a person’s health, but in terms of smoking cessation, as clinicians and advisers, we need to be careful in how we apply clinical norms, and that is relevant here.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I will not labour my point any further, because I think I have made it; I am sure that the Minister can respond to it when we get there.
The only other thing I will mention is the online advertisements mentioned in a number of the clauses. Is the intention to do with the website displaying the advert, the person who has put forward the advert or the intermediary companies? Online, a lot of adverts are now tailored via cookies. When the Minister goes on to a website, the adverts that he sees are tailored to the things that he has been looking at. I could go on to exactly the same website at exactly the same time and receive a different set of advertisements based on my internet viewing preferences—[Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is laughing. I get a lot of weird stuff, mostly for hoof trimming videos—I am not sure what I typed in to get those. Maybe it is my rural seat. I do not know.
My point is that those advertisements are totally unconnected to the website that I am looking at, which essentially has no control over what adverts are being displayed, as far as I understand it. Because the internet is so complicated, what thoughts does the Minister have about the fact that essentially, the internet provider and the website may not have any knowledge of what adverts are being put on?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As part of the solution, legislation must already be in place, because human and veterinary prescription-only drugs are not allowed to be advertised to the public, but they can be advertised to medical professionals. There must be legislation that prevents rogue companies from advertising in the UK products that they are not allowed to advertise to the general public, and I imagine that it should be incorporated into the Bill to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Gregory Stafford
Forgive me; I am not sure I fully understand the hon. Member’s point in relation to what I was just saying, but that is probably because I have not explained myself well enough, not because he has misunderstood it. I entirely agree that the advertising of tobacco and vape products should be banned, and I agree with the sentiment and the outline in the law. All I am saying is that when the Minister or the relevant authority seeks to prosecute somebody for this offence, there may be occasions, given the complexity of the internet these days, when people may not know that their website is hosting said adverts. I do not want to labour that point again, but I am sure the Minister can respond.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them.
One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation.
The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes.
On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have?
ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that
“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?
To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making some good points about the importance of ensuring that people can access nicotine replacement therapy in its various forms if they wish to stop smoking, because that will be healthier for them. I understand what the hon. Member for Winchester has said about prescription-only medicines, and that it is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, but not all nicotine replacement therapies are prescription-only medicines, so those can be advertised to the public at the moment.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said:
“In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”—
I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said:
“Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.”
As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I might need to break the happy agreement on the Conservative side. While I understand my hon. Friend’s laudable aim of encouraging those who smoke to use a less harmful product, which is a good thing, the clear evidence we have seen is that tobacco, in all its forms, is essentially harmful. Moving people from smoking tobacco in cigarettes to using heated tobacco may or may not reduce the harm, but it would still be significantly harmful. It would be better if an individual saw their pharmacist or clinician to get proper nicotine therapy, which is designated by the MHRA as a properly medically regulated product, rather than moving on to a different commercial product that is still harmful for them.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—
Jack Rankin
I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences.
I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to hon. Members for our discussion on amendment 87 and subsequent clauses. These amendments intend to make an exemption under the advertisement ban to allow vaping products to be promoted by businesses as a smoking cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers. I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intention behind the amendment to ensure that smokers are encouraged to use vapes as a quit aid. That is why the Bill as drafted will continue to support the promotion of vaping as a quit aid for smokers through the appropriate channels. By “appropriate channels”, I say to the hon. Lady that we mean public health authorities.
Dr Johnson
I want to clarify one small point, if I have not made myself completely clear. On a personal level, I do not particularly want people to be persuaded to go from smoking to vaping, because I think it is an alternative addiction that they will get stuck on. I would much prefer them to be directed towards other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, which will be effective and more short lived. However, given that the current medical advice is that vaping is better, I think it is important that it is available.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that the shadow Minister is dancing on a pinhead, but she has brought to the Committee a set of amendments for which that would be the purpose. If they are pushed to a vote, I am sure we will have the bewilderment of the shadow Minister yet again abstaining on measures that the shadow Minister has brought before the Committee.
We believe it is for public health authorities to promote vaping as a quit aid for current smokers. For example, local stop smoking services will continue to be able to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative following the passage of the Bill. We strongly believe that any promotion of vaping as a way to quit smoking is best led and delivered by the appropriate authorities, such as local stop smoking services, public health professionals and the national health service.
The clauses in part 6 of the Bill, taken in totality, will form a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products, bringing them all in line with tobacco. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the sides of buses and in shop windows when they make their way to school.
Clauses 114 to 117 make it an offence for anyone
“acting in the course of business”
to publish, design, print or distribute an advertisement
“whose purpose or effect is to promote”
a relevant product within the Bill. Upon conviction, anyone who has committed an offence under part 6 will be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both. These clauses are an essential part of the overall suite of restrictions that will ban advertising of relevant products within the UK. Taken together they will ensure that even if someone has not designed or published an advert, it will still be an offence to print or distribute that advert. This is key to stopping their eventual distribution. I hope that answers the questions about whether there is a loophole allowing adverts produced for international markets to be distributed in the United Kingdom. The distribution of those adverts will be an offence.
Clause 118 makes it an offence to cause the offences I have just set out. It would be an offence if a person “knows or has reason to suspect” that they are causing these things, whereas if someone unknowingly delivered a package containing leaflets, they would not be guilty of the offence. Without this clause, it would be possible to instruct others to publish, design, print or distribute adverts without committing an offence. Clearly, we need to ensure that it is also an offence to cause these things to happen.
Lastly, clause 119 makes it an offence to provide an internet service in the course of a business by means of which an advert for a relevant product is published or distributed. This would mean that an organisation that provides a service to a person—for example, Sky or TalkTalk—would commit an offence if they provided a service that enabled the online advertisements to happen and if they permitted that space to be used to promote relevant products. That could include becoming aware that the service is hosting a vape advert and subsequently failing to take that advert down. This is particularly important, as young people, and some not-so-young—we now know that, if we have a hoof that needs trimming, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is our man, although I am not sure whether he provides the service or just passes the request on—
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 119 is important, as children spend a lot of time online and therefore are more exposed to a variety of internet services. It is unacceptable that a child using the internet to study might be exposed to a variety of vape adverts. We need to take action to stop these products being deliberately advertised to children, to protect future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.
The shadow Minister’s amendments would in theory allow any shops or businesses to advertise vaping products to existing tobacco smokers. It would be incredibly difficult to target the advertisement of vaping products to current smokers alone, without the risk of children and non-smokers seeing the promotional material. That would not only make enforcement complicated, but make the messaging about the ban inconsistent. Research on tobacco advertising bans has shown that comprehensive bans were significantly more effective than partial restrictions in reducing smoking rates.
Hon. Members has posed a number of questions, which I will address. What constitutes an advert and how will the decisions be made? The Advertising Standards Authority is the regulator, and it will take a proportionate approach. All adverts are captured. Decisions on whether something is an advert will be made on a case-by-case basis, and it is for the ASA to decide. If the purpose or effect of something is to promote a product, it will most likely be captured. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor, “Worry not”: the ASA knows how the internet works, because it is dealing with it daily, and as we speak.
How does liability work? The offence will be charged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, we expect that this will involve a company. The ASA is experienced in making decisions on tobacco restrictions at the moment, and the provision merely extends the powers and responsibilities that it is already undertaking with regard to a variety of other products. On social media influencers, it depends on how the ASA approaches the matter; if it decides that something is constituted as an advert, action can be taken. Nobody is above the law of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Windsor asked why we are making changes to the law without consulting. To be clear, tobacco adverts are already banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and the provisions in part 6 of the Bill will simply maintain the existing ban on tobacco advertisements. We were elected with a mandate to carry out our manifesto commitments, one of which was to stop the advertising of vapes to children. We already know that the measures to restrict vape advertising are strongly supported: 74% of adults in Great Britain support banning the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes at point of sale, at the till, in stores and as people enter shops, and only 6% are opposed.
Does aligning vapes with tobacco in this area contribute to misconceptions that vapes are just as harmful as tobacco? Although the approach towards vapes and towards tobacco will align in this area, our future regulations on other vape measures will be carefully considered so that there is a clear difference between these products. Given that vapes are less harmful than tobacco, we do not intend to treat them in exactly the same way as tobacco. To be clear, there is no more dangerous product that is legally sold in our shops than tobacco—a product that kills two thirds of its users—but we do not want to inadvertently addict a new generation to nicotine. That is the reason for the advertising measures.
Will the ban on the advertising of heated tobacco products increase the demand for traditional cigarettes? The Department’s opinion is that heated tobacco products are covered under the 2002 Act, which prohibits the advertisement and sponsorship of tobacco products. The new definition just ensures clarity on the scope of the legislation, as well as future-proofing policy. This is not a new ban; we believe that the existing tobacco advertising ban appertains to heated tobacco products in any case.
We very much want people to give up all forms of tobacco. That is why this Government have invested a further £70 million for smoking cessation services in the new financial year, and why I maintain that, although we are saying to tobacco companies, “This is as good as it gets,” we will move heaven and earth to shrink their customer base even further with appropriate smoking cessation. With that, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment, and commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister knows that I believe strongly that we need to stop people smoking, because of its dangers, and that we need to stop children from taking up any form of nicotine, because we have heard how harmful nicotine is to them. He will also be aware of my argument—which I made in relation to the previous iteration of the Bill—that advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be included to reduce the appeal of the products to children. I support the clauses, but I was keen to debate how smoking cessation services will be able to discuss these products. The Minister has been reasonably, if not absolutely, clear on that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 115 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 23rd January 2025
(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2025 - (23 Jan 2025)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 121 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 122 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Dowd. These clauses concern the defences and exemptions to the advertising bans on relevant products—tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products—as set out in clauses 114 to 119, which we have just debated.
Clause 120 sets out three situations in which someone has a defence to the advertising bans. Those are trade adverts, sending information in response to a request and adverts for outside the United Kingdom. The clause sets out that adverts contained only in communications between members of specific, relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. For example, a vaping company could send promotional materials to someone responsible for buying products to sell, but that would otherwise be banned if aimed at members of the public. Similarly, a defence exists if the advert is contained in a publication that is not printed or intended to be marketed in the UK. The final defence is that if businesses receive a direct request about their products, they are permitted to respond to that request with material that would legally be considered an advert.
Clause 121 restates existing law that allows specialist tobacconists to advertise specialist products in their shops. Specialist tobacconists will therefore be exempt from the restrictions on advertisements in part 6 of the Bill, provided that their adverts meet certain criteria, such as being visible only inside the shop. The clause empowers the appropriate national authority in each of the devolved Administrations to make regulations to specify what health warnings and information must be included in the adverts. Specialist tobacconists make up a tiny percentage of the market in the UK and are focused on specialist products such as pipes and cigars, and this exemption reflects the specialist nature of the trade carried out by these shops. However, tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, so we will continue to monitor the specialist market closely in case the situation changes.
Clause 122 ensures that no offence is committed under part 6 of the Bill for something that is regulated under the law on displays. For example, displaying a relevant product or the price of the product in accordance with any regulations concerning displays would not be considered an advertisement for the purposes of advertising offences. Without this provision, a display of a relevant product or other material that is permitted may be prohibited as an advertisement. The provision therefore allows for shops to display a vape, subject to the restrictions set out in legislation on their display, without it being considered an advertisement.
However, in the relevant provision for Scotland, the clause refers only to the legislation on the display of the tobacco products themselves and does not include the legislative provision on the display of the prices of the tobacco products. Government amendment 1 has been made to ensure that both are captured when determining whether something is subject to the law relating to displays, as the equivalent provisions do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That has been done at the request of the Scottish Government to make the approach in Scotland consistent with that in the other three jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that the Government commend this amendment and clauses 120 to 122 to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I noticed that Government amendment 1 was included in this grouping. Does the Minister want to talk about it?
Dr Johnson
Oh, sorry. I must have had a moment.
Clause 120 concerns advertising defences. I wanted to ask specifically about the defence relating to the relevant trade communication being directed solely at persons involved in that trade. Does that include adverts within trade magazines? Does it include trade shows and trade stands where these adverts might be visible? Will these adverts or promotions need to be explicitly directed at trade, and will they need to be only visible to trade, or could this actually create a loophole in which there is a suggestion that these are trade magazines, but are actually more widely available than that and therefore provide an advert to the public? How will that work? What if one is doing a trade show in a relatively public venue such as an exhibition centre?
Andrew Gwynne
I can answer that very quickly and clearly, because it was set out in my opening speech. I am not sure whether the shadow Minister was fully paying attention, because it also included Government amendment 1, in relation to bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom on these measures. The legislation sets out that adverts contained only in communications made between members of specific relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. I think that is pretty clear.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if members of a trade body are being spoken to at a trade show, for example, will the people running the show need to make sure that people who are not members of the trade do not come? Sometimes, people may bring other people along with them. Will there need to be provisions to ensure that when that trade show is advertised, it is not done in a way that promotes the product itself? If the show is to happen, people will need to know about it, so how will they find out? This is just about making sure there are no loopholes.
There is also the business of who is publishing and who is distributing. If someone were to design, produce and print leaflets in the belief that they would be distributed abroad, but then someone gave some young delivery chap, perhaps in his teens, some money to deliver them to a group of households, as happens with pizza delivery adverts and such things, the young lad would be committing an offence of which he may or may not be aware. That is no excuse under the law, of course, but the person with greater culpability would be the person who gave him the leaflet. How does the Minister intend the law to be applied in such a situation?
Clause 121 concerns specialist tobacconists. The Minister has been quite consistent on every aspect of this legislation—apart from penalties—in saying that tobacco in all its forms is bad for people and needs to be eliminated, so I am interested in this specialist tobacco exemption. I understand that the advert is going to be available inside the store, and not visible from the outside, and that it will exclude cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am interested to understand why it will specifically exclude those and not other forms of tobacco. The Minister might say, “That is what the legislation says at the moment, and we want to keep it the same,” but passing new legislation is an opportunity to change things, review what we currently have and decide whether it needs to be different. I am interested in his reasons for that decision.
The clause defines a “specialist tobacconist” as a shop
“more than half of whose sales…derive from the sale of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories.”
That would appear to be on the basis of the cost or value of sales. What is the reason for that definition? It may be that that is the existing definition, but has the Minister considered whether specialist tobacconists should be defined according to whether they sell a greater or a lesser amount of such products? Also, we see vape shops on virtually every high street now, so how will the Bill apply to them?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that Government amendment 1 simply makes a correction to bring things into line, so I very much doubt that we will oppose it.
It is clearly necessary and right to have some defences written into law, but I have a few questions about clauses 121 and 122. As the shadow Minister said, the Minister and the Government have been extraordinarily clear that tobacco-based products, as well as vapes, are unhealthy and have a significant impact on public health. It is therefore interesting that the Minister has not been so consistent when it comes to what one might call specialist or traditional tobacco.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about specialist tobacco. Can he or the Minister enlighten the Committee as to whether specialist tobacco is less harmful than any other form?
Gregory Stafford
I do not claim to have a medical qualification, but my guess would be that there is no difference between specialist and other forms of tobacco. One might even say—again, I am not medically qualified —that specialist tobacco may be more harmful, because a pipe has no filter, and nor are there other things that could mitigate, at least minimally, the harmful nature of the tobacco. The shadow Minister is right, and the Minister has been clear, that there is no such thing as safe smoking in any form.
It is interesting that the Minister has decided to exempt specialist tobacconists in this regard. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to how many specialist tobacconists there are in the United Kingdom, and how many consumers currently buy their tobacco from a specialist tobacconist. That would give us some indication of how prevalent the issue is.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I encourage my hon. Friend not to criticise the Minister for doing something quite sensible in pursuing this evidence-based approach. I have said before that people who have a cigar on new year’s eve and who use specialist tobacconists—that is where I get mine—are the kind of people we should be letting off a little. The Minister is right.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend and I agree on most areas of policy, but this is probably one on which we do not entirely see eye to eye. Another hon. Member asked me yesterday to mention the personal benefits of cigars for his stress levels. I informed him very clearly that reducing any amount of stress with a cigar only exacerbates the effect on his lungs; although he might feel a little less stressed in the moment, he will feel much more stressed when, unfortunately, he has a tobacco-related disease. I therefore disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
That being said, and I have mentioned this previously on other clauses, we must be consistent between larger and smaller retailers and not bring in anything that will disadvantage the smaller ones. Perhaps that is what was in the Minister’s mind when he included this clause.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he agree that the timing will be important too, because this legislation will come into force more quickly than the regulations? The Minister said that he would “go like the clappers”, but we have not had further definition of what that means or of how quickly regulations will come into force. Regulations on displays may lag behind the Bill’s provisions on advertising, so companies are likely to use the display provisions to circumvent the advertising provisions until the Minister brings the regulations in.
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree. It is essential that not only this clause and the regulations it will bring in, but all the clauses we have talked about—both those where regulations are included on the face of the Bill and those that give the Minister, the Department for Health and relevant authorities the power to implement other regulations and restrictions—are phased appropriately, so that retailers and manufacturers can adjust to the new laws. They must also be introduced rapidly enough that there are no loopholes, and in the right sequence so that people cannot take advantage of any loopholes.
That brings me to the point that vigilant enforcement and clear guidelines are necessary to prevent such exploitation. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether that links back to the previous clauses, in which we talked about the display of notices.
Likewise, we need to ensure that there is consistency across the jurisdictions. We have devolved government in this country, but if regulations concerning the display and advertisement of tobacco and vape products vary between the different countries of the United Kingdom, there could be cause for some legal issues. It is therefore vital to ensure that clause 122 is applied consistently across all parts of the United Kingdom to prevent confusion among retailers and to maintain the stated aim of the Bill, which is uniform public health standards.
I have a few questions to the Minister. First, will he be developing comprehensive guidelines for what constitutes a display versus an advertisement? These guidelines should include visual examples to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the regulations. I mentioned it before, but regular training and communication is essential so that retailers can be educated about the distinctions and the legal requirements. Continued regular communication will help to address any ambiguities and keep retailers informed about any changes to the laws or regulations that the Minister or his successors might introduce. The Minister is laughing, but I think it is more that he received a funny text than because of my speech.
Finally, robust monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that there is compliance with clause 122. That should include routine inspections and clear processes for addressing violations to ensure that the distinction between displays and advertisements is respected. In conclusion, the clause plays a pivotal role in balancing the rights of retailers to display their products with the necessity of restricting advertising that could promote tobacco and vape usage. We on this side of the Committee—mostly—agree with the clause, and I hope that the Minister will answer some of the queries that we have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank hon. Members for their questions. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon just referred to my smirk, and it was indeed a text from somebody asking whether we should define “clappers” in our guidance as well.
To return to the substance of the Bill, the Government amendment is minor and technical; there was a drafting error, and the Scottish Government have since requested the amendment to correct it and to ensure the regulations and the law, as it appertains to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be the same for Scotland.
On the subject of “specialist tobacconists”, let me first make a point of clarification for the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. We are not saying there is specialist tobacco—there is no such thing. Tobacco is dangerous and uniquely harmful. Tobacco is tobacco. There is nothing specialist about it. A very small number of retailers around the United Kingdom sell niche products; they are specialist tobacconists. That is different to the tobacco being special. There is nothing special about tobacco. The tiny number of retailers that sell things such as pipes and cigars exist in a limited number of places and there are already exemptions in the law for them. As we move towards smoke-free, the reality of market economics means that those specialist tobacconists are not necessarily likely to be around at some stage in the future.
The impact assessment that the Government have provided alongside the Bill makes it very clear. With the measures in the Bill, by 2050—25 years’ time, that is all—we are looking at smoking prevalence in the under-30s being nearly zero. Given that reality, the Government believe that the current exemptions for that small number of retailers will continue. Due to the specialist nature of their trade—they focus on a small number of other tobacco products, such as cigars—they only make up a tiny proportion of the UK market. We know that all tobacco products are harmful, so the Government will, of course, keep a watchful eye on it to make sure that we do not inadvertently grow a new market but, at this stage, we do not believe that will happen.
Specialist tobacconists are not permitted to advertise cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco because those are the most commonly used types of tobacco. The existing bans on tobacco advertising therefore relate to the sale of those products, whether in specialist tobacconists or the local supermarket, so we are really talking about the advertising exemption for other products. That is a continuation of the existing exemption, which has not caused any issues such as younger people taking up smoking. Any advertising the retailers have cannot be visible from outside the premises. That is really important so that a child walking past one of these random Hogwarts-looking shops that sell a product of which they are hopefully not aware will not ever be attracted to what goes on inside.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that the Minister is considering how shops look from the outside because, when one walks down the high street at the moment, it is not uncommon to find shops where the entire shop window has been turned into a picture of various types of vapes.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely—I agree with the hon. Lady that how it looks from the outside does matter. That is why, when these exemptions were put into earlier legislation, it was clear that none of the adverts for these niche products could be visible in the shop window from the outside, precisely to protect future generations from ever being enticed to think, “I wonder what a pipe tastes like, or what a cigar is like,” although I am sure the hon. Member for Windsor could, if he chose, give us an hour-long explanation. That is why the legislation is drafted in the way it is. However—and hopefully the industry is listening to this—the Government will, of course, continue to keep an eye on whether this exemption is working in the way that it has previously worked and that we expect it probably will work in the future. If in the future we have evidence that it is not working, the Government can come back and look at it again. However, as things stand, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exclusion for advertisements that are displays
Andrew Gwynne
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that prohibit or restrict the brand sharing of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Tobacco brand sharing is already prohibited. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising that promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services, or vice versa. For example, using a tobacco product on a logo or a T-shirt or a confectionery company using its branding on a vape are examples of brand sharing if the intent is to promote vapes. There is a clear association between tobacco advertisements and the uptake of products.
Associating nicotine or vape products with a reputable brand may also incentivise consumers, particularly children, adolescents and other vulnerable groups, to buy the product. We want to stop that happening and to protect young people and future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
The clause grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate brand sharing related to tobacco products, vaping products, nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I think the provision is instrumental in preventing indirect advertising strategies that could undermine the public health efforts in the Bill aimed at reducing consumption of those products.
Brand sharing, in my understanding, refers to the practice of using a brand name, a logo or some kind of distinctive feature associated with a particular product across a range of different product categories. In the context of tobacco and vaping products, brand sharing can manifest in several ways. Cross-product branding uses a tobacco brand’s name or logo on a non-tobacco product such as clothing or accessories to maintain brand visibility despite the advertising restrictions.
On event sponsorships, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned how we banned the advertising of tobacco products at Formula 1, the cricket and so on. Associating a tobacco or vape brand with events indirectly promotes the brand to a broader audience. Merchandising—the selling or distributing of merchandise bearing the branding of tobacco or vape products—can appeal to various demographics, especially young people.
Jack Rankin
I wholeheartedly support the Government on tobacco, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that there might be an inconsistency being applied here? For example, vaping and nicotine products are being outlawed, but sport is awash with gambling and alcohol brand sharing. Does he not think that that is an inconsistent application of the message?
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth; I am sure he can respond to my hon. Friend when he gets up. I think there has been relative unanimity on the Committee. Unlike alcohol and gambling, to use the two examples that my hon. Friend gave, tobacco is significantly more dangerous. Whereas there are safe levels of indulgence in gambling and alcohol, there is no safe indulgence in tobacco products. I think the Minister has made that very clear. If I have misinterpreted what he said, I am sure he will correct me.
The rationale for the clause is important: it closes advertising loopholes. Traditional advertising channels for tobacco products have been progressively restricted to reduce their appeal and accessibility, especially to young people. However, brand sharing could present a loophole that companies could exploit to continue to promote their products indirectly. By regulating brand sharing, the clause aims to close that gap, ensuring the intent of the advertising restrictions, which we have previously discussed, is fully realised.
Secondly, as with measures throughout the Bill, the clause aims to protect public health. Indirect advertising through brand sharing can subtly influence consumer behaviour, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents. Exposure to branding on non-tobacco products or at events can normalise tobacco and vape use, potentially leading to their initiation and then continued usage. Regulating brand sharing is therefore a critical step in protecting public health by limiting the avenues through which these products are promoted.
Once again, the clause brings us into line with a number of international standards. Many countries have already recognised the risks associated with brand sharing and have implemented regulations to address it. For example, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, which I previously mentioned, recommends comprehensive bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including indirect forms such as brand sharing. By empowering the Secretary of State to regulate brand sharing, the UK is aligning itself with international best practices in tobacco control.
However, there are some challenges and considerations. The first is defining the scope of brand sharing. One of the primary challenges I see in regulating brand sharing is establishing clear definitions and boundaries. Determining what constitutes brand sharing requires careful consideration to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited. I hope the Minister will give us some understanding of what the guidelines and boundaries might look like. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure that both regulators and businesses understand the limitations and comply accordingly.
The definition of brand sharing in subsection (2) involves broad and somewhat ambiguous terms, such as
“anything which is the same as, or similar to, a name, emblem, or any other feature”.
The use of such open-ended language could create uncertainty about what constitutes a violation of the regulations. How precise must the similarities between a relevant product and another service product be in order to be considered brand sharing? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand that.
There is also then the balancing of the regulation with commercial rights, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor alluded to earlier. While the object is clearly to protect public health, it is also important to consider the commercial rights of businesses. Over-restrictive regulation could have unintended economic consequences, particularly, again, for small businesses involved in merchandising or event sponsorship. I have said this before: if the product is legal to consume, we must ensure that whatever regulations we apply are equal and fair for both a large retailer or manufacturer and a small retailer or manufacturer. The regulation is either highly restrictive or highly permissive, but it must be the same. A balanced approach is necessary to achieve the public health goals without imposing undue burdens on legitimate commercial activities.
As I have said before in debates on other clauses, enforcement and compliance potentially bring some logistical challenges. The monitoring of so many various channels, including events and merchandise digital platforms, requires substantial resource. Ensuring compliance among diverse industries and settings necessitates a co-ordinated effort between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders and the public.
In addition to the questions I have already asked, could the Minister tell us what will be in the accompanying comprehensive guidelines? I urge the Minister to collaborate with public health experts, industry representatives and legal advisers to formulate clear and detailed guidelines on what constitutes prohibited brand-sharing practices. Those guidelines should be regularly updated to address any emerging trends and technologies, which we have discussed previously.
Stakeholder engagement is entirely appropriate and important. That includes with businesses and consumer groups, because we need to understand the regulations and encourage, where possible, voluntary compliance rather than compliance through enforcement operations. Educational campaigns can help stakeholders recognise the public health rationale behind regulations.
Finally, to go back to what I said about having robust monitoring mechanisms, we need to establish some kind of body to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance. Using technology and public reporting mechanisms can aid in identifying the violations and taking prompt action.
In conclusion, I support the intentions of the clause, but the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes brand sharing is something I would like to hear about from the Minister. Potentially, some challenges in enforcement are posed if the clause and the Bill become law.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution and questions. First, to be clear, we are aligning with the same regulatory framework that was used for tobacco. Tobacco brand sharing was done via regulations following the introduction of TAPA—the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002—and the necessary consultation through that process. We will of course consider brand-sharing restrictions for vapes once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
It is also important to say that following the ban on direct advertising, we will consider whether further regulation of brand sharing is needed at that point. If it is deemed necessary, we will need to assess the scope and the impact of any regulations to ensure that they are proportionate—precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon was setting out. My belief is therefore that it is more appropriate to regulate brand sharing via secondary legislation following consultation, not only to get that proportionate balance, but to ensure that any regulations are well understood, workable and enforceable.
An added issue is that advertising is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland—but not to Wales—so the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland before making any regulations containing provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive. We want to have the measures in place across the United Kingdom—so that there is no loophole, with brand sharing north of the border but not south of it, for example—so it is important that we go through the correct procedures to ensure that my counterparts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland are fully content with the direction of travel that we may wish for when it comes to England and Wales, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State in the UK Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Sponsorship: tobacco products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The clauses deal with sponsorship. Clause 124 covers tobacco products, and clause 125 vaping, nicotine and other products. Why do businesses get involved in sponsorship? Basically, as a way of advertising their products and to associate them with whatever sponsors them. They might want to associate their products with Formula 1, because it is seen by many as sexy, as the Minister put it—fast or cool, or a good thing to be associated with. They might want to associate their products with other sports such as football or rugby, because athletes who participate in them are seen as healthy, fit and cool. Businesses are therefore associating their brands, which may not be healthy or cool, with those athletes.
On the clauses, the Government’s own impact assessment talks about linking sports sponsorship to smoking. A UK study found that when cigarettes were advertised in motor racing, boys aged 12 to 13 who liked motor racing were significantly more likely to smoke than boys who were not so interested in that sport. Clearly, such advertising works; if it did not, companies would not spend so much money on it. Sports sponsorships and endorsements are highly effective marketing tools.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
That is a very interesting point, and it goes to the heart of commercial contracts. Money talks and money is very powerful, but we must be careful about that when establishing these rules, because the legal system will always find a way to argue. I can imagine some big cases being brought in relation to this if we are not careful.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is, of course, correct.
On advertising and sponsorship, page 101 of the impact assessment states:
“Sponsorship agreements are a form of indirect advertising”—
I agree—
“and there has recently been growing concern about the existence of agreements which promote vaping and nicotine products. These agreements normalise the products and may make them seem cool, having a potentially negative influence on the usage of the products among children and non-smokers.
For nicotine vapes, Ofcom regulations prohibit sponsorship of news and current affairs programmes, and any sponsorship of programming which promotes nicotine vapes. The Communications Act 2003 also prohibits sponsorship of on-demand programme services or a programme on these services which promote nicotine vapes. However, for broader settings such as sports events and teams, music festivals and cultural events, sponsorship which promotes nicotine vapes is permitted.”
It is good that the Minister, in this clause, seeks to prevent such sponsorship—particularly the sort of sponsorship that targets children.
Subsection (1)(a) of both clauses states that a person is party to an agreement entered into “at any time”. That provision does not appear to differentiate between agreements made before and after the Bill becomes law. I understand that the Minister wants to ensure that there is not a sudden flurry of activity in the commercial world to put sponsorship agreements in place before these regulations come into force—we do not want companies to say, “Well, we are bound by this contract for so many years, Minister. We are stuck now”—but does he intend to apply the clause retroactively? Somebody who saw the Bill when it came before the House in March and April, saw it in its other format, or saw the manifesto commitments of all major parties to this Bill in some form or another, may have entered into such agreements already. I would be interested to hear what plans the Minister has to deal with those circumstances.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In my previous life, I worked in commercial contracts. The hon. Lady can be reassured that a typical commercial contract would require that any participant to it must adhere to the laws and applicable regulations in any jurisdiction in which the contract is governed. Regardless of the Government’s intention, which I am sure the Minister will talk about, there should be an overarching clause in most standard commercial contracts about adherence to applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction to which the contract applies.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. That is another example of why it is important to have a wide spectrum of people on Committees. Of course, that is usually the case, but I am interested to know what the Minister’s intention is with “at any time”. Does he intend it to apply to contracts retrospectively? Presumably he does, but I want to clarify that.
I welcome the constraints on tobacco, vape and nicotine product advertising and sponsorship for this purpose, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions.
Gregory Stafford
I have some brief points to make on clauses 124 and 125 about the prohibition of sponsorship and the exceptions to it. Clearly, indirect advertising through sponsorship is a subtle form of advertising, associating brands with popular events and activities to enhance their appeal. By prohibiting such sponsorship, the Bill seeks to close that indirect advertising channel, and that is important, especially when it comes to youth protection. Sponsorships often target events frequented by young people, such as concerts and sporting events. I accept that neither of those things are exclusively for young people, but they often have a preponderance of younger people. Preventing such associations reduces the likelihood of youth exposure to brand imagery that could encourage the initiation of smoking or vaping.
I understand why there need to be exceptions to the sponsorship prohibition, and clause 125 mentions some. But although those exceptions acknowledge certain realities—I am not going to pretend that they do not exist—they need to be carefully regulated to prevent abuse. As I said in debates on previous clauses, clear guidelines are necessary to delineate the boundaries of the exceptions. I hope the Minister can once again give us some clarity and assurance on those.
Jack Rankin
In my home office, I have a wonderful watercolour painting of the Lord’s pavilion that celebrates Lancashire winning the Benson & Hedges cup final sometime in the mid-1990s. I know the Minister is a proud Lancashire man, like me, and I agree with him that although we want to see again the days of Lancashire winning cricket tournaments, none of us would want to go back to the days of Benson & Hedges sponsoring sports competitions, so I will support the Minister and the Government on clause 124.
On clause 125, however, I will have to disagree with the Government. As we have already discussed, vaping and nicotine pouches are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. In my view, this clause opens us up to inconsistency across the board. I say that because sponsorship is currently permitted for alcohol and gambling. To me, it makes no sense for vapes to be treated differently. In response to my earlier comments, the point was made that tobacco is uniquely harmful; it is different, in its public health damage, from alcohol and gambling. But I do not fully buy that. I see these things as a spectrum. If people want to say to me that cigarettes are uniquely harmful versus alcohol and gambling, I am prepared to believe that, but I am afraid that when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products and to gambling, these things are a spectrum.
I represent Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses. Ascot racecourse is in effect the Wembley of racing worldwide, and Royal Windsor is very much in the top tier. I find myself having to defend them quite often when people want to legislate on gambling, because having a cash bet at a racecourse event is a healthy thing to do as part of a day out. That should be treated very differently from somebody in an online casino in the early hours of the morning or on a fixed odds betting terminal. Gambling is a spectrum, and I suggest to the Committee that tobacco and nicotine products are also a spectrum.
I say this with sincerity. The Labour party’s seats may spread much further than they used to, but certainly Labour’s core seats, which perhaps the Minister and the Chair represent—
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
From a public health point of view, I just point out to the hon. Member that we are basing this Bill on evidence and therefore we are looking at the evidence of tobacco harm, which I think we agree on. There is incontrovertible evidence; tobacco is undoubtedly harmful. People should not start smoking tobacco, and we should assist those who come forward to stop.
In relation to vaping, I go back to a previous comment I made, about the precautionary principle. There is evidence on vaping; there do appear to be some harms associated with vaping. There is not sufficient evidence right now for it to be incontrovertible, but it would be irresponsible not to adopt the precautionary principle that we use in public health.
In relation to gambling, I just urge caution—again, on the evidence. There may not be incontrovertible evidence about gambling, but there are undoubtedly health harms from gambling that we need to look at as we move forward.
Dr Johnson
I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing West about the precautionary principle. One of the differences between tobacco products—for example, cigarettes—and vapes is that tobacco products in the form of cigarettes are relatively more uniform in their component parts than are vapes, and it may take quite a long time to work out which of the chemical components of vapes are harmful, so we do need to be more precautionary with that.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here.
Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
We are straying from the point a little, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Premier League will shortly initiate a shirt front ban on gambling sponsors? His examples of free advertising and sponsorship of gambling will probably be out of date soon.
Jack Rankin
I am glad to hear that—it sounds like positive news, but I will finish my point and go down the list. Crystal Palace FC is sponsored by Net88, a Vietnamese betting company; Everton FC by Stake, an Australian online casino; Fulham FC by SBOBET, a Philippine gambling company; Leicester FC by BC.Game; Nottingham Forest FC is—
The Chair
Order. I take the point, but I can allow the comparison to go only so far. We are not talking about gambling. Members must try to stick to the debate that we should be having, not to the one that we should not be having.
Jack Rankin
I will bring my remarks to a close, Mr Dowd, but I will make the point that some of these sponsors are online crypto casinos. I would argue that they are worse than vapes, so I think some inconsistency is being introduced in the law.
Let me suggest one way in which we could un-work that inconsistency, which I have seen in the Six Nations. Guinness Zero now sponsors the competition, rather than Guinness. It seems to me that we should allow low or no-alcohol beers to engage in these activities, and I see vaping as analogous. I believe that there is an analogy there, but an inconsistency is being applied by this clause.
I will also make a point about the technicality of some of the clauses—I hope that the Minister can point to some of this later. Clause 125(1)(c) mentions sponsorship of
“a herbal smoking product…cigarette papers…a vaping product…a nicotine product,”
but annex B of the explanatory notes on page 102 mentions
“any device which is intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products or herbal smoking products”.
Will the Minister provide clarity on what other devices we are seeking to capture? For instance, will tobacco filters fall under the sponsorship ban? Will his Department propose a Government amendment to update the text of the Bill to provide clarity and remove that potential loophole?
Sarah Bool
I will make two points. First, I understand where my h F the shadow Minister is coming from in terms of the questions about enforceability and when these things come into effect. Clause 124(1)(a) states that for tobacco products:
“A person commits an offence if…the person is party to an agreement (entered into at any time),”
which will obviously be consistent; but clause 125(1)(a) states that a person commits an offence only if
“the person is party to an agreement entered into on or after the day on which this section comes into force”.
I can see the point that the Minister is making. Will we see a rush of sponsorship agreements on vaping coming in in the next few weeks before we get this Bill on the statute book? That is a legitimate question to raise, and we should all be aware of that possibility.
Generally, it is important that we tackle and take on seriously the role of sponsorship. I do not think that I am alone in recalling the impact of Pepsi and its sponsorship of the Spice Girls when I was young. Its campaign aimed at Generation X had 92 million cans with the Spice Girls on them, which obviously had a big impact. I will be honest and say that I loved the Spice Girls, but seeing anything like that has a massive impact when we are children, so tackling it is absolutely right. Pepsi sponsors the National Football League, Coca-Cola sponsors the Olympics and I think Carlsberg has always sponsored Liverpool FC, so we can see that brand alignment.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point much more eloquently than I did that there is a difference in the clauses between the days when they come into force. As she is a lawyer who has been involved in contracts, can she confirm that there is no limit to how long someone can enter into a contract? If a contract were entered into in terms of sponsoring vaping or nicotine products before the Bill comes into force, it may last for quite some time.
Sarah Bool
That is a possibility. It always depends on the terms of the contract itself, but in theory they could agree a 10 or 15-year contract and sponsorship deal. It is interesting that this could be one of the overhangs that we see, so we have to be aware of it going forward.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses make it an offence for a person to be involved with a sponsorship agreement where the purpose is to promote in the course of business tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Anyone convicted of an offence under the provisions may be subject to imprisonment, a fine, or both. Tobacco sponsorship is currently banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. There is a long-standing, well-established relationship between tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption.
Clause 124 restates the current position for a person involved in the sponsorship of a tobacco product. We are consolidating existing tobacco legislation in the Bill to provide a coherent narrative for readers, rather than have it spread over lots of different pieces of legislation. A large part of the Bill brings the legislation into one place, so that from Royal Assent onwards, the go-to place for anybody with any questions about tobacco control will be this piece of legislation, rather than it being dispersed across different Acts of Parliament.
Tobacco sponsorship is already banned, but importantly, the Bill expands the offence to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping and nicotine products. The restriction will mean that vaping and other nicotine product companies will, for example, not be permitted to sponsor sports teams, which is something that we have seen in recent years. It might upset the hon. Member for Windsor, but I have to say that not a single child should ever be able to look up at their favourite sports stars—people who should be role models—and see them covered in branding for products that are harmful and addictive. That is the point here.
Dr Johnson
Would the Minister like to comment on whether many of the athletes may feel uncomfortable wearing shirts with such branding on?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
To reinforce the point that athletes may be uncomfortable wearing that type of branding, they are not only role models for children, but the epitome of health, fitness and what the human body can achieve. It seems outrageous that they should be advertising harmful products.
Andrew Gwynne
Well, some of them are—the way Man City have been playing this season, I am not quite sure. Anyway, we will get back on to the Bill as quickly as possible.
The ban will apply to agreements entered into after the clause comes into force, two months after Royal Assent. It will be an offence if a contribution is made from either party after the specified date, which will be set out in future regulations. The ban will apply to any agreements entered into after that date, and will therefore not apply to existing contracts. The reason for the two-month period is to provide businesses with advance warning and to prevent them from entering into new agreements.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked whether this could create a rush to get sponsorship deals in place within that two-month window. That is a fair question, but I think that is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, sponsorship deals are pretty tricky contracts and it tends to take more than two months to reach contractual agreement. Secondly, even if matters were expedited, most clubs already have their deals in place, and they would not replace something when they already have a contractual arrangement for something else. Were that unlikely scenario to play out, we would be looking at only a small number of cases anyway.
When drawing up the regulations, we will have to be careful to ensure that no new contract can be signed, and certainly not for the kind of time period that the shadow Minister set out. That would be really out of the spirit of this legislation and the Government might have to come back to tighten it up further.
Dr Johnson
I have a couple of questions about the rush of people trying to get contracts. First, presumably such a contract would not need to start straight away, so one could enter into a sponsorship agreement for some future period. As the Minister said, the sponsorship agreements are done for this season and being negotiated for the next, but presumably that would not stop a business entering into a contract to provide sponsorship for the next season, or even the season after. When the Government brought in VAT on private school fees—I should declare an interest here—they put in a forestalling measure that prevented anyone from entering into a contract to pay them ahead from, I believe, 28 July last year. They seem to be taking a much more lenient approach to the advertisers and sponsors of vaping and nicotine products than they are to parents wishing to pay for their children’s education.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point; I will take that away and look at it. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, everyone on the Committee agrees that we do not want our footballers, rugby stars or athletes to be emblazoned with adverts for vaping products, so the more we can do to tighten up the legislation further, the better.
I will just politely correct the hon. Member for Windsor that the term for someone from the historic County Palatine—including yourself, Mr Dowd—is a Lancastrian. My late father was the Lancashire cricket correspondent, first for Cricket Call, which was a BT paid-for service, and then for BBC North West. He was there in 1990 when Lancashire won both the NatWest and Benson & Hedges cup finals—the double at Lord’s. I still have copies of my late father’s book, “Double Delight”. I would say that they are available at all good booksellers, but they are available from me if the hon. Gentleman wants one.
The hon. Member for Windsor made an important point. I had just come out of secondary school in 1990, which shows how long ago it was, but it was pretty commonplace for tobacco companies to advertise at major sporting events like Lancashire cricket matches and others. The fact is that that was a long time ago, and things have changed for the better. The Benson & Hedges cup final, in cricket of all games, is a thing of the past. Hopefully, at some stage in the near future, we will look back at vape sponsorship of football clubs as a thing of the past, because that is where it deserves to be.
Sarah Bool
This is just off the top of my head, but on a technical point about clause 125(1), in terms of vape sponsorship, a person will be guilty of an offence only after the provision comes into force. I appreciate that there is the two months, but they also have the window of time while the Bill goes through Parliament, so they potentially have a couple more months for that.
I do wonder about how this is going to work in practice, because, in theory, a company that is offering sponsorship—if they enter into that agreement now—will not be in trouble for the next couple of years for doing that, yet under preceding clauses anyone who designed or printed material for any of those sponsorship deals would be guilty of an offence. We suddenly have a position where, potentially, the sponsors themselves are not guilty of an offence while the actual designers, and those who are publishing the sponsorship material, are. That is an interesting nuance.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. When we look at things in isolation, as we tend to do with these clauses, we look at them through a narrow prism, but this Bill contains a wide range of powers and legal responsibilities that will help to make things like those sponsorship deals incredibly difficult before the legislation is in force. It is very clear that, after Royal Assent, the requirements that the hon. Lady rightly sets out in terms of advertising, printing, publishing and so on will apply, and separately there will be this two-month window that we are giving, but the whole of the law needs to be read together. Hopefully that gives some assurances on why we believe that these measures, taken in the round, are as robust as they can be.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I am grateful that the Minister will take away the point raised by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, discuss it with officials and come back to us. When doing so, it will be worth reflecting on the fact that, as the hon. Lady knows from her previous work, a lot of commercial contracts tend to have force majeure clauses, which may well envisage legislative changes in countries relevant to the jurisdiction of the contract that could impact the commercial value of that contract. This may not be as big a problem as some fear, but it is something to be looked at as part of this work. Of course, given that the average wealth of a Premier League club is £1.2 billion, I am sure they would survive such a clause being activated in those examples.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am grateful that we have somebody from the legal profession on this Committee to advise this Minister, who is not a lawyer, on provisions that may well be put into any kind of contractual discussion that may be starting now, and to alert the parties to such a contract that the law in the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom is changing and will therefore affect any agreements that are being put into place in advance of that legislation coming in. That is an important point.
Mr Barros-Curtis
There is one further point that I wish to make. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and the shadow Minister were talking about the display of logos or company names on football shirts as an example of the practicalities of enforcement. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that, in European games, when teams that are sponsored by, for example, an alcoholic beverage or gambling company are playing countries where that is prohibited, the shirts of the relevant football team tend to have black tape over the logos, to prevent them from being displayed in the ground and on TV across the world.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend, as well as being a sound lawyer, is a sound mind reader, because that was precisely my next point. Rightly, Members are testing the legislation. The purpose of this Committee is to tease out how we expect the legislation to work. When it comes to sporting events, from time to time there will be English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish teams playing in other countries, and more importantly teams from other countries playing within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend rightly points to the existing practice that where something is illegal, those images are covered up.
Gregory Stafford
I am going to test the Minister’s legal knowledge now—perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West or one of his officials can come in and save him. Is the Minister saying that when that happens in other countries, it is due to a legal requirement? I understood that it was to be culturally sensitive to the nation we were playing in, rather than there being a legal requirement—for example, covering up alcoholic drinks in a country that does not approve of alcoholic drinks. Conversely, in the Bill and in the regulations, is there something that says that those sponsorships, which would be vapes or tobacco in this country, would require some sort of covering up or a change to a kit with vapes advertised on it if a country were playing here?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. The answer is going to be the stock answer that I have given throughout—that much of this detail will be down to how we draft the regulations and so on. The law of the United Kingdom and its four respective jurisdictions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the law of the land. This Parliament, in passing this legislation, expects the law of the land to be adhered to. If the law of the land is not adhered to, there are strong enforcement measures and penalties for those not applying the law as passed by Parliament.
Going back to existing contracts, it is really important to emphasise the legal advice that the Government received in the drafting of the Bill: that we need to be proportionate and pragmatic and we cannot retrospectively legislate to stop existing contracts. It is really important that we avoid retrospectivity in the design of the clauses in front of us, because the principle that underpins our legal system is that the law is prospective, not retrospective.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that, and I completely agree. Learned colleagues and others with legal training will probably remember the auspices of what Parliament can and cannot do. I appreciate that this is something the Minister will have to take away but, while fully agreeing that Parliament cannot be retrospective in the legislation it passes, is it not the case with commercial contracts that there will typically be a requirement for the parties to adhere to the laws that apply to the jurisdiction and to the parties themselves?
Of course, those laws can change in the future. It is not that it is a day one obligation at the time the contract is entered into and then is never checked again. It has to be an ongoing obligation. While I fully understand the point and agree with what the Minister is saying, can he take away that point about the ongoing obligation and the advice? That way, people who have these types of contracts can rely on knowing whether they are or are not in breach of the Act—if, as we all hope, the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend sets out a really important point. I am happy to take that away for officials to look at. We want to ensure that companies that currently sponsor sports kits are no longer able to do so, and that sports clubs that have entered into such contracts are not allowed to extend them beyond the dates of their current existence. His brain is much more legalistic than mine, and we do not want the intention behind the law to be circumvented using legal routes that the best lawyers in the land will probably use to try to find a way around it. I will ask my officials to look at that in more detail, because it is a really important point. I hope he accepts that response.
Dr Johnson
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is trying to make about a standard clause being that if a contract breaches the law, the contract falls. In clause 125, however, the Minister appears to be giving a company that promotes vapes by sponsorship an opportunity to enter into a contract, before the legislation comes into force, that would be legal afterwards.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is right. There will be a narrow window in which that will be possible—[Interruption.] She asks why, and it is because once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will bring in a two-month window. That is how the law is shaped, to give us the scope to get these measures right and ensure that we make the framework as watertight as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West wants. We believe that that is the proportionate way forward. We cannot make retrospective decisions; if contractual arrangements are under way at Royal Assent, an immediate cut-off could leave the Government open to challenge.
Sarah Bool
I understand that two-month period, but does it also apply to the earlier provisions on the creation of offences relating to publication? If we had some alignment there, neither party could potentially be in breach. That is merely a technical point, however.
The other point—perhaps for when the Minister goes back to the Department—is about force majeure, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned and which I would like more investigation into. Force majeure concerns acts of God, or something unexpected. I think lawyers would argue that a Government Bill was expected and foreseen, so there would have to be some other form of break clause or right. This debate is getting far too technical for this forum, but it is perhaps something that the Minister can take away.
Andrew Gwynne
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, we will take all this away and look at it in detail, and we will come back to Members. I am just about legally savvy enough to understand the point that the hon. Lady is making that a break clause or something like it would probably be required, because the coming into law of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill on Royal Assent is expected—it is not an act of God, and it will not come as a complete shock and surprise.
Finally, clause 133 allows us to extend all of part 6 to cover devices that enable a
“tobacco product to be consumed”
or
“an item which is intended to form part of such a device”,
but that are not in the Bill.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
On the conversation we were having previously, does the reference in clause 125(3) to a “specified date” mean that we can have an open discussion with the Secretary of State in the next stage of the Bill’s passage about deciding at what point the provision will apply to the contracts?
Andrew Gwynne
I will take that away, because I do not know the answer off the top of my head. In bringing forward regulations, the Secretary of State and I will want to ensure that we get these measures right. That is why there are statutory duties to consult on secondary legislation throughout the Bill. That will ensure that we get these measures and the details right, and that there will hopefully be no ambiguity about the different dates for the offences of printing, publishing and distributing advertisements or about those related to sponsorship deals and the production of the kits that come out of them. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)