National Cancer Plan Call for Evidence

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Written Statements

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

With today being World Cancer Day, I want to be clear about this Government’s commitment to transforming cancer care and ensuring that fewer people die from this devastating disease by launching our call for evidence for a new national cancer plan.

One in two people will develop cancer in their lifetime and we are currently diagnosing and treating near record numbers of patients, with over 350,000—357,378—people receiving their first treatment over the last 12 months. This is expected to increase significantly as the population ages, with Cancer Research UK forecasting half a million cancer cases each year by 2040. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will put us on track to a smoke-free UK, helping to reduce around 80,000 preventable deaths and reduce the burden on the NHS and on the taxpayer. While around 40% of cancers are caused by avoidable factors such as smoking, we know that much of the rise in cancer cases will be caused by ageing and is unavoidable.

We know the issues that are key to improving cancer survival. We know we need patients to be seen faster and cancers to be diagnosed earlier to secure better patient outcomes. We know that reducing the time it takes to be diagnosed and treated can make a crucial difference to a patient’s outcome. I want every patient to get excellent care and treatment, and to achieve that, we need an effective and sustainable health and social care sector.

The independent review of the NHS by Lord Darzi set out the scale of the challenges we face in fixing the NHS, and the need to improve cancer waiting time performance and cancer survival. At the same time, he pointed to the NHS’s success in delivering targeted lung health checks. That is transforming the early diagnosis of lung cancer in disadvantaged communities—something that he described as a sign of hope.

In response to the Darzi report, we have launched an extensive programme of engagement to develop a 10-year health plan to reform the NHS. We need the 10-year health plan to set out how we can build a health system fit for the future. It will set out the framework of reforms we need to ensure better outcomes across the NHS and to meet significant challenges like cancer. Furthermore, our elective reform plan sets out how we will return to the 18-week constitutional standard and put patient experience front and centre.

However, we know that the increasing number of cancer cases and the complexity of cancer care mean that we need a specific approach to cancer that aligns with our wider vision of how we want to reform the NHS. As a result, I am delighted to inform the House that we will publish a national cancer plan later this year, following publication of the 10-year health plan. I am determined to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer, and to ensure that many more people go on to lead a full life after their cancer treatment. The national cancer plan is the first step to preventing, diagnosing, and treating cancer more effectively. To achieve this goal, the plan will look at the full range of factors and tools that will allow us to transform outcomes for cancer patients and improve their experiences of treatment and care.

We cannot do this alone, and that is why we are launching a call for evidence from patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, our key partners, and other members of the public on what should be included in the plan.

Following a period of planning and engagement with our partners across the cancer community, we will aim to publish the national cancer plan in the second half of 2025.

I am pleased to inform the House that we will also be relaunching the children and young people’s cancer taskforce to identify ways to improve outcomes and patient experience for children and young people with cancer. Dame Caroline Dinenage and Professor Darren Hargrave have been appointed as its co-chairs, alongside Dr Sharna Shanmugavadivel as vice-chair. I will update the House on progress in due course.

[HCWS415]

Accessibility of Radiotherapy

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate and for his dedication on this issue. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. I also have a family member who has shares in a medical company.

Radiotherapy access suffers from geographical constraints, and this issue cannot be solved until the significant workforce challenge is addressed alongside it. The Royal College of Radiologists states that in England the NHS faces a 30% shortfall in radiologists. That figure is projected to rise to 40% by 2028, yet more than a fifth of NHS trusts have implemented recruitment freezes. Shortfalls in recruitment mean that consultants, faced with burnout and impossible workloads, retire earlier. That is made especially clear as the average age of retirement is just 54.

The Royal College of Radiologists highlights the absurd situation whereby newly trained consultants may struggle to find jobs, forcing invaluable radiologists and oncologists to go for locum jobs, move abroad or leave the healthcare sector altogether at a time when their skills are best placed in our NHS to fix our cancer care crisis—a crisis in which not a single integrated care board is currently meeting its cancer waiting time standards.

The impact of the recruitment freezes on patients is tangible and is not limited to radiotherapy. Some 80% of patient pathways in the NHS are reliant on radiology. Delays in scan reporting result in delayed treatment. Delayed treatment results in worse outcomes. Worse outcomes may be the deciding factor in whether someone fails to recover.

How will the Government ensure that when my Wokingham constituents visit the Royal Berkshire hospital, the oncology and screening departments are fully staffed? Can the Minister explain his understanding of the recruitment freezes that are taking place across NHS trusts? I am aware that the Minister has a very, very busy diary: he told me so earlier today in the main Chamber.

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

I suspect that my diary will be a little busier with the two requests from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

[Clive Jones]

The Minister’s diary will be a little busy, but I am sure it can cope. I ask him to meet me and representatives of the Royal College of Radiologists to discuss the Government’s plan for workforce reform.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for bringing this important debate to Parliament on World Cancer Day, and other Members for their contributions on this really important topic. I am happy to meet the hon. Member and his colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy to discuss these issues further. I suspect that my diary is going to get busier, but I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) as well, to ensure that we get this aspect of the national cancer plan absolutely right.

To answer one of the questions put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), the national cancer plan will include radiotherapy—it would be odd if it did not, given the importance of radiotherapy—and I will work with Radiotherapy UK and others with an interest in this area. That is partly why we have launched our call for evidence today: to get the views and opinions of as many people and organisations as possible, so that we get the plan right. It has to be fit not just for 2025, but for 2035 and the years in between, so there is a lot of work to be done.

We know that cancer patients are waiting too long for treatment. That is why we are taking immediate action to kick-start the recovery of the NHS with a commitment to cut waiting times that will benefit all, including those with cancer. In our 10-year plan for the NHS, we committed to return our national health service to constitutional standards, including on cancer.

By investing in our workforce, a point made by several hon. Members, and allocating £70 million for new radiotherapy machines, we will reduce cancer waiting times and give more patients access to state-of-the-art treatments. Fixing the NHS also requires reform. This year, we will publish our 10-year health plan to help build a health service fit for the future and, as I have already mentioned, we are today announcing the launch of a call for evidence for a dedicated national cancer plan, another step towards unleashing our country’s potential as a world leader in saving lives from this deadly disease. I encourage everyone to have their say by responding to the national cancer plan call for evidence.

I assure hon. Members that the priority of this Government is to ensure that radiotherapy is available quickly to those who need it. Radiotherapy is a crucial treatment for many cancer patients, as it can shrink tumours very effectively. Although the vast majority of the population are located within reasonable distance of where they would go for treatment, I am very aware that that is not always the case, particularly in rural communities.

I can give a family example. My dad, who sadly died two years ago from a very rare and aggressive form of rectal cancer, benefited from superb treatment at the Christie in Manchester, which is our local cancer hospital. He had chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radiotherapy. The radiotherapy shrank his tumours, and that almost certainly gave him an extra two years of quality life with his family, including his great-grandson. I will forever be grateful that he received that.

One day, though, we took him to the Christie and he got chatting to somebody who was also receiving radiotherapy. This is pertinent to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who leads on these matters for the Liberal Democrats, because this person was from Shropshire. My dad is Salopian born—he was born in Shrewsbury and brought up in High Ercall, before being dragged to Manchester in the 1950s when my grandad got a job as the chief accountant at Manchester education committee—and they got talking. “You’re really from Shropshire and you’re coming to Manchester for radiotherapy?” It was the nearest place that had that treatment available at that time. It really hit me then how sporadic these things are, and how some people have to travel unacceptably long distances. We need to make sure that in our national cancer plan, we look at the deserts and the accessibility issues.

[Tim Farron]

I would not be doing my job at all well if I did not pursue the Minister on this point. Earlier, he very kindly talked about meeting the all-party group to talk about the national picture, and I want to press him on our local bid to tackle the problem he has just spoken about. Will he meet me and local oncologists to talk about how we can deliver a radiotherapy satellite centre in Kendal?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I was just coming to that—the hon. Gentleman has obviously started to read my notes from a distance. I am aware that he met representatives of the previous Government to discuss the possibility of a satellite unit in his local area. The situation is the same now as it was then: it is the responsibility of the integrated care board, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks it would be helpful for us to have a meeting and see if we can push that case, my door is open. I absolutely recognise that people in that part of Cumbria would prefer to have those services closer to where they live. If we can impress that on his local ICB, let us see if we can make progress.

The Government aim to ensure that each treatment centre is accessible to the highest possible number of patients, as well as easily reached by the staff who work there. That is another consideration—it is not just the patients who have to physically get to these units, but the staff. We recognise that for those in rural communities, machinery may not be available at their local hospital, meaning that the only option is travel to specialist centres to receive the best possible care. Radiotherapy service provision is agreed by local systems, and each patient’s care needs and treatment location are decided on a case-by-case basis by their clinicians. We are giving local systems greater flexibility and control, as they are best placed to understand and meet the needs of their communities, but to drive the national cancer plan forward, we have to tackle this postcode lottery and the deserts head-on.

Accessibility is also about making sure that we have the right workforce available to deliver the treatment in the right places and at the right time. That is why the number of training places has increased, and it is why we are improving the quality of education for assistant practitioners, diagnostics and therapeutic radiographers. NHS England is also working to improve the retention of radiographers and radiologists through initiatives such as increasing investment in career development. By ensuring our workforce feels supported, we put ourselves in a better position to deliver the care that people need.

Turning to investment in machines, I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that we should be ambitious in our plans to ensure that patients are treated as quickly as possible. Lord Darzi’s report highlighted the scale of the challenge we face: under the previous Government, waiting times for treatment increased, and more than 30% of patients waited longer than 31 days for radical radiotherapy.

In response to Lord Darzi’s findings, we have taken urgent action to get the NHS back on its feet. At the recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor supported our commitment to end the backlogs by announcing £70 million of investment in new radiotherapy machines in 2025-26. Replacing older radiotherapy machines with newer, more efficient and more technically advanced ones will ensure that patients can be seen more quickly. By doing so, we will improve access and speed up cancer treatment. Making more advanced machines available means that patients will have fewer trips to receive their treatment.

Hon. Members may be aware that NHS England has now allocated funding to trusts across the country to purchase the new radiotherapy machines with the £70 million investment. NHS England invited trusts to express interest in receiving funding to purchase a new machine. Allocation criteria focused on the age of the machine being replaced, the proportion of older machines in use in the trust and the trust’s performance on radiotherapy. We expect to fund at least 27 new machines, which should be available to treat patients by spring 2026.

Those steps will ensure that we can improve cancer waiting times as soon as possible, helping us to put an end to the last Government’s neglect and underinvestment. I reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and other hon. Members, that we will continue to make the case for additional funding, so that we can continue to upgrade machines and push the advances of the latest technological developments, for the benefit of patients with cancer.

I turn to the national cancer plan. Beyond immediate actions, we know that bold reform is required to rise to the growing challenge that cancers of all types represent. Lord Darzi found that cancer survival in this country is worse than in comparable countries, and that improvement slowed greatly during the 2010s. To help us to develop more targeted actions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the development of a national cancer plan, which was the subject of the statement I gave in the House just a few hours ago. The overarching aim of the plan is to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer. It will detail how we will improve outcomes for cancer patients, ensuring that patients have access to the most effective treatments and technology, including radiotherapy.

Today, we launched our national cancer plan call for evidence. We welcome views from all hon. and right hon. Members, as well as from clinicians, patients and their families—it is critical that we get the views of people who have lived experience of accessing cancer care—charities, researchers, members of the public and, of course, the excellent all-party parliamentary groups that champion cancer treatment and outcomes in this House.

In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for bringing this crucial matter to the House. I thank hon. Members, whose contributions have, in the spirit of this year’s World Cancer Day, put places and people at the centre of care. I am pleased to assure hon. Members that we are undertaking both immediate actions and bold reforms to improve access to radiotherapy. There is a lot more that we need to do, and we will do it in partnership. This work is part of our effort to rebuild the NHS and deliver world-class cancer services for everybody—something that will always be a top priority for this Government and that is personal for me—so let’s get on and achieve it.

National Cancer Plan

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the national cancer plan. Today is World Cancer Day. Almost everyone in our country has been affected by cancer, either themselves or through a friend or relative. Having lost both my parents to cancer, I am so grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me this job. He has given me the chance of a lifetime to do my parents proud by creating the kind of compassionate and humane healthcare that all our constituents deserve.

I am also pleased to be led by a survivor of kidney cancer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. His experience as a patient will be invaluable to us in the months ahead. I pay tribute to the amazing cancer charities who do fantastic work to help people live with cancer, support bereaved families and drive vital research in this area—Macmillan, Cancer Research UK, Cancer52 and Marie Curie to name just a few.

Lord Darzi’s investigation set out the scale of the challenges that we face in fixing the NHS, and how desperately we need to improve cancer diagnosis rates, waits and outcomes. He found that

“the UK has substantially higher rates than our European neighbours, Nordic countries, and countries that predominantly speak English”.

There were close to 100,000 more cases of cancer in 2019 than in 2001. While survival rates at one year, five years and 10 years have all improved, the rate of improvement slowed substantially during the 2010s.

Lord Darzi also noted important inequalities in the provision of cancer care; people in the most underserved areas are more likely to present as an emergency. As Cancer Research UK pointed out in its submission to the investigation, the 62-day target for referral to treatment has not been met for almost 10 years. Last May, performance was at just under 66%, with more than 30% of patients waiting longer than 31 days to start radical radiotherapy.

For all those reasons and more, we do not have a second to waste. That is why the Prime Minister kicked off this year with our elective reform plan, setting out how we will cut the longest waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks. From March next year, around 100,000 more people every year will be told if they have cancer or not within 28 days, and around 17,000 more people will begin treatment within two months of diagnosis. That is why this year, we will spend £70 million on replacing older radiotherapy machines with newer, more efficient models. That is why in the King’s Speech we put forward an improved Tobacco and Vapes Bill, helping to reduce around 80,000 preventable deaths and putting us on track to a smoke-free UK.

While around 40% of cancers are caused by avoidable factors such as smoking, the backdrop is one of an ageing society. Cancer Research UK has forecast half a million cancer cases each year by 2040. We are preparing for the future now, with our 10-year health plan for the NHS. The plan will set out the framework of reforms that we need to ensure better outcomes and to meet the growing challenges that we face in the fight against this dreadful disease. The plan will play to Britain’s strengths as a global leader in the development of advanced therapies, using our strong academic and life sciences industry.

We should remember that the NHS was the first health service in Europe to commission CAR-T cellular therapy for blood cancer patients. On this World Cancer Day, I can announce that we will build on that legacy by investing in a cutting-edge, world-leading trial to transform breast cancer care through artificial intelligence. Nearly 700,000 women will take part in this trial, testing how cutting-edge AI tools can be used to catch breast cancer cases earlier. Thirty testing sites across the country will be enhanced with the latest digital AI technologies, ready to invite women already booked in for routine screenings on the NHS to take part.

The technology will assist radiologists by screening patients to identify changes in breast tissue that show possible signs of cancer, with referral for further investigations if required. If the trial is successful, it has immense potential to free up hundreds of radiologists and other specialists across the country to see more patients, tackle rising cancer rates and save more lives. It is just one example of how British scientists are at the forefront of transforming cancer care, and of the promising potential of cutting-edge innovations to tackle one of the UK’s biggest killers.

This Government know that unless we do things differently, our NHS will remain in the dire state in which we inherited it. That means proper reform, from doing away with burdensome process that holds back frontline staff to handing more power to local leaders so that they can deliver for the communities they know best. It also means embracing new technologies, including AI, to transform the way we deliver care and to improve patient outcomes. Today’s trial is yet more evidence of this Government taking action to bring in the reform that is desperately needed. As the Prime Minister set out last month, our plan for change will put the UK on the front foot, unleashing AI to drive up health services and shift the NHS from analogue to digital, as part of our 10-year plan.

Our 10-year plan will ensure that the NHS is there for our grandchildren and future generations, but we believe that the increasing number of cancer cases and the complexity of cancer care mean that we need a specific approach to cancer. We are determined both to bring down the number of lives cut short by cancer and to ensure that many more people go on to lead a full life after their treatment. That is why I am today announcing a call for evidence for our new national cancer plan that we will publish following the 10-year plan in the second half of this year. We will look at the full range of factors and tools that will allow us to transform outcomes for cancer patients while improving their experiences of treatment and care. We will make the United Kingdom a world leader in cancer survival by fighting the disease on all fronts—through better research, diagnosis, screening, treatment and prevention. However, we cannot do this alone, and that is why we are launching this call for evidence from patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, our key partners and other members of the public on what should be included.

To support that work, we will relaunch the children and young people’s cancer taskforce, co-chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and Professor Darren Hargrave, with Dr Sharna Shanmugavadivel as vice-chair. I’ve put my teeth in—apologies if I pronounced that wrong. The taskforce will bring together the country’s top experts to set out plans to improve treatment, detection and research for cancer in children, which will feed into the plan. At every stage, we will ensure that patient voices are heard. I look forward to updating the House on the progress of the plan, the taskforce and the trial throughout the year.

Many of us on the Government Benches remember with pride the previous Labour Government’s record in the fight against cancer. We introduced landmark legislation to ban smoking in public places, protecting a generation of children from the harms of second-hand smoke, while putting record sums into smoking cessation programmes. At the dawn of the millennium, we launched a national cancer plan, which led to faster cancer diagnosis and treatment times, increased funding for cancer services, equipped the national health service with radiotherapy machines—many of which are still there—and expanded cancer research funding, so that a new generation of scientists could answer the call. What did that plan lead to? Survival rates went up. The number of patients diagnosed and treated on time went up. The number of lives lived well after cancer went up. That was our record in government, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am delighted to announce to the House that we will be opening a drug trial for glioblastoma brain tumours in May, in memory of my late sister, Margaret. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] But for how long will progress on this depend on people baking cakes, running marathons and organising dinners? When will the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Research get their act together and do something for the 3,200 people who will be diagnosed with this dreadful illness this year?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Those of us who knew Margaret miss her very much; she was such a towering figure in the Labour party for so many years, and we on the Labour Benches have a lot to thank her—and, indeed, my hon. Friend—for.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on research. This is one area where, quite frankly, we have not done well enough. We have not made any progress. I know she will continue to champion more research. With our new national cancer plan, I hope that she will be pushing on an open door, because this is one area we absolutely have to do much better in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Nearly every family has a cancer story, whether it is a personal fight or that of a loved one. A 10-year plan from the Government is a welcome step, as the previous Government broke their promise to implement a 10-year cancer strategy that would have made a real difference to patients. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very proud that our cancer campaigner, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), secured from the Government a commitment to introduce such a plan.

Testing for cancer, diagnosing and starting treatment quickly reduces stress and anxiety. Also, if the cancer is caught early, it is more likely to be treated successfully. Yet the target of 85% of people receiving their diagnosis and starting treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral has not been met since December 2015. In my constituency, one third of cases fall short of that target and 1,000 families lose a loved one every year to this cruel disease.

Lord Darzi’s review laid out very clearly that the UK has appreciably higher cancer mortality rates than other countries and that more than 30% of patients are waiting longer than 31 days for radical radiotherapy. A quarter of England’s 280 radiotherapy machines are now operating beyond their recommended 10-year lifespan, and in some areas, such as West Sussex, there is no access to radiotherapy at all. That is why we welcomed the £70 million investment announced in October to start to replace the older radiotherapy machines.

Will the Minister confirm whether there will be further rounds of funding to keep pace with available radiotherapy technology? Will he look to support those at the mercy of a postcode lottery by ensuring that radiotherapy is available in all areas? What is the expected timeline for reversing the damage done by the previous Government, and when can all patients expect to start their treatment within the 62-day urgent referral target?

[Andrew Gwynne]

One reason we think a national cancer plan is so important is precisely to get the investment in the areas we need so that we can tackle those health inequalities. There are very real inequalities when it comes to the diagnosis of cancer and, more importantly, the treatment and therefore the outcomes. I am really keen that we focus on that in the plan, to ensure that all parts of the country achieve the best outcomes for people who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Part of the plan is the roll-out of community diagnostic centres so that we can get diagnosis much earlier. That then puts greater pressure on getting people through the front door for treatment, so that is why, as part of the recovery plan that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary announced, we are seeking to get more people treated more quickly on those treatment pathways. Hopefully, that will get the desired outcomes we want. It is a commitment that we will seek to restore the national health service to its constitutional standards. That is a priority of this Government.

On radiotherapy machines, the £70 million investment will fund about 25 or so machines. The criteria for evaluating bids are the age of the machine, the proportion of machines aged over seven years, and the performance against the 31-day standard for radiotherapy, with poorer performers prioritised. On future rounds of funding, the cancer plan will feed into spending reviews and future Budgets. It is our priority to ensure that we reach the cancer targets, so hopefully we can make the case to the Treasury for future investment in further years.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

As someone who lost his wife to cancer, I know the dire circumstances that a cancer diagnosis can bring. It is right that cancer plans should focus on the best outcomes: improving the amount of time that people live for, or having a cure. I would like to raise with the Minister the specific issue of pain relief management. As part of the plan, will he ensure that there is an investigation into how pain relief management can be improved for cancer patients, and that it is given not just during the week but at weekends too?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises a really important point about how people receive pain relief and how that is managed. There are some really good examples out there of how it is done really well and, shockingly, there are some that are less good. We want to learn from the best. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, it is about taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. Absolutely, that should form part of the plan.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Like many people in this House, I have seen up close and personal the devastating impact that a cancer diagnosis can have on people and families. I have also seen the difference between an early diagnosis and a later diagnosis, which is why I very much welcome the use of AI in early diagnosis. One positive by-product of having a long-standing national health service is that we have in the UK a very large database of historical tissue samples. Will the Minister consider using AI to do a retrospective analysis of those historical tissue samples to try to spot patterns that could inform future speedy diagnosis across a whole range of cancers?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and will ask my officials to look into it. I am very keen that we maximise the latest advances in technology, genomics, life sciences and research to ensure that we identify people who are at risk of cancer, preferably before they develop cancer, so that we can get them on appropriate treatments where necessary and they avoid the pain and misery that cancer can bring.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

On this World Cancer Day, will my hon. Friend the public health Minister tell me what efforts he is making to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, such as a bloated tummy, lack of appetite or feeling full, tummy pain or needing to pee more often, in order to increase lifesaving early diagnosis?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done on ovarian cancer since becoming an MP. She knows—the rest of the House might not—that I lost my mum to ovarian cancer. I was 19 when my mum died and she was only 50—my age today. She had a late diagnosis. They basically opened her up to perform a hysterectomy and the cancer had spread all the way through her body. They sewed her back up and she died at the end of a hospital ward two days later in pain and agony. Having awareness of those symptoms is so important. My mum was fobbed off by her GP, because she worked in a shop and lifted boxes. She had a bad back and was bloated and so on. The GP said it was down to her work, rather than erring on the side of caution and getting her checked out. We must ensure that women today are heard by GPs and, more importantly, that we err on the side of caution and get people on to treatment.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right to focus on this. I warmly welcome the reinstatement of the children and young people’s cancer taskforce. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my constituent Charlotte Fairall, who was pivotal in the work to bring the taskforce together in the first place. Charlotte’s daughter Sophie died of rhabdomyosarcoma when she was just 10 years old. I know the Minister met Charlotte to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, Sophie is not alone—around 500 children and young people die of cancer every year in the UK. It is the biggest cause of death by illness of children under the age of 14. Sophie had a wish list of things that she wanted to achieve before she died, including cooking with Gordon Ramsay and wearing high-heeled shoes, but she also wanted to meaningfully change the way we detect, treat and care for children with cancer. Does the Minister agree that the taskforce is a great step in that direction?

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely is, and I thank the hon. Lady for agreeing to co-chair the re-formed taskforce. I know that she cares passionately about this issue, and it was lovely to meet Charlotte some time before Christmas.

Cancer is terrible, and cancer affecting children even more so. As the hon. Lady knows, we paused the taskforce because the general election got in the way. We wanted to carry out a real-time stocktake to establish whether we needed all these different taskforces, but, along with Charlotte, she convinced me, and convinced the Secretary of State, that the work of this taskforce will be crucial to informing our national cancer plan, and I wish her all the best in securing the outcomes that both she and I want to see.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the move from analogue to digital will be key to cancer research, especially in the field of rare cancers such as the brain tumours that we have been hearing about?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely do. That shift to analogue to digital, and the use of the latest advantages in technology, science and research, will push the boundaries of what is possible when it comes to diagnosing and treating some of the rarer cancers, on which we have made virtually zero progress in recent years. I think that, with the right direction, the right commitment and the right drive, we can really start to make inroads in this area.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

May I invite the Minister, and indeed everyone here, to join us in Room M after these exchanges, when Radiotherapy UK will have a drop-in session with—most important—our patron Bryan Robson, England’s Captain Fantastic? I thank him for mentioning radiotherapy in his statement, which is crucial step forward, but may I suggest that he and the Government need to show exponentially greater ambition to get this right? The UK spends 5% of its cancer budget on radiotherapy, while the OECD average is 9%, which is why the UK is at the bottom of the survival league for so many cancers. Will the Minister commit himself to putting that right?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure that I will be able to attend the hon. Gentleman’s meeting, but I will certainly be in Westminster Hall for his debate later this afternoon. I understand exactly the concerns of people who are championing the need for increased access to radiotherapy treatments. My dad benefited from radiotherapy at the Christie, which probably gave him an extra couple of years of life with his family—I will be forever grateful for that. I get it; I understand it; we need to make the case.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his welcome statement, and join him in thanking all the organisations that do the vital work of helping and supporting those with cancer and their families. He is right to talk about health inequalities, which, as he will know, continue to worsen in constituencies such as mine, where, on average, people live 10 years less than others in more affluent areas; and last year more than 13,000 were waiting for diagnostic tests. Will he join me in commending the work of Eccleshill community diagnostic centre in Bradford— essential, and the first of its kind—which is speeding up the detection of life-threatening conditions such as cancer, and will he assure me that, as part of his national action plan, more support will be given to places such as Bradford and the Eccleshill community diagnostic centre, so that no one is left behind when it comes to their treatment?

[Andrew Gwynne]

As my hon. Friend says, tackling health inequalities is a key priority for this Government, in relation to our health mission but also more generally, when it comes to some of the big conditions such as cancer. In areas such as his and mine, the prevalence of cancer is greater, because of the industrial legacy, and also because the prevalence of smoking is still much higher than the national average. I commend the work of his local diagnostics team, and we need much more of that best practice to be spread across the areas that need it the most.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister's statement. He will be aware that a routine prostate cancer screening programme would save many lives. Can he give any indication of when it will be introduced?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and also for the written parliamentary questions about prostate cancer that he and a number of other Members have tabled. According to the current guidance, screening for prostate cancer is not recommended in the UK because of the inaccuracy of the current best test for prostate-specific antigen. Indeed, it could actually harm men, as some might be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their lives. However, I am looking at this carefully, and I know that further information has gone to the National Institute for Health and Care Research so that it can, perhaps, reach a different conclusion. Obviously, as technology and other mechanisms advance, this may well be an area where we can make inroads, but I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that every opportunity is met.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome this plan. I note that it was a recommendation from the Health and Social Care Committee in the last Parliament, and, as a member of that Committee, I hope that it sets a precedent.

Two weeks ago I lost my brother, Alex English, to high-grade acinic cell carcinoma. While I pay tribute to all those who gave him care, can the Minister confirm that we will look at rare cancers and make sure that we research some of them and find treatments?

[Andrew Gwynne]

First, may I send my condolences to my hon. Friend and his family on the loss of his brother Alex?

Of course rarer cancers are important, and they are a crucial part of what will be in the national cancer plan. It is in these areas that we must focus our efforts on diagnosis, treatment and, more importantly, getting the research done, so that we can find ways of tackling some of the very rare but deadly cancers that affect many families, including my hon. Friend’s.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In 2013, the number of breast cancer cases in women under 50 topped 10,000 for the first time, but routine breast cancer screenings are given only to women aged 40 and over. Will the Department review that and ensure that, when appropriate, initial appointments can be given to younger women? While I am at it, although the Minister might not have time to attend, may I invite everyone else to swing by my drop-in event this afternoon to discuss local health inequalities in breast cancer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the work that she does in this regard. The decisions on whom to screen are made by the UK national screening committee and their advice comes to Ministers, but I am aware of the case that she has made. Screening women earlier for breast cancer should perhaps be looked at, and I will ensure that my officials look into whether we can make some progress on that for her.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Ethan was just 15 and studying for his GCSEs when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Sadly, he passed away two years later. I had the privilege of meeting his mum, Nikki, this weekend at two events organised to raise money for brain tumour research. In Ethan’s memory, will the Minister commit himself to improving outcomes for people with brain tumours through the national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Through my hon. Friend, I would like to pass my condolences on to Nikki for the loss of Ethan. As I have said, we have not made anything like the progress we would want to make on treatment and survival rates for brain tumours. That will form an integral part of our national cancer plan, and we will utilise all the latest advances in technology and science to try to get the better outcomes that we so desperately want.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I genuinely welcome the Minister’s commitment to the upgrading of radiotherapy machines, but I share the concerns of the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), about the scale of the ambition. In defeating this horrible disease, technology and innovation is our friend. What is the Minister’s ambition for minimally invasive cancer therapies in the national cancer plan? These technologies are coming along every day, but awareness of them and the ability to get them rolled out on the frontline is slapdash at best. Will he commit to looking at those emerging therapies and getting them rolled out as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. Things are advancing so quickly in technology and innovation. It is quite remarkable that science fiction is becoming science fact. We are obviously interested in minimally invasive therapies, and they will form part of the plan. That is why we are consulting. That is the purpose of this exercise: so that we can look at what technologies are here today, what the emerging technologies are and how they will shift the dial on some cancers.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The House will know that my family, like many others in Newcastle-under-Lyme, has been impacted by cancer in recent times, so I thank the Minister for his statement and his personal commitment to getting this right. On World Cancer Day, I join him in paying tribute to the charities he mentioned in his statement, and particularly my constituents Mary and Colin, who raise so much money every year for Macmillan. Health inequalities in some of our poorest communities and our ethnic minority communities play a big role in cancer being diagnosed. Can the Minister tell me and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme how we will tackle those health inequalities alongside this national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it relates to not just cancer but a whole range of conditions, including cardiovascular disease, strokes and so many others—it is the same areas that have the worst outcomes, because there are endemic health inequalities that we have not shifted the dial on for decades. Life expectancy is much lower, and healthy life expectancy is much worse, than in less deprived areas. It is part of our health mission to drive forward better health outcomes for people living in the poorest areas, and our national cancer plan will be a key part of that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In his remarks yesterday, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), implied that he was discussing the future with AstraZeneca, which has had some bad news this week. AstraZeneca makes immunotherapies, among other things, and therefore is very important in allowing people to live better for longer. What discussion will the Minister be having as part of his plan with the pharmaceutical sector, since plainly the national health service cannot do this alone?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have certainly had a number of roundtables with the pharmaceutical sector in the UK about how we can support it, how we can grow our life sciences sector and how Britain can be at the cutting edge of new treatments and clinical trials. Indeed, we had a Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday on regulations to make it easier to carry out clinical trials in this country. Some of the latest advances in pharma are quite remarkable; I think particularly of the work being done on mRNA technology to look at having specific cancer treatments pertinent to a person’s genomics—it could be a game changer.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Hyndburn is home to the incredible woman Lorraine Hargreaves. She established the charity Milly’s Smiles after her daughter Milly died of leukaemia, and each year she supports thousands of families whose children have cancer. Can the Minister reassure her that this plan will also improve outcomes for children? I know that Lorraine will welcome the announcement on the re-establishment of the taskforce, but would the Minister consider meeting her to discuss the lack of support and grief groups for families who go through the unimaginable tragedy of losing a child to cancer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I cannot even begin to think what it would be like to lose a child full stop, but to lose them to cancer would be horrific for their parents. I pay tribute to Lorraine for all the campaigning she has done on this. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and Lorraine to talk about this, but the whole reason for putting the taskforce back on an operational footing is so that we can make the changes that she and Lorraine want to see.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Members across the House will be all too familiar with constituents reaching out to let them know that safe, effective new medicines are not approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The Minister speaks of research and the need for access. Will he commit to being a critical friend of NICE, to ensure both good value for the taxpayer and good access for patients?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. NICE is there for a particular reason: to ensure that the drugs being developed are available on the NHS when they meet the required threshold. Of course, we want to ensure that as new treatments become available, they are available for British patients. The work that is being done with Moderna and other pharmaceutical companies will ensure that British patients have access to some of the latest treatments as they come through the pipeline.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

One of my earliest memories is being in a hospital room as my grandfather was dying of cancer. Ten days ago, I was in the same hospital as my father died with the same cancer—50 years in between, almost to the week, but no significant change in prognosis. Can the Minister assure me that what are termed the less survivable cancers, which are not necessarily rare cancers, are included as part of this work?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My heart goes out to my hon. Friend. I lost both my parents to cancer, and it does not matter when it happens in your life; it is just heartbreaking. As the children of those parents, you never get over it. Of course, we will have a concerted effort on less survivable cancers. In part, they are less survivable because the research has not been done, or not to the extent that we can develop better treatments for them. That is where we really have to shift the dial in the next decade. We have to make sure that people who have a cancer diagnosis have the best opportunities to live a long and fulfilling life after cancer.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I declare an interest, in that I have now been smoke-free for 34 days using the NHS Quit Smoking app, even though my waistline and the Government have tested my resolve in recent weeks.

Eighteen months ago we lost my office manager, Susan Hall, to lymphoma. The Minister will know that parliamentary employees are not just employees; they are part of our family. Part of her treatment was community care provided by an excellent hospice in my constituency called Mountbatten hospice. This is not meant to be a political point, but what progress has been made on looking at a fairer, Government-led mechanism to fund our hospices across the United Kingdom on an even footing and with more money?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being smoke-free. Hopefully, he is the first of many as we move towards a smoke-free UK by 2030. He makes a real and serious point about not just community care—one of the big shifts in the health mission is from hospital to community—but how we approach the hospice sector. Last weekend I was at my local hospice, Willow Wood in Ashton-under-Lyne, where staff made exactly the same point. That will be fed into the national cancer plan.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for his deep understanding of women’s health issues and the difficulty that many women face in getting their GP to understand what they are going through. The Women and Equalities Committee has spent some time looking at that this year.

The George Eliot hospital in my constituency serves many of my constituents, who often complain about the length of time it takes to get scan results. Between June 2023 and 2024, almost 12% of people waited more than 28 days to receive MRI results, compared with 6.5% nationally. I know that the team there are working very hard to bring the time down, but can the Minister reassure my constituents that the use of AI will speed up the time it takes for them to get their scan results and the treatment they need?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes some really important points. The need to get people scanned more quickly, and to get results to consultants, is in part why we now have extra capacity through community diagnostic centres, where there are extra facilities for scans. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of where AI and emerging technologies may take us, which will almost certainly lead to faster identification of cancers.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Minister for making his statement on World Cancer Day, and I do not doubt his sincerity on this issue. On 22 March 2022, the then Northern Ireland Health Minister launched a 10-year cancer strategy and funding plan. It was co-designed, co-produced and co-chaired by Professor Charlotte McArdle, the then chief nursing officer, and Ivan McMinn, the then chair of Cancer Focus NI. The strategy looked to adopt a regional approach, to create smoother pathways and to adopt successful innovations. It had 58 action points and was costed at £145 million per year for 10 years, but it has not really made any progress since the fall of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Minister has said that he is developing a national cancer plan. Will he meet me and the current Northern Ireland Health Minister to ensure that the work that was developed is not lost but is built into what can be a truly successful national cancer plan if we do it right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work that he did in this area in a previous guise. I am more than happy to meet him and Mike Nesbitt, with whom I had a meeting on drug strategy and drugs as a public health issue before this statement, to drive forward how we can improve outcomes in Northern Ireland and get that plan working again, as it should never have stalled.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

People talk about the politics of hope and, goodness me, this statement can give the country some hope that cancer survival rates will be driven up. However, the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust has remained challenged over the last 14 years. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the areas that are most challenged will be given support to catch up and push on?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which is not lost on those of us on the Government Front Bench. There are real challenges across the healthcare system, and some of the areas with some of the worst outcomes also happen to have some of the worst health inequalities. Those issues are exacerbated by the pressure on the healthcare system. He can have my reassurance that the Government will make it a priority to drive down health inequalities and ensure that healthcare systems get the support they need.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I hope the Minister will join me in thanking the team at Dorset cancer centre in Poole, who enabled my step-mum, Sally Walls, to ring the bell this morning following the end of her radiotherapy treatment. Her treatment has been exceptional and swift, but the situation is inconsistent. Nikki from Horton was told that she needed a two-week appointment for gynaecological problems. When she called, she was told that it would be six weeks. She could not bear to wait, so she borrowed £650 to find out that she was all clear. Can the Minister offer reassurance that he will end the postcode lottery?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I congratulate the hon. Lady’s step-mum on ringing that bell, which is great news. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of inconsistency when it comes to the levels of service that different patients get. That will obviously be a major factor in the national cancer plan going forward, to ensure that all people diagnosed with cancer have the same levels of treatment and the same opportunities to survive.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. He will know as well as anybody else in this Chamber that smoking causes one in four cancers in this country, and that two out of three people who smoke will die as a result. He is assiduously moving the Tobacco and Vapes Bill through Parliament. Can he set out the likely effect that the Bill will have on those shocking statistics?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being a member of the Committee for that Bill, which ended its business last Thursday. The hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, were also members of that Committee. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because the Bill will stop the conveyor belt that the tobacco industry has used to its advantage for decades. We are saying that we will not allow any more children and young people to become addicted to nicotine and tobacco, which, as he says, kills two out of every three users. It is uniquely the most harmful product, and we are making the next generation smoke-free for a reason.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

One of my constituents waited two years from the onset of severe symptoms to receive a cancer diagnosis, and another 10 weeks to have the type of cancer identified, at which point it was incurable. One of the key failings in this case seems to be the disconnect between her reporting the symptoms to her GP and getting the right referral to the hospital, despite her having a previous history of breast cancer. What promises can the Minister make on improving the co-ordination between different parts of the NHS to make sure that people like my constituent do not fall through the cracks in the future?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That kind of experience is unacceptable, and the purpose of our plan is to demand better of the NHS and the system more widely when it comes to cancer outcomes. Nobody should have the kind of experience that the hon. Lady’s constituent had, which is why we will drive better outcomes through better treatment and earlier diagnosis, and make sure that the whole NHS is joined up in the process—a key part of the national cancer plan.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Given that today is World Cancer Day, this statement is extremely welcome. Half of all leukaemia patients will not survive beyond five years, and the outlook is even bleaker for those diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. If no action is taken, 80% of those diagnosed with AML today will not survive this Parliament. Early diagnosis and greater research are key to improving people’s chances. Will the Minister consider introducing measures to ensure that they are included in the national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend has my assurance on all fronts there. Early diagnosis, more and better research, and identifying how we improve outcomes for people with a variety of cancers are all crucial. His points about leukaemia are well rehearsed in the Department and will be a key part of the national cancer plan.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Some 3.4 million people in England live further than 45 minutes away from a radiotherapy centre. We all want to see that changed, but one of the challenges will be the fact that eight out of 10 radiotherapists have considered leaving the profession. Could the Minister outline what work the Government are doing to retain and recruit the radiotherapists that we need?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Member makes a reasonable point, and part of the reason that we are having a refreshed workforce plan alongside the 10-year NHS plan is precisely to address some of the concerns that he has raised. We need to make sure that we have the right workforce in the right place, and to future-proof it for the kinds of treatments that will come on stream in the coming decade.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the time he has spent with me discussing my private Member’s Bill, the Rare Cancers Bill. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research and Pancreatic Cancer UK, and we did in part discuss the national cancer plan. I do not speak on those charities’ behalf, but one of the conclusions I drew from the discussion was that there is a real need to have the voices of rare cancer patients and survivors at the heart of this consultation. Does the Minister agree with that point? Secondly, on World Cancer Day, will he join me in wishing my daughter Ruth good luck as she trains to run a marathon in aid of the Brain Tumour Charity?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Good luck, Ruth! I hope she succeeds and raises lots of money for such a good cause. I want to thank my hon. Friend as well for his crucial work in this area. He has my assurances that at the heart of the first step, which is the call for evidence I have announced today, and of the development of the national cancer plan, those with lived experience—patients or loved ones of people who have had cancer and those who have either survived or are now bereaved—absolutely have to be at the heart of what we are doing. We will take their views, their opinions and their thoughts fully on board as we develop this plan.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I lost my father to lymphoma and my wife is an ovarian cancer survivor, so I warmly welcome this statement. In Gloucestershire, we are a designated regional cancer centre, but unfortunately the buildings at Cheltenham general are just not up to scratch any more. Fundraising was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and we are in that situation. We need £17.5 million and we have £9 million to go. Will the Minister warmly congratulate the Big Space Cancer Appeal fundraisers, particularly Dr Charles Candish and Dr Sam Guglani, who are leading the charge on that? Would he like to meet those consultants to discuss how we might move this fundraising effort along so that the whole project does not rest on the back of charity?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and the team to look at precisely those points and I wish them all the very best in their fundraising efforts, but look, as a country we are better than this. I want to see the national cancer plan really start to address how we can get that research, that treatment, those diagnoses and those better outcomes for people with the NHS at the heart of it, doing what the NHS does best and ensuring that we get those outcomes from publicly funded improvements.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I welcome all the efforts this Government are making to improve cancer services. Early diagnosis is just as important as prevention, but we all know that patients are currently waiting several months for scan procedures. A recent visit to the GP surgeries in my constituency showed that they have spare capacity for scanning, but it is not actively offered to patients at the moment. This is due to a lack of collaborative working and communication in the health system, so will the Minister tell the House how we can improve the existing systems so that they work effectively and people can get timely procedures?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Part of our recovery plan is to ensure that we return the national health service to constitutional standards, not just in respect of cancer but across the board. We inherited a broken national health service and it is incumbent on this Government to fix it and make it fit for the future. Clearly, in areas such as my hon. Friend’s, the NHS needs to be doing much better when it comes to cancer outcomes and cancer treatments, and this plan and this Government will ensure that his local system gets all the support it needs.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare an interest, as I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.

I pay tribute to the Minister for following through with his promise for a national cancer plan. It is clearly very important to him, and it is to me as well. Shaun Walsh of Cancer Research UK first raised with me the need for a dedicated cancer plan, and it has been an important part of my work in Parliament since then. Will the Minister meet me and Shaun to discuss the next steps for the national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am more than happy to do so. My diary secretary, who will be watching this from the Department of Health, is probably having kittens at the amount of meetings. I meet Shaun and the cancer charities frequently anyway, and as I said at the start of the statement, I commend the work that they do in this area. This national cancer plan is important to me, to the Secretary of State, to the Prime Minister and to the sector, and that is why we are doing the right thing and having a plan.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement and I know that my wife, Julia, who is a consultant radiographer in mammography at King’s Mill hospital, will also welcome it. One of my earliest childhood memories is of watching my grandfather, William Yemm, die of lung cancer. William was a lifelong coalminer at Blidworth colliery. I think he drank and smoked rather more than was good for him throughout his life, so does the Minister agree that prevention is every bit as important as diagnosis, treatment and research in the fight against cancer? Can he reassure me that this welcome national cancer plan will consider what action we can take to prevent people from developing cancer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. This Government have three shifts and I have mentioned two of them already: the shifts from hospital to community and from analogue to digital. The third shift is from sickness to prevention. We absolutely have to shift the dial, whether it is on alcohol harms, smoking, obesity, inactivity or the air we breathe. These are the five-point plan priorities when it comes to prevention. My hon. Friend is so right to focus on this, and we hope to cut the instances of a whole range of preventable illnesses, including cancer.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Many of my constituents have to travel to England to access cancer treatment. This presents many problems, one of which is a lack of data sharing between NHS England and NHS Wales. Will the Minister assure Welsh patients that if they are treated in an English hospital, their data will follow them home and that it will be accessible to NHS Wales?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I also have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Government, and this is an area of interest to both Governments. We need to make sure there is better sharing of data and information for patients from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland when accessing NHS services in England, so that there is joined-up, smarter use of the data held on patients by our respective NHS systems in order to get better outcomes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am already taking this up with ministerial colleagues across the devolved Administrations.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Since my election, I have met a wide range of cancer charities, especially those representing rare and less common cancers. As the Minister knows, 55% of UK cancer deaths are a result of those types of cancers, such as blood, ovarian and kidney cancers. Will he ensure that rare and less common cancers are not forgotten in the national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend has my full assurance that all cancers—all tumour types—will be an integral part of the national cancer plan. On rarer cancers, it is important that we use the call for evidence and the discussions we will have in the coming weeks and months to ensure that those voices are heard as we drive forward our plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. His words always display the compassion and comfort that these types of statements should convey.

Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to do more to fund cancer research, rather than leaving charities to bear the burden? Cancer Research UK alone has invested more than £4 billion in research over the last 10 years. Will this plan ensure that groundbreaking research, such as that carried out at Queen’s University Belfast, will have enhanced funding for a world-class breakthrough in finding a cure for cancer? Will Northern Ireland be one of the UK’s 30 testing sites for women?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank my hon. Friend. I always call him my hon. Friend because I see more of him than I see of my wife. [Laughter.] Usually because we are in the same debates.

The hon. Member makes an important point about research, which will be a crucial aspect of the national cancer plan. Advances in technology, science and pharmaceuticals do not happen by accident; they happen because we fund the research to get to that point. We need to do much better in researching some of the rarer and less survivable cancers. Those scientists and charities must have access to the funds that are available so they can carry out the research we need.

As for where the 30 sites will be, that is above my pay grade. There are criteria, but I will take it back to my officials and see what we can do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank every Member on both sides of the Chamber who has shared their personal stories.

I was nine years old when I lost my grandmother, Grace, to cancer. That was a long time ago, but it still has a profound effect on me. Does the Minister agree that early detection is vital for survival rates? In particular, I emphasise the point about the importance of ensuring that women are taken seriously when they visit their GP.

I thank my constituent Sir Rod Stewart for the support he gave to the radiography department at Princess Alexandra hospital. Does the Minister agree that this national cancer plan will mean that we do not have to rely on the good will of rock legends such as Rod Stewart to support everyone in our society?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Talk about name-dropping; if only I had such famous constituents. Burnage was once home to the Gallagher brothers, and Denton was home to Mick Hucknall—I do not think any of them live there any more.

My hon. Friend makes an important point that women, in particular, have to be taken seriously by their GPs. The symptoms of some of these cancers could indicate a multitude of different things but, knowing from my mum’s bitter experience, I would sooner that GPs erred on the side of caution and got people diagnosed. If the diagnosis turns out not to be cancer, what a wonderful result that is. If it is cancer, we can get them on the treatment pathway sooner rather than later.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I also commend the Minister for his great announcement, which is welcome and needed.

The Minister has often spoken about the importance of shifting from sickness to prevention, from hospital to community, and from analogue to digital. Residents of Southend East and Rochford deserve an NHS that is there when they need it. What impact does he think the plan will have on the issues he has outlined today?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is a good one on which to end. Each of those three shifts—from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention—could be taken in isolation. However, by putting them together, we can shift how we deliver health and care in this country. We will make it fit for purpose, we will drive up standards across the system, we will get the NHS back to constitutional standards—which means lower waiting times, shorter waiting lists and better outcomes—and, when it comes to cancer, we will save lives. It is as simple as that.

Bill Presented

Statutory Adoption Pay (Report on Extension to the Self-Employed) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lisa Smart presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of extending eligibility for statutory adoption pay to persons who are self-employed or contractors; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed (Bill 175).

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

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these important amendments, which represent the most significant reform of UK clinical trials regulation in more than 20 years. Clinical research is the single most important way in which we improve our healthcare, by identifying the best way to prevent, diagnose and treat conditions.

Clinical trials are vital for patients with limited available treatment options, such as the estimated 3.5 million people living with rare diseases in the UK, together with the 17.5 million living with long-term conditions. This draft legislation will play a vital role in supporting the development of new treatments for those who so desperately need them by transforming the environment for clinical trials in the UK.

The changes respond to the sector’s need for a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, while safeguarding the wellbeing of trial participants. The reforms will establish a proportionate, flexible and effective clinical research environment, placing patients at the heart of the process. The changes have been carefully designed in response to calls for reform, aligning with the direction set in our manifesto promise to build an NHS fit for the future and maximising the UK’s potential to lead the world in clinical trials.

The reforms are further underpinned by the findings of Lord Darzi’s independent investigation of the NHS in England and the recommendations of Lord O’Shaughnessy’s review into commercial UK clinical trials. These changes to modernise the regulatory framework will cement the UK as a destination for clinical trials that is innovative, inclusive and international and will, most importantly, help to get life-changing medicines to the people who need them sooner.

Let me explain to the Committee why Government believe change is needed. It is necessary and timely. The existing legislation is based on the now repealed and replaced European Union clinical trials directive. It no longer reflects the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to reform our national regulations to deliver a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials, supporting the safe development of innovative treatments benefiting patients and public health alike.

I will now briefly summarise the key aspects of the reforms. Of the key changes, the first is risk-proportionate regulation. Regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial, empowering researchers to adopt appropriate approaches. Low-risk clinical trials will benefit from faster approval processes through automatic authorisation, without compromising patient safety.

Secondly, there is future-proofing: the draft legislation is a purposeful move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, which does not reflect modern, innovative clinical trial methods. We have removed granular and duplicative legal requirements in favour of specific, tailored guidance, which will provide flexibility and adaptability for future advancements.

Thirdly, there is international alignment: the United Kingdom will remain aligned with international standards to ensure that data from UK trials is accepted globally. That will help to secure the UK’s place as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials, including those conducted across the European Union.

Fourthly, this new framework will cement the UK as a destination for international clinical trials. Streamlined and efficient processes will be introduced to simplify clinical trial applications. The legislation will include a combined regulatory and research ethics review, ensuring that approval timelines are internationally competitive.

Finally, there is increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all. The changes will, for the first time, introduce a legal requirement to register a clinical trial and to publish a summary of the results. Participants will be offered an easy-to-understand summary of what the research has found out. These new transparency requirements will build public trust in research, and ensure that participants, and the wider public, have access to information about ongoing research and can use research findings to help to make informed decisions.

I will now turn to the benefits of this new framework in more detail. Patients will have greater access to life-changing treatments, which will improve outcomes and save lives. These reforms ensure that UK patients will be among the first to benefit from cutting-edge therapies. The transparency requirements will ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all, improving public trust and confidence in the innovative clinical trials taking place in our country.

Evidence also shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient care outcomes and improved staff retention, and that it benefits the whole health and care system. Clinical trials are part of the solution for reducing the strain on our National Health Service. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will enhance research efforts and foster innovation in prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions.

Additionally, we are broadening the categories of healthcare professionals who can be accepted as investigators, encouraging more researchers to carry out clinical trials in their specialist areas. Innovators and industry will run clinical trials within a streamlined, risk-proportionate regulatory framework, with reduced delays and administrative burdens, which will support industry growth and bolster the UK’s life sciences sector—something that I am sure Members on both sides of the House support.

The impact on businesses has been evaluated; as the projected costs and benefits to businesses was below £5 million in any single financial year, a full impact assessment was not required, as originally stated in the accompanying explanatory notes. Instead, a de minimis assessment was produced and is published alongside this instrument.

To summarise, this new framework uses effective regulation to accelerate the development of medicines, turning tomorrow’s emerging medicines into today’s reality for patients. By modernising our approach, we can solidify the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in clinical research, fostering innovation while upholding the highest safety standards.

I want to end on a critical point: participant safety remains paramount. This new legislation, while streamlining processes and removing unnecessary barriers to innovation, prioritises robust oversight of clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of those participating in a trial is never compromised. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting these transformative changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is my understanding—I look for inspiration if I am wrong—of the situation today. If that is not correct, I will ensure that the hon. Lady and members of the Committee are informed in writing. The impact on businesses is the impact on business as it stands now, but we want to grow the business and ensure that the ecosystem grows and that the life sciences sector is booming in this country, for all the reasons that I set out in my opening speech.

In conclusion, by modernising our regulatory framework we will ensure that lifesaving treatments are accelerated by streamlined, efficient processes without compromising safety standards. The reforms will strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in innovative clinical trials and help to get lifesaving, life-changing medicines to the people who most need them sooner. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support and to Members for considering the regulations today; I hope they will all join me in supporting them.

Question put and agreed to.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

We are talking about something that will be illegal in the United Kingdom and how United Kingdom law is enforced. My question relates to how people might behave in other countries’ waters on the basis of local laws. The question is, if this is a law that we are bringing in to apply to British ships, how will the Government expect it to apply when the British ship is not in a British port or in British waters, but perhaps in international or foreign waters? It could lead to difficulties in compliance and potential jurisdictional conflicts where the local laws do not agree. If the ship is operating in another nation’s territorial waters, that country might have its own laws on vaping or smoking. Which law prevails? Another question is when trying to enforce a ban when transporting humanitarian aid or refugees, in that the people who are being picked up might not realise that there is a ban. How would that be enforced in such circumstances?

Some people might ask whether the extent of the regulations for vaping and heated-tobacco devices is too inflexible? Such devices do not pose the same fire risks as cigarettes or pipes, although they are not without risk. Modern Royal Navy deployments, as I understand them, can typically last six to nine months, and vaping is used when smokers are trying to quit as a cessation tool. What discussions has the Minister had about the health of our military personnel deployed for such periods of time? How will he ensure access to nicotine replacement therapy and smoking cessation services so that we are not leaving people without access to what would, for them as an adult, be a legal product?

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. There is light at the end of the tunnel: today is the day that we will have a Bill in one shape or another, having reached the end of Committee stage and deliberated everything; and if not, of course everything that has not been debated gets accepted anyway, so we will have a Bill.

The clause amends an existing regulation-making power in section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that any safety regulations—this is what we are talking about here. Health and safety regulations in merchant shipping that are made under section 85 provide for heated tobacco and vape-free provision for ships, which will correspond with the provisions in the Health Act 2006.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, put a couple of questions. We have the power to make provision about health and safety in the merchant shipping sector already, under the 1995 Act. Those powers are already there, are already being implemented and are already being enforced. All that this measure will do is extend the provision to vapes and heated-tobacco devices, to bring it into line with everything else we have done over our debates.

The matter is one for the Department for Transport. It owns this policy, and health and safety in merchant shipping. We will continue to work with the Department for Transport as we consider any future regulations to create additional smoke-free places, but it is for the Department for Transport to implement and to enforce health and safety regulations in merchant shipping, as it does now. It will continue to do that, but with an extension of its powers. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 158 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 159

Application to Parliament

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

[Dr Johnson]

This is an interesting clause, because it applies the Bill to the parliamentary estate. According to Erskine May, there has been some confusion about whether statute law can apply inside the parliamentary estate, because of the principle of exclusive cognisance. That means that Parliament has control over its own internal matters and that not all laws automatically apply within Parliament. To quote from Erskine May directly:

“Actions in respect of which exclusive cognizance is claimed and has been admitted are not restricted to formal acts of either House. This privilege has been held to extend to the sale of intoxicating liquor within the precincts of the House, though those responsible did not hold a licence.”

Smoking, for example, has technically been prohibited in the Commons Chamber, public and Members’ Lobbies and Committee Rooms since 1694. According to Erskine May, MPs agreed

“That no Member do presume to take tobacco in the gallery of the House or at a committee table”.

Around the estate, however, historically it was the custom to smoke in the bars and the Tea Room, and in the Committee Corridor outside this very Committee Room we are in today. There are legal exceptions and exemptions that are worth discussing now.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel published guidance on Crown application in 2021 and noted that the Palace of Westminster is Crown land. The guidance explains the general presumption that an Act does not bind the Crown unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. Often, an Act includes a clause on Crown application, specifying whether the Act applies to Crown land, but the Health Act 2006 does not include such a clause.

The position set out by case law is that the Health Act 2006 does not apply to the Crown, as in the 2017 case of R (on the application of Black) v. Secretary of State for Justice. In that case, the prisoner, named Mr Black, was serving an indeterminate sentence at Her Majesty’s Prison Wymott. He was a non-smoker with a number of health problems that were exacerbated by tobacco smoke—we talked about prisoners and vaping earlier. He complained that the smoking ban was not being properly enforced in the common parts of prisons, and issued proceedings for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to provide access to the NHS smoke-free compliance line to prisoners.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mr Black’s appeal, holding that Parliament must have intended the Crown to not be bound by the smoking ban, otherwise it would have made an express provision for it in the Act. In the words of Lady Hale:

“there are powerful indicators in the language of the Act itself that the Crown was not to be bound by the smoking ban.”

In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that the ambiguity had led to many inconsistencies in statute law. That Committee considered that it was not practicable to resolve the inconsistencies without sweeping retrospective change, which could have unforesee- able consequences. It concluded that in the absence of legislation, the safest way forward—however undesirable it might be as a statement of principle—was to reiterate and formalise the current presumption that legislation does not apply to Parliament unless it expressly provides otherwise. That was agreed on, and now there is a rule that legislation creating individual rights that could fit with parliamentary activities must expressly say that it applies within Parliament.

Here we are today, with clause 159, which stipulates that the Bill and regulations made under it will apply to the parliamentary estate. The Bill does not replace the smoke-free provisions in the Health Act 2006 and does not otherwise provide directly for the smoke-free restrictions discussed above. There is no obvious means by which clause 159 will place the parliamentary estate within the scope of the 2006 Act. However, clause 136 enables Ministers to add to the list of places designated as smoke-free by introducing new regulations under proposed new section 4(1) of that Act. It is therefore possible for new regulations to designate the parliamentary estate as smoke-free, but I have seen no indication from the Government that they plan to do that. Clause 136 also enables Ministers to make exceptions to smoke-free legislation.

The extent to which the Bill can be used to place the parliamentary estate within the scope of smoke-free legislation is therefore a matter for legal interpretation, and I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that. Earlier in the debates that we have been having during line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we talked about the snuff that is kept outside the door, with the Doorkeepers, and the Minister suggested there was no reason why that could not continue, but I am interested to understand his thoughts in relation to clause 159.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is a standard clause. It provides that the measures in the Bill and regulations made under it apply to the parliamentary estate. I hope that Opposition Members do not think that the parliamentary estate should be above the law that Parliament will, I hope, pass. This clause requires the parliamentary estate to adhere to the tobacco and vaping control measures under the Bill and regulations made under it, ensuring consistent application of the law. The wording of the clause was previously agreed with the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament—both the House of Commons and the other place—so that the whole of the parliamentary estate will be covered by the same laws that will apply outside the parliamentary estate. It will include, for example, the shops, to ensure that there is consistent application of the law. It appertains to the House of Commons shop, the House of Lords shop and the retail outlets on the parliamentary estate. Those regulations that apply to retailers outside the parliamentary estate will apply within the parliamentary estate.

[Dr Johnson]

Is the Minister aware of any retailers on the parliamentary estate at the moment that actually do sell any tobacco or cigarette products?

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, I am not, but the point is that the law has to apply equally within Parliament and outside of Parliament. There has to be a consistency of approach, and just because a person cannot get the House of Commons snuff from the House of Commons shop does not mean that the House of Commons shop should have a different set of regulations from any other retail outlet in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Clerks and the Cabinet Office were consulted before the inclusion of this clause. They were content for it to be included, and that is why it is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I know that the Minister enjoyed grandstanding about equality, but I am not sure that he actually answered the question. Clause 160 talks about consequential amendments, and one question that I asked him about clause 159 was whether it would have the effect that he says it will. It says:

“To the extent that this Act or regulations made under it would not…apply in relation to the Parliamentary Estate, they do so apply”,

but it does not include the Health Act. As there are consequential amendments in clause 160, would there need to be a consequential amendment to the Health Act? It is that Act, as amended, that provides for the regulations in relation to smoking.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 160 and schedule 21 provide further general consequential amendments relating to this Bill. The specific amendments to existing legislation are set out in the schedule. Those amendments help the provisions in the Bill to function effectively within the existing legislative framework. This is a standard supplementary clause that enables the legislation to function as intended following the Bill’s introduction.

The shadow Minister refers to different aspects of legislation. Many of the clauses that we have already debated bring together existing tobacco control legislation in one place, so the consequential powers that we are seeking through this clause will make sure that the existing legislation set out in the schedule will be amended, to ensure the smooth running of the legislation. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 agreed to.

New Clause 2

Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme with one or more of the following purposes—

(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any producer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,

(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products,

(c) providing for any producer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.

(2) In this section—

‘importer’, in relation to tobacco products, and ‘tobacco products’ have the meaning as in Part 5 (see section 112),

‘producer’, in relation to tobacco products, is to be construed in accordance with the meaning of ‘production’ in Part 5 (see section 112).”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will not be pushing this new clause to a vote; nevertheless, I think it is a policy that the Minister should take into consideration. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on a “polluter pays” levy. The Minister will know that I and members of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have campaigned for this for some time. It was also recommended in the Khan review in 2022 and, more recently, by the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on health and prosperity.

Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs England more than £43 billion a year. That is more than £27 billion in productivity costs, nearly £14 billion in social care costs and more than £1.8 billion in NHS costs—and much more. A “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers could raise around £700 million a year, with that money coming from tobacco companies’ profits, not raised from consumers.

A levy of this kind would provide sustainable funding for tobacco control and could be given to organisations such as Fresh, the tobacco control programme in the north-east, which does such vital work in ensuring that no one gets left behind as we move to a smoke-free future. In fact, all the Government’s programmes on tobacco, including mass media campaigns, incentives for pregnant women and support for smokers with mental health problems, could be funded many times over, with cash to spare that could go to other public health initiatives.

This would be subject to consultation, but the model proposed by Action on Smoking and Health would cap the wholesale price of tobacco, similarly to how we cap the prices of essential utilities and hence limit profits. The big four tobacco companies account for 95% of UK sales and make excessive profits selling a highly addictive product that kills two in three long-term users when used as intended by the manufacturer. Tobacco manufacturers make an estimated £900 million in profit per year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%. For context, the average profit margin for UK manufacturing is 10%.

There is widespread public support for this measure: 79% of adults in Great Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, with only 5% opposed. I hope the Government will seriously consider this, because it would complement the intentions of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I am almost glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is not here, because at this point we would probably be launching into a much longer and more protracted debate, so we are lucky in that regard—[Interruption.] I am being chastised by the shadow Minister.

We should consider that interesting point and its knock-on impact because, in common with the hon. Member for City of Durham, I have concerns about the illicit tobacco market. I very much agree that we should be moving to a new system of preventive medicine. As I have mentioned, I have type 1 diabetes, and I want to see a greater and earlier use of technology to prevent long-term problems. The new clause provides a useful point for discussion, and I thank the hon. Lady for tabling it.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for tabling the new clause, because it allows us to have a debate about a really important matter. As has been discussed, the new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult and report on a scheme to regulate and to raise funds from the prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Duty on tobacco raises around £8.8 billion a year. The Government’s preferred approach is to continue with a proven and effective model of dealing with tobacco products through increases in tobacco excise and through duties. This generates finances that can support a full range of public services, including public health and the NHS, as well as smoking cessation services. We believe the proposed scheme would be complex to implement and might take several years to materialise.

Alongside the Bill, we are taking strong action to reduce the affordability of tobacco, which is an effective measure to trigger smoking cessation. The United Kingdom already has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. The World Health Organisation recommends that total taxes on tobacco are at least 75% of the retail price on typical cigarettes. The United Kingdom comfortably meets this target, with taxes at around 80% of selling price.

As announced at the autumn Budget 2024, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased in line with the tobacco duty escalator by 2% above retail price index inflation. The duty rate on hand-rolling tobacco was increased by a third of 10%, to 12% above RPI inflation, to reduce the gap with duty on cigarettes. Those changes came into effect on 30 October 2024.

Cigarettes are also subject to minimum excise tax, which sets a minimum amount of duty collected on a pack of cigarettes. That discourages manufacturers from selling cheap cigarettes, as it reduces the profitability of cigarettes sold at or below minimum excise tax trigger prices. The new minimum excise tax is £8.93 for a pack of 20, and it applies to cigarettes sold at or below £13.59 for a pack of 20.

We are still going further on tobacco tax. As announced in the autumn Budget, there will be an additional one-off increase for all tobacco duties. That will come into force on 1 October 2026, when the vaping duty comes into effect. From a financial perspective, that will maintain the incentive for smokers to switch to vaping once the new excise duty on vaping products comes into force.

On one last technical note, His Majesty’s Treasury can consult on tobacco taxation and fiscal policy at any time, so that does not need to be set out in the Bill. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to withdraw her new clause.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Ban on supply of cigarette filters

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) In this section,

‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. That is a good conclusion to have worked through, which we perhaps had not had the opportunity to turn our attention to. I would like to see a provision of this nature. I am intrigued, as my hon. Friend said, by why the Minister has not included filters in the outright initial ban. That should be considered, perhaps on Report.

As a general principle, we need to look after our natural environment. A ban on the plastic contained in cigarette filters would surely be a sensible move. As my hon. Friend has said, however, the filters do not achieve what anyone was hoping and do not make smoking safer. I therefore think we must have further discussion. Will the Minister give a little more explanation on some of the rationale and whether the measure can be included in the Bill?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for moving this new clause for debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for tabling it. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit the supply of cigarette filters that contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters that contain plastic.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the premise of the new clause. Cigarette filters, as we heard from the shadow Minister, have historically been marketed as making smoking safer, and we know that smokers can perceive cigarettes with a filter as tasting smoother and being of lower risk. Evidence shows that there is no proven health benefit to cigarette filters. All tobacco products are harmful to health.

However, as with all regulations, it is important that any measures are fully considered and evidence-based, to ensure that there will not be any unintended consequences—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member want to intervene?

[Sarah Bool]

The hon. Member for Dartford has now arrived, so perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to allow him to intervene.

[The Chair]

Hang on. It is for the Minister to decide who he wants to give way to. Minister, carry on speaking; if somebody catches your eye, it is up to you whether you allow them to intervene.

[Andrew Gwynne]

If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford wants to intervene, he need only ask.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

I am quickly coming to the point of my intervention; I reserve the right to say something else later. The Minister has outlined the fact that the health benefits of filters are non-existent, but is he also aware that, according to Keep Britain Tidy, cigarette butts make up 66% of all littered items and cost UK local authorities around £40 million per year to clean up? Would he consider that relevant to this new clause?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Litter is something that this Government take seriously. Tobacco litter remains a concern for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with cigarette filters consistently scoring as the most littered item in surveys. Local authorities already have the powers to punish those who litter through prosecution. They can also create smoke-free areas through the use of public space protection orders.

Nevertheless, my colleagues in DEFRA believe that the best way to tackle littering of filters is through a reduction in smoking rates. We therefore continue to support all initiatives designed to encourage people to quit smoking. This Bill aims to reduce smoking prevalence in the UK. Our published modelling, which I have referred to, shows that smoking rates in England among 30-year-olds and under could be close to zero as early as 2050, which is likely to reduce overall litter levels, as there will be fewer tobacco and tobacco-related products sold and disposed of each year.

We need to be very wary of unintended consequences. I know for certain that my hon. Friend, like me, does not want to give tobacco manufacturers the opportunity to greenwash and to say that they have created a product that is not only healthier for people because it has a filter—we know that that is utter nonsense, but it is the lie they have peddled to date—but better for the environment. We will not allow the tobacco industry to improve its reputation by making itself appear to be environmentally aware and taking action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

Without necessarily endorsing the ban that the new clause would lead to, is the Minister prepared to think about supporting a move to other parts of Government, and perhaps about even moving to ban cigarette filters, as part of the consultation that his Department is about to undertake? That would generate momentum for what he rightly says would be a positive move for the environment and for health.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We are very clear about the measures in the Bill that we will consult on, but I reassure my hon. Friend that I am in regular contact with Ministers across Government about a whole range of issues, not least because the health mission board has decided that I have a lead role in bilateral discussions on the health mission. I will certainly continue to raise the issue of cigarette end litter with colleagues in DEFRA, and to see whether we can get DEFRA to use some of the powers at its disposal in order to meet the aims and ambitions of my hon. Friend, but it need not be included in this Bill specifically, because it is a DEFRA-led policy.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked why cigarette filters were not covered in earlier clauses. In the Bill, we have taken a power to update the legislation to include tobacco devices and accessories that enable a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a pipe. It would not cover filters, as they do not enable a product to be consumed. That is the legalistic reason that cigarette filters are not in scope of the Bill, as we debated way back when. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

[The Chair]

Given that the shadow Minister moved the new clause, it is for her to press or withdraw. Shadow Minister, do you want to withdraw it or press it to a vote?

[Dr Johnson]

That depends on whether the Minister can assure me that he intends to bring forward legislation under the Environment Act 2021 to deal with plastic filters.

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is way above my pay grade. It is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford that I will speak to ministerial colleagues in DEFRA. We are very sympathetic to the aim of the new clause, but we do not support the Bill being the mechanism to achieve it.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank once more the shadow Minister for moving my new clause in my absence. If I were moving it, I would be content, given the Minister’s assurances to pursue this matter, to withdraw it. I know that there are others on both sides of the Committee who will work with me to make the right representations to DEFRA to see the point of the new clause carried forward in another part of Government. Were I moving my own new clause, I would be happy to withdraw it at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I find high-strength nicotine pouches incredibly concerning, as I had not been aware of their existence. There is a Member of the House who happens to use them; I had simply thought that that hon. Member was partaking of mints, but that is clearly is not the case.

This is an interesting area. As the shadow Minister has noted, pouches are discreet. When they are aimed at children, it is hard for parents to know what their children are taking, so they are particularly pernicious in their effect.

Many hon. Members will know that I often go back to social media. Apparently one of the main brands is called Zyn and is now trying to promote the trending of “Zynfluencers” via Instagram. The aim is to appeal to the younger generation. I do not think that that is acceptable, especially when some of these pouches are of a strength of up to 100 mg, as the shadow Minister mentioned.

Like the shadow Minister, I ask whether the Minister has any thoughts about whether the cap should be reduced further, because 20 mg may not be the right number. Given that the impact of long-term use of these pouches, which I happened to raise with the Member I saw taking one, includes mouth sores, gum irritation and oral cancer, I think we probably need a further discussion about them. I welcome any comments that the Minister may have.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

New clause 5 would introduce a ban on the manufacture and sale of high-strength nicotine products, with the maximum level of nicotine in a pouch set at 20 mg. Unlike nicotine vapes, there is currently no set nicotine limit for nicotine pouches; as we have heard, nicotine strengths vary from 2 mg per pouch to as high as 150 mg per pouch. There is also significant variation in these products internationally.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the arguments from the shadow Minister, from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and indeed from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend. It is important to define the correct and safe nicotine level of a nicotine pouch. That is why we are already taking powers in the Bill that would allow the Government to limit the amount of nicotine in a pouch and to ban any other ingredient in a pouch that might be harmful.

We believe that secondary rather than primary legislation is the appropriate way to legislate on these matters, for all the reasons we have already debated. Legislation always has to be flexible enough to be amended based on new and emerging evidence. That allows the Government to set the right level of technical detail to ensure legal clarity. We will therefore consider the matter very carefully in our consultations post Royal Assent. I note that the shadow Minister referred to “if” we decide to use these regulations. Let me be very clear: these are precisely the kinds of things we will be looking at when we are moving like the clappers to get the regulations through.

In addition, nicotine pouches will be covered by all our other measures designed to reduce the appeal and accessibility of such products to children, such as powers to restrict flavours and regulate packaging, as well as those on general advertising. The shadow Minister gave an example of promotions that give out iPads in exchange for empty pouches. We clearly need to look at that specific promotion, but we are confident that it would be banned under the advertising restrictions that we have already debated and agreed to in Committee. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I understand that he is sympathetic. I know that he is going to go like the clappers; “going like the clappers” is apparently an RAF phrase, but I doubt that he is going as fast as a Tornado jet or a Typhoon—[Interruption.] Maybe he will: he is indicating that he might.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I reassure the shadow Minister that on some of these things I am going to go supersonic.

[Dr Johnson]

Hear, hear. However, in reality, regulations take time, and a sonic boom could damage the windows of this beautiful Palace of Westminster.

I do not know where the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, who tabled new clause 5, has got the 20 mg figure, but my understanding is that 20 mg is a higher level than we would expect in a cigarette. Anything stronger than a cigarette could certainly not be considered a stop smoking device: it will just get people more addicted to nicotine than they would ever wish.

I will press the new clause to a vote, because I feel very strongly that over time we will see these pouches becoming the latest thing for children to become addicted to, despite the Minister’s best intentions.

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 6 will introduce a process of consultation and scrutiny of the licensing regulations for the retail sale of tobacco products, when the relevant sections of the Tobacco and Vapes Act come into effect. New clause 6 is designed to ensure that the implementation of the licensing system is transparent and effective.

Subsection (1) lays out the following requirement:

“Within two months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations for the licensing of retail sale of tobacco products etc in England.”

The Secretary of State says he is working like the clappers, at supersonic speed, so I am sure that that should be more than achievable, but the new clause holds his feet to the fire on timing.

The provision is crucial because it sets a clear and reasonable timetable for the initial stage of the regulatory process. The publication of the draft regulations will provide a starting point for discussions about the rules governing the sale of tobacco, enabling relevant stake-holders, including retailers, public health experts and consumer advocacy groups, to examine responsive proposals. The two-month window allows the Secretary of State to move promptly—like the clappers—while also giving enough time for key groups to review the draft and contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Subsection (2) further strengthens the consultation process, and it states that after the draft regulations are published, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence. This is an invitation for the public, industry participants and experts to provide their view on the proposed regulations. The goal of the call for evidence is to gather insights on the efficacy and suitability of the draft regulations, helping the Government to understand whether the proposals will achieve the intended outcomes and whether they are feasible in practice. Furthermore, the subsection ensures that the Business and Trade Committee will be invited to scrutinise the draft regulations, ensuring that any regulations that are developed are subject to thorough review and are held to the highest standards of accountability.

Subsection (3) requires that within six months of passing this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report that responds formally to the evidence gathered through the consultation process, details the Government’s response to the feedback received and outlines any changes made to the draft regulations. In addition, the Government will address any recommendations put forward by the Business and Trade Committee in their scrutiny of the draft regulations.

The report will provide a mechanism for the Government to explain how public input and parliamentary scrutiny have influenced the final regulations, thus reinforcing the transparency and accountability of the process. The report also gives Parliament the opportunity to assess whether the Government sufficiently considered evidence before moving forward with the regulations.

Finally, subsection (4) introduces an important safeguard, and states:

“The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 168(4) bringing Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2 into force until the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament”.

This ensures that significant changes are not implemented without the proper review, approval and scrutiny of the House.

In summary, the new clause will strengthen the legislative framework of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill by ensuring the licensing regulations on the sale of tobacco products are subject to a thorough process of consultation, scrutiny and formal response. By requiring early publication, gathering public input, inviting parliamentary review and ensuring that no major changes are enacted before proper scrutiny, the new clause guarantees that the regulations will be well informed, balanced and accountable.

It will also ensure that the Minister does indeed go like the clappers, because it gives quite a tight timetable. One of my concerns, which I raised earlier in the debate, was that it would take some time for the regulations to come in. If we allow the time taken to bring in the regulations and consult to drag out, more children and adults will become addicted to these products, and that will be bad for the public health of the nation. The new clause provides a reasonable timetable to ensure the regulations are brought in swiftly, as the Minister has described.

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

It is good to be back after a short lunch break, Mr Pritchard; I trust Members are well nourished ahead of this afternoon’s sitting.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for this set of amendments. They would require the Government to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the licensing scheme in England, as set out in clauses 16 to 18 and schedules 1 and 2. The new clause stipulates that those regulations must be published within two months of Royal Assent of the Bill, and that a report on a mandated call for evidence, including a response to the Business and Trade Committee, must be laid before both Houses six months after Royal Assent.

I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s desire to move swiftly in this space. It is certainly my intention and the intention of the Government to move at pace—like the clappers, in supersonic fashion—in a whole range of areas. However, as with similar amendments relating to the registration scheme, we believe that new clause 6 would place an unreasonable and impractical constraint on Government. The reality is that to publish the regulations within two months of Royal Assent is simply not feasible, and the new clause does not reflect the processes and stages required for the development of proportionate, appropriate and well-considered regulations.

Development of secondary legislation takes time, and the arbitrary timescales proposed would not enable effective policy development. Forcing the Government to proceed with producing new legislation at the pace that the shadow Minister seeks to stipulate would open the Government up to the risk of creating flawed policy. Creating flawed policy carries clear risks, not least the potential for the Government’s work to be legally challenged, thereby delaying measures either for a further period of time or indeed for good.

The Bill imposes on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to consult ahead of the introduction of any regulations. Through that process, we will be able to carefully consider views from stakeholders, including the retail sector, in order to build a licensing scheme that supports legitimate businesses while cracking down on rogue retailers.

Finally, to echo points that I have already made, the Bill has been developed in collaboration with colleagues across the United Kingdom, and such close working and close alignment will continue through the development of all secondary legislation. My concern about new clause 6 is that it risks creating inconsistencies with licensing regimes elsewhere, particularly in Wales and Northern Ireland. We are approaching this together, and that is why I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

We have learned from the Minister that terms such as “like the clappers”, “quickly”, “in due course” and “soon” all mean a timescale longer than publishing a draft within two months and the final version within six. In practice, that means the concerns I have expressed about the Bill are true. This will take a long time, and the Minister’s “soon” is not really soon enough.

I understand the Minister’s concern that if he does not get the work done in time, it will cause the Government problems, but the answer to that is simply to get the work done in sufficient time. The Minister has been clear all along that this is an urgent public health measure. Two thirds of the people who get addicted will die as a result of the tobacco they are consuming. Not to agree that he must produce draft regulations within two months, when he knows much of what the consultation will say—indeed, the previous Government consulted on much of it anyway—is to say that the Government will move slowly and not like the clappers at all.

I understand that he is concerned about inconsistency between the nations, but he has not expressed such concern before. In fact, throughout our debate, when we have discussed the nations, we have spoken repeatedly about respecting devolution and the ability of other nations to go at different paces, do different things in different ways, and impose different fines and other penalties.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure whether it is because of selective amnesia, or whether the shadow Minister has had a really good lunch, but she seems to have entirely forgotten our previous debates. We have debated the licensing regime at length, and I made it perfectly clear to the whole Committee that Scotland is doing its own thing because it believes that that works well for Scotland, but that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be moving in lockstep on this. If she was not aware then, she should be now.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the Minister for making my point, which is that some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing to do this in a different way.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We are doing this together.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her new clause 7. It would require the Government to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the registration and information requirements set out in clauses 95 and 98. It stipulates that these regulations must be published within two months of Royal Assent of the Bill, and that a report on a mandated call for evidence, including the response to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, must be laid before both Houses six months after Royal Assent.

Again, I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s desire to move swiftly in this space, but as with her similar proposals relating to licensing, this new clause would place an unreasonable and impractical constraint on the Government. To draft and publish these regulations within two months of Royal Assent is simply not feasible, and the new clause does not reflect the required processes and stages for the development of proportionate, appropriate and well-considered regulations. Development of secondary legislation takes time, and the arbitrary timescales proposed would not enable effective policy development.

The Bill imposes on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to consult on the appropriate parties ahead of introducing any regulations on this issue. Through this process, we will be able to carefully consider views relating to the existing notification schemes for tobacco products and nicotine vapes, as well as to get views on how a future registration scheme might work, and, importantly, use that input to shape and draft the required regulations. Forcing the Government to proceed hastily with producing new legislation opens up the risk of creating flawed policy. Creating flawed policy creates clear risks, not least the potential for the Government’s work to be legally challenged. I know that that is not what the shadow Minister wants, so I therefore ask her not to push her new clause to a vote.

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is inevitable that much of this will be legally challenged, because the effect of the legislation is to hamper severely an industry that has a lot of money. They are going to challenge every dot and comma of it—I am quite sure of that. The purpose, however, of this new clause is to get the Government to move at speed. The Government have been in power for more than six months now, so they cannot say that they are not capable of producing draft guidelines for regulations within six months of the date of Royal Assent, which is many weeks from now, given that they have managed to publish the Employment Rights Bill, the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Finance Bill and various other things. I do not understand why the Minister is not keener to get these things done.

I will therefore push the new clause to a vote. Yes, the Minister could get himself in trouble if he did not work quick enough, but I have every confidence that if this new clause were enacted, the Minister would—like the clappers, at supersonic speed—be more than capable. I have every confidence that the Minister is more than capable of drafting regulations within the time available if he is forced to do so.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 is designed to require the Government to produce annual reports detailing the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products. Subsection (1) would mandate the Secretary of State to prepare reports on the scale of illegal tobacco and vaping products in the UK. The reports would focus on providing a detailed overview of the prevalence and impact of illegal, counterfeit and contraband products in the market. Subsection (1) would also require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of each report before the Houses of Parliament, ensuring transparency and parliamentary oversight.

Subsection (2) outlines the specific information that each report would have to include. It stipulates that the reports would have to cover the estimated amount and value of illegal, counterfeit and contraband cigarettes and other tobacco products available for sale in the UK; the estimated amount and value of illegal or non-compliant vapes available for sale; a breakdown of the actions taken by the Government and relevant authorities to tackle the illicit sale of tobacco, tobacco products, vaping devices and vaping products; and an assessment of the impact that the illicit trade of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products had been having on public health and safety. That is crucial to understanding not just the scale of the problem, but the broader implications for public health.

Subsection (3) sets out a requirement for the first report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passing of the Act. That would ensure that the Government addressed the issue of illegal tobacco and vaping products promptly after the Bill was enacted. Subsection (4) establishes that each subsequent report would have to be laid

“annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”

That annual cycle would ensure that ongoing monitoring of the illegal trade, providing a regular and up-to-date picture of the situation in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, new clause 8 would establish a consistent and systematic process for reporting on the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products in the UK. By producing detailed annual reports assessing the scale of the illicit trade and its impact on public health and safety, the Government would be held accountable for addressing this issue. Furthermore, the new clause would provide Parliament with the necessary information to scrutinise the actions taken by the Government to combat the illegal trade, promoting transparency and informed decision making.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. New clause 8 would require the Government to produce annual reports on the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products and the impact on public health and safety. I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s aim to ensure that the benefit and progress made as a result of our measures is known and seen by the public. However, this new clause is not needed, given that the Government already publish data on the illicit tobacco market and we will be doing the same for vapes following the introduction of the new vaping products duty.

On tobacco, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already regularly provides data and reports on various aspects of the illicit trade. For example, HMRC periodically publishes the tobacco tax gap report, which estimates the difference between the theoretical duty liability and the actual amount of tobacco duty collected by HMRC. That report also estimates the market share of illicit tobacco. HMRC also publishes the annual outputs for tackling tobacco smuggling, which include figures on tobacco seizures, including the number of criminal prosecutions and amount of civil penalties issued. National Trading Standards, too, provides public reports and updates related specifically to enforcement activity, which include the illegal sale and importation of vapes and related products. Additionally, HMRC intends, following the introduction of the vaping products duty, to publish annual estimates of the size of the illicit market, using tax gap data as well as data on activity targeting vaping duty fraud, such as the number of seizures.

It is important that enforcement agencies produce the estimates and figures on enforcement activity, given that that is their area of expertise. An annual report from the Secretary of State would only duplicate that information. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to this new clause. Can he confirm that the reports are produced on an annual basis, and will continue to be produced on that basis by both relevant authorities through this Parliament?

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is our intention that the reports will be published in accordance with the mechanisms with which they are published now, with the frequency that they are now published. Therefore, we do not need this new obligation on the Secretary of State.

[Dr Johnson]

I take the Minister at his word, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Prohibition on manufacture and retail of high-capacity count vaping devices

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce regulations relating to the design, manufacture and sale of vaping devices and products that ensure—

(a) refill containers cannot be attached to a vaping device post-purchase to increase a device’s overall capacity during use, or allow for multiple pods to be attached at the same time to a device to increase its functional capacity beyond a 2ml limit.

(b) devices only have a single pod or tank that does not exceed 2ml limit.

(c) refill devices do not exceed a 10ml capacity and must be sold separately and not in the form of a clink-on tank.

(2) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) manufactures, designs for manufacture, imports or supplies for sale a vaping device that is contrary to the regulatory requirements set out in subsection (1).

(b) sells or retails a vaping device that is contrary to the regulatory requirements set out in subsection (1).

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (2)(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £20,000.

(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (2)(b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £10,000.”— (Dr Johnson.)

This new clause would seek the introduction of regulations and new offences to prohibit the manufacture, design and retail sale of high-capacity count vaping devices.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this important discussion to the Committee. The provision would regulate high-capacity count vaping devices, which we understand to mean so-called “big puff vapes”, or devices that provide more than 600 puffs, by ensuring that the Secretary of State regulates the amount of liquid in a tank and ensures that the refill container cannot be connected to the vape device, creating more liquid and thus more puffs.

Although I empathise with what the shadow Minister is trying to do, the Bill already provides powers that allow us to regulate for the size of a tank or refill container and the amount of liquid that can be included, as well as powers to standardise vapes and to further restrict liquid availability. In addition, the Bill contains powers that allow us to regulate the amount of nicotine in a puff, so as to restrict not only the amount of nicotine in the tank, but the amount of nicotine that can be emitted in the vapour.

We have a duty to consult on ways in which vapes and vape devices can be standardised before we make regulations. This will ensure that the right decisions are taken, based on evidence, which will reduce the legal risk to Government from any future litigation.

Moreover, many so-called big puff vapes currently on the market will be caught by the upcoming ban on single-use vapes, which will be led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and comes into force on 1 June, because most of them are disposable products and do not have replaceable coils.

It is for these reasons that I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The key thing is that although the Bill does have powers for all that to happen under regulation, we have already established that the regulations will take more than two months to write and more than six months to review, even after the Bill has gained Royal Assent in a few months’ time, so we will probably be sitting here next year with no restrictions at all on vapes, because the Government will not have written them. Therefore, I think it is important that in the meantime we try to use the Bill to make the most clear and important changes, including the size of the tank limit.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 162 to 166 stand part.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses concern powers for relevant Ministers to make consequential amendments and the procedure for making regulations under the Bill. Clause 161 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations that are consequential on the Bill. Clause 162 confers a power on Scottish Ministers to make provisions that are consequential on part 2 of the Bill, as well as clauses 142 to 146 and schedule 18. Clause 163 confers a power on Welsh Ministers to make provisions that are consequential on part 1 of the Bill, as well as clauses 147 to 152 and schedule 19, provided they are within their legislative competence. Clause 164 confers a power on the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make provisions that are consequential on part 3 of the Bill, as well as clauses 153 to 157 and schedule 20.

Those regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation passed before or in the same Session of Parliament as the Bill, as well as any provision made by the Bill itself. Regulations may amend primary as well as secondary legislation. During the development of the Bill, every effort was made to identify any consequential amendments that are required and to make provision for them on the face of the Bill. However, as the Bill brings together legislation that has been made over the last century, there is a small likelihood that further consequential amendments may be required to enable it to function effectively. It is therefore prudent that powers are conferred on the relevant Minister to make such changes via secondary legislation. Any regulations amending primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, in line with guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Clause 165 provides that any regulations made under the Bill, except for regulations made under clauses 168 to 170, may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision. It also provides that such regulations may make different provision for different purposes and for different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, in relation to regulations made under the powers in part 5, on registration requirements for products, different provision may be needed for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to take account of their pre-existing legislative frameworks.

Clause 166 provides for the procedures for making regulations under the Bill. Regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers are to be made by statutory instruments, regulations made by Scottish Ministers are to be made by Scottish statutory instruments and regulations made by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland are to be made by statutory rules. The clause also sets out in one place what is meant by the affirmative resolution procedure and negative resolution procedure for making regulations. Defining these terms is a drafting practice, and this is a standard clause that enables the measures in the Bill and regulations made under it to function effectively. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 161 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 162 to 166 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 167

Extent

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

This clause outlines the territorial extent of the Bill: part 1 applies to England and Wales, part 2 to Scotland, part 3 to Northern Ireland, and parts 4 to 6 and 8 to the entirety of the United Kingdom. Part 7 contains only amendments to existing legislation, and therefore, by virtue of subsection (1), its extent does not need to be explicitly stated. This is a standard clause that helps the measures in the Bill to function effectively; I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister says, clause 167 provides for the extent of the Bill. I am particularly interested in the way that part 3 extends to Northern Ireland. As part of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland is subject to 283 Euro laws, including the EU’s tobacco directive. Article 24 of the tobacco directive says:

“Member States may not…prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”,

apparently contradicting this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I want to build on the shadow Minister’s point, because I raised that concern in one of the previous sittings. I want to refer to the words of the King’s counsel, Jason Coppel, of 11KBW chambers, in relation to this point. In an article published online, he notes that TPD2, the tobacco products directive,

“lays down various requirements concerning matters such as ingredients, emission levels and packaging which must be satisfied by tobacco products, vapes and other smoking products if they are to be marketed within the EU. Member States are not permitted to prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of products which satisfy these requirements (article 24(1)). However, TPD2 does not seek to harmonise domestics sales arrangements for these products and positively encourages Member States to introduce age limits on their sale (recitals (21) and (48)). The key issue is therefore whether a GSB”—

a generational sales ban—

“would be a selling arrangement or age limit which is compatible with TPD2 or a gradual prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco and other products which meet the product requirements of TPD2, which would likely be incompatible with TPD2. There are, on any view, powerful arguments in favour of the latter view. The age limits referred to in TPD2 were limits on the sale of tobacco products to minors, not to adults. Unlike an age limit, the intention and effect of a GSB is to phase out the use of tobacco products entirely. It is equivalent in effect to an absolute ban on the sale of tobacco products, but a ban which is introduced very slowly, with an extent which increases day by day. If that analysis is correct then cl 68-69 of the Bill, if enacted, would likely contravene TPD2 regardless of whether they can be established by the Government to be a proportionate restriction in the interests of public health. It is reasonable to infer that the positions adopted by the Danish and Irish Governments were dictated by arguments along these lines. If a GSB would indeed contravene TPD2, it is relatively clear, from a series of decisions of the Northern Ireland courts applying the Windsor Framework, that TPD2 would have direct effect so as to override the GSB, pursuant to section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018.”

I appreciate that that is heavy legalese, but it is important to stress Mr Coppel’s point. I do not feel that I had a sufficient answer from the Minister last time, so I would appreciate it if he could confirm that that has been considered.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course that has been considered. It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to ensure that any legislation appertaining to Northern Ireland is compatible with the Windsor framework—that is clear. In drafting the Bill, the Government have taken into account all our domestic and international obligations. It has been put together following full consultation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we intend it to be United Kingdom-wide legislation for a smoke-free UK, in accordance with our international obligations.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that that is the Minister’s intent—indeed, it would be my intent to see people in Northern Ireland, as part of our great country, be as healthy as the rest of those in the United Kingdom—but intent is not enough to make things happen, in the same way that the Government saying they will go for growth does not make it happen, particularly if they do things that have the opposite effect. What is the legal position on which the Minister believes the clause will stand?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Bill is and will be, as an Act of Parliament, in full accordance with our international obligations. We will have a smoke-free United Kingdom, and the measures appertaining to Northern Ireland fit within our international and domestic obligations under the Windsor framework.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 167 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168

Commencement: Parts 1 to 4

[Andrew Gwynne]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 168, page 121, line 1, after “force” insert

“(so far as not in force by virtue of subsection (2))”.

Clause 168(2) brings the regulation making powers under Part 1 into force on royal assent. This amendment indicates that the Welsh Ministers’ power to bring certain provisions into force is subject to that and is intended to ensure consistency with the drafting in clause 168(4).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 98.

Clause stand part.

Clause 169 stand part.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clauses 168 and 169 provide for the commencement of provisions in parts 1 to 4 and parts 5 to 8 respectively. Provisions in parts 1 to 4 come into force six months after the day the Bill is passed, with certain exceptions, including the regulation-making powers contained in parts 1 to 3, including powers to implement a licensing scheme, which will be commenced on the day the Bill is passed. Provisions to implement the smoke-free generation policy across the UK will come into force on 1 January 2027, when those born on 1 January 2009 turn 18 years old. Clause 168 also provides for the commencement of various other provisions that are specific to the devolved Governments, such as the provision to update the definition of a tobacco product in Scottish legislation. The remaining provisions in parts 1 to 4 will be commenced by regulations or by order.

Provisions in part 5 of the Bill, which relate to product and information requirements, are regulation-making powers, so they come into force on the day the Bill is passed. The majority of the provisions in part 6, such as those that prohibit the advertising of products including vaping products, will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. Provisions in part 7 will come into force on such days as the relevant national authority may appoint by regulations. That includes regulation-making powers to create additional smoke-free places, and making smoke-free places vape-free. These are standard clauses that are required for the implementation of measures in the Bill.

I turn now to Government amendments 15 and 98, which stand in my name. These technical amendments to clause 168 have been tabled at the request of the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Government amendment 15 concerns powers for the Welsh Ministers to commence provisions in part 1 relating to the licensing of retail sales in Wales and the handing over of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, and vaping and nicotine products, to under-age people.

Government amendment 98 concerns equivalent powers for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commence provisions in part 3 relating to the extension of the retailer register and the licensing of retail sales in Northern Ireland. Some parts of the provisions will be commenced automatically by clause 168(2) where they provide powers for the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make regulations. Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that the power for the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commence provisions cannot be used on those provisions that have already been commenced. The amendment serves to align the drafting for Wales and Northern Ireland with the equivalent provisions for England in clause 168(4). For that reason, I encourage the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment made: 98, in clause 168, page 121, line 12, after “force” insert

“(so far as not in force by virtue of subsection (2))”.—(Andrew Gwynne.)

Clause 168(2) brings the regulation-making powers under Part 3 into force on royal assent. This amendment indicates that the power of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to bring certain provisions into force is subject to that and is intended to ensure consistency with the drafting in clause 168(4).

Clause 168, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 170

Transitional provision

[Andrew Gwynne]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 170, page 122, line 3, at end insert—

“(za) sections 19 to 22 and Schedule 3 and 4 (licensing of retail sales of tobacco products etc in Wales);”

This amendment confers power on the Welsh Ministers to make transitional or saving provision in connection with the commencement of certain provisions that they have power to bring into force by order under clause 168(5).

[The Chair]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 170 provides powers for Ministers in each of the devolved nations to make transitional and saving provisions. Transitional provisions address how existing legislation will be phased out or replaced by new legislation. Saving provisions preserve certain rights, obligations or legal consequences from existing statute. The power to make transitional and saving provisions is given to Ministers in each devolved Government to aid the implementation of specific measures in the Bill within their legislatures. This is a standard provision that enables measures in the Bill to function effectively.

Government amendment 16 is being made at the request of the Welsh Government. This technical amendment provides powers to the Welsh Ministers to make transitional or saving provisions in connection with the commencement of provisions relating to the retail licensing of products in Wales. As the Welsh Ministers have the power to commence those provisions by order, it is appropriate that they have the power to make transitional or saving provisions in connection with their commencement. That aligns with the approach taken throughout the Bill whereby such powers are given to the relevant Minister responsible for their commencement. For that reason, I encourage the Committee to support Government amendment 16.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Clause 170, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 171

Short title

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clause currently provides that the Bill may be cited as the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2024 once passed. As it is now 2025, the short title will be updated when the Bill, as amended in Committee, is printed to refer to 2025 rather than 2024.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 171 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is a remarkable moment in parliamentary history, because we have got the Tobacco and Vapes Bill through Committee. I thank you, Mr Pritchard, as well as Sir Roger, Sir Mark and Mr Dowd, for your diligent chairing. Please pass on the whole Committee’s appreciation for the way in which you have kept us going throughout.

I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee for the role that they have played, particularly as many are new Members. It has been a baptism of fire for some of them, but I hope that they have found the experience of amending, scrutinising and debating a really important piece of legislation to be of benefit. New Members should be assured that their Whips have already noted that this will be their first Committee of many.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to indulge in a history lesson of my own, as that seems to have been the order of the day for most of the Committee’s sitting days. While I am overjoyed that the Bill is one step closer to becoming law, I must make the Committee aware of a previous smoking ban introduced in the 16th century by Pope Urban VII. During his short period as pope—it lasted 13 days—he went like the clappers to bring in a smoking ban, before he snuffed it. That ban was taken further by Pope Urban VIII, who banned snuff and threatened to excommunicate anyone smoking it, chewing it or sniffing it in or anywhere near a church. I only wish that the hon. Member for Windsor was in his place to realise that the Bill is positively liberal compared to the papal bulls of those popes.

[The Chair]

May I say that that was completely within scope? [Laughter.]

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Perhaps it shows that history does matter and we can learn from it. Never mind Henry VIII powers: perhaps when we bring forward the regulations, we will have papal powers to go further.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister is aware from my previous contributions, I am delighted to see both the Bill’s passage and that the Government have taken on board some of my amendments to the Conservative Bill, which was similar. I very much enjoyed the history lesson from the hon. Member for City of Durham and hope that the Minister’s version of “like the clappers” will be just as quick.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister. We have been greatly entertained by her history lessons—I now know more about snuff than I ever wanted to. We have had tradition. We spent such an inordinate amount of time on clause 1: I thought we would never reach this stage. We were certainly not going like the clappers or supersonic at the start. I suspect that we have heard a large amount from ChatGPT—[Interruption.] Well, I think perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham certainly did a good google.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister credits me with more tech savvy than I have. ChatGPT is well outside my portfolio.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, if we have not heard from ChatGPT, we have certainly had, through the Institute of Economic Affairs, a bit of ChatSHT.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that is in order.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I take it back, Mr Pritchard—only because the hon. Member for Windsor is not here.

[The Chair]

By the way, just for the record, that is not an endorsement or a lack of endorsement of that organisation; it is just a question of whether that language is parliamentary.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am almost like a standing article now for LADbible. I am not sure whether that makes me a social media influencer—about which we have heard a lot during the course of the debate—or just a media tart. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was not one, two or three but four features we got out of LADbible —and who knows; we might get a fifth.

I sincerely thank the Clerks, the Hansard staff and the Doorkeepers. We do not thank them enough for the work that they do to keep Committees like this going, and I want to place that on the record.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As a new Member, and someone who came into politics with a passion for health—specifically public health—and addressing inequality, I am really proud to have been a part of this group. I remember the chief medical officer saying that the Bill will not only have the biggest impact on public health of any legislation in about 20 years, but it will be one of the biggest interventions to help even up inequality, especially in life expectancy. As a new Member, and as part of the Liberal Democrat health team, I am really pleased to be involved in this.

Unfortunately he is not here today, but on several occasions the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon pontificated on what the flavour of unicorn milk in vapes might be. I never contributed but, as the only vet here, I could have made some assumptions. Assuming that the unicorn’s horn does not influence the flavour of the milk, we can probably extrapolate that it tastes very much like a horse’s milk. As someone who has regularly had to milk a mare to feed a newborn foal, I can tell the Committee that when the mare does not enjoy that, the milk often sprays everywhere—sometimes into one’s mouth. It does not taste terrible, but I would not advise vape manufacturers that it is a good flavour to put into vapes.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I now know more about the equine sector than I ever wanted to. We have got to the accidental squirting of horse milk into one’s mouth, but of course, we started the Committee with a whole tale about getting one’s hoof trimmed—which, I have to say, Mr Pritchard, has a whole other meaning in Manchester.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

As a pharmacist, I have greatly enjoyed all Members’ contributions to the debate in Committee, but I am very much looking forward to a future in which I do not have to do a stop smoking consultation again.

[Andrew Gwynne]

And so say all of us. The last thanks I want to give are to my private secretary and my team of officials from the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are the ones who have been up late most days, ensuring that the packs are ready for me and the Government Whip, that I am well briefed and that I have the time to question them about the various clauses. I am really grateful to them.

We have had a lot of good, detailed scrutiny. Most of the debates have been good natured, and it has shown the House of Commons at its best. To echo the hon. Member for Winchester, this is a landmark Bill. It will be the single most important piece of public health legislation for a generation, and we are all part of that. We have made history.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

There is one last person the Committee should thank, and that is the Minister himself. I am sure we will get a chance to say this again on Third Reading, when we will no doubt debate these things again, but I have to say that the passion, good humour, knowledge and commitment with which he has taken this legislation through Committee is something for which we should all be grateful. Thank you, Minister.

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Dr Johnson]

I think there is another person to whom thanks need to go on the record, and that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). Let us not forget that while this Bill is coming through now, the vast majority of it is similar in content to—in some cases, it is entirely verbatim—the Bill that came through a similar Committee last spring, thanks to the visionary leadership of my right hon. Friend.

[Andrew Gwynne]

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for his thanks. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister. When we were debating clause 1—all those many, many moons ago—I said that it took a lot of political bravery for a Conservative Prime Minister not just to go as far as he did, but to announce it at Conservative conference. I know from some of my Conservative friends that it raised significant eyebrows within that conference hall, but it was the right thing to do. That is why the Labour Opposition supported this legislation in the last Parliament. We would have loved to have seen it taken through the wash-up procedure before the general election, but that was not part and parcel of the deal that was put.

However, we are here today with this Bill, which includes many of the things that the shadow Minister wanted to have included in her Bill. What is transformative is that once what we have taken through Committee today—we have Report and Third Reading to go—gains Royal Assent, it will ensure that no child born after 2009 will legally be able to be sold tobacco products ever again. We are stopping that conveyor belt, as I have described it, for the tobacco industry, and through stop smoking services and support we are coming after the market share that they have protected. We are going to make sure that vapes are never promoted, advertised or displayed in a way that will encourage children to take up vaping.

The Bill is a landmark and it is life-changing. In just 25 years’ time, if the Government’s impact assessment is correct, the smoking prevalence of people under the age of 30 will be near to zero. It started here, with this Bill. Well done, and thanks to all Members.

[The Chair]

Before I put the question, if I may, I will put on record my thanks to you, Minister—I actually said “you”; I mean the hon. Gentleman. I am breaking my own rules, or the House’s rules. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry North West, and the shadow Whip, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, who is not here today. I thank all Members for their contributions to debating this serious subject, but with good humour.

I give particular thanks to the Clerks. Frankly, Parliament could not operate without our fantastic Clerks. I thank the officials from Hansard, who literally keep us all on the record, and the fantastic Doorkeepers who do such a great job with Divisions. I also thank the other Chairs who have shared this Bill Committee with me.

The Committee has almost finished its work; all that is left is for me to put the question formally. I encourage all Members to go like the clappers—but within the law—to their constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for putting this amendment before the Committee for discussion. The amendment would require the Government, within six months of this Bill gaining Royal Assent, to introduce regulations to prohibit smoking in all enclosed vehicles, other than certain vessels.

I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments my hon. Friend has put to the Committee on the harms of passive second-hand smoking, and I am certainly sympathetic to amendment’s aim of further reducing exposure to second-hand smoke. However, as I am sure the Committee is aware, smoking has been banned in enclosed vehicles used as a workplace or a public place since 2007, and it has also been banned where someone under 18 is present since 2015. We think that this level of protection is appropriate and provides the correct balance between protecting children and vulnerable people from the harms of passive smoking, while not unduly impacting current smokers by interfering with private spaces. That is an important point, because both I and the Secretary of State have been very clear from the outset that we are not seeking to extend measures in this Bill into private spaces.

I remind the Committee that, in the smoke-free generation that we hope and expect the Bill to create, smoking will become a thing of the past. Therefore, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we will not see anyone smoking in a vehicle because smoking will just not be as prevalent in the UK as it is today. Most people are law-abiding citizens, and we would expect the measures in this Bill, and indeed the in my hon. Friend’s amendment, to be something that most people consider anyway. If they are in an enclosed space such as a vehicle with a friend who has vulnerabilities, most people would probably not light up because they would recognise the harm that they may do to their friend.

Furthermore, the measures in the amendment would be for the police to enforce. We have had no prior conversations with Home Office colleagues about whether this is a power they seek or whether the police would be concerned about its enforceability. That would need further consideration if we were to proceed with this. Having said that, we just do not think that there is a strong argument for interfering in private spaces by extending this prohibition to smoking in all vehicles within six months of the Bill reaching Royal Assent. That is not a large amount of time anyway for such a major change. It is for those reasons that I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Once again, the Minister has made convincing arguments for why now may not be the right time for this amendment to become legislation and be adopted. However, I think that within the next decade or so this measure is likely to become law one way or another, so for the moment I am content not to press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

This group of amendments comes back to the principle of proportionality, because there is not complete coherence between the different penalties across the United Kingdom and on the different offences that can be committed under the Bill.

The first part of amendment 84 would ensure that if someone admits guilt of a first offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, they should be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3, which is £1,000 on the standard scale, or a caution. That is a lot of money for lighting up in the wrong place, so it seems reasonable.

The second part of amendment 84 relates to the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, which is where somebody who is in charge of an area or building fails to prevent people from smoking there. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider the proportionality of the penalty if this has not happened before, compared with a repeat offender, who we would want to throw the book at, metaphorically speaking.

Amendment 85 relates to Scotland. Amendment 97 relates to Wales and is partly in Welsh, and amendment 86 relates to Northern Ireland. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider whether the penalties are proportionate to the offence committed and whether the legislation gives due flexibility and enough guidance for someone committing an offence for the first time, perhaps inadvertently, to be treated differently from someone who is repeatedly flouting the law.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. I have a sense of déjà vu, given that we have already debated ad nauseam her desire to weaken the enforcement regime and the penalties.

[Dr Johnson]

That’s not true!

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady says that is not true, so maybe it is not quite ad nauseam, but we have covered an awful lot of ground on these arguments.

[Dr Johnson]

I do not seek to weaken the Bill or its enforcement. I wish to see the Bill be successful in stopping people smoking and vaping, particularly our young people, and I wish to see people who are repeatedly flouting the law in this way treated appropriately. However, I am keen to understand whether the Minister feels there is enough flexibility to deal with offenders appropriately, particularly if it is an inadvertent first offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

We will have to agree to disagree, because I think anything that brings in lesser penalties than those that already exist in tobacco control, and I will resist that as I resisted the shadow Minister’s earlier temptations to be more lenient to certain people.

These amendments would change the penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

[Dr Johnson]

Does the Minister accept that a fixed penalty notice of £200 is actually a more lenient penalty than a fine of £1,000 or a caution, which incurs a criminal offence?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come on to those points in due course to explain to the Committee why I think the shadow Minister is wrong in this regard and why she was wrong in all previous discussions about weakening the penalty system for first-time offenders. The amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing one of these offences, if it is the person’s first-time offence. It would establish that someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or instead to a caution in England and Northern Ireland, or a recorded police warning in Scotland.

For the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, that is two levels higher than the level of fine someone is liable to under the current legislation, which is level 1 or £200 in England, and it is the same as the current level of fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For the offence of failing to prevent smoking, the new maximum fine would be one level lower, which is level 3 or £1,000, than the level of the fine that someone liable to under the current legislation, which is level 4 or £2,500, in all three nations. In Wales, amendment 97 would remove a fine altogether and someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable to a caution.

While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s intention in seeking to alter the penalty regime for first-time offenders, amendment 84 is not appropriate. We do not want to create a penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place that has the potential to be stricter for first-time offenders than for repeat offenders. This amendment would see first-time offenders face a maximum fine of £1,000 on conviction, while repeat offenders would face a maximum fine of £200 on conviction in England. That is not consistent with our approach to the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation, where enforcement action can be escalated such that repeat offences may lead to harsher penalties. For example, repeated age-of-sale offences can result in a restricted premises order.

We also do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for tobacco and vape offences, including the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that existing consequences are not weakened for first-time offenders or for anyone who has committed these offences. It is therefore not appropriate to lower the maximum possible fine that an offender who has failed to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place for the first time may face. It is for those reasons that I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his thoughts on the matter, and I do not want to see the Bill weakened in this regard. As such, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 142 stand part.

Clauses 147 and 148 stand part.

Clause 153 stand part.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 136 amends an existing power in the Health Act 2006, relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places, to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to any area that is a workplace or open to the public smoke-free, which would include outdoor spaces. Private outdoor spaces are out of scope of the powers of this Bill. Clause 142 amends the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow Scottish Ministers the same powers, and clause 153 amends the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to do the same for Northern Ireland. The power to designate additional smoke-free places builds on existing provisions that made it illegal to smoke in an enclosed, or substantially enclosed, workplace or public place. For England, clause 136 does not replicate a test from the 2006 Act, so there no longer needs to be a “significant risk” that someone

“would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke”

before an additional space can be designated smoke-free. We have already debated that change at length.

--- Later in debate ---

The clause presents opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, expanding smoke-free zones aligns with the public health objectives that most of us in the Committee agree with, and it protects vulnerable populations. On the other hand, there are concerns about the lack of definitional clarity on a number of things, as well as concerns about personal freedoms, the economic impacts and potential effects on business and the enforcement difficulties. Those need to be acknowledged and addressed, hopefully by the Minister when he winds up.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I certainly do not think the hon. Gentleman is putting pernickety arguments, as he put it. They are important points. He and the shadow Minister are allowing me to provide clarification, hopefully, on some of the concerns, which I would argue are unfounded, and to clarify the extent to which the powers in the Bill would be used by Ministers in England. Of course, it is for my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to clarify at future stages how they would seek to use the powers that the Bill confers on them.

As we have discussed at length, the fact that the powers are so broad means that we can respond to evolving evidence at a later stage, particularly when there are clear harms to children and vulnerable people. It allows us then to get on and make the necessary changes. That is consistent with the Bill as a whole, which gives us the legal framework for tobacco control and measures on vapes.

The shadow Minister mentioned hospitals. She is right to point to the evidence we heard on the first day of Committee about compliance with the existing measures in Wales. Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are rightly concerned about that in England. We are engaging with counterparts in Wales to understand what worked, what did not work and how we can mitigate the things that are not working as well as they could be when we consult on the measures that we wish to introduce in England, should the Bill get Royal Assent.

The answers to that and other questions about what a children’s playground is and what areas around a hospital would apply are down to the details that will be presented for consultation when His Majesty’s Government advance the proposals on outdoor spaces in England. The right place for us to have that discussion is when I bring forward the consultation and say, “This is what the Government consider to be the scope of children’s playgrounds, the scope of outside a school and the scope of outside a hospital setting.” We can debate whether those are the right or wrong definitions. We can put it out to consultation. We can draw on the experiences of other parts of the United Kingdom that already have measures in place. We can then refine our proposals if need be and introduce the secondary legislation.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I totally agree that we need a consultation—that is the beauty of gauging the public interest—but the issue around smoking in public places, and particularly play yards, is about not just second-hand smoke, but de-normalising exposure to smoking. The less that our children see adults smoking, the less chance they will have of thinking it is normal and becoming addicted. We need a comprehensive package to bring in the future smoke-free policy. We have evidence to show that the public, in the main, are in favour of a smoke-free generation, and I am sure that they would police the ban around playgrounds when there are children there. If people are not meant to smoke there, the issue will be policed—possibly by the public.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this area over such a long period of time, is absolutely right. I will come to some of the enforcement arguments. Our primary aim is to tackle passive second-hand smoking, but it is important that smoking is not so obviously prevalent in areas where children are present —for example, around children’s playgrounds and outside schools. It is not just that the issue of second-hand passive smoking is important—although it is—it is about the clear statement that smoking around children really should be something for the history books. That is why we have removed the public health test from the 2006 Act. Children’s playgrounds probably would not fall within the scope of that test, but it is a clear priority of the Government to remove the prevalence of smoking around children.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her excellent point; I agree entirely with her that we need to ensure that children are not exposed to cigarettes. Could the Minister clarify a couple of points on that basis? First, the edges of playgrounds have been difficult to define—when is the playground the park and when is the park the playground? If it is his intention that children do not see smoking and that that de-normalises the behaviour, which seems a noble aim, would that mean that if someone was within sight of the playground, they would not be able to smoke? Secondly, lots of hospitality venues have playgrounds within them. In fact, one attraction of some pubs that people take children to is that the children will be entertained, while the food is being cooked, by a play area. Will those play areas within hospitality venues be covered by these measures?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I refer the shadow Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago. These are all matters of detail that will be subject to consultation. We will have the arguments as to the definition of a children’s play area—whether it includes children’s playgrounds in hospitality settings or whether it is just in relation to playgrounds in housing estates and parks—and how the edges are defined. These are all matters for consultation and detail, before we get to the secondary legislation.

I want to challenge some of what the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said. To be fair to him, he rightly agrees that second-hand smoke is dangerous, but he makes the case that in outdoor settings it is potentially less dangerous than it is in enclosed settings. That was the view of the chief medical officer: clearly, if someone is indoors, in a constrained area, the prevalence of the toxicity that they are taking in as a second-hand smoker is much greater than it is outdoors—but even outdoors, if someone can smell it, they are breathing it in and it poses a risk to their health. The chief medical officers were really clear on this point: there is no safe level of exposure to smoke. That is particularly important for children, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

A really interesting statistic that the English chief medical officer told the Committee was that at this moment in time, in January 2025, there are more people with clinical vulnerabilities in this country than there are smokers. That is really important when we talk about the balance of rights and responsibilities. The fact that there are now many more people with hidden clinical vulnerabilities than there are smokers shows, I think, where the balance needs to be.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is making a very powerful argument that smoking outside also poses a danger to the health of the nearby public. On that basis, if I were taking an older relative—with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, perhaps—to a beer garden, I would be reluctant to sit outside in the summer in case someone sat down and smoked near her. Is the Minister not making an argument for including hospitality, on the basis that people who are outside in the beer garden are vulnerable to dangerous smoke?

[Andrew Gwynne]

People sitting in a beer garden where smoking is prevalent are breathing in second-hand smoke, but as the chief medical officers reminded the Committee, there is a balance here, and the United Kingdom Government of which I am a member have decided that that balance is appropriate in order to protect the hospitality business. That is why Ministers—myself, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—have made it very clear that outdoor hospitality will not fall within the scope of the consultation that we intend to bring forward like the clappers. That is our view and it is what we will do. That is not to say that there is a risk that is mitigated for somebody sitting outside. There is a risk, and we cannot mitigate that risk, but it is the balance that the Government have come to. There have to be trade-offs and, given the precarious nature of the hospitality business, we have decided that we will not consult to extend the outdoor smoking provisions to hospitality. I know that that disappoints the shadow Minister—it probably delights other Members on the Opposition Benches—but that is where this Government are.

The powers in the Bill allow for a change at some stage in the future, when it may well be that the balance has shifted and people no longer desire there to be smoking outdoors in hospitality settings. The hospitality trade may say, “This is such a minority pursuit that it is putting off good people from coming to my restaurant.”

[Gregory Stafford]

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but the Minister is saying that businesses may make the decision that they do not want people to smoke on their premises. They already have that power now, so I am not sure what point he is making.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The point I am making is that industry collectively may come to Ministers and say, “You know what? This carve-out that we’ve been given is no longer needed.” Ministers may well then come to the conclusion that, given that most of these hospitality businesses at some stage in the future are already imposing outdoor smoking bans because that is where their customer base is, we should bring the law into line with that and make it illegal. The provisions are written in the way that they are so that at some stage in the future, when things change, we can change the law, but right now, as I have said on umpteen occasions, we will consult on outside hospitals, outside schools and public children’s play areas, and that is it.

[Dr Johnson]

Can the Minister clarify a point? There seems to be a contradiction in my mind, but perhaps I have not understood him correctly. On the one hand, he is being very clear in stating that hospitality will not be included and that children’s play areas will—that seems very clear. Hospitality venues, however, do include children’s play areas. When I asked him about this before, he seemed to say that children’s play areas in hospitality would have to be part of the consultation. If children’s play areas within hospitality are included, then aspects of hospitality are included, are they not?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is why it will be down to the consultation as to what precise details we will bring forward. It is not our intention to include hospitality settings, but the hon. Member has rightly raised that some pubs and restaurants have children’s playgrounds. As part of the consultation exercise, we will have to work out how a children’s play area is defined for the purposes of these measures, so that there is absolute clarity on what constitutes a children’s playground. These are not matters for now; they are matters for when Ministers seek to bring forward proposals. We will have that debate then.

[Gregory Stafford]

I know the Minister is a man of his word. I ask him to be really clear on this, because he has talked about “some point in the future”. Some people’s “some point in the future” may be a very long way off, while others’ may not be such a long way off. Will he give a commitment that, while he is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, he and his colleagues will not bring a consultation to include the hospitality industry?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, I hope that I will be a Minister for a very long time, both at the Department of Health and Social Care and with this public health brief, which I absolutely love. I will follow the evidence as and when it appears, but it is not my intention to bring forward changes any time soon. The reason that we are discussing changes now is that the last time that places were designated for a smoking ban was in 2006, and a lot of things have changed since that law came into force in 2007.

It may well be that, in a similar length of time into the future, things have changed sufficiently that the arguments we are having today on hospitality have become obsolete, and that the law needs to be brought into line with the facts on the ground. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon—I am a man of my word—that it is not my intention, nor the intention of this Government to include the hospitality industry, but at some stage in the future, if things change, it may well be that Ministers do come back to the House on this. I cannot judge how long or short that time period may be, but I politely remind him and other Members of the length of time between 2006-07—when these issues were last being debated—and now, and hope that that gives him some reassurance.

The hon. Gentleman said that I have not been emphatic enough on beaches, woodlands, public parks, rights of way and public squares; these are all scenarios that are subject to consultation at some stage in the distant future. It is not our intention to cover these areas in England. I have been very clear about the three areas that we seek to extend smoke-free places to.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I remain a bit confused. On the one hand, the Minister has been very clear: no consultation on hospitality areas. On the other, he has been clear that consultation will occur on play areas. Fair enough. He then said that play areas in hospitality will be discussed as part of the consultation. In that case, how can he be discussing play areas in hospitality but not be discussing hospitality? I am completely confused by that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Maybe I was not clear enough for the shadow Minister. We are seeking to bring children’s play areas into the scope of the Bill, and, as we have said, we will consult on restricting smoking around children’s play areas. How we define children’s play areas will be a matter for the consultation.

The hon. Lady has rightly raised a reasonable point that some pubs and restaurants have children’s play areas within them. The Government will have to come to a view, in advance of any future consultation, as to whether that would be included in the definition of children’s play areas—but those are debates for the future, not for now.

We have been clear that smoking will still be permitted in outdoor settings for hospitality. It may well be that there is a smoking facility in the beer garden and it is smoke-free around the children’s play area. That is a matter for a future consultation, but we are not going to bring outdoor hospitality settings into the scope of the smoke-free consultation. If anybody is a smoker today and wishes to sit in a beer garden, and that licensed establishment allows smoking—a growing number of pubs and restaurants are already making their outdoor settings smoke-free because that is where their customer base is—smoking will still be allowed. That will not be part of the scope of future consultation. I cannot be any clearer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clause relates to an existing regulation-making power in the Health Act 2006 that allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations that permit performers in England to smoke during a performance. The exemption would enable the creation of defences to the offences of smoking in smoke-free places and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place. It would be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a performance.

The creative industry is a significant part of the UK economy, and we have to balance a range of priorities while protecting the most vulnerable and ensuring that businesses are not financially impacted. The Bill aims to protect those who are most vulnerable to second-hand smoke, and we are of the view that the relative harm from the exemption is low. Without the exemption, it would not be possible for a film or TV show that is made in England to include an actor smoking, regardless of how of how integral that might be. The provision updates an existing power in the 2006 Act, so an exemption to allow performers to smoke during a performance is not new. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is right to say that the clause recasts an existing regulation-making power in section 3(5) of the Health Act 2006, whereby the Secretary of State may make regulations that allow performers to smoke during a performance

“if the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate”,

and is allowed, on that basis, to create a defence to the offences of smoking in a smoke-free place and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

The act of smoking in film, theatre and other forms of art can be a character-defining gesture that speaks volumes about the person’s identity or emotional state, or about the period in history they represent—think of images of Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart and James Dean. It can also establish the period in which a person lived. It was commonplace for virtually everyone to smoke in the 1940s and 1950s, and the smoke swirling around characters became as much a part of their onscreen presence as their dialogue or expressions. Although smoking in real life is certainly not cool, and comes with myriad negative health implications, its role in art and culture can deepen the portrayal of certain iconic figures and their stories.

The Minister says that the exemption has been part of law for a long time, and that it has worked. There are essentially two ways in which a performance can mimic smoking. The first is to have a fake cigarette, six of which can be bought on Amazon for less than a tenner. They look a bit like a cigarette and an actor can hold them, but they do not have any smoke coming from them. My understanding is that currently the most common prop cigarettes used by actors are cigarettes that contain no nicotine and no tobacco but some herbal items. They produce smoke but are less harmful than a cigarette because they do not contain tobacco, and less addictive because they do not contain nicotine.

The Bill provides for tobacco products to be banned for certain generations of people, and adds herbal smoking products to that ban. Could that inadvertently lead to individual actors and actresses smoking tobacco rather than the less harmful alternative, particularly if there is a price differential between the two? Has the Minister considered how the law will apply to actors and actresses who are born on or after 1 January 2009? Will there be an exemption from the other aspects of the Bill, either allowing them to buy the cigarettes themselves or allowing someone to give them cigarettes as a proxy sale, which would currently be banned under the first part of the Bill? At present, actors may be above the age of 18, but the Bill is intended to be future-proof, so if we roll forwards 15 years or so, when younger actors will be banned from smoking and buying cigarette papers and the like, how does the Minister envisage it working in practice?

Freedom of expression is essential to the arts, but the laws and practices that protect and nurture free expression are often poorly understood by practitioners and those who enforce the law. The question is, then: what is a performer? Section 3(8) of the Health Act 2006 states that “performance” can include

“the performance of a play, or a performance given in connection with the making of a film or television programme, and…if the regulations so provide, include a rehearsal.”

That seems a rather narrow definition of performance. Performance art can cross disciplines such as dance on the stage or on the street. If we go to the south bank, just opposite this House, we can see performers performing solo activities on the weekend. Contract law for those engaged in paid work offers some recognition and potential protection for performance-related work, defines it and outlines the conditions of the performance—it is indeed the performer and not other members of the performance who are included.

To create another hypothetical situation, suppose there is an interactive performance in which the performer on stage requires mass audience participation for their act and suggests that the people in the crowd have to join in with them. Would the artistic integrity of the performance trump the laws that prohibit smoking? The line between performer and audience can be blurred, so if an audience member were invited up on the stage by the performer, would they be allowed to try a cigarette or vape? Proposed new section 7(3) of the Health Act 2006 does not suggest that the performance needs to take place on stage or even in the theatre; some occur outside hospitality venues, as we have discussed.

To give a colourful example, imagine there is a performance called “Smokers”, taking place in a pub in, say, Sleaford, in my constituency. It features performers smoking and chatting in a pub. It is quite an experimental, interactive performance, and the members of the audience —in other words, regular pubgoers—can take part in the performance and light up a cigarette themselves should they wish to. Technically, does this scenario not fall within the remit of the law? We have to bear in mind that the tobacco industry is creative in looking for loopholes. Smoking is required in order to preserve the artistic integrity of this alleged performance. Will the Minister provide clarification on this point? Although my examples may sound inventive, the tobacco industry does come up with inventive ways of circumventing the legislation.

My other point relates to performers who are born after 1 January 2009 smoking or vaping on stage. We need some clarity on that.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

To follow on from what the shadow Minister said, the Minister said that performers who smoke during performances would not be a problem because the second-hand passive smoking would not be big enough of an issue. But why can a cigarette be smoked as part of a performance, yet a cigar cannot be smoked once a year by a single person? Why is smoking allowed for this artistic purpose, yet it is not allowed for someone who would like to smoke a cigar recreationally?

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is an existing power, in the Health Act 2006, that we have retained in the Bill at the request of the creative industries in England. I reiterate what I said in opening the debate: the exemption will be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a particular performance, so smoking would not be allowed in the hypothetical situations we have heard about. The provision is intended solely to allow the artistic integrity of a performance to be retained.

The shadow Minister asked whether the provision would merely encourage actors to smoke tobacco. Of course, that is not the case. Herbal smoking products are covered under “smoke-free” as well, so they are treated the same.

[Dr Johnson]

With respect to the Minister, the point was that they are treated the same. My understanding is that, because of the rules around tobacco, actors who are non-smokers are more likely to use a non-tobacco herbal product that does not contain nicotine. Given the Minister’s previous comments about tobacco being more harmful, why not make the exemption specific to products that do not contain tobacco and nicotine?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We are following the request of industry. This is an existing power in the 2006 Act and it is to be used only in the exceptional circumstances in which cigarettes or indeed herbal smoking products are appropriate for the authenticity of the performance. That is exactly what the law is now.

I agree with the shadow Minister that it is not cool to smoke. I may have mentioned in previous sittings that I have been successful in getting not one but four stories in LADbible. One of them made precisely the point that the shadow Minister made: that smoking is not cool and it is not glamorous. It is a dirty, stinking, horrible habit that kills two thirds of people who start it. That is why we are committed to a smoke-free generation.

I suspect that this exemption for the creative industries, which is pre-existing, may become obsolete at some point in the near future, not least because I would imagine that as more and more actors themselves are brought up smoke-free as a consequence of the measures we are introducing, actors will eventually point-blank refuse to smoke a cigarette, whether it adds creative authenticity or not.

As I have said, this is a follow-on from an exemption that was previously granted in the Health Act 2006, which is why I seek the Committee’s permission to retain it in the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that the Minister is saying this is what the industry is asking for and that it existed before. However, as a result of the change in regulations, people who act as if they are smokers in a video or film are currently able to smoke herbal cigarettes that are designed as prop cigarettes and do not contain tobacco or nicotine. Although it may not be terribly good for their health for them to do so, those cigarettes do not contain the tobacco that kills two thirds of its users, and they do not contain nicotine either. In providing the exemption for the creative industries, will the Minister at least consider providing an exemption for the least harmful version of what will appear to the audience as a cigarette and cigarette smoke, so that we can protect actors as much as possible?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am open to taking that suggestion away and having a look it, but at this stage it is our intention merely to copy and paste the existing exemption that applies for the creative industries in England, which is what the clause does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

No-smoking signs in England

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 143, 149 and 154 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 138 relates to no-smoking signs in England and amends section 6 of the Health Act 2006, setting out that whoever occupies or manages no-smoking premises must ensure that the relevant no-smoking signs are displayed in or near the premises—which is, of course, very sensible.

We talked earlier about the importance of people understanding what the law is and where they can and cannot smoke. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations further to the no-smoking signs. That is sensible for outdoor spaces, but does the Minister have information on how the regulations will define the size and edges of those spaces, and on the cost to industry and local councils of providing signage?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The exact requirements of the position of the signs for smoke-free locations will be set out in regulations, but we will ensure that they are required to be in a prominent position near the smoke-free place.

The other matters that the hon. Lady raises relate to questions that we will need to consult on and work through in regulation—for example, who will be required to provide the signs and whether it will be down to public bodies such as NHS trusts and local authorities. All the costs, including any requirements to put up signs and their exact locations, will be considered as part of any future impact assessment of the policy. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Before I put the Question, it may help the Committee if I say that we may be expecting a Division in the House at about 4 pm.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

Vape-free places in England

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 144, 150 and 155 stand part.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to vape-free places across the four nations. They will allow the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also provide that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the vape-free locations, and they give the power to set requirements in respect of those signs.

Although vapes are less harmful than smoking, they are not harm-free. There are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term harms of vaping. Vapes produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potentially to other toxicants. This poses health risks to children and vulnerable people in particular, for example the risk of triggering an asthma attack. It is important and right that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms.

Many businesses and enclosed public places already voluntarily have schemes in place to prohibit vape use in their premises. We want clearer legislative requirements so that it will be easier for the public to understand where vapes can be used and for enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. The clauses will therefore give the relevant Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland powers to restrict the use of vapes in areas, but only those areas already designated as smoke-free. Those could include spaces such as indoor pub areas, public libraries or buses.

In addition to making it an offence to vape in a vape-free place, the clauses will place duties on persons who control or manage vape-free places—that can include drivers of vape-free vehicles—to ensure that their premises or vehicle remains vape-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a vape in a vape-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the obligation is to cause someone who is vaping in a vape-free place to stop using the vape. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The clauses make provision to permit the use of a vape during a performance if the use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, this takes the form of a defence to the offences of vaping in a vape-free premises or failing to prevent vaping in a vape-free premises. In England, the Secretary of State has the power to create equivalent defences.

The power to designate any spaces vape-free will be subject to a full and open consultation, and the evidence for imposing any restrictions will be considered before regulating. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

This is an important clause that I am pleased to see, as I have campaigned against vaping in children for quite some time, as the Minister is aware. As the Minister says, if you can smell it, you are breathing it in. That is an obvious statement, but I have had people tell me that vapes do not give out any smoke and that it is therefore not possible for them to cause damage to anyone nearby. They may not give out smoke, but they certainly give out chemicals that are inhalable by anyone next to the person vaping. Otherwise, it would not be possible to smell the blueberry, or whatever flavour the person has chosen.

Key findings from studies on second-hand vaping include those on nicotine exposure. E-cigarettes emit nicotine in their vapour—in lower concentrations than cigarettes, to be fair, but they do emit it. The amount of second-hand nicotine depends on the brand; nicotine emissions vary among products. One study found second-hand exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes to be lower than that from tobacco smoke generally. Nevertheless, it exists, and it is still undesirable for people, particularly children, to be forced to inhale such a toxin. It is particularly harmful to pregnant women and those with cardiovascular conditions. The potential long-term effects of such low-level nicotine exposure are unclear.

Although e-cigarettes do not release compounds such as carbon monoxide, as cigarettes do, they do emit other chemicals such as propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine, which have been associated with respiratory irritation. Certain volatile carbonyl compounds, such as formaldehyde, have been identified in cigarette vapour, which could pose health risks with long-term exposure.

One of the persistent limitations with vaping is the lack of long-term data on the health effects of second-hand e-cigarette vapour. Most researchers focus on the acute effects, but as e-cigarettes are a relatively new product, certainly on a mass-market scale, we still do not fully understand the potential long-term health consequences of inhaling these vapours regularly, especially in confined spaces.

I would argue—it seems from the clause that the Minister agrees—that we need to be careful, particularly with our children. We do not want to addict a whole load of generations to this habit. We do not want others to experience second-hand vapours. There have been cases of people dying of second-hand smoking. As the Minister has said, we know that second-hand vapour can cause asthma and other lung diseases.

Parliament itself has been a place where one experiences second-hand vaping. I was pleased to see last year that Mr Speaker had put notices in the Tea Room and elsewhere around the House stating that there should be no vaping in public. We are due to vote shortly, as you said, Mr Pritchard; even during votes, I have gone into the ladies’ rest rooms, where we have a little seating and sofa area, and found female MPs vaping, including one member of the Cabinet. It is prevalent in all parts of society. We should not be exposed to such things in the workplace. Children, in particular, should not be exposed to such chemicals at all.

Clause 139 will amend the Health Act 2006 by inserting a new chapter, “Vape-free places in England”, which will establish a framework for prohibiting the use of certain vapes in designated areas and in vehicles in England, ensuring that specific places remain vape-free, much like the existing rules for the smoke-free environment. Does the Minister intend there to be an overlap? Clearly it would be much simpler, both for enforcement and for understanding among the public, if there were a direct overlap with the incongruity between the smoke-free and vape-free environments. I know that some say that if we make places vape-free we are encouraging people to smoke, but they cannot smoke there either, so that seems to be a false argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

We have had a good discussion on the clause. I sincerely thank the shadow Minister for the leadership that she has shown over a good number of years on this issue. I am not just saying that because her boss, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), is in the Public Gallery, gazing his beady eye over the Conservative Benches to see what is happening—I am sure that is precisely what he is doing.

In all fairness to the shadow Minister, she has taken a consistent view on vaping, which in some regards goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I know that it frustrates her, and indeed perhaps one or two Members on my own Benches, that the scope of the Bill does not go as far as creating a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free one. I put on record my thanks and appreciation to her for championing this issue over a good number of years. I know that is why she supports the clause, as she said, and perhaps secretly supports a number of the other clauses that she has abstained on in Divisions—probably to further wind up the hon. Member for Windsor.

On the clause, there is evidence that second-hand exposure to vaping may worsen asthma in children and teenagers. There are also wider concerns about young people taking up vaping and becoming addicted to nicotine. To protect children and vulnerable groups, we are therefore taking powers to consider whether certain places, such as public transport, should be vape-free as well as smoke-free.

It is important that we consider exemptions for certain settings, particularly those with the intention of helping adult smokers to quit. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham. That is an important aspect for us to consider, and it will be explored through consultation.

[Gregory Stafford]

Just for those listening, I should say that I am the Member of Parliament for Farnham and Bordon. The people of Bordon will be very upset if they are not mentioned.

[The Chair]

I am sure that that has been noted by Hansard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am sure it has. I was using shorthand, Mr Pritchard, and the wonderful people at Hansard will of course have the hon. Gentleman’s full title. Being the Member for Gorton and Denton, I know how important it is that we reference both Gorton and Denton, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Many public venues and spaces have already put in place their own policies on vaping. For example, many hospitals and public transport providers have banned vaping on their premises. Subject to consultation, the clause will merely make those bans official.

There is an emerging evidence base, and it is important that we continue to monitor it. That is why my Department, my officials and I, as the Minister for public health and prevention, are in regular contact with stakeholders. I have to tell the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that that includes Cancer Research UK, which is a major stakeholder of the Bill. It is also important to put clearly on the record that it fully supports the measures in the Bill. I do not want anybody reading Hansard at subsequent stages, such as on Report or in the House of Lords, to be under the misapprehension that Cancer Research UK does not fully support the Bill, because it does.

Turning to the hon. Member for Windsor, I am not sure that I am going to take public health advice derived from a briefing from the office of idiotic economic arguments, otherwise known as the IEA. It is not clear whether the IEA gets funding from the tobacco and vaping industry, but I suspect that it does. Therefore, we have to take what it says with a large modicum of prejudice thrown in.

[Jack Rankin]

I think the Minister is teasing me ever so slightly. I just want to say that I did write what I said; it was not given to me by the IEA.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman obviously wrote it after being inspired by his wonderful dinner with members of the idiotic economic arguments committee. I only half jest and half pull his leg, because I will never forgive the IEA for crashing the country’s economy, but we are not here to talk about the last Conservative Government, under the leadership of Liz Truss.

I do have some sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. We agree—and I think it has already been established—that vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective smoking cessation tool, so that is an area that we definitely want to get right. Clearly, we want to continue to ensure that adult smokers can use vapes as a quit aid, while protecting others from the risks of vaping. That is why only places that are smoke-free can also become vape-free. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, which the hon. Gentleman has raised on a number of occasions, the scope and impact of any future restrictions will be carefully considered. We will design the regulations in a manner that does not result in greater smoking harm.

I want to politely educate the hon. Gentleman on the process of secondary legislation, as he is a new Member—I do not mean this disrespectfully. Every statutory instrument that comes before a Delegated Legislation Committee appears on the Order Paper for a subsequent day on the Floor of the House of Commons. Before the Adjournment debate and the House adjourns, and after whatever votes we have had on the business of the day, there is something called the remaining orders of the day, which is all the secondary legislation that has been approved in Delegated Legislation Committees.

Should a Member shout “Object”, that leads to a deferred Division of the whole House. When the hon. Gentleman goes through the No Lobby, gets his pink card and puts a “No” next to Government legislation, as I am sure he has done on umpteen occasions since 4 July, that is a vote of the whole House on a statutory instrument that has been passed by a Delegated Legislation Committee. On all the measures that we introduce through secondary legislation, he will have the opportunity —I am sure his Whip and the shadow Health Secretary are taking note—to shout “Object” and cause a deferred Division.

On the question of who will enforce vape-free legislation, I accept that vaping is easier to conceal than smoking, and therefore it is much easier to enforce a prohibition on smoking in a designated area than to prevent someone from having a sly puff on a vape, but this policy is about ensuring consistency, notwithstanding the difficulties there will be in enforcing it. As we have argued before, the majority of the British public are law-abiding citizens. This does not need to be a heavy-handed policy. Most people will enforce it themselves, and they will encourage those around them to be considerate to others.

In England, enforcement of any extension of smoke- free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by the same allocated teams within local authorities that currently enforce smoke-free legislation. That is typically the responsibility of the environmental health teams within local authorities. As with smoking in a smoke-free premise, someone found to be vaping in a vape-free premise in England may be issued with a fine on conviction of up to £200, or an on-the-spot fine of £50.

In Scotland, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local environmental health officers, which is the case now with existing smoke-free places. As with smoking in smoke-free places, those vaping in a vape-free place in Scotland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

In Wales, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing existing smoke-free legislation. The police are also authorised to enforce the smoke-free requirements in relation to private cars carrying children. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Wales face a fine on conviction of up to £200, or a £100 on-the- spot fine.

In Northern Ireland, local councils are primarily responsible for enforcing the existing smoke-free rules; we would expect that to extend to vape-free places as well. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Northern Ireland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 145, 151 and 156 stand part.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to heated tobacco-free places. They provide for the Secretary of State in England, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as heated tobacco-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also require that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the heated tobacco-free place, and they give powers to set requirements in respect of those signs.

In addition to making it an offence to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place, the clauses also place duties on persons who control or manage heated tobacco-free places, which can include drivers of heated tobacco-free vehicles, to ensure that their premises or vehicles remain heated tobacco-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the obligation is to cause someone who is using heated tobacco in a “free from” place to stop using the device. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The provisions for England will also provide powers for the Secretary of State to create defences to permit the use of heated tobacco devices during a performance if that use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. All tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. There is evidence from lab studies of the toxicity of heated tobacco. There are less harmful, tobacco-free products that can support people to quit instead of using an alternative tobacco product. It is therefore important that heated tobacco products be included within the scope of the Bill.

We are considering making all currently smoke-free indoor places heated tobacco-free, and making outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. However, that is subject to consultation. There is a statutory duty to consult, as I have mentioned on umpteen occasions, before bringing forward regulations to designate any spaces heated tobacco-free. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Clause 140 and the associated provisions for the other parts of the United Kingdom provide powers for the Secretary of State to prohibit the use of heated tobacco products in England in places that are already smoke free. That will need to be enforced by people who may not be familiar with heated tobacco devices. Will the Minister comment on the training?

I have only once come across a heated tobacco device at a dinner at Westminster. I initially thought the gentleman was vaping at the table, but it turned out he was using a heated tobacco device, which I had a look at—I had never seen anything like it before. It may be all well and good in metropolitan London, where people may be more familiar with heated tobacco, but how will people who are not familiar with these devices and have perhaps never heard of them be expected to recognise them and know they are not legal?

Has the Minister any plans on how to educate the public on the presence of heated tobacco, what it is used for and what the devices look like, in order that the law can be enforced? How will he do so without providing an advert for it to people who are old enough to buy it—at least in the short term, until it becomes illegal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

That is effectively the argument I am advancing. In terms of the quantum of harm as a percentage of a cigarette, I do not know. As I understand it, even though we do not fully know yet the dangers of heated tobacco, it is similar to vaping in that we do not want anybody to take it up, but if someone smokes we would prefer them to use it as a cessation device. I understand that that is the way they are marketed.

[Andrew Gwynne]

indicated dissent.

[Jack Rankin]

The Minister is disagreeing, but he can combat that in his speech.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend’s points have been noted for the record. From what I have read and seen in the representations to the Committee and more widely, heated tobacco seems to me to be similar to vaping, in the sense that we do not people to start it as a product, but it is less harmful than cigarettes, so we should try to facilitate a way for people to use those methods as cessation devices.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come to the shadow Minister’s point at the end, but first I want to nail the pernicious lie peddled by the tobacco industry that there is a tobacco product that is an adequate smoking cessation tool. There is no form of tobacco that is safe. That is why we are stopping the sale of tobacco in any form to anybody born on or after 1 January 2009. That is a clear aim and objective of the Bill.

I do not want to rehearse old arguments but, taking us back to the almost two-day-long debate we had on clause 1, I made it clear that we are effectively saying to the tobacco industry that as far as its market base is concerned in the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—this is as good as it gets. There will be no other route to peddle this deadly, toxic ingredient called tobacco that, were Sir Walter Raleigh to bring it to these shores today, would be illegal. However, because we have a 500-year history, which the shadow Minister kindly researched and gave us chapter and verse on in the debate on clause 1, we know we are where we are as a consequence of the tobacco industry. We will heaven and earth, however, to make sure that there is no other route for the tobacco industry to grow its market share. The lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool is precisely that—a lie.

There are smoking cessation tools that we are championing that are tobacco-free, which is why we have a differential between vapes and tobacco products in the Bill. We recognise that vaping has a value as a smoking cessation tool, but I will never, ever concede that another tobacco product is a smoking cessation tool.

Tobacco is uniquely harmful. It kills two thirds of its user base. It is a major cause of death and of cancer in this country to this day. Whether it is cigarettes, cigars or heated tobacco, tobacco is tobacco, and tobacco is dangerous. I will not concede to the hon. Member for Windsor on the tobacco industry’s lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool. He wants to switch on the conveyor belt, albeit slowly, but that conveyor belt is stopping—and stopping for good.

The shadow Minister raises an important point about how people will identify heated tobacco products if they are not aware what such products look like, in order for the measure to be self-enforcing in the way that not smoking in smoke-free places has largely been self-enforced, and as we expect measures on vaping to be. I reassure her that when the measures in the Bill are enacted, there will be a comprehensive information campaign so people will be aware of what is restricted as a consequence of its measures. That should raise awareness of products such as heated tobacco without promoting them, as the hon. Member for Windsor would like, as a pseudo-miraculous device for people to quit their addiction.

As I say, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 140 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 141

Amendments consequential on sections 136 to 140

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 17.

Clause 146 stand part.

Schedule 18.

Clause 152 stand part.

Schedule 19.

Clause 157 stand part.

Schedule 20.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 141 is fairly self-explanatory and links to schedule 17, which contains the amendments to other legislation consequential on clauses 136 to 140. I do not have any specific comments to make on it.

[Andrew Gwynne]

These clauses and schedules ensure that the definitions in existing legislation align with those used in the Bill, and that references are accurate and reflect any provisions inserted into or removed from the relevant Acts. I therefore commend the group to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 142 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 147 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clauses 153 to 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 158

Power to prohibit vaping etc on ships

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 158 relates to shipping. I think a question was raised earlier about why ships were specifically excluded. That is partly because ships are important enough to have their own specific, separate clause. Clause 158 amends section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and makes provision regarding safety regulations that are made under that Act to provide for vape-free and heated tobacco-free provision for ships and hovercraft, corresponding to provisions in the Health Act 2006.

As I mentioned in an early sitting of this Bill Committee—I am glad that the Minister enjoyed the history of tobacco—maritime history and tobacco are inextricably linked. The allure of tobacco in the new world enchanted European sailors and left an indelible mark on global commerce as well as on our culture. Famous sailors, both factual and fictional, were smokers, from Captain Cook—who came from a place very close to where I was born, Marton in Middlesbrough—to Ernest Shackleton, and from Popeye the sailor man to Captain Haddock in the Tintin books. Smoking was a fact of life—worryingly, even aboard wooden vessels.

For four centuries, seamen and passengers used cigarettes, pipes and matches, which were a significant cause of maritime fires and disasters. The earliest dated clay pipe comes from a ship that sank off Alderney in the Channel Islands, probably in November 1592. A sea captain wrote in Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country in 1875, I think, a piece entitled “The Dangers of the Sea”. In it, he chastised the carelessness of merchant seamen. He said:

“It is to be regretted that in all classes of merchant ships smoking below is an acknowledged custom. Jack lies on his dirty bed of straw with pipe in mouth, reading some old scrap of a newspaper, or the pages of a novel, and not unfrequently falls asleep with the burning embers beside him”,

adding that the mystery is not why the ship in question was burned,

“but why such accidents are not constantly occurring from this and other causes.”

Indeed, we talked earlier in Committee about the dangers of house fires from people falling asleep while smoking in bed.

More than eight decades later, in a 1957 booklet, the Ministry of Transport still blamed smoking more than any other reason for fires on board ships. It said:

“Lighted cigarettes smoked surreptitiously are abandoned in combustible cargo and cause fires which smoulder unnoticed for days before bursting into flame. They are thrown away on deck where the wind catches them and blows them into an open port, hatch, or ventilator where they may land on inflammable material. They are left on the edges of ashtrays in the saloon or dropped from men’s hands as they fall asleep.”

With reports like that, it is no wonder that smoking was eventually banned in the maritime context.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendmentusb 11, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, after “regulations” insert

“and a local authority may (as respects its area) make byelaws”.

This amendment would extend the power to designate areas as smoke-free to certain local authorities, by making byelaws. Any byelaws so made would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is reassuring to hear the Minister talk about consulting before bringing in smoke-free places in specific public outdoor areas. Personally, as a non-smoker and someone who is very concerned about the public health impacts of passive smoking, I think we must also be mindful of the need for evidence-based interventions, and of the trade-offs. A good example is that of some fantastic pubs around Winchester and the Meon valley that have maybe two beer gardens, one to the side and one to the back. There would genuinely be no public health risk if smoking was permitted in one of the beer gardens and not the other.

The Liberal Democrats want reassurance on that. One of the reasons we tabled our amendment to clause 136, which is coming up, is simply to get assurances that the hospitality sector will not be impacted by any of these decisions, especially if the public health benefits are negligible.

[The Chair]

Order. We will discuss the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment when he moves it.

[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.

[Jim Dickson]

The Minister has given a very comprehensive response. I suspect that the suggestion that this might be a way forward might come up in the consultation when that happens in the coming months. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for our debate on amendments 4, 94 and 95. I am even more grateful that a lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, is sitting behind me—as a non-lawyer, I note that it is always good for somebody to have one on their side. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is a lawyer as well; in matters of law, there are always disagreements.

Amendments 4 and 95 would remove the power in the Bill to extend smoke-free places to any area that is a workplace or open to the public, including outdoor spaces in England. That would be replaced with a limited power to extend smoke-free places only to healthcare and education settings and to playgrounds. Amendment 94 would reinstate the test present in the Health Act 2006, which requires, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, a significant risk of exposure to significant quantities of smoke before being able to designate an additional place as smoke-free.

On extending smoke-free places, as we heard from a range of public health experts, evidence for the harm from exposure to second-hand smoke is well established. People exposed to second-hand smoke are at increased risk of cancer, chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that, every year, second-hand smoke kills up to 1.3 million people worldwide.

The science tells us three things about second-hand smoking. First, it poses a risk to health even outdoors. Secondly, it is particularly dangerous for vulnerable people, including children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing but usually invisible health conditions, such as asthma and diabetes. Thirdly, in some public settings, exposure to second-hand smoke can be high. If you can smell it, you are inhaling it.

It is important that the powers are broad, so that the Bill is appropriately future-proofed, as we have discussed in relation to other measures in the Bill.

[Gregory Stafford]

The Minister may come to this, and I am sorry to keep banging on about it, but I do not understand the future-proofing element of the clause and, therefore, why he opposes our amendments. Unless we have colonised Mars, surely there will be no new definition of an open space, or new wonderful industry way of claiming there is one. We know what open spaces are, and they are not going to change, so what is the future-proofing element?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The future-proofing element is if the science changes or, more likely, that over time public attitudes change. Smoking is already a minority pastime, and we expect that, in 25 years’ time, the prevalence of smoking among those aged 30 or below will be near to zero, so we will want to protect people from the scourge of second-hand smoke in other places. But that is a debate for other Ministers in other Sessions of other Parliaments at some stage in the future.

I do not want to tie the hands of my successors, so that they have to find a slot before the House for primary legislation to make simple changes. A far more practical and workable mechanism is for my successors to be able to come to the House to say, “The evidence has changed”, or, “Public opinion has changed”, and, “We now seek to consult the outside world on introducing further areas under the powers in the Bill”, and then to lay secondary legislation following the statutory duty to consult. Other areas can therefore come within the scope of the Bill.

[Sarah Bool]

I take the Minister’s point, but there is only a requirement to consult, so actually, completely unlimited powers have been given to make this change. We are trying to argue that we want the spaces to be clearly defined. It is important and right that we should come back to Parliament to make a change at a future point, if we want to extend the Bill further. But that will only be consultation, based on the current drafting, and a change could be pushed through regardless. The Labour party says that it is trying to support and back hospitality, so making this absolutely clear on the face of the Bill at this point will give hospitality the reassurance that it needs. I cannot see why there is any objection to more clarity, rather than overarching and wide powers. We are binding the hands of future generations and telling them that they cannot smoke and cannot vape—that right has gone—and then, on the other hand, we are saying, “I cannot bind the hands of my future successors”. We need reassurance and clarity for hospitality, and that is not in the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I have at no stage said that Ministers would not come back to Parliament. What I have said is that we should not be seeking to find one of those rare things—a slot in a King’s Speech for primary legislation—for something as simple as consulting on further areas.

I also remind the hon. Lady that the powers in the Bill are UK-wide. They do not give just the Secretary of State, or me as the Public Health Minister, the powers to consult in relation to England; they give the same powers to the Scottish Health Minister, the Welsh Health Minister and the Northern Irish Health Minister to consult and to bring forward secondary legislation on extensions following that.

We have been absolutely clear that the Government intend, in relation to England, to consult on schools, hospitals and children’s playgrounds—nothing else. It is those three things. That is our intention. The level of detail will be subject to the consultation. If in the consultation it is deemed that the measure should be extended to other NHS facilities beyond hospitals or to nurseries as part of an education setting, that will be entirely a matter for the consultation, and secondary legislation will therefore be brought to this House. But it is our intention—I cannot make it any clearer—that the three areas this Government are going to consult on are hospitals, outside schools and children’s play areas. We are not going to consult on hospitality. That is clear.

My counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom may well come to a different decision on which areas to consult on. They may not consult at all.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the Minister for his clarity about what he and the Secretary of State are going to consult on; I take him at his word, of course. But is he not now demonstrating the concerns that we have? Other parts of the United Kingdom will potentially consult on retail. Therefore, the amendment is absolutely necessary. Although I am an England Member of Parliament and care mostly about the good people of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, I have a wider duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that the hospitality businesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected. I am afraid that the Minister has really worried me with what he has just said.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Dr Chambers]

I think that the official Opposition’s amendment is better, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12, at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.—(Dr Johnson.)

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 121 stand part.

Government amendment 1.

Clause 122 stand part.

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

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Dowd. These clauses concern the defences and exemptions to the advertising bans on relevant products—tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products—as set out in clauses 114 to 119, which we have just debated.

Clause 120 sets out three situations in which someone has a defence to the advertising bans. Those are trade adverts, sending information in response to a request and adverts for outside the United Kingdom. The clause sets out that adverts contained only in communications between members of specific, relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. For example, a vaping company could send promotional materials to someone responsible for buying products to sell, but that would otherwise be banned if aimed at members of the public. Similarly, a defence exists if the advert is contained in a publication that is not printed or intended to be marketed in the UK. The final defence is that if businesses receive a direct request about their products, they are permitted to respond to that request with material that would legally be considered an advert.

Clause 121 restates existing law that allows specialist tobacconists to advertise specialist products in their shops. Specialist tobacconists will therefore be exempt from the restrictions on advertisements in part 6 of the Bill, provided that their adverts meet certain criteria, such as being visible only inside the shop. The clause empowers the appropriate national authority in each of the devolved Administrations to make regulations to specify what health warnings and information must be included in the adverts. Specialist tobacconists make up a tiny percentage of the market in the UK and are focused on specialist products such as pipes and cigars, and this exemption reflects the specialist nature of the trade carried out by these shops. However, tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, so we will continue to monitor the specialist market closely in case the situation changes.

Clause 122 ensures that no offence is committed under part 6 of the Bill for something that is regulated under the law on displays. For example, displaying a relevant product or the price of the product in accordance with any regulations concerning displays would not be considered an advertisement for the purposes of advertising offences. Without this provision, a display of a relevant product or other material that is permitted may be prohibited as an advertisement. The provision therefore allows for shops to display a vape, subject to the restrictions set out in legislation on their display, without it being considered an advertisement.

However, in the relevant provision for Scotland, the clause refers only to the legislation on the display of the tobacco products themselves and does not include the legislative provision on the display of the prices of the tobacco products. Government amendment 1 has been made to ensure that both are captured when determining whether something is subject to the law relating to displays, as the equivalent provisions do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That has been done at the request of the Scottish Government to make the approach in Scotland consistent with that in the other three jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that the Government commend this amendment and clauses 120 to 122 to the Committee.

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

I noticed that Government amendment 1 was included in this grouping. Does the Minister want to talk about it?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that prohibit or restrict the brand sharing of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Tobacco brand sharing is already prohibited. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising that promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services, or vice versa. For example, using a tobacco product on a logo or a T-shirt or a confectionery company using its branding on a vape are examples of brand sharing if the intent is to promote vapes. There is a clear association between tobacco advertisements and the uptake of products.

Associating nicotine or vape products with a reputable brand may also incentivise consumers, particularly children, adolescents and other vulnerable groups, to buy the product. We want to stop that happening and to protect young people and future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Gregory Stafford]

The clause grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate brand sharing related to tobacco products, vaping products, nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I think the provision is instrumental in preventing indirect advertising strategies that could undermine the public health efforts in the Bill aimed at reducing consumption of those products.

Brand sharing, in my understanding, refers to the practice of using a brand name, a logo or some kind of distinctive feature associated with a particular product across a range of different product categories. In the context of tobacco and vaping products, brand sharing can manifest in several ways. Cross-product branding uses a tobacco brand’s name or logo on a non-tobacco product such as clothing or accessories to maintain brand visibility despite the advertising restrictions.

On event sponsorships, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned how we banned the advertising of tobacco products at Formula 1, the cricket and so on. Associating a tobacco or vape brand with events indirectly promotes the brand to a broader audience. Merchandising—the selling or distributing of merchandise bearing the branding of tobacco or vape products—can appeal to various demographics, especially young people.

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth; I am sure he can respond to my hon. Friend when he gets up. I think there has been relative unanimity on the Committee. Unlike alcohol and gambling, to use the two examples that my hon. Friend gave, tobacco is significantly more dangerous. Whereas there are safe levels of indulgence in gambling and alcohol, there is no safe indulgence in tobacco products. I think the Minister has made that very clear. If I have misinterpreted what he said, I am sure he will correct me.

The rationale for the clause is important: it closes advertising loopholes. Traditional advertising channels for tobacco products have been progressively restricted to reduce their appeal and accessibility, especially to young people. However, brand sharing could present a loophole that companies could exploit to continue to promote their products indirectly. By regulating brand sharing, the clause aims to close that gap, ensuring the intent of the advertising restrictions, which we have previously discussed, is fully realised.

Secondly, as with measures throughout the Bill, the clause aims to protect public health. Indirect advertising through brand sharing can subtly influence consumer behaviour, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents. Exposure to branding on non-tobacco products or at events can normalise tobacco and vape use, potentially leading to their initiation and then continued usage. Regulating brand sharing is therefore a critical step in protecting public health by limiting the avenues through which these products are promoted.

Once again, the clause brings us into line with a number of international standards. Many countries have already recognised the risks associated with brand sharing and have implemented regulations to address it. For example, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, which I previously mentioned, recommends comprehensive bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including indirect forms such as brand sharing. By empowering the Secretary of State to regulate brand sharing, the UK is aligning itself with international best practices in tobacco control.

However, there are some challenges and considerations. The first is defining the scope of brand sharing. One of the primary challenges I see in regulating brand sharing is establishing clear definitions and boundaries. Determining what constitutes brand sharing requires careful consideration to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited. I hope the Minister will give us some understanding of what the guidelines and boundaries might look like. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure that both regulators and businesses understand the limitations and comply accordingly.

The definition of brand sharing in subsection (2) involves broad and somewhat ambiguous terms, such as

“anything which is the same as, or similar to, a name, emblem, or any other feature”.

The use of such open-ended language could create uncertainty about what constitutes a violation of the regulations. How precise must the similarities between a relevant product and another service product be in order to be considered brand sharing? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand that.

There is also then the balancing of the regulation with commercial rights, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor alluded to earlier. While the object is clearly to protect public health, it is also important to consider the commercial rights of businesses. Over-restrictive regulation could have unintended economic consequences, particularly, again, for small businesses involved in merchandising or event sponsorship. I have said this before: if the product is legal to consume, we must ensure that whatever regulations we apply are equal and fair for both a large retailer or manufacturer and a small retailer or manufacturer. The regulation is either highly restrictive or highly permissive, but it must be the same. A balanced approach is necessary to achieve the public health goals without imposing undue burdens on legitimate commercial activities.

As I have said before in debates on other clauses, enforcement and compliance potentially bring some logistical challenges. The monitoring of so many various channels, including events and merchandise digital platforms, requires substantial resource. Ensuring compliance among diverse industries and settings necessitates a co-ordinated effort between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders and the public.

In addition to the questions I have already asked, could the Minister tell us what will be in the accompanying comprehensive guidelines? I urge the Minister to collaborate with public health experts, industry representatives and legal advisers to formulate clear and detailed guidelines on what constitutes prohibited brand-sharing practices. Those guidelines should be regularly updated to address any emerging trends and technologies, which we have discussed previously.

Stakeholder engagement is entirely appropriate and important. That includes with businesses and consumer groups, because we need to understand the regulations and encourage, where possible, voluntary compliance rather than compliance through enforcement operations. Educational campaigns can help stakeholders recognise the public health rationale behind regulations.

Finally, to go back to what I said about having robust monitoring mechanisms, we need to establish some kind of body to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance. Using technology and public reporting mechanisms can aid in identifying the violations and taking prompt action.

In conclusion, I support the intentions of the clause, but the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes brand sharing is something I would like to hear about from the Minister. Potentially, some challenges in enforcement are posed if the clause and the Bill become law.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution and questions. First, to be clear, we are aligning with the same regulatory framework that was used for tobacco. Tobacco brand sharing was done via regulations following the introduction of TAPA—the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002—and the necessary consultation through that process. We will of course consider brand-sharing restrictions for vapes once the Bill has received Royal Assent.

It is also important to say that following the ban on direct advertising, we will consider whether further regulation of brand sharing is needed at that point. If it is deemed necessary, we will need to assess the scope and the impact of any regulations to ensure that they are proportionate—precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon was setting out. My belief is therefore that it is more appropriate to regulate brand sharing via secondary legislation following consultation, not only to get that proportionate balance, but to ensure that any regulations are well understood, workable and enforceable.

An added issue is that advertising is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland—but not to Wales—so the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland before making any regulations containing provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive. We want to have the measures in place across the United Kingdom—so that there is no loophole, with brand sharing north of the border but not south of it, for example—so it is important that we go through the correct procedures to ensure that my counterparts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland are fully content with the direction of travel that we may wish for when it comes to England and Wales, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State in the UK Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Sponsorship: tobacco products

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

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

To reinforce the point that athletes may be uncomfortable wearing that type of branding, they are not only role models for children, but the epitome of health, fitness and what the human body can achieve. It seems outrageous that they should be advertising harmful products.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, some of them are—the way Man City have been playing this season, I am not quite sure. Anyway, we will get back on to the Bill as quickly as possible.

The ban will apply to agreements entered into after the clause comes into force, two months after Royal Assent. It will be an offence if a contribution is made from either party after the specified date, which will be set out in future regulations. The ban will apply to any agreements entered into after that date, and will therefore not apply to existing contracts. The reason for the two-month period is to provide businesses with advance warning and to prevent them from entering into new agreements.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked whether this could create a rush to get sponsorship deals in place within that two-month window. That is a fair question, but I think that is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, sponsorship deals are pretty tricky contracts and it tends to take more than two months to reach contractual agreement. Secondly, even if matters were expedited, most clubs already have their deals in place, and they would not replace something when they already have a contractual arrangement for something else. Were that unlikely scenario to play out, we would be looking at only a small number of cases anyway.

When drawing up the regulations, we will have to be careful to ensure that no new contract can be signed, and certainly not for the kind of time period that the shadow Minister set out. That would be really out of the spirit of this legislation and the Government might have to come back to tighten it up further.

[Dr Johnson]

I have a couple of questions about the rush of people trying to get contracts. First, presumably such a contract would not need to start straight away, so one could enter into a sponsorship agreement for some future period. As the Minister said, the sponsorship agreements are done for this season and being negotiated for the next, but presumably that would not stop a business entering into a contract to provide sponsorship for the next season, or even the season after. When the Government brought in VAT on private school fees—I should declare an interest here—they put in a forestalling measure that prevented anyone from entering into a contract to pay them ahead from, I believe, 28 July last year. They seem to be taking a much more lenient approach to the advertisers and sponsors of vaping and nicotine products than they are to parents wishing to pay for their children’s education.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point; I will take that away and look at it. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, everyone on the Committee agrees that we do not want our footballers, rugby stars or athletes to be emblazoned with adverts for vaping products, so the more we can do to tighten up the legislation further, the better.

I will just politely correct the hon. Member for Windsor that the term for someone from the historic County Palatine—including yourself, Mr Dowd—is a Lancastrian. My late father was the Lancashire cricket correspondent, first for Cricket Call, which was a BT paid-for service, and then for BBC North West. He was there in 1990 when Lancashire won both the NatWest and Benson & Hedges cup finals—the double at Lord’s. I still have copies of my late father’s book, “Double Delight”. I would say that they are available at all good booksellers, but they are available from me if the hon. Gentleman wants one.

The hon. Member for Windsor made an important point. I had just come out of secondary school in 1990, which shows how long ago it was, but it was pretty commonplace for tobacco companies to advertise at major sporting events like Lancashire cricket matches and others. The fact is that that was a long time ago, and things have changed for the better. The Benson & Hedges cup final, in cricket of all games, is a thing of the past. Hopefully, at some stage in the near future, we will look back at vape sponsorship of football clubs as a thing of the past, because that is where it deserves to be.

[Sarah Bool]

This is just off the top of my head, but on a technical point about clause 125(1), in terms of vape sponsorship, a person will be guilty of an offence only after the provision comes into force. I appreciate that there is the two months, but they also have the window of time while the Bill goes through Parliament, so they potentially have a couple more months for that.

I do wonder about how this is going to work in practice, because, in theory, a company that is offering sponsorship—if they enter into that agreement now—will not be in trouble for the next couple of years for doing that, yet under preceding clauses anyone who designed or printed material for any of those sponsorship deals would be guilty of an offence. We suddenly have a position where, potentially, the sponsors themselves are not guilty of an offence while the actual designers, and those who are publishing the sponsorship material, are. That is an interesting nuance.

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

I am going to test the Minister’s legal knowledge now—perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West or one of his officials can come in and save him. Is the Minister saying that when that happens in other countries, it is due to a legal requirement? I understood that it was to be culturally sensitive to the nation we were playing in, rather than there being a legal requirement—for example, covering up alcoholic drinks in a country that does not approve of alcoholic drinks. Conversely, in the Bill and in the regulations, is there something that says that those sponsorships, which would be vapes or tobacco in this country, would require some sort of covering up or a change to a kit with vapes advertised on it if a country were playing here?

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is trying to make about a standard clause being that if a contract breaches the law, the contract falls. In clause 125, however, the Minister appears to be giving a company that promotes vapes by sponsorship an opportunity to enter into a contract, before the legislation comes into force, that would be legal afterwards.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister is right. There will be a narrow window in which that will be possible—[Interruption.] She asks why, and it is because once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will bring in a two-month window. That is how the law is shaped, to give us the scope to get these measures right and ensure that we make the framework as watertight as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West wants. We believe that that is the proportionate way forward. We cannot make retrospective decisions; if contractual arrangements are under way at Royal Assent, an immediate cut-off could leave the Government open to challenge.

[Sarah Bool]

I understand that two-month period, but does it also apply to the earlier provisions on the creation of offences relating to publication? If we had some alignment there, neither party could potentially be in breach. That is merely a technical point, however.

The other point—perhaps for when the Minister goes back to the Department—is about force majeure, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned and which I would like more investigation into. Force majeure concerns acts of God, or something unexpected. I think lawyers would argue that a Government Bill was expected and foreseen, so there would have to be some other form of break clause or right. This debate is getting far too technical for this forum, but it is perhaps something that the Minister can take away.

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, we will take all this away and look at it in detail, and we will come back to Members. I am just about legally savvy enough to understand the point that the hon. Lady is making that a break clause or something like it would probably be required, because the coming into law of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill on Royal Assent is expected—it is not an act of God, and it will not come as a complete shock and surprise.

Finally, clause 133 allows us to extend all of part 6 to cover devices that enable a

“tobacco product to be consumed”

or

“an item which is intended to form part of such a device”,

but that are not in the Bill.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

On the conversation we were having previously, does the reference in clause 125(3) to a “specified date” mean that we can have an open discussion with the Secretary of State in the next stage of the Bill’s passage about deciding at what point the provision will apply to the contracts?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will take that away, because I do not know the answer off the top of my head. In bringing forward regulations, the Secretary of State and I will want to ensure that we get these measures right. That is why there are statutory duties to consult on secondary legislation throughout the Bill. That will ensure that we get these measures and the details right, and that there will hopefully be no ambiguity about the different dates for the offences of printing, publishing and distributing advertisements or about those related to sponsorship deals and the production of the kits that come out of them. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 106 to 111 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Gregory Stafford]

Things haven’t got that bad yet.

[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.)