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

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 General Committees

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

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

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

“proportionate, streamlined and effective clinical research environment”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

Enforcement authorities

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 133

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 136

Addition of smoke-free places in England

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 14 defines a local authority as

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

“a leak of a Government discussion”,

but that it had promoted

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

He then said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 94 states that:

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

I was merely giving examples.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

But he supported it.

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

Speech and Language Therapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

I did.

[Dr Johnson]

Oh, sorry. I must have had a moment.

Clause 120 concerns advertising defences. I wanted to ask specifically about the defence relating to the relevant trade communication being directed solely at persons involved in that trade. Does that include adverts within trade magazines? Does it include trade shows and trade stands where these adverts might be visible? Will these adverts or promotions need to be explicitly directed at trade, and will they need to be only visible to trade, or could this actually create a loophole in which there is a suggestion that these are trade magazines, but are actually more widely available than that and therefore provide an advert to the public? How will that work? What if one is doing a trade show in a relatively public venue such as an exhibition centre?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can answer that very quickly and clearly, because it was set out in my opening speech. I am not sure whether the shadow Minister was fully paying attention, because it also included Government amendment 1, in relation to bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom on these measures. The legislation sets out that adverts contained only in communications made between members of specific relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. I think that is pretty clear.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if members of a trade body are being spoken to at a trade show, for example, will the people running the show need to make sure that people who are not members of the trade do not come? Sometimes, people may bring other people along with them. Will there need to be provisions to ensure that when that trade show is advertised, it is not done in a way that promotes the product itself? If the show is to happen, people will need to know about it, so how will they find out? This is just about making sure there are no loopholes.

There is also the business of who is publishing and who is distributing. If someone were to design, produce and print leaflets in the belief that they would be distributed abroad, but then someone gave some young delivery chap, perhaps in his teens, some money to deliver them to a group of households, as happens with pizza delivery adverts and such things, the young lad would be committing an offence of which he may or may not be aware. That is no excuse under the law, of course, but the person with greater culpability would be the person who gave him the leaflet. How does the Minister intend the law to be applied in such a situation?

Clause 121 concerns specialist tobacconists. The Minister has been quite consistent on every aspect of this legislation—apart from penalties—in saying that tobacco in all its forms is bad for people and needs to be eliminated, so I am interested in this specialist tobacco exemption. I understand that the advert is going to be available inside the store, and not visible from the outside, and that it will exclude cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am interested to understand why it will specifically exclude those and not other forms of tobacco. The Minister might say, “That is what the legislation says at the moment, and we want to keep it the same,” but passing new legislation is an opportunity to change things, review what we currently have and decide whether it needs to be different. I am interested in his reasons for that decision.

The clause defines a “specialist tobacconist” as a shop

“more than half of whose sales…derive from the sale of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories.”

That would appear to be on the basis of the cost or value of sales. What is the reason for that definition? It may be that that is the existing definition, but has the Minister considered whether specialist tobacconists should be defined according to whether they sell a greater or a lesser amount of such products? Also, we see vape shops on virtually every high street now, so how will the Bill apply to them?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that Government amendment 1 simply makes a correction to bring things into line, so I very much doubt that we will oppose it.

It is clearly necessary and right to have some defences written into law, but I have a few questions about clauses 121 and 122. As the shadow Minister said, the Minister and the Government have been extraordinarily clear that tobacco-based products, as well as vapes, are unhealthy and have a significant impact on public health. It is therefore interesting that the Minister has not been so consistent when it comes to what one might call specialist or traditional tobacco.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about specialist tobacco. Can he or the Minister enlighten the Committee as to whether specialist tobacco is less harmful than any other form?

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he agree that the timing will be important too, because this legislation will come into force more quickly than the regulations? The Minister said that he would “go like the clappers”, but we have not had further definition of what that means or of how quickly regulations will come into force. Regulations on displays may lag behind the Bill’s provisions on advertising, so companies are likely to use the display provisions to circumvent the advertising provisions until the Minister brings the regulations in.

[Gregory Stafford]

I completely agree. It is essential that not only this clause and the regulations it will bring in, but all the clauses we have talked about—both those where regulations are included on the face of the Bill and those that give the Minister, the Department for Health and relevant authorities the power to implement other regulations and restrictions—are phased appropriately, so that retailers and manufacturers can adjust to the new laws. They must also be introduced rapidly enough that there are no loopholes, and in the right sequence so that people cannot take advantage of any loopholes.

That brings me to the point that vigilant enforcement and clear guidelines are necessary to prevent such exploitation. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether that links back to the previous clauses, in which we talked about the display of notices.

Likewise, we need to ensure that there is consistency across the jurisdictions. We have devolved government in this country, but if regulations concerning the display and advertisement of tobacco and vape products vary between the different countries of the United Kingdom, there could be cause for some legal issues. It is therefore vital to ensure that clause 122 is applied consistently across all parts of the United Kingdom to prevent confusion among retailers and to maintain the stated aim of the Bill, which is uniform public health standards.

I have a few questions to the Minister. First, will he be developing comprehensive guidelines for what constitutes a display versus an advertisement? These guidelines should include visual examples to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the regulations. I mentioned it before, but regular training and communication is essential so that retailers can be educated about the distinctions and the legal requirements. Continued regular communication will help to address any ambiguities and keep retailers informed about any changes to the laws or regulations that the Minister or his successors might introduce. The Minister is laughing, but I think it is more that he received a funny text than because of my speech.

Finally, robust monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that there is compliance with clause 122. That should include routine inspections and clear processes for addressing violations to ensure that the distinction between displays and advertisements is respected. In conclusion, the clause plays a pivotal role in balancing the rights of retailers to display their products with the necessity of restricting advertising that could promote tobacco and vape usage. We on this side of the Committee—mostly—agree with the clause, and I hope that the Minister will answer some of the queries that we have raised.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank hon. Members for their questions. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon just referred to my smirk, and it was indeed a text from somebody asking whether we should define “clappers” in our guidance as well.

To return to the substance of the Bill, the Government amendment is minor and technical; there was a drafting error, and the Scottish Government have since requested the amendment to correct it and to ensure the regulations and the law, as it appertains to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be the same for Scotland.

On the subject of “specialist tobacconists”, let me first make a point of clarification for the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. We are not saying there is specialist tobacco—there is no such thing. Tobacco is dangerous and uniquely harmful. Tobacco is tobacco. There is nothing specialist about it. A very small number of retailers around the United Kingdom sell niche products; they are specialist tobacconists. That is different to the tobacco being special. There is nothing special about tobacco. The tiny number of retailers that sell things such as pipes and cigars exist in a limited number of places and there are already exemptions in the law for them. As we move towards smoke-free, the reality of market economics means that those specialist tobacconists are not necessarily likely to be around at some stage in the future.

The impact assessment that the Government have provided alongside the Bill makes it very clear. With the measures in the Bill, by 2050—25 years’ time, that is all—we are looking at smoking prevalence in the under-30s being nearly zero. Given that reality, the Government believe that the current exemptions for that small number of retailers will continue. Due to the specialist nature of their trade—they focus on a small number of other tobacco products, such as cigars—they only make up a tiny proportion of the UK market. We know that all tobacco products are harmful, so the Government will, of course, keep a watchful eye on it to make sure that we do not inadvertently grow a new market but, at this stage, we do not believe that will happen.

Specialist tobacconists are not permitted to advertise cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco because those are the most commonly used types of tobacco. The existing bans on tobacco advertising therefore relate to the sale of those products, whether in specialist tobacconists or the local supermarket, so we are really talking about the advertising exemption for other products. That is a continuation of the existing exemption, which has not caused any issues such as younger people taking up smoking. Any advertising the retailers have cannot be visible from outside the premises. That is really important so that a child walking past one of these random Hogwarts-looking shops that sell a product of which they are hopefully not aware will not ever be attracted to what goes on inside.

[Dr Johnson]

I am pleased that the Minister is considering how shops look from the outside because, when one walks down the high street at the moment, it is not uncommon to find shops where the entire shop window has been turned into a picture of various types of vapes.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely—I agree with the hon. Lady that how it looks from the outside does matter. That is why, when these exemptions were put into earlier legislation, it was clear that none of the adverts for these niche products could be visible in the shop window from the outside, precisely to protect future generations from ever being enticed to think, “I wonder what a pipe tastes like, or what a cigar is like,” although I am sure the hon. Member for Windsor could, if he chose, give us an hour-long explanation. That is why the legislation is drafted in the way it is. However—and hopefully the industry is listening to this—the Government will, of course, continue to keep an eye on whether this exemption is working in the way that it has previously worked and that we expect it probably will work in the future. If in the future we have evidence that it is not working, the Government can come back and look at it again. However, as things stand, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

Exclusion for advertisements that are displays

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

The clauses deal with sponsorship. Clause 124 covers tobacco products, and clause 125 vaping, nicotine and other products. Why do businesses get involved in sponsorship? Basically, as a way of advertising their products and to associate them with whatever sponsors them. They might want to associate their products with Formula 1, because it is seen by many as sexy, as the Minister put it—fast or cool, or a good thing to be associated with. They might want to associate their products with other sports such as football or rugby, because athletes who participate in them are seen as healthy, fit and cool. Businesses are therefore associating their brands, which may not be healthy or cool, with those athletes.

On the clauses, the Government’s own impact assessment talks about linking sports sponsorship to smoking. A UK study found that when cigarettes were advertised in motor racing, boys aged 12 to 13 who liked motor racing were significantly more likely to smoke than boys who were not so interested in that sport. Clearly, such advertising works; if it did not, companies would not spend so much money on it. Sports sponsorships and endorsements are highly effective marketing tools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, of course, correct.

On advertising and sponsorship, page 101 of the impact assessment states:

“Sponsorship agreements are a form of indirect advertising”—

I agree—

“and there has recently been growing concern about the existence of agreements which promote vaping and nicotine products. These agreements normalise the products and may make them seem cool, having a potentially negative influence on the usage of the products among children and non-smokers.

For nicotine vapes, Ofcom regulations prohibit sponsorship of news and current affairs programmes, and any sponsorship of programming which promotes nicotine vapes. The Communications Act 2003 also prohibits sponsorship of on-demand programme services or a programme on these services which promote nicotine vapes. However, for broader settings such as sports events and teams, music festivals and cultural events, sponsorship which promotes nicotine vapes is permitted.”

It is good that the Minister, in this clause, seeks to prevent such sponsorship—particularly the sort of sponsorship that targets children.

Subsection (1)(a) of both clauses states that a person is party to an agreement entered into “at any time”. That provision does not appear to differentiate between agreements made before and after the Bill becomes law. I understand that the Minister wants to ensure that there is not a sudden flurry of activity in the commercial world to put sponsorship agreements in place before these regulations come into force—we do not want companies to say, “Well, we are bound by this contract for so many years, Minister. We are stuck now”—but does he intend to apply the clause retroactively? Somebody who saw the Bill when it came before the House in March and April, saw it in its other format, or saw the manifesto commitments of all major parties to this Bill in some form or another, may have entered into such agreements already. I would be interested to hear what plans the Minister has to deal with those circumstances.

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

In my previous life, I worked in commercial contracts. The hon. Lady can be reassured that a typical commercial contract would require that any participant to it must adhere to the laws and applicable regulations in any jurisdiction in which the contract is governed. Regardless of the Government’s intention, which I am sure the Minister will talk about, there should be an overarching clause in most standard commercial contracts about adherence to applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction to which the contract applies.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. That is another example of why it is important to have a wide spectrum of people on Committees. Of course, that is usually the case, but I am interested to know what the Minister’s intention is with “at any time”. Does he intend it to apply to contracts retrospectively? Presumably he does, but I want to clarify that.

I welcome the constraints on tobacco, vape and nicotine product advertising and sponsorship for this purpose, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

[Dr Johnson]

I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing West about the precautionary principle. One of the differences between tobacco products—for example, cigarettes—and vapes is that tobacco products in the form of cigarettes are relatively more uniform in their component parts than are vapes, and it may take quite a long time to work out which of the chemical components of vapes are harmful, so we do need to be more precautionary with that.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here.

Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I will make two points. First, I understand where my h F the shadow Minister is coming from in terms of the questions about enforceability and when these things come into effect. Clause 124(1)(a) states that for tobacco products:

“A person commits an offence if…the person is party to an agreement (entered into at any time),”

which will obviously be consistent; but clause 125(1)(a) states that a person commits an offence only if

“the person is party to an agreement entered into on or after the day on which this section comes into force”.

I can see the point that the Minister is making. Will we see a rush of sponsorship agreements on vaping coming in in the next few weeks before we get this Bill on the statute book? That is a legitimate question to raise, and we should all be aware of that possibility.

Generally, it is important that we tackle and take on seriously the role of sponsorship. I do not think that I am alone in recalling the impact of Pepsi and its sponsorship of the Spice Girls when I was young. Its campaign aimed at Generation X had 92 million cans with the Spice Girls on them, which obviously had a big impact. I will be honest and say that I loved the Spice Girls, but seeing anything like that has a massive impact when we are children, so tackling it is absolutely right. Pepsi sponsors the National Football League, Coca-Cola sponsors the Olympics and I think Carlsberg has always sponsored Liverpool FC, so we can see that brand alignment.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the point much more eloquently than I did that there is a difference in the clauses between the days when they come into force. As she is a lawyer who has been involved in contracts, can she confirm that there is no limit to how long someone can enter into a contract? If a contract were entered into in terms of sponsoring vaping or nicotine products before the Bill comes into force, it may last for quite some time.

[Sarah Bool]

That is a possibility. It always depends on the terms of the contract itself, but in theory they could agree a 10 or 15-year contract and sponsorship deal. It is interesting that this could be one of the overhangs that we see, so we have to be aware of it going forward.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses make it an offence for a person to be involved with a sponsorship agreement where the purpose is to promote in the course of business tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Anyone convicted of an offence under the provisions may be subject to imprisonment, a fine, or both. Tobacco sponsorship is currently banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. There is a long-standing, well-established relationship between tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption.

Clause 124 restates the current position for a person involved in the sponsorship of a tobacco product. We are consolidating existing tobacco legislation in the Bill to provide a coherent narrative for readers, rather than have it spread over lots of different pieces of legislation. A large part of the Bill brings the legislation into one place, so that from Royal Assent onwards, the go-to place for anybody with any questions about tobacco control will be this piece of legislation, rather than it being dispersed across different Acts of Parliament.

Tobacco sponsorship is already banned, but importantly, the Bill expands the offence to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping and nicotine products. The restriction will mean that vaping and other nicotine product companies will, for example, not be permitted to sponsor sports teams, which is something that we have seen in recent years. It might upset the hon. Member for Windsor, but I have to say that not a single child should ever be able to look up at their favourite sports stars—people who should be role models—and see them covered in branding for products that are harmful and addictive. That is the point here.

[Dr Johnson]

Would the Minister like to comment on whether many of the athletes may feel uncomfortable wearing shirts with such branding on?

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, the phrase

“selection of products for testing”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

Clause 100(1)(a) requires

“producers or importers to have processes in place”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 105

Sub-delegation

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 105 states:

“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 114

Publishing advertisements

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

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

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

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

Clause 115 stand part.

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

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

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

Clause 116 stand part.

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

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

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

Clause 117 stand part.

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

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

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

Clause 118 stand part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 119 stand part.

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:

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

Paragraph 666 states:

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

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

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

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

It also notes that

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

Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that

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

It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

“acting in the course of business”?

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

Clauses 114 to 117 make it an offence for anyone

“acting in the course of business”

to publish, design, print or distribute an advertisement

“whose purpose or effect is to promote”

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

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

Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill.

Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons.

That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue.

My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case.

Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says:

“In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”.

I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision

“as it applies to other persons.”

Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope.

Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about how the snuff is given out. At the moment, the snuffbox sits with the Doorkeepers near the No Lobby entrance, and it is available to Members. Obviously—or perhaps not obviously—there is no charge to Members. In fact, my understanding from the Doorkeeper who had the snuffbox last week is that the stuff that they have currently was provided by the BBC—[Interruption.] I can see that is a surprise; it was a surprise to me too, but that is where I was told it came from.

It brings into question the earlier clauses that relate to sale, because clearly the Crown may purchase it—I suppose the BBC is funded by taxpayers—and it is in a royal palace, which is a Crown site rather than a retail site, and it is not being sold to Members. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to consider that.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.

[Dr Johnson]

That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided.

I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 47 asserts that part 1 of the Bill and any regulations made under it bind the Crown, but makes it clear that the Crown is not criminally liable under those provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Instead, acts or omissions by the Crown can be declared unlawful by the High Court. The key Government implication for this clause is ensuring accountability. By binding the Crown, clause 47 ensures that the Government are not exempt from adhering to the same standards and regulations that they set for others, which is entirely appropriate and demonstrates a good commitment to transparency and fairness.

There is also a symbolic commitment by the Crown to public health. Including the Crown in these provisions sends a strong signal. The Government recognise the urgency of tackling public health issues and the issues associated with tobacco and vaping, and the Opposition support that wholeheartedly. When we legislate in this House, we need to ensure that the public feel that we are legislating not only for them, but for ourselves as well. Given that the Bill now applies to us, this clause strengthens public confidence in its objectives.

On the role of judicial oversight, clause 47 enables the High Court to declare acts or omissions unlawful, which ensures that there is a mechanism for oversight. That preserves the rule of law and offers a balance of powers. However, there are some potential challenges to this clause. While the Crown is bound by the legislation, clause 47 explicitly exempts it from criminal liability, as far as I understand. Some may argue that that creates an imbalance, as individuals and private entities remain subject to prosecution whereas this House does not have criminal liability. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case?

On practical enforcement, applying the legislation to the Crown could raise questions about how enforcement agencies would address non-compliance in Crown-operated facilities, such as this House, Government offices, military bases, and so on. Can the Minister let us know how law enforcement agencies, trading standards and the police would enforce the Bill on Crown properties? Granting the High Court jurisdiction to declare Crown acts unlawful could increase its workload. What discussions has the Minister had with the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice on overburdening the courts with such matters?

Clause 66 amends the Crown application of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ensuring that its provisions extend to Crown entities within Scotland. That amendment reinforces the principle of equal application of public health laws. The key implications of this clause are to do with consistency across the jurisdictions, as we have talked about on other clauses. Extending the application of the 2010 Act to the Crown entities ensures that public health measures are uniformly applied across Scotland, irrespective of whether the premises are privately owned or Crown-owned.

The clause also enhances legal cohesion. Aligning the legal obligations of the Crown with those of private entities enhances the coherence of Scotland’s public health framework, reducing the ambiguities that might arise were this clause not in the Bill. The clause also promotes accountability. By amending the 2010 Act, it eliminates any loophole that might allow Crown entities to operate outside the scope of the tobacco control measures. However, there are some challenges around what I would describe as intergovernmental co-ordination—that is to say, co-ordination between the Westminster Parliament and the offices and authorities that act for it, and the devolved Administrations.

Implementing these provisions will require significant co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK and the relevant Ministries and Departments in the devolved Administrations. I was heartened by what the Minister said about cross-devolved-Administration working. It would be good to know whether that continues to be the case on these provisions. As we all know, working across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with their various different bodies, does create challenging and resource-intensive actions, due to the fact that they all operate slightly differently and have slightly different thresholds for legal prosecution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, when it comes to charging, there are different levels of fine and sentencing in the different administrations. While health is a devolved matter, this clause’s intersection with those reserved powers could prompt debate about the limits of legislative competence between those authorities.

Clause 134 is the Crown application of advertising and sponsorship restrictions and extends advertising and sponsorship restrictions under the Bill to Crown bodies.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes the point, which I had not raised earlier, that clause 134 applies to part 6, on advertising and sponsorship. Clauses 4 to 7 and 66 essentially apply to part 1. We do not appear at this time to be discussing the other parts as well, so presumably the Crown is bound in a similar way by each of those.

[Gregory Stafford]

I make the same assumption as my hon. Friend, given what I have read of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister clarified that matter. It would be appropriate to ensure that this does cut across all other parts of the Bill.

Clause 134 is critical in ensuring that the Crown entities adhere to the same advertising standards as private organisations. We need to have fair competition. It would be a nonsense to say that people could not advertise vapes from a commercial point of view, but that the Crown would be able to advertise. I cannot imagine what that might look like—I doubt Windsor Castle will be emblazoned with a banner advertising vapes, or that Buckingham Palace will fly a tobacco flag, but one never knows. However, it is important that this clause does cover the Crown as well to ensure that there is a level playing field, and to prevent the Crown entities from gaining an unfair advantage through less stringent regulations.

[Dr Johnson]

In a previous sitting I raised that in the last couple of years there have been events within Parliament at which free vapes were given out to Members and staff. Would this clause, given that it applies to the Crown, extend to all palaces? Could such events also still continue?

[Gregory Stafford]

My reading of this clause is that those events will be restricted under this clause and clauses 66 and 47. It would be useful if the Minister clarified whether or not that is the case. If it is not, would he consider inserting a provision to ensure that it is, either later in our discussions in Committee or on Report? I do not think the public will have any time for us in this place if we regulate those outside but do not hold the Crown Estate and Crown authorities to the same standards.

The unified public health messaging in this clause is helpful. Extending the restrictions to Crown bodies strengthens the overall impact of the Bill, ensuring that the advertising provisions are consistent with the public health messaging that we are putting out across the country. It prevents mixed signals. Allowing the Crown bodies to advertise tobacco or vaping products would undermine the Bill’s whole objective. Clause 134 ensures that the Government’s stance and the stance of all Members of the House of Commons present here is not contradicted by its own entities, such as the Crown Estate.

[Dr Johnson]

Is it not also the case that the Crown is extremely unlikely to wish to sell tobacco products, vaping products, herbal smoking products or indeed anything else covered by the Bill, or to advertise them, since members of the royal family attribute such importance to public health and have, sadly, suffered from ill health themselves in recent times? They have done a lot of work with various charities in relation to health, including on cancer and other conditions, so it seems unlikely that these provisions would be required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I very much hope there is no difference, and that is precisely my point: we need consistent enforcement across the piece—across the country—in line with the restrictions we already have on the sale and advertising of other items. That does not take away from the point that doing that will be a very complex procedure. As we are moving towards a tobacco-free generation, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know how that enforcement will be done across Crown entities and the Crown Estate.

The second point is around the legal ambiguities. Applying advertising restrictions to Crown entities might create legal ambiguities, particularly where such entities operate under multiple regulatory frameworks, which goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about who might be enforcing them and where.

The final point is about resource allocation. Ensuring compliance with advertising restrictions may require additional resources both within Crown entities and among enforcement agencies. To be frank, I do not know how current licensing laws are enforced here in the Houses of Parliament, for example, but if we bring in this Bill, which I very much hope we do, there may be some resource allocation within the Crown for that.

The inclusion of clauses 47, 66 and 134 in the Bill underscores its commitment to governance and legal fairness. However, as I said, their successful implementation hinges on addressing several broader considerations. First, there is what I call enhanced intergovernmental and interparliamentary collaboration. Effective implementation of these clauses will require close collaboration between UK-wide and devolved authorities. Establishing clear channels of communication and joint enforcement mechanisms will be crucial.

The second consideration is transparent compliance frameworks. The Government should develop transparent frameworks in order to monitor and enforce compliance within Crown entities. Those frameworks should include clear guidelines, reporting requirements and accountability measures. I do not expect there to be a vast burden on the judiciary but, as I mentioned, we may need to address any potential increases in judicial workload. Additional resources should be allocated to the High Court and other relevant judicial bodies to ensure that cases related to Crown compliance are handled efficiently and quickly.

Finally, there needs to be a public awareness campaign. Raising awareness about the application of the clauses can help to foster public support for the Bill by demonstrating to the public that we in the Houses of Parliament and across the Crown Estate are being held to the same standards.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making several good points. It is important that the law is applied equally to all. He may remember that when previous legislation was brought in around tobacco advertising, an exemption was made for Formula 1. It was not clear why such an exemption was made, but I believe that a substantial donation had been received around that time by the Labour party—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That was harmful at the time to trust in equality, so it is important that everyone—from His Majesty the King to every one of his subjects—has the same law applied to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point.

As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.

[Dr Johnson]

Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

I will make progress and answer the points that were made. Why are clauses 47 and 137 necessary parts of the Bill? The presumption is that legislation does not apply to the Crown unless expressly stated as doing so. The clauses clarify that provisions in parts 1 and 6 of the Bill, and in the regulations made under them, bind the Crown. They ensure that all bodies and persons acting as public servants of the Crown are held to the same standards as businesses and private citizens in England and Wales. They ensure consistent application of the Bill across the public and private sectors.

Does the Bill bind Parliament? Yes, it does. Parliament was consulted and was content with clause 159, in particular, being included. We have already had the debate about snuff, and it will be up to the House authorities to determine the rules of the House. There is absolutely nothing to prevent there being a box at the entrance to the Chamber with the latest chief Doorkeeper’s name engraved on it—that tradition can remain for evermore—just as we have a Smoking Room, which we can no longer smoke in but which is still called the Smoking Room. That is tradition. I really do not know why Members are overthinking these matters.

Members asked why there are differences between Crown applications in the devolved Administrations. As we have already discussed, the Bill brings together legislation from across the four nations. I believe it is a triumph, because it shows the close working relationship between the Labour Government and the devolved Administrations, irrespective of the parties in power in Cardiff Bay, Holyrood and Belfast. Because health is a devolved matter, and because the Bill builds on legislation dating back nearly 100 years in some cases, there are some differences in the provisions for each nation.

Members asked why only some parts of the Bill apply to the Crown. The fact is that clauses 47 and 134 explicitly provide that parts 1 and 6, and any regulations made under them, apply to the Crown. Other measures in the Bill also apply to the Crown without the Bill’s explicitly stating so because those provisions amend existing legislation, and the Crown application reflects whether the underlying legislation applies to the Crown.

There is an established precedent that smoke-free places legislation does not apply to the Crown in England and Wales, and that it is the responsibility of the Department responsible for running the relevant part of the Crown Estate to determine what is appropriate. That is precisely what the House of Commons did when it determined that the smoking ban would apply to the royal Palace of Westminster. The same is true of all the measures in the Bill.

Members asked which parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. Part 1 and regulations made under it apply to the Crown by virtue of clause 47.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about Northern Ireland. Part 3 amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland, and it does not apply to the Crown. That is an existing precedent, which the Department of Health in Northern Ireland wishes to retain. Part 2 amends the existing legislation in Scotland and part 1 amends the legislation in England and Wales. That is why there is a different approach to different parts of the United Kingdom in respect of the Crown.

Members asked why we need clause 66, the technical clause relating to the Scottish Government. It is because it corrects an omission in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and it is being made at the request of the Scottish Government. It is a convention that in an Act of the Scottish Parliament those responsible for the enforcement of the legislation are explicitly identified as being able to make an application to the Court of Session for the purposes outlined in the clause. Scottish Ministers may take over enforcement under the 2010 Act, so it is appropriate that they are listed alongside local authorities, which is what clause 66 achieves. The clause inserts a provision into the 2010 Act, which is Scottish law. There are no impacts on the law in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The clause is narrow and relates only to provisions in part 1 of the 2010 Act.

Members asked about overburdening the court. We are working the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the Bill does not introduce a significant burden. This is about regulatory change—and, look, most citizens are law abiding and will follow the law.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 49, 60, 63 and 64 stand part.

Schedule 8.

Clauses 83, 112, 113, 132 and 135 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

This is quite a chunky group of clauses. Clause 48 provides a series of definitions that are to be used to interpret part 1. That is important; if the law is to be enforced, we must understand what the law means by each phrase it uses. The phrase “cigarette papers” is self-explanatory. It means anything that is

“used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.

We talked about cigarette papers previously. Likewise, “herbal smoking product”

“means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco”.

That is fairly straightforward.

The phrase “medical device” is important, and I will explain why in a moment. The clause refers to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618), which state that a medical device is

“any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, together with any…software…necessary for its proper application, which—

(a) is intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of—

(i) diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,

(ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,

(iii) investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or

(iv) control of conception; and

(b) does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, even if it is assisted in its function by such means,

and includes devices intended to administer a medicinal product”—

this is part of why it is relevant—

“or which incorporate as an integral part a substance which, if used separately, would be a medicinal product and which is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device.”

That is relevant to clause 10 onwards, on nicotine products.

In evidence on 7 January, Dr Laura Squire, from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told the Committee that one vape product received an MHRA medicines licence in 2015, but was never marketed. Theoretically, others could be marketed in the future. They would be exempt under the definition provided in clause 48, which I have just explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the shadow Minister for the points she has raised. Definitions are needed to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted with an appropriate understanding of the technical terms, and we have opted to take a co-ordinated approach to definitions across the four nations, which will hopefully ensure clarity for the public, retailers and enforcers.

As we know, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, particularly for adolescents whose brains are still developing. As mentioned in the Bill, a nicotine product means any device, part of a device, or substance containing nicotine that is intended to deliver nicotine to the human body. There are currently no age of sale or advertising restrictions for products such as nicotine pouches—and, unlike vapes, there are no set nicotine limits. Nicotine strengths can vary from 2 mg per pouch to, in some cases, 150 mg or more. Like vapes, they can come in a variety of flavours and colourful packaging designed to appeal to children. The use of nicotine products such as nicotine pouches is increasing, particularly among young men. As we are committed to doing everything we can to protect children from becoming addicted to nicotine, it is only right to take action to control these products.

[Dr Johnson]

On the point about nicotine pouches, it is of concern that they may be the next way in which this industry seeks to make our young people addicted to nicotine. We have seen in places such as Sweden a plethora of these products, which are now expanding across the UK as well. I know the Minister will be looking at some proposals to restrict the amount of nicotine in the pouches. When he does so, will he consider not just how much nicotine is in them compared with a cigarette, but how much is absorbed into the body? The amount in a cigarette that is absorbed as a proportion is much lower than that of a nicotine pouch.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Those are important considerations for when we are developing the regulations, and I take precisely the same view as the shadow Minister. These things have to be part of that overall analysis and equation when we come to look carefully at the regulations.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. First, she asked whether a provisional driving licence would be applicable, and the simple answer is that it would. She also asked whether there is a loophole here with medicinal products, and whether children could be restricted from purchasing vaping substances for a future vape that may have medicinal approvals. Of course, it is important to point out to the Committee that to date no such vape exists. As per all licensed medicines, if one existed, it would be regulated by medicine regulations, which are subject to higher standards set by the MHRA.

The health advice is that nicotine replacement treatment, for example, is most effective when provided alongside expert advice. That is really important, and that is why we are putting money into smoking cessation services and why measures in the Bill will permit the distribution of free vapes by the NHS and public health authorities; we think that is entirely appropriate.

There is no age of sale restriction for nicotine replacement therapies. In extreme circumstances, for example, were there a MHRA-approved vaping device that met the criteria of a medical device, I suppose the vaping liquid could be prescribed to a child if that were appropriate. That is all hypothetical because there is not such a device approved by the MHRA; therefore, there is not the loophole the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham thinks there might be, although she is right to raise it.

[Dr Johnson]

To clarify the point about there being no device available, that had been my understanding as well, but Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA said in evidence to the Committee that in 2015 a vape had been approved for medical use, but had never been marketed. Has the licence for that product lapsed in some way so that it is no longer available?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do not know, but I will ensure the Committee is informed by officials. My point is that it is not marketed. Therefore, there is no medical device on the UK market, and all that is currently hypothetical. We have to legislate for the future, which is why I said that nicotine replacement therapy is the most appropriate form of treatment for children. Were there a device at some stage in the future that was available for the NHS to use in a medical context—as opposed to swap to stop—then it would be appropriate for a doctor to be able to prescribe that should they wish to. However, that would be within a highly regulated medical setting, as opposed to just getting liquids from a vape shop.

[Dr Johnson]

Clauses 48 and 49 exempt the medicinal product and medical devices. I understand why the Minister has done that, but how is he going to ensure that the industry does not find ways of making the nicotine replacement products that are currently legal and used only for medical purposes lemonade, gummy bear or unicorn milk-flavoured, and therefore attractive to children? The Committee has heard repeatedly about the way the industry behaves.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We absolutely have thought about that, which is why the measures in the Bill and the powers it gives to Ministers across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom enable regulations to be made to ensure that we always keep up with where the industry is going and—importantly—where the evidence is going. This is not just about where the industry might go; it may be that at some stage in the future there is new medical research showing that even the levels we are talking about lowering to have safety issues, and we will need to react to that.

That is why I will defend the way the Bill has been drafted, ensuring that Ministers will be able, at any stage in the future, to return to Parliament or the devolved legislatures to seek changes to secondary legislation to ensure that the measures are always relevant to the circumstances of the day.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 52 repeals the offence of purchasing tobacco under 18 in Scotland, as per the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010; clause 52(2) would omit section 5, concerning purchasing tobacco products by people under the age of 18, from the 2010 Act. This is a reasonable thing to do, because clause 50 replaces the current age of sale with the rolling age of sale and extends to those over 18.

However, subsection (3) of clause 52 is interesting, because it refers to the presumption of products in the contents of a container. Section 33 of the 2010 Act essentially says if a person has seen someone sell a packet of cigarettes to somebody, and the person can clearly see the packet of cigarettes, they do not have to prove that it contains cigarettes; they just have to see it. I suppose that prevents people from the defence of saying that they were selling empty boxes, that it was just role play, that the boxes only contain sweets, or that they do not really contain tobacco—they are just boxes. In some respects, those are fairly implausible defences, but perhaps those defending them could prove reasonable doubt on that basis. Section 33 presumes that cigar boxes contain cigars, for example, or that cigarette boxes contain cigarettes; in the context of their being bought that seems fairly obvious, but it is interesting that the Scots felt it necessary to have this section previously.

I respect that this is a devolved matter and the Scots’ wishes to amend section 33 of the 2010 Act, but could the Minister perhaps explain, from the conversations that I am sure he has had with Ministers in Scotland, why the Scots introduced it in the first place? Was it perceived that it might be an issue, or was it actually an issue that people were pretending or suggesting that what was in boxes of cigarettes was not cigarettes, and therefore, “It’s not illegal to sell a box; it’s only illegal to sell the cigarettes in it, and you can’t prove they were there, your honour.”?

Why has the Minister not chosen to replicate such a provision in England? Although I respect what he says about devolution, and the Scots have the competency to do as they wish in Scotland, in England it is up to him and he has the levers of power. Can he say in the rest of the UK where this defence has been used before? Has section 33 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 ever been used as a defence in litigation? If it has, was it successful? If it was, why does he not want to replicate the provision in England? It is a somewhat peculiar situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

In answer to the shadow Minister, clause 52 will repeal the offence for someone under the age of 18 in Scotland of buying or attempting to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers. It means that it will no longer be an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy those products in Scotland. That is because Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which it is an offence for those under 18 to purchase tobacco products. The repeal will align the legal approach across the whole United Kingdom. It is being done after consultation and with the full consent of the Scottish Government. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer deemed necessary to retain this provision, as the age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products.

Clause 53 will repeal the power for constables in Scotland to confiscate tobacco products or cigarette papers from someone in a public place whom they suspect to be under 18. Both provisions were originally made in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. Repealing them will ensure that legislation in Scotland is in line with legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer considered necessary to retain the provision, as age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products. As we have already debated, that will ensure that we do not criminalise children.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Extension of tobacco legislation to herbal smoking products

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 54 will extend tobacco legislation to cover herbal smoking products, which are products made from plant material and intended for smoking that do not contain tobacco. It will amend section 4 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act, which governs the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18, by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product” in subsection (1). This will mean that the sale of herbal smoking products is subject to the same restrictions as tobacco products and is prohibited to persons under 18.

The clause will also amend section 4C of the 2010 Act, which deals with the sale of tobacco-related products by persons under 18, by adding “herbal smoking product” so that individuals under 18 are also prohibited from selling herbal smoking products. This is distinct from the ability to buy them, for which there will be a rolling age; it applies to the selling of these products.

The clause will also modify section 6 of the Act, which addresses the purchase of tobacco products on behalf of individuals under 18, otherwise known as proxy purchasing. It will amend subsection (1) by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product”, making it illegal for anyone to purchase herbal smoking products on behalf of individuals under 18.

Finally, the clause will insert into section 35 a definition for herbal smoking products. This was covered in clause 48 and clause 1; clause 54 will add it to Scottish legislation. It specifies that a herbal smoking product is one that is made entirely or partially of vegetable matter and that is intended to be smoked, but that does not contain tobacco. Given our previous debate, these seem reasonable changes to make.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will not detain the Committee on this question. As the shadow Minister says, these are reasonable changes to make and are in line with the clauses that we have just discussed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Possession of snus etc with intent to supply

Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)

See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 9.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 65 introduces schedule 9, which will amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to broaden the scope of the retailer register and make related provisions to include herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, alongside tobacco. The amendments that it makes aim to regulate businesses that sell those products in a similar way to tobacco products.

Essentially, in schedule 9, the key changes are as follows. There will be an expansion of the register: section 10 of the 2010 Act will be amended to require the Scottish Ministers to maintain a register of businesses that are selling tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products. It will ensure that all those categories are subject to the same regulatory framework as respects the register.

There is clarification within the schedule of a “registrable business”, which is now defined to include any businesses dealing with tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products. The term is used throughout the Act, ensuring that all relevant businesses are captured under the regulations.

The amendments that schedule 9 will make to section 11 of the 2010 Act require applicants to specify which type of registrable business they intend to operate at each premises —essentially, which products they wish to sell. Can the Minister confirm that that means that some businesses could register to sell some products but not others under the Act? Perhaps they could sell tobacco products but not nicotine products, or vice versa. The registration process will be updated to reflect those additions.

Section 12 of the 2010 Act, which deals with certifications and notifications, will be amended to require certificates of registration to specify the type of product that a business sells. Additionally, under section 13, businesses must notify the Scottish Ministers of any changes, such as if they no longer desire to sell a specific type of registrable product. The Act’s provisions concerning banning orders, offences and public inspection of the register will be updated to reflect the inclusion of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products alongside tobacco products.

In addition, schedule 9 will add new definitions, including of “herbal smoking product business” and “nicotine product business”, ensuring clarity in the application of the law.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments. Of course, health is a devolved matter. Scotland has a long-established and functioning register of tobacco and nicotine vape product retailers. The Bill will expand Scotland’s registration scheme to include retailers selling herbal smoking products and nicotine products. The Scottish Government’s view is that introducing a licensing scheme at this time would put undue pressure on local authorities and the retail sector in Scotland. In line with the Scottish Government’s tobacco and vaping framework, the technical infrastructure of the register is being improved, which has been welcomed by stakeholders. Each of the nations of the United Kingdom is taking forward an approach that best suits its population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 84 is a short clause that extends the retail register provisions in Northern Ireland. It states:

“Schedule 10 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (c. 4 (N.I.)) to extend certain provisions about the registration of tobacco retailers so that they apply in relation to retailers of vaping products and nicotine products.”

Schedule 10 ensures that retailers selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are covered by the scheme.

[Andrew Gwynne]

As the shadow Minister says, the clause extends the existing registration scheme by expanding it to businesses that sell relevant products. The register will be expanded while the new licensing regulations are introduced, ensuring a stronger and consistent enforcement regime at all times.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Power of officer of Revenue and Customs to seize and detain snus etc

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 89 is such an important clause in that it forms a whole part of the Bill, part 4, by itself; whereas other parts contain multiple clauses, part 4 only contains clause 89. The clause deals with the power of a Revenue and Customs official to seize and detain snus, which the Bill defines as an oral tobacco product that

“is not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.

Hon. Members will remember that snus is a tobacco product that the Bill treats differently from all other tobacco products; there is a much heftier penalty for sale and a complete ban on manufacture. In line with the fact that it is dealt with differently from other tobacco products and that it will be illegal to manufacture and import, there needs to be provision for customs officials to deal with the snus if they find it.

Subsection (1) allows a Revenue and Customs officer to

“seize any relevant oral tobacco products that have been imported and detain them for no more than 48 hours.”

I presume that 48 hours is standard; the Minister may be able to expand on that. Any products seized and detained under this clause

“must be dealt with during their period of detention in such manner as the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may direct…For the purposes of calculating the 48-hour period mentioned…any period falling on a non-working day is to be disregarded.”

The Minister will be able to confirm, but I presume that is essentially saying that, if a product were seized on a Friday at 4.50 pm, they would get all of Saturday and Sunday and until late on the Tuesday to deal with the snus and would be able to seize it for that period.

The clause says that non-working days are Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays; that is fairly straightforward. A relevant offence is an offence under clause 9 of the Bill in England and Wales, section 9C of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which is inserted by the Bill, and article 4G of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which is also inserted by the Bill.

[Gregory Stafford]

The shadow Minister quite rightly asked the Minister why there is a 48-hour period; it would be helpful to understand if that is just a standard period. What I am not clear on is what happens during, or indeed after, that period. Is the 48-hour period for some kind of destruction of the illicit substance? Is it for investigation? If His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for whatever reason breaches the 48-hour period, what recompense can the importer receive? Should they receive any kind of recompense, given that they are likely to be importing a banned substance?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right to probe the Minister on those questions. It is important to understand why things are chosen. The Minister has sometimes referred to things being chosen because that is the way they were before, but the writing of new primary legislation offers a not-frequent opportunity to change things that may not be working very well. When items are seized at the moment, is the Minister’s advice from his civil servants that 48 hours is an adequate period of time in which to deal with all the paperwork that presumably needs to be done? Is it too long, and could it be shorter if it needed to be?

The commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for dealing with the relevant oral tobacco product during the period of detention, but that will not prevent the importation of snus for personal use. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is not illegal to consume snus in the UK—I got told off for pronouncing that in Mancunian as “snuss” earlier, but each to their own—or to possess it for personal use. Clause 89 is that is intended to form part of a robust legislative framework in relation to oral tobacco products, and specifically helps to enforce other provisions of the Bill that prohibit possession with intent to supply in the course of business. It is common practice for customs officials to seize suspected illicit goods at the border. That will now also be applicable to snus products imported into the UK. The 48-hour period is standard practice, but after 48 hours the enforcement agency is able to decide on what action it wishes to take. I hope that answers the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.

[Dr Johnson]

I want to understand how a customs official would make such a decision. The Minister has been clear that it is not illegal to possess snus—I hope I pronounced that properly—for personal use. However, it is an offence to manufacture it under clause 7, to sell it or offer it for sale under clause 8 or to possess it with intent to supply under clause 9. How would the Minister quantify an amount for personal use? Under ordinary circumstances, one could say—

Obesity: Food and Diet

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place

“whether made—

(a) by the offender or any other person, or

(b) by means of any machine”,

and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of

“any one or more of the following—

(a) tobacco products;

(b) herbal smoking products;

(c) cigarette papers;

(d) vaping products;

(e) nicotine products.”

They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.

Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:

“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”

Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:

“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—

(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—

(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);

(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);

(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);

(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—

(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);

(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”

For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?

I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?

Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine

“(a) the occupier of the premises, and

(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”

Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?

Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?

Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?

Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence

“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”

If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.

Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.

That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?

[Sarah Bool]

Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.

[Dr Johnson]

When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?

[Sarah Bool]

I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.

Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.

Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.

Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.

I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.

If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?

With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?

[Sarah Bool]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.

First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.

That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.

On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.

On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.

On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.

I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

[Dr Johnson]

I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes.

[Dr Johnson]

I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.

In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.

The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.

If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—

[Dr Johnson]

Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?

[Andrew Gwynne]

All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.

[Dr Johnson]

With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.

This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Fixed penalty notices

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”

This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.

This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland.

Clause stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.

I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.

However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.

The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.

The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.

The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.

Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.

The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.

The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.

I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.

Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.

A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.

Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.

On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.

[Dr Johnson]

I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.

[Dr Johnson]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Fixed penalties: use of proceeds

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—

“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.

This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis]

I have one sentence left.

The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.

I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.

I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with

“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,

so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 5.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.

[Dr Johnson]

I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 42

Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Power to extend Part 1 to other products

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

[The Chair]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.

These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.

The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.

I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:

“(a) a passport,

(b) a UK driving licence,

(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,

(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or

(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.

I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?

[Dr Johnson]

One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.

Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.

I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.

[Dr Johnson]

Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?

[Andrew Gwynne]

If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.

On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.

I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.

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

Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.

In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Clause 19 stand part.

Schedule 3.

Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.

Schedule 4.

Clause 22 stand part.

Clause 85 stand part.

Schedules 11 to 13.

[Dr Johnson]

I put on the record my good wishes for a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dartford. He shares a birthday with both my daughter and my son’s science teacher, and I wish them all a happy birthday. While fully enjoying and engaging with this very important piece of legislation, I understand his urge to celebrate his birthday later, and I hope he will be able to do so.

This is quite a big group of clauses. They provide for the licensing regime for retail sales of various products, tobacco products and others in England and are quite complex.

Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the granting of personal and premises licences. It establishes a licensing system for the sale, storage, exposure and supply of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England and outlines the requirement for individuals and businesses involved in the retail of those products to hold specific licences.

The clause can essentially be broken down as follows. Subsection (1) establishes that individuals in England are prohibited from selling, displaying for sale or possessing certain relevant products, such as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, unless they have a valid personal licence. That ensures that all transactions are regulated and aims to control access, ensure compliance with legal standards and promote accountability among retailers in handling those products.

Clause 16 also effectively creates a licensing framework to monitor and enforce sale practices. That is important, because we have heard evidence—and seen for ourselves when we walk down the street—that virtually every shop, whatever it sells otherwise, sells vapes. The clause will help to reduce the number of outlets selling those products and ensure that they are being sold responsibly and only to those above the age of sale.

Subsection (2) mandates that premises cannot be used for certain activities involving the relevant products, including storing, displaying or supplying them without a valid premises licence. Again, that ensures that the locations themselves are regulated by requiring a licence, which allows for oversight of operations, ensures compliance with health and safety and legal standards and prevents and reduces unauthorised and illicit sales. That will help to enforce accountability and the responsible handling of regulated goods.

Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to create by regulations exemptions to subsections (1) and (2) if he or she wishes to do so. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to create regulations governing the granting of both personal and premises licences. That provision is essential to establish clear criteria and procedures for individuals and businesses seeking licences to sell, store or display relevant products. Subsection (4) will ensure that those activities are conducted responsibly and legally, aligning public safety standards and allowing for consistent oversight, as I said. It ensures that there is a thorough process in considering input from those who are directly affected by or have expertise in the matter.

Subsection (7) specifies that regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have talked about before. Subsection (8) defines key terms, such as “personal licence”, “premises licence” and “relevant products”, ensuring that there is clarity in the interpretation and application of the provisions so that individuals subject to them understand what their duties involve.

Schedule 1 concerns the retail licensing scheme for England only. To tackle the illicit market and protect legitimate businesses, the Bill provides powers to introduce a new retail licensing scheme in England for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The schedule details the regulations for a retail licensing scheme and explains the regulations that the Secretary of State can implement under the powers granted in clause 16, which mandate that retail sales of those products in England must be licensed.

There clearly needs to be a licensing authority, and the regulations will designate a local authority as the responsible body for granting licences to retailers that wish to sell tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. With regard to yesterday’s statement on the changes to some local authorities, it is important that the provisions in the schedule work, even in the event that the local authorities change as part of that process.

The regulations on licensing conditions can prevent the granting of licences in certain areas—for example, near schools—limit the number of licences in specific areas and require premises to be inspected before a licence is granted. The licensing authority can charge a fee to cover the cost of administering and enforcing a licensing scheme, and a portion of those fees may be allocated to other bodies involved in the enforcement process, especially if licensing and enforcement are handled by different authorities. The regulations will also do other sensible things; they mention the licence duration, public disclosure and how to renew and appeal any licence that has been either granted or refused. The Secretary of State will be able to provide guidance to the local authorities providing the licensing duty on how to carry out their duties in that respect.

The impact assessment on the Bill, which was published by the Department for Health and Social Care in November 2024, notes:

“A retail licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products would support enforcement (and in turn, public health) by:

a) strengthening retailers’ adherence to existing regulations”

and by

“b) providing the opportunity to introduce further restrictions…in the interest of public health, for example conditions relating to retail density.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.

Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty. To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so.

The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed. If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid. Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.

Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales. As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products. In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.

[Dr Johnson]

I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.

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

When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon. Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important, however, that those who are selling online and those who are selling in shops have to have a licence to do so. I hope that the Minister does not intend to exempt online retailers from the need to have a licence to sell such products—he is shaking his head, so I suggest that is not the case, which is good.

One reason for tabling new clause 10 was to highlight the importance of ensuring that online retailers are held to the same standards as those real-world retailers. We have talked previously about ensuring that online apps and online sales cannot be used as a get-around—similar to vending machines, for example. It is important to ensure that the online world is not used to get around the Government’s intention to prevent smoking and the purchase of smoking, vaping and nicotine products by under-age individuals.

To return to clause 19, subsection (5) requires Welsh Ministers to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations, which is sensible. Subsection (7) specifies that the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which for Wales means that the proposed regulations must be formally approved by the Senedd before becoming law, increasing democratic accountability and providing an extra layer of scrutiny. Respect for Welsh devolution, as we talked about in the last session, is therefore included within the Bill.

Schedule 3 provides for retail licensing schemes in Wales, making provision regarding the granting of a licence in Wales, including provisions meaning that a licensing authority cannot grant a licence to premises in a particular area, for example, in proximity to a school, and limiting the number of licences within a particular area. We heard previously that specifying that licensed premises should not be near a school could cause difficulties in some rural areas where there may be only one shop in that village and no shops for many miles around it. That is one of the reasons decisions are made locally, because the local individuals providing those licences know the local circumstances, and that would need to be done cautiously. The regulations will also specify the duration of the licence, how it is enforced and the appeals process.

Clause 20 relates to offences in connection with licences in Wales and sets out how offences are committed, along with the penalties that may be put in place. I will not go through that in any more detail.

Clause 21 talks about the financial penalties in Wales. We have talked previously about how it is a matter for the devolved nations to decide how high those penalties should be. Subsection (1) grants the local weights and measures authorities in Wales the powers to impose those financial penalties relating to a breach of conditions attached to a personal or premises licence.

Schedule 4 outlines the procedure for local authorities in Wales, such as trading standards, to impose financial penalties for breaching licence conditions. Again, before imposing a penalty, authorities must issue a notice of intent and allow time for it to be challenged. If a penalty is imposed, a final notice is issued, which can be withdrawn or reduced, and the person can appeal the decision or the penalty amount to the magistrates court. Unpaid penalties can be recovered as if they were payable under an order of the county court and proceeds, after enforcement costs, are returned to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.

Clause 22 is the repeal of register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. It proposes to repeal chapter 2 in part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which established a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. Clearly, if this Bill passes, that provision will no longer be required because the clauses in the Bill provide for new provisions. Clause 22 repeals that chapter of the 2017 Act so that it can be replaced, which is sensible.

[Gregory Stafford]

I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon. Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.

[Dr Johnson]

Chapter 2 of part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which is being repealed by the Bill, establishes a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. That Act requires the creation and maintenance of a register for all retailers of tobacco, cigarette papers and nicotine products. That register has to include detailed information about each registrant, such as their name, residential or business address, and the location of the premises. It also specifies whether the retailer sells tobacco, nicotine products or both. For mobile and temporary premises, such as stalls, tents or vehicles, the register must record the relevant local authorities where the business operates, if there is more than one.

Welsh Ministers may be designated as the authority responsible for overseeing the register, with additional details about registration requirements subject to regulations. To register, businesses must apply to the registration authority and provide comprehensive details about their operations, including the type of products sold and the methods of sale, such as online transactions or delivery services. Applications must comply with a prescribed format and a fee may be required. The authority must grant registration unless legal restrictions, such as restricted premises or sale orders, apply. Approved applications result in updates to the register.

Registered retailers are obligated to notify the authority of significant changes, such as modifications to business details, the cessation of operations at specific locations or the discontinuation of mobile operations in a local authority area. Notifications must be submitted within 28 days and the registration authority is responsible for revising the register to reflect the changes or correct any inaccuracies. Before amending or removing a registrant’s entry, the authority must provide notice to explain the reasons and allow time for the registrant to respond.

The chapter of the Act that is being repealed includes provisions to enhance the regulation of tobacco and nicotine businesses by ensuring access to the retailers register and enforcing compliance. The registration authority is required to publish a list identifying registered businesses and their premises. For businesses operating from moveable structures, such as stalls or vehicles, the list must specify the local authorities where operations occur, instead of physical addresses.

Local authorities are granted full access to information on the register relevant to the premises within their jurisdiction to enable effective monitoring. Certain premises may be exempt from the Act’s provisions, as specified in regulations. The application of the provisions to moveable premises may be modified if deemed necessary by Welsh Ministers.

Conducting a tobacco or nicotine business without registration is an offence, as is operating at locations not listed in the register. Exceptions apply to moveable premises, but failing to notify the authority of a change in business operations without reasonable cause also constitutes an offence. Offenders face fines proportional to the severity of the breach.

To enforce compliance, local authorities may appoint authorised officers and grant them powers to investigate potential offences. Officers may enter premises at reasonable times, provided that they suspect violations and need access for verification. Entry into dwellings for such a purpose requires a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which remains valid for 28 days. Warrants may also be granted for other premises under specific conditions, such as denial of access or risk of compromising an investigation.

Authorised officers have extensive inspection powers, including examining premises, taking samples and copying documents. They may also secure properties for analysis where necessary. Obstructing officers or failing to co-operate with a reasonable requirement is an offence. Fixed-penalty notices can be issued for minor breaches, offering offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution through prompt payment. Those measures, in the chapter of the Act that is being repealed, collectively aim to uphold public health standards and ensure the responsible sale of tobacco and nicotine products.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is very helpful.

[Dr Johnson]

Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.

Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.

Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.

Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.

The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.

There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.

Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.

The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.

Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.

Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.

Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.

[Jack Rankin]

In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.

I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.

On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.

[Sarah Bool]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.

Evapo also says that

“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”

That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.

I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank Members for their contributions.

Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.

Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.

Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.

The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.

I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come to Scotland in due course.

Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority. In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.

The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance. It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date. That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations. For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.

[Dr Johnson]

Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

No. The local authority, not the parish council, would be and will remain the licensing authority, as is the case at the present time. Notwithstanding that there may be a quasi-additional tier in the form of a mayor and a combined authority, where areas move from a two-tier to a unitary authority, it will be the local authority that is the licensing authority. That is what happens in my constituency in Greater Manchester, where we have effectively had unitary authorities since the metropolitan county council was abolished in 1986. Tameside metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council are both unitary authorities. They are both the licensing authorities for their respective parts of my constituency, even though we have a Greater Manchester combined authority and a Great Manchester metro mayor. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Schedule 1 also establishes that regulations may make provisions regarding the granting, duration, renewal and revocation of licences, and enables the licensing authority to charge a fee for the granting of a licence. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor, the fee structure may be set at a level that takes into account administration and enforcement costs. The local authority will be able to use the fee to help cover the cost of granting licences and enforcing the scheme. That is the closest I can get: we intend it to be cost-neutral for the purpose of operating the scheme.

Schedule 1 establishes that regulations can place conditions on the licence. Retailers that breach those conditions will be subject to civil financial penalties. Regulations may make provision for licensing authorities to publish information about licences, such as the addresses of licensed retailers, and, to maintain fairness, regulations must include an appeals route, so that retailers can, for example, appeal decisions on the granting of a licence. Finally, regulations may require that a licensing authority must consider guidance published by the Secretary of State to support the smooth implementation of the scheme.

Clause 19 and schedule 3 establish the same power to introduce a licensing scheme in Wales, with the same framework for the regulations. The schedule establishes the licensing authority in Wales to be the council of the county or county borough. Clause 85 achieves the same in Northern Ireland by inserting a new clause into the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, while schedule 11 establishes the same framework. In Northern Ireland, a council will be the licensing authority.

Clause 17 creates offences in relation to the licensing scheme in England. It makes it an offence to sell, expose for sale, or possess for the purpose of sale any relevant products without, or not in accordance with, a personal licence. The clause also makes it an offence to use a premises in England for the storage of relevant product for the purpose of retail sale, the exposure for sale, or the supply of any relevant product to a retail customer without, or not in accordance with, a premises licence, and knowingly to provide materially false or misleading information in a licence application.

Anyone found to be committing a licensing offence may be issued with an unlimited fine on conviction. As an alternative to prosecution, trading standards may issue a £2,500 fixed penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine. Regulations can confer on courts a discretionary power to suspend or revoke a licence on conviction. The court may order relevant product to be forfeited and destroyed, to prevent a business from continuing to sell or unlawfully selling product.

Clause 20 establishes the same licensing offences in Wales, and clause 85 establishes the same licensing offences in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, district councils will enforce the licensing scheme. People convicted of a licensing offence face a fine of up to £5,000. As an alternative to prosecution, councils in Northern Ireland can issue a fixed penalty notice, the value for which will be determined in regulations.

Clause 18 creates civil financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions in England, to ensure that licensed retailers continue to follow the rules. Breaching conditions is a civil matter, not dealt with by the courts. The value of the civil financial penalty cannot exceed £2,500. The clause also provides a limited and specific power to update that value to account for inflation, to ensure that the value remains relevant. A civil penalty cannot be issued if the breach of the licence condition already constitutes a licensing offence. That is to ensure that someone cannot be subject to double punishment for the same licence breach.

[Dr Johnson]

The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent. Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation. That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

At first sight, the clause can appear to follow on naturally from the rest of the Bill, and in some sense it does, but I think it is important. We heard from shopkeepers in the evidence session last week, from the British Retail Consortium, and in the representations to us made in writing that it can be difficult for younger shopkeepers to hold the line on this, and they might be at the wrong end of unacceptable verbal abuse. In my view, the Bill will increase that risk.

With younger people often manning retail stands, in the future we might have 18 or 19-year-olds having to refuse to sell tobacco products to people a decade or so older than them. That will be increasingly challenging, even compared with the existing situation. I have spoken about being opposed to the principle of the Bill and finding it somewhat unworkable, but putting that to one side, I think that if we are to proceed with it, we have a particular obligation to make things as easy as possible for shopkeepers. I am sure that everyone agrees.

The language used, or proposed to be used, in the age of sale notice in subsection (2) is quite legalistic, being presented as:

“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.

That is a statement of fact. It mirrors what we see today, but it is very legal. I think it would benefit from being a bit more practical. For example—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made this point—it is illegal to sell herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and not just cigarettes, but cigars. We might help our shopkeepers if we made the list a bit more practical, so that the shopkeeper could turn around to say, “Sorry, guvnor, but this is the law,” whereas with the Bill saying “tobacco products”, the verbal altercation might include, “These are not cigarettes, though.” Perhaps we should move away from legalistic language to help staff, especially younger members of staff. That is particularly necessary, given what seems to be a general coarsening in our society, I am afraid to say.

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

The regulations will need to be enforced not just in a large supermarket, where the shop assistant has the benefit of a security guard and other—

[The Chair]

Order. Will the hon. Lady speak through the Chair, please?

[Dr Johnson]

I am sorry, Sir Mark. The regulations will need to be enforced whether one is a shop assistant in a small shop or in a large shop. In a large shop that sells tobacco, such as a large supermarket, one might have the benefit of a security guard, additional staff and many more people around. Alternatively, a 19-year-old might be trying to enforce the regulations on a Saturday evening in a rural shop many miles from the local police station, with no security guard or anyone else around.

[Jack Rankin]

That is exactly the kind of situation I am thinking of. The language could be a bit more practical, less legal and it might aid that shopkeeper to point to an external source for validation.

I have two further points. One is a point of ignorance for me as a new Member, for which I apologise. I do not know what subsection (5) means when it says that

“Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

I hope someone can help me with that. Clause 6 is being taken together with clause 5, because clause 5 applies to England and clause 6 applies to Wales. To me, they appear to be exactly the same, apart from the age of sale notice described in clause 6(2) and the fact that clause 6 obviously also includes the Welsh version. I am going to take at face value that it says the same thing in Welsh, although I do not speak Welsh. It would be nice to clarify whether it is either/or whether it is both together. That is of interest.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. In responding to points that have been made, I want first to reiterate that these two clauses do not relate to enforcement; they concern the nature of the signage that will be required to be displayed. We can come to those other matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I remind Opposition Members of what has been said in previous debates: we will use the very long lead-in time to engage fully with the retail sector to ensure that we get the delivery in shops right and to ensure that the Bill’s provisions can be implemented without any hiccups.

I also reiterate that we abhor any violence and abuse towards retail staff—or anybody else—and it is the intention of this Labour Government to introduce a new offence in this respect. Given the comments that have rightly been made in the course of this and earlier debates, I hope that it will command full support from all parts of the House.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked what is meant by “negative resolution procedure”. It is the procedure for the statutory instrument that will be have to be made to introduce these regulations. The fact that it is “negative” means purely that it will not require a parliamentary debate. It will be done through the usual secondary legislation processes.

There were questions about the nature of the clauses relating to different parts of the United Kingdom, and why we are approaching this with slightly different methods. I must say politely—particularly to the shadow Minister—that we have to respect the devolution settlement. These matters are entirely within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. Some things remain reserved for the UK Government, but for a lot of the measures in the Bill, the legislative competence rests with the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments.

[Dr Johnson]

I have at no point suggested that I do not respect the devolution that is in place. I made two remarks that reference devolution. One was about the different penalties that apply for the same offence in different parts of the United Kingdom. While I recognise that Ministers in other parts of the country have the competence to change the penalties to make them different from those that apply in England, it is clearly the Minister here who decides what the draft legislation should say with regards to the penalty in England. My questions focused on why he has chosen to make it different in England from other parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if the Northern Irish had chosen a higher penalty, it is up to him if he wishes to join them, or to have a lower penalty.

The other issue I have raised regarding devolution was in relation to clause 5. The Bill as drafted says that tobacco cannot be sold to people born on or after 1 January 2009, and much effort has gone into ensuring that that is replicated in Scottish legislation all the way through, even though the Scottish Parliament could do that itself if it wanted to. It makes sense to do it in one go here because that is more efficient in terms of both time and financial expenditure for civil servants across the country. So my question was why the Minister has chosen not to include in the Bill the change to the notice in clause 5, saying that tobacco cannot be sold to people under 18. Why not change that now?

[The Chair]

This is a very long intervention.

[Dr Johnson]

I am defending myself, as the Minister has accused me of something, Sir Mark.

[The Chair]

I know, but please wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am merely suggesting that changing the notice in clause 5 to

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

instead of “under 18” now would be more efficient, and help our Scottish colleagues, rather than implying they are not capable of doing so.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Sir Mark, the hon. Lady protests too much here, because while it is true that she was questioning why, for example, the English fines could not be the rate of the Northern Irish fines, she was also pretty much calling for us to legislate for Scotland and Wales to bring consistency across the whole United Kingdom. Likewise with clause 5, she asks why we in this place are not legislating for Scotland in respect of the notices that will be displayed in Scotland. It is not our job to legislate where the Scottish Government do not want us to do so.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, I will answer the hon. Lady. My officials and I have been in contact throughout the production of this Bill with officials and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. I have had umpteen meetings personally with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and there is an open offer. They are genuinely excited, Sir Mark, that we are able—as far as possible—to legislate with their consent to make smoke-free UK a reality, and we have sought to design this Bill in co-production with the devolved Administrations. None the less, there are some things that the devolved Administrations do not wish this Parliament to legislate on. For example, in respect of clause 5, on the notices, the Scottish Government have made it very clear that this is something they wish to do in their own way, in their own time, notwithstanding the fact that they have given us assurances that the measures will be in place to give enough time for retailers north of the border in Scotland to implement them. It is not for me to overrule the will of Scottish Ministers, who have the legislative competence to do this, if they do not wish this Parliament to do it on their behalf.

I hope that that answers future similar questions about the differences in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are legislating with the permission and consent of the three devolved Administration Governments, and we are not going to overstep. I have already said to my ministerial colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom that if, during the course of the Bill through this House and the other place, they think, “That is not quite right and we need it to be amended,” or, “You know, it does make sense for Westminster to do it all in one go and do it for us,” we will respect that.

I have given Ministers my promise that if, as an afterthought, they want us to do some of this for them on their behalf during the Bill’s progress through its stages in both Houses, we will facilitate that. However, I am not going to overstep the powers given to me by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers to legislate on their behalf and to ensure that we have a United Kingdom-wide Bill that meets the separate and different needs, ambitions and expectations of our devolved settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for making clear that the reason that the text contained within the age of sale notice is not being amended at this stage is because Scottish Ministers have told him they would prefer to amend it themselves at a later date.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for that, and if any offence was caused by my earlier comments, I apologise to the hon. Lady. We need to set out clearly that we are doing something quite ingenious, and that is only because of the goodwill and the desire of Ministers from different political backgrounds in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get this legislation through the United Kingdom Parliament with the ability for them to then differ on consultations and other matters once the legislation is on the statute book. That would have been unheard of in years gone by, when relationships were not necessarily as good as they currently are between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government.

The same argument applies to clause 6. The sign will be a matter for Welsh Ministers. Although the framework of the sign is set down in the Bill for Wales, because that was how they wished us to approach it, any changes would be a matter for Welsh Ministers. The hon. Lady asked the hypothetical question whether, if we changed the notices again, there would be adequate consultation or time for retailers. We are not planning on making life difficult for retailers. We think that the wording here is the right wording. I do not take it to be legalistic and technical in the way that the hon. Member for Windsor seems to think it is. It is the same wording that applies now, with the exception that rather than talking about people “under the age of 18”, it will say

“anyone born on or before 1 January 2009”.

I think that is pretty clear.

The wording on the signage was tested during the public consultation in January, and more than 70% of respondents supported it. Many respondents noted that we need to mirror the existing wording to ensure accessibility. Other products are more niche and were not deemed to be necessary on the sign, but I think most people understand what a tobacco product is, and a cigar is certainly a tobacco product. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Ban on manufacture of snus etc

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate. Amendments 60 to 62, 70 to 72 and 77 to 79 would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of possessing the relevant oral tobacco product, for example snus, with intent to supply it to another person in the course of business in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, by creating an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing that offence if it is their first offence.

The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction or indictment to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or provide instead for a discretionary caution in England and Wales, a recorded police warning in Scotland or a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is lower than the current maximum penalties, which are, on summary conviction, imprisonment for up to six months in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 12 months in Scotland, a fine, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

The amendments would remove the distinction between summary conviction and conviction on indictment for first-time offenders, meaning that the severity of the offence committed would not be taken into account in those cases as it would under current provisions. In creating a first-time offence, the amendments would have a similar effect to amendments that we have already discussed, so, if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as my rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment remains the same.

[Dr Johnson]

This group of clauses and amendments all apply to snus, which we are trying to ban, so the first question is: what is snus? Snus is a tobacco product predominantly used in Sweden and, to an extent, in the USA. When the Health and Social Care Committee, which I was a member of in the last Parliament, visited Sweden at around the time the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill was introduced, we saw shops with massive displays of different types, brands and flavours of snus, which came in small round pots similar to those that we see nicotine pouches in; they were mostly kept in the refrigerator.

Snus is produced using tobacco leaves, salt and alkalis such as sodium bicarbonate or sodium carbonate. The alkali is there to help the nicotine to be absorbed more easily into the mouth and therefore into the bloodstream of the person using the product. Producers also potentially add a flavouring. As we have seen in cigarette papers, flavourings are used to improve the palatability of tobacco products. The mixture of tobacco leaf, salt, alkalis and flavouring is ground up, steam-pasteurised to inhibit the growth of bacteria, and then supplied loose or in small pouches.

The loose form is a moist, powdery product, which I understand is rolled between one’s fingers to create a sort of cylinder shape known as a pinch. It is placed under the upper lip, where it is held for about 30 minutes while the nicotine is absorbed into the bloodstream. Its moist nature helps to facilitate the absorption of nicotine and makes the nicotine hit faster; it is absorbed more quickly than it would otherwise be.

The second way that snus can be supplied is in a small pouch resembling a very little teabag, which comes in two formats: original and white. The original version is a sachet of material that is kept moist and is brown in colour. Again, the moistness allows a quick release, but the tobacco product does not need rolling and pinching; it just needs putting into one’s mouth, and it stays in its little pouch. The white version is not in all cases white, but the genre is known as white snus. It has a milder taste and a slower release because the powder in the pouch is dry. The dryness means that one needs to get it moist in the mouth before it will dissolve across the membrane and give the nicotine hit, which means that the dry snus is a slower-release product than the original. The American snus is a lower moisture product, again provided in a variety of flavours to suit the customer.

Why did I and others not know what snus was? I am sure you are familiar with it, Sir Mark. This specific form of tobacco product has been banned in the UK for some time. It was banned by the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992—I was still at school—and then EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 created a European-wide ban, which was incorporated into UK law by the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. The Committee might be interested to know that Sweden has a derogation specifically for snus under that EU regulation, so snus is still sold there, as I described.

Advocates of snus believe it is less harmful and causes less respiratory disease and less cancer than does an inhaled form of tobacco. They try to market it as an alternative to smoking that is less harmful. However, the evidence shows a risk of cancer, particularly of the cheek and gums. Perhaps that is not surprising, given where it is placed to be used. Oral squamous cell carcinoma, a form of cancer of the mouth, often occurs in the site at which snus is commonly placed. It has also been shown that snus causes increased blood pressure, particularly in females, and despite not being inhaled it can contribute to an increased rate of asthma.

Aside from all that, snus contains nicotine, which we know is addictive. Regardless of the form in which it is taken, it creates the addiction and cravings that rob people of the choice not to use the product, which the Minister spoke about so powerfully last week. It is important that we consider this carefully, because otherwise people will become addicted to snus as another form of nicotine.

[Jack Rankin]

The shadow Minister is a doctor, so she is learned in this area, and she makes the case that snus is harmful in the same way as tobacco. What does she know of the relative harm? I am concerned that, in taking quite a studs-up and puritanical approach, we are taking away things that might not be as bad as cigarettes that could allow people to effectively tier down. Does she have any thoughts on that?

[Dr Johnson]

That was the second question I considered when preparing for the debate on this clause. My first question was: what is snus? My second was: if it is a tobacco product, why is it treated differently? We have talked about all sorts of different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, snuff—yet this one has particularly robust regulation and a robust legal framework. The only reason I could find was that it is new, trendy and coming forward very quickly, and there were concerns that it would quickly take over the children’s market in the same way as vaping. That is the only suggestion I was able to find. I am sure the Minister will be able to help us to understand why snus is treated so robustly, although I am not sad to see that.

Clause 7 makes it an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products. Oral tobacco products are defined quite particularly as those that are for oral use but not intended to be inhaled or chewed, so they do not include chewing tobacco, which would be included under clause 1. They also have to be in either powder or particle form—as I said, they are in the form of ground tobacco. Currently, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 define “tobacco for oral use” similarly, as tobacco “intended for oral use”, not to be inhaled or chewed, and

“in powder or particulate form or any combination”,

whether presented in a

“sachet portion or a porous sachet, or in any other way”.

Regulation 17 provides for a UK-wide ban on the production and sale of snus. Schedule 6 to the Bill, which we will come to, will repeal that measure and replace it with clause 7.

I want to ask the Minister why it is an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products in the UK, and not an offence to manufacture other tobacco products. He has talked about the need for a smoke-free generation and his worries that smoking tobacco harms individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to choose, but he has not chosen to ban the production of other tobacco products. I found that the last time an English-produced cigarette rolled off the production line was at the Horizon Imperial Tobacco factory in Nottingham in May 2016, and the last UK-made cigarette was produced at Japan Tobacco International’s plant in County Antrim in October 2017. He may feel that such a ban is unnecessary because we are not producing any tobacco products, but I am interested in his thoughts on the matter.

The penalty here is the most severe so far. We have had some debate about different clauses containing fines at levels 3, 4 and 5 on the standard scale, but this clause contains a much more severe penalty for a product that may or may not be less harmful than cigarettes, although it has not been suggested that it is much more harmful. The fine for breaching clause 7 on the ban on manufacture of snus is, on summary conviction, imprisonment of six months, a fine or both. Six months is based on the current upper limit in a magistrates court, but the Lord Chancellor announced in October last year a plan to increase the maximum penalty for a magistrates court to 12 months’ imprisonment, which would presumably apply to this Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is the case and whether there have been any convictions under the existing legislation. The penalty for conviction on indictment would be imprisonment not exceeding two years, a fine or both—again, quite severe penalties when compared with other aspects of the Bill and other tobacco products. I am interested to understand why.

[Sarah Bool]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I am happy to give way—and to be promoted.

[Sarah Bool]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I might have misunderstood, so may I clarify the intended purpose here? If snus is illegal under earlier regulations, what is this further provision? Is it to ensure that nicotine pouches are also caught? The UK has already banned the sale of all oral tobacco products, including snus, under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which implemented European Union directive 92/41. I am hoping for some clarity about that, but perhaps it will come from the Minister.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—I am sure the Minister will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill does not apply to nicotine pouches per se, because nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. As I understand it, the brands we see in our local supermarket in similar round pots contain nicotine, and they are put in the mouth and absorbed in a similar way, but they are not tobacco products. As I read the Bill, clause 7 will not apply to them, and obviously they are not currently illegal, because they are widely sold.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can easily clarify that point. The clause applies to relevant oral tobacco products, which are defined as tobacco products intended for oral use, not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and that consist wholly or partially of tobacco. It does not apply to tobacco-free nicotine pouches, which are sometimes informally referred to as snus; the Bill classes nicotine pouches as nicotine products.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that so comprehensively.

Clause 8 deals with the sale of snus. Clause 7 having made it an offence to manufacture snus, clause 8 bans the sale of snus, which it defines, in the same way as described by the Minister, as a “relevant oral tobacco product”. In wording that is slightly different from that in other clauses, clause 8 also describes the offence as not only to sell, but to

“offer or expose…for sale”.

I had to look up what that meant. To help the Committee, apparently, to offer or expose something for sale means to expose it to attract an offer of purchase from the public. Something is put in the shop window—in the same way as the bongs the Minister described in a shop window the other day—to be visible to a customer and the customer may then choose to make an offer for the purchase of the product, and the product is thereby exposed for sale. In essence, this provision will make putting these products in a shop window an offence.

I am interested to understand why the wording in clause 8 is different from that for all the other tobacco and nicotine products in the Bill, where that wording is not used. If the Minister could explain that, I will be grateful. Again, the defence offered by clause 8 is “all reasonable steps”, but I am not sure what such steps would be, so I will be grateful for clarification on that, too, please.

The penalties for disobeying clause 8 are quite severe. The penalty on summary conviction is

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit”

in a magistrates court, which is six months, potentially rising to 12 months based on what the Lord Chancellor has said over the past few months, or a fine—of how much, the Bill does not state, so perhaps the Minister could help with that—or both. On conviction on indictment, the penalty is

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”

That means that we have a contradiction within the Bill. For virtually any other tobacco or nicotine products that may not be sold, but are sold by an offender, the offender is liable for a fine at level 3, 4 or 5, but clause 8—the sale of snus, as distinct from all other tobacco products—creates an offence that carries a penalty of significant imprisonment. I am not saying that that should not be the case, but I am interested to understand the rationale for the difference, because, notwithstanding any devolution differences, the decision on what to do in England and Wales is clearly for this Government and this Minister.

Clause 9 concerns possession with intent to supply in the course of business of a “relevant oral tobacco product”, as has been defined in clauses 7 and 8. I am interested in what is meant by “the course of business”. If one looks at section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where possession with intent to supply is most readily thought of, it is the intent to supply it to another person. However, does “the course of business” imply that money must change hands? If one had the intent to supply to another without being paid, would that not be in “the course of business” and therefore be legal? Also, does the word “business” itself imply a properly regulated business? It could not be a properly regulated business in so far as it would be an illegal sale. Does the Minister therefore make a distinction between the product being sold from a business premises as opposed to being bought down the pub from an acquaintance?

Amendments 60, 61 and 62 to clause 9 basically look once again at the principle of proportionality. If, for example, we were to prosecute someone for the sale of cigarettes to a 19-year-old born on 1 January 2009, and it was that person’s first offence, we would give them a fine—so why would we wish to consider imprisoning somebody at the first offence for selling snus? The crime would appear to be somewhat similar but the penalty is very different. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, although other hon. Members may wish to, but they are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of different offences, and the inconsistency between the penalties for different offences that may appear to be very similar. Amendments 60 and 61 insert the phrase

“save if it is a first offence”

and amendment 62 says:

“A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence…is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

I will be interested in the Minister’s comments.

[Jack Rankin]

I am sorry if this is my ignorance as a new legislator, but clauses 7, 8 and 9 applied to England and Wales. However, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply the same measures to Scotland, and then we have the same for Northern Ireland. In previous clauses, we have also seen that replicated for Wales. Does that mean that clauses 7, 8 and 9 apply to both England and Wales, and how come that devolution is treated differently? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows the answer to that, or maybe the Minister could clarify.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I believe that the Bill specifies somewhere which clauses apply under which jurisdictions, but I cannot remember exactly which page that is on. I am sure the Minister in his summing up will be able to identify where my hon. Friend can look to review that, but some of the clauses will apply to different jurisdictions. Some will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and others will apply to England and Wales, or England alone, depending on various different factors. My hon. Friend will be able to look at the relevant part of the Bill to find that out. My understanding is that clauses 7, 8 and 9 will apply in England and Wales, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that point in his summing up.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has identified, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply to Scotland; they essentially replicate clauses 7, 8 and 9. Clause 56 prevents the manufacture of snus, clause 57 prevents the sale of snus and clause 58 prevents the possession with intent to supply of snus. Amendments 70, 71 and 72 to clause 58 replicate amendments 60, 61 and 62 and say that there should be proportionality in relation to penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. Although I appreciate her intention to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders, these amendments are not appropriate. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously. We do not want to weaken the penalty regime for these offences, including offences relating to snus, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone who has committed these offences. We do not want to remove the ability of the court to issue a higher-level penalty, where that is viewed as proportionate for a particular case, for anyone convicted of these offences.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments on clauses 7 to 9, 56 to 58 and 73 to 75. Those clauses make it an offence to manufacture, sell or offer for sale, or possess with the intent to supply, a relevant oral tobacco product, such as snus, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A relevant oral tobacco product is something intended for oral use—the clue is in the name: it is not intended to be inhaled or chewed and it consists wholly or partly of tobacco in powder or particulate form. That includes snus.

As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, snus has been banned in the UK and the EU since 1992. Snus was banned as it was a novel tobacco product that is harmful to health. Snus contains harmful compounds that have been demonstrated to cause cancer, including cancers of the mouth. The manufacture of snus with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is currently banned, as she rightly pointed out, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. These clauses re-enact that ban on manufacture but, unlike the 2016 regulations, do not limit it to supplying the UK or travel retail sector. In effect, that extends the ban to include manufacturing snus for export. That simplifies enforcement and reduces the possibility of such harmful products being available within the United Kingdom.

[Dr Johnson]

How many manufacturers in the UK are producing snus for export?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will have to get back to the hon. Lady on that point. We will write to Committee members to update them, because I do not have that information to hand or in my mind.

As I was saying, the supply of snus for consumption in any part of the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is also already banned under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, and these clauses recast the existing ban as a general ban on sale. The ban on possession of snus for intent to supply support the ban on sale, while preserving the current position under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which allows possession of snus for personal use.

Under these clauses, it will not be an offence to possess snus for personal use or for personal gifting to friends and family; this is not about criminalising individuals who possess snus for personal use. These clauses maintain and simplify the ban, in place since 1992, on the sale of a harmful tobacco product. The clauses also make the prohibition on snus more comprehensive and make the legislation clearer and more accessible. We have no intention of allowing a banned and harmful product into the United Kingdom market. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

The hon. Lady asks about “all reasonable steps”. As we have already discussed, it will be for the discretion of trading standards as to whether all reasonable steps have been taken. As we know, they take a proportionate approach to these matters, and we know that their current procedures work. There is no expectation that they will not work with the legislation before us.

What would prevent a retailer from just giving some of these products to a customer, rather than selling them, to get round the law? Well, there is “brand promotion”, which includes free giveaways anyway. That covers all tobacco products—so it covers that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for going through the questions thoroughly. I did not want to risk his getting to the end of his speech without answering the question of why snus is treated differently from other forms of tobacco. Is it merely a historical artefact?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady need not worry so much, because I have notes to clarify her points. Many people ask why we are banning snus but only gradually raising the age of sale for cigarettes, given that snus is less harmful than cigarettes. Consumption of any tobacco product is harmful. We heard that—[Interruption.]. We heard that very loudly and clearly from somebody upstairs, but also from the four chief medical officers. They made it very clear that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and that tobacco is uniquely harmful as a product in whatever form it is consumed.

It is this Government’s policy to support people to quit all forms of tobacco. Snus has been banned in the UK and across the EU since 1992. It was banned because it was a harmful novel tobacco product at the time, and it still is. It was agreed to prevent this new harmful product from ever coming on to the market. Why on earth would we now decide to give the tobacco industry a get out of jail free card and allow a product that has never ever been allowed on the market in the United Kingdom to enter the marketplace, irrespective of the age of sale?

[Dr Johnson]

To be clear, I am not suggesting that it should be on the market, as the Minister well knows, because I support both helping people using tobacco to quit and preventing people from starting to use tobacco. I merely want to understand why there is a difference in treatment. On the basis of what the Minister has said, why not make the penalties for cigarette sales the same as the robust penalties that already exist for snus sales? It is his choice.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady teases me, Sir Mark, and I get her desire for scrutiny of the issue of fines and of the measures we will take to enforce these laws in England, where they stand at different rates to other parts of the United Kingdom. There are different rates for different products as well. If somebody wants consistency across the four nations and consistency of approach across all products, I get that—that is laudable—but we believe that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and workable. If they turn out not to be—if they turn out to be an incentive rather than a disincentive—Ministers can come back and can look at these things again.

On territorial extent, the earlier clauses refer to England and Wales and the later clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the shadow Minister pointed out to the hon. Member for Windsor, a full breakdown of the territorial extent of clauses can be found in the annexe of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which hopefully will then be able to clarify in his mind which bits are UK legislation, which bits are devolved legislation and which bits have territorial extent across England, England and Wales, Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 64, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.

Clause stand part.

Clause 59 stand part.

Amendment 80, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.

Amendment 81, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or conditional caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.

Clause 76 stand part.

New clause 10—Age verification requirement for online sales of vaping devices and products—

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) carries on an online vaping product business, and

(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of online sales of vaping products and devices.

(2) An ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish and ensure the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product (the ‘customer’) is not under 18 years of age.

(3) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (2).

(4) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—

(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,

(b) documents that may be used as evidence of a customer’s age,

(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling vaping products,

(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed on websites; and

(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(6) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(7) In this section—

‘the appropriate national authority’ means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,

‘online vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail online.”

This new clause introduces a requirement on online vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy vaping products online. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland.

[Dr Johnson]

The amendments in this group are similar to previous amendments and are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of the offences. Like other such Opposition amendments, amendment 63 would amend clause 10 to add

“, save if it is a first offence”.

Amendment 64 would amend clause 10 by adding that if someone has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause they are liable for a fine at level 3 of the standard scale of caution. We are making a suggestion that the Minister could consider more lenience for someone who commits such an offence for the first time as opposed to someone who recklessly and repeatedly flouts this important legislation.

Did you want me to discuss the whole of clause 10 at this point, Sir Mark?

[The Chair]

The debate includes clause 10 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Clauses 1 to 9 of the Bill have predominantly dealt with tobacco products of varying kinds. Clause 10 moves on to the sale of vaping or nicotine products to under-18s, distinct from the measures on a smoke-free generation and the date of birth of 1 January 2009.

The first question is what are the vaping products of which we speak. Clause 48 deals with the interpretation and definitions within part 1. It defines a vape as

“a device which…vaporises substances, other than tobacco, for the purpose of inhalation through a mouthpiece”.

That applies whether it vaporises tobacco as well or not. It excludes medical devices, although we heard in evidence that no vapes are medically approved in the United Kingdom, and medicinal products that vaporise, including any aerosolisers. The clause also refers to an item that is intended to form part of a device, including anything to be attached to a vaping device with a view to imparting flavour. As the Government have already brought forward legislation to ban single-use vapes, it is important that individual components of reusable vapes are covered by the Bill.

A “vaping product” itself means a vape or vaping substance. A vaping substance means a substance other than tobacco that is intended to be vaporised by a vape. Vapes themselves can either contain nicotine or not and work essentially by heating up a liquid that creates a vapour to be inhaled. A nicotine vape typically contains nicotine, propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and flavourings, which we will come to discuss because of their importance in enticing children.

Nicotine products are also relevant to clause 10, on the sale of vaping or nicotine products. Clause 49 defines nicotine products as

“a device which is intended to enable nicotine to be delivered into the human body”,

part of a device that does that, or anything that contains nicotine. That is important because we have heard again and again how the industry will continually evolve to entrap people in a lifetime of nicotine addiction. This wide definition of anything containing nicotine helps to future-proof this legislation such that it does not have to be revisited again and again as the industry continues to evolve.

The main type of nicotine product currently on the market, other than vapes, is oral nicotine pouches from brands such as Velo and White Fox. These are a tobacco-free product placed between the lip and the gum for oral nicotine absorption. They are similar to Swedish snus, which we have discussed; they are pre-portioned pouches and they are produced in a variety of flavours. We have seen flavours such as lemonade razz and others that are designed with childlike descriptions, perhaps to influence children to use them. Certainly, when I talk to teachers, they say that they starting to see them used in the classroom. They look to parents very much like a small square of chewing gum, and some parents may not be aware of the hazards that these items pose.

The nicotine content within oral nicotine pouches can vary and is typically between 4 mg and 18 mg of oral nicotine per pouch. That is important; I have seen amendments suggesting that they should be limited 20 mg, but 20 mg is a lot. When we look at the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, we have to look not at the amount contained within it in its packet, but at how much is absorbed by the end user, the customer, when actually smoking it. The amount absorbed by the end user is much smaller than the amount in the cigarette. When brands imply that the amount within a pouch is similar to what is in a cigarette, they are talking about the amount within the cigarette itself, not how much the person smoking it will absorb from the cigarette.

The difference is quite marked: people may only take 1.2 mg from a cigarette when they smoke it in the usual way, so 18 mg in an oral nicotine pouch is an awful lot of nicotine. Some online retailers will sell products containing up to 150 mg of nicotine per pouch, with examples of flavours including black cherry, citrus and coffee. The release of nicotine from oral pouches is similar to, or faster than, from smokeless tobacco products and, given the Minister’s robust approach to snus and novel products designed to create addiction, I hope he will take a strong approach to these too.

Oral nicotine pouches sit alongside other novel nicotine products such as nicotine toothpicks and nicotine toothpaste that have emerged on the market. They are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Under those regulations, there is no age of sale requirement for retailers to impose. As such, individuals aged under 18 can legally purchase nicotine pouches, as opposed to tobacco and vaping products, which require all purchasers to be aged over 18. Clause 10 will help to deal with that.

Furthermore, oral nicotine pouches are not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, since no medical claims are made, and they are not an alternative to an authorised medicinal nicotine product—something like Nicorette gum, for example. I should note that some supermarkets have a voluntary age of sale; some supermarkets and larger retailers, or even smaller retailers, will voluntarily not sell these products to under-18s, but there currently is no legal requirement for them not to do it.

There is also no restriction on the amount of nicotine contained in an oral nicotine pouch under the current legislation, as such new products sold within the UK can contain levels of nicotine exceeding other nicotine or tobacco-based products such as cigarettes. We have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine; the higher amount transmitted so rapidly into the bloodstream is clearly stronger in its effect and therefore undesirable because it will remove people’s choice not to have those products.

What about the health impact? The health impact of nicotine is another reason why we need to invoke clause 10. Some people say, “If you take the nicotine out of the tobacco, maybe that will be safer.” However, it is safer but not safe. According to the impact assessment produced by the Government in response to the Bill, a recent scoping review found that oral nicotine pouches claimed to be less toxic than cigarettes and that they deliver comparable amounts of nicotine. However, the data for that review was mainly available from industry-funded studies. Despite potentially lower toxicity than cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches still contain nicotine, and that still has harmful effects.

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

My hon. Friend is right to highlight all the problems of vapes, especially for children, and the lack of evidence out there, other than that produced by the industry itself. Is she aware of any independent studies, either in the UK or abroad, that have done any substantive investigation into how harmful vapes are, either for adults or for children?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Last Tuesday, we heard in evidence from various medical sources, and both the Select Committee and our processor Bill Committee heard in evidence that nicotine is, of itself, harmful, and that the chemicals added to vapes are harmful. In some cases, they are extremely harmful. I will talk more about vaping chemicals later. Indeed, sometimes the products do not contain what they are expected to contain, and that can be worse still. I will return to that subject later, too.

Nicotine is highly addictive and can permanently affect the development of the adolescent brain. We have heard how the industry targets young people, and that is because the adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable. Nicotine can permanently affect its development. Nicotine also fulfils all the criteria for drug dependence. Giving it up is very difficult, and withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Symptoms associated with nicotine and dependence are often not recognised by novice smokers, particularly if they are young.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

On the subject of how nicotine affects the brain and brain development, one thing we have not really touched on—and we have touched on many physical health issues—is the incidence of smoking among people with mental health issues. One submission was from the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which said that 45% of people with a serious mental health issue smoke, and around 25% of people with clinical anxiety. It would stand to reason that the impact on a young person’s brain could also start to lead to serious mental health issues, as well as all the physical health and development issues.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of managing nicotine dependence for those with mental health conditions. We know that smoking, in particular, is more likely to take place among people with mental health conditions or those who are in mental health in-patient units. I am sure we will go on to discuss the issue of vending machines.

Last May, in the previous Bill Committee, we heard evidence from the Mental Health Foundation about the myth that tobacco helps with anxiety, and how that myth needed busting. We also heard about the importance of giving extra support to people with mental health conditions to enable them to kick the habit of nicotine—whether that habit is smoking or vaping—because it will help both their physical and mental health. However, it can be more challenging for them to complete. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue.

Returning to clause 10, a study considering the effects in adolescents of nicotine dependence after the initiation of smoking cigarettes found that the symptoms of nicotine dependence can appear only a few days after initiation. Given that oral nicotine pouches contain similar or higher levels of nicotine, similar symptoms may appear following initiation of oral nicotine pouch use, which is why it is particularly important for children that we pass clause 10 and ensure that children are protected from these nicotine products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I applaud the hon. Lady for her admirable history lesson on the background of vaping. Can I ask how it is relevant to what we are discussing in terms of the penalties and the sale of products?

[Dr Johnson]

It is relevant because we are discussing a product in the UK that we are considering essentially doing away with, and banning completely for children. The hon. Gentleman may note that we discussed the history of tobacco when we debated clause 1, on tobacco, and no less than two Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party talked about how interesting and relevant that was—[Interruption.] At least one of those individuals appeared very genuine.

Let me go back to Hon Lik, who invented the first e-cigarette as a way to cure his own smoking addiction and to try to prevent deaths such as his father’s from lung cancer—and we have talked much about the potential for smoking to cause lung cancer. The basic concept of mimicking smoking via vaporising liquids remains the same. The company he started was later bought as a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco, which again demonstrates that the industry will continue to try, where it can, to be involved in nicotine addiction.

The World Health Organisation proclaims that it does not consider electronic cigarettes a legitimate smoking cessation aid. It demands that marketers immediately remove from their material any suggestion that it considers electronic cigarettes to be safe and effective. In 2011, the WHO released a report on e-cigarettes recommending that they be regulated in the same way as tobacco products. Clause 10 will do some of that, inasmuch as it will bring e-cigarettes in line with the legislation on tobacco products so that they cannot be sold to under-18s. However, it does not go so far as to bring it in line with the new smoke-free generation legislation. The Minister may wish to comment on why he has not done so.

In the last Bill, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment that would have included nicotine products in the smoke-free generation legislation, banning them for those born after 1 January 2009 rather than just for under-18s. Her concern, as I understand it, was that the industry would pivot to other forms of nicotine that did not contain tobacco, hook a new generation on them and use similar marketing techniques to hook them on a lifetime of nicotine addiction, as it once did with tobacco. The Minister could seek to avoid that by preventing non-medicinal products containing nicotine from being used by anyone born after 1 January 2009. That power is within his grasp. On a personal level—this is not necessarily my party’s view—I would like him to seize that power.

The sale of vaping products to under-18s is addressed in clause 10. One of the reasons for restricting the sale is the range of pulmonary and coronary conditions—lung and heart conditions—that can occur for people who vape. To help us to understand why they are so damaging, it is important to understand what is in vapes per se. This is not just about nicotine products; it is also about vaping products.

As I say, nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that disrupts brain development in adolescence. Because adolescence is a critical time for neural development, it makes young people particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of nicotine. Adolescence is marked by substantial neurodevelopment, including synaptic pruning and the maturing of the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that governs decision making, impulse control and emotional regulation. Nicotine exposure during this period can disrupt those processes, leading to lasting cognitive and behavioural impairment. Research indicates that nicotine alters the neurotransmitter systems, noticeably those using acetylcholine and glutamate receptors, affecting the neural pathways essential for learning and memory development. Nicotine exposure during adolescence has been linked to deficits in attention, learning and impulse control. Studies have shown that adolescents using nicotine products exhibit diminished cognitive performance and are more prone to mood disorders, including depression and anxiety.

Another reason to get rid of these products, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, is that they can lead, in and of themselves, to problems with mental health. As hon. Members will know, these issues can adversely affect academic achievement—as we have heard from teachers’ evidence in the past and evidence to this Committee—and social interactions, potentially leading to broader physical challenges.

[The Chair]

May I ask the shadow Minister to shorten her very interesting and detailed explanation of why nicotine and other substances are harmful and focus more on the legislation and less on the historical and scientific background?

[Dr Johnson]

You will be pleased to know that I have concluded my remarks on history for now, Sir Mark, but with your leave, I want to talk about a couple of the chemicals that are found in vaping products. It is important for hon. Members to understand the reason for banning vaping products per se, as opposed to just nicotine products. There is a reason why both are included, rather than just one. That is why I wanted to discuss nicotine and its effects, as well as the effects of some other chemical constituents of the vaping product.

Propylene glycol is another main constituent of vapes. It is used in antifreeze, paint solvents and artificial smoke for fog machines and helps the vape to carry the nicotine and flavours to the user. When used in small amounts it is considered safe, but when used in high doses or over prolonged periods it can accumulate and cause lactic acidosis, depression of the nervous system and haemolysis, the destruction of red blood cells. When one’s red blood cells are destroyed, one becomes anaemic, which makes one tired and can make one very unwell.

Another component in some vapes is diethylene glycol, a toxic compound found in antifreeze that is associated with lung disease. It can be used as a sweetener, but it has resulted in many epidemics of poisoning since the early 20th century, perhaps most famously when it was found in wine and many bottles of wine had to be recalled. Believe it or not, some vapes also contain formaldehyde, which is classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, showing once again that the products that clause 10 seeks to ban are not as benign as some may believe or as their pretty colours and flavours may suggest. It can also cause respiratory and skin irritation on exposure.

[The Chair]

Order. May I ask the shadow Minister to cut down on some of the detail? Just tell us that it is harmful and give us the reason, without going through a full paragraph on every chemical.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Mark. Other chemicals found in some vapes that can be harmful are acrolein, which is a herbicide, and diacetyl, which is found in flavours such as chocolate milk and toffee because it has a buttery taste. Another is benzene, which is found in car exhaust fumes and is a carcinogenic chemical that can cause such things as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—all conditions that we certainly do not want children, or indeed anyone, to get.

It is also worth noting that, because e-cigarette heaters contain a coil and cartridge with a metal component, the vapour can contain some heavy metals, including cadmium, which can cause chest pain, shortness of breath and cancer; nickel, which is carcinogenic; lead, which we know causes health problems; and chromium. That is a non-exhaustive list. My speech originally contained such a long list that I feared it would take up all the Committee’s time. I do not want to do that, Sir Mark, or to test your patience, but I want to emphasise that these findings come from the research that has been done on vapes so far. It took time for the scientific community to establish the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are harmful to health and the ways in which they are harmful. We are already finding the health challenges of vaping, so it is important for us to take these steps today.

On 8 February 2023, I presented the Disposable Electronic Cigarettes (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill that highlighted the challenges that vapes pose to the environment and to children’s health. I am pleased that the Government have now taken steps to ban them. Things have progressed, and I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House. It is important to see the progression of legislation on vapes, which is so important not only to me but to Parliament and the country.

On clause 10, it is already an offence to sell nicotine vaping products to under-18s in all parts of the UK, but it is not an offence to sell nicotine products to them. Currently, local authority trading standards in England can bring a prosecution under section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for the under-age sale of tobacco products or cigarette papers; magistrates courts can impose a fine of £2,500 on conviction and prevent the individual from selling those products for 12 months. Under the Proxy Purchasing of Tobacco, Nicotine Products etc. (Fixed Penalty Amount) Regulations 2015, trading standards officers can issue a fixed penalty notice of £90 to individuals for purchasing or attempting to purchase tobacco and nicotine products for someone under 18. However, it is the adult making or attempting to make the purchase who commits the offence, not the retailer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

We are talking specifically about under-18s. I disagree with some of the later regulations on vaping, but when it comes to under-18s being given vaping products, I am aligned with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that if companies are giving away free products to Members of Parliament and staffers who are over the age of 18—some of them may be smokers—they are actually supporting the Government’s aim of getting to a smoke-free generation, which is very different from what we see in clause 10? I agree with the Government’s aim.

[Dr Johnson]

I think my hon. Friend highlights something common across our party. Many members of our party are uncertain, as I understand my hon. Friend is, about the changes to tobacco legislation for adults with the competency to make risk-based decisions. I understand your points; I do not necessarily share them, but I understand them.

[The Chair]

Order. Speak through the Chair, please.

[Dr Johnson]

Sorry. Equally, I note that the vast majority of Members across the House, both in my party and in other parties, strongly agree with clause 10 and the other clauses that seek to ensure that children do not have access to these products. If someone sells a vaping or nicotine product to a purchaser who is under the age of 18, it is an offence. Under clause 10(2), the seller can defend themselves on the basis

“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and it confirmed the purchaser’s age as at least 18 years old, or…that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”

The Minister has talked about the simplicity of the smoke-free generation and his view that it is easier for shop workers to look at a piece of identification and establish whether someone’s birthday was before or after 1 January 2009 than to establish whether someone was born 18 years ago by doing the mathematics in their head from the person’s date of birth. That brings me again to the question of why we will not have a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free generation. Would it be classed as a reasonable step? If a shop worker had asked for ID, taken the proper ID, as defined in clause 10(3), and done the mathematics wrong in their head, would they have taken all reasonable steps or would their arithmetic error mean that they were to all intents and purposes a criminal? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

Acceptable identity documents for the purpose of buying nicotine or vaping products if one is over the age of 18 include a passport, a UK driving licence, a driving licence from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, a European photocard driving licence or a proof-of-age standards scheme card with a hologram. During the discussions of voter ID, there was a debate about how many people had access to different forms of ID. Passports are reasonably expensive and not everyone drives a car, so how would someone who did not drive a car or have a passport provide ID? When it came to voter ID, the previous Government looked at a number of reliable sources of identification that could be used, which included the veterans card, certain travel documents and the like.

[Sarah Bool]

Recent announcements from the Home Office have confirmed that businesses will be able to legally accept the use of digital proof of age for alcohol products. I would like to see that approach extended to these products, to make the life of retailers easier as far as identification goes. It would be good to have further consistency and an extension of the definition of identity documents to allow for digital forms.

[Dr Johnson]

Digital ID is not something that I am particularly familiar with, but nevertheless it sounds sensible, where ID is reliable, reproducible, not easily faked and easily identifiable by staff. Broadening the forms of acceptable ID would ensure that when somebody is old enough to legally purchase a product, it is not excessively challenging for them to obtain an ID to do so. Clearly the Minister would want people to be able to buy age-restricted products if they are old enough, so I am interested to hear his view not only on my hon. Friend’s intervention about digital identification, but on veterans cards, bus passes and other cards that demonstrate the age of the user and include a photograph for added reliability.

Clause 10(4) states:

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

On a personal level, selling vapes and nicotine products to children is a dreadful thing to do, as I am sure the chief medical officer has said. I am more than happy for the Minister to increase that fine if he wants to, but I am interested to understand why he has set it at that level. Notwithstanding any changes across the four nations, it is important that we look at the choices that the Minister has made. That is what we are here to scrutinise.

The problem that clause 10 seeks to address is vaping among children. Are children vaping? Yes, I am afraid to say that they are, in large quantities. The biggest report of which I am aware that looked specifically at rates of youth vaping was published in 2023 by Healthwatch Blackpool. It looked at over 4,000 children and found that just under a third of them—31%—said that they

“currently vape or sometimes vape”.

Of those children, 65%

“expressed a preference for fruity flavoured vapes”,

which we will deal with later in the Bill. There is clearly an issue that vapes are being directly marketed to children with bright, attractive colours. Some of the most popular flavours include bubble gum, cotton candy, strawberry ice cream and unicorn milkshake. What does unicorn milkshake taste like? I have no idea, but it is easy to see the appeal to children.

An investigation by The Observer in 2022 found that ElfBar, a company that makes vapes, was promoting its products to kids via TikTok. The TikTok platform is apparently used by half of eight to 11-year-olds and by three quarters of 16 to 17-year-olds. When I found that out, I had a look at the screen time of my own children to establish that they were not getting on it.

[Jack Rankin]

I support my hon. Friend wholeheartedly on restricting flavours aimed at children, which I think is the Minister’s intention, but does she agree that vape flavours that are being advertised more generally, so long as they are straightforward and descriptive, can help people to shake smoking and can be firmly aimed at adults? The Government should not restrict the flavours so generally that the smoking cessation tool is weakened.

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid that once again I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that those who advertise brightly coloured vapes shaped like highlighters or SpongeBob SquarePants, or flavoured as unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear, are advertising them for the consumption of adults. I do not doubt that there are some adult smokers in their 40s who enjoy the flavour of unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear—perhaps those flavours are nice—but I do not believe that adults are the target audience for that marketing at all.

[Jack Rankin]

Perhaps I explained myself ineloquently —or maybe my hon. Friend was being mischievous in her characterisation. I agree with her wholeheartedly, but I would say that raspberry is a perfectly legitimate flavour for an upstanding vape seller to sell to an adult smoker as a cessation device. I would not want to go too hard on that so that we do not cut off that legitimate smoking cessation route.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying his intervention but, again, I am not sure about that.

[The Chair]

Order. Flavours will come up later in the Bill. The question really is not pertinent to clause 10.

[Jack Rankin]

I will ask my hon. Friend about this point later.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend can ask me later, when we come to the colours and flavours.

To summarise, clause 10 is an important clause that seeks to stop children getting hold of vapes and nicotine products and, in so doing, aims to reduce the number of children who get hooked on nicotine, which has very harmful effects, and who may even damage themselves using vapes. In one school in my constituency, eight children collapsed after using vaping products. Lincolnshire police examined five of the vapes confiscated from the school and found that they contained antifreeze, poster varnish and other chemicals such as trichloroethylene, 2-methoxyethyl acetate, Steol-M and diethylene glycol diacetate—some very harmful chemicals that have no legal place in vapes at all. Some of those chemicals are banned, but are nevertheless being put into these products.

Clause 59 is similar, but, given the principle of devolution, applies to Scotland. It provides for the same principle of an extension of offences to vaping and nicotine products, but does so in recognition of the fact that Scotland has different laws by amending the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. It adds various substitutions to ensure that it is not possible to buy tobacco and vaping products in Scotland, in order to protect the children of Scotland.

Clause 76 provides continuity across the United Kingdom based on the principles of devolution in Northern Ireland and of working together to protect the interests of children. That is very important. The clause adds article 4H, on the sale of vaping and nicotine products, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 after article 4G, which is itself inserted by clause 75. This provision essentially inserts the same provisions as those in clause 10, except that once again we see a higher penalty in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is clearly more concerned with punishing those who sell vaping and nicotine products to children than the Minister appears to be.

Amendments 63, 64, 80 and 81 look specifically at the proportionality of penalties and the balance in choosing them—whether they be as punitive as those in Northern Ireland, or those in place for snus for people who are reckless and do it often as opposed to those who have committed a first offence and do not do it so often.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Before we proceed, let me explain that Sir Mark has had to leave the Chair and I am taking over for the duration—for as long as you choose to sit. I have, however, been briefed, so I am sure that nobody in the room will seek to take advantage of a change of Chairman to cover the same subjects all over again.

[Dr Johnson]

That is very kind of you, Sir Roger. It is good to see you in the Chair, and an honour to serve under your chairmanship again. As you have been briefed, we are discussing clause 10, the importance of banning the sale of vaping and nicotine products to children. We had just moved on to new clause 10, which is part of this group of amendments. It was tabled by the Opposition and looks at the online marketplace, because there is concern that the industry seeks every single workaround and loophole as creatively as possible. The new clause seeks to ensure that guidance is provided to prevent advantage from being taken in the online marketplace, particularly because we have seen adverts for “no ID” sales, which clearly are designed to entice children to buy products that they should not be able to get.

Subsection (4)(d) of the new clause talks about

“the form and content of notices…displayed on websites”,

so it looks at the messaging. I suppose that is the equivalent of clauses 5 and 6: “What should our billboard notice say?”

New clause 10(5) says:

“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”

The Minister may wish to change that—it was the opening point for that offence—but again there clearly needs to be a penalty for people who do sell in the online marketplace.

Subsection (6) says:

“Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

We did talk about the negative resolution procedure—my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is temporarily not in his place—but essentially the affirmative resolution procedure means that regulations would require, I believe, a vote in the House to push them forward.

Just to clarify, subsection (7) says:

“In this section…‘the appropriate national authority’”,

which would be able to provide the regulations and produce the guidance, would be the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.

The principle of this proposal is that vaping businesses that operate online should be subject to the same regulations, rules and laws, enforced with the same stringency and severity, as corner shops, supermarkets and the like.

[Sarah Bool]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, on banning those who are under 18 from vaping. Many know about the health risks of smoking. They see it as a bad habit and disgusting, as the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon noted, but vapes are seen as being new age and social. Parents are in danger of encouraging vaping by buying something that they think is safer than smoking or drugs. We must be very careful about that, so this ban will be important in restricting sales. Children fear being excluded, so, through peer pressure, they are forced into vaping. We need to stamp out this practice.

Children are often confused about vaping. The problem is that they get an accidental addition to nicotine and struggle to pay attention in school, which has a negative impact not just on them but on their classmates. Apparently, children vape to deal with stress and anxiety—they are almost self-medicating, which is appalling. It is right that we protect our children by introducing this offence.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend talks about children self-medicating, but are they not making the situation worse? The use of vapes and nicotine products may exacerbate, rather than ease, any mental health symptoms that they have.

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a medical professional, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and we need to stop it as soon as possible to protect children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Sir Roger. Before addressing these amendments, the respective clauses and the proposed new clause, I want to make it clear that I will be using the generic term “vapes or vaping products” throughout to refer to vapes, e-cigarettes or nicotine vapour products. Likewise, I will use the term “nicotine products” to refer to consumer nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches. I am not referring to licensed nicotine-based medicines, which will not be further restricted by the Bill.

Under clause 10 it will continue to be an offence to sell a nicotine vape to a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales, and anyone who is found guilty of the offence will be liable to pay a fine of up to £2,500 if convicted. It is a defence if the person can prove they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser that showed they were over 18, or that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid committing an offence. The clause also extends this age of sale restriction to consumer nicotine products and non-nicotine vapes, as we know that children are accessing those products. There are currently no age of sale restrictions on those products, and non-nicotine vapes can easily have nicotine solutions manually added to them.

Clause 59 refers to Scotland and extends existing offences in Scotland for selling vaping products to under-18s, proxy purchases on behalf of under-18s, and failure to operate an age verification policy related to vaping products, so nicotine products are also covered in those offences. By amending that legislation, we will align the approach across the United Kingdom, which is the wish of the devolved Administrations. The clause amends Scottish legislation by replacing the term “nicotine vapour products” with the term “vaping products”, thus aligning the definitions across the UK.

Another of the changes to Scottish legislation in this clause makes it an offence for any person managing or controlling a premises to have a prohibited vending machine available for use. This effectively maintains the existing prohibition in Scotland on vending machines selling vaping and tobacco products; indeed, it extends it to include machines from which nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers can be purchased. Again, this aligns the approach across the UK.

Clause 76 applies similar measures in Northern Ireland to those in England and Wales, meaning that it will be an offence to sell a vaping or nicotine product to a person in Northern Ireland under the age of 18, thereby expanding current Northern Ireland legislation to cover all vaping products and nicotine products. Anyone convicted of the offence will be liable to a pay a fine of up to £5,000. All these measures for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will come into force six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give retailers time to introduce them.

These clauses will play an important role in ensuring that we can tackle youth vaping successfully. They provide businesses with certainty as to who they may legally sell products to, and they reinforce our health advice that children should never vape.

However, the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister would undermine that approach by creating a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling vaping or nicotine products to someone under age. They would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would either be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is, a fine of £1,000—or be given a caution instead. Level 3 is one level lower than the level 4 fine of £2,500 that someone who commits this offence is liable to under the current legislation.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister knows me well enough to understand that I would never seek more lenient penalties for those selling vapes to children; there is no excuse for selling vapes to children. However, I am concerned that there may be sales in the online marketplace that are not adequately covered by the regulations as they are currently drafted. The principle of new clause 10 was to ensure that such offences are properly covered, so I would be grateful for his reassurance in that regard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come to that; I am just spelling out why I am concerned about the consequences of the shadow Minister’s proposals in the amendment, because they would lead to more lenient penalties for those committing an offence for the first time than they are liable to under the current legislation. Again, like the amendments that we have already discussed, the effect would be to create a first-time offence, and if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as the rationale for my asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same.

The shadow Minister’s new clause 10 would introduce an offence in England and Wales for businesses selling vaping products online without applying an age verification policy. It would therefore create a requirement for businesses selling vaping products online to take steps to establish and ensure that any customer attempting to purchase those products online was above the age of 18.

Although I am incredibly sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intentions, as I said earlier, the Bill already makes it an offence in England and Wales to sell a vaping or nicotine product to anyone under the age of 18. As with in-person retail, online retailers must take all reasonable steps to avoid selling vaping products to anyone under age. Alongside the Bill, we are exploring how we can enhance online age verification to further tackle online under-age sales. The office for digital identities and attributes, which sits within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, is creating a framework of standards and governance, underpinned by legislation, which will enable the widespread use of trusted digital identity services. We are working closely with DSIT to consider how its work to enable the use of digital identities can best support retailers selling tobacco and vapes, whether online or in-person. It is for those reasons that I commend clauses 10, 59 and 76.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman should panic not; I had not quite come to the end of my contribution. I was merely saying that it is for those reasons that I commend clause 10, clause 59 and clause 76 to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to first answer her hon. Friend, it may well be that I answer her thoughts in the course of answering him. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a difference here between our approach to tobacco and to vapes. The hon. Lady—the shadow Minister—has, rightly, always been, and will continue to be, a doughty campaigner for a nicotine-free generation and for a smoke-free generation. That may well be where we end up at some stage in the future. However, we believe that the measures in the Bill are entirely appropriate and proportionate. We are not planning to raise the age of sale for vapes in a similar way to that for tobacco; let me explain why.

Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. No other consumer product kills two thirds of its users. It is therefore entirely appropriate to create a smoke-free generation, as we are seeking to do in this legislation, and to gradually phase out tobacco so that it is a thing of history. Although vaping is not harm-free—I will come on to the harms in due course—it is less harmful than smoking and, currently, we do not believe that a generational age of sale restriction on vapes would be an appropriate response to the current evidence in relation to health harms. Instead, the Bill contains strong measures to stop the promotion and the blatant advertising of vapes to children, and so bring about definitive and positive change to stop future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.

It may well be, over the course of the coming years, that greater evidence emerges about the harms of nicotine. Lots of studies of vaping are taking place and it may well be that we have to take further action; that is why the measures in the Bill are permissive. The tobacco industry has often, after having one route closed off to it, sought an alternative route to maintain market share and market presence. It may well be that the vaping industry employs exactly the same tactics—all the evidence so far would suggest that it does. That is why the measures in the Bill are not just proportionate for the here and now but future-proof, so that Ministers can come back to Parliament, on a whole range of issues, and seek to close off other routes.

I would hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon understands that there is a very big difference between tobacco and vaping. However, we reserve the right to return to Parliament and to utilise the powers in this Bill, should we be granted them, to ensure that, if there is evidence of harms, we can immediately respond to those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for clearly explaining that children should never vape. In fact, if children are smoking and wish to quit, they can get support from their GP and others, but they should not use vaping, because vaping is bad for children.

To take the Minister back to my question about new clause 10, before he took the two previous interventions, he said that he is working with DSIT to provide regulations and legislation that would cover new clause 10 and ensure that online sellers of age-restricted products are obliged to check a person’s age before selling them. Will he advise when he expects such regulations to be available? Will they be in time for his smoke-free generation in a couple of years’ time?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely hope that the measures will be worked on at pace and will be available for that. Officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are working closely with colleagues in DSIT to ensure that these matters are included in the online age verification legislation that it is seeking to introduce.

A couple of other points were raised in the course of the debate. On the issue of fines and why there are inconsistencies, I do not wish to over-labour the point, but the maximum fines that the shadow Minister quoted are consistent with existing tobacco and vapes legislation. We believe they are proportionate to the severity of the offences. There is a bit of a pushmi-pullyu argument here, because on the one hand we have had amendments that seek to have more lenient penalties, and on the other, arguments for harsher penalties. We believe that the current fine levels in England are appropriate, which is why we are remaining with them. It is for trading standards to take a proportionate approach to enforcement, deciding the appropriate action to take for a given case to achieve compliance based on the evidence before it.

On TikTok and advertising, I understand that the Advertising Standards Agency has issued an enforcement notice to vaping companies and brands instructing them to stop any advertising on TikTok. To date, it has reported around 300 posts, approximately 80% of which predated the notice to TikTok for removal.

On the issue of enforcement with physical sales, and online sales with age verification, it was interesting that in the evidence session we heard from National Trading Standards that it has undertaken test purchasing both in brick and mortar premises and online and that the failure rate in brick and mortar premises was 26%, compared with 10% online. We do not want any breaches of the law, but that puts into context that the current issues tend to be on the ground rather than online—although we need to cover all bases. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendments and proposed new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing the extra information. Amendments 63, 64, 81 and 80 were designed once again to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties across the different clauses of the Bill. Sometimes the penalties are different for the same offence and, inexplicably, sometimes they are the same for different offences that perhaps one would expect them to be different for. However, I will not press those amendments to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

PURCHASE OF VAPING OR NICOTINE PRODUCTS ON BEHALF OF UNDER 18S

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 66, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert—

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

This amendment, together with Amendment 63, 64, and 65, prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 10 and 11 being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 82, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.

Amendment 83, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert—

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

This amendment, together with amendments 80, 81, and 82, prevent penalties for a first offence under sections 76 and 77 (pertaining to age of sale restrictions for vaping and nicotine products in Northern Ireland) beyond level 3 and provides for a caution.

Clause 77 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 65 and 66 apply to clause 11. In line with other Opposition amendments tabled to various clauses of this Bill, they seek to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties. They encourage the Minister to look in detail at those penalties before Report—specifically, to consider the differences between the shop worker, the shopkeeper and the shop owner in terms of the level of fine required, and also to consider the individual who inadvertently commits an offence on one occasion versus the person or company that deliberately and repeatedly flouts the law and require different handling.

Amendment 65 amends clause 11 to add at the end of page 6, line 5,

“, save if it is a first offence.”,

while amendment 66 inserts:

“A person who has admitted guilt”—

that is, a person who has owned up—

“of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

I think I have explained what those are for.

Clause 11 makes it a criminal offence for a person aged 18 or over to purchase, or attempt to purchase, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of someone who is under the age of 18—essentially stopping adults from buying vapes for kids. Clearly, buying things for children that are so potentially harmful to them is not the action of a responsible adult.

If a person is charged with this offence, they can defend themselves by saying that they had no reason to suspect that the person they were buying for was under 18. It is not really clear to me when that sort of a situation would occur. If someone is under 18, it should be fairly obvious that they are quite young. Any responsible adult who knew the child would have an idea of how old they were, and any responsible adult who did not know the child would surely guess that there was a risk in buying something for someone who looked young, in case they were under 18 and incriminated themselves. I understand why the defence is there, but I am not really sure how it would be used. The Minister may be able to enlighten us further.

A person found guilty in relation to this offence is liable to a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, which amounts to £2,500. This clause is very important, because we must stop children getting access to vapes. Popular culture tells us that vapes are very accessible to children. For example, we were all glued to our screens—I know we were in the Johnson household—watching Luke Littler, the recent BBC young sports personality of the year, win the PDC world darts championship. It was fabulous to see someone so young achieve such an amazing feat.

Luke Littler won half a million pounds, which is a wonderful thing for that young gentleman, but he reportedly said that he would celebrate by vaping. Of course, he is actually a 17-year-old young man, despite his great achievements. He is a sports prodigy, a national hero, and a wonderful example to young people of what can be achieved at a young age, but presumably, until he turns 18 very soon, he will need someone else to buy vapes for him. That will be illegal under the new law.

On a more serious note, we know through the various different reports that on county lines, where people are selling drugs, they are often giving vapes to children as a way of enticing them into feeling that they are favoured by those adults. They are using children’s addiction to nicotine and desire for further vapes, and for access to further vapes, as part of a grooming process to get them into dreadful situations with county lines. Clause 11, which prevents children’s access to vaping and nicotine products via a proxy adult, is a very sensible measure that I will support.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support. Clause 11 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales. The clause replaces the existing restrictions, which only apply to nicotine vapes.

Similarly, for Northern Ireland, clause 77 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in Northern Ireland. The clause replaces the existing restrictions that only apply to nicotine vapes and extends them to non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Anyone convicted of the offence would be liable to a fine of up to £5,000. Both of these clauses contain the defence for those charged that, if they can prove they had no reason to suspect the person they were buying the product for was under 18, that would be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

It is for these reasons that I commend clauses 11 and 77 to the Committee, and ask that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendments.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 65, 66, 82 and 83 were specifically there to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalty portfolio across the Bill. The Minister has clarified his position on that. It is very important that we see those who are selling vapes to children or, in the case of clause 11, buying vapes for children, appropriately deterred from doing so or appropriately punished. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Vaping and nicotine product vending machines

[Sarah Bool]

I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 12, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for moving the amendment. One thing we have seen across the debate thus far, and indeed during oral evidence, is that we have been led by the evidence—the Minister has clearly said that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has provided is from medical experts. These are not vape peddlers or people from the industry, or people who want to make a quick buck out of those who are addicted to nicotine. These are health professionals who are trying to ensure that there is a balance between what is absolutely right—we do not want to see people vaping—and the reality of the situation in medical settings, especially in mental health settings, where the ability for patients to have a certain amount of autonomy is often vital to their mental recovery.

My hon. Friend also made the valid point that if we remove smoking and tobacco products from in and around hospitals, which is a suggestion in the Bill that I think I support, we must ensure that those who are addicted—and we accept that it is an addiction—are dealt with appropriately. Obviously, in most regular acute trusts, that would be dealt with through a nicotine patch, but for mental health services, as I said, the requirement for autonomy should sometimes outweigh the functional nature of a nicotine patch. Indeed, my understanding is that nicotine patches do not work for everyone, because some of the addiction is in the holding as well as the imbibing.

I welcome the Minister’s response. As I have said to him on previous amendments, even if he is not happy with the precise wording my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has put forward, I hope that he can bring in some kind of exemption on Report, so that the medical professionals who have written to us are satisfied that their concerns have been heard?

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 96 and clause 12 relate to vaping and nicotine product vending machines. I support the clause; indeed, if one looks at proceedings on the previous, Conservative iteration of the Bill from earlier this year, one will see that new clause 4, which was signed by just under 40 Members proposed a ban on vaping product vending machines, and the lead name was mine. I was concerned that vending machines would be used by children to obtain vaping and nicotine products. That loophole in the law that would make it easy—as we have seen with cigarettes in the past—for youngsters to circumvent the age-restricted product legislation designed to protect them, by allowing them to buy things from a machine that was not checking how old they were. I am therefore clearly supportive of this legislation.

Clause 12 makes it an offence for a person who manages or controls a premises to have a vending machine that sells vaping or nicotine products—

“an automatic machine from which”

vaping or nicotine products “may be bought”. Again, I ask the Minister to look at the principle of machines “from which” these products “may be bought” and to reconsider the wording to ensure that the industry cannot sell products using an app or online platform that can then be collected from a dispensing machine, in the same way as someone might buy something off a retailer and collect it from another retailer or a lock box collection point.

Banning the sale of vaping products, nicotine products and cigarette papers from vending machines would, by virtue of the various clauses in the Bill, including clauses 12 and 17, be a UK-wide provision. That would be beneficial because it would have consistency across the UK in a positive direction. The clause introduces a new offence, as there are currently no restrictions on the use of vaping or nicotine product vending machines in the UK, in the way that there is with tobacco vending machines. This is a new offence, and in my view a welcome one.

Self-service vending machines provide an anonymous, unregulated environment where individuals under the legal age could otherwise purchase vaping or nicotine products without any face-to-face interaction with a retailer, clearly increasing the risk of under-age sales. The offence will come into force six months after Royal Assent, which means that premises that currently contain a vape or nicotine product vending machine will have time to remove it or to stock it with a product that can legitimately be sold to younger people.

The primary rationale behind the restriction on vape vending machines is to reduce vaping rates, particularly among minors and children. The Government’s aims, as I understand them, are to protect young people from the harmful effects of vaping by limiting their access to vaping and nicotine products. Vape or nicotine product vending machines, which may also be used for pouches, are seen as a mechanism to bypass the responsibility of retail staff in ensuring that restrictions are met, contributing to increased sales.

The fine is level 4 on the standard scale, which is similar to that for selling over the counter. That makes sense to me, but I want to ask the Minister who qualifies as a person who manages or controls a premises? If it is a tenanted property, does that mean the landlord or the tenant who has control of the premises? If it is a larger retailer, such as a large supermarket, who controls those premises? Who takes the blame there? Is it the person who was on shift as the supervisor? Is it the store manager? On a more general basis, is it the regional manager or the managing director of the company? Who is responsible for managing and controlling those premises? The Minister needs to provide guidance on that so that people understand their responsibilities and so that, in the event a crime is committed and a vending machine is put in place, fingers are not pointed in every direction, making it impossible to work out whose responsibility and fault it was, such that nobody is held to account for the breach.

The Department of Health and Social Care has produced an impact assessment for the Bill, and paragraph 477 says:

“Regulating vape flavours, packaging, and presentation, as well as point of sale displays, and banning vending machines which sell vapes and nicotine products is expected to reduce the number of people taking up vaping, and therefore it is expected that there will be environmental benefits from reduced litter from vaping products.”

The clause will therefore benefit the health of not just our children but the environment in which they live and grow.

Paragraph 781 of the impact assessment highlights the following information about vending machines and under-age sales:

“A survey conducted by ASH”—

which gave evidence to our Committee last week—

“found that 6.6% of 11–17-year-olds who currently vape used machines as a source of vapes.”

Given that vaping vending machines are not currently that common, that seems quite a high figure. Without a ban and the implementation of the clause, that figure will surely increase.

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

I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making and those that other Members have made. As I understand it, we already have a law that bans people from purchasing vapes from a customer-managed vending machine. The only vending machines that should be selling vapes are managed by someone else. Can I just clarify that that is the case, because I think there is some confusion about how people are getting these vapes at hospitals and particularly in mental health settings? I have a concern about that because it puts vulnerable people, in a sense, with an addictive product. Can I just clarify that vending machines for vapes are currently not allowed in this country, except where they are not individually customer operated?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to amendment 96 and the mental health aspect shortly, but I will deal with the clause first, which makes sure that these vending machines are not available. At the moment, one can buy nicotine products in a vending machine where those exist. As I said, the ASH survey showed that 6.6% of 11 to 17-year-olds who currently vape have access to vapes through a vending machine, so this is happening in the UK already. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that, until this Bill passes, it is not illegal to sell nicotine products to children. Some responsible retailers have a voluntary scheme for not selling to under-18s, but it is not a legal requirement. Some irresponsible sellers do sell vapes to children.

Paragraph 782 of the impact assessment says:

“There is limited evidence presented on the number and locations of vape vending machines, however it is suggested by online retailers that they are currently predominantly placed in locations such as nightclubs, bars and pubs. It is anticipated that”

without this legislation

“the market will develop further and vape vending machines will become more prevalent in other locations such as supermarkets, train/bus stations and other locations accessible to under-18s.”

In my mind’s eye, I remember recently seeing a vape in a vending machine alongside sweets; I just cannot quite remember where it was, but it was certainly somewhere that was easily accessible to people.

The aim of the clause is to protect children and to ensure that vending machines—commonly found dispensing food and drink in child-friendly establishments such as canteens and leisure centres, and easily used by young people—are not available. The machines protect anon—anonymity; I might have to put my teeth in, Sir Mark—

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is catching!

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

It is catching—it is the time of day, I think.

Paragraph 787 of the impact assessment says:

“We know that one of the main reasons children take up vaping is due to peer pressure…It is therefore worth considering that instances of vape vending machines in easily accessible areas might be an enabler for those who would not otherwise seek out a vape or who would be deterred by having to speak to an adult”.

Children would have to seek out an adult to make a purchase, because they have to go to a till or counter to get the vapes. Under the new legislation, that adult would look for ID, while a vending machine would provide a circumnavigation, so this is a sensible clause.

Most of us recognise that the vending machines currently selling disposable vapes have a finite lifetime, because this Government have banned them in the future under a statutory instrument in the competence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, British American Tobacco has already stated that it is working on a product to sell the Velo brand—one of its nicotine pouches—via “age-gated vending machines” and is hiring for the product. Again, that is taken from the impact assessment.

That further highlights the need for a blanket ban on vending machines, particularly given that, as things stand, they are clearly advertising tools for vaping. Wherever the machines are placed, they are visible to the consumer, and the consumer needs to know what is in the vending machine in order to choose what to buy. Given the regulations appearing later in the Bill, we will be looking at the display of such products. It therefore seems nonsensical to have restrictions on the display of products, but to allow vending machines, which allow the display of products, in contravention of that. One aim of the Bill is to ensure that non-smokers do not begin vaping and get hooked on nicotine. These provisions strengthen that through age verification and on the marketing front.

I will now deal with some of the issues to do with mental health hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said that the 2,400 vends were evidence of 2,400 positive choices. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. The evidence is that 2,400 vapes were bought, but not that those individuals had ever smoked. We do not know whether the vending machines are being used by people who smoke or people who do not—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor comments from a sedentary position; if he wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so. A proportion of people out there smoke, and a proportion do not.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. Based on the behaviour of vape companies now, which is similar to that of tobacco companies previously, this proposal would allow further expansion of vending machines and further display on vending machines in more and more places. Is that the point that the hon. Member is making?

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, in relation to clause 12, yes. I do not think that vending machines including tobacco and nicotine products or vapes are a good idea, and I moved a new clause for inclusion in the previous Bill because a ban on nicotine and vaping products in vending machines had not been included at the outset. Without such a measure, we will see an expansion of vending machines as a way of selling products to children and getting children addicted. It will be done as a way of making products more available to adults, but its effect will be that the products are more available to children. I do not want to see such products available to children, because they are clearly harmful for them. All the medical evidence we have had states that clearly.

With regard to individuals in mental health hospitals, some may be there as voluntary patients, and some under a mental health section. When someone’s liberty has been taken from them because they are being treated for a mental health condition, we need to be careful that we are not restricting them in other ways in which we would not restrict other people. That is a fair point to make.

We also have to be mindful of the staff. As we go through the Bill, the Minister will rightly be looking at exposure to vaping inside hospitals and at extending the tobacco regulations that limit smoking in public indoor places to cover vaping in indoor public spaces. Indeed, he and you, Sir Roger, will have seen the signs placed in the Tea Room by the Speaker, who rightly wants to see that we do not have vaping there. The public do not want vaping in their tea rooms or in the public domain either, so that is the right thing to do. We need to consider that there are staff and other patients in mental health hospitals who may not wish to vape and should not be inadvertently and unnecessarily exposed to vaping products.

I do not support the idea that 2,400 vends means that this is a positive choice. For some of these people, vaping may have been a positive change from smoking, but for others it may have been a decision to vape.

[Sarah Bool]

I appreciate that; those were the words of the NHS trusts themselves when they talked about positive decisions. We cannot always be sure exactly why someone made that decision, but we have to hope in the first instance that that move away from smoking would turn into vaping and, ultimately, into a smoke-free generation.

I am minded to tighten the wording of my amendment on Report to ensure that the vending machines are in those mental health units for the purpose of facilitating smoke-free policies and smoking cessation, because I do not necessarily want nurses and those working in those units to be exposed to any unnecessary products. When we are dealing with addiction, we all appreciate how difficult it is, and I want to ensure that a process is in place that means that we deal with both the mental health issues patients are dealing with and the addiction in a suitable and balanced fashion.

[Dr Johnson]

I know my hon. Friend’s heart is in a good place when she thinks about how we can protect individual mental health patients who also have an addiction to nicotine. She said that having no vapes on the hospital site could lead to patients taking up smoking, but there are of course no cigarettes on the hospital site either. I do not support the idea that the removal of one product will automatically lead to the use of another unavailable product.

If a member of the Committee, for example, wanted to leave the room now and go and get some vapes, they would need to leave the House, go and find a shop, and purchase them, and the same is true of an average patient: they would have to leave their home, find a shop, buy their vapes and come home again. The availability of a vaping vending machine on a ward in a mental health hospital would make vapes much more available to an individual and much more proximal than they would be under normal circumstances, which may lead to a greater consumption of nicotine than would be the case if the vapes had to be accessed elsewhere.

As we have mentioned repeatedly, nicotine is a very addictive drug, and I will not reiterate that beyond saying that if one is in a hospital unit and unable to leave because one is on a section, and one is used to using nicotine, the cravings would be extremely unpleasant and the withdrawal could be very nasty indeed. With that in mind, we wish to ensure that those individuals are cared for, and I know that the Minister wants to ensure that they are cared for too, but I remind the Committee that other nicotine replacements are available.

Several treatments are available from shops and pharmacies to help to beat the addiction, and those are available on prescription to individuals currently residing in a mental health unit, voluntarily or otherwise. Essentially, they are nicotine replacement therapies, by which I mean a proper medicine, as opposed to a consumer product, that provides somebody with a low level of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. They help to reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, and may affect mental health treatment too. They can be bought from pharmacies and shops, but a doctor can prescribe them and NHS stop-smoking services can provide them, and they are available in a whole range of forms. There are skin patches that provide a slower release, chewing gum and little inhalators that look like a small plastic cigarette. There are tablets, oral strips, lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays.

There is a huge variety of different nicotine replacement therapies. Some, such as the inhalators, gums and sprays, act quickly to provide nicotine, and some, such as the patches, release nicotine slowly. The treatment depends on the stage of craving and the stage of giving up that somebody is at, and on what is most suitable for them. Sometimes patients find that the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy is to have a low-dose patch that is worn all the time, with top-ups from a gum, inhalator or nasal spray if they have particular cravings. Treatment with such nicotine replacement therapy usually lasts eight to 12 weeks before the dose is reduced and eventually stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I do not think that nicotine products are attractive to children in any way, shape or form today. My concern is that, as the Government are seeking to stop children using them by restricting them in vending machines—I do not think they should be using them—

[Dr Johnson]

May I clarify the point that my hon. Friend is making? When he says that he does not think nicotine products are attractive to children, does he mean the medical nicotine replacement therapy products, as opposed to other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches or vapes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I do not think I can talk to that point, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it.

We have to find a balance. The Government can use their majority in the House to cast aside my hon. Friend’s amendment, but it seems to me that it is in line with the principle of the Bill, so it is a sensible thing to do.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that my hon. Friend thinks that the amendment is sensible, but Dame Andrea Leadsom, the public health Minister in the previous Government, asked Mark Rowland, the chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, the “chicken-and-egg question”, as she put it:

“Does smoking make you depressed, does depression cause you to smoke or is it both?”

He said:

“it is difficult to disaggregate exactly for many people, but we know that both are a real issue. We talk about this cycle of smoking increasing the risk of poor mental health and poor mental health increasing the chances of smoking and the number of cigarettes someone smokes. People with mental health problems smoke far more, and that addiction then exacerbates psychiatric symptoms. Those psychiatric symptoms also then lead to increased poverty and increased chances of being unemployed, and that leads to poorer mental health. It is a complex picture, but we are really starting to see the causal drivers of mental ill health.” ––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 116, Q179.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one should not say that those in mental health hospitals need access to vapes or nicotine in the form of pouches from vending machines to ease their mental health? In actual fact, it may do quite the opposite.

[Jack Rankin]

I had not heard that remark, but I thank my hon. Friend for putting it on the record. To add to that theme, I would make the point that these things are multifaceted. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, who is the successor to Dame Andrea, was making is that people have quite a lot to be getting on with, so they do not need this added stress.

[Dr Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend see it as an added stress or an added opportunity to add in-patient support to quit smoking to further benefit the individual’s mental and physical health?

[Jack Rankin]

Perhaps it is an added thing that doctors in mental healthcare can try to address, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire read out a letter from someone at the coalface, who takes the opposite approach from that of the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

In the provisional grouping provided by the Clerk, you have clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 together. Would you like to—

[The Chair]

Order. I do beg your pardon; I am wrong. I am never wrong! But this time I am. I call the Minister to speak first.

[The Chair]

Let me just explain: the clause stand part is Government business, so it is absolutely correct that the Minister is entitled to move it. He is allowed to move it formally if he chooses to do so. He does not have to speak to it, but by moving it formally, he can then open the debate and come back later if he so chooses. He has chosen to take the path he has gone down and he was absolutely right to do so.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I am grateful for your guidance as Chair on the order of doing things. It has been, at times, quite confusing.

Clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 regulate the display of products in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not take much to realise why that is necessary. Simply take a drive down a high street in any small town across the country, and one will come across a shop with an entire front window blocked out with pictures of sweets, other confectionery and chocolate, usually an energy drink or two thrown in, and a whole host of brightly-coloured vaping devices. The clear message is that these are fun and exciting products—not stop-smoking devices, but recreational products—and is clearly designed to entice children into purchasing them.

I had cause to go to a major service station on the A1-M25 junction, and as I came out of the bathroom I noticed that, at the eye level of about a six-year-old, there was a whole pile of coloured vapes in a shop front. Going into a major newsagent to purchase a newspaper, one will also find a whole load of pictures behind the counter. I have even seen electronic video displays advertising a vaping product in WHSmith—I think it was a Lost Mary—so one cannot get away from the advertising of those products even if one wishes to. It is clearly necessary for the display of those products within stores to be regulated to ensure that children are not enticed—the industry would say inadvertently, while others would suggest very deliberately—into wanting to buy them.

Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with powers to regulate the display of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. It also regulates their prices. I wonder if the Minister could comment on what that means, and how the prices of all those products will come under some sort of Government control. Will the Government fix the prices and therefore the profit, or will they apply additional taxation to the product—something that they seem to like to do, although it would not necessarily be as unwelcome in this case as some of the other taxes they have applied recently—so that they create an overall price? How does the Minister intend this price fixing, as it were, to work?

Clause 13 also gives the capacity to regulate the display of empty retail packaging or anything else that represents the product, whether that be putting up a video display or large versions of the products at an entrance, so that the products can be kept away from children. Under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and regulations made under it, there are already restrictions on the display in the course of business of tobacco products and pricing, but not specifically nicotine and vaping products. Given all we have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine, the enticement of children into taking such products, and the harm they may cause children particularly in adolescence, this is a welcome change.

Clause 13(6) confirms that before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult who he or she considers it appropriate to consult. I am interested to understand whether the Minister believes that such a consultation should include the tobacco industry and/or the vaping and nicotine product industry, whether that be medical or otherwise, and whether he sees a distinction between the two.

Clause 13 creates an offence for failure to comply with the regulations, and anyone convicted of an offence under this clause on indictment can be subject to imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both. If they are convicted of a slightly lesser offence on summary conviction, they can be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a general limit in a magistrates court, or a fine, or both.

I refer the Minister to my previous remark that the general limit in a magistrates court is apparently going to double after the Lord Chancellor’s statement in October. As such, is the Minister content to have a fluctuating limit or would he prefer a fixed one? Perhaps that is something to consider before Report. Clearly, deliberately advertising vapes in a way that may be attractive to children requires a reasonably stiff penalty.

Under clause 13(1), the legislation explicitly allows for the regulation of physical displays of these products, including empty packaging and pricing information, which are often used to draw attention to them. Subsection (2) defines the “relevant products” pretty comprehensively, encompassing not just tobacco and vaping items but accessories such as cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. The broad definition ensures that the regulations cover a wide array of potentially harmful products. Subsection (3) further strengthens that by extending the rules to include representations of these products, such as promotional materials or images that might signify them at the point of sale, which is again welcome.

Currently, vaping products are often displayed prominently in retail settings, frequently at checkout counters or in bright, attention-grabbing displays. That placement encourages impulse purchases and can make those products more appealing to young people. Unlike tobacco products, which have strict display restrictions, vaping and nicotine products remain accessible and visible in shops, and the standard packaging laws for cigarettes do not apply, for example, to their shape and colour. Clause 13 aims to address that disparity by introducing measures to regulate the visibility and presentation of the products.

The collaborative approach to the consultation will hopefully strike the right balance between public health objectives and the interests of businesses, but I urge the Minister to give further information on how we can strike that balance while maintaining that the important thing is to protect the health of the public, particularly children, from vaping products. Both nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, unlike tobacco, are currently allowed to be displayed at the point of sale in shops on countertops, in eye-catching displays on the shop floor, and in the windows. It is somewhat ironic that sweeties and chocolate have been banned at the till because of the pester power of children, only to be replaced in some shops by vapes. I suggest that, if any parent were given the choice, they would rather their children were having sweets than vapes, which are clearly addictive and much more harmful. There is much to be considered on the nature of unintended consequences, as well as the nature of the industry with which we are dealing.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case that we should not be advertising vapes, or their pricing and products, to children. What she is not doing is making a case for banning the display of products or prices of vapes to adults. Does she think it is incongruous to treat tobacco products and vaping products in the same way in this clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Part of me wants to say, “Well, what do you do when the child goes into the newsagent? Put a blindfold on them?” If the displays are visible to adults, they will be visible to the children who are walking beside them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we can ensure that, when walking into an average newsagent, children cannot see something that grown-ups can.

[Jack Rankin]

rose—

[Dr Johnson]

If my hon. Friend has a suggestion, I shall let him back in.

[Jack Rankin]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that advertising a vape with Mickey Mouse is obviously aimed at a child, but it would be very much aimed at an adult, and not attractive to a child at all, to advertise a vape with, “This is what smoking 40 cigarettes a day costs you over a year. This is what our product costs. This is what you would save.” That would very much be in line with the aims of a smoke-free generation.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which goes to the principle of advertising, and whether there needs to be an exemption for medical advertising of vaping as a stop smoking tool by health professionals, for example in doctors’ surgeries, where it may also be visible to child patients. That is not really the aim of clauses 13 and 14, which focus on the display of products in shops. They are less about how the products are advertised and more about where they are displayed and how visible they are to someone shopping.

To some extent, my hon. Friend has a point about how we convey the message to smokers that vaping devices are items they can use to help them quit smoking—a message given by the chief medical officer—and about the distinction between that advertising and the sort of advertising that sees sports stadiums and sports shirts emblazoned with the brands of vaping companies, such that young children watching their heroes on the pitch, playing football or rugby, see vaping as a good thing. We will come to that later, but it is distinctly different from clauses 13 and 14.

At the moment, the legislation most relevant to where products are displayed is probably the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, known as the TRPR, which brought EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 into law. The regulations, which are now in the form of retained EU law, set standards for nicotine vapes, including limits on nicotine strength, bottle and tank sizes, and rules on packaging and advertising. But when it comes to the display of vape products, there are no specific regulations. They are openly displayed in stores, in large and small shops, both household names and individual retail outlets. They are also displayed in outlets that we might not expect. I noticed that the place I took my son for a haircut was selling both haircuts and vapes, and that a shop in the local town that repairs mobile phones and sells second-hand devices also sells vapes. The number of places that sell vapes and display them in their shop window is remarkable.

The Department of Health and Social Care has expressed concern about the lack of regulation, warning that children can easily see and pick up vapes due to them being displayed within aisles close to sweets, and on accessible shelves and display towers on the shop floor close to children’s eye level. A particular concern to me—and no doubt to many others in the Committee—is the visual similarity between a vape display and a shelf of sweets. Vapes are often displayed in an array of eye-catching colours. It is not uncommon to see them in a rainbow, with a range of sweet and fruity flavours on offer, including specific sweet brand names like Skittles, Starburst and Sour Patch Kids. The way they are sometimes presented as a safe alternative to smoking—which we understand that they are for smokers—can mislead consumers into thinking they are risk free, which is concerning considering that they contain nicotine and other harmful chemicals. I have also noticed a fashion for an increasing number of products to be advertised as pure, fresh, natural and organic, potentially to give the impression that they are less damaging than they are.

Finally, I have not seen this raised before, but I would like the Minister to consider that the fact that these highly addictive products are so easily accessible on the shop floor and at children’s height makes it easy for children to pick them up and walk out with them, particularly if they want to avoid being asked for ID by the shopkeeper. Putting them behind the counter where they are less accessible to children may reduce that temptation.

Clauses 14, 61 and 79 relate to similar regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I do not intend to go through them and repeat my arguments.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I reassure the shadow Minister that the measures in clauses 13 and 14 will regulate only the display of pricing, not the actual prices. We are not yet in the realms of fixing prices for products—I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Windsor, too.

On engagement with the tobacco industry and the vape industry, the UK is party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control, so we have an obligation to protect the development of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. We take that commitment incredibly seriously and, in line with the requirements of article 5.3 of the FCTC, we summarise the views of respondents with disclosed links to the tobacco industry when responding to consultations.

With respect to the display of vapes, we know—and the shadow Minister has expressed very powerfully—that research on vape packaging has shown that reduced brand imagery can decrease the appeal to young people who have not previously smoked or vaped, without reducing the appeal of vapes to adult smokers. That is why I believe the measures in clauses 13 and 14 are appropriate and measured, and will have the outcomes that both the shadow Minister and those of us on the Government side of the Committee desire. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Free distribution and discount of products

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I do not agree with him. The last thing we need is more people going through our GP surgeries. We should allow legitimate use of these discounts in a public health manner. Some of the problems I have with the structure of some of the clauses from here on in is that they give quite sweeping regulatory power to Ministers, perhaps through secondary legislation. The Minister might say that the Government do not necessarily want to restrict those things, but the lack of certainty may result in a chilling of investment by legitimate vaping companies. If we want genuinely to move to a smoke-free generation, I do not think that is something we should encourage; we should be advocating such responsible investment.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about the availability and visibility of products, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about the availability of vaping products as medical products. However, the Committee heard evidence from the MHRA that there are no medically approved vaping devices currently registered in the United Kingdom. While it continues to encourage vaping companies to come forward with a vaping product for regulation and medical assessment, that so far has not come to fruition.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the shadow Minister’s point, but I think the Minister said in summing up the clause 10 stand part debate that while vaping potentially was not harm-free, given its harm compared with cigarettes, that was something that the Government would want to see.

Clause 15 does not say that there should not be discounts on products for children or products for recreational use; it leaves the scope quite broad. I think the Government have got that wrong, and that it might have a direct adverse effect on the kinds of partnerships I described. I saw some polling recently that showed that the general public thought vaping was as dangerous as smoking, and this is the kind of messaging that gives that wrong impression, which is against the Government’s stated aim.

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