Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I do not have much time and I do not want Madam Deputy Speaker’s cough to return. [Laughter.]

If one examines the litany of drugs involved in other jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, it makes for troubling reading. It is often an ad hoc cocktail of lethal substances, including sedatives, analgesics, cardiotoxic agents, neuromuscular blockers and antiemetics. There is no internationally agreed drug regime. Jurisdictions such as Oregon, Canada and the Netherlands use varying combinations of barbiturates, sedatives, opioids and antiemetics. In 2020, the official Oregon report stated that, compared with single barbiturates,

“All drug combinations have shown longer median times until death”.

As the Bill currently stands, doctors will have to consider prescribing untested drugs or drug combinations, which could potentially breach the General Medical Council prescribing guidance that a doctor must be satisfied that the drug serves the patient’s needs. To address some of those concerns, I have tabled several amendments.

Amendments 96 and 97 ensure that no drug can be approved under the Act unless there is a scientific consensus that it is effective and does not cause undue pain or side effects, and that it has been specifically licensed for that purpose by the MHRA. I cannot really understand why anyone would disagree with that.

Amendment 98 clarifies that the Secretary of State is not compelled to approve any drug if, after consultation, it is concluded that no substance is appropriate or safe enough to meet the standard.

Amendment 99, alongside amendment 100, mandates that before any regulations are laid before Parliament, a comprehensive report must be provided. That report must include time to death, possible complications including pain, and any likely side effect of the proposed substances. Again, I cannot see why that would be controversial, because surely we all want everybody to be fully informed and make fully informed decisions, and that is part of making an informed decision.

Amendment (b) to new clause 13 requires any medical devices for self-administration be approved by the MHRA and that the Secretary of State consult the MHRA before making any regulations. That is a basic safeguard that we would expect in any medical intervention, and it should be a non-negotiable condition here.

Finally, amendment 42 removes a time limit and therefore the pressure on the Secretary of State. I understand other people’s concerns about that. There is often a narrative that it will lead to patients being able to die at a time and in a place of their choosing. However, the regulations in the Bill require the doctor to stay with the patient from the moment the drug is given until they are dead. We have heard that that could take quite a long time. Do we really have enough doctors to do this at people’s homes at a time of their choosing? At the moment, I do not think we do, and I do not see how, in a short period of time, that will be achievable either.

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

I stand in support of new clauses 20 and 21, along with amendments 89 and 90 and 92 to 95, all of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Colleagues need not fear—I will not speak to all of them.

I am a proud Welsh MP, and a lot of the debate today has centred on differences or confusion about the distinction on devolution on aspects of the Bill. Focusing on new clause 21 and consequential amendment 90, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for their work together on this issue to ensure that people in Wales can access the assisted dying process in the Welsh language, if that is their preference.

In the last few months, I have met with many constituents about this Bill, including medical professionals and palliative care consultants. One of their overarching concerns is a fear that the language barrier may inadvertently impact on the ability of a relevant person in Wales properly to access and understand the assisted dying process. I am grateful to those constituents, including Dr Siwan Seaman and Professor Mark Taubert.

Accordingly, new clause 21 and amendment 90 are important. They seek to replace clause 47 and provide Welsh versions of the forms for the first or second declaration, the report about the first or second assessment of a person, and the final statement. Further, they stipulate that where a relevant person informs the voluntary assisted dying commissioner that they wish to communicate in Welsh, the commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that that wish is respected and that communications by the relevant assisted dying review panel are in Welsh. These are important amendments, as they are about accessibility and respect, ensuring that language is never a barrier to compassionate end-of-life care. They uphold the principle of linguistic equality, which is well-established in public services in Wales, and I trust that that should not be controversial to colleagues when they come to vote later on.

As a Welsh MP, I am pleased to see the inclusion of amendments 92, 93, 94 and 95. While they may appear to be small amendments, they are important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, they fully respect the devolution settlement by ensuring that Welsh Ministers have all necessary powers on devolved aspects of the Bill—health—while retaining the powers of UK Ministers over aspects that are not devolved. I think that was slightly misunderstood earlier by some in this debate.

Taken together, the amendments provide clarity and legal certainty and offer reassurance to patients, clinicians and Government agencies in Wales. That principle should be uncontroversial. I know from my own discussions with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Health Minister that he is extremely grateful for the interactions he has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and he is confident this measure is workable from the Welsh perspective.

New clause 5 seeks to mandate that the Secretary of State must, within six months, publish a report setting out the impact of this legislation on the civil procedure rules and probate proceedings. During the debate and the streams of evidence we have heard, I do not recall a suggestion that this Bill is likely to result in any serious changes to those specifically referenced matters. On the contrary, England’s CMO, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, warned against creating a “bureaucratic thicket”, saying that the best safeguards are the simplest ones. Let us keep that at the centre of our minds when we consider this legislation and avoid inserting amendments that are no doubt well-intentioned but would create such a thicket.

I conclude by sharing one story from a constituent of mine who was focused very much on safeguards, which has been the debate on all these amendments and new clauses.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I will not, because I want to finish up; I appreciate the hon. Member’s forbearance.

That constituent was Claire O’Shea. Claire was originally diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome; it was only much later that it was realised she had stage 4 cancer. Within an hour of this House voting to pass this Bill on Second Reading, Claire messaged me to say:

“What a powerful debate today. It’s hard to say I’m ‘pleased’ as it’s a terrible issue to have to contemplate. But it’s such a relief to know the next stage is open and hopefully allays the fears of those talking about safeguards.”

Claire lost her battle with cancer last month, so I am pleased that we are here again, discussing the specifics of this Bill and talking about amendments in good faith that either side thinks will enhance its safeguards. In honour of Claire and for all those like her, I urge colleagues to support the amendments and new clauses I have outlined and to support the Bill itself.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

I thank the Government for adopting the Bill from the previous Conservative Government. I have been advocating for the Bill since I first entered this House back in 2010. It is great that we are finally on the cusp of protecting our future generations and our children’s children. I urge Ministers to accept my amendments in the spirit in which I tabled them, to ensure that we cover all bases and leave no room for misinterpretation or for big tobacco to circumvent the measures. I commend the amendments and the Bill to the House.

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

It is a pleasure to follow some of the speeches that we have heard so far. I rise to support new clause 11 and the package of related amendments that the Government have tabled to this landmark Bill.

I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee for two reasons: first, I had the pleasure of the company of colleagues from across the House—albeit sometimes for more hours than one might care for on a Thursday evening—and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this legislation will undoubtedly save lives. On Second Reading, I talked about how the Bill will deliver on our Government’s commitment to ensuring that the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes, creating the first smokefree generation. As has been said, smoking is still the biggest cause of cancer and death. Tobacco is responsible for 160 cancer cases per day in the UK, and 3,100 cancer cases annually in Wales.

New clause 11 and the associated grouping of amendments is welcome. As the Minister said, the purpose of those amendments is to ensure that, for example, the list of identity documents keeps up with innovation and accommodates the possibility of digital ID. That is to future-proof the Bill, as the Minister said. Future-proofing has been mentioned in a couple of contributions today, and it came up in Committee, too, where the Opposition in particular expressed concern about the powers that would be delegated to Ministers in order to bring into effect certain provisions of the Bill. Those powers are needed, because we need the Government of the day to be able to respond quickly and with agility to the innovation—I use that term sardonically—of the tobacco industry in finding ways around the rules that we will impose on it if the Bill proceeds.

A great deal of the debate has focused on vaping, on which I will focus the remainder of my remarks. Although I recognise the value of vaping in acting as a smoking cessation tool for some, is it neither harmless nor some panacea, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, and as colleagues have said, too. There is much to welcome in the Bill in relation to vaping. The ban on the advertising of vapes, and measures to curb youth vaping and regulate the use of vapes, are examples that we welcome. However, the reality is that, as has been said, vaping among the youth has more than doubled. Action on Smoking and Health estimated that as recently as 2023, 20.5% of children aged 11 to 17 had tried vaping. That is an example of a powerful industry profiting not just from cessation but from addiction, marketing vaping at children by switching their conveyor belt of customers to a new source. Indeed, there is some alarming evidence that some vapers are not quitting smoking but simply swapping one addiction for another and many are becoming dual users. I welcome some of the contributions from colleagues, but we must be very much alive to those dangers.

Throughout the passage of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s work in the realm of public health since they took office, vaping is regularly referred to as a smoking cessation tool. As has been mentioned, and as various chief medical officers from all our home nations have said, if someone smokes, vaping is much safer. Although I accept that vaping is a helpful tool in the fight for better public health, it is regrettable that we do not have for vaping the wealth of evidence over decades that underpins tobacco and the deadly consequences of smoking. We must therefore be clear on this: if someone does not smoke, they should not vape. Vaping is not harmless; it is just less harmful than smoking tobacco.

Public health policy must be based on evidence and not on spin from the industry. Indeed, the power of big tobacco has been expanded on by colleagues.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I particularly like the way he summed up the inherent risks of vaping and his explanation that vaping could be helpful to people who wish to give up, but that at the same time there is a real threat to people who have never smoked or vaped. Does he agree that this matter needs to be seen in the wider contexts of issues at secondary and even primary school and of differences in public health outcomes across communities, with a need to focus resources on particular communities—whether children or others—to try to help?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I trust the Minister will expand on that when she comes to wind up the debate.

As I said, public health policy must be based on evidence and not just spin or perception, so moving forward, I urge the Government to ensure that as part of their work to implement the legislation, as well as promoting vaping as a smoking cessation tool they must also undertake work to research the consequences of vaping on both the physical and mental health of the individual, its financial impact and, as was said, any regional and national inequalities that have become entrenched by vaping. When she comes back to this matter in her wind-up, will the Minister also assure me that in so doing she will work with the four home nations to ensure that that data is as thorough as possible?

If that research shows, as I have no doubt it will, that vaping is significantly damaging to the nation’s health—perhaps less so than smoking, but none the less still significantly damaging—we must act to curb it. We cannot afford to wait decades and decades for that truth to come out in the way that it took decades for big tobacco to be found out. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on that point.

In conclusion, I am proud to support this legislation. As has been said, there is no liberty in addiction and there is no freedom in being victim to a craving that kills. The Bill takes an unprecedented step forward to curb that damage and I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I must declare an interest: I am a co-founder of Action on World Health.

I have to say, I find the tone of moral superiority in the Chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. Members clearly believe they are better human beings than those outside who choose to pursue activities that Members perhaps would not pursue. It would come as a bit of a shock, I suppose, to some in this Chamber, but there are some of us who like a smoke—we do. We even go for a few pints in a pub, we have a punt on the horses and I am even tempted to have the odd doughnut—I know; that is perhaps the naughtiest of all. We want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. This place can educate us, tell us, give us the facts, but the idea that it should make those decisions for other people shows me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well.

HIV Testing Week

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his speech and for securing this important debate. It is indeed an honour to take part in it, particularly during National HIV Testing Week, and to follow such excellent contributions from Members from both sides of the room.

I am the Member of Parliament for Cardiff West, so it would be remiss of me not to discuss the proud role that Wales has played in responding to the AIDS epidemic and providing ongoing support to people living with HIV. Indeed, the Terrence Higgins Trust gets its name from a Welshman, who once worked in this place for our friends in Hansard. It was co-founded by another Welshman, Martyn Butler OBE, and continues to be the leading charity for supporting people in Wales who are living with HIV, all without an ounce of Welsh Government funding. Without the Terrence Higgins Trust, Wales would not have an HIV action plan and its important 30 actions; without the Terrence Higgins Trust, we would not have this National HIV Testing Week, which brings us together today. So, I pay tribute to the work that the staff and advocates of the Terrence Higgins Trust do.

As has already been said in this debate, what the Prime Minister did this week has set a huge example, not just here in the UK but around the world. By taking an HIV test and destigmatising it by talking about the importance of taking it, he has used his good offices to speak to everyone in our country and around the world, taken down some of the barriers to ordering an HIV test, and let people know that these tests are available.

When the Terrence Higgins Trust polled the general public, 80% of those polled were unaware that testing at home, using a kit sent through the post, was even possible. But when offered that choice against others, home testing was by far the preferred option. Thankfully, in Wales we now have the Labour-run Welsh Government, who provide at-home self-testing kits all year round. Contrast that with England, where such kits are only available nationwide for one week of the year, or, as was said earlier, authority by authority as budgets allow.

Our friends at Public Health Wales are going above and beyond to get kits to people and providing charities, communities and pharmacy partners across Wales with take-home kits that people can send off to receive their results. This is a great innovation that others can learn from. Additionally, in my area GPs are going through their patient lists and texting people to offer tests to those who want them. The Welsh Government have also committed to funding Fast Track Cymru, in order to establish networks across all health boards.

However, one area where Wales is falling behind England is in respect of opt-out testing. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s World Aids Day announcement of £27 million in funding, over 50 accident and emergency departments in England are routinely testing for HIV and hepatitis, and that number will rise to 90 by the summer. However, not one A&E department in Wales is yet doing that remarkable and innovative work. So, I ask the Minister if she can join me in working with the Welsh Government to endeavour to change that approach.

I will finish my contribution today with a call for the Minister to unlock a UK-wide problem, namely getting PrEP available outside of sexual health clinics. In Wales, 5,157 people have been prescribed PrEP at some point since 2009, but sexual health is a bottleneck service to start PrEP. For many people, PrEP could be provided online, but for too many people in Wales it is not available online. There are rules and regulations stopping PrEP from being dispensed or even prescribed in community pharmacies. So, I ask my hon. Friend to examine this issue and to use her good offices to tear down these barriers. Otherwise, the 2030 goal will be missed.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

But there is nothing to stop the Union doing it together. In the event that England chose to do things at a particular pace, as it has a right to do, the Scots have already chosen to do things differently, as is their right, and the Welsh and the Northern Irish could then choose to do things at the same pace—the same appropriately quick, or reasonable, pace—or they could decide that they want to go more slowly. That would be up to them. What is in the Minister’s control is to decide that he is prepared to act at a suitable pace to ensure that these regulations come into force as properly and as quickly as possible, including with scrutiny from the House.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s zeal in desiring to see this Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, and in many ways I agree with her. Following on from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, my concern is that putting in something that is perhaps impractical, and may have unintended consequences, might undermine the good intention that no doubt underpins her new clause.

For example, if new clause 6 became part of an Act and, for whatever reason, the draft regulations were not published within two months, and therefore the Government failed to meet the requirement in subsection (1), would subsection (4) not mean that clause 168(4) could never be implemented? Would that not have the opposite effect to what I think she is trying to achieve?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but the answer is no, because a report has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. If the Government were late in doing that, they would have breached the requirement in the clause and demonstrated themselves to be slow off the blocks, but, as I read it, that would not stop the other measures being brought into place.

We are trying to encourage the Government to move more quickly. My worry is that much of the Bill consists of provisions that give the Secretary of State the capacity to make regulations to do a whole range of things, most of which are very good and will help to protect public health—if he does them. I do not doubt the Minister’s zeal to ensure that the Secretary of State does so, or indeed the Secretary State’s desire to do so, but the fact is that the Government seem to have all sorts of priorities, and if this one gets put on the back burner, it could be many years before any of this comes into force.

The Minister is shaking his head, but what we are suggesting here begins after Royal Assent. Bear in mind that the Bill still has to move to Report, go to the House of Lords and then come back for Third Reading, so it has a long way to go through this Parliament before we get to the start of the two-month period. It does not start today, when we finish line-by-line scrutiny in the House of Commons Bill Committee. Even if we said that it would start two months from now, with six months until the report was published and the regulations put forward in their final form, it would be closer to a year by the time we got through all the parliamentary scrutiny, so the Minister has much more time even than the new clause would suggest.

If we put two-month and six-month markers into the legislation, the actual time involved would be more than two months and more than six months, because of the further parliamentary stages that the Bill must go through before we even get to Royal Assent. Those time periods start from the point at which the Bill becomes law, so I think the Minister has more than enough time, particularly if he is going to go supersonic, like the clappers.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The purpose of new clause 7 is to ensure that the regulations surrounding tobacco products are both well informed and effective before they come into force. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations concerning the registration and information requirements for tobacco within two months of the passage of the Act. This provides an initial, timely step towards addressing these critical regulatory areas and ensures that the Government take swift action to establish clear guidelines for the tobacco industry, particularly regarding registration and information requirements. Again, we are trying to avoid delay. The two months do not start until the Act has passed, which means that the deadline is significantly more than two months from now—more than enough time for the Minister to produce the draft regulations, particularly given that, I suspect, much of the work is done already, and some of it was done by the previous Government anyway.

Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State, following the publication of the draft regulations, to issue a call for evidence. That call for evidence will seek views on the efficacy and suitability of the draft regulations from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry experts, public health organisations and other interested parties. Additionally, the Secretary State is required to invite the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise the draft regulations. This subsection aims to ensure a transparent process that involves detailed external scrutiny of proposed regulations, helping to identify any potential issues or improvements before they are finalised.

Subsection (3) mandates that six months after the passage of the Act—I should mention again that that is more than six months from now—the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the Government’s formal response to the evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence under subsection (2), as well as any recommendations made by the Business and Trade Committee. This requirement ensures that the Government are held accountable for considering all feedback and making any necessary adjustments to regulations before they are implemented. It promotes transparency and enables Parliament to monitor how the Government have addressed public and expert input.

Subsection (4) specifies the Secretary of State cannot make an order under clause 169(1A) bringing clauses 95 to 98 into force until the report mentioned in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. That report sets out the Government’s response to consultation and any recommendations from the Business and Trade Committee, if there are any. Again, this is trying to make sure that the Government act at appropriate speed to get things done.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I repeat my point, perhaps inarticulately made earlier, about new clause 6, which applies to new clause 7. If subsection (4) said “any report”, my point might not stand, but it says

“the report specified in subsection (3)”.

If the Bill passed and the report was for some reason laid not six months later, but nine months later, would that not mean, because of the way the new clause is drafted, that an order under clause 169(1A) could not be implemented by the Secretary of State, thereby hampering their ability to bring about some important public health legislation?

[Dr Johnson]

The only thing that would inhibit the Government is not getting the work done in time—if they did not hand their homework in on time. We have all been at school and we know that if we do not hand our homework in on time, it causes us trouble. The simple fact is that the purpose of the clause is to get the Government to do their work in an appropriate time frame. So that is the point—we do not want to create a whole load of capacity in this legislation for the Government to do stuff only for them to put it on the back burner because they are too busy, do not have the time and do not see it as a priority. Legislating to have the power to do things and doing them are not the same thing. The purpose of this new clause is to make sure that the Government get them done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

It was just three letters.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I join the Minister in congratulating everyone involved in the Bill, including the Clerks and everybody behind the scenes. On the question of history, I think I recall from our copious sessions the mention of LADbible, in which the Minister has featured four times. I wonder whether we can make history by getting him featured a fifth time once the Bill gets into statute.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Amendment 94, as the shadow Minister says, reinserts a proportionality clause that was in the previous Bill. I would be interested to understand from the Minister why that has been taken out. He said that there is no safe level of smoking, which I agree with. I would probably also agree with him were he to say that there is no safe level of passive smoking either. To me, it comes down to vaping, where the science is not yet settled. I know that the hon. Member for Worthing West will pop up in a minute and tell me about the precautionary principle, as she has so many times in this Committee, but some proportionality needs to be reinserted into the Bill so that the public understand the differences and the dimensions of what is more harmful.

[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—

[Gregory Stafford]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I will.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about broken promises from the Labour Government, but I do not think she was saying, and I certainly was not saying, that we currently hold any untoward view of the Minister or the Secretary of State. However, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we do not know who the Secretary of State or the Minister might be in future Governments, and that they might not wish to be beholden to previous statements? That is why it is so important to make sure that we are clear about which open spaces we are talking about when we restrict people’s right to smoke and vape in them.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I am grateful for that intervention. I point the hon. Member to proposed new subsection (4), which reiterates that the Secretary of State “must consult” before any such regulations can be made. I am sure that will assuage his concerns about whoever the future Secretary of State may be, whether they are from this side of the House or, God forbid, the other side in a few decades’ time.

I will point out a couple of issues about the drafting of the amendments. Although I understand the position of Opposition Members, I think the proposals inadvertently cause issues and risk causing more confusion than may have been intended. For example, does

“an NHS property or hospital building”

include private healthcare providers that are undertaking NHS work either on NHS premises or off-site? What about subcontractors? When the amendment mentions

“a nursery, school, college or higher education premises”,

are we talking about where premises have had to be vacated because of the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—crisis and where children are being taught in portacabins in a council car park, one or two miles away from the original site? These definitions are lacking and may inadvertently cause gaps in the application of the measures, if the amendments were successful. What about premises used for youth prisons? Should that be captured or not, given what was said about protecting children from the dangers of smoking?

Notwithstanding the fact that I understand the intention behind the amendments and what Opposition Members have said, I think the drafting may inadvertently cause issues and undermine what the Minister has said, both here and at the Dispatch Box, about the parameters in which this set of regulations would be brought in. Those would be underscored by consultation and the commitments that have been made at the Dispatch Box. Although I appreciate and understand hon. Members’ comments, I suggest that the amendments are not necessary, for the reasons I have outlined, and I would encourage them, if the amendments are not withdrawn, perhaps to vote against them if they are pushed to a Division.

[Sarah Bool]

I respect the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, because I understand that we do not want any unintended consequences. However, I would counter that by saying that although we perhaps need better definitions—that may be something we can consider—clause 136, as drafted, is incredibly wide, and any of the assurances that have been given to hospitality are merely words. There is absolutely no carve-out for the hospitality sector as this stands.

As much as I think the Minister is honourable in his intentions, unfortunately, we all know that we can go only on the law in front of us in black and white, and there is currently no security for the hospitality sector in this regard. We need to be incredibly clear about this with the hospitality sector, and we need the exclusion. One of the bigger concerns is that if people are not able to smoke—perhaps in a pub garden—it will force them into their homes, where they are actually more likely to drink and smoke more because they are not within that limited capacity of being out in public. We have to think about what the dangers are. Are we actually forcing people to take up worse habits in their private residence than if we allow them a little bit of flexibility in an open space?

I have a question about NHS properties generally. I appreciate that we want smoke-free places and that one wants to go into hospital and walk past people smoking, but I worry about those who have an addiction. Where do they go if they need to smoke, as they would if they are going through a process of cessation? What ends up happening as a result of all these provisions is that the smokers will just be forced down the road away from the property, but that has not really addressed the issue. We have just pushed the problem a few metres away.

We need to think in the round about how we best achieve our aim, how we deal with addiction, and how we clean up the hospital environment in a balanced and proportionate way. Perhaps the Minister has some other ideas, but I do not like the idea of just pushing some smokers down the road, rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. When we look at things in isolation, as we tend to do with these clauses, we look at them through a narrow prism, but this Bill contains a wide range of powers and legal responsibilities that will help to make things like those sponsorship deals incredibly difficult before the legislation is in force. It is very clear that, after Royal Assent, the requirements that the hon. Lady rightly sets out in terms of advertising, printing, publishing and so on will apply, and separately there will be this two-month window that we are giving, but the whole of the law needs to be read together. Hopefully that gives some assurances on why we believe that these measures, taken in the round, are as robust as they can be.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I am grateful that the Minister will take away the point raised by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, discuss it with officials and come back to us. When doing so, it will be worth reflecting on the fact that, as the hon. Lady knows from her previous work, a lot of commercial contracts tend to have force majeure clauses, which may well envisage legislative changes in countries relevant to the jurisdiction of the contract that could impact the commercial value of that contract. This may not be as big a problem as some fear, but it is something to be looked at as part of this work. Of course, given that the average wealth of a Premier League club is £1.2 billion, I am sure they would survive such a clause being activated in those examples.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am grateful that we have somebody from the legal profession on this Committee to advise this Minister, who is not a lawyer, on provisions that may well be put into any kind of contractual discussion that may be starting now, and to alert the parties to such a contract that the law in the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom is changing and will therefore affect any agreements that are being put into place in advance of that legislation coming in. That is an important point.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

There is one further point that I wish to make. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and the shadow Minister were talking about the display of logos or company names on football shirts as an example of the practicalities of enforcement. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that, in European games, when teams that are sponsored by, for example, an alcoholic beverage or gambling company are playing countries where that is prohibited, the shirts of the relevant football team tend to have black tape over the logos, to prevent them from being displayed in the ground and on TV across the world.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend, as well as being a sound lawyer, is a sound mind reader, because that was precisely my next point. Rightly, Members are testing the legislation. The purpose of this Committee is to tease out how we expect the legislation to work. When it comes to sporting events, from time to time there will be English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish teams playing in other countries, and more importantly teams from other countries playing within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend rightly points to the existing practice that where something is illegal, those images are covered up.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. The answer is going to be the stock answer that I have given throughout—that much of this detail will be down to how we draft the regulations and so on. The law of the United Kingdom and its four respective jurisdictions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the law of the land. This Parliament, in passing this legislation, expects the law of the land to be adhered to. If the law of the land is not adhered to, there are strong enforcement measures and penalties for those not applying the law as passed by Parliament.

Going back to existing contracts, it is really important to emphasise the legal advice that the Government received in the drafting of the Bill: that we need to be proportionate and pragmatic and we cannot retrospectively legislate to stop existing contracts. It is really important that we avoid retrospectivity in the design of the clauses in front of us, because the principle that underpins our legal system is that the law is prospective, not retrospective.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I appreciate that, and I completely agree. Learned colleagues and others with legal training will probably remember the auspices of what Parliament can and cannot do. I appreciate that this is something the Minister will have to take away but, while fully agreeing that Parliament cannot be retrospective in the legislation it passes, is it not the case with commercial contracts that there will typically be a requirement for the parties to adhere to the laws that apply to the jurisdiction and to the parties themselves?

Of course, those laws can change in the future. It is not that it is a day one obligation at the time the contract is entered into and then is never checked again. It has to be an ongoing obligation. While I fully understand the point and agree with what the Minister is saying, can he take away that point about the ongoing obligation and the advice? That way, people who have these types of contracts can rely on knowing whether they are or are not in breach of the Act—if, as we all hope, the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend sets out a really important point. I am happy to take that away for officials to look at. We want to ensure that companies that currently sponsor sports kits are no longer able to do so, and that sports clubs that have entered into such contracts are not allowed to extend them beyond the dates of their current existence. His brain is much more legalistic than mine, and we do not want the intention behind the law to be circumvented using legal routes that the best lawyers in the land will probably use to try to find a way around it. I will ask my officials to look at that in more detail, because it is a really important point. I hope he accepts that response.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has led this important debate with openness and transparency at all times, and has treated all views with dignity and respect. She is acutely aware of the strongly held beliefs on both sides of this debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the concern that there was not enough time to debate the Bill. It is important to ensure the maximum amount of debate on this important Bill, and to ensure that all views are heard. The public wish to hear a considered view from all parliamentarians in this place, and we owe it to them to ensure that the debate continues, while treating each other with dignity and respect, just as we did last November, when we saw this place as its very best.

A money resolution is standard for any Bill put forward by the Government or an MP. The wording is identical to any other money resolution for any other Bill. It is important that all Members are clear that this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, and it would be incredibly disappointing if any Member sought to use it as such.

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

Does there not appear to be some confusion about the motion? It clearly says that this procedural motion has to be laid before the House

“for the purposes of any Act resulting from”

the scrutiny and debate that is to come. If hon. Members on either side of the debate, and on either side of the House, having considered the final version of the Bill, think that it should not be agreed to for monetary reasons, will not that be the time to vote no to the Bill?

[Paula Barker]

I will come to that point shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has sought every opportunity to be inclusive, and has sought a wide range of views, because she knows the value of all voices being heard. If the resolution does not pass today, the Bill cannot progress. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that that is not what the House voted for in November, and it is certainly not what our constituents want.

Three full days of oral evidence from 50 witnesses will begin next week. That will be followed by at least eight full days of scrutiny. None of that will proceed if the resolution is voted down today. I appeal to Members across this place, regardless of their views, to let us have the long overdue, open and transparent debate that will enable Members to formulate a final opinion on the Bill, irrespective of what that may be. To stifle it would be to stifle democracy. We must remember that democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight to the wrong one.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool]

I want to build on the points my hon. Friends have made. As we have said, clause 92 relates to the flavouring of vapes. In the future, we will have to be incredibly agile in regulating in this area. It clearly needs further investigation, because different bodies are all disagreeing on whether we should limit the number of vapes, the flavours or the range and on what is going on. In the written evidence provided to Members, Cancer Research UK, which the shadow Minister mentioned, made some interesting observations, which I will put on record. It says that:

“Current evidence seems to suggest that e-cigarette flavours influence vaping initiation in both young people and adults who smoke. We know that the range of flavours of e-cigarettes are a large part of the appeal for both young people and adults. When taking action on e-cigarette flavours, a balance needs to be struck between dissuading uptake in young people and maintaining an appeal to those who use vapes to quit smoking, so they are not deterred from transitioning away from tobacco”.

I think we all agree with that. It further goes on to say:

“Although we believe there is currently insufficient evidence to justify banning specific e-liquid flavours, as the evidence base related to the role of flavours in youth and adult vaping increases, powers to regulate flavours will be an important lever for Government to use to reduce youth vaping.”

It then says:

“It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes…this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described”—

which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made—

“rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.”

If we go on the basis that, actually, we should limit the way the flavours are described, perhaps one day we will know what unicorn milk actually tastes like.

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

It is interesting that the hon. Lady points to that evidence, because I have actually been considering it myself, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with some of the ways that Cancer Research UK phrased it. On the point that the hon. Lady has just read out—which, for the record, is paragraph 40 of written evidence TVB18 —does she agree that it does not have to be an either/or and that it could be both?

Ultimately, what I think we are particularly focused on here—setting aside the cessation point with respect to adults—is the attractiveness and the clear advertisement from tobacco companies to children, with these flavours that have absolutely no relevance to adults. Although mint, menthol and fruit may be helpful cessation tools, flavours such as bubble gum are clearly aimed at children, and that is absolutely what we need to stamp out.

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. I think the hon. Member makes a valid point. It is part of the bigger discussion that we have to have, with the ability to be a bit more agile in how we actually decide, because I do not want us to take the wrong approach and have unintended consequences.

Again, that goes to another point that the shadow Minister raised, about what flavours are potentially harmful in themselves. The hon. Member for Cardiff West is right and I take his point about flavours such as bubble gum entirely, but apparently even cinnamon, vanilla and butter are toxic. They are fine for us to eat —butter in moderation, of course—but inhaling them is a different matter. I think it will be very interesting to see what combinations are used and what the impact is, because, apparently, if certain flavours and chemicals are combined, that can actually be even more toxic than before. That is something that the regulations, and some of the research, will have to look into for us.

Interestingly, the Royal College of Physicians also gave its view on this topic in the written evidence. That was along similar lines but slightly different. It says:

“While we know flavours can attract young people to vaping, the use of flavours by adults trying to quit smoking is an integral part of the effectiveness of vaping as a quit aid. We know that many adult smokers report wanting to move away from the taste of tobacco. Other nicotine replacement therapy…products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours. The RCP supports limiting the number of flavours available and recommends restricting flavour descriptors. Bland descriptors, alongside limiting the number of flavours and removing those most popular with young people non-smokers from vaping without the unintended consequences of perpetuating smoking for adults.”

I agree with the points that have been made, but I think that we have to be careful about how we decide which flavours are used and their range. I take the point that we often want to move people away from tobacco, because a tobacco-flavoured vape is not pleasant, or so I am told, but my concern is that, if someone do not necessarily have a tobacco-flavoured vape, then with something as nice as peach and mango—which a vaper I know really likes—people will actually vape more than they ever smoked because it is tastier for them. I think we will really have to look into that as well.

I would also like some further clarity from the Minister on clause 92(3) and the clause what regulations the Department is currently thinking about, particularly when it comes to the imports of any of these vaping products.

Finally, subsection (4) that that there will be

“provision for a determination to be made by a person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State”

to make the decision on the flavours. Who is in mind to be given those powers? A bit more clarity on that would be much appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I agree that that sounds promising. I am sure that the Minister and his officials are all over this, but to be clear, will the Bill as drafted give them the requisite flexibility? In two years’ time, should that change have happened, could the requisite regulations be drafted to bring that into effect without needing to come back to the House?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, that is absolutely the case.

On the shadow Minister’s question about the ingredients in the vape—or any other product, for that matter—if those turn out to be different from those in the register, I reiterate that the product could be eligible for complete removal from the register until the information is updated. That is precisely the measure that enforcement agencies have asked for to give them the greater clout that they need when it comes to non-compliance: once those products are removed from the register, they would not be permitted for sale—end of.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.

The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis]

I am sorry; I do not know about that.

Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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 ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.

I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.

The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible. In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary. Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one. That is why this is a landmark Bill.

The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf. That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon. Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Power to amend lists of identity documents

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