Accessibility of Radiotherapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir John.

As we discuss the future of radiotherapy services, it is essential that we acknowledge the vital role our radiographers, medical physicists and oncologists play, along with all the nursing staff and others, in the delivery of care.

The professionals are the backbone of any successful radiotherapy service, and without them progress is impossible. However, it is clear that Governments have faced significant challenges in both staffing and infrastructure. I will take this opportunity to scrutinise the current state of radiotherapy services and the plans to address those concerns. The demand for radiotherapy has increased substantially in recent years, driven primarily by one factor: our ageing population, and the fact that as we grow older our chances of being diagnosed with cancer increase significantly. However, radiotherapy is and remains one of the most cost-effective treatments available within the NHS. Previous Governments recognised that fact, and between 2016 and 2021 they invested £162 million to enable the replacement or upgrade of approximately 100 radiotherapy machines.

Since April 2022, the responsibility for investing in new machines has sat with local integrated care boards in England, supported by the 2021spending review, which set aside money for the purpose. As hon. Members have said, to keep up with increasing demand and the need for cutting-edge care, there must be significant sustained investment in radiotherapy services. Radiotherapy is one of the most technologically advanced areas of healthcare, so it is incumbent on us to keep up with the latest scientific developments.

It is welcome that the Government have announced £70 million for new radiotherapy machines, but Radiotherapy UK has said that that is not enough and has suggested that the Government invest five times that amount to upgrade out-of-date machines. I would appreciate clarification on that point. The Government have consistently stated in written answers that funding for new radiotherapy machines will be allocated by ICBs using criteria set by NHS England, but how will they monitor the upgrading of the machines across ICB areas to ensure that that takes place and to prevent the postcode lottery that Members have described? Furthermore, NHS England has confirmed that it will give high-performing local systems greater freedom around capital spending. Will such freedoms include capital retention, which can be used to invest in new radiotherapy equipment?

One of the most pressing issues is the need for a comprehensive long-term strategic plan for radiotherapy from the Government. The absence of such a plan hinders the ability to think strategically about the future of cancer care and to make the necessary investment to meet growing demand. I am glad that today, World Cancer Day, the Government have committed to produce a new cancer plan. We are told that it will include details about how outcomes for cancer patients, including waiting times, will be improved. Will the Minister indicate whether it will provide specifics on the roll-out of radiotherapy machines in the short, medium and long term?

In response to a written question last month, the Minister clarified:

“NHS England does not hold any data on the effectiveness of radiotherapy machines relative to the number of doses that they deliver.”

Hon. Members have said that newer machines will be able to deliver more doses more quickly. I would be interested to know whether the Department has any plans to collect such data.

Of course, any strategic plan should focus not just on the machines, but on the people who operate them—the radiotherapy workforce. What steps are the Government taking to improve the recruitment and retention of the radiotherapy workforce?

In a written question, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked the Government whether they had consulted or planned to consult with clinical experts, the radiotherapy industry, patients or charities about how best to allocate the funds announced in the Budget for the new radiotherapy machines. The Minister responded by saying:

“The Department has no plans to consult on this matter”,

and reiterated that the funding would be allocated using NHS England criteria. The Minister today announced the plan to produce a cancer strategy. Will that include radiotherapy? Will he commit to working with Radiotherapy UK and providers to improve access to radiotherapy treatment where it is currently lacking?

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a very compelling case about long journeys. He spoke about a service in his constituency, and there are others that are similarly affected. We know that earlier treatment affects survival rates. I asked the Minister a question in the main Chamber earlier about the 62-day target, and I did not hear him answer. Will he confirm that he intends to stick to the Health Secretary’s previous commitment to reaching the 62-day target by the end of this Parliament?

In addition to Government investment, the private sector plays a role in ensuring the future success of radiotherapy services. The NHS has signed a significant partnership agreement with the independent sector to increase capacity for diagnostic and elective procedures, which will help to reduce waiting times, but it is not clear whether that agreement includes treatment equipment such as radiotherapy machines. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will work with the independent sector to upgrade equipment such as radiotherapy machines? A partnership that includes capital investment in radiotherapy equipment could ease the burden on the NHS and speed up access to treatment for patients.

I know the Minister is hugely motivated to do all he can to improve cancer care, as we all are. This debate should have helped to give him a steer on how that can be achieved.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a few moments for Mr Farron to say a final word of wind-up, and Mr Farron, in turn, to leave me a few moments to put the question.

National Cancer Plan

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank all the NHS workers, charities, scientists and others working to help those with cancer.

We can all agree that tackling cancer should be a top priority for the NHS. From diagnosing people quickly to starting treatment quickly and using the latest technology and drugs, we all want to see improvements. The recent trends in cancer survival rates are positive. The one-year survival rate for cancer increased by 5.9% between 2010 and 2020, and the five-year survival rate increased by 4.3% in the same period. Despite those improvements, we are not yet where we want to be, and we will be up front about that.

In government, we took action to catch cancer sooner and boost survival rates, with initiatives such as lung cancer screening and prostate cancer trials, and we welcome that Labour is continuing with that mission. We will work constructively with the Government on that, as we all want to achieve the same positive outcomes. However, the statement as a whole is rather disappointing. The Minister has told us that this is a cancer plan, but it is not; it is a statement that there is to be one. The Government saying that they want cancer survival rates to increase and that they are going to have a plan does not make it so—we need the plan itself.

The announcement of the AI trial in breast cancer is a welcome approach. Artificial intelligence has the capacity to revolutionise the way we diagnose disease, and I am delighted that the Government wish to explore those opportunities. We also very much welcome the relaunch of the children and young people’s cancer taskforce, and are pleased it will be able to continue its valuable work under the co-chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and Professor Darren Hargrave. It is just a shame that the Labour Government wasted seven months by suspending the Conservative taskforce, only to reinstate it now.

I note the Minister’s comments about waiting times to start treatment, and we agree that these must improve. I am sure it will not have escaped his notice that NHS Wales, which has been under a Labour Administration for 25 years, has a poorer performance, and I am certain he would not want party politics to affect such an issue. Can he tell the House what conversations he is having with his Welsh counterparts to improve cancer care there?

I am also concerned that last month, the Government appeared to quietly abandon the target of ensuring that patients receive treatment a maximum of 62 days from an urgent referral of suspected cancer, despite the Health Secretary having said before the election that a Labour Government would meet that target within the first term. Will the Minister clarify his commitment to the 62-day target?

More scanners are, of course, welcome, but what are the Government doing to ensure that there are enough trained professionals to interpret the results of the scans effectively?

With charities such as Macmillan and Marie Curie being hit with devastating increases in national insurance contributions, what help will be provided so that they do not have to cut back the vital support and guidance services they provide to cancer patients?

Anyone who has faced cancer will know that time is of the essence. The second half of the year—if it is not until December—could be quite a long time from now. Will the Minister therefore be more clear about when he intends to publish the plan? May I recommend using the evidence collected in our 2022 call for evidence, as well as the policies of the interim major conditions strategy, published in 2023, to speed up the plan? The quicker the Government act, the more lives they will be able to save.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I start by genuinely thanking the shadow Minister for the co-operation she has pledged as we seek to improve the outcomes for people with cancer. This is not a party political issue. We all want people to be diagnosed more quickly and to be put on the effective treatment pathways as quickly as possible, and we all want people to have better outcomes. I would just remind her, however, that while progress was made over the past decade, as I referred to in the statement, Lord Darzi clearly set out that the rate of progress was much slower than in comparator countries, and that we could and should have been on a much better trajectory.

That is why we are committed to a new national cancer plan—something for which the sector has been calling for some time. We are going to consult on that plan. I hope the shadow Minister is not suggesting that we should just pull a plan out of thin air without any consultation with the sector, patients or anybody with any interest in cancer.

Of course, things have changed over recent years. New technology has advanced and scientific progress is advancing, although there are still some areas where, stubbornly, there is not enough research. We need to build up the case for research and get the funding in; I think especially of brain tumours, where, quite frankly, things have not progressed at all. We need to ensure that in the 10-year cancer plan, we really drive forward in some of those areas, using the latest technology and scientific advances.

The shadow Minister asked about targets. I just say to her that we have actually strengthened targets, rather than setting new ones for cancer. Currently, the NHS is on track to deliver against its cancer targets for this year. Yes, we should be ambitious where we can, and that is exactly what this Labour Government are going to do.

Draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 General Committees

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Minister said that 17.5 million people in the United Kingdom are living with a long-term health condition. Every time the news comes on of an evening, they will hope that it brings some hope of a new treatment that promises the cure or effective treatment of their condition, or the condition of one whom they love. Unfortunately, the news today tells them that AstraZeneca has cancelled its investment in the UK, which is a big loss for life sciences and cures for people in this country.

Never the less, these regulations are a positive change. This instrument will reform the UK’s clinical trial regulatory regime with the aim of delivering a more

“proportionate, streamlined and effective clinical research environment”

by amending the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. These draft regulations are a response to a public consultation launched under the Conservatives in 2022, which asked for feedback on how the regulation of clinical trials could be improved and strengthened in the UK.

I agree with the Minister that we have an opportunity, now we have left the European Union, to design a world-class, sovereign regulatory environment for clinical trials that supports the development of innovative medicines and ensures that the UK retains and grows its reputation as a world-leading base for life sciences, generating opportunities for skilled jobs in the UK. As Conservatives, we welcome innovation and want to support UK patients getting early access to new and innovative treatments. For those reasons, we welcome the changes.

Among the many changes this instrument would make, it would legislate for a notification scheme to enable lower-risk clinical trials to be automatically approved by the licensing authority, where the risk is similar to that of standard medical care. A favourable opinion from an ethics committee would still be required to safeguard people taking part in the trial. The impact assessment estimates that around 20% of initial clinical trial applications would qualify for the notification scheme.

When asked about eligibility criteria for the scheme, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency explained that an application would be eligible if the medicine being investigated is used in line with its authorised use or established practice, supported by evidence; a previous similar clinical trial of a product has been approved in the last two years; or the same trial has been approved in the United States or a European economic area country.

While the clinical trial sponsor is responsible for determining whether the application meets the criteria for notification, the MHRA stated that a verification process would ensure their determination is correct. The notification scheme currently exists on an opt-in basis. The MHRA says that that has reduced the time required to initiate lower-risk clinical trials by more than 50% without compromising patient safety. That will clearly help people to get the new treatments quicker, and is to be welcomed.

We consider that the draft regulations will simultaneously remove obstacles to sponsors’ carrying out clinical trials, while ensuring the focus remains on protection of those participating in the trials. It will remove the aspects of legislation that are more prescriptive, in favour of introducing greater flexibility and more risk proportionality, to reflect that trial design and operation is evolving with innovations in the products that trials investigate. Ultimately, these proposed new requirements will ensure that trial participants and their safety are at the heart of legislation.

One thing I would like the Minister to clarify is that on the one hand he was saying that this change in regulation will be revolutionary for people getting trials and drugs more quickly, whereas on the other hand he gave a de minimis amount in terms of the financial benefit. Could he explain that contradiction?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the shadow Minister for her support for this piece of secondary legislation, which marks the most substantial update to UK clinical trial regulations in more than two decades. This is an important step forward to deliver a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, all while ensuring the safety of the trial participants. The reforms will deliver a proportionate, flexible and efficient clinical research environment, with patients at the very heart of the process.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of AstraZeneca and the support for life sciences in the UK. Without straying too much from the measures before us, Sir Desmond, I want to reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector. Today we have heard about how vital clinical trials are in driving the health and wealth of the UK. The sector has experienced strong growth in recent years; between 2022 and 2023, the number of UK industry-led clinical trials increased by 3.7%. The UK has also gone up in the global rankings for phase 2 trials, moving from sixth to fourth place.

That progress is a testament to our thriving research ecosystem, something that was developed under the previous Government and that we want to build on, which is what this set of regulations is all about. They are about making sure that our country is at the cutting edge of the latest developments in medical science and that British patients are able to access those treatments as early as possible, through clinical trials and then through the early adoption of those medicines once they are brought to market.

The shadow Minister asked about the de minimis assessment. An assessment of the updated legislation has been produced, which estimates that there will be a total transition cost of approximately £720,000 to business for organisations to familiarise themselves with and operationalise the changes. It is expected that the annual total benefit to businesses will be £1 million, primarily due to the changes in the approval processes. I sought to correct the record in my opening remarks because it had originally been anticipated that we would need to have the full assessment, but on closer scrutiny that is not necessary because of the reasons that I have just set out.

[Dr Johnson]

When the Minister talks about £1 million, is that the benefit to businesses in the current level of trials? Or is that his estimate of the rise in the number of trials as a result of the changes?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Pritchard.

Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 pertain to audiovisual and radio broadcasting restrictions on tobacco, vapes and the related products that we have been discussing endlessly in this Committee. Although there is a strong argument for the measures from a public health perspective, there may be legitimate concerns regarding freedom of expression and the impact on broadcasters and advertisers —I may be pre-empting points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor will raise.

One of the most compelling arguments for the clauses is their role in protecting young people from exposure to tobacco and vaping products. Studies have consistently shown that advertising plays a significant role in influencing smoking and vaping initiation. Research from Cancer Research UK indicates that young people who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to start smoking, and similar findings have been observed with vaping products, where targeted marketing strategies have contributed to a rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers.

By restricting tobacco and vape-related advertisements on television, radio and on-demand services, the clauses aim to reduce the normalisation of smoking and vaping. The UK has already seen the benefits of such measures in relation to tobacco: since the implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, smoking rates have declined significantly. Extending similar restrictions to vaping is the logical next step to ensure that history does not repeat itself, with a new generation becoming dependent on nicotine.

Critics might argue that the clauses may have unintended consequences for broadcasters, advertisers and the creative industries. The sector relies heavily on advertising revenue, and restrictions on tobacco and vaping-related content may limit potential funding sources, particularly for smaller, independent broadcasters, in an already challenging economic environment. However, as we have seen with the existing bans in relation to tobacco, the public health benefits clearly outweigh the potential issues with the funding that broadcasters could get from vape advertisements.

There is a practical consideration about how the clauses are enforced. We must ensure that broadcasters and on-demand services comply with the new restrictions, and that will require regulatory and oversight resources. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of how the provision will be enforced, whether that is through Ofcom or some other means. There is also a concern about what I describe as cross-border broadcasting. Many streaming services operate internationally, so content produced abroad but accessible in the UK may not be subject to the same restrictions, and if it is, ensuring compliance with UK regulations on the global platforms will present a significant challenge. How does the Minister intend to enforce the provisions in those cases?

This is a complex issue and a balanced approach is necessary, but as I have said, investing in public health campaigns alongside the regulatory measures could help to ensure that the public receive accurate information about smoking and vaping. I therefore support the clauses.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I support the clauses too, although I have a couple of questions. I hope the Minister will be so kind as to answer them.

Clause 126 outlines that part 6 does not apply to independent television or radio services, services provided by the BBC or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, on-demand programme services, or non-UK on-demand programme services that are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. Essentially, they will be covered by Ofcom. Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify exclusions for independent television and radio services regulated by Ofcom, provided they are not classified as additional services. Will the Minister clarify how additional television services and digital additional sound services are defined in practice, and what criteria will be used to classify services at the margins of those categories?

The clause exempts services that are defined as on- demand services under section 368A of the Communications Act from provisions of the Bill. In the rapidly evolving digital media landscape, does the Minister believe that the definition of an on-demand programme service is sufficiently clear to encompass emerging service models? Given the rapid growth of online platform streaming services and the desire he previously expressed to future-proof the bill, does he foresee current exclusions in clause 126 remaining relevant in the future? Should how these platforms, whether UK or non-UK based, are regulated be reconsidered, to ensure they adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast media in relation to tobacco and vapes while being viewed in the UK? We keep coming to this point—how online services can be used to circumvent measures of the Bill.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, raised in a number of our debates, about future-proofing the Bill. There is a big discussion going on about artificial intelligence and how that plays in. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has thought about that, or whether the Minister can clarify how artificial intelligence may be used by the tobacco and vaping industry to get round some of the provisions, and whether the future-proofing is strong enough to deal with that.

[Dr Johnson]

I know my hon. Friend is very interested in AI. I am sure that if it is possible to do so, these industries will use any means available to them to maintain their market.

The clause extends the regulations from tobacco to cover all vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. Given my concerns about children and vaping and the use of nicotine, I think this is a sensible measure, which I support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 contain provisions relating to audiovisual services and radio broadcasting. Clause 126 provides that part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, does not apply to certain categories of television and radio service. That is because these services are already prohibited under the Communications Act 2003.

Clause 127 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Communications Act 2003. The amendments extend provisions in that Act that ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products in certain TV and radio services to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. That ensures that the advertising ban on tobacco in television, radio and on-demand programme services is extended to all of those products. In practice, the measure means we will no longer see banned products or promotional material for those products on any of those mediums.

The shadow Minister rightly points out that the services listed in the clause include ITV, independent television and radio, the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru, and on-demand programme services—that covers the points that Members have made—and non-UK on-demand programme services, which are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it also includes programmes produced and aired outside the United Kingdom that are brought into the United Kingdom.

As a helpful aide-mémoire for the Committee, the Communications Act 2003 regulates telecommunications broadcasting. It confers functions on the Office of Communications, a regulator, to oversee the services. The Act puts in place effective rules for the advertising of tobacco on television, radio and on-demand services. By amending the Act, we ensure that this existing framework also applies to vaping products, nicotine products, and cigarette and herbal smoking papers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and add more to the Bill, as we can use the existing provisions in the 2003 Act. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

Enforcement authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 130 and 131 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

The clause outlines the responsibilities and jurisdictions of enforcement authorities tasked with ensuring compliance with part 6, which covers advertising and sponsorship. Subsection (1) establishes that the enforcement authorities are legally bound to enforce the provisions of the Bill, and subsection (2) contains the definition of an “enforcement authority”. All that sounds very straightforward and sensible, but my question is about funding. If the weights and measures authorities are given an obligation to enforce something but not given the resources to enforce it, they are being given a legal obligation with which they have not got the resources to comply.

Paragraphs 613 and 614 of the impact assessment state that the average trading standards service, of which there are 197, has 9.4 full-time equivalent professionally qualified staff. It is assumed that all those staff would need to be familiarised with the policies and all the various regulations once they are passed through Parliament. We have talked about the amount of regulations that will be created under the Bill; staff will need to be trained in all that. In 2024, the cost of such training was estimated at £23,137, but given that the Bill will not come into force until later—we are in 2025 now—that is a moot point. How much does the Minister think training will cost once all the regulations are up and running? Clause after clause of the Bill provides for regulations to be made, which may be done in one go or several, repeating the need for training.

The impact assessment also talks about the cost of training for the Advertising Standards Authority, estimating it to be £1,945. If it costs that to train all the staff from the ASA on a given topic, it suggests the rest of the public sector’s training could definitely be made more efficient. I suggest that the Minister has a chat with the Chancellor about it—I believe she is looking for ways to make the country more efficient, which she has done so far by making businesses not exist—as it seems a little out of kilter, although I was not sure whether it was a dot or a comma. The impact assessment also measures what it believes Ofcom would need to enforce the training under the new measures. It estimates £3,500 for the staff there, but again, does the Minister think that is realistic?

Clause 130 is about the power of Ministers to take over enforcement functions in a specific case. We have talked at some length in previous debates about the potential for abuse of power in such measures. Clause 131, similarly, is about the power of Ministers to take over proceedings as part of the enforcement functions in respect of a specific case. Again, while I can understand the Minister’s desire to be able to take over from a weights and measures authority as a whole if there were to be a problem with the way it was functioning in a specific case, can he give assurances that there would not be any abuse of power in that respect?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. The Government are investing over £100 million over five years to boost His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force’s enforcement capability to tackle illicit tobacco. In 2025-26 we will invest £30 million of new funding for enforcement agencies, including trading standards, Border Force and HMRC, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting them to implement the Bill.

Decisions on funding for trading standards in future years will be made as part of the spending review process, but given our clear commitment to enforcement in the Bill and the fact that we have put down the payment of £30 million for enforcement in the next financial year, I hope hon. Members are assured that we take these matters seriously. We are investing £3 million over two years specifically to enhance the work led by National Trading Standards to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales. That work is carried out through enhancing market surveillance and enforcement action on ports, online sales enforcement, and boosting the storage and disposal of illicit vapes. The new funding for 2025-26 will build on this work to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales.

The shadow Minister asked how trading standards will use their additional enforcement funding. The crucial point is that we want to boost trading standards’ capacity, to enable the services to conduct more under-age sales test purchases, remove illicit products from the market and identify non-compliant products and bring them into compliance where possible.

[Dr Johnson]

My question was not simply how trading standards will use the money allocated, but whether the Minister feels that the money he has allocated is adequately purposed?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do, which I have just said. The £30 million in the next financial year to boost the enforcement agencies will meet the needs that the Bill sets out. It is also about boots on the ground and having greater capacity. We will be working with trading standards on this additional enforcement funding to ensure that they increase their capacity and are able to take on the roles and responsibilities that the Bill places on them. We will continue to discuss with trading standards how we can best support them in respect of the measures of the Bill. I commend the measures to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 130 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133

Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 133 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, and the Communications Act 2003 to other products, specifically products that are devices of a specified description enabling a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a heated tobacco device or pipe, or an item that is intended to form part of such a device. It allows the Secretary of State to consult with the required persons and gain consent where required with the devolved legislatures. However, how will the Secretary of State further define that, and can the Minister give us some examples of the types of products that might be included under the power? Could it allow for the expansion of regulation to a wide range of products not originally envisaged in the Bill?

The inclusion of devices and items potentially covers a wide array of consumer products without any clear boundary. What are the specific criteria or considerations that the Secretary of State must use when deciding whether to extend the provisions? Could that lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decision making, depending on the political or public health priorities of the Government of the day? The wording seems to give considerable latitude, but not much clarity on when or how the Secretary of State should exercise the power.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very happy to answer the question posed by the shadow Minister. It is a simple answer: we need clause 133 to avoid loopholes. Otherwise, newer products such as heated tobacco—and those products that have not even been developed yet—are in scope of the restrictions, but devices used alongside them could still be used to promote tobacco consumption.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136

Addition of smoke-free places in England

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I remind Members that we are at this point talking about amendments, so any comments should be restricted to those amendments. We can talk about the generalities of the clause later in the debate. It is always helpful to have a reminder of that—for myself as well.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for clearly laying out what he seeks to do. I understand that his desire to see a healthy population is driving his good intentions behind this amendment, but I have some concerns. We are creating an offence of smoking in specific places: that requires buy-in from the public, because we police with consent, and the public need that knowledge. I visit Newcastle a reasonable amount, and I did not know that there was a rule banning smoking on park benches. I do not smoke, so it did not apply to me in any case, but it is conceivable that others are not aware that Newcastle has local rules.

I am concerned about the consistency of such measures and about people’s awareness of where it is possible to do something; otherwise, we will create criminal offences and fine people large amounts of money for doing something they had no reason to prevent themselves from doing because they had no way of knowing. The Government are also in the midst of reorganising —or trying to reorganise—all the local authorities; if local authorities are going to make such decisions and then be reorganised, that could further add to complexity and confusion for the public.

For people who smoke, we want to limit the harms to their health and ensure they have the opportunity to quit or to minimise those harms. Not everybody has a garden or outside space of their own. If they live in a flat and are a smoker, only being able to smoke in that flat because all the outside spaces are gone will increase the dangers to them, for health and for other reasons. My personal opinion is that these laws, or at least the principle of which spaces may and may not count, should be made nationally—even if there is some local guidance to be followed.

That is why we will come to the principle of which sort of spaces, because at the moment it is any space. It is conceivable therefore that, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, a group of local councils could decide to make all outdoor spaces of all kinds smoke-free. While I would find that desirable as a non-smoker, it would not be good for the overall health of the 11% of people who do smoke.

[Gregory Stafford]

Looking at the amendments, I can see why the hon. Member for Dartford wants to do this. There clearly could be public health benefits and, as a localist myself, I am naturally sympathetic to having local decisions made as close to people as possible. I think the point I made during the intervention stands, however: the potential for confusion among people who are potentially not from the area, or who are from the area but do not understand the local byelaws, probably makes the amendments unworkable.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned that smoking prevalence is higher in places of social deprivation. The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting it would therefore be better to enforce regulations, or byelaws for regulations, in those areas. I can see the public health impact, but we must not ghettoise people who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and who are more likely to smoke, as seen in the evidence. The shadow Minister makes a good point that people who do not have outside space, and who may have children and not want to smoke and vape in their properties because they are rightly worrying about their children’s health, will find that difficult if there are local byelaws in place that prevent it. I think that is especially true with women who smoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Taking on board what you said, Mr Pritchard, I just want to build on the point that my hon. Friend made about enforcement—I always talk about enforcement in practice. I want to know how rules will be advertised between different jurisdictions. I think we will end up spending an inordinate amount of money on trying to run a campaign that could have been better spent on helping with smoking cessation or on more practical measures.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about the enforcement and practicalities of such a move. If we have a national campaign and national uniformity about the areas in which one can and cannot smoke, that will be quite straightforward for people to understand and there will be no real excuses for breaking the rules. If the advertising has to be done locally, it will have to be continuous to reach all the visitors and tourists who come to that town or city.

[Sarah Bool]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like us to consider this issue when we look at whether to take these proposals any further. I cannot see how we can ensure in practice that everyone knows what is happening without there being a national campaign.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that point. Many Members would prefer that local councils were dealing with potholes rather than advertising those different spaces, but I thank him for his amendment and his proposal.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 14 defines a local authority as

“a county council…a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”

By the time we get to next summer, Lincolnshire will probably have district councils, a county council and a mayoral authority—I do not agree with having a mayoral authority, because I think that is too many tiers of government, but that is an aside. What if those authorities do not agree? If we give them all the power to make regulations, they could all make different regulations based on different opinions—as is currently the case in Lincolnshire, the various authorities are not always under the control of the same political party.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for bringing this issue before the Committee. As we have heard, amendment 11 would introduce a power for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places in England, which would sit alongside the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations in the same regard.

As we know, the Bill expands the Secretary of State’s powers to create additional smoke-free places at the national level. In England, the Government have already indicated that we intend to extend the smoke-free designation to outdoor places including children’s playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, but not to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces such as beaches. The reforms we are setting out in the Bill will be subject to full consultation, and we want to hear the views of people from across the country to ensure that we get them right.

As drafted, the Bill gives no additional powers to local authorities. However, they have existing mechanisms for designating certain spaces as smoke-free. As we have heard, areas such as Manchester, my home city, have already used pavement licensing provisions to ensure that people have smoke-free options when they consume food and drink in certain locations, and that works well. Some local authorities have implemented public space protection orders to prohibit smoking in certain areas. For example, the London borough of Enfield has used a public spaces protection order to restrict smoking within the boundaries of children’s playgrounds. Of course, that will be obsolete should the consultation for the national scheme extend to children’s playgrounds, as we intend it to.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the Minister for making those interesting points. Can he clarify whether powers such as those enacted in Enfield create a criminal offence?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We want to ensure that people who are smokers are not criminalised. Public space protection orders do potentially go down the criminal route. We want to ensure that that is not the case, which is why the Enfield scheme would of course be obsolete under the later provisions—which we are going to discuss today, hopefully—in relation to extending national outdoor smoke-free places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I suspect we are straying off the measures before us, Mr Pritchard, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is a statutory duty in this Bill. Were the Secretary of State, or indeed Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish Ministers, to seek to change the scope in the future, they would have a duty at every stage to consult further. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I was talking about Enfield and its public spaces protection orders. It is of course for the local authority to determine whether a PSPO is appropriate and that the legal test for implementing a PSPO is met, along with completion of the relevant consultation requirements. Nottingham has created a voluntary smoke-free zone at events, especially those where children are present, and it introduced a smoke-free play park policy in 2015. Other local authorities, such as Oxfordshire county council, have introduced voluntary smoke-free school gates policies. Given the options already available to local authorities and the national reforms introduced through this Bill, which we will debate further, neither the Government nor I think it is necessary to grant these byelaw-making powers via the Bill.

In answer to a point that the shadow Minister raised, which I hope to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, legislation sets out all the different types of local authority. Enforcement in terms of the requirement to police any changes would appertain to the particular local authority, because it would be on that local authority’s land that the measures would apply. For example, in a two-tier area, if the county council as the highways authority deemed that pavement licensing were to be introduced, it would be for the county council to enforce its own measures; if a district council brought in measures in a park for which it was responsible, it would be for the district council. I think that is quite a simple explanation.

I understand that we have a complex jigsaw of local government, but it is for the particular type of council or authority that introduces a measure to enforce it. For example, the pavement licence in the City of Manchester is for the City of Manchester to enforce—not Andy Burnham as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, or indeed the Greater Manchester combined authority. That is pretty simple.

[Dr Johnson]

My question was not so much about the enforcement, which is defined in the Bill as the local weights and measures authority. Amendment 11 says that a local authority may make byelaws. The local authority that may make these byelaws includes the whole range of county councils, district councils and combined authorities, implying that, whoever is enforcing it, those that could make a byelaw could overlap and have contrary views.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Obviously, if a local authority introduces byelaws, as the City of Manchester has done in respect of pavement licensing, it is for that local authority to ensure that those byelaws are adhered to. Of course, in that case, the weights and measures authority is the City of Manchester, so I suppose that makes it easier.

These powers are already being used. Local authorities are already designating areas, whether it is for pavement licences, public space protection orders or just deeming that land within their own responsibility is smoke-free. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I kindly ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to withdraw them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I shall speak to amendments 95 and 94, which stand in my name. Amendment 95 is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dartford a few minutes ago. Members will remember that earlier in the summer the Labour Government suggested that they would include hospitality venues within the scope of outside spaces, which led to pushback from a number of sources, mostly the hospitality industry. Speaking to Sky News on 5 November, the Secretary of State said that it was

“a leak of a Government discussion”,

but that it had promoted

“a really good debate about whether or not it would be proportionate”.

He then said:

“I think people know that the UK hospitality industry has taken a battering in recent years—”.

I agree with the Secretary of State on that. Covid-19 certainly challenged the hospitality industry. The previous Government supported it through business loans, reduced taxation and furlough schemes. Now, just as the industry is getting back on its feet, this Government have battered hospitality providers by raising national insurance contributions, increasing the minimum wage for young people, increasing business rates, introducing the deposit return scheme, and nearly doubling business rates for small businesses. They are indeed taking a battering; we can agree on that. In that Sky News interview, the Secretary of State also said:

“we do not want to add to their pressures, so we are not proposing to go ahead with an outdoor hospitality ban at this time”.

That was in November, but does he still mean it now? How will we know?

The challenge of this clause is trust. The Prime Minister has talked about trust. Before the general election, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, at the Country Land and Business Association conference, that Labour had no intention of changing the rules on agricultural property relief—but they have. The Government’s manifesto said that they would not increase national insurance on working people —but they have. On 11 June, Rachel Reeves told the Financial Times that she had no plans to increase capital gains tax—but she did. Labour said that it would not make changes to pensioner benefits, but then removed the winter fuel allowance. So there is no trusting that this Government will do what they say they are going to do and not do what they explicitly say they will not. I hope the Minister understands my reasoning.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats have a similar amendment to the Conservative amendment on this topic. As I said before, people need some form of open space and not everyone has a garden. There is some confusion about hospitality venues. For example, some pubs have a kids’ play area; will that be treated as a play area within the scope of the regulations, or will it be a hospitality area? Under the current statement, the Secretary of State will not include play areas, but the powers under the clause, which we will come to as a whole, give wide scope for the Minister and the Secretary of State to designate virtually anywhere as smoke-free, with criminal sanction for those smoking or vaping. The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that their only intention is to use these policies for NHS properties, hospital buildings, children’s play areas and education facilities. This being the case, I cannot see why the Minister would not be happy to have that on the face of the Bill. It is the stated intent. I am sure the Government will understand my point about trust.

There are a few minor differences between the Liberal Democrat amendment 4 and the Conservative amendment, mainly in that the Conservative amendment includes nurseries and the Liberal Democrat amendment defines play areas and playgrounds, as opposed to simply playgrounds. These are relatively small differences other than the addition of nurseries, which is beneficial that is where the smallest children are. Clearly smoking in a nursery school is an antisocial behaviour, so it would make sense for them to be included.

Amendment 94 states that:

“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

The Health Act 2006 states that the Secretary of State has to be clear, in his own mind, that there is a risk of high levels of smoke if he is going to ban smoking, so it is a measure of proportionality. Smoking in an outdoor space, miles from anywhere with nobody about, exposes no one but the smoker, making it slightly safer to smoke outside than inside for both the smoker and the people around them.

Why did the Minister choose to remove the “significant smoke” measure from the legislation? Does he feel that there is no significant amount of smoke to be inhaled by somebody who is in an outdoor space with somebody else? What is the chief medical officer’s advice on the amount of smoke that is likely to be inhaled by someone in an outdoor space alongside or nearby someone who is smoking? I understand that there will be a duration issue—how long the person is sat there, how long the smoker is smoking for and how many cigarettes they have, how close the person is and how windy it is—but will the Minister explain why he chose to remove that measure?

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be.

It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it.

The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I have great respect for her public health abilities and knowledge. I accept the points that she made, but Opposition Members feel that including in the Bill areas that will potentially be consulted on being smoke-free is proportionate to ensure that there is not overreach. I know that if the amendments are accepted and, at a future point, attitudes and science change, she will be a doughty campaigner to have the law changed, and I am sure that she will achieve it, if that is the way she wants to go.

[Dr Johnson]

In response to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Worthing West are saying, as a doctor, I have a lot of sympathy with her position. Certainly, if I take my children out for a meal in a restaurant and we sit outside in the summer, having a lovely day in the beer garden, and along comes a family or another group of people who sit and smoke, I dislike that. Whether it should be made illegal is a different matter, but it is something that I do not like.

As my hon. Friend said, there is a balance between enabling someone to do something that we have decided will be legal—that is, someone who is born in the right timeframe to be able to smoke—and giving them somewhere safe to do so. Over time, I suspect the measures that the Bill as a whole grants will lead to a reduction in smoking, which, of course, is its intention. As smoking becomes less prevalent, it is likely that smoking in front of children, particularly in outside hospitality spaces or in other places, will become less socially acceptable. We saw hospitality bring in non-smoking areas in the past.

The hon. Member for Winchester talked about having two different beer gardens in the same pub, one for smoking and one without. It is within the capacity of any given hospitality business to choose, as smoking becomes a minority and antisocial pastime, not to allow it within their facility, and to police that by throwing people out. It is also possible for individuals to choose not to attend a beer garden of a pub where smoking is allowed. To some extent, therefore, the ability of people to choose and vote with their feet, and the desire of the market and hospitality industries to maintain their custom, will surely have some effect on this over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to speak to amendments 4, 95 and 94; as they are very similar, my comments will apply in the generality. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister’s cynicism about the commitments made by the Minister at the Dispatch Box.

[Dr Johnson]

I was merely giving examples.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

She may well have given a few examples—I can think of a litany of examples from the previous 14 years of Tory Government. However, that would stray from the amendments, and as we do not have the time, I will not indulge the Committee with that. But I would suggest that that cynicism is not merited because, as the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown in these sittings—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can speak only for England, but I am legislating for the United Kingdom with the permission of Health Ministers. It may well be that Health Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom decide not to consult at all. In Wales, for example, they already have the coverage of all the areas that we are going to consult on in England.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon says he is now even more worried. Well, I tell him this: worry not, because his amendment relates to England only. If he is so mithered about the rights of the Welsh to consult Welsh business on Welsh matters, he should have put Wales in his amendment. If he so bothered about the rights of the Scots to consult on Scottish matters with Scottish business, he should have put Scotland in his amendment. If he is so bothered about the rights of the Northern Irish to consult Northern Irish business about Northern Irish matters, he should have put Northern Ireland on the face of his amendment. He doth protest too much, Mr Pritchard!

The hon. Gentleman has actually made my case for why these measures are proportionate: they cover the whole of the United Kingdom and it will be down to Ministers in the respective parts of the United Kingdom to decide who they will consult, why they will consult and what areas they will consult on. But as far as England is concerned, I cannot be any clearer: hospitality is out of the scope of our consultation. We will consult on three things: hospitals, schools and play areas.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the Minister for giving way, although I would point out that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon’s amendment at all.

[Andrew Gwynne]

But he supported it.

[Dr Johnson]

He is supporting it, but the Minister asked why my hon. Friend did not include things in it. The answer is that he did not write it. The amendments were written by others, one by the Liberal Democrats, and supported by him, which is not the same thing.

The Minister will no doubt have caused concern for the people in hospitality industries in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who are following proceedings today. Could he tell the Committee a bit about the discussions he has had with his counterparts? Have any of them indicated to him their intent regarding hospitality areas in their designated parts of the United Kingdom?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I certainly can. I have had umpteen conversations with Health Ministers from across the United Kingdom, and none of them has indicated to me that they intend to extend this to hospitality. But the point is that, as Ministers in their own legal jurisdictions, it for them to decide who they are going to consult and on what basis they are going to consult. In terms of the powers in this Bill, which areas they want to extend—if any—is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me or for this Parliament.

We are merely legislating to give those Health Ministers the tools; if they wish to go beyond the scope that the English Ministers are setting out, it is their right to do so. That is the devolution settlement. But they will, of course, have the statutory duty to consult, and they will, of course—I would imagine—want to work with businesses, in Northern Ireland, in Wales, or in Scotland, to make sure that whatever measures they bring forward are right and workable, just as we would in the Department of Health and Social Care, should we decide, at some stage in the future, to go further again.

[Dr Johnson]

I doubt whether the Minister has provided a huge amount of reassurance to the hospitality sectors in those jurisdictions.

I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his intervention about prisons. As far as I can tell, closed prisons are smoke-free environments—that is already the case both inside and outside—but I understand that prisoners in closed prisons are allowed to vape, including in their cells, where they may be vaping near other prisoners who may not wish them to have that choice. We are depriving people of their liberty for good reason when sending them to prison, but we should not be exposing them to chemical vapour as part of that if they are not vapers themselves.

Could the Minister talk to us about the discussions he has had with Justice Ministers about how provision is made for the public health of those currently in prison?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who is now making my case perfectly for why we need to have the regulations as we do. It may well be that, at some stage in the future, a Public Health Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, having had conversations with and guidance from the Ministry of Justice, seeks to quickly and simply extend provisions within the prison estate. Were the hon. Lady’s amendments to pass, the ability to do that would not be in the Bill.

We have had conversations with Ministers across Government. This Bill has been subject to the usual write-around, so it has the collective support of the Ministry of Justice. The details of which areas would be in or out of the scope of different measures within the Bill will be a matter for the regulations and for consultation. With that, the shadow Minister has precisely made the case for why having things prescriptively in the Bill ties the hands of Ministers.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is suggesting that to be able to restrict access to these products in prisons, he needs to have a wide scope within clause 136. Given that prisons are already smoke-free areas, that surely cannot be the case.

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, but the point the hon. Lady is making is about what conversations Ministers have had with other Ministers to extend the scope, to protect the rights of others and so on. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill is drafted as it is. At some stage in the future, a Government Minister in another Department may well decide that they want to extend the scope, using the powers we are talking about. Under her amendment, we would then have to find a slot in primary legislation to amend a piece of primary legislation. That is precisely why her amendments are unworkable.

The mechanism in place would allow a consultation on an extension; following consultation, secondary legislation would be debated as part of the affirmative process—there would be a debate, a discussion, and a vote in Parliament. That is precisely why the amendments are unworkable, and I call on the Committee to resist them.

I move on to the removal of the test in the Health Act 2006. That is to enable the Secretary of State to more easily make regulations designating outdoor spaces as smoke-free, but only where such a space is a workplace or open to the public. Reinserting the test would conflict with our intention to extend smoke-free status to places I have mentioned—for example, children’s playgrounds probably do not meet the requirement of there being significant risk of significant quantities of smoke. However, making them smoke-free would almost certainly protect some of the most vulnerable.

Since 2006, the evidence base for harms of second-hand smoking has evolved. It is therefore necessary to update the current legislation, as clause 136 does, to provide more flexibility should the Government wish to designate additional smoke-free places in future.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is making a reasonable point. However, the evidence can change on what constitutes a significant amount of smoke—in the past, people may have believed that someone had to be smoking in order to come to harm and then that someone could also come to harm in an enclosed indoor environment with someone smoking. It may be that the evidence now shows that even being in proximity to someone smoking outdoors—the fact that you can smell it means you are breathing it in—means you are coming to harm on some level. But does the amendment not account for that with the word “significant”? Amendment 94 says:

“if in the Secretary of State’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

A significant quantity of smoke may in the past have been considered to be quite a high volume, but now might be a much lower volume. The flexibility the Minister is seeking is already provided for in the amendment.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister would probably have a large degree of sympathy—at least one of her Back Benchers less so—with our updating the Health Act 2006 to allow us to take action to make more places smoke-free. We think that is right. We now have the ambition to make the whole United Kingdom smoke-free, and this is part of that effort.

--- Later in debate ---

It is really important to recognise that, if we are serious about our ambition to make the United Kingdom smoke-free, we must have that flexibility. Tying the hands of Ministers—whether in England only, as is the shadow Minister’s intention, or across the United Kingdom—would run counter to our desire to be able to act with some degree of speed, should the evidence or public demand be there in future, or to extend the scope. Those are discussions for the future. We are clear that we will consult on three areas, and hospitality is not one of them.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is being generous with his time. He knows my thoughts on smoking and vaping, particularly in relation to children, and how important I think creating a smoke-free and nicotine-free generation is—although he does not share the second part. He is talking about how the Secretary of State needs to be able to move with the evidence. I completely and utterly agree with that, but the clause says that there is a significant risk that without designation, persons present will be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

I support the addition of the smoke-free legislation for spaces like playgrounds. If a playground were to be included, the Secretary of State could quite easily justify that by saying that even seeing someone smoking would encourage children to smoke, particularly if it is their parents, and that therefore it is a sensible action to take.

The words—drafted, I believe by the Minister’s predecessors—are “exposure to significant quantities”. “Exposure” does not necessarily mean breathing it in; children could be seeing it across the playground. “Significant quantities” does not necessarily mean a quantity enough to do them harm. If they cannot see it, they are not being exposed to it and it is not doing them harm, why would we want to stop it happening?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The point is that that is open to interpretation; that now runs counter to our ambition to have a smoke-free United Kingdom. We have put in place a much more flexible and workable measure. The measure from 2006 was right for 2006, but it is not right for 2027, when we hope to introduce the Bill. That is why we are looking to the measures in the Bill rather than the measures as they stood in 2006.

Lastly, I remind the shadow Minister that her amendments apply only to the clause in the Bill that relates to England. If we agreed to them, the powers in England would not be consistent with the powers in the rest of the devolved jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. This is a UK-wide Bill that provides a consistent legislative framework for the whole of the United Kingdom—all four nations—while allowing devolved nations to go further on subsequent regulations if they so wish. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Member for those comments; I will do my best to answer them. Compliance with the measure is still not where we would like it to be: the last survey undertaken by an independent company on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health indicates that 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds say that

“they travel in a car with someone smoking some days, most days or every day in 2024.”

The current law also does not protect those with clinical vulnerabilities. The smoke-free powers in this Bill are driven by a desire to protect people with clinical vulnerabilities from second-hand smoke. That includes pregnant women and those with asthma and lung conditions, among others. No smoker wants to harm their family, friends, pets or co-workers, so no smoker should smoke in an enclosed vehicle.

The evidence is clear: concentrations of smoke in vehicles where someone is smoking are greater than in any other small, enclosed space. If we are to be led by the evidence when extending smoke-free places, we have to consider vehicles. That would provide consistency in policy and raise awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke even further than they currently extend. It would be easier to enforce than the current law, where we have to check who else is in the vehicle, and would make the regulations on vehicles simpler and easier to understand—“It’s a straightforward ban; you can’t do it.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is supported by the public, with 67% of British adults saying they are in favour of an outright ban on smoking in vehicles.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of what he wishes to achieve. I have great sympathy with it, because nobody wants to see people making their health worse by smoking in a car. However, his statistics are quite interesting. He said that 9% of children find themselves on a regular basis in a car where someone is smoking, yet the Minister has said already this morning that 11% of people smoke. Given that not all of the 11% of people who smoke have children with whom they travel in a car, that implies that the measure is pretty badly enforced and badly adhered to at the moment. He might argue that a complete ban in all vehicles would make it more uniform and easier to enforce, but I am not sure that that is the case.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the amendment whether he has any information or statistics on the number of prosecutions that have occurred under the current legislation. I support the legislation that prevents someone from smoking in a car with children, and I would support an extension of that to include vaping and other nicotine products. I would also support a ban on people smoking while driving; if someone is holding a lit cigarette in their hand, that will have an impact on their ability to manoeuvre the car, particularly in an emergency situation.

Essentially the hon. Member is proposing to say to someone in a parked-up vehicle, perhaps in someone’s drive, “Although you are in a private space, you are not able to smoke.” I understand what he said about no smoker wanting to hurt someone—I am sure that is true—but I cannot imagine that there is any adult smoker that does not realise that smoking in a car with children is bad for the children. I find it very difficult to believe that that would be the case. I invite him to consider whether he is trying to prevent what is a legal activity—even under this Bill, if someone is the right age—in a private space that is theirs and theirs alone?

[Gregory Stafford]

My comments follow on the shadow Minister’s. My understanding of amendment 10 is that, even if the occupant of the vehicle is entirely alone in their private vehicle, the hon. Member for Dartford is seeking to ban them from smoking in that vehicle. We are in danger here of overreaching on what we need to do to achieve a smoke-free generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I accept that point, but I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor’s point was that the police do not currently have powers to stop people who are driving dangerously. I completely accept that they should stop people using their mobile phones or doing things that constitute dangerous driving. The shadow Minister gave the view that smoking a cigarette could be counted as driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, so that may be a way of enforcing it. However, I think that having the police stop someone simply smoking in their own vehicle—something that is legal in every other private location—when they are over the legal age required in the Bill and they are not harming anybody else, is an overreach.

[Dr Johnson]

The key difference between a mobile phone and a cigarette is that with mobile phones, it is the driver using a mobile phone while driving that is the problem. If one is pulled over in a parking space in one’s private car, one can use one’s mobile phone to one’s heart’s content, and likewise when one is parked in one’s drive. If one wants to sit in one’s car on one’s drive and use a mobile phone, provided the car is stationary, that is also a legal thing to do. What the hon. Member for Dartford is suggesting is not that someone is unable to smoke while driving, which would be quite a sensible measure, but that if one’s car is stationary and private and one is essentially alone in an enclosed space like one’s home, one still would not be allowed to smoke, which seems a little odd.

[Gregory Stafford]

I completely agree with the shadow Minister. I have two final points. Proposed new subsection (1B) makes reference to the meaning of an enclosed vehicle. I just want to clarify what that means. The amendment says:

“which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.”

Is the amendment trying to capture convertible cars—someone driving with the top down on a sunny day?

Speech and Language Therapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on his introduction to today’s debate. I also particularly congratulate Mikey Akers, who I understand introduced this petition, for the work that he has done in raising awareness of verbal apraxia—work that will no doubt help people right across the country. I know that he has been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on this issue too, and no doubt that will also be helping people. I also welcome Chris Kamara to the Gallery. He is doing great work on raising awareness too. The more awareness we raise, the better it will be for everybody, and the easier it will be for people to be treated for the conditions they have.

As we have heard today, speech and language therapists have a wide range of skills for people of all ages. The issue is much bigger than speech itself. It also includes swallowing, from newborns with developmental delay to the elderly, who may be struggling to swallow after a stroke. It is about communication, feeding issues, and specific sound delays—a stammer. Speech and language therapists are involved in a huge amount of work.

I have seen in my own family the work that speech and language therapists do, with one child unable to say “s”, and having speech therapy to try and encourage her to do so—one of her younger siblings, having spent much time attending these appointments, consequently learned to say “s” about 18 months earlier than she was supposed to.

I also had a child with a stammer who was treated successfully. I learned from that that the whole family needs to be involved in treating the child, and I am grateful for the support that I got from the NHS speech and language therapists for my family. When I went along, particularly with the child with the stammer, I learned that the parent, and indeed the whole family, had to play games every day. I had to learn to play with my child without asking her any questions, which is a lot harder than it looks.

I learned about the importance of sleep and that early therapy is better. I remember the speech and language therapist likening the condition to a record getting stuck in a groove on a record player. If someone got stuck in a particular groove, the more times the disc went round the deeper it got and the harder it was to jump out, so it is important to ensure that speech and language therapy is instituted as early as possible to make it easier to treat the patient.

I want to ask the Minister about parent resources. If early is better, special guidance on aspects of treatment and management even before the patient sees a speech and language therapist would be helpful. I saw that Hereford and Worcestershire health and care NHS trust had some very good online resources for parents and what they can do to help their child with a speech or language condition.

The priority of reducing overall waiting times for community services was reflected in NHS England’s operational planning guidance for 2024-25. Local systems across England were asked to develop the comprehensive plan by June 2024 to reduce the overall waiting times for community services, including reducing waits over 52 weeks for children’s community services. The waiting lists have reduced from roughly 76,000 last July to 63,000 at the end of last year, which is still too long. Will the Government focus on trying to reduce the waiting lists still further? And does the Minister have a target in mind for next year to see how far he would consider it successful to have reduced those waiting lists?

What is also clear and has been reflected in many hon. Members’ speeches is that the demand for speech and language therapy has gone up. According to Department for Education data, in 2023-24 370,000 pupils had a speech, language and communication need in England—an increase of over 64%, from 225,000 in 2015-16. That is not related to an overall increase in the number of school-age children, so why is that the case?

One could perhaps consider that more people are aware of the conditions, thanks to active campaigns. That is a good thing because people are getting referred earlier and treated earlier. But it also would appear that the number of children affected by speech and language conditions has gone up. The Minister and his Government have talked a lot about prevention being better than cure, and I agree with that. So what work has he done to look at the causes of the rise in speech and language difficulties?

As I was researching causes, I came across the issue of screen time. What is the effect of screen time? It reduces imagination, peer-to-peer speaking and verbal problem solving. It is also a solitary rather than truly social activity. We know that children are spending more and more of their time online, particularly young children. Families are smaller. Does that mean that people have less time to interact with other children? We have an increase in the number of bilingual children. Although that in itself does not cause speech and language problems, it can cause temporary language mixing at younger ages, and in some cases slower vocabulary acquisition in early years. What is the Minister doing to find the cause of the rapid increase in the number of children with speech and language difficulties so that we can prevent them rather than waiting for them to occur and then treating them?

I also want to talk about the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, known as NELI, which was mentioned earlier. It is a teaching assistant-delivered programme that has been accessed by over 11,000 schools since the pandemic. It is known to improve the speech and language communication of the children who go through the programme by three months; the improvement is much greater for more disadvantaged children. Can the Minister commit to continuing to ensure that children have access to the NELI programme?

Pre-election, the Department of Health and Social Care worked with the Department for Education to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities received the right support. The collaboration included working together to implement the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published on 2 March 2023. Those two Departments also worked together on SEND workforce planning and established a steering group to oversee the work, with a view to completing it by 2025. Will the Minister provide an update on the steering group’s work and what plans there are to commission research into supply and demand for speech and language therapy?

In 2023 the Department for Education launched the two-year early language and support for every child pathfinder project with NHS England to improve access to speech and language therapy. Funding for that is due to run out this year, so can the Minister confirm whether it will be renewed to allow the project to continue?

The Government are also due to refresh the NHS long-term workforce plan this year. Back in 2023, that plan set out an ambition to increase allied health professional training places by 25% by 2031-32. However, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others have highlighted that that is likely to cover only speech and language therapists in the NHS workforce, and the Minister also needs to address shortages in educational and criminal justice settings. Can he confirm what work he is doing with his colleagues across Government to ensure that is the case?

Many speeches today have been focused on the social speech and language needs of children, which is understandable, but in the Minister’s wrapping up, will he talk about what work he is doing to support adults with speech and language difficulties or swallowing needs? Finally, we understand from the newspapers that many aspects of care across the NHS are now to be deprioritised, and Ministers are to focus on one specific target. While I would not expect the Minister to comment on any leaks, can he confirm that speech and language therapy will not see a reduction in real-terms resources?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I did.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

However, there may be a couple of challenges and considerations. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned briefly, there is a risk that some retailers might attempt to exploit the distinction between displays and advertisements to circumvent the advertising regulations that we have spoken about. For instance, arranging displays in a manner that draws undue attention or includes promotional elements could undermine the intent of the legislation.

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 125 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am sure that many do. That is another important aspect.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 102 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[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 (Ninth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 66 and 134 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

Order. We are starting to go a little wide of the subject under discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 53 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 9.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Obesity: Food and Diet

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I should declare an interest as a children’s doctor and a farmer’s wife.

We all want to live healthy lives. It gives us a healthy life expectancy, reduces illness burden and gives us more happy years to spend with those whom we love. However, beginning in the second half of the 20th century and continuing today, the developed world has seen an unprecedented rise in obesity levels. The growth of high-calorie processed food and sugary drinks, along with our more sedentary lifestyles, has undoubtedly played a key role. In the UK, two thirds of adults are classified as overweight or obese. According to the recent House of Lords report, over a fifth of children are overweight or obese before they even start school, and by the time they leave school, that number has doubled.

As a children’s doctor, I have seen children with significant medical complications from obesity, including a child of 12 who weighed over 120 kg and a child of nine who weighed over 95 kg. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) said, doctors and other clinicians have a responsibility to let people know of the harms of obesity, but they do not always do so. That is partly because of time constraints and because there is not necessarily a clear path to point the individual towards. Such messages can also be received with hostility, which is another deterrent.

As hon. Members have said, obesity leads to health problems. The excess body fat disrupts the normal bodily functions, amplifying the risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and arthritis while weakening the body’s ability to fight infections. During the pandemic, an obese person had a 40% higher chance of dying from covid-19 than their peers of a healthy weight. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke of the human consequences. An obese mother is more likely to suffer from complications during pregnancy. She is more likely to miss out on important life events as the child grows up, and when her grandchildren are born, she will have a lower chance of being there to enjoy them.

What is causing this obesity? At its most fundamental level, overweight and obesity are the storage of fat as surplus energy—energy consumed as food that was extra to requirements—but the reasons may be more complex. Many hon. Members have discussed the lack of affordable food, but they did not recognise or heed support for those growing our food and our fruit and veg. Instead, this Government have so far attacked our farmers with high taxes during their lifetime and at death. That will only increase the price of fruit and veg. Lincolnshire grows 20% of the country’s vegetables, but the Labour Government seek to carpet our beautiful farmland with miles and miles of solar panels, reducing the area available for growing healthy fruit and veg, increasing imports and prices.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, time is key. For families in which both parents are working, finding time to collect children, prepare wholesome meals from scratch, help with homework and get children to bed on time can lead to pressure to grab quick food or use packet sauces. A YouGov survey from 2022 found that a third of British people feel that they need a recipe to produce food from scratch, and one in six feel uncomfortable even with a recipe, so confidence in the kitchen needs to be improved. It is also worth remarking that genetics play a part, as can medications and medical conditions. Hormonal responses to food restriction also play a part, so once someone has gained weight once, it is not necessarily as easy as just saying, “Eat less”.

I have spent a great deal of my time in Parliament sitting on the Health and Social Care Committee, where the need for greater focus on prevention was continually raised. Nowhere better is that illustrated than on the issue of obesity. For example, Public Health England’s laudable Better Health diet campaign that ran from 2020-21 cost only 0.05% of what the NHS spends on obesity and overweight treatment annually. Healthy eating begins with education. People should know how to create healthy nutritious meals on a budget, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) said. I appreciate the work done by the previous Government to expand nutritional education in state schools, and I would like to mention Washingborough academy and its headteacher Jason O’Rourke, who have won awards for locally produced healthy school foods.

People also need to know what is in their food so they can make informed choices when they eat on the go. The Conservatives took action to display calorie information on menus, so that people can make informed decisions. That can also influence portion sizes. The previous Government introduced the soft drinks levy in 2018, and in 2022 we restricted promotions on foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Recent data from the NHS health survey shows that obesity rates among adults have stabilised over the past five years, and the number of overweight or obese children is now at its lowest level since 2000—although I note that those figures have continued to rise in Scotland and Wales.

Let me turn to advertising. Does advertising work? Of course it does. If I say, “The red car and the blue car had a race,” I am sure that Members of a similar age to me would know which sweet that line advertised. If I asked them which sweet would be “Just enough to give your kids a treat,” they would know exactly which one I meant. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding—as are you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But is the problem the adverts, or is it what they are advertising? Is what they are advertising the same as or different from what they were advertising 20 years ago?

At the moment, the Government’s approach to advertising seems a little wrong-headed. Their plans to restrict the advertising of junk food before 9 pm paints with a very broad brush, and muesli, porridge and rice cakes are included under the ban. However, the NHS website says that porridge is a healthy breakfast. Does the Minister disagree with the NHS? Do the Government intend to implement a similar policy to that of Transport for London under the Mayor of London, which allows the advertising of fried chicken burgers but not of strawberries and cream? The Minister needs to think carefully about what he wants to promote as a healthy and diet and then work from there.

Before the general election, the previous Health Secretary asked the National Institute for Health and Care Research to gather evidence on the impact of ultra-processed foods on health. Have the Government developed a strategy to address the prevalence of ultra-processed foods in our diet? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned that many such foods contain artificial ingredients. One of my concerns is that a ban or tax on high fat, salt and sugar foods causes reformulation, but not necessarily to take sugar out and make an item less sweet, for example; it can be to add sweeteners and other chemical substitutes that may also trigger addictive eating behaviours. That may be more harmful and retains the sweetness, so it does not change people’s need for that sort of food.

Members have mentioned the prospect of new pharmaceuticals such as Ozempic in tackling obesity. The Government have expressed an interest in exploring that further, and we welcome the new partnership with life science companies to consider the potential of pharmaceuticals in tackling some of the challenges facing the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) talked powerfully of his use of Wegovy to lose 5 stone, and I congratulate him on his success in doing so. One important point that he made about that class of drugs is that they are not by themselves a silver bullet; they require willpower and people need to work with not against them, as he said. They are not without potentially severe side effects, and as they might only work when an individual is using them, they may require lifelong use. We need a judicious use of intervention with pharmaceuticals, combined with the necessary education and lifestyle changes for weight loss to be sustainable in the long term.

This debate has focused on the issue of nanny state versus the freedom to choose. This is a Labour Government, so of course they are very keen for widespread state intervention, but what we need is not a list of bans and taxes but a coherent policy based on a clear understanding of what they mean by “healthy diet”; a strategy for food security that includes more home-grown food; education on diet and cooking; the removal of the stigma associated with being overweight or obese, which many Members mentioned; the avoidance of bans and taxes leading to reformulation with additives and processing; and, as obesity is such a difficult condition to reverse, the judicious use of medication. Most importantly, prevention is better than cure, so let us focus on the children.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 25 to 27 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 36 stand part.

[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.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Fixed penalty notices

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 5.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 43 stand part.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 67 and 86 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 82 stand part.

[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.)