Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

There were almost 67,000 cases of serious antimicrobial-resistant infections in the United Kingdom in 2023. War is increasing such infections globally; 80% of patients in one Kyiv hospital in Ukraine are said to have such infections. The Conservative Government had a plan to tackle that. Do the Labour Government plan to follow that plan, are they on track to meet those targets, and if not, what will the Secretary of State do about it?

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted that Dame Sally Davies continues her work on antimicrobial resistance. That is an absolutely critical issue, and I pay tribute to the previous Government, particularly Minister Quince, for their work on it. It is in the national interest that we maintain not just the national focus but the international focus on antimicrobial resistance, which is why UK leadership in those global fora is so important.

[Dr Johnson]

Another time when it is important to work together is during a pandemic, such as by sharing research. Unfortunately, recent history tells us that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses out. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, whatever emerges from discussions with the World Health Organisation, he will not reduce the UK’s capacity to take decisions in the interests of the British people.

[Wes Streeting]

May I just say how regrettable it is that a sensible shadow Minister is sent along to parrot the absurd lines of her leader?

National Cancer Plan

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

Accessibility of Radiotherapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

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

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

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 General Committees

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

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

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

“proportionate, streamlined and effective clinical research environment”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Question (28 January) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

When we adjourned on Tuesday evening, we were talking about this clause, which relates to shipping and a power to prohibit vaping and so on ships. We were —or I was—talking about the history of maritime restrictions on tobacco and cigarette use and why that has been the case. I had a couple of questions about the clause for the Minister.

My first question relates to the fixed penalty notices and the powers of entry mentioned in relation to previous enforcement. How would they apply on board ship, given the international nature of shipping? What is the role of maritime authorities and enforcement, or is it down to the captain? Who is going to enforce this? How will it work across different jurisdictions? Many ships operate internationally, so it is relevant to consider how the regulation interacts with international maritime law. For example, if a ship is registered in one country but operates in another jurisdiction, how will enforcement of the new provisions vary?

Enforcing a vape ban on ships operating in international waters, or outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, raises the question of which laws apply. Ships registered under a particular nation’s flag are typically subject to the laws of that nation, but in international waters, enforcement may be complicated by the lack of physical presence of the authorities in the country whose law is being enforced.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. On the questions that the hon. Member is asking about maritime law, are those kinds of issues not already tackled? Drinking, gambling and so on can happen on ships, but do not happen when they enter countries, and that is based on agreements between international partners, shall we say.

[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.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I concur with the rationale and explanation that my hon. Friend has just given. The question about how we will deal with snuff and other products in the House is an interesting one, because we do not want to see any of our Doorkeepers perhaps being criminalised for having something on the estate or how they have supplied it. I know that earlier discussions focused on the BBC—

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support in this discussion. Is it not also the case that the House has a lot of peculiarities and traditions that are sometimes eccentric, but interesting, and that although we would not necessarily want to create exceptions for MPs to use a product that is not available to members of the public, the inability to have the box there would be a loss of a tradition, which would be a bit of a shame?

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. One of the things that I have most enjoyed over the last few weeks and months has been learning all the different traditions and the meanings behind them. Having done my original degree in history, I appreciate all that, so the many history lessons that we have had from the shadow Minister in the course of these debates have been much appreciated by me. It is interesting that that is why clause 159 has been put in place, but I would like the Minister to expand on how he thinks that it will work in practice. Will we see the removal of the snuffbox? How will that work in the future?

--- 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 ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 21.

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested by this new clause. Tax is applied to some products that the Government would like us to consume less of, to make them more expensive so that we consume less of them, and that has been the case with tobacco for some time.

Looking at the current levels of tobacco duty, we see that tax on cigarettes is 16.5% of the retail price of £6.69 for a pack of 20, which is quite a substantial proportion of the cost. Cigars are taxed at £4.17 on a 10 gram cigar, and there is 14.3% tax on a £30 packet of hand-rolling tobacco.

The Government introduced an escalator for further increases in tobacco taxation in their autumn Budget. In addition, they have introduced a tax on vaping products, which will help to take them out of the reach of pocket money. Personally, I have been quite concerned about the fact that vaping products are so cheap that children can easily buy a vape with pocket money, and if they are potentially about to get caught, they can discard it without worrying and then buy another one. A tax on vaping products is, therefore, a welcome initiative.

However, as I understand it, the Government make £8.8 billion per year from tobacco taxation—I am sure the Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong—and it is in the gift of the Chancellor to increase these taxes if she wants to. She is quite good at increasing taxes, so I am sure she knows that that is the case.

As I understand it, the hon. Member for City of Durham proposes that the tax on these products should automatically go towards improving the health—including the public health—of the nation, as opposed to going into general funds. In practice, the Government are already free to spend the money that they receive from tobacco and vape taxation on the health service. They certainly already spend more on the health service than they receive in tobacco taxes. It is a choice. To govern is to choose, and they are choosing how they wish to spend the taxes they raise.

The new clause proposes

“limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer”.

Presumably, that would require some sort of open-book system, and I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady thinks that would work. This level of regulation of the market would require quite detailed open-book working. Perhaps she would like to explain why she thinks that is necessary, when the Government already have in their remit the levers of taxation specifically for these products.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The difference is that the tax would not come from the consumers. This would be a tax on the big four tobacco companies, rather than raising taxes from consumers. We know that consumers of these products are already likely to come from deprived backgrounds. In addition to raising revenue, the measure would allow us to impose much tighter controls on the prices of tobacco products. That would disincentivise the tobacco industry from creating so much profit from their products.

Although the Chancellor can use taxes for whatever purpose, this measure would be a tax on those companies whose product, as we know, kills one in two of the people who use it. Just raising taxes in the way that the hon. Lady describes would be an extra burden on the consumers who we are trying to help quit tobacco.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation, which was really helpful. I am grateful that she, as a Labour MP, understands that a tax on business will be passed on to the consumer, because it seems that the Chancellor does not. Perhaps the hon. Lady should apply for a new job.

The hon. Lady is right that if taxes are applied to a business, the business will pass them on to the consumer. The only way to avoid that is through price control. Nevertheless, I do not think that makes price control a desirable thing for the Government to interfere with. That level of regulation would go too far, and other measures in the Bill already seek to restrict and disincentivise smoking in so many different ways. I hope that they will be effective and that there will be no need for such onerous regulation.

[Sarah Bool]

The hon. Member for City of Durham has proposed a very interesting concept. Although she may not be pressing the new clause to a vote, it is interesting to discuss the concept in principle, so I thank her for tabling it.

Essentially, the proposal is that the Secretary of State would have to consult on a scheme that would regulate prices and limit profits, and then they would calculate the tax:

“by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products”.

That is an interesting concept, but I wonder whether it could be deemed anti-competitive. I know that the ultimate aim is to close down the tobacco companies, and that is essentially what the measure would drive towards, but in the interim, when many people will still be legally able to smoke, what arguments might the companies make in that regard? The Chancellor says she is pro-business and is encouraging business. The tobacco companies are perhaps not the businesses she has in mind, but the provision would have wider repercussions that could flow into other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause would be a game changer. One of the questions was whether the measure might later be applied to other areas—I presume that the hon. Member means taxing the big alcohol and gambling companies—but tobacco is a uniquely lethal and addictive product, so in this case the intervention is justified. She makes a good and compelling point, but I think the Government’s overall health strategy is to shift from sickness to prevention, which will require looking at all habits and supporting people to live healthier lives in healthy environments.

[Dr Johnson]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she have a price for tobacco products in mind? Governments of different colours have increased tobacco duty a bit at a time, presumably to nudge behaviour. If we do not increase it enough, we do not have the desired effect, but if we increase it too much and too fast, we potentially drive people into illicit-market tobacco. We heard from the chief medical officer about the difficulties people have in giving up cigarettes because of the profoundly addictive nature of nicotine, so if we were to increase the prices too quickly, we could end up making life difficult for people who are poor and addicted to nicotine, without the necessary support in place. If the prices are going to go up to somewhere in the middle, how is that different from taxation?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause asks for a consultation, so a lot of issues would need to be worked through with the Chancellor. However, the tobacco companies make exorbitant profits from a product that kills the folk to they sell it to, so I am sure that the shadow Minister would agree that that means we should use some of their profits to pay for the damage being done.

[Dr Johnson]

I certainly agree that it is immoral to sell products that they know are addictive, are dangerous and kill people.

[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.

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

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

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dartford is not here to discuss his important new clause 4, which is about a ban on cigarette filters. I asked the Minister why cigarette filters were not included in clause 1, along with cigarette papers and tobacco products. Cigarette filters have a health effect, but it is not necessarily the effect that most people think. Filters were first introduced in the 1950s in response to mounting scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of smoking. The tobacco industry seized upon the opportunity to present the filter as a way to make cigarettes safer. It claimed that they reduced the inhalation of harmful substances such as nicotine, tar and other toxicants.

The early filters were made of cork, which is the origin of the cork pattern that can still be seen on many cigarettes. By the end of the 1950s, sales of cigarettes with filters had surged to more than 40% of the market, and by 1965, more than 60% of cigarettes were manufactured with filters. Alongside that shift, the marketing of light and mild cigarettes with ventilated filters further enhanced the illusion—and it is an illusion—of reduced harm, making smoking appear to customers more palatable, and to some extent reducing customer awareness of the risks involved.

There were some early studies that appeared to support the tobacco industry’s claims. Filter tip cigarettes at that time were thought to be associated with lower rates of lung cancer and mortality, compared with their unfiltered counterparts. However, when comprehensive and rigorous studies were completed over time, the initial findings were disproven. Subsequent epidemiological data revealed that both ventilated and non-ventilated filter tip cigarettes were just as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes. In fact, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma—a type of lung cancer that has increasingly replaced the more prevalent squamous cell carcinoma—has risen significantly in recent decades. The rise in adenocarcinomas is believed to be linked to the use of ventilated filters, as they affect smoking behaviour and the combustion of the product.

One of the key reasons why filter tip cigarettes fail to reduce the risk of lung cancer and other diseases is the changes they cause in smoking behaviour. When cigarette filters were introduced, they altered the way people smoked. For example, smokers began taking longer and deeper puffs, increasing their exposure to harmful chemicals in the smoke. Such behaviours may have upset the potential benefits that some individuals thought filters might have in reducing the toxic smoke inhaled.

The presence of a filter, especially those with ventilation, changed the combustion of the cigarette itself. That led to a greater exposure in smokers to tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens and a major contributor to lung cancer. The filtering process did not remove those harmful substances, and in some cases may even have enhanced their presence in the smoke that smokers inhaled.

Another concerning aspect of modern cigarette filters is the material from which they are made. The most common material used is cellulose acetate—a synthetic plastic that, when inhaled, can contribute to respiratory issues. The fibres and microplastics from filters can embed in the lungs, potentially leading to long-term damage. Although that material can be effective in filtering out some particles, it does not remove gases of low molecular weight, such as carbon monoxide, which are also harmful to health.

Despite cigarette filters being marketed as a safer option, their widespread use over the past 60 years has had little effect on reducing the health risk of smoking. In fact, it may have contributed to a decrease in public awareness about the dangers of smoking, and may have led to more people becoming addicted to smoking without fully understanding the risks involved.

I note that new clause 4 suggests that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be used to ban the supply of cigarette filters, because they have a significant environmental impact. Roughly 4.5 trillion cigarette filters are disposed of annually, making them the most littered man-made waste item in the world and accounting for roughly a third of all litter found in coastal and urban clean-ups. Despite their small size, the sheer volume of discarded cigarette butts would fill almost 50,000 shipping containers every single year, and that is expected to increase by 50% in 2025.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was absolutely shocked to learn that cigarette butts account for one in five pieces of discarded plastic. When it is predicted that by 2050 there will be more tonnage of plastic in the ocean than fish, we should look at every way possible of protecting the environment and wildlife from plastic pollution. Back in 2019, a third successful dive was made to the Mariana trench—the deepest part of the ocean; it is 36,000 feet deep, which is greater than the height at which jumbo jets fly—and I was surprised that when the people were down there documenting previously unseen life forms, they came across plastic pollution. This is such a serious issue that we need to look at every way possible of reducing plastic pollution. Those tiny cigarette butts in particular can be swallowed by a huge number of creatures, as well as contaminating the environment.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He is absolutely right that these items are a huge danger to the environment, and it is sad when we go to parts of our world that are still not well explored, such as the Mariana trench, and find evidence of damage caused by the human race, such as plastic pollution. Although I have huge sympathy for people who have become addicted to nicotine and find it difficult to quit smoking, there is no excuse for the litter that it creates all over our beaches and our urban and rural areas.

Cigarette filters are neither biodegradable nor effectively recyclable. They are made, as I said, primarily from cellulose acetate—a plastic material that does not biodegrade. Even after two years of decomposition, cigarette filters will have lost only about 38% of their mass, and the remaining material continues to persist in the environment. During that time, filters leach harmful substances, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals such as arsenic, that have been inhaled through the filter and into the surrounding environment, further contaminating soil and water sources.

Cigarette butt waste has been shown to impact marine and coastal environments. Studies have demonstrated that cigarette filters affect the micro-biodiversity of coastal sediment and that they pose harm to marine animals that ingest them. That is a growing concern, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, as plastic waste continues to accumulate in the ocean, harming wildlife and disrupting ecosystems. The Ocean Conservancy’s international coastal clean-up has, over the course of 32 years, collected more than 60 million cigarette butts from the ocean. Although that sounds like a lot, that accounts for just 0.00001% of all cigarette filters thrown away in a single year, so this is a difficult thing to clean up.

Despite the growing awareness of the environmental impact of single-use plastics, cigarette filters have not been subject to the same regulations as other plastic products. For example, the European Union banned many forms of single-use plastic in 2019, but cigarette filters were not included, leaving a significant loophole. As cigarette consumption remains widespread, the environmental impact of the filters continues to grow. In October 2024, Santa Cruz county in California became the first jurisdiction in the world to approve a ban on filtered cigarettes and cigars.

One of the questions I have for the hon. Member for Dartford who tabled the new clause—he sadly is not here—is why he has chosen to use the 1990 Act. The previous Conservative Government banned a number of single-use plastics on the basis that they were harmful to the environment, that there were non-plastic, more environmentally friendly and more suitably priced items available, and that it would help to improve the environment, which is a very good thing. However, one of the reasons for introducing those bans through secondary legislation under the 1990 Act was that there was not an opportunity to do so in primary legislation, because of the time constraints of the parliamentary calendar. The Minister has talked about getting time for primary legislation already.

This Bill is a piece of primary legislation, and to add cigarette filters to it only requires the Government to write in clause 1 “and cigarette filters too”, and to make consequential amendments through the Bill on that basis. I agree with the principle that cigarette filters are a bad thing for the environment, and they are not good for people’s health, but I am not entirely sure why the 1990 Act is being used and why the Minister has not included filters in clause 1 and consequentially throughout the Bill. Perhaps he can tell us in winding up.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation. I did not know that it was cork that gave the colouring, so that is another benefit of her history lesson. We are aware that the previous Conservative Government took strong action to try to remove plastics in the environment. We introduced the UK-wide prohibition on the use of plastic microbeads in the manufacture of some cosmetic and personal care products, such as face scrubs, toothpastes and shower gels, where the little beads could wash into the sea. That was one of the reasons why those beads were banned. It is therefore an interesting argument to make that we should ban cigarette filters with their plastic content, because we do not want further pollution of our beautiful natural environment.

The World Health Organisation has advocated for banning those filters. As my hon. Friend compellingly said, there are no health benefits to such filters being used—which I had not appreciated. One would assume that those filters would have helped, but it is interesting that they do not. I note that the UN General Assembly is also advocating for a ban on filters, particularly given their plastic content.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the plastic content. I just spotted that in the explanatory statement for new clause 4 from the hon. Member for Dartford, he talks about wanting specifically to ban cigarette filters that contain plastic, as opposed to other cigarette filters. That would improve the environment, but a question is raised by the fact that when a cigarette filter is in use, the toxic chemicals present in the cigarette flow through that filter and becoming lodged in it. So as well as the plastic pollution as the filter is littered into the environment, causing a hazard, there is also the fact that as it decomposes, those other toxic chemicals present in the tobacco smoke are in the filter and leach out into the environment. That presumably would be the case even if the filter was not made of plastic, although the plastic is clearly extra harmful.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I take the Minister at his word. He is an honourable man and I hear that he has sympathy for the new clause. The important thing is that it gets done, not necessarily that it gets done in a particular piece of legislation. I will take him at his word and look forward to seeing the legislation come before an SI Committee for DEFRA. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Ban on manufacture and sales of high-strength nicotine pouches

“(1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength nicotine pouch.

(2) It is an offence to—

(a) sell or expose for sale a high-strength nicotine pouch, or

(b) offer or expose a high-strength nicotine pouch for sale.

(3) It is an offence for a person to have a high-strength nicotine pouch in their possession with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.

(4) In this section “high-strength nicotine pouch” means a nicotine pouch that—

(a) is intended for oral use,

(b) is not intended to be inhaled,

(c) does not contain tobacco, and

(d) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per pouch.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.

(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.”—(Mary Glindon.)

This new clause provides for a ban on the manufacture and sale of high-strength nicotine pouches.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

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

New clause 5 was tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), who is not on the Committee, and addresses an important issue that is causing me huge concern as well: that of nicotine pouches. We have heard repeatedly in this Committee, and from our witnesses in the evidence sessions, about how the tobacco industry behaves—how it seeks to addict people to nicotine for a lifetime and how it seeks to do so in relatively young people, who are most susceptible to its marketing and to the nicotine addiction itself.

Nicotine pouches are tobacco-free products that are becoming increasingly popular in the UK. They first entered the market in 2019 and are most prevalent among smokers trying to quit, although there is now a substantial market for non-smokers, in the same way that we have seen with vaping and other products over time—this is the latest one, as it were. The main type of oral nicotine products comes from brands like Zyn, Velo, Nordic Spirit, LOOP and White Fox. There are also stronger variants, like Siberia and Killa. They are a tobacco-free product that is placed between the lip and the gum and held there for oral absorption of nicotine, similar to Swedish snus. They are pre-packaged, pre-portioned pouches produced in a variety of flavours.

The Health and Social Care Committee went to Sweden last spring—around the time that the previous Government’s Bill was in Committee—where we saw rows upon rows, floor to ceiling, of these products in shops across Sweden, where they are very popular. We have seen the same pattern of marketing towards children as we are seeing for vapes and have seen for tobacco in the past. If mint is one’s favourite flavour, one could go for crispy peppermint, mighty peppermint, peppermint storm, witty spearmint, humble spearmint or even spiffy spearmint. If fruit flavours are more your thing, Mr Pritchard, choices include wintry watermelon, blueberry boost, hot berries, blushy berry, groovy grape, breezy mango and punchy lime. These pouches are now available in a whole variety of flavours, also including cinnamon flame, nutty Virginia and fizzy lemonade, and they have become more popular. They have attracted investment from the world’s biggest tobacco companies, eager to shift to so-called reduced-risk products as regulation and health concerns tighten worldwide, and have become a viral hit with consumers, many of whom are too young to already be smokers.

Philip Morris International acquired Zyn maker Swedish Match in 2022 for about $16 billion and said that the product had helped to boost its revenues by almost a fifth in the first nine months of last year as it delivered its third quarter results. It said that Zyn was now available in 30 countries, with recent launches in Greece and the Czech Republic. British American Tobacco owns the Velo brand and said in August that nicotine pouches were its fastest-growing new category, with organic revenue up more than 48% in the first half of 2024 compared with 2023. I am sure the Minister will look at this carefully and, as he seeks to protect the population’s public health in relation to nicotine products, I am sure he will be cognisant of the need to protect under-18s from these products.

New clause 5 focuses specifically on the nicotine content of these products. The nicotine content of oral nicotine pouches can vary. Typically, it is between 4 mg and 18 mg of oral nicotine per pouch, but there are many that contain much more. Some online retailers sell products containing up to 150 mg of nicotine per pouch. Oral nicotine pouches are sold in a variety of flavours but also in a variety of strengths. The comparison with a cigarette is quite stark:

“Researchers at the University of Stirling found that some pouches for sale on the UK high street had a nicotine content equivalent to 10 cigarettes.”

Those products are being put on people’s gums and giving them the equivalent of 10 cigarettes over a short period of time. The Financial Times article from 5 November 2024 goes on:

“‘They are strong enough to be psychoactive and they can cause local irritation,’ said Rosemary Hiscock of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. ‘Even if flavours are safe for food, we can’t be sure that they’re actually going to be safe if they’re held in the mouth for a long time, next to the gum line. There’s not been research on the interactions of that at all.’”

Oral nicotine pouches, alongside other novel nicotine products such as nicotine toothpicks and nicotine toothpastes that could emerge or have already emerged on to the market, are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Under the regulations, there is no current age of sale for retailers to impose, so these products are legally being bought by those under the age of 18, though the Bill will help to resolve that. Nicotine products are also not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, because no medical claims are made and they are not an alternative to an authorised medical product. They are not being used as a medical prescription stop smoking device, but are sold more as a recreational form of nicotine by tobacco producers, who see their market in tobacco shrinking and want to find another way to addict the next generation of people to nicotine, thereby removing their choice and potentially damaging their health.

We have seen social media and website, content and brand advertisements promoting nicotine pouches as performance enhancers for gaming and sport. We have seen the promotion of JTI’s Nordic Spirit pouches at music festivals; and Zyn and Velo, which are owned by tobacco companies, run reward programmes allowing consumers to swap empty packets for prizes such as iPads. I hope the Minister can confirm that those will be prevented by the Bill—they will be prevented by legislation if the Minister regulates, as he is given the powers to do by the legislation. We hope that he intends to do so.

The Advertising Standards Authority has tried to control this within current powers; a major nicotine pouch brand implying mood enhancement and stimulation was banned by the ASA in 2021. There is little reliable evidence that nicotine has any performance-enhancing benefits in sports, but a report by Loughborough University in May 2024 found that one in five 5 professional footballers in England currently use nicotine products and that two in five have used nicotine products at least once.

UK survey data shows that nicotine patches are becoming increasingly prevalent in the UK. In 2020, a survey of the UK showed that 2.7% of people had tried nicotine patches, but that had essentially doubled by 2024 to 5.4%, with an increase in popularity among young people, which shows increased awareness among young people; shop displays, bus banners and social media promotion are making them more and more of a problem among young people.

Does this matter? Well, of course being addicted to something one does not want to be addicted to does matter, but what health issues might be caused by these nicotine pouches? According to the impact assessment for the Bill,

“a recent scoping review, found that oral nicotine pouches claimed to be less toxic than cigarettes and deliver comparable nicotine, although data was mainly available from industry funded studies. Despite potentially lower toxicity than cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches still contain nicotine, which”

is still addictive and still

“can have harmful effects. A systematic review considering the harmful effects of nicotine found nicotine to adversely affect various systems within the body including the cardiovascular, renal, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, it has also been shown to be a carcinogenic.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 50, in clause 168, page 120, line 30, after “3” insert

“, save Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 51.

Amendment 51, in clause 168, page 120, line 39, leave from “force” to end of line 41 and insert

“on such a date as the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint following the consultation on licensing regulations (see section (Consultation on licensing regulations)).”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 50 and NC6, would require the Secretary of State to consult on licensing scheme regulations before Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2 come into force.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 52, in clause 169, page 121, line 21, after “etc)” insert—

“, save Sections 95 to 98,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 53.

Amendment 53, in clause 169, page 122, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Sections 95 to 98 (Registration and information requirements) come into force on such a date as the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint following the consultation on Registration and information requirements (see section (Consultation on Registration and information requirements)).”

This amendment, together with Amendment 52 and NC7, would require the Secretary of State to consult on registration and information requirements before Sections 95 to 98 come into force.

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

“the report specified in subsection (3)”.

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[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 ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

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

New clause 9 is designed to regulate the design, manufacture, and sale of high- capacity vaping devices, specifically addressing concerns around devices that allow for an increased capacity beyond a specified limit. The proposal seeks to ensure that vaping products sold in the UK remain within acceptable safety standards and prevent devices from becoming overly powerful or difficult to control. The clause places limits on the size of pods, tanks, and refill containers for vaping products.

Subsection (1) introduces specific requirements regarding the design, manufacture, and sale of vaping devices and products. It mandates that vaping devices sold within the UK should not allow for refill containers to be attached to a device post purchase to increase its capacity beyond the legally accepted limits. That part of the clause ensures that devices can only hold a single pod or tank that does not exceed a 2 ml capacity. This is a critical public health measure, because larger capacities could encourage excessive consumption of nicotine, posing potential risks to users, particularly younger people or those who may be more vulnerable to nicotine addiction.

It is worth pointing out that in line with the vote we had this morning on nicotine pouches of very high strength, if vapes are there to help people to stop smoking—as the industry says they are—there is no requirement for those devices to be stronger in nicotine than a cigarette is. Otherwise the addiction to nicotine will go in precisely the wrong direction.

Furthermore, subsection (1) ensures that refill devices, such as e-liquids, must not exceed a 10 ml capacity. Importantly, these refill devices must be sold separately, preventing sellers from marketing click-on or multi-pod systems that could encourage users to exceed the capacity limits in a single vaping session. By introducing the restrictions, the clause aims to maintain control over how vaping products are consumed and reduce the potential harms associated with unregulated usage.

Subsection (2) establishes that it is an offence for anyone to manufacture, import, supply for sale, or sell a vaping device that does not conform to the regulations outlined in subsection (1). The provision is designed to create accountability within the vaping industry, ensuring that businesses involved in the design, production, or sale of vaping products are held to strict standards. The penalties outlined in the clause will deter manufacturers or retailers from attempting to circumvent the capacity restrictions for financial gain.

Subsection (3) specifies the penalties for manufacturers, designers, or importers who are found guilty of violating the regulations set out in subsection (1). Specifically, those found guilty of manufacturing or importing non-compliant vaping devices could face a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction. That substantial fine acts as a deterrent against non-compliance by manufacturers, encouraging them to adhere strictly to safety standards.

Subsection (4) establishes penalties for retailers who sell non-compliant vaping devices. If a retailer is found guilty of selling a vaping device that does not meet the specified requirements, they could be fined up to £10,000. The tiered nature of the fines, with higher penalties for manufacturers and lower penalties for retailers, reflects the differing levels of responsibility in the supply chain.

New clause 9 introduces important regulations to prevent the manufacture, sale, and distribution of high-capacity vaping devices that could pose greater health risks. By limiting the size of tanks, pods, and refill containers, and imposing penalties for non-compliance, the clause seeks to protect public health and prevent the misuse of vaping products.

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 136, page 77, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 7 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (6), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’

(3B) In section 8 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (7), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 136 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in England) being beyond a fine of level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 85, in clause 142, page 85, line 29, at end insert—

“(ya) in section 1 (Offence of permitting others to smoke in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (4), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’

(za) in section (2) (Offence of smoking in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (3), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 142 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Scotland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

Amendment 97, in clause 147, page 93, line 13, at end of line insert—

“(1A) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1B) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon ynagored i rybuddiad.’

(1C) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1D) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon yn agored i rybuddiad.’

(1E) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1F) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’

(1G) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1H) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offences pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Wales being a fine or imprisonment and makes provision for the penalty for a first offence pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions to be a cautionary warning.

Amendment 86, in clause 153, page 109, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) In Article 8 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’

(3B) In Article 9 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) subsection (6), after ‘scale’ insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 153 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Northern Ireland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a conditional caution.

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The clauses mean that the devolved Governments will have equivalent powers to make additional smoke-free places. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for setting out what the clauses do, which is, essentially, to provide for smoke-free places in England.

Clause 136 introduces changes to the Health Act 2006, and specifically updates provisions regarding smoke-free places in England to allow for the addition of smoke-free areas beyond those already designated under existing law. It empowers the Secretary of State to extend smoke-free regulations to more places—and, I would argue, to essentially any place—with the aim of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and promoting public health.

Although it clearly is the Government’s intention to use these powers to improve public health, they are very wide-ranging. As far as I can see, the clauses give the Secretary of State carte blanche to extend the smoke-free legislation to any place without needing a reason, because the Government did not accept our amendment that it should only apply to places that have a significant risk of actually having any smoke. I understand that the measures allow for greater flexibility, but I would be interested in the Minister’s reasons for the wide-ranging scope.

The Minister has said that he wants to focus on three areas: hospitals, children’s playgrounds and educational settings, and I believe that that is his intention. Unfortunately, over time, that may not be the intention of the rest of his Government, which is a risk for the Committee in allowing these measures to stand.

The Welsh have banned smoking on hospital sites. We heard in our evidence that compliance regarding playgrounds has been very good but that compliance around hospitals has been relatively poor. Does the Minister have any figures to add to that evidence about compliance in Wales? That could be the number of people who have been prosecuted or convicted of such an offence, or surveys from hospital trust leaders on the prevalence in their site, accepting that not all people will necessarily be caught or prosecuted. If we are to be successful, it is not simply enough to write laws in Westminster; there has to be a practical application in the real world. Has the Minister had any conversations with his Welsh counterparts on the perceived reasons why the law on hospitals in Wales has been followed less well than it has been in other areas, so that we can understand why?

The Bill states in proposed new section 4(2) of the Health Act 2006—this is interesting terminology—that if

“the place is used as a place of work or open to the public only some of the time the regulations must provide for it to be smoke-free only when so used.”

That means that if a place is used for the public only some of the time, it can only be a smoke-free place during the time that it is in use. That could lead to a whole queue of people standing outside a hospital. If it were, say, a community diagnostic centre, so it is not open around the clock, or a GP practice, we could have people smoking outside just as people arrive for work in the morning and as the first patients arrive, which would be somewhat counterproductive to the aims of the Bill.

I wonder whether the word “must” would be better off as “should” or “could”, or perhaps we could allow leeway either side for hospitals or schools that are open from a set time. If a school opens at 8.45 am for the children to arrive, when is it officially open and when can people be expected to stop smoking outside it? It seems to me that the risk for children is that people are smoking as they arrive at school, and some children may arrive just before it opens. I remember standing outside the school with my son, waiting for the doors to open before I went to work. This particular question is important. It is sensible that if somewhere is closed and private most of the time, it would not have to be smoke-free except when it is open. However, some thought needs to be given to the detail of that and how it would apply in practice to places that are insufficiently open.

The regulations can also be tailored to different situations. The Bill states that the smoke-free designations can be applied to certain “places or vehicles”, in specific circumstances at particular times or if certain conditions are met. That flexibility ensures that the regulations can address a variety of scenarios and settings, including potentially temporary or conditional restrictions based on factors such as the type of location or event. The regulations also have the option to include exceptions, such as allowing areas within designated smoke-free places to be designated as non-smoke-free, based on the discretion of the person responsible for the area. That would potentially undermine the principle of the Bill, so I would be interested to hear more about that.

Before implementing any new regulations to designate additional smoke-free places, the Secretary of State “must consult” relevant individuals or groups, which again seems sensible. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on the definition outlined in proposed new section (4)(1), which allows the Secretary of State to designate “any place in England” as smoke-free if it meets the criteria of being “a workplace” or “open to the public”. But “any place” is very broad and could be interpreted to include beaches or open-air public festivals. Does the Minister intend to include other places open to the public within the remit of this legislation, such as public woodlands or national parks? Has he spoken to his counterparts in Scotland about the areas that are subject to the right to roam, and therefore open to the public to some extent? That includes, for example, public footpaths and rights of way through farmland. Could the very remotest piece of land in the United Kingdom be designated smoke-free and subject to legal repercussions thereof, if it were also open to the public?

I want to ask whether the enforcement of such broad measures would be feasible. If every public space, regardless of size, location or usage, was subject to a smoking ban, would it be realistic for local authorities or enforcement officers to monitor compliance across such vast and varied spaces?

In the modern day and with the change in working practices since covid, what counts as a workplace? In the age of working from home, can private homes count as workplaces? If a man sits down with his computer to work on a park bench, as is sometimes done, is that a workplace? If someone is working in an open area on the beach—we have heard that some people apparently do—does that make it a workplace? Does that place alternate between being smoke-free and non-smoke-free, depending on whether the man is typing away on his computer, or whether he is having a little break for a cup of tea?

Our hypothetical al fresco worker could be hashing out his latest policy report, but he could also be having a little break to play solitaire or chess. Would that count as working or slacking? Would that then be a workplace or not? Would the police officer attending the scene have to check that the man is working before issuing a fine to nearby smokers? I suppose playing computer chess could count as work if the man were a professional chess player—perhaps he is. How would the offending smoker or the police officer know what the person near them is doing?

These are somewhat colourful hypotheticals, but I hope I have demonstrated that the clause does throw up a great deal of colourful hypotheticals. For the sake of the Bill’s integrity, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on the terms used in the clause.

Furthermore, I would appreciate clarification on how we designate the physical borders of a smoke-free area. With three children, I have been to a fair number of playgrounds. Some playgrounds have physical barriers around them, often some sort of knee-high fencing, making it easy to say where the physical borders of the playground are. But some do not—some are play areas within a park where there is no clear boundary between where the play equipment is and the rest of the park. Does that make the rest of the park a playground or not, and where would the edges be?

Given the seriousness of the offence and the significance of the penalties, the Government should ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that people know when they are violating the law. In this case, will physical markers need to be built around every smoke-free area to ensure that smokers know exactly when they enter one? I can think of many village playgrounds local to me where there is no such marking. Has the Minister considered the cost of providing barriers or markings to ensure that people know where the boundary is?

The nature of second-hand smoke throws up another issue. The Minister well knows that the smoker need not be physically present in the smoke-free area for the effects of second-hand smoke to be felt in one. How does the clause propose to seek to address that scenario? If a park is designated smoke-free, and is or is not barriered, but someone is sat there smoking, watching her children play—she wants to be reasonably close to them so she can keep an eye on them, protect them and keep them safe—would she be violating the smoke-free area if her cigarette smoke wafts beyond the bounds of the park? What if the wind blows the other way? Would that then be legal? Are the mother’s actions based entirely on which way the wind happens to blow?

The principle behind the clause is very sensible: smoking is dangerous, passive smoking is a danger to others, and people—particularly children—should not be forced to breathe in other people’s smoke. But the enforcement of this clause requires it to be made very clear what people should and should not do, and where they should and should not do it. I am not entirely sure that the clause is clear enough on that.

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

Like the shadow Minister, I agree with the essential thrust of clause 136, notwithstanding the amendments that I voted for earlier, but there is a clear problem with second-hand smoke. We have seen in studies from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory diseases, heart disease, and lung cancer—particularly among vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly, as the Minister outlined.

However, we have to understand that there are clearly differences in how much smoke could be inhaled, depending on the setting. Where air circulation dissipates smoke, such as outside, the risks are probably not as pronounced as they are indoors. Although I do not dispute—I do not think anyone does—the dangers of second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, the question remains whether outdoor areas such as parks and public squares should be subject to the same restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.”

[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.

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am afraid to say to Government Members and to the shadow Minister that I am going to break up the cosy consensus. I had lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has given me some classical liberal vibes. I know that that will warm the Minister’s heart.

Part 7 of the Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to designate smoke-free places through secondary legislation; clause 139 will do the same for vape-free places. I have a few concerns about that approach. First, it has the potential to force people who have already switched or are in the process of switching from cigarettes to vapes—or indeed to heated tobacco, which is the subject of the next clause—to use their devices in the same areas as smokers, which runs the risk of their moving back to cigarettes. There is a risk that the places designated for vaping will often be the places designated for smoking. We all agree that even though we do not want people to start vaping, we would rather that people vaped if they are on cigarettes. In my view, the clause will be detrimental to its own aims.

[Dr Johnson]

I appreciate that we do not agree on the point about vape-free places, but the argument that they will make people smoke seems to be based on the premise that if someone cannot have a vape in their office, they will pick up a cigarette. They cannot pick up a cigarette in their office either. If, as has been suggested, there is congruity between smoking and vaping, how is it that a person who cannot smoke or vape in a place will then decide to smoke when they go outside to an area that is not designated as smoke-free?

[Jack Rankin]

It is not that people are not going to vape. They will go outside to the designated vaping spot, which in the overwhelming majority of instances will be either the same place that is designated for smoking or immediately adjacent to it. If someone is a recent ex-smoker or is trying to quit, effectively forcing them to vape in an area near cigarette smoke seems incredibly damaging to public health. I do not think that that is a particularly controversial statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Surely the alternative is asking people to vape elsewhere, although they would be exposing non-vapers and non-smokers—perhaps with clinical vulnerabilities, or perhaps children—to their vapes instead.

[Jack Rankin]

I will come on to the point about the relative effects of second-hand vaping and of smoking, but I will make some progress first.

My second point, which I have made throughout our debates on the Bill, is that we are potentially conflating vapes with cigarettes in legislation, which will exacerbate the misinformation that such alternatives are equally harmful to cigarettes. That will further undermine the Government’s goal of helping smokers to quit. Indeed, Action on Smoking and Health found:

“Half of all smokers…incorrectly believe vaping is more or equally as harmful as smoking…This is the highest ever proportion with this misconception across all waves of the survey and a significant increase on misperceptions found in 2023. Only one third of smokers understand vaping is less harmful than smoking.”

It seems to me that if we group vapes and cigarettes together and treat them in the same way, that misperception will only be exacerbated. That may further reduce the inclination of smokers to switch to vapes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the point that I am making. Vapes can be a tool to help the Government in their desire to create a smoke-free generation, and this legislation could be counterproductive to that, by their own measures of success. Members—certainly those on the Opposition Benches—have to engage with not necessarily the law that is written but how it will be implemented in reality. Businesses are likely to respond to this legislation by just putting up a sticker on the smoking shelter that says it is the designated vaping place as well. That is the risk.

[Dr Johnson]

Although I disagree with my hon. Friend on the principle of vape-free places, he is making a reasonable point about the enforcement and congruity with smoke-free areas. If there is not congruity with smoke-free areas, this legislation will be more difficult to enforce, because people will not know which is which and it will lead to more inadvertent errors. He also talks about the idea of vape-free areas being less important because vaping is potentially less harmful, but we do not know that.

[Jack Rankin]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not a doctor as she is, but I will repeat that Cancer Research UK said that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

and Public Health England made a similar comment. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West has made a few times about the precautionary principle, but we could take that to any excess.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Jack Rankin]

Government Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to repeat my points from the previous clause. Like the shadow Minister, I am less familiar with heated tobacco products, but I suspect the arguments I made regarding clause 139 apply to clause 140.

I want to make two or three points specific to heated tobacco. As with vaping, designating smoke-free areas as also being heated tobacco-free is dangerous, as it forces consumers to use their less harmful products alongside smokers. The risk is to increase the chance of their moving back to cigarettes. I will quote Public Health England:

“Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potential harmful compounds.”

It is not clear to me that there is an effect on a bystander of someone using these devices. The Cochrane review cited an earlier review on heated tobacco products that concluded that users and bystanders were exposed to toxicants,

“although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on the relative harms, but I am not convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding is that the industry, in the same way that it in the past marketed filters as a way of making things less harmful, when in actual fact the microplastics may have made them more harmful, may have advertised heated tobacco as a way of saying, “You’re not smoking it, so it’s not as bad for you.” It is not therefore a recommended quit aid, but a way for the industry to try to maintain its market.

[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.

[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)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

Enforcement authorities

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 133

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 136

Addition of smoke-free places in England

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 14 defines a local authority as

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

“a leak of a Government discussion”,

but that it had promoted

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

He then said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 94 states that:

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

I was merely giving examples.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

But he supported it.

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

Speech and Language Therapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Clause 99 relates to testing. The clause allows the Secretary of State powers so they may by regulation require a person specified in the regulations, such as manufacturers, importers or other relevant parties, to carry out tests on the products to ensure they comply with any of the registered requirements. Testing is a sensible thing to be able to do, subject to making provision for far more new tests to be carried out, because it is important that testing is done properly.

Some examples of where the Secretary of State has given flexibility include the timing and methodology; where, when and how the tests are to be done; who is authorised to carry out testing on behalf of the specified person, so whether a manufacturer or a third party can undertake testing themselves; how the products are to be tested, for example if all products are to be tested or just a sample; whether samples are required to be provided to a third party for testing; and whether there will be any charges for tests, which could be set based on the costs involved or other regulations.

Subsection (3) states that charges will apply and subsection (2)(e) allows regulations to specify how those charges will be used, including provision on whether the fees collected can be kept by the authority responsible for testing or whether they should be paid into a consolidated fund via the Government’s general revenue. Subsection (4) states that any regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so voted for in Committee.

I have a few points to raise. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a person who would be required to carry out the test. It is important to clarify who that person might be, and whether it refers to manufacturers, importers, independent testing bodies or other stakeholders. As I have already mentioned, it would not be reasonable to get big tobacco companies to mark their own homework, so how will the Secretary of State determine who is specified for those tasks?

Additionally, once the product is tested and deemed compliant, will there be any follow up or long-term monitoring of product safety and health impact over time? There is post-market surveillance for medical devices, but what mechanisms will be in place to monitor the ongoing compliance with consumer products post market? At the moment, it seems that all a company needs to do is say what is in a product, be believed and be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Currently, that happens simply on a company’s word. I am sure that in most cases—perhaps almost all—the company’s information is fair and true, but, in some cases, as has already been shown, that has not been the case, so it is important to consider that issue.

Furthermore, the phrase

“selection of products for testing”

in subsection (2)(c) is vague and could be exploited. The provision could allow a situation where only certain products are selected for testing, potentially skewing the results if products likely to fail are excluded from the testing process. If it is not properly regulated, that could result in cherry-picking, where only the “cleanest products” are tested to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.

There will clearly be some cost to industry for testing. Does the Minister have any further information on how much those costs will be? Based on the impact assessment, costs for the testing requirements and the testing of individual components could be quite high, so will the Minister provide more information about that?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am sure the shadow Minister can come in after me if she wishes to opine on clause 100.

Clause 99 grants the Secretary of State the authority to introduce and amend regulations concerning tobacco and vaping products. The provision ensures flexibility and responsiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of tobacco control that we have talked about previously. It is vital to ensure that the UK’s tobacco and vape regulations remain robust and up to date, especially given the increasing prevalence of vaping among young people and the emergence of new tobacco alternatives.

There are a number of real positives about clause 99. First, it provides adaptability to emerging public health concerns. The regulatory flexibility allows the Secretary of State and his Ministers to swiftly address any new health risks. A 2021 study by Action on Smoking and Health UK found that youth vaping rates had risen from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2021, so, by ensuring that new products can be regulated promptly, clause 99 provides a mechanism for responding to those emerging trends.

The clause aligns us with international partners and best practices, and with global tobacco control standards, such as the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. Nations such as Canada and Australia have successfully implemented similar regulatory powers to adapt quickly to the new threats posed by novel tobacco products, demonstrating that adaptable regulations lead to better public health outcomes.

The final positive of the clause is the stronger consumer protections. Without the ability to introduce rapid regulatory amendments, harmful substances may enter the UK market. As I have mentioned, in 2019 illicit vaping products containing vitamin E acetate led to serious lung illnesses, noted in the US. By strengthening the regulatory framework, Government can proactively prevent such issues.

I have a couple of potential challenges. First, as I mentioned, there is always potential for malign industry influence. The tobacco and vaping industries have a history of lobbying against stringent regulations. Indeed, since this Bill Committee has been sitting over the past week or so, my inbox has filled with such representations. The UK must ensure transparency and public health prioritisation in all its regulatory decisions.

Secondly, in balancing the public health and economic impacts, we have to be careful about over-regulation possibly stifling innovation within the vaping industry, which some argue plays a role in harm reduction by helping smokers quit traditional cigarettes. Opposition Members have made that point a number of times: we want to ensure that the regulations are effective and robust, but, where vaping is being used as a smoking cessation tool, the regulations must be flexible enough to allow novel products to come on to the market, which could in future help smokers even further.

Clause 100 clarifies the scope and the applicability of the Bill, which means that it ensures coherence of enforcement. A clear definition of which products and businesses fall under the new rules will prevent, I think, ambiguity in their implementation. The positives of this clause are that, where there is clear application, the reduced ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement means that businesses will understand their obligations and consumers will know their rights. That is absolutely essential.

For example, the smoke-free public places legislation that came into effect in 2007 clearly benefited from the defined scope, which reduced any legal disputes. By defining the reach of the Bill, clause 100 allows authorities to target enforcement promptly. Without clear application provisions, which we see in this clause, regulatory loopholes could be exploited. The clause closes them.

Likewise, tobacco companies may attempt to bypass our regulations by selling non-compliant products online from overseas suppliers. Again, the strong application in clause 100 ensures that the law extends to online and cross-border sales. However, perhaps the Minister will outline how he understands that that will be enforced.

That brings me to my real concern, or I suppose question, about clause 100. The risk of online sales makes enforcement much more complex than it would have done had we introduced such a Bill 10, 15 or 20 years ago. How will the UK work with other international bodies to curb illicit cross-border sales, especially when things are sold online? Also—I have mentioned this point before, but I will continue to do so—when small retailers are struggling with compliance, there has to be some form of education and support for them from Government so that they can comply. The majority of the vaping industry, where we have decided it is legal, obviously needs a clear set of guidelines from the Department and the regulatory bodies to comply with the regulations.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 100 concerns product safety, which is important. Even when a product is not safe, it should still be as safe as it can be and should contain only those things that are expected. When Lincolnshire police took a sample of vape devices from children from a school in my constituency, they found that many of the vapes contained dangerous ingredients that should not have been in there, including, in one case, I believe, an ingredient banned in the UK for many decades.

Clause 100 is important: the Minister must ensure that items on the market are safe. I come back to the evidence from Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA. She said that licensing a medical product does not mean that it is safe, and that these vapes are not medical products either. I am grateful to the Minister for saying in the last session that he is looking for a new home for the licensing and registration process for vapes and vaping products, because “MHRA-registered” suggests to the consumer that those things are in some way safer and more fully tested than they have been.

Clause 100 suggests very sensible regulation, but it gives the Minister the power to do that without significant oversight, even though the affirmative procedure applies. Since clause 90, all the Bill has done is to confer powers on the Secretary of State to regulate without actually providing a huge amount of detail on the Secretary of State’s intent. One never knows what the intent of a future Secretary of State could be in this regard.

Will the Minister comment on why regulation will be in secondary legislation rather than being detailed in the Bill? I understand the need to be agile and to think quickly to try to stay ahead of an industry that will try to adapt to addict more people to nicotine in other forms, but it would have been possible for the Minister to put much of that detail in the Bill, and to have taken a power in a final clause to amend parts of those regulations by statutory instrument. Most of the intent and most of the regulation would then have been known very quickly, but could be altered and adapted later. Why has the Minister taken the approach that he has, rather than a more up-front approach?

Clause 100(1)(a) requires

“producers or importers to have processes in place”.

Again, this is an important point. Most of these products seem to be made overseas, where of course the UK courts do not have jurisdiction. It is at the point of import, and with regards to the person who is importing, that we may need to be more responsible than with a producer where the items are made overseas.

I also urge the Minister, echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, to consider online sales. We see already that some regulations that are in place for the real world rather than the virtual world create loopholes for regulations to be circumvented. Clearly, public safety has to be the Government’s first priority. The testing in clause 99 and the product safety regulations in clause 100 are a welcome initiative, but clearly the devil will be in the detail and the detail is not available to us today.

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

I am sorry that your croakiness is getting the better of you, Sir Roger, but hopefully you will be on fine form tomorrow for the private Member’s Bills—I am not sure whether the Whips on either side of the House are praying for that.

On clauses 99 and 100, I will go through the questions posed by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. It is the responsibility of trading standards to test products if they believe a product contains illegal substances or could contain too much nicotine. Trading standards currently test products on an ad-hoc basis, which is contingent on funding. We aim to establish a testing regime to regularly check that products on the shelves are what they say they are. That will support overall enforcement, will ensure that registered products are safe for consumers and will allow retailers, in both brick-and-mortar establishments and online, to have greater clarity about and confidence in the products that they are able to stock to sale.

It is really important to consider online sales as a growing area. These measures have to be taken within the wider context of clauses and measures that we have already debated, in that any product for sale in the United Kingdom, whether in a shop or online, will have to be registered, and any retailer, whether a shop or online, will have to have the appropriate licences in place. There are clear and substantial penalties for breaching those licensing arrangements, and there are real and substantial consequences for selling products that are not in accordance with the descriptions on the registration of those products. When all of that is put into context, and testing is added in, we believe that this will be a robust regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clauses 101 and 102 deal with the treatment of, and matters dealt with by, the 2016 tobacco regulations. Again, they provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations. Whether or not that will be done well, we are not really sure at this stage.

I understand the point the Minister made in response to the last debate, and it is of course true that regulations can be different in each part of the United Kingdom. In his discussions with Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they may have wished to proceed with regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill. However, that does not explain why the Minister has chosen to do the same, and I would be grateful if he could explain his choice to make regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill, with the power to modify. I ask particularly because we are now into, I think, the 12th consecutive clause that provides powers to regulate and that offers detail only on what any regulations might or might not say, rather than necessarily on what they will say.

In that vein, clause 101 outlines provisions to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to, or corresponding with, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. That is to be done under a new regulatory framework, which would seem to be designed to cover gaps that may exist in the powers under those regulations. Subsection (1) says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision…that is similar to or that corresponds to any provision of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016…other than Part 7 of those Regulations”.

Part 7 of those regulations deals with electronic cigarette advertising. The Minister may feel that later parts of the Bill will deal adequately with this point, but I would be grateful if he could explain why that part has been taken out. That is not instinctive, because other aspects of those regulations could be too. What is the reason for excluding that part? Otherwise, I have no particular points to make about clauses 101 and 102.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 101 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to any provisions set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 —the TRPR, which we discussed in our debate on the earlier clauses—thereby amending them if needed.

In 2016, the TRPR implemented the 2014 EU tobacco products directive. The TRPR deals with the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products, including herbal products for smoking, nicotine, vapes and refill containers, as well as smokeless and novel tobacco products. However, it does not regulate all products. As we know, new nicotine products such as nicotine pouches have emerged on the market—we discussed such things in our earlier deliberations—and we currently have no powers to change the regulations. We are also limited in what we can do within the existing powers—for example, on vape packaging.

The Bill builds on the TRPR and allows us to go much further, with new powers on, for instance, packaging and flavour requirements, and new registration powers that could be extended to non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco devices and cigarette papers. As we have ascertained, the tobacco and vaping industries are extremely innovative and have previously attempted to circumvent regulations and exploit loopholes. The clause helps to stop them doing that by allowing us to amend the TRPR if necessary.

Clause 102 enables regulations to be made under powers in part 5 of the Bill to amend provisions in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations that are within scope of those powers. This is a technical provision because, as I said in the previous debate, we have limited powers to amend the TRPR. For instance, if we introduce new vape packaging requirements using powers in the Bill, the clause will allow us to amend the TRPR if necessary, so that the new packaging requirements fit with those imposed under the TRPR.

The shadow Minister raised issues relating to secondary legislation. The technical and detailed nature of many of the Bill’s requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. For example, we may need to amend those requirements in response to market changes. It is also necessary to include detail on the circumstances of when products must be recalled, which will change over time.

There is a broader point here: with all the regulations that we propose to bring before Parliament, we want to get the measures right. We have a statutory duty in the Bill to consult before bringing in regulations, which is in part why we are making the measures in the way that we are. Part 7 of the TRPR is excluded because those things will now be in part 6 of the Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

Sub-delegation

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 105 states:

“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions.”

I confess that I do not understand what that means. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation.

Clause 106 is about the power to make provision binding on the Crown, which we have discussed at some length. My only point is on subsection (4), which clarifies that public servants are still accountable under the regulations. Some may have concerns about the enforcement of regulations within Government bodies. Could the Minister say anything further on that?

Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State power to make amendments to this legislation through regulations. It is quite a broad and flexible position: the Government can remove outdated laws that are inconsistent with new regulations established under the Bill and ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve. To some extent, that makes sense. Again, the Government seem to be keen to ensure that they can stay one step ahead of a very adaptable industry and try to protect the country from nicotine addiction. However, the clause is quite broad. I would be grateful if the Minister could further elaborate on his intent in it.

Clause 108 provides for the consequential removal of section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 because it is no longer needed. Clause 109 is about enforcement.

Clause 110 is about the consultation process. The requirement to consult before making regulations promotes transparency and accountability in the decision-making process and allows for adjustments and feedback from various groups, in the same way that line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill allows adjustment in line with discussion. It ensures that regulations are fair and based on a broad range of insights and evidence. However, I would be keen for the consultation not to be so long as to delay bringing in the regulations. As I have said before, much of the Bill hinges on the regulations the Government can provide. If the consultation processes are very long and drawn out, it could be a long time before any of these measures come into force to protect our children, in particular.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Sub-delegation allows functions to be carried out by someone who is not named in the primary legislation. We believe that that is vital for flexible implementation of Government policy and to keep the wheels of Government turning. Sub-delegation is a long-accepted part of the legislative process, and having the ability to allow technical experts to undertake technical tasks, or to set out very detailed technical criteria in guidance instead of using parliamentary resource, will allow us to get on with implementing the measures in part 5 of the Bill.

The shadow Minister is right to be concerned about having safeguards to ensure that any sub-delegation of authority is not abused. Sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I have previously said, there is also a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under part 5. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.

On the wider consultation the shadow Minister referred to, the Government chose to include consultation clauses because we want valuable input from different stakeholders on our proposals before they are introduced. As is conventional with such clauses in primary legislation, the clause does not prescribe the specific people the Secretary of State must consult. That is to ensure that the Government can consult appropriate stakeholders, and the list may evolve over time.

UK-wide regulations made under part 5 might deal with devolved matters. The UK Government are therefore required to seek consent from the devolved Governments. My Department will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments on proposals for UK-wide regulation of products. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 106 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114

Publishing advertisements

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 114, page 63, line 16, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 88, in clause 115, page 64, line 3, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Clause 115 stand part.

Amendment 89, in clause 116, page 64, line 30, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Clause 116 stand part.

Amendment 90, in clause 117, page 65, line 18, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Clause 117 stand part.

Amendment 91, in clause 118, page 66, line 3, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Clause 118 stand part.

Amendment 92, in clause 119, page 67, line 8, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Amendment 93, in clause 119, page 67, line 24, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Clause 119 stand part.

Before I call the shadow Minister to speak to amendment 87, I should indicate to her that, since the clauses each have amendments proposed to them, it would be helpful to know as we work through the debate whether she wishes to press them to a vote.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 87 is to clause 114. This group of clauses represents a substantial part of the Bill, as it applies to advertising and sponsorship. Those became an issue as part of the Health and Social Care Committee review of vapes back in the last Parliament. They were also discussed during debate on the last iteration of the Bill last Easter. In fact, I tabled a fair number of amendments on the subject in the last Parliament.

Clause 114 creates an offence where a person, acting in the course of business, publishes an advertisement in the UK promoting certain regulated products such as tobacco, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. To commit the offence, the person must know, or have reason to suspect, that they are publishing advertisements for such products and that the advertisement will promote those items.

Subsection (2) outlines the penalty for this offence, which is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. For summary conviction, the penalties vary by jurisdiction, with different maximum prison terms in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a fine may be imposed in all cases. The clause aims to regulate the advertising of tobacco and nicotine products by placing responsibility on businesses and individuals publishing such advertisements, to ensure they comply with the law.

I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire regarding use of the word “publish”, and I have in mind particularly the online environment. Could the Minister confirm who is the publisher of, for example, a TikTok video? Is it the individual who uploaded it, or is it TikTok itself?

I also have a question about the words “purpose” and “effect”. Are they too vague? Could they lead to overreach and confusion about what constitutes promotion? It is unclear whether an advertisement needs to explicitly promote a product or whether a more subtle influence will be sufficient. How broad does the Minister intend the interpretation of “purpose” and “effect” to be? Can an advertisement for a lifestyle product that features someone smoking or vaping in the imagery be considered as promoting a tobacco product, even if it is not the main focus?

Another issue arises from the clause’s reliance on subjective knowledge or suspicion. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they know or have reason to suspect that the advertisement has the purpose or effect or promoting the product. In cases where the individual involved in the publication of an advertisement did not have direct knowledge of, or did not suspect, the advertisement’s purpose, what level of proof is required to say that they “know” or “have reason to suspect”? For example, if an advertisement is published by the third-party platform or agency, perhaps online, can a person who did not directly control the advertisement’s creation still be held liable? This is really important when it comes to the online world, where the sheer volume of hosts may make it incredibly challenging for an online provider to look at every single post that is put up.

On advertising, the impact assessment provided by the Government says on page 101:

“Despite advertising restrictions existing for nicotine vapes in some settings including television, radio and through information society services, such as internet advertising or commercial email, evidence shows advertising is noticed more by young people, and this has increased in some settings in recent years. Additionally, despite being prohibited under TRPR, the ASA report social media is increasingly being used to advertise vapes to children.”

I note the differences between the devolved nations. Under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, Scotland has powers to go further on advertising and sponsorship—for example, powers to ban nicotine vape advertising in more settings than those in TRPR, to ban sponsorship agreements involving nicotine vapes, and to introduce regulations on brand sharing.

Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:

“CRUK estimate the annual cost of advertising for the sector in 2019 was £32m. Under this policy proposal, no advertising would be permitted so this previous cost would be saved by businesses, and partially offsetting their lost profits from reduced vape sales outlined in the monetised costs section.”

Paragraph 666 states:

“Similar to the monetised benefits above for vapes, businesses who currently fund advertising of nicotine products, herbal smoking products, and/or cigarette papers will save this money”.

Of course, advertising companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. To me, it seems sensible to restrict the advertisement of these products, as I said before.

We must remember that young people are at the heart of this Bill, and the impact assessment also notes how susceptible young people are to advertising and why this clause is of particular relevance. Paragraph 499 highlights a survey conducted by Cancer Research showing that advertising is more noticed by young people. The survey results reveal that

“for all types of media analysed, apart from ‘email/SMS’, youth (16 to 19 years) noticed advertisements more than adults (18 years and older) in 2018 in England. The locations and media channels surveyed included: inside shops selling cigarettes; kiosks; web/social media; billboards/posters; newspapers/magazines; events/festivals; bars/pubs; and email/SMS. The largest difference in the two age groups was seen for 'billboards and posters’ with 31.4% of youth noticing marketing compared to 5.9% of adults.”

It also notes that

“youth (16 to 19 year olds) never users (who have never smoked or vaped) report higher noticing of vape advertising across all media types, apart from email/SMS compared to adult exclusive smokers”.

Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that

“more than half (55%) of 11 to 17-year-olds are aware of vape promotion in shops compared to 37% two years ago, while 15% see adverts on billboards, up from 12% two years ago.”

It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.

Amendments 87 to 92 ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that people who are smokers understand the information that is available to help them quit. At the moment, a smoker might go into a doctor’s surgery or an antenatal clinic and see information on smoking being bad for them, which is appropriate. They may also see information on opportunities for nicotine replacement therapies, or even on vaping as an alternative. If the Minister is keen to ensure that people who are smokers can use vapes as an alternative, which is believed to potentially be better for them than continuing to smoke, how will they be given that information if the products cannot be advertised or promoted?

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

The hon. Lady is eloquently articulating the necessity of controls around advertising. Does she share my concern about the risk of creating a loophole, whereby advertising could still happen if there were warning notes on adverts? The Bill seeks to reduce any type of loophole through which an advertiser might promote vaping—with words underneath that this is a smoking cessation device—in all settings. Does she also agree that the NHS is already able to articulate smoking cessation methods to patients, without the need for brand advertising?

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that we need to restrict the advertising of these products, because we do not want people, particularly young people and children, to start becoming addicted to nicotine. We agree on that. However, the Bill does not say an advert needs to promote a brand of nicotine product to be considered promotion or illegal under the Bill. It simply says “a nicotine product” or “a tobacco product”. I am keen to ensure the Minister clarifies that a doctor—I declare an interest as a doctor—or other health professional such as a pharmacist, like the hon. Member for North Somerset, will not find him or herself on the wrong side of the law for promoting vaping to individuals who smoke.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Current medicine regulations do not allow products to be advertised, but do not get in the way of smoking cessation clinics that currently take place at GP surgeries or pharmacies. The amendments the hon. Lady is proposing are, therefore, not needed. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggests, they could be used as a loophole for advertising by an industry that has been shown to be very successful at finding ways around legislation to increase market share and the numbers of smokers and vapers.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He comes to this debate with significant experience as a pharmacist himself. In bringing forward this amendment, it is not our intention to create a loophole. None of us wants to see children vaping or using nicotine products and developing an addiction they struggle to quit for the rest of their lives, with the associated costs to their health and their purses. However, I want the Minister to assure the Committee that he has considered the position of pharmacists and people who will legally be selling these products as a stop smoking device, perhaps in a hospital clinic or as a health professional, and made sure they will not be criminalised.

If we are to follow the chief medical officer’s advice—that vaping is not suitable for children but is suitable for adults who smoke as a harm reduction measure—and are to have that harm reduction process in place, which I believe is the Minister’s intention, it is important to consider how it will continue under these regulations. It is important to consider how pharmacists and other health professionals will be able to have discussions with their patients or clients in which they may wish to say, “Vaping is better for you,” and in so doing effectively promote the process—not a specific product, but the genre of products.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I share the concerns expressed by the shadow Minister and by my hon. Friends about inadvertently creating a loophole, which we know the tobacco industry and others will drive a coach and horses through. I understand that part of the purpose of tabling the amendments is to get reassurance and clarity on certain aspects of the Bill, but on the point she was just making, is not the relevant provision subsection (1)(a), which refers to the person

“acting in the course of business”?

I am sure the Minister will clarify later, but perhaps the clause deals not with medical practitioners, pharmacists or doctors, but with media agencies or companies whose reason to exist is as a business for selling media, for publishing, for design. They do not operate cessation services and are not medical professionals or pharmacists themselves. In the realm of instructions to a service industry, whether it be a publisher or a business that designs advertisements, does this provision not simply make it crystal clear that, no caveats, they cannot do anything that is listed in the clause, because to do so will be an offence?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but while pharmacists are highly trained clinicians with the capacity to prescribe a number of products in specific cases, they are also businesses. One’s local pharmacy is a business. Pharmacists sell products; they take money and make variable amounts of profit. A GP is a private entity, as the Minister will have learned during the national insurance contributions debate. Some GP practices are dispensing practices—the GP prescribes a product, which is dispensed from that practice. There are also private clinicians who provide GP surgery or stop smoking services at a price. I do not think that “in the course of business” necessarily provides the distinction that the hon. Member for Cardiff West hopes it does, but perhaps the Minister will provide further clarity.

It might be possible for the Minister to include an extremely narrowly drafted exemption for medical professionals providing advice in relation to stop smoking services and antenatal clinics giving advice to a current smoker, but perhaps he feels that those clinicians are covered already. One of the reasons for tabling the amendments is to have this debate and ensure that the clauses are carefully considered. All of us, on both sides of the Committee and the House, want to improve the health of the nation; we all want the Bill to improve the health of the nation. If the chief medical officer’s advice is that for adult smokers, vaping is better, those products need to be available to adult smokers.

I will move on to clause 115, which extends the offence in clause 114 of publishing advertisements to those who design the advertisements for regulated products, such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. As in clause 114, to commit the offence the person must know that the advert has the purpose of promoting one of the regulated products and that it will be published in the UK. The latter part is important. Again, I would like the Minister to ensure that there is no loophole for people to design things and say they are expecting them to be promoted abroad, and then they are promoted in the UK. That could be quite a significant loophole. Businesses could get around that with contract clauses, I suspect.

Subsection (2) establishes the penalties for the offence, which are a conviction on indictment of two years, a fine or both. Summary convictions carry varying penalties based on the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. That does leave the situation where somebody who has committed the same offence in England, Scotland and Wales by publishing it across those jurisdictions could face several different fines in different jurisdictions for exactly the same advert.

Another question is about the designers. Individuals may be involved in the design of advertisements, but not have full control over the final content or how the advertisement will be published. Should liability be extended to individuals working on the design, or should it lie more squarely with the business or entity that ultimately publishes it? Is it fair to hold designers accountable for advertisements over which they have limited control? If they have only designed part of the advertisement, and it is not the bit in which the product is promoted, will they still be liable for the whole advertisement?

Clause 116 introduces another offence, this time for businesses that print advertisements that promote tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. They must know or have reason to suspect that they are printing an advertisement for those products—if they are printing it, they should know what they are printing—and that the advertisement will be published in the UK. Again, that will presumably have to be dealt with by contract law and involve some quite significant fines.

Clause 117 makes it an offence for persons acting in the course of business to distribute the advertisement. The question here is about physical and digital adverts. If a person is distributing the adverts on a sheet of paper, putting billboards on the wall or driving around a truck with a billboard on the back, it is clear that they know what they are doing and it is clear who is doing it. If adverts are appearing online or being distributed online, can the Minister specify who will be held responsible? Could somebody sharing an image that was produced by somebody else be a loophole?

Clause 118 expands the scope of responsibility to those who cause advertisements to be published and distributed within the UK. That seems sensible.

Clause 119 is the Government’s attempt to focus on the businesses that provide internet services. The provision is quite broad. Not all providers are UK-based, though. If they are not, how can they be held accountable? The provision could be seen to apply to various types of online platform, including social media search engines and website hosts. The key issue is whether a business that merely provides a platform or service for the publishing and distribution of advertisements can be held liable for content that is uploaded or shared by third parties, particularly where there is a huge volume.

The clause places responsibility on service providers that know or have reason to suspect that advertisements promoting tobacco or vaping products will be distributed through its services. That could apply to a wide range of internet service providers, from major global tech companies that are household names to the smaller, niche providers that operate in the UK market. I understand why that is important, but will the Minister say more about the person who is paying for the advertisement? The Bill covers publishing, designing and distributing an advert and providing it on the internet, but what about the individual paying for it? Ultimately, an advertisement rarely comes for free. How is that to be regarded?

The measures to reduce advertising for vapes and smoking products are sensible public health measures to reduce uptake. As we discussed in the debate on diet and obesity earlier this week, advertising clearly works. I recalled in that debate some of the adverts I remember from my childhood, such as “The red car and the blue car had a race” for Milky Way—I was pleased that the blue car won in that case, Sir Roger—and “A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat”. Those memories stick in the mind for many years. Advertising is effective and induces children to try products, so banning advertising for vaping and smoking products should be very beneficial, but I urge the Minister to consider whether he has covered the full scope of those who are responsible for adverts and at the same time excluded those who may play only a very small part in the advert and not realise that it will later become an advert for a smoking or vaping product. Has he considered carefully how a medical professional, clinician, pharmacist or similar person can still provide and openly discuss vaping products with their patients and clients, so that they can use them as a quit aid?

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I just want to go through something again. Obviously, the purpose of part 6 of the Bill is to establish the rules about advertising, which I completely understand. It sets out that it is an offence for a person in the course of business to publish an advertisement, to promote products, to design advertisements, to print an advertisement, to distribute an advertisement, to cause publication, design, printing or distribution in the UK, or to provide an internet service by means of which an advertisement is published or distributed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them.

One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation.

The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes.

On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have?

ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that

“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?

To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making some good points about the importance of ensuring that people can access nicotine replacement therapy in its various forms if they wish to stop smoking, because that will be healthier for them. I understand what the hon. Member for Winchester has said about prescription-only medicines, and that it is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, but not all nicotine replacement therapies are prescription-only medicines, so those can be advertised to the public at the moment.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said:

“In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”—

I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said:

“Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.”

As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid I might need to break the happy agreement on the Conservative side. While I understand my hon. Friend’s laudable aim of encouraging those who smoke to use a less harmful product, which is a good thing, the clear evidence we have seen is that tobacco, in all its forms, is essentially harmful. Moving people from smoking tobacco in cigarettes to using heated tobacco may or may not reduce the harm, but it would still be significantly harmful. It would be better if an individual saw their pharmacist or clinician to get proper nicotine therapy, which is designated by the MHRA as a properly medically regulated product, rather than moving on to a different commercial product that is still harmful for them.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Jack Rankin]

I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences.

I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to hon. Members for our discussion on amendment 87 and subsequent clauses. These amendments intend to make an exemption under the advertisement ban to allow vaping products to be promoted by businesses as a smoking cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers. I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intention behind the amendment to ensure that smokers are encouraged to use vapes as a quit aid. That is why the Bill as drafted will continue to support the promotion of vaping as a quit aid for smokers through the appropriate channels. By “appropriate channels”, I say to the hon. Lady that we mean public health authorities.

[Dr Johnson]

I want to clarify one small point, if I have not made myself completely clear. On a personal level, I do not particularly want people to be persuaded to go from smoking to vaping, because I think it is an alternative addiction that they will get stuck on. I would much prefer them to be directed towards other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, which will be effective and more short lived. However, given that the current medical advice is that vaping is better, I think it is important that it is available.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I get that the shadow Minister is dancing on a pinhead, but she has brought to the Committee a set of amendments for which that would be the purpose. If they are pushed to a vote, I am sure we will have the bewilderment of the shadow Minister yet again abstaining on measures that the shadow Minister has brought before the Committee.

We believe it is for public health authorities to promote vaping as a quit aid for current smokers. For example, local stop smoking services will continue to be able to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative following the passage of the Bill. We strongly believe that any promotion of vaping as a way to quit smoking is best led and delivered by the appropriate authorities, such as local stop smoking services, public health professionals and the national health service.

The clauses in part 6 of the Bill, taken in totality, will form a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products, bringing them all in line with tobacco. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the sides of buses and in shop windows when they make their way to school.

Clauses 114 to 117 make it an offence for anyone

“acting in the course of business”

to publish, design, print or distribute an advertisement

“whose purpose or effect is to promote”

a relevant product within the Bill. Upon conviction, anyone who has committed an offence under part 6 will be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both. These clauses are an essential part of the overall suite of restrictions that will ban advertising of relevant products within the UK. Taken together they will ensure that even if someone has not designed or published an advert, it will still be an offence to print or distribute that advert. This is key to stopping their eventual distribution. I hope that answers the questions about whether there is a loophole allowing adverts produced for international markets to be distributed in the United Kingdom. The distribution of those adverts will be an offence.

Clause 118 makes it an offence to cause the offences I have just set out. It would be an offence if a person “knows or has reason to suspect” that they are causing these things, whereas if someone unknowingly delivered a package containing leaflets, they would not be guilty of the offence. Without this clause, it would be possible to instruct others to publish, design, print or distribute adverts without committing an offence. Clearly, we need to ensure that it is also an offence to cause these things to happen.

Lastly, clause 119 makes it an offence to provide an internet service in the course of a business by means of which an advert for a relevant product is published or distributed. This would mean that an organisation that provides a service to a person—for example, Sky or TalkTalk—would commit an offence if they provided a service that enabled the online advertisements to happen and if they permitted that space to be used to promote relevant products. That could include becoming aware that the service is hosting a vape advert and subsequently failing to take that advert down. This is particularly important, as young people, and some not-so-young—we now know that, if we have a hoof that needs trimming, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is our man, although I am not sure whether he provides the service or just passes the request on—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 119 is important, as children spend a lot of time online and therefore are more exposed to a variety of internet services. It is unacceptable that a child using the internet to study might be exposed to a variety of vape adverts. We need to take action to stop these products being deliberately advertised to children, to protect future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.

The shadow Minister’s amendments would in theory allow any shops or businesses to advertise vaping products to existing tobacco smokers. It would be incredibly difficult to target the advertisement of vaping products to current smokers alone, without the risk of children and non-smokers seeing the promotional material. That would not only make enforcement complicated, but make the messaging about the ban inconsistent. Research on tobacco advertising bans has shown that comprehensive bans were significantly more effective than partial restrictions in reducing smoking rates.

Hon. Members has posed a number of questions, which I will address. What constitutes an advert and how will the decisions be made? The Advertising Standards Authority is the regulator, and it will take a proportionate approach. All adverts are captured. Decisions on whether something is an advert will be made on a case-by-case basis, and it is for the ASA to decide. If the purpose or effect of something is to promote a product, it will most likely be captured. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor, “Worry not”: the ASA knows how the internet works, because it is dealing with it daily, and as we speak.

How does liability work? The offence will be charged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, we expect that this will involve a company. The ASA is experienced in making decisions on tobacco restrictions at the moment, and the provision merely extends the powers and responsibilities that it is already undertaking with regard to a variety of other products. On social media influencers, it depends on how the ASA approaches the matter; if it decides that something is constituted as an advert, action can be taken. Nobody is above the law of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked why we are making changes to the law without consulting. To be clear, tobacco adverts are already banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and the provisions in part 6 of the Bill will simply maintain the existing ban on tobacco advertisements. We were elected with a mandate to carry out our manifesto commitments, one of which was to stop the advertising of vapes to children. We already know that the measures to restrict vape advertising are strongly supported: 74% of adults in Great Britain support banning the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes at point of sale, at the till, in stores and as people enter shops, and only 6% are opposed.

Does aligning vapes with tobacco in this area contribute to misconceptions that vapes are just as harmful as tobacco? Although the approach towards vapes and towards tobacco will align in this area, our future regulations on other vape measures will be carefully considered so that there is a clear difference between these products. Given that vapes are less harmful than tobacco, we do not intend to treat them in exactly the same way as tobacco. To be clear, there is no more dangerous product that is legally sold in our shops than tobacco—a product that kills two thirds of its users—but we do not want to inadvertently addict a new generation to nicotine. That is the reason for the advertising measures.

Will the ban on the advertising of heated tobacco products increase the demand for traditional cigarettes? The Department’s opinion is that heated tobacco products are covered under the 2002 Act, which prohibits the advertisement and sponsorship of tobacco products. The new definition just ensures clarity on the scope of the legislation, as well as future-proofing policy. This is not a new ban; we believe that the existing tobacco advertising ban appertains to heated tobacco products in any case.

We very much want people to give up all forms of tobacco. That is why this Government have invested a further £70 million for smoking cessation services in the new financial year, and why I maintain that, although we are saying to tobacco companies, “This is as good as it gets,” we will move heaven and earth to shrink their customer base even further with appropriate smoking cessation. With that, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment, and commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister knows that I believe strongly that we need to stop people smoking, because of its dangers, and that we need to stop children from taking up any form of nicotine, because we have heard how harmful nicotine is to them. He will also be aware of my argument—which I made in relation to the previous iteration of the Bill—that advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be included to reduce the appeal of the products to children. I support the clauses, but I was keen to debate how smoking cessation services will be able to discuss these products. The Minister has been reasonably, if not absolutely, clear on that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 115 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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