Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Before we were rudely disturbed by the weekend—I hope that all Members had a good one—we were coming to the conclusion of the debate on this grouping. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to discussions last week; I will continue to respond to the outstanding points raised in the previous sitting.

On the Windsor framework, we are proud to say that the Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in partnership, in full, with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. This Government, and I hope this House, intend the smoke-free generation policy to apply to all four nations.

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

I have a quick question for the Minister about some of his answers last week about the clause. He said that tobacco products would include bongs, and was quite passionate about that. But clause 48, which is meant to be read in relation to clause 1, defines “tobacco product” as something that contains tobacco. I have seen bongs made of glass, ceramics and various other things, but I have never seen one that contains tobacco. It is certainly easy to make one that does not contain tobacco. I am therefore interested in why the Minister believes that the Bill equates bongs and tobacco products.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that. We will come on to those issues in more detail when we eventually reach those clauses, which given the rate of progress so far may be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, if Members decide so. The only reason why such paraphernalia is on display and legally sold is to consume tobacco, but we will get more information on that for her when we get to clause 45, which covers that issue.

I was talking about the Windsor framework. We believe that this policy is in accordance with our international obligations. In terms of what products are in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, including shisha, cigars and heated tobacco. That is because all tobacco products are harmful. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For example, tobacco smoke from cigars leads to the same types of disease as the smoke from cigarettes. In England alone, around five times as many people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, as did a decade ago, and children are a part of that increase. Shisha, to which the hon. Member for Windsor referred, also causes the same diseases as cigarettes, including cancer, respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The volume of smoke produced in the average 45-minute shisha session is estimated to be the same as around 25 cigarettes’-worth of tar, 11 cigarettes’-worth of carbon monoxide and two cigarettes’-worth of nicotine.

Finally, there is clear evidence about the toxicity of heated tobacco. The aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens, and there will be some risk to the health of anyone using those products. The crucial point is that, unlike with vapes, there is no evidence that heated tobacco supports smoking cessation. We must ensure that the Bill is future-proofed to include new or novel products, such as heated tobacco, to protect the public from the harms of tobacco use.

Although cigarettes are the most used form of tobacco, we do not want to create loopholes in the Bill so that the tobacco industry can pivot and continue addicting people to tobacco. As I said previously, the issue is about saying, “The market share you’ve got now is it. We are stopping the conveyor belt.” As we know, if we block one road, the tobacco industry finds another route through. We are making sure that the Bill is as watertight and future-proof as possible so that the tobacco industry can no longer continue to trade with another product that harms and addicts future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I stand by what I have already said. The intention is to work with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get the mechanisms in place that allow them to adequately enforce the measures in the Bill. We do not want to get this wrong. I politely say to the hon. Lady, however, that in the first instance it is highly unlikely that a veteran born before 1 January 2009 will seek to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products and be queried about their age. I will take on board what has been said and, if what I said earlier is incorrect, we can perhaps come back to the issue.

I want to come back to tobacco products because the point is crucial. We want to ensure that the tobacco industry has that conveyor belt cut-off. It is therefore rational for all the products that I have mentioned to be included in the smoke-free generation legislation. That will prevent anyone from taking up use of the products in the first place.

As I stated in my opening speech, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for bringing the discussion before the Committee, but while I appreciate his intention, it is not something the Government support. In relation to the amendments, I say to the Committee that the Government do not believe it is appropriate to establish a more lenient penalty regime for the offences, or to introduce a mandatory age-verification policy.

The clause seeks to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products. The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and putting us on track towards a smoke-free UK. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. May I ask a procedural question? I heard some Members shout, “Aye”, and some Members shout, “No”. In the previous session we recorded what Members said, but we have not done so this time. Can I inquire as to what the reason for that is? Last time there was a vote that was then recorded for Hansard, but that has not happened this time.

[The Chair]

That is because a Division was not called. I made the decision that the Ayes had it in this particular case and that the Noes did not. If a Member wished to challenge that at the time and call a Division, they were free to do so. They did not—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

How would they do that?

[The Chair]

They would just indicate that they wished for a Division—keep shouting, in effect.

[The Chair]

Regrettably, we have moved on.

Clause 2

Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, 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 provides for a discretionary caution.”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 56, 57, and 58, prevents penalties under sections 1 and 2 beyond level 3 for a first offence and provides for a discretionary caution.

Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 76, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, 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 a conditional caution.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 58 and 59 seek to amend clause 2. Will we get the chance to debate clause 2 later, Mr Dowd?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 58 and 59 go back to the principle of proportionality. I know the Minister gave his views on that last week, so I will not go on at length. But there is a difference between the individual shop assistant who may make an intentional error, and a shop that continues to repeatedly and recklessly sell to children or people who are too young to buy an age-restricted product. That is the principle of the amendments—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. Can we be clear? If Members want to speak in the debate they should bob, just like in the Chamber. If you wish to intervene, Ms Jarvis—I assume you do, but I do not know—you could bring your request for the intervention to the person who is speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. I am sure the shadow Minister will note that.

[Dr Johnson]

My apologies. I was explaining the principle behind Opposition amendments 58 and 59, which are in my name. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Eastleigh was present on Thursday afternoon. Clause 2 refers to a “person” but does not specify who that person is, and there is as yet no guidance. The Minister said that the person could be the shopkeeper, the shop worker, the chief executive officer or whoever trading standards decided was the right person.

The fines to deter or punish illegal behaviour would necessarily need to be significantly larger for a large corporation than for a young chap of 19 working a few hours in the corner shop on a Saturday afternoon, for whom some fines would be quite punitive. The amendments allow for first offences to be treated leniently, in comparison with repeat offences, and their aim is to encourage the Government to think more carefully about guidance. When the previous Bill was introduced last Easter by the Conservative Government, with very similar wording in many cases, that Government produced guidance on how those charges would be applied. I am trying to encourage the Government to do the same thing. That is the purpose of the amendments.

I will endeavour to speak a bit louder. I do not know whether the hearing loop is working—

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is not.

[Dr Johnson]

I apologise again for not speaking loudly enough.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As we have already argued, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of purchasing tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone under age—commonly known as proxy purchasing. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person could face for committing that offence, if it was the person’s first offence. The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable, on summary conviction,

“to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”,

which is £1,000, or liable instead to a discretionary caution in England and Wales or to a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the fine for which someone who committed that offence would be liable under the current legislation in England and Wales—level 4, which is £2,500. It is two levels lower than in Northern Ireland, where the fine would be at level 5, which is £5,000.

The amendments would have a similar effect on first-time offences as amendments that we have already discussed. If the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself as the rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same as that for amendments that we have already covered.

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 75 and 76 have the same principle behind them, so I will not repeat myself. They relate to clause 69; as hon. Members will recall, clause 69 amends Northern Ireland legislation that is similar to the legislation in clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

There is a technical hitch with the sound. We will suspend to sort it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are considering amendment 59 to clause 2, which was debated with amendment 58 to clause 2. Dr Johnson, have you decided whether you want to press amendment 59 to a Division?

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Johnson]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd, I just wanted to understand. In this morning’s groupings, which were sent by the Clerks, it appeared that not only amendments 58, 59, 75 and 76, but amendments 19 to 21 and 34 to 37 were to be debated before clause 2 stand part. Why were those latter amendments not called?

[The Chair]

As I indicated, the point had already been debated, so it was my decision that we would move on.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The Bill ensures that no one over the age of 18 is legally able to purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone under the legal age of sale, and there is a differential over time there. The age of 18 was chosen as it avoids criminalising children. This measure applies to all adults, and it does not allow for any ambiguity in law in the future. For example, it captures a situation in which someone over the age of 18, but under the legal age of sale for tobacco, attempts to buy products for a child. This action would be restricted, and the liability would not only be on the person selling the tobacco product, but also on the adult attempting to buy that product for the child.

These clauses align proxy purchasing offences with the new age of sale restriction for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They provide a defence if a person charged with this offence can prove they had no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009 or they can prove that they had no reason to believe that the other person intended to use the cigarette papers for smoking, which is in line with existing defences. These clauses are essential to ensure that there are no loopholes in the age of sale legislation, and they build on what works in the current age of sale legislation. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 2 makes it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to make a proxy purchase of tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for a person born on or after 1 January 2009. It essentially stops an older person going in and buying those products for a younger person, which we are aware has been happening for many years with both tobacco and alcohol. If found guilty, the person committing the offence faces a level 4 fine on the standard scale, which hon. Members will recall is £2,500.

The clause replaces the current offence under section 91 of the Children and Families Act of someone aged over 18 buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone aged under 18 in England and Wales. In many ways, that seems a sensible consequence to clause 1. If we want it to be illegal for people born after a set date to have tobacco, it makes sense to ensure that people cannot buy it for them.

However, I have some questions, particularly in relation to cigarette papers. I did not particularly talk about cigarette papers in our discussion of clause 1 because they are more rightly talked about in relation to clause 2, which treats cigarette papers differently, in so far as it makes them illegal unless a person can prove that they are using them for something else. I looked into what that something else might be. I naively thought that cigarette papers were essentially just bits of paper of a particular thinness that could be rolled up and stuck together with a little gum arabic once somebody had rolled whatever they wanted to roll inside them; in fact, that turns out not to be the case because of the law.

The papers contain ethylene-vinyl acetate, which makes them more fire-resistant. The sad situation is that every year people smoke in bed or in their armchair, fall asleep and cause themselves burns, and sometimes even cause death or house fires. The ethylene-vinyl acetate—a sort of plastic—added to cigarette papers helps them to self-extinguish and reduces the risk of fires; we know that some particularly dreadful fires, such as the Kings Cross fire, are believed to have been caused by loose cigarettes.

The cigarette papers are essentially made from plant fibre, such as bamboo flax and rice, but they can be flavoured and coloured. In the evidence given to the Committee last Tuesday, we heard about the tobacco industry’s aim of ensuring that younger people are enticed by colours and flavours. A quick look at Amazon—other sellers are, of course, available—reveals that people can buy cigarette papers in a whole range of bright colours. People can also buy cigarette papers with pictures of cherries, apricots, bubbles and all sorts of things on them. I thought it was interesting that that has not been covered in relation to cigarette papers. Why give an exemption allowing them to continue to be sold when the reality is that they will continue to be used for rolling either illegal tobacco or other forms of illegal drug?

[Gregory Stafford]

Is my hon. Friend saying that cigarette papers have a specific definition in law and therefore that the papers she talks about, which have chemicals to make them fire-resistant and so on, will be banned, or is she saying that the clause will ban anything that could be used as a cigarette paper within the law? If she does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister can pick that up when he responds.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 48, which we obviously have not come on to yet, gives the interpretation of part 1 and all the definitions. The definition of cigarette papers in the Bill includes

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

Different chemicals are put in, believe it or not, to make the ash whiter—people are concerned, when they have burnt their cigarette, with the colour of the ash that has fallen from it, which seems remarkable to me. Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and titanium oxide can be added to affect the colour of not just the paper, but the ash produced. Seignette salts—sodium potassium tartrate and sodium citrate—are also added to make it burn faster, so that people go through cigarettes slightly more quickly. Then there is the glue of the acacia gum.

As far as I can tell, it is impossible to find out what is in the cigarette papers that one might wish to purchase; if one looks online, it is very hard to work out what is in them. I have seen medical reports of people allergic to the ingredients having: cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips; circumoral—around the mouth—inflammation; and finger dermatitis. If one is selling a ham sandwich, it is important to include the ingredients so that people know what it is in it, but it seems that for cigarette papers that is not the case and I am not entirely sure why. It is also the case that some commercially available papers contain copper, chromium and vanadium. As they burn, the pigments can lead to very high levels of exposure. These are not inexpensive; Amazon sells a random choice of eight flavours for £9.99. The issues are worth considering. It has been proposed that individual cigarette papers have on them a message saying “Smoking is bad for you” or something along those lines, but does that not involve adding further chemicals to the paper and therefore further risk?

Clause 2(3) states:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”

of proxy purchasing

“to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking”,

To which the somewhat obvious question is, “What on earth else would one use cigarette papers for?” With some trepidation, I asked Mr Google. Initially, all I could find was that they are used for smoking joints of cannabis, which did not seem to me a particularly good reason—the smoking of another illegal substance—for the Government to exclude them. Then I found out that some people use them for woodwind instruments. They place them underneath the key and press the key down, which allows extraneous water to be soaked up. They then release the key and pull the paper out. That helps to dry the instrument, prolong its life and prevent damage. Clarinet players—I did learn the clarinet but I did not know this; maybe that is why I was not so good at it—or players of the oboe, bassoon, flute or saxophone can buy cigarettes papers for that purpose.

The question of whether the Government need to provide an exemption for cigarette papers hinges on whether there is an alternative for the public to use for their woodwind instruments—and there is, of course. It is obvious in some respects that the market would provide one were cigarette papers banned. Connoisseurs of such instruments tell me that cigarette papers are not ideal to use for this purpose because of the additional, potentially toxic chemicals they contain—one is potentially inhaling bits of the chemicals back in—and because it is not ideal to get traces of the gum on one’s instrument. It is possible buy Superslick Pad and Yamaha cleaning papers. As far as I can tell, they do not contain toxic chemicals, because nobody would be interested in whether the ash burnt from them was white or otherwise since no one is going to set fire to them. Is it therefore really necessary to have a specific exemption for the use of cigarette papers for instruments, when in practice that is unlikely to be what they will be used for? There is an alternative and the most likely use—I think the Minister will understand this—is that they will be used for smoking joints.

[Sarah Bool]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. My first question was, “Well, what else they would be using cigarette papers for?” The second question—which maybe the Minister can answer—is about the level of proof. This comes up not only in clause 2(3), but elsewhere in clause 2. I know that the Minister will say, in relation to clause 2(3), that this is in line with legislation as it currently stands, but if we are tightening up on the whole, perhaps this is an area that we should consider tightening up further?

[Dr Johnson]

Indeed, it does seem contradictory, if not counterintuitive. It also leaves us with a bizarre situation where, were someone to be a bassoon player, for example, and they wished to buy these products to use for the alternative purpose of drying their keys, then they would have to get someone else to buy them because they would not be able to buy them themselves. For a child born after 1 January 2009 and learning to play such an instrument, either the market will need to provide another opportunity to buy such a product, or the child will need someone else to buy the product for them. That does not make sense. The rolling age of sale that we discussed in clause 1 means that, over time, the number of individuals wanting to buy the product for their instruments but not allowed to, compared to the number of people allowed to, would inevitably diminish. We would have a larger group of people trying to find an ever smaller group of people to buy their cigarette papers for them for that purpose. To some extent, it would be more sensible to remove subsection (3) all together because it creates a loophole that will be used almost entirely for illegal uses of these papers. There is a market already providing a reasonably priced alternative for people to use for their instruments—which in practice are better for instruments in any case.

The final point is on the burden of proof. As a defence, someone purchasing the product on behalf of another has to prove they have no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009. What does that really mean? Is that a reversal of the burden of proof? Is it saying a person has to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove them guilty? In what circumstances would it apply? In what circumstances is it necessary for someone to buy cigarette papers, other than the oboe player or the saxophone player? I guess if someone in his or her 70s attends a corner shop but has forgotten their ID, they could ask somebody older to buy the papers for them; I guess that would be okay. They may find that they have come with a veterans card, thinking that they can use it because it is usable for voter ID, but that particular type of ID is not included; we have discussed widening the scope of those documents.

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

I understand that the term “cigarette paper” clearly indicates that the primary use for such an item is likely to be tobacco usage. However, it is not exclusive. As a model maker, I use cigarette papers in model making. I understand they are also used in art and in other activities. Although I am not suggesting that there are no alternative products to cigarette papers, it is not 100% exclusive. With respect, I think the clause refers to a person buying cigarette papers for another individual for a purpose other than smoking—if that can be proved. I accept what the hon. Lady is saying, but think she is stretching the point quite a lot.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I searched quite extensively for other uses of cigarette papers and had not come across that one; that is very interesting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks they need to have pictures on them—perhaps that helps with the art. I think there is still a difference in a cigarette paper that contains extra toxic chemicals to help it burn a particular colour, for example. I am not sure whether there is any particular art or model making application for having the cigarette paper with all the chemicals in, as opposed to any other type of paper that is produced for the purpose. Inevitably, the market would produce a non-cigarette paper for the purpose, which would reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that are used and therefore also the amount of toxic chemicals in our environment—given that, inevitably, once they finish being used, they get wasted.

The point stands that the papers themselves contain toxins that would not be required for any other uses, whether that be for models, art or music. Therefore, since such products are available on the market to buy separately from cigarette papers, though they may currently be slightly more expensive, the Minister may want to consider removing that exemption, because it inevitably creates a loophole for these products to be used for the smoking of illegal tobacco or a joint.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is interesting—now that we have moved on to the alternative uses—to note that anyone who has ever had children knows that pipe cleaners are an essential part of any craft kit. Obviously, they can be used for cleaning a pipe, as well as making a spider or whatever else. The Minister has not sought to ban pipe cleaners in the same way. I wonder why he has picked out cigarette papers, which have alternative uses, but not pipe cleaners, which clearly have alternative uses as well.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing back painful memories of trying to create things with pipe cleaners for my children, and trying to make them stand up straight when they simply are not quite that stiff—but some fun memories, too. Yes, I do see that they are used in art. That suggests another question. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that the Government have chosen to ban cigarette papers because they want to reduce the amount of people smoking illegal tobacco; it is also an opportunity to reduce the amount of availability of papers for smoking cannabis and other illegal products, but why have they not included filters?

For many years, the tobacco industry has implied that smoking through a filter is safer and many in the population believe that smoking through a filter is safer, but it is a single-use plastic—and I am sure the Minister is very worried about the environment and the use of single-use plastics. The previous Government banned quite a lot of single-use plastic items to reduce waste. The cigarette filter is the most littered item globally every year and it is a single-use plastic. It contains a cellulose acetate filter, which I am told is a plastic pollution. It also increases the risk of a particular form of lung cancer, because the tiny little itty bits of plastic are inhaled into the individual who is smoking. They also increase the way that people draw on a cigarette, which means they could take in more of the toxins when there is a filter than when there is not. Will the Minister discuss whether he plans to include filters on Report?

Let us look at international examples. In 2011, the United States said that all cigarette papers should have Food and Drug Administration approval for their ingredients. Is the Minister considering publishing the ingredients on the packet here in the UK, so that if they are to continue to be sold, people are aware of the toxins they contain? Further, where these products are being used for modelling or art purposes, perhaps such steps will start to reduce the number of toxins contained in them.

As part of clause 2 we are also going to discuss clause 69 stand part. Clause 69 substitutes for article 4A of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That is, essentially, identical to clause 2, except for the fact that subsection (4) states someone guilty of an offence under the article is liable to a fine “not exceeding level 5”, whereas clause 2 says “not exceedingly level 4.” As the Minister is looking for consistency across the four countries of the United Kingdom, could he explain why he has chosen to have a lower level of fine for the proxy sales offence here than he has in Northern Ireland?

It should be noted that, although we have already discussed clause 50, that part of the Bill provides for legislation for proxy sales in Scotland, where the fine threshold is also set at level 5. I understand that the Minister is a fan of devolution, and wants devolved nations to be able to have different fines, so why has he chosen the fine level for this particular part of the country to be at level 4, which is lower than in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Additionally, section 5 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 says that it is illegal to buy, or attempt to buy, for oneself if under 18. Is it the Minister’s intention to amend that? That is my final question on clause 2.

[Jack Rankin]

I do not intend to go over the scope of the clause in great detail, because I think the principles largely flow form the principles of clause 1, but I will pick up on the cigarette paper point that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister made, and talk about clause 2(3):

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of cigarette papers to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking.”

I commend the shadow Minister’s researchers, because I can feel her thoroughness—I know a lot more about cigarette papers than I did an hour ago, and much more about cigarette papers than I thought there could possibly be to know, so she has answered some of my question.

[Dr Johnson]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has found today interesting. Does he also find it interesting that some of these papers that can currently be bought legally from major retailers in the United Kingdom are not just coloured and have designs on, but flavoured? That is clearly not necessary for someone using them for a model or artwork. They may make people smoke more, because they disguise the taste of the tobacco and make smoking more pleasant.

[Jack Rankin]

I believe that is the case, and it is something I did not know before today. My questions were along the lines of: is this not just paper, and, if so, why is it excluded in some sense? I was racking my brain for legitimate reasons, and, in her speech, the shadow Minister gave some legitimate reasons, whether that is the woodwind instruments, or the model making mentioned by the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It seems to me that—even though I disagree with the principle of the Bill—those extra properties would not be necessary for those legitimate uses in this instance.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the market should be able to make a difference. Clause 2(3) should be struck from the Bill, because it does not seem that there is a legitimate use for cigarette papers that would not be picked up in another way, shape or form if that subsection were removed. I understand from the guidance I received as a new Member on my first day here that I have to three days to table an amendment before discussion, but I would suggest the removal of subsection (3). Perhaps the Government will consider whether the provision should remain fully in the next iteration of the clause later in this process.

I also want to speak to the term “no reason to suspect”, because I am not clear where the burden of proof sits. If someone goes into a newsagent to order cigarette papers, the overwhelming likelihood is that they will use them to smoke cigarettes. I accept that other reasons exist, but is the shopkeeper supposed to ask? The Bill says “no reason to suspect”; I would expect shopkeepers to have every reason to suspect that people who buy cigarette papers smoke cigarettes. It seems a little woolly. What would the Minister expect the shopkeeper to do in those instances? Is he supposed to ask? If the person says, “I am using this for a woodwind instrument,” is that sufficient? If I were a person who wished to get around the law, I could pretty easily work out that that would get me around the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is a good question. Of course, if it was to be used for the consumption of tobacco, it would come within the scope of the Bill. We have to be clear that many of these products have dual uses, as we have heard. I am as guilty as anybody of making pipe-cleaner characters for my children and grandchildren—grandchild, rather, because I have only one so far.

We want to make sure that those who want to continue smoking are able to do so, but that obvious restrictions and boundaries are put in place regarding the accessibility of these products, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be sold them.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the Minister for engaging in this discussion, because although it is somewhat technical to discuss cigarette papers, it is important. The hon. Member for Worthing West made the key distinction, which is that it is about the ingredients that are in a product. It would be possible for the Minister to devise legislation that sought to ban cigarette papers, without preventing a market in a similar product that would be ineffective as a cigarette paper but useful for the average modeller.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Perhaps we will return to that on Report. I have every sympathy with what the shadow Minister says. We do not want to prevent the legitimate use—indeed, a whole variety of uses—of these products, which is why we have the exemption in the Bill. If we are able to do what she suggests under the powers in the Bill, that would be great; if we can do only some of what she asks for in respect of flavours, that would go part of the way, and we will need to look at how we can strengthen that. If the shadow Minister can be a little patient, I think we can come back to this on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. I do not mind Members seeking clarification, but when the Minister has sat down we need to leave it at that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Tobacco vending machines

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses restate the ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and extend it to include vending machines that sell cigarette papers. The prohibition came into force in 2011 in England and in 2012 in Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the amendments made by the Bill it will be an offence for a person with management or control of a premises to have a vending machine available for use from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarettes may be bought.

The prohibition was originally introduced because tobacco vending machines were largely unsupervised and allowed under-age access to tobacco. In 2010, 8% of 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly smoked said that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes. The policy has successfully contributed to reducing smoking rates in young people and has been effective at enabling the age-of-sale restrictions to be implemented and enforced properly.

The existing legislation is consolidated in the Bill to replace the regulations that cover an automatic machine from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers may be bought. With all the restrictions that apply to such products covered in one Act, those who are affected by and who apply the legislation will find it easier to access them. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister says, clause 3 outlaws the use of vending machines that sell tobacco or tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I note that there are no amendments to clause 3, presumably because it is somewhat settled and established law.

In the same way as vapes and other nicotine products, which we will come to later, vending machines make it much easier for people under the age of 18—or, under clause 1, those born after 1 January 2009—to buy age-restricted products that they are not legally allowed to purchase. They are self-service machines, so it is difficult to prove age and easy to get around if it is machine led. Historically, such machines have often been unsupervised by staff in a shop, thereby providing easy opportunities for younger people to buy from them.

It was coalition Government legislation—the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010—that banned the sale of tobacco products from vending machines from 1 October 2011. That statutory instrument was made under section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which was inserted by section 22 of the Health Act 2009. That is a complex chain to follow, so having this clause where everything is in one place is much simpler. The clause also adds herbal smoking and cigarette paper vending machines to the legislation—on a personal level, I welcome that, for the reasons I have given already—and clarifies the penalty, which was more difficult to establish when looking at the previous trail of legislation.

However, the clause does change the terminology. Previously, it was illegal on the basis of sale “from an automatic machine”; the Bill talks about an “automatic machine from which” products “may be bought”. It seems that they are the same thing, but of course we heard repeatedly in evidence how the tobacco industry tries to get round these things.

I found a trail of people discussing online how to get round the vending machine legislation, which raised various questions. If I buy a product from a major retailer online, I can choose to get that delivered to my home, I can collect it from one of its stores, and I can also pick it up from our local Co-op, the local post office, or from a box with a keypad door, at the garage and in other locations. If one were to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers using an online app, and collect them from a dispensing machine—an automatic machine that dispenses cigarettes—in a pub, would that be covered by this legislation, or is that a loophole that could be exploited? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, because we have heard how inventive the industry is. Would it be possible for people to circumnavigate the Bill’s intent by creating a machine that does not sell the product but simply gives to a person the product they have already bought?

Clause 70 applies to Northern Ireland. It will insert into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the new article 4B, which is essentially the same as clause 3, so the same questions and comments apply. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that in Northern Ireland we have a level 5 offence, and in England and Wales we have a level 4 offence.

I wondered briefly why there was no clause for Scotland, but section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to have an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco products, regardless of whether the machine also sells other products, with a level 4 fine, so Members can be reassured that that is covered. I do not think the Minister answered this point in relation to the previous clause: clearly he chooses the fine levels for England and Wales in the Bill; why has he chosen to have the same penalty as Scotland but a lower penalty than that in Northern Ireland?

[Sarah Bool]

Clause 3(1) says:

“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a tobacco vending machine is available for use.”

My first point goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about the concept of that person, because that leads to some questions and confusion about where the liability sits. When it comes to the person who has management or control of the premises, we might expect there to be a landlord and a tenant, in which case perhaps the tenant has control legally under the terms of their lease. But if the landlord has a managing agent—the hint is in the name—could they be caught within the scope of the Bill if they have not done enough to prevent the machine from being on the property?

What about cases in which a landlord who is a licensor has a licensee? The concept is slightly different: it is not as official as a lease, but someone has the right to use the premises but not exclusive use or possession of the premises. We could potentially argue about who actually has the management and control of the property in that instance. It would be interesting to know whether in future landlords could be in trouble if they do not include in the lease a provision that bans the location and siting of a vending machine in the property. I do not think that would be where landlords currently stand, but that is perhaps worth considering. It seems pedantic but, knowing the way the legal system can go when people want to find defences, we do have to stress test the wording we use, so we need to examine the concept of a person having management and control.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point that I had not fully considered: who is responsible where you have a larger corporation with a group of shops beneath? You have the board level, the regional managers, the local shop manager, the shift supervisor and then the shop worker, so who has the control? Is that something the Government have a fixed position on, or would each company individually need to prove who that was? If trading standards was prosecuting such an offence and chose the wrong individual, would the Government allow the corporation to get off scot-free?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is something we are duty-bound to explore and test, to make sure we can avoid any problems with the roll-out and implementation of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister says, clause 4 makes it against the law to sell cigarettes that are not in their original packaging, so that individual or small amounts of cigarettes cannot be sold separately. That is in part because cigarette packets now have standardised formats, warnings and information designed to alert the smoker to the health problems caused by the smoking habit, and selling cigarettes outside the packets means the smoker avoids that information.

I asked the Minister earlier about proposals for warning notices about smoking on the cigarette paper itself, but I did not hear his thoughts. The notices might ensure that, were individual sales to happen despite the law, the warning would still be received by the child or smoker, but there is also the risk of adding additional chemicals to the paper. Where does he think the benefit or balance of risk lies in that respect?

Everywhere else the Bill makes it an offence for a “person” to do something, so why does the clause mention a “tobacco retailer” rather than a “person”? If the Minister does not wish cigarettes to be sold individually, why would it be more of an offence for a proper tobacco retailer to sell them individually than it would be for an individual who is not a tobacco retailer? Why the change in wording? I do not understand. If someone is not a tobacco retailer, it would clearly be illegal, because they would have no licence. Why not have this additional offence for the most reckless people, so that they can be dealt with more severely?

As the Minister says, the minimum pack size of 20 was brought forward in 2017, because it was felt that packs of 10 were closer to the level of pocket money and were encouraging the uptake of cigarettes by children. When we come to vaping, we will discuss the pocket money nature of some of these products.

[Jack Rankin]

Certainly in my experience, the only reason people sell unpackaged cigarettes is to make them cheaper for schoolchildren, so I find it strange that subsection (2) states that the fine is level 3 on the standard scale. If I understand what my hon. Friend said in the last sitting about the standard scale, level 3 is lower than the level 4 fine for sale. A sale could have been in error, but unpackaging cigarettes to sell to schoolchildren seems deliberately malicious, so I am surprised that it is not treated more severely. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on that.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right that the offence of selling a product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 is something someone could do unintentionally. They could genuinely believe the ID in front of them, or that the person looked so significantly older that it was not even necessary to ask them for ID, whereas selling cigarettes outside the packaging requires the deliberate act of removing them from the packet and selling them individually, in a way that is not normally done. I think my hon. Friend is right, and it is perhaps surprising to have a deliberate act at a lower fine level than a potentially unintentional one.

[Sarah Bool]

Why are we limiting this to cigarettes? Forgive me, I am not an expert—I have never bought herbal smoking products—but if we are applying the same rules and we just want an outright ban, perhaps we should apply it generally, in case there are rule changes, to the sale of not only unpackaged cigarettes but unpackaged herbal smoking products. That would add further to the emphasis on changing the term from “a tobacco retailer” to “a person”, as my hon. Friend suggested.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to talk about the quantity. If the principle behind this clause is to ensure that the quantity of sale is such that it restricts younger people from purchasing these products with their pocket money, what consideration has the Minister given to the quantities of herbal cigarettes, or herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers, so that they would be purchased in quantities not easily accessible to young people?

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about the fine levels, the fines are level 3, which in this case is consistent across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Clause 51 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to add proposed new section 4E, which essentially has the same effect—it is different wording, but it has the same essential effect of banning the sale of loose cigarettes. Clause 71 adds proposed new section 4C, which is essentially the same as clause 4, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to have the same effect. Again, it has the same fine, so there is some consistency across the four nations of the country, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters. Again, it is a case of perhaps overcomplicating what the clause does. As with clause 3, clause 4 merely restates that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. We are not talking about proxy purchasing, or somebody breaking up a packet of cigarettes and selling them as an individual; we are talking here about retailers. This practice used to be quite common, but thankfully, because of the measures that are already in place, it is already an offence and we are reaffirming that offence in the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister says that it has been illegal for some time and that is an offence to sell loose cigarettes, and of course it has been. However, we heard in evidence from the Royal College of Physicians last week that the sale of loose cigarettes to youngsters was still a problem—it is an entry way into cigarettes. Does the Minister have any comment on whether reaffirming the offence with this legislation will actually help to enforce it to any greater degree?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, I believe it will. Of course, this measure is not being taken in isolation, and it is not just a stand-alone measure. This is part of a whole package of tobacco control measures that form this part of the Bill. Taken together, these things will ensure that we drive down even further smoking prevalence in young people. However, we do not want to undo the legislation as it stands; we need it to be part and parcel of the whole raft of measures we are bringing forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clauses 5, 6 and 72 replace the requirement for age of sale notices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to reflect the new age of sale for tobacco products. Clause 55 provides Scottish Ministers with the power to set requirements about warning statements, which are notices that reflect the new age of sale requirements there. Age of sale notices are required under current legislation and must state in a prominent position:

“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18.”

The Bill will replace that requirement with a requirement for notices to reflect the new age of sale, stating:

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

The notices must comply with any requirements set out in regulations on the size or appearance of those notices. This updated wording on age of sale notices will support tobacco retailers in implementing the new age of sale restrictions by helping to clarify and underline them for customers and staff. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

Clauses 5, 6, 55 and 72 make provision for age of sale notices. Clause 5(1) makes it clear on which premises the notices must be displayed. In some respects, that is obvious, but the fact that the Bill makes clear that the notices must be on the same premises where the tobacco is being sold is perhaps a sign that the Minister has the measure of the tobacco industry: if that was not clearly stipulated, there would be temptation to display the notices in head office or somewhere else where no one could see them. The fact that it is thought necessary to state what is blindingly obvious—that the notice must be displayed in the right place—is somewhat sad.

Subsection (3) deals with positioning. The statement that the notice must be prominent and readily visible at each point of sale is relevant to shops that have more than one till at the counter. One sometimes goes to the counter of a large supermarket, or similar, and sees a whole row of tills. It is therefore important that the signs are visible from all the tills, not just the one closest to the tobacco.

What the notice must say is provided for in subsection (2):

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

That is clear, simple and informative, which is good. However, it does not mention cigarette papers or herbal smoking products. Why has the Minister chosen not to include the other items included in the rolling age of sale and the Government’s smoke-free generation on the notice for clarity? That is important because we heard in evidence, and have all read in the news, of examples where people who work in our retail sector have been treated in an abusive—sometimes violent—fashion or people have been very rude to them.

If the purpose of the notice is to be clear on what the law is, providing clarity that it also includes herbal smoking products and cigarette papers would enable the public to be aware of the law and the retailer to point to the sign and say, “I can’t do this—look.” The message as currently drafted does not do that, and that could cause shopkeepers or shop assistants more difficulty. I notice that under subsection (4), any aspect of the notices, including the appearance and wording, can be amended, so that could be done at a later date if the Minister feels that the shopkeepers’ evidence is that herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are proving a challenge. Why has he chosen not to do that at the outset?

Subsection (7) talks about a defence of having taken reasonable steps. I have two questions on that. First, is “It fell down and I hadn’t noticed, your honour” an adequate defence? How does the Minister envisage the reasonable steps defence? What are the reasonable steps? If the Government choose under subsection (4) to change the appearance or wording—perhaps if they discover it is inadequate in some way—what steps will need to be taken to ensure that all retailers are aware of those changes, and within what timeframe will retailers be expected to react to those changes?

The impact assessment says that the cost of putting up a new sign is not prohibitively expensive for an individual business—it is about £4 per retailer—but it means that there is an overall cost to small and micro-retailers of around £124,000 in England, and £143,000 in the UK. That is a cost to business overall, even if a small one to individual businesses. The impact assessment also notes the cost of staff training and awareness. There are an estimated 42,582 convenience stores in England, each with a store manager who would have to disseminate that information to the estimated 299,957 members of staff. Of those stores, 71% would be considered small or microbusinesses.

The cost of amending those things means that the Opposition invite the Minister to get the notice right the first time so costs are not incurred twice. There is an estimated cost of around £2 million in total on training. Although the cost to any one small or microbusiness is likely to be small—around £70 on average—that cost combined with £4 for a sign, at a time when small businesses are being squeezed by other budgetary measures the Government have brought in, is another potential straw to break the camel’s back.

The fine is at a level 3, and the person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail is the person who is liable. But what does it mean to be

“a person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail”.

Is it the director of the business? Is it the store manager who is on duty that day? Is it the overall store manager, or is it the licence holder?

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend has previously sought to amend the Bill in various places to add the qualifier “save for the first offence”. It seems to me that, particularly in the first instance, this could be a genuine oversight and that it would be appropriate for a council officer or someone from trading standards to simply bring it to the attention of store management and ask them to rectify it over a period of time. Does she think this clause should be tweaked in such a way, on the same principle on which that she has sought to amend other clauses?

[Dr Johnson]

I am going to disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. There will be licensing for tobacco products, and part of the due diligence of setting up to sell such products includes familiarising oneself with the legislation as it stands and thus with the regulations around signage, buying and putting up the appropriate signs, and providing the appropriate training. The challenge occurs if the Government seek to amend the notice, at which point they would need to ensure that they had given adequate notice and information to the company to ensure that it had the time, resources and information to put up the correct signs.

[Tristan Osborne]

On signs, if we accept the premise that the law is changed—as we have done in clause 1—to include a rolling scale with the date being 1 January 2009, signs will have to be updated in any event to reflect that. The current signs about being 18 would have to be removed. On the definition on the signs—tobacco products versus relevant products—is it not clearer to the public, who are going to be the purchasers of the products, if it is tobacco products? It does not preclude extra signage, which exists in many stores, of what can and cannot be purchased. While I accept the premise of the idea of relevant products versus tobacco products, for the public it would be clearer if it were tobacco products.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that those selling tobacco products legally now will need to change their signs to have the date of 1 January 2009 on them, as opposed to the age of 18, because that will be the law: that clause has now passed, and I expect that it will continue its passage through the House and the other place, because it has broad support among the public and within Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Beccy Cooper]

I just wanted to clarify something with the hon. Lady, because she is talking about the size of the signs in Wales, under clause 6, I think. Clause 6(4) says:

“The notice must comply with any requirements set out in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers”.

I presume that that is the response that she is looking for: the Welsh Ministers will absolutely be able to decide on the size of the signs.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is making, I think, an important point about whether Ministers, either in England or in the devolved Administrations, can put signs together in order to reduce the burden on a business of having multiple, potentially confusing signs. I understand the point about devolution, but most ordinary people will look for a single regulated sign for this. I wonder whether there is any discussion—even if the Minister cannot legally enforce it within the Bill—about working in tandem with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that there can be a standardised sign, so that it is abundantly clear, whether someone is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, that that is the sign, and that it is both clear to consumers and it is clear to businesses what they are supposed to be displaying.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is of course correct that we have devolution, and the hon. Member for Worthing West is of course right that Welsh Ministers—in the same way as Scottish Ministers, and, as I will come to, Northern Irish Ministers—have the capacity to deal with changes to the signs, but it will be easier to have clarity. I am merely suggesting that the Minister could discuss these details with his devolved counterparts and put such measures on the face of the Bill now, rather than not do so and then require, for example, as I said before, the Scottish Ministers to then introduce an SI for something that could be changed much more cheaply with drafting now. It would require much less time and energy from the civil service in Scotland—and spend less taxpayers’ money—to achieve that.

I am interested by the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about joint signs. The point I was making was about the display space: if someone has to put a lot of different signs up—particularly given that the Minister has shown reluctance on the principle of a nicotine-free generation, which I suspect is where we will end up—and we need to do that at a later date, we will end up with yet another sign with yet another date on it. There comes a point at which the amount of display space available to retailers starts to become smaller, given the required font size.

Before I finish, I have one more quick point, which is just to note that clause 72 is the Northern Irish equivalent added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, so it is the same as clause 5, with the same effect.

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To those to whom I have not already had the opportunity to say so, happy new year.

Let me first set out a few housekeeping arrangements. Please switch off all electronic devices. We do not want phones ringing; I hope mine is off. No food and drink is permitted during sittings, apart from water. If anybody needs anything else, will they please leave the room and obtain it from the usual places? If Members have speaking notes, they are always useful to Hansard, particularly if they refer to a name or a business in a constituency or anything like that. That just about deals with that bit of it.

We are about to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

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

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Good morning; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise on a point of order about the groupings for our discussions today. They are normally provided in good time, but at about 9 o’clock last night my team were provided with two versions that differed slightly: one from the Government and another from the Clerk. That did not give adequate time for the groupings to be properly considered. As you know, Sir Roger, this Bill is really important to me, but it is also important to the House and to our constituents. It aims to revolutionise their health and wellbeing. It is really very important that we get it right.

Another set of groupings has now been provided this morning. It was not delivered until about 9.30 am, and it is different from both the sets delivered last night. I think only the Minister, the Government Whip and I are the only Committee members who were MPs before July last year. I seek your guidance, Sir Roger, on how we can ensure, particularly for new Members, that there is proper time to scrutinise and appraise each clause and each group properly before the debate.

[The Chair]

Exceptionally, this is a matter for the Chair—normally, points of order have nothing to do with the Chair at all.

First, I have a note prepared by the Clerks, which I will read because it is relevant to part of what has been said. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office work on behalf of the Chairs—my colleagues and me—to prepare a provisional selection and grouping of amendments. It is very important that that is accurate. For those who have not served on a Bill Committee, I will come on to why that is done, which may help further downstream to explain the process of line-by-line scrutiny.

This is a very big Bill. A significant number of amendments have been tabled. Not entirely unusually, the Committee took oral evidence on Tuesday. Inevitably, such situations generate the late but timely—in the sense of being within the time limit—tabling of amendments.

Where the Clerks have to preside over the oral evidence sessions as well as trying to do all the rest of the work, it inevitably places a great strain on the system. It is no criticism whatever of the Clerks, who are formidable in the work that they do, that this has pushed it right up against the wire.

I know that the Government and, I believe, the Government solicitors and the Opposition received notice of the provisional selections fairly late last night. That is regrettable. It is always the case in such Committees that wherever possible all members, particularly the Government Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, should get material in as timely a fashion as possible. That is a given, but there are exceptional circumstances, and these were exceptional circumstances.

I can only apologise on my own behalf—because my colleagues and I are ultimately responsible for the selection—for the fact that the grouping was late. I appreciate that that has created some difficulties, although not insuperable ones. If anything arising from that requires attention, we will deal with it as we go along, because part of our job is to be as flexible as we reasonably can.

I will seek advice on the hon. Lady’s second question about the groupings.

[Dr Johnson]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. There is a second point that I want to raise; I have given notice to the Chair. Because of the aforementioned delay in getting the groupings, I have not had time to scrutinise all the clauses of this very big Bill, as you have described it, but it strikes me as unusual that amendments 75 and 76 have been linked with clause 1.

In my experience, it is unusual to discuss amendments to one clause while considering another. My amendments 75 and 76 would amend clause 69 on page 36. Clause 69 is essentially a relative of clause 2, in so far as it tries to make things equivalent across the United Kingdom. I therefore wonder whether as Chair you might agree that amendments 75 and 76 would instead be best considered at the same time as clause 2.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Lady; that is very helpful. I fully understand what she is saying. This is an arcane process and it is an art, not a science. Personally, I am more than willing to consider grouping amendments 75 and 76 under clause 2 rather than clause 1. Because the selection list has been published, that requires the leave of the Committee. If the Committee is happy to do so, I am minded to accept the suggestion.

As I hear no objections, the hon. Lady has won her case. Amendments 75 and 76 will therefore be taken under clause 2 with amendments 58 and 59.

[Dr Johnson]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger—

[The Chair]

Don’t push your luck!

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

It is a point for the Chair, and it is procedural. I have not seen this sort of thing happen before. Normally, we agree the groupings and then they just flow.

I have not had the opportunity to go through all the pages and pages of the Bill and see whether there are other issues like the one with amendments 75 and 76. Will there be a further opportunity to amend the sequencing as we go?

[The Chair]

There will be a further opportunity to raise a point of order. It will be up to whoever is in the Chair at the time to decide whether to take the kind of action that, on the Clerk’s sound advice, I have just taken. I appreciate that this is a complex Bill and we may well find that one or two amendments are more comfortably located under other clauses. If that is so, sensibly and flexibly, we will endeavour to accommodate that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We begin with the group led by amendment 17. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who tabled all the amendments in the group, is not a member of the Committee and therefore cannot move them. Is there anybody present who has taken ownership of the amendments and wishes to move the lead amendment on behalf of the hon. Member?

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 23, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 44, in schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 48, in schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 45, in schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 46, in schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi” to “a” in line 39 and insert

“yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 39, in schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 40, in schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 41, in schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 42, in schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out

“born before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“over the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 43, in schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 25, in clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 26, in clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert

“under the age of 25 (‘the customer’) to be aged 25 or over”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 27, in clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 28, in clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 29, in clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 30, in clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 31, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 32, in clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 33, in clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 38, in clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 49, in title, line 2, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

[Dr Johnson]

The amendments do not stand in my name, and they are not amendments with which I agree, but they relate to a very important part of the Second Reading debate that goes to the heart of the principles behind the Bill. I have moved the lead amendment so that the debate can be heard in full and so that hon. Members can establish for themselves whether they wish to support the amendments.

I will refer to these amendments as the Maguire amendments, if that helps, as they were all tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who is not on the Committee. It is, of course, the Whips who choose who goes on the Committee—[Interruption.] Sorry, can you hear me?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can hear you.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you. I am aware that the Whips choose who gets to go on Committees. Sometimes that is a blessing; sometimes it can be less welcome, particularly if it is a long Committee that goes on for months. For someone who is passionate about a cause, but is not aligned with the Whips’ view and is not chosen for a Committee, it can be frustrating not to have something discussed that they believe important. We are all here to represent our constituents and to think carefully about the legislation in front of us. Although the amendments were tabled by a Member who is not a member of my party, and I do not actually agree with them, I want to ensure that they get a proper hearing.

Amendments 17 and 18 would amend clause 1, which will introduce a prohibition on selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to any individual born on or after 1 January 2009. The Government’s intent is to create a tobacco-free generation by progressively restricting access to tobacco-related products for younger age groups as they age. This is a measure that was first discussed in the Khan report and was brought forward in the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was introduced by the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who wanted to ensure that we eliminate smoking as far as possible, for people’s health, but that we would not impose a criminal penalty on people who already smoke and thereby criminalise an addiction that is so difficult to give up. That is the reason for the rolling sale.

Under clause 1, sellers will be required to verify the buyer’s age using acceptable identity documents, which are listed as being passports, UK or EU driving licences or proof-of-age identity cards, known as PASS cards. If the seller relies on valid-looking ID showing that the buyer was born before 1 January 2009, or if they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to avoid an offence, they have a legal defence against prosecution. Violating the clause is an offence punishable by a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale; I am sure we will come on to what that means later. It is currently capped at £2,500.

This measure is part of a broader strategy to combat smoking by reducing access among younger generations and curbing the initiation of tobacco use. By enforcing strict age verification and imposing financial penalties, the clause aims progressively to eliminate tobacco use, contributing to long-term public health improvements.

New clause 17 would leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert in its place

“under the age of 25”.

That would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

[The Chair]

Order. For the sake of clarity, we are referring to amendment 17, not new clause 17.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I am very grateful for your guidance. I think spending much of the night trying to get to grips with the various drafts has left me a little tired. I appreciate the difference. As you said, the process is somewhat confusing, but at least we are moving through it steadily.

Amendment 17 would significantly alter the scope of clause 1 by replacing the birth date-specific restriction of 1 January 2009. Instead of targeting individuals born on or after that date, the new provision would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to anyone under the age of 25. That modification would shift the focus from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit similar to the one that we have already.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows that we disagree on the principle of clause 1, and my objection is primarily to creating two tiers of adults. One of the benefits of the Bill, as it is currently written, is that it is at least a time-limited measure. In other words, when that generation dies out, every adult will be one tier again. With amendment 17, however, we will effectively have two tiers of adults forever, so a 19-year-old will always—or until we change the law again—be able to drink but will not be able to smoke, and that will be set in stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if she thinks we should create two tiers of adults for public health purposes, we should try to delimit that as much as possible, and therefore the principle of the amendment should not be accepted by this Committee?

[The Chair]

Order. Another thing colleagues might notice is that that was quite a long intervention. Customarily in Committee, as opposed to on the Floor of the House, it is not unusual for a Chair to allow a fairly long intervention, because quite often that obviates the need for a speech later. Be aware of that flexibility.

[Dr Johnson]

Once again, Sir Roger, I am very grateful for your guidance to the Committee. I was explaining the change in amendment 17, and my hon. Friend, like the very wise chap that he is, brings something forward that I had not really considered, despite my attention to this Bill over some time—and Members will be very much aware it is something that I have taken a long interest in.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: some people argue that the Bill creates two tiers of adults—some who are allowed to smoke and some who are not. In fact, that is exactly what it does. Eventually, of course, people get older and older. I saw that the oldest person in the world sadly passed on in the last week or so, and she was 116. I am not quite sure about the age of the current oldest person in the world, but I suspect their age is similar. Therefore, I suspect that it will take quite a long time before my hon. Friend’s ideal of all adults being treated the same is once again achieved. I suspect that I will certainly be long gone before it does, and I anticipate that the rules we are proposing will last the rest of our lifetimes here today.

This modification shifts the approach from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit that applies universally, regardless of the buyer’s birth year. That simplifies enforcement because sellers would need only to confirm whether a buyer is under 25, and they would not need to do the mental arithmetic in their head that says, “Okay, that is their birthday, but how old would that make them?” The Minister, in his questions on Tuesday, raised the point repeatedly with one of our witnesses about whether it is simpler to have a date of birth or an age. My understanding is that a lot of tills nowadays will give a prompt to the person working behind the till to say, “If you are born before or after this date, that is where the 18 cut-off is.”

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

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotion—I shall mention it the Chief Whip and see how that goes!

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

My training and experience as a pharmacist over two decades involved working with systems such as tills that teach people how to ask for age verification. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister is spot on and that actually this is a moot point, because the software, support and training is already there across the country, including in independent shops, and age verification is quite easy to do?

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is straightforward to have an age and a date of birth to check. It could become more confusing if we ended up with a range of age-restricted products and the age for each of them was different, as that would require people to look at a whole spreadsheet of dates of birth.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Software systems I have worked with already have the facility to differentiate by product, including for razor blades and alcohol products. That already exists across retail and in a variety of retail premises.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention highlights the fact that in Parliament we benefit from the experience of so many different people. Each of us comes to this place with our own history, backstory and experience of working in a whole range of different professions and jobs. That is one of the reasons why we go through these Bills line by line. It may seem to some extent slow and plodding to go through things so methodically, but that means that each person can, as he has, bring their experience forward and explain the ways that tills and such things work, which is really beneficial. I thank him for that intervention.

[Jack Rankin]

I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for North Somerset. It seems to me that over time, we have been getting more consistent in our understanding of what an adult is. Obviously, I am quite a young man, but when I turned 16, I could buy a lottery ticket, I could get married without my parents’ permission and I could join the Army. I could then learn to drive at 17. Many of those have been regularised in the last few years, so the age for buying lottery tickets is now 18 and one cannot get married before 18 either. That is part of ensuring consistency about what an adult is.

It may well be true that pharmacies have such technology, and I understand why, but most cigarettes are bought in small newsagents and I would not necessarily expect them to have the same technology. We should be supporting consistency in what an adult is—that is the direction in which legislation has been moving—and not creating added complexity.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I do not know whether any Member present has worked in a small corner shop and could tell us whether they have the same level of technology. Perhaps the Minister or his officials know whether the same level of technology is used in shops across the board. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that.

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

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Johnson]

Yes; if my hon. Friend knows the answer, I would be delighted to hear it.

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not know the answer to that question, although I suspect that many such shops do not. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about the thrust of the Bill, something that does concern me comes not from the retailer point of view but the consumer point of view. At the moment—please do not disabuse me of this view—when I go and buy a bottle of wine or a pint of beer, I am very rarely, if ever, IDed. But I accept that if, on the rare occasion that I am IDed, I do not have a form of identification, it is not the biggest problem in the world. Most of the time, however, people can see that I am over the age of 25 or over the age of 18, so it does not happen.

If the Bill were to go forward in its current form, every smoker would essentially have to carry a form of ID all the time. Some, especially the older generation, might not have a suitable form of identification and some—if they are, like me, a civil libertarian—might not want to carry ID, so how do we get around that point in the Bill to ensure that we do not end up having ID cards for older people by the back door?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some people are averse to carrying ID—it is not something that bothers me personally, but I am aware that for some people it is a sticking point. In a previous debate before the election, the former Member for Norwich North, Chloe Smith, made the point that not all adults will be affected by this legislation, but only a relatively narrow band of them.

The last time I was carded for ID, I was 38. I was not buying the typical basket of a 17-year-old; I was buying flowers—orchids—and a bottle of champagne for someone’s housewarming, as well as some strawberries, because she had phoned to ask me to get some when I was on the way, as she was running out at the housewarming party. I was IDed, so I was not able to buy the champagne for her, because the supermarket would not let me. That was disappointing for both of us, but I accepted the fact that if ID could not be shown and they genuinely believed that I looked under 25, that was the law and it had to be accepted. That is not universally the case, and I am aware—as we heard in evidence—that retailers can sometimes receive significant verbal and occasionally violent abuse when they ask for ID in that way.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I keep getting promoted!

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister is having a good morning, having not had a particularly great evening last night. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Windsor, who made this point in his intervention, by the time that the age of sale is legally his age, we hope that smoking prevalence in that age group will be next to zero, and therefore it will not be an issue.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I am not sure what he is implying about the age of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor—

[Gregory Stafford]

Wisdom!

[Dr Johnson]

Wisdom or age, but I shall be cautious not to answer too closely.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I accept the view that having to provide ID will be inconvenient and frustrating for some people, but all the expert witnesses on Tuesday pointed out that many smokers do not wish the younger generation to continue smoking. I think that most of them would probably be of that view that the slight infringement of their civil liberties in having to carry ID is a small price to pay for the knowledge that they are preventing smoking from being taken up.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the measures have broad support. Certainly, the pollsters who have investigated people’s views of this legislation—that proposed by the previous Government and the legislation as it is now, with some tweaks to it—have found the public to be overwhelmingly positive. We legislate because we are elected by those people. On the basis of their opinions and given that policing in this country is done by consent—

[Jack Rankin]

On the civil liberties point, I disagree with my hon. Friend entirely, as she well knows. The point about civil liberties is that they need protecting not when the majority agree, but when the majority do not agree. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that all the experts agreed. We listened to a cohort of experts who were from a variety of fields, but they were also all in some way paid for by the state and had some vested interest in the Bill—they were not retailers, consumers and so on— [Interruption.] We had one person out of 15. It was really not a well-balanced affair at all, so I disagree with that point.

[Dr Johnson]

I think that comes back to the issue of choice. The chief medical officer said that the only choice we make is the choice to have that first hit of nicotine; after that, our choice is taken from us by the profound addiction that we experience. One of the challenges with stopping smoking is that people get powerful cravings. Despite their overwhelming desire to stop, the cravings drive people to have a cigarette that they do not really want or would rather not have because of their addiction.

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

May I de-aggregate the two separate, distinct points about the age that will be defined on a driving licence or passport versus the concept of having ID?

On the first point, most identity documents will contain a defined birth date, which makes it easier for a retailer or sales individual to check the date. They do not contain an age, per se, but they have the date of birth, which creates an easier means of assessment.

The second point about having ID is a separate, distinct issue. In some countries in Europe, they put identity cards on the back of credit or debit cards, for instance. The question of how we would define that identity is a separate element or, perhaps, a separate amendment to the clause that may expand the list of identity that would be bona fide, but we nevertheless use the concept of identity already in many cases to purchase products.

If we are against identity cards or any form of identity, how are we supposed to look at any product with regard to sales, including ones that we might be challenged on, such as when the shadow Minister was purchasing her orchid in a venue? We accept the premise of identity when we sell any licensed product at the present time, so we are merely extending the same premise.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. I should be clear that I do not have an issue with carrying my driver’s licence or ID with me, although I am aware that some people genuinely do. If he wants to intervene again, I would be interested to hear whether that means that he is comfortable with voter ID, because his party, prior to the general election—I appreciate that he would not have voted on it, because he was not—

[The Chair]

Order. I have been fairly lenient up to now, but you are pushing your luck.

[Dr Johnson]

I merely make the point that ID is used for purposes other than to buy cigarettes and tobacco, Sir Roger.

I want to return to a point raised in an earlier intervention about the group of people who would be asked to carry ID. If somebody’s birthday is, like mine, in 1977, it is sadly unlikely that anyone will think that I was born in or after 2009. The cohort affected will be those born around 2006 or 2012. I do not see this as an ID for old people through the back door, because, as I view it, there will be a cohort of people within five or even 10 years on either side of the 2009 boundary who will find themselves required to carry ID if they wish to smoke. If they do not wish to smoke or use any tobacco, cigarettes or smoking products, they will not be affected.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I keep getting promoted—that is fine.

[Jim Dickson]

Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.

[Dr Johnson]

It is certainly the case, as I am sure we will come to when we discuss clause 1 itself in more detail, that where tobacco control measures have been brought in—on place, price, display or age group—they have led to a fall in smoking, which is a welcome and intended outcome.

I have been lumbered with a lot of interventions and I did not get to answer one point in full, which was on the issue of adult consistency. Amendment 17 would create two groups of adults—those aged between 18 and 25, who would be unable to smoke or use tobacco products, and those over 25, who would. The previous Government sought to say, “This is when you become an adult—when you turn 18. Before that, you are a child, and we will use child protection and safeguarding measures, so you cannot get married or buy a lottery ticket.” We sought to create consistency across the board, because consistency helps people to understand what the law is, which makes it easier for them to follow it and give a greater level of consent to it.

Let me turn back to the amendments. I cannot speak directly for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who tabled the amendments, but one of the reasons that has been given to me for increasing the age to 25 is that people normally begin smoking when they are young. Most people begin before they are 16, and many more before they are 21. That means that in principle, if we raised the age to 25, we would find that people did not start smoking in any great numbers, because their brain and their thinking process would be more mature, so they would be less likely to start. It is also the case that if someone starts smoking at a younger age, they are more vulnerable to the addictive properties of nicotine, as we heard in the impact assessment and in medical evidence.

[Tristan Osborne]

One of the challenges with introducing an age restriction of 25 is that a 19-year-old can smoke today, but that rule would suddenly take away a right that they previously had. However, the proposal on the table is for a sliding scale, whereby they will never have had the right to smoke. We are not taking away a right that someone might have had previously. Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a slight difference between having an age restriction of 25 and a sliding increase in age?

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, in my personal view, to say that. As we heard before, the previous Government wanted to ensure that in bringing forward a Bill, they were not going to criminalise people with an addiction to a product that they could not quit, and therefore leave them in a situation where they could no longer buy the product they needed to feed that addiction. Obviously, we want them to stop, but we do not want to make them stop by making them criminals. So, yes, I would be concerned that sticking in a sudden increase to 25 would mean that any smokers legally accessing tobacco products between the ages of 18 and 25 would find themselves somewhat stuck. That is not something I would wish to see.

[Gregory Stafford]

As a point of clarification, what the proposals in the Bill, and indeed the amendment, deal with is the selling of tobacco products, not the consumption. So when we are talking people not being able to smoke, they would be able to, but a retailer would not be able to sell them tobacco products. I say that just so we are clear what we are talking about.

[Dr Johnson]

According to clause 1, my hon. Friend is right.

[Gregory Stafford]

Yes, under this clause.

[Dr Johnson]

Under this clause, it is true that somebody would not be able to purchase tobacco, but clause 2 means that somebody cannot purchase tobacco on behalf of somebody else. It would not be possible legally for somebody under the age of 25, if the clause was amended, or somebody born after 1 January 2009, if it was not, to buy tobacco, but it would also be illegal for them to use it because, under clause 2, which provides for proxy purchase, the person who gave the younger individual tobacco would themselves have broken the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can we acknowledge that youth initiation often starts before the age of 18? Moving the age to 25, as this amendment proposes, would not automatically shift the dial on when youth initiation starts by seven years. The Bill permanently demarcates a smoke-free generation that we are specifically targeting.

[Dr Johnson]

When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.

Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year-old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke-free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.

[Jim Dickson]

On the point made the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, a common maxim applied to our public policy on harmful substances is that we permit. Even having a permission to smoke and buy cigarettes after the age of 25 means that society is effectively saying that that is fine to do, albeit harmful. We do not do that with very many other harmful substances, so it would seem odd to do it with cigarettes.

[Dr Johnson]

I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.

There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.

[Sarah Bool]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non-smoker.

[Dr Johnson]

I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.

On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law-abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.

Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

in clause 1 and insert the words

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date-specific restriction to a general age-based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.

[Sarah Bool]

I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age-restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

with the phrase

“under the age of 25”.

That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke-free generation to a fixed age of 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before we proceed, I shall not be in the Chair this afternoon, but I would be grateful if the shadow Minister could indicate whether she wishes to press amendment 18 as well as amendment 17, whether it is only amendment 17, or whether she may decide in due course not to press either. That is a matter for later, but it would be helpful to know if she wishes to press either.

[Dr Johnson]

It was my intention to ensure that the debate, even if it is on issues I do not support, got a hearing and that Members of the House who wished to contribute were able to do so. The purpose was to allow the amendments to be debated. I do not intend to push any of them to a vote.

[Jack Rankin]

I would like to support those amendments, if that changes anything, Sir Roger.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am sorry—that is the last time I will get called. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, in relation to the elective backlog, the Secretary of State said:

“Where we can treat working people faster, we will, and we make no apology for doing so.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 597.]

Labour politicians have struggled to define what they mean by working people, but his words have caused anxiety. Will he reassure those with disabilities that prevent them from working and retired elderly people who have worked all their lives that they will not be pushed to the back of the queue and that treatment will continue to be provided in the NHS on the basis of clinical need?

[Wes Streeting]

Of course, clinical need is paramount and must always drive decision making about who to treat when and the order in which people are treated. That is why I find the question posed so deeply disingenuous. [Interruption.] We inherited NHS waiting lists at record levels and waiting times that are frankly shameful. The shadow Minister should be apologising for her party’s record, and she should also apologise for the two-tier healthcare system that sees those who can afford it paying to go private and those who cannot afford it—working-class people—being left behind. That is the two-tier system that the Government are determined to end.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we be a bit careful with the language we are using?

[Dr Johnson]

The Secretary of State needs to be careful with the words he uses, as you said, Mr Speaker, because his words did cause anxiety among people. It was not a disingenuous question; it was a genuine question to make sure that people are reassured.

It will not have escaped the Secretary of State’s notice that it is cold outside. Removal of the winter fuel allowance has reduced elderly people’s ability to follow the advice that he gave last week, which was to turn the heating on. What assessment has he made of the number of additional admissions caused by his removal of the winter fuel allowance? What effect is that having on the Government’s ability to deliver their reduction in elective backlogs?

[Wes Streeting]

What the shadow Minister neglects to mention is that the Chancellor has protected the winter fuel allowance for the poorest pensioners, and she has also put in place the warm home discount to assist people with their energy bills throughout the winter. If the shadow Minister does not support the decisions that the Chancellor took at the Budget and ahead of the Budget to raise vital investment for our health and care services, that is fair enough, but then she needs to tell people which NHS services she would cut or which other taxes she would increase.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public again and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start putting questions to the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?

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

I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Sorry about the distracting noise; we are trying to sort that out.

We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer for England; Sir Francis Atherton, chief medical officer for Wales; Professor Sir Michael McBride, chief medical officer for Northern Ireland, who will participate via Zoom; and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith, chief medical officer for Scotland. We have until 10.25 am for this panel.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I thank the witnesses for coming along; we are interested to hear what you have to say about this Bill. For some time, I have been particularly concerned about children vaping. How will the restrictions on vapes in this Bill, particularly on colours, flavours and accessibility, help to reduce their appeal and accessibility to children?

Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you to the Committee for inviting me to give evidence. I think this is an incredibly important step. I have been concerned—

[The Chair]

I apologise, but I think people are struggling to hear over the noise; I certainly am. Could everyone enunciate more clearly and speak a little louder?

Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you for the invitation to provide evidence. I think this is a really important step that we can take to protect children from vaping. I am very clear in my mind that vaping has a place in helping those already smoking to stop smoking. It has a place in smoking cessation, but children, young adults and indeed adults who have never smoked should never start vaping; there are too many uncertainties about the health consequences of vaping for that to be encouraged.

In restricting children’s access to vapes and reducing the attractiveness to children of some of the vaping products currently marketed, the Bill will protect children from the potential health consequences of vaping itself and from the potential of vaping to be a gateway to the use of other nicotine products, for which there is emerging evidence. I am certain that the Bill will help to protect children from the dangers associated with starting to vape.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. My other question is about the difference between indoor and outdoor exposure to smoke. In this country, we have had laws preventing smoking in certain indoor spaces for many years now. How does exposure to smoke inside differ from exposure to it outside? Imagine sitting next to someone smoking on a park bench and someone smoking at a neighbouring table in a restaurant—what are the comparative health risks between those two?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think the first thing to say is that second-hand smoke is a very serious problem. I think that is underestimated among the general public because, if I am honest, the cigarette industry has been very successful in muddying the waters on this.

There are three key things that really make a difference. The first is the degree of concentration of the smoke. The second is the duration of exposure—let us say you sit next to someone for half an hour; the effect is more significant than if it had been just a couple of minutes. The third is the vulnerability of the people being exposed to it. That is one of the things that this Bill will help with.

Over 88% of the population do not smoke. There are roughly 6 million smokers still. There are significantly more people in the UK, non-smokers, who have medical vulnerabilities that mean that the smoke is particularly dangerous to them, perhaps acutely. They can be exposed to smoke and have an asthma attack, and that lands them in hospital. In severe cases it could land them in a very dangerous situation. The situation may also be chronic—for example, people living with diabetes already have a disease that is going to accelerate things like cardiovascular disease. If people are smoking on top of that, it will accelerate those things still further.

Although outdoor smoking is less in terms of passive smoking than indoor smoking, in most situations if you are close to someone, exposed for a long period or vulnerable, it can have very significant health impacts. In broad terms, if you can smell smoke, you are being exposed to significant amounts of smoke, and that is one of the things that the Bill is aiming to address.

I would like to make one additional point: the cigarette industry has been extraordinarily good at trying to pretend that to be pro-smoking is to be pro-choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smoking is highly addictive. Most smokers wish they had never started and want to quit, but they are trapped by addiction. Their choice has been taken away deliberately by these companies as part of their policy. And if you are talking about second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors, the person downwind or next door has no choice at all at any point. They are exposed to the risks with no advantages at all. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. Frank, do you want to add to that?

Sir Francis Atherton: The only thing I would add is that there is no safe level of smoking. As Chris says, if you smell it, you are breathing it in, and there is no safe level. Obviously, indoors is worse than outdoors. The dose response is a big issue, but there is no safe level. I think that is a really important point.

[Sarah Bool]

Q You mentioned that 88% of the population do not smoke, and the numbers are now declining. Can I ask why you supported a generational ban as opposed to raising the age from 18 to 21 or even 25? It is predominantly younger people whom we want to stop smoking.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I might ask Michael to come in. I can have the first go and Michael might want to come in after that, because this is a critical point. Historically, the cigarette industry, despite what it claims, has always targeted children. It always deplores it in public, but if you look at its internal documents you discover that that is what it has been aiming to do. Most people, the great majority, start as teenagers before they are 20—you are, of course, correct. To refer back to Dr Johnson’s original question, the same thing is now being done with vaping and exactly the same playbook is being followed. You get people at their most vulnerable and you addict them. That is the aim.

However, were we to stop at, let us say, 21, the cigarette industry, which is extraordinarily good at regrouping around whatever regulations are in place, would simply regroup around 21. To go back to my very first point about addiction, if you are a 21-year-old and you start, you become addicted and then you wish you had stopped. That does not change the fact that your choice has been taken away. So the logic of saying 21, 25 or 30—various people have looked at various ages—is no better than the logic of the current situation.

The advantage of the current model, which was first put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Mr Sunak, to whom we should all pay great tribute on the basics of the Bill, was to ensure that current children are not addicted and do not have their choice taken away, but that rights are not taken away from existing smokers. That is the reason why this particular model was chosen. Michael, do you want to add to that? You are on mute.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Caroline Johnson—apologies; I should have called you before the Minister.

[Dr Johnson]

Q The current advice, which was reiterated by the chief medical officer in the last session, is that if you do not vape, do not vape, but that if you smoke, vaping may be a better alternative. How will the measures in the Bill make it easier or harder for that message to be conveyed to the public who smoke?

Hazel Cheeseman: That will be a really crucial question as this Bill progresses, and it was touched on by the chief medical officers. The nature of this Bill is that we are taking powers across a range of areas, which we know will help us to prevent the uptake of vaping among children, which we are all concerned about. We are restricting the marketing of vapes and the way they are branded, and taking powers around the design of products and in relation to flavours. It is important that those powers, as was discussed in the last session, are broad in the Bill and defined through further consultation and regulation, giving us that flexibility to shape policy going forward. We know from our experience in reducing smoking among children that the things that will work are reducing the appeal, reducing the availability and reducing the affordability of products. The Bill, alongside the excise tax that is planned for 2026, will take us a long way on that journey to addressing those aspects and reducing the appeal among children.

We also want to ensure that products remain available for adult smokers to switch to. We know from our own research that adult smokers have very inaccurate views at the moment about the relative harms from vaping compared with smoking. Part of the issue is the way in which products are branded and pushed in people’s faces when they go into every corner shop up and down the country. That prevents the understanding that these products might be valuable for smoking cessation and promotes the idea that they are a kind of lifestyle choice for teenagers. Removing the branding and the displays in shops will allow the message that these products could be valuable to help people stop smoking, and will allow that message to land more easily than it currently does. That will hopefully realign those misperceptions and get us back to the position that we were in in, say, 2019 or 2020, where these products were being used as a smoking cessation tool and not really being used by other groups in the population. If we can get back to that, that would be the ideal scenario. Hopefully, the legislation takes us a bit closer to that.

[Dr Johnson]

Q How do you think the Bill will address health inequalities? We have heard that smoking is more prevalent among poorer individuals than among richer individuals. Will the Bill help address that?

Sheila Duffy: We see that socioeconomic inequalities and smoking rates are closely patterned. ASH Scotland’s work with low-income communities in Scotland suggests that people regret beginning tobacco, but find it hard to move away from it. It also identified the dangers of less regulated novel products such as e-cigarettes in enticing their children and grandchildren into the kind of addiction that they themselves so regret. One of the real strengths in the Bill is the ability to bring some of these tobacco-related products into the kinds of control and regulation that we have fought so hard over decades to get for tobacco products.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Q Do you think the introduction of a generational ban on smoking could cause an increase in the use of other nicotine products, such as vapes or smoke-free tobacco?

Hazel Cheeseman: The purpose of the legislation is to reduce smoking. The Department’s projections in the impact assessment clearly show that, even on conservative estimates, it will achieve that goal over time. So the question then is, does that lead to displacement into other products? Given that the legislation is comprehensive in relation to tobacco products, it is to be hoped that it will not lead to displacement into other kinds of tobacco products, but it might lead to some displacement into other nicotine products. As the chief medical officer said in the previous session, it is unlikely that nobody will take up smoking in the affected age group. Some people will; some of the 15-year-olds who will be affected by this legislation have already tried smoking. So we need there to be a legal nicotine product that those people will be able to use, with the restrictions that are coming into place in relation to vaping and other nicotine products in this legislation. One would not expect the overall consumption of nicotine to be greater than it otherwise would be, if that makes sense, but there may be some displacement into other nicotine products as we transition away from smoked tobacco and from tobacco being used widely in that group.

Sheila Duffy: Dual use is a real concern in Scotland. Nearly 43% of people are dual-using cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The international longitudinal cohort evidence clearly shows a higher risk of progression to using combustible tobacco for young people that start vaping. I think this legislation has the real potential to move us away from that.

Suzanne Cass: We also have to remember that the killer in the room is tobacco. The generational ban is the most crucial part of this legislation that we need to push forward. Therefore, we need to keep our eye on the ball when we are looking at the health impact, and the potential public health impact, of this Bill, and to make sure that we focus on driving down that tobacco use.

Naomi Thompson: Just to reiterate what Suzanne has said, tobacco is the issue. The impact of tobacco was repeated multiple times in the previous session. If young people start, they continue, and they find it very difficult to stop. Therefore, if we can sort that, it is a great first step. There may be a small move towards other nicotine products, but we can work on that. Tobacco is the one that kills.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have the third panel of witnesses from now until 11.25 am. We will hear evidence from Dr Ian Walker, the executive director of policy at Cancer Research UK, and Sarah Sleet, the chief executive officer of Asthma and Lung UK.

[Dr Johnson]

Q What effect do you think vapes have on the health and the lungs of young people? Do you think the Bill will help to reduce the take-up of vaping in children?

Sarah Sleet: In general, there is very little evidence around vaping, and we need a really considerable effort to get the evidence in place, but we do know that nicotine in general is not healthy for children, and vaping nicotine products will not be good news. We have some evidence about the harms that it causes—we know that nicotine in particular is very problematic for very young children and developing brains—but we do not have the same level of evidence base that we have with tobacco. That is why this Bill and the precautionary approach that it takes in terms of restricting children’s access to vapes and the attractiveness of vapes to children is very important.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Smoking is a huge cause of cancers. Do you expect that this Bill will reduce the number of cases of cancer and increase the age of people who get cancer across the country?

Dr Ian Walker: First, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I start by thanking Parliament for boldly introducing this Bill; it is genuinely world leading. I have spoken to organisations across the world that are envious of the position we find ourselves in. That is a very important question, and the answer is absolutely yes—I think this Bill will be very important in reducing the number of cancers caused by smoking tobacco. We know that there is no bigger thing we could do to actually influence that going forward for the next generation and generations thereafter.

As you have heard this morning, we know that we still have 6 million people smoking across the UK, and we know that we can expect hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer caused by smoking over the term of the next Parliament. As we move towards a truly smoke-free generation over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, we will absolutely expect to see the number of cancers caused by smoking—and, alongside that, the number of other illnesses associated with smoking—reduce.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q Can you tell us about the evidence of the impacts of second-hand smoking on cancer in your case, Dr Walker, and on asthma and lung conditions in your case, Sarah? What difference do you think that the measures outlined in the Bill will have on those conditions?

Dr Ian Walker: To start with smoking and cancer, the links between passive smoking and cancer, particularly lung cancer, are very clear. It is fair to say that there is less evidence around different scenarios that you might predict through this Bill, such as different outdoor environments and so on, but that is more because those studies have not necessarily been done. It is an important point to make that there is an absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence.

You heard from the CMO of England this morning that if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are exposed to it. The direct risk, then, is linked to how long you are exposed to it, how concentrated the environment is, how close you are to it and so on. Nevertheless, passive smoking is harmful—not just for cancer, but for vulnerable people with many other conditions as well—so we are very much supportive of the introduction of smoke-free places and the ability to restrict people smoking in particular outdoor spaces.

Sarah Sleet: When it comes to people with lung conditions, second-hand smoke is incredibly important; it is a well-known, severe risk factor for people with lung conditions. About one in five of us in the UK will experience a lung condition—there are around 7 million people with asthma and about 1.6 million people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are two major conditions that are profoundly affected by second-hand smoking, and are clear risk factors in terms of deaths from asthma and people being hospitalised with exacerbations, so it is incredibly important that we deal with the issue of second-hand smoking. People said earlier that there is no choice about second-hand smoking, and yet it profoundly affects those with lung conditions. It is incredibly important that we ensure that we protect those vulnerable people as far as possible.

When it comes to the discussion about how far we should go in terms of smoke-free and vape-free places, we would consider going further than what has been suggested already and looking at other areas to make smoke-free. I know there has been discussion about hospitality and trying to balance the potential economic impact that has been talked about if we make the outside of hospitality places smoke-free. However, we think, given the balance between the public health impact and what we have seen with smoke-free indoor spaces and its impact on business, we could go further and should go further, there.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome the panel again, although I was not here for this morning’s sitting. We will now resume by hearing oral evidence from David Fothergill, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board, Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, executive director of public health and strategic partnerships and vice president of the faculty of public health at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, and Alison Challenger, tobacco and vapes lead at the Association of Directors of Public Health.

For this panel, we have until 2.40 pm. The floor is now open to any members of the Committee who wish to ask questions, but we would traditionally ask the Opposition spokesperson to ask the first question, so, Dr Caroline Johnson, the floor is yours.

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

Q39 Thank you, Sir Mark, and welcome to the witnesses; thank you for coming today.

My first question is: do the local authorities have the resources they need to enforce these measures, if brought in? If they do not, what further resources do they need?

David Fothergill: I will take that one, if I may. First, thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to you. From a local authority perspective, we welcome the legislation, and we welcome the fact that it has been cross-party legislation—with the previous Government, and now with the current Government. The legislation will only be as good as the enforcement, and the question you ask is really important: have we got the resources to do it? We have to be sure that it is not a new burden—on either local authorities or retailers—that we cannot fund.

Therefore we would ask that we have time to implement, because we need to be able to consult with our retailers and our public to make sure that we implement in the right way. We would ask that it is viewed as a new burden, so that we can have additional moneys coming into the local authorities. We would also ask that we set up an apprenticeship scheme for trading standards services, to ensure that we are bringing through new people into trading standards—and environmental health, of course; we have to mention them. However, with time, focusing on those three areas, we will have the resources to make this successful.

[Dr Johnson]

Q You have talked about time. Time can mean lots of different things—weeks, months, years. What sort of timeframe do you have in mind?

David Fothergill: The important thing is that we have the right consultation and the right plan for bringing through new trading standards. I think we would be alarmed if you said you were going to introduce this on 1 January next year, but if you said we had two years or slightly longer to implement it I think we would be much more comfortable.

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

Q Thank you; that is really helpful. What about the new licensing scheme that local government needs to bring in? Do you feel you have the resources to do that? Will it give you the discretion you need in terms of the location of such sites?

David Fothergill: We argued at the previous Committee hearing under the last Government—I think you may have sat on that Committee—that we needed a licensing scheme to make it effective. We still hold that view. We think that it is right. What we should not do, though, is to overcomplicate this. We already have licensing schemes. Many of you will have sat on licensing committees at local authorities. We have good local people who license alcohol outlets, taxis, gambling and gaming. We believe that licensing is the right route to go. While we think the legislation should be consistent, we do think there need to be local variations we can look at, so that we can bring in what works for our communities, very much as we do with the alcohol schemes.

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

Q Do you believe the measures in the Bill to prevent vapes appealing to children are likely to work?

Alison Challenger: The short answer is yes, I think they do. The need not to have children exposed to the marketing of vapes is very important. At the moment we see that children are exposed to that marketing and are encouraged to get access to vapes, so it is important that this is brought into the Bill. I think what is currently in the Bill will help us to address that significantly.

David Fothergill: I concur. From a local authority point of view, we have argued long and hard about vapes and have spoken with your colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about disposable vapes, which we have been very concerned about; so it is great to see this legislation moving forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Linda Bauld, who is a Bruce and John Usher professor of public health and co-head of the centre for population health sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Thank you for being flexible and appearing earlier in today’s session. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm. If Members want to refer to Professor Bauld’s contribution and evidence, it will appear further on in your packs.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you for coming today. You have been monitoring and evaluating tobacco control policy and stop smoking strategies for many years. Earlier this year, you said that you thought a variety of things could go wrong with the implementation of the tobacco and vapes legislation. We all want to see people’s health improve, so we want the legislation to be successful in achieving that aim. Could you explain what you meant by that and what areas you think could go wrong?

Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for the question. The first thing I would say is that I very much welcome the legislation. I also welcome the fact that it was introduced by the previous Government and then brought back by the current Government. I welcome the cross-party support I have seen. The academic community has contributed a lot of evidence to inform this legislation.

What I meant by those remarks was based on the previous Bill. There were areas that could be strengthened, and that is what we have seen in the current proposals—new measures are being introduced, many of which will need to be consulted on, and there are powers that can be acted on. In those remarks, I was thinking more about the implementation of the legislation and the regulations that will be required. A lot of that will need to be consulted on, but we need to ensure that we strike the right balance between what I see as the two primary priorities in this legislation: protecting young people and preventing smoking uptake. We must also protect young people from the harms of vaping, while also recognising the needs of the 6 million smokers we still have in the UK, who we need to support to quit.

I think the proof will be in the pudding. As all Members know, a lot of action will need to be taken forward to ensure that we get it right at the regulation stage. Certain elements of that will need to progress at pace to make sure we seize the moment to get it right.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Another question I had was about the research you have done into the effect on pregnant women and children. We heard a little bit on that from the chief medical officers this morning. What effect do smoking and vaping have on the unborn baby and children?

Professor Linda Bauld: As you know yourself, it is one of the leading causes of premature morbidity and mortality for the mother if she continues to smoke during and after the pregnancy. It is also a major cause of complications in pregnancy and for the baby, in terms of low birth weight and even stillbirth, along with a variety of other complications. The consequences of low birth weight are manifold in the health outcomes for the baby and the child. Finally, as you have heard from other witnesses, if the mother continues to smoke, or if other members of the household are smoking, that child is exposed to second-hand smoke in the home and is also three times more likely to become a smoker themselves.

As I think we heard from the CMOs—it could have been other witnesses—one of the great promises of the legislation is this prevention piece for young mums and partners, even pre-conception. We know that if we prevent smoking uptake earlier, the parents of the future are far less likely to smoke. The levels of smoking we have in pregnancy now are at around 9% or 10%. They have reduced a lot, but we can drive them down even further. It is important to make the connection between the smoke-free generation measures in this Bill and reducing smoking in pregnancy.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My final question is about the verification measures and Challenge 25, which we have heard has been successful in ensuring that children under the age of 18 are not sold such products.

I had a look at the evidence for how good people are at establishing how old somebody is. We are often told, “Don’t try to guess someone’s age—you can get yourself into a lot of hot water by doing that.” The research I found online showed that we are remarkably not very good at establishing how old somebody is. We are quite good at establishing if someone is of a similar age to ourselves, but beyond that, it is not that easy. What information do you have on the research in that field?

Professor Linda Bauld: I will speak just to the Scottish scheme. As we have heard from the previous witnesses, Challenge 25 is quite easy to implement. It is widely used and highly effective. The benefit of Challenge 25 is that you have got people who are obviously a number of years older than the legal age of sale for the product they are buying, be it alcohol or another product, and it includes anybody who looks roughly around that age, so asking to check age verification is actually very effective. As the regulations in this Bill are taken forward across the four nations, ensuring that we have robust age verification as part of the scheme could be effective.

[Dr Johnson]

Q The last time I was asked for ID —when I was trying to buy a bottle of champagne, an orchid and a punnet of strawberries in a major supermarket—I was 38, so it would seem we are not very good at working out how old people are, or some people are not. We are going to ask people to decide not just if someone is younger than 25, but potentially if they are younger than 45 or 35. Is that going to be difficult for people to do?

Professor Linda Bauld: I think we also heard this from previous witnesses, but as the legislation comes into place, it is really not about 34-year-olds versus 35-year-olds; it is about acting on the age of sale gradually, so that we are de-normalising tobacco use and stopping the start at an earlier stage.

By the time we get to the difference between the 34-year-old and the 35-year-old, you will have far lower smoking rates than we do at the moment. The modelling for the legislation that was carried out by the University of Sheffield for the Department of Health and Social Care suggests, as I think Hazel Cheeseman said earlier, that by 2040 we will have reduced the smoking rate among those aged 14 to 30 to 0.4%—down from 0.6% by 2030—so I think you are going to see very low rates. To go back to Challenge 25, age verification is something that we can build in, and, irrespective of how old you are, actually seeing proof of age will support this.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q Welcome, Professor Bauld. What impact have tobacco control measures had on smoking rates over time? What impact do you expect this Bill to have?

Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for that question, Minister. I have been working in tobacco control for almost 30 years, and the impact has been phenomenal. If you look back to the late 1940s and 1950s, 80% of men smoked in the UK. We have driven that down gradually over the years. We started to measure it in about 1974, and the level of smoking in the UK is now about 12% or 13%—the second lowest in Europe. The reason that we have achieved that is in line with what is being proposed in this legislation. It is about using comprehensive measures and implementing them over the years to regulate what I often call the four p’s: the product, the place, the price and the promotion. You are taking action on potentially all of those—including price, with the levy that is coming in, or the tax on vapes.

We have made a lot of progress, but we are not there yet. I think what you will hear from my clinical colleagues later is that in line with keeping that firm focus on prevention, as you are doing in this Bill, we also need to keep the focus on cessation and particularly on marginalised groups, deprivation, mental health and so on. The key is comprehensive tobacco control. Keep doing it, and that is what the Bill is adding to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Lord Michael Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, and Wendy Martin, director of National Trading Standards. We have until 3.30 pm with this panel. As you can see, because both the earlier panels finished earlier than expected, we have a fair bit of extra time for these two witnesses, if they wish to use it or if Members wish to ask more questions.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you for giving evidence this afternoon. Do you think that the penalties proposed by the legislation are too high or too low, or are they sufficient to act as a deterrent? What are your thoughts on that?

Lord Michael Bichard: Good afternoon. We will try to be provocative, so we can keep this going until half-past three. It is as long as a piece of string, in a way. If you compare the penalties to those in some other legislation, they are a bit low. On the other hand, trading standards can prosecute if we find, for example, that someone is a repeat offender, and then I think the fines are up to £2,500.

The only thing we thought might be possible would be to have a higher level of fine for a second offence. I think the first offence is a £90 fixed penalty, but you could have a couple of hundred for a second offence. But we enforce; we do not fix the fines—we just do what you tell us. It is not an unreasonable figure, although it certainly could go up, rather than down, and we could have something for a second offence. Also, we could take action through prosecution for someone who was constantly offending.

[Dr Johnson]

Wendy, do you have any thoughts—

Lord Michael Bichard: Sorry, I did not hear that. The sound is not—

[Dr Johnson]

Q I do not think the microphones are working terribly well today. Wendy, do you have any thoughts on the size of the fines?

Wendy Martin: Lord Bichard has spoken about the rather varying levels of fines that do exist. The other point worth making is that the issuing of a fixed penalty notice is not automatic anyway. A lot of the work, especially around first offences, would be to try to support businesses with advice on how to comply with the law. It is not the case that, immediately you find something wrong, there will be a fixed penalty notice. There are a lot of drivers for compliance, especially with legitimate businesses that want to comply. As we said, prosecution is an option and you have the £200 fixed penalty, but for longer-term or egregious offences—definitely for repeat offences—prosecution through the magistrates’ court is likely to be an option.

Lord Michael Bichard: One of the problems with prosecution is that it costs money. Therefore, if you can train retailers not to offend, that is a better outcome than having to issue a fixed penalty. For local authorities in particular, with their resource situation being what it is, the last thing they want is more bureaucracy around fixed penalties, prosecutions and all the rest.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Then you welcome the concept of being able to say, “This is the first offence; this is an educational opportunity, rather than an opportunity for a penalty.”?

Lord Michael Bichard: Do we welcome that? Yes, I do. It is our task to take a proportionate position. Some people make mistakes, and there is probably no point in even a fixed penalty notice if someone has just made a mistake. As Wendy has said, training is probably a better option. However, if someone is clearly determined to flout the law, you need to increase the penalties.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Can I ask you about the training available to staff and shops who are being asked to comply with this? We have heard of Challenge 25, where people are told, “If you think someone’s under 25, challenge them just to be on the safe side, because they might be under 18.”, and I have been challenged myself right to the age of 38 on such issues. In the event that someone makes a mistake, and you think they are reputable and genuine and it was just a mistake, and you want to provide them with training, is there training in how to recognise someone’s age? We are not going to just ask whether someone looks young; we are going to be starting to challenge people under 30, or under 35. It can be more challenging to identify how old people in middle age are compared with younger people. Is there any training available for people, in the event that they make mistakes?

Lord Michael Bichard: This is not complex legislation. One of the points we want to make on behalf of trading standards is that we are used to doing this sort of stuff. We are used to doing it for tobacco and illicit cigarettes. It is not complicated. The main issue is, as you say, age identification. People are increasingly used to having to provide some identity or proof of age for all sorts of things. In terms of training retailers, that is about it: if they have any doubts, they need to seek identity.

[Dr Johnson]

Q But if you are asking people to ask someone under 30 for their ID, for example, is there any training available to enable young—or old—shopkeepers to identify which people are likely to be under 30? Evidence suggests that people are quite bad at doing that.

Wendy Martin: No training exists at the moment, because the law is not in place yet, but you are quite right that Challenge 25 is the industry standard in terms of current age-restrictive products, no matter what they are. Certain industry organisations, such as the Association of Convenience Stores or the British Retail Consortium, put on a lot of training programmes for members. There has been Government-funded training in the past. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute hosts a site called the Business Companion, which has good, simple guidance and information that is designed specifically for small businesses and is easy to read and digest.

There needs to be a change of mindset around needing to ask for a date of birth, rather than asking, “Are you 18?” There does need to be information out there, as long as it is not complex. It is a case of reinforcing that, but I think those routes do exist via those websites, industry groups and pre-existing information that needs to be updated. There should be as much communication as possible with the public and businesses as the Bill goes through and gets Royal Assent about what to expect and what is required.

Lord Michael Bichard: Again, we want it to be proportionate, because small businesses cannot afford to spend a huge amount of time in training rooms. I do not think personally that this requires profound, long-term training. It is pretty simple stuff. A lot of it can be done informally.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Lord Bichard, you talked at the beginning of your remarks about resources. Do you think that trading standards have enough resources to implement the regulations and enforce them?

Lord Michael Bichard: I try to make it a principle of my life not to go around asking for more money from Government or the Treasury, so that would not be my first response. However, you have to look at this in context. Trading standards resources have been reduced by about 50% over the last decade, and staffing in local authority trading standards has gone down by about 30% to 50%, so we start from a very low base.

The suggestion that has been made is that trading standards should get £10 million to implement and enforce the legislation. That sounds like a not unreasonable figure, but the way in which it is distributed is quite important. If it is going to be done on a one-year rolling basis, that makes it difficult for local authorities to employ staff; you need some stability if you are going to employ staff. We think that, if it will be £10 million, it needs to be on a four-year cycle so we know that for four years we have that money and can employ the staff.

The other issue to be concerned about is that local authorities that I know—I am a local authority man originally—have been under huge pressure. There is always a temptation to take whatever money is there and use it on the highest priority. If this money is to go to tobacco and vaping, I am afraid that it probably needs to be ringfenced. I know there are some local authority former members here who will not agree with that—I do not normally agree with it, because I think local authorities should have the space to make their own decisions—but if you want this money to go to tobacco and vaping, it will probably need to be ringfenced.

I will make two final points. I know it sounds like a detail, but quite a lot of money has to go on storage and disposal. We think it is about 50p to £1 for every vape. That has to come out of the £10 million. Finally—this is really important—some investment has to be made at ports of entry. That is probably the most important intervention of all. We depend on UK Border Force in particular to give us the intelligence to enable us to target our efforts. We are already responsible for product safety at ports, so we rely on UK Border Force. That needs to be properly resourced because, as you will appreciate, it has a lot of other important priorities. If it is going to be effective at port level, we feel that about 20% of whatever money we get needs to be spent there.

I say that with some knowledge, because I visited a couple of ports before Christmas just to see how the product safety stuff was dealt with, and I was pretty shocked. I went to Southampton and Dover, and I must say that on occasions I felt that whether or not we were successful was pretty random. As I say, we were often not getting the intelligence from UK Border Force to enable us to target our resource, and I understand why. We only have a very small number of staff at these ports. We should not underestimate how important port entry is and some money has to go to that. That is a long answer to your question: £10 million sounds like a lot, but if you put in storage, disposal and ports, that makes it look rather less generous, and it probably has to be ringfenced and done on a four-year basis if it is going to have an impact.

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you, that is a really helpful answer. We know that vapes are very difficult to dispose of and to recycle.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q I have a very similar question to the shadow Minister’s. She asked whether you are confident that trading standards will have the resources to enforce the measures in this Bill. My question is: are you confident that trading standards will have the right powers to enforce the measures in this Bill?

Lord Michael Bichard: I think we do feel we will have the right powers, based on the fact that we are already doing some of this quite successfully. We seized something like 2 million vapes last year; we carried out 400,000 test purchases—which is how we check whether or not the legislation is being enforced—and we seized, I think, 19 million illegal cigarettes. So in a way, this is not new stuff for us; it is just bigger. We have the powers and we use them quite effectively. We know that HMRC thinks we are pretty effective in relation to tobacco. We like to think we are a good delivery agency.

Wendy Martin: There has been a lot of work in the development of the Bill and the associated Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs legislation around the ban on single-use vaping products with officials, so we have worked together with them to try to get this to a good place in terms of enforcement powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Inga Becker-Hansen, who is policy adviser for retail products at the British Retail Consortium. For this panel we have until 3.50 pm.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you for coming this afternoon. What do you think will be the challenges facing business in implementing the new age of sale regulations?

Inga Becker-Hansen: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. The question was about age verification, I think—sorry, it is a bit quiet for me here.

[Dr Johnson]

Yes; what are the challenges in implementing the new regulations?

Inga Becker-Hansen: One of the key challenges of age verification is this idea of the rolling age for the smoke-free generation. At this point it is quite identifiable, with those under the regulation being 15, but in 30 years’ time if you have someone who is 45 versus 44 from the date of January 2009, it may lead to ID for each sale of a given product, if that makes sense. This will eventually lead to potential issues. Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop workers, so it is a real concern for retailers that that could be an issue in the future in terms of the smoke-free generation and the ageing of that generation.

We would also like to highlight that a digital ID could possibly make things easier. The Department for Business and Trade is promoting the use of digital ID for alcohol consumption. That could potentially be included as a means of age verification to make the process easier for the average consumer and member of the public.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Can I ask about staff training? Once the legislation goes through, which we expect it to do, retailers up and down the country will need to ensure that their staff are properly trained to follow the law. One of the challenges they will have—not initially, but as it goes forward—is identifying how old individuals are. Are you aware of any training that helps staff members to identify which people are under, say, 30 or 40 years old?

Inga Becker-Hansen: Specifically for under 30 or 40 years old, I do not think we have anything. I imagine that with the Bill something would be implemented.

[The Chair]

Could I ask everybody to speak louder, please? The microphones are not very good at picking up the sound.

Inga Becker-Hansen: Okay, no problem. In terms of age verification for product sale, our members have lots of experience of the sale of tobacco and alcohol products. They have till prompts looking at the date of birth of the customer in the store. There are also badges, posters and mystery shoppers to ensure that they are compliant. Challenge 25 has been implemented since 2009, and our retailers are very compliant with it. There are due diligence procedures that are agreed with primary authorities. I imagine that in terms of identifying sales for people under 30 or 40, it would be a matter for retailers to discuss with their primary authority to identify the best route for that in store.

[Dr Johnson]

Q One of my concerns is that it is quite difficult to identify how old somebody is. People can get themselves into trouble with the law by not being very good at identifying someone’s age, and it is going to get more difficult as this goes forward. Moving away from the age of sale, how will the licensing scheme affect retailers, particularly small retailers?

Inga Becker-Hansen: In terms of the licensing scheme for smaller retailers, it is more about the administrative burden that there will be, and the cost of that. Smaller retailers may not have as much capacity with regard to the licensing scheme. It is quite difficult to comment on it at this point, because we do not know the full detail. If the licensing scheme were to bundle alcohol and vapes and tobacco, or if they are separate or together—those are all the kinds of questions your smaller retailers will have to take on board with regard to the licensing schemes and what they can and cannot provide for their customers.

It will affect revenue for smaller retailers, so it is something to bear in mind. There will be increased bureaucracy and increased costs. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss and contribute to the design of the scheme, but we do not know the full detail, so it is quite difficult to comment on how it will or will not affect smaller retailers specifically.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Matthew Shanks, who is the chair of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group and chief executive of the Education South West multi-academy trust. For this panel, we have until 4.10 pm.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. We have heard in the past from headteachers and others about the challenges they have faced in schools with vaping in particular. Can you give us an update on the effects of vaping on children, in terms of school behaviour management, and on their education?

Matthew Shanks: That is quite a large question, but I can answer it from an anecdotal point of view and from talking to colleagues around the country.

Vaping is a bigger problem than smoking within schools. Children who would not contemplate smoking—sporty children, dancers and so on—engage in vaping because they see it as harmless. It is easily accessible. It is very difficult to detect in schools in a way that cigarette smoking is not. It is seen as very fashionable in terms of the way it is advertised and promoted. I am not saying that this is happening in every school, every day, but we can report instances of children going out of lessons to vape in toilets or various places. Vaping is difficult to catch, because there is no smell, unless they use bubblegum, grapefruit or other such flavours. It is having a huge impact on discipline within schools—on ensuring that children are in lessons, or are in school in the morning on time, and not off-site at lunch time looking for places to vape and so on.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Is there an effect on their concentration or behaviour in class, for example?

It is difficult to prove what is in vapes. Again, there are instances of vapes containing illegal substances, but that is difficult to prove, because of their small size and where they can be secreted or hidden. There is evidence out there of drugs being contained in vapes—snus or Spice in the vapes—being quite addictive. Any kind of addiction leads to misbehaviour, particularly if you put that into secondary schools or among older children in primary schools.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you—that is very helpful. We have heard another thing in the past—in fact, a teacher at one of my children’s schools, produced what looked like a small, pink highlighter pen. To all intents and purposes, it was a pink highlighter pen, but it was actually a vape. It is not clear to me why that would be marketed at the average 40-year-old male smoker who wants to stop—or, indeed, at a 25-year-old female smoker. Why does the vape need to be shaped like a highlighter? That does not make sense to me. It feels as if that is deliberately marketed at children, because it is easy to conceal in a pencil case, and the teachers and parents cannot tell it is there. To what extent do you think that the flavourings, shape and colour of some of the products make them more attractive to very young children?

Matthew Shanks: To speak frankly, those vapes are not marketed at 40-year-old people who are trying to give up smoking. I do not think that vaping is marketed at people who are giving up smoking—it is not a cessation tool: it is a tool to encourage young people to engage in something else. I have talked before about this—it is almost the gateway from chewing gum to the next stage. Half a mile down the road, if you walk towards Trafalgar Square, a shop on the right-hand side—I passed it walking in—is full of colourfully arranged vapes, which do not look harmful; it looks like a sweet shop.

Marketing and selling a vape that looks like a mini pen drive or a highlighter is only done so it can be secreted and make it difficult to catch students with them. We have had instances where part of the vape can be slipped into a bra, so we cannot search and find it. As I was saying, it is difficult to know what is in the vapes or whether people are actually vaping, which leads to confrontation between teachers, children and parents.

More recently, one of the things we have found is that, although they are still fashionable, we have seen a lack of fashionableness around the single-use vapes, because of the impact on the environment and the hope that they will be banned. There is far more reluctance—with arguments caused—among children and parents not wanting to give up larger vapes, because they have paid for them, and that therefore brings parents into conflict with teachers when they want to claim back their children’s vapes. Sometimes those vapes are their parents’ vapes or, sometimes, vapes that they have spent a lot of money on. My view and that of colleagues that I am representing is that vapes are not being advertised to help people to cease smoking; they are being advertised to encourage people to take up a habit.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I agree with you on that. To what extent will the Bill help to resolve, or at least alleviate, the problem of children vaping?

Matthew Shanks: At the moment, there is a vacuum around an understanding of what vaping is and what it can and cannot do. I cannot talk to the health aspects, because I am not a health expert, but it is something that is not clear. Because it is not clear, that is enabling children to engage in it and parents to encourage children to engage in it. There are instances of parents giving it as a reward because it is not a cigarette and they therefore see it as being “safe”. I think the Bill will help with that.

What is really important is the messaging and the education around the harm that vaping can do to young people and to adults as well. We need to bring it back to the original reason why vaping came about in the first place, which, as far as I was concerned, was about ceasing smoking. Lots of my friends took up vaping to cease smoking. They do not vape any more or smoke, but lots of children vape who would never contemplate smoking.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I have one final quick question on detectors. Some schools have tried detector devices to pick up vape vapour that is not picked up by smoke detectors. What are your thoughts on those? Are they effective and have they been useful to schools?

Matthew Shanks: Children are very clever, and they will find a way round. On the other hand, far be it from me to sit here as a teacher and talk about funding, but vape detectors would cost money. Smoke detectors are in schools anyway, so it is far simpler. I think children will find a way around it. We saw a real decrease in cigarette smoking with the advertising and marketing. I have been teaching for 30 years, and we saw a decrease in that, but you cannot win an argument at the moment with parents or children talking about the dangers of vaping. That is the hardest thing.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Will this Bill help with that?

Matthew Shanks: Yes—very much so.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q The shadow Minister is absolutely right to mention highlighter pens. You mentioned pen drives. There are examples of vapes that look like mobile phones. There are examples of vapes that are concealed within the hood strings of hoodies, so kids sucking on their hood strings are often vaping. It is clear that the industry is being very malicious in its approach to marketing vapes, which is why the Bill introduces a ban on advertising and sponsorship. Do you think that will have a material impact on dissuading children and young people from vaping?

Matthew Shanks: I think it will, but for some it will not unless it has the education behind it as well. I also think it is too easy for children to purchase vapes. It is all very nice to think of shopkeepers not allowing children to buy vapes or tobacco if they are under age. I am not denigrating them, but we have instances, for example, of a year 9 child who had a loyalty card for a vape shop. She is 13 years of age—she did not look 18—yet she is being sold that at the local shop. You go in and talk to the local shop and they say that no, of course they have not sold it to her, and then there is conflict there. We need to look at the legality of it and sterner punishment, for want of a better word, for people who are found to be selling.

The drop box online purchasing industry also needs to be looked at. I do not know how, but again, we know that people purchase vapes from those places. The education side is for parents, because parents and older brothers and sisters think it is safe and will therefore give them a vape. The Bill will help, but there are other things that could help as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Now that things have settled a bit, I welcome Dr Laura Squire OBE, from whom we will now hear evidence. She is chief healthcare quality and access officer for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For this panel, we have until 4.30 pm, which is obviously 20 minutes.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for coming. I want to ask you about the approval process that vapes go through. People say, “This has MHRA approval,” or “This has an MHRA tick,” and they may therefore think it is safe because you have “medicines” in your title. Could you briefly lay out your processes for regulating items such as vapes for commercial sale? How does that differ from medical devices regulation, which is the larger part of your business?

Dr Laura Squire: Thank you very much for that question—I welcome the chance to answer it. As you say, we are a healthcare products regulatory agency. That is what we are about. When a medical product comes to us, it has a medical purpose. For example, it might be something that is prescribed to help someone deal with issues of nicotine withdrawal and to get them off a product. That would be licensed as a medicine because the active ingredient in it is a medicine. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 sometimes come into that too.

In order to give a licence to a product such as that, the manufacturer that has produced it will need to give us a dossier that has clinical and quality evidence in it—all sorts of things that go through a detailed assessment by our very skilled assessors, some of whom are medics and some of whom are skilled in pharmacy and also look at quality.

It is important to say that when we license any medical product, we do not say, “This product is safe.” We consider the risks and benefits of the product, and if the benefits outweigh the risks, we will give it a licence. We always say that medicines are not safe things, so if you do not need them for the benefits, do not take them.

The approach that we take on consumer products is very different. That is not an assessment process; it is a notification scheme that we undertake under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, whereas before I was talking about the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medical Devices Regulations. Under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, we basically have a notification scheme. The manufacturer of a consumer e-cigarette would have to come to us and show that the product has the 20 mg, and that the refill container has no more than 10 ml, and then there are some limited labelling requirements. But we do not inspect or test that product; it is a data check to see whether those things are true, and then it goes on to the register. It is a very simple notification scheme, which is very helpful in terms of having a single record of what is out there on the market, but it is nowhere near the sort of assessment that we would do if it were a prescribed product that was proven to help people stop smoking.

The other role, once any product within our remit is on the market, is post-market surveillance. We have something called the yellow card scheme—people may have heard much more about it during the pandemic—whereby anybody can report a problem with a product. That covers consumer vapes, medical e-cigarettes and other nicotine-containing products that we might license.

We examine all the reports that we get, and if there is a signal that there is a problem, we sometimes issue a safety communication. We did that a couple of years ago when there was some evidence of lung damage. We have that role, and we often co-operate with other organisations where there is a need for enforcement. We heard from trading standards earlier, which does that. The roles are very different.

[Dr Johnson]

Q You have explained that they are very different roles: in one, there is a level of safety that is checked; in the other, the manufacturers just notify that they are following the basic level of rules. When a customer buys a product, do you think that the suggestion that it is MHRA-approved leads the customer to believe that there is some evidence that it has been medically checked in some way by some higher competent authority, when that actually has not happened? In fact, would it be better for some other organisation to do this work, or for there to be a different name when the lower-level process has taken place?

Dr Laura Squire: I do not have any evidence of that, but it does worry me. We are an organisation that is about healthcare products, medicines, medical devices and blood products—that is our business—and it concerns me that people might think that vapes are safe. When I talk about risk-benefit, what I mean is that vapes are safer than tobacco; I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. However, vapes are not safer than nothing—and we do not actually know how unsafe vapes are, because there is a need for much longer-term study and understanding of the damage that they could cause.

My feeling is that, yes, there is potentially a misleading position with an organisation like ours, which is basically about healthcare products, running this scheme.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q Welcome to the Committee, Dr Squire. I will ask two questions specifically about the notification scheme, which you very helpfully outlined to the Committee in your response to the shadow Minister. First, what do you think are the most pressing issues with the current notification scheme that you would like to see addressed in a new registration scheme?

Dr Laura Squire: I think we heard earlier about the different elements you need to make something work—licensing, regulations and registration—and I agree with that. I think it was also mentioned that registration is important to allow compliant businesses to check that the product that they have is compliant.

The significant problem with the notification scheme at the moment is that there is not an easy way to take something off the register once it is already on it. That is a problem, because if people are checking the current register, there might be something on it that we would quite like to take off but cannot.

There are powers to take things off the shelves, so if there was a recall issue, that could be dealt with. However, the main problem, or the primary thing in the Bill that I think needs to change, is having powers to take things off the register. Obviously, we must consult on the regulations themselves, but we welcome that change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For this panel we have Professor Steve Turner, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Professor Sanjay Agrawal, the special adviser on tobacco at the Royal College of Physicians. We have until 4.50 pm for this panel.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you and welcome. I reiterate that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. My first question is about the medical harms of vaping. We know that these products are relatively new and that it took quite a long time to establish how harmful smoking was. What do we know about harms that vaping may cause to children who have never smoked?

Professor Steve Turner: I will answer that question. Thank you for accommodating me; I have flown a long way. I thank Professor Bauld for reshuffling the order of the panels. I am passionate about this issue, and I am grateful to be able to contribute.

Vaping is harmful for children, and the evidence is accumulating. Vapes contain nicotine, which is harmful to us as human beings. You have heard previously from Matthew Shanks of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group about the impact of vaping on children’s education. There are evidences of children coming to harm from vaping devices bursting into flames. There is a lot of talk about something called popcorn lung, which fortunately is very rare, but it is very serious and can affect children who vape. Collectively, there is already a substantial burden of evidence that vaping is harmful for children.

[Dr Johnson]

Q We have heard a bit today about the marketing of vapes and the flexibility of industry to maintain its market of nicotine-addicted people. Do you think that the Bill is sufficiently flexible? For example, we have seen nicotine pouches becoming more popular with children, and we have started to see them advertised in bright colours and flavours, such as groovy grape and witty spearmint, and in the same patterns that we saw with vaping, which have been described today. Is the Bill future-proof enough to stop those sorts of activities?

Professor Steve Turner: The Royal College has 24,000 paediatricians in the UK and overseas, so we are a substantial college. We strongly support the Bill as it is. We believe that it provides the right protection for the most vulnerable members of our society—our children, who are our future—and that it is proportionate. We think the Bill as it stands addresses all the concerns that you just raised, and others.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Professor Agrawal, do you have anything to contribute about the effects of vaping on older people?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: The majority of adults who vape have smoked, so they are using vapes to quit smoking. The amount of research that looks at populations who have never smoked, who have only vaped, is actually quite small—the longitudinal studies are still not there. We know from shorter-term studies that vaping can lead to things like coughing and throat irritation, but it is important to consider the alternative, which is continued smoking.

I estimate that, in the roughly 30 years since I qualified and started professional practice, about 3 million people in the UK have died from smoking tobacco. The intensive care unit in which I work and the lung cancer clinics that I do are full of people who have come to harm from accrued smoking. There should be no doubt that smoking combusted tobacco is the key thing that we want to prevent future generations being subjected to. There are still 6 million smokers in the UK, and we need to help as many of them as we can to stop smoking. Vaping is one means by which they can stop smoking, and that is really important.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I want to ask you about flavours, given your experience of people who are trying to quit. There has been some debate about restricting flavours, and how flavours entice children but, perhaps, help adults. When I first met somebody from the industry, I asked them about flavours and they told me that when somebody uses another quitting aid to stop smoking, they will use the quitting aid, then stop the quitting aid, and then they are not using any products, buying anything or making any revenue for the companies. However, when somebody has a choice of flavours, they do not just give up smoking; they transfer their addiction to another product, which they then to continue to buy because it is enjoyable to vape these different flavours and to choose different flavours at different times if they get bored. Is that something that you see in your clinical practice? How do vapes compare with nicotine patches, gums or other inhalation devices that just provide nicotine in terms of, first, giving up smoking and, secondly, persisting with a new habit?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: There are a few things to unpack there. First, a lot of people who smoke and who want to give up use vapes because they have tried other products and have not been able to give up, be that nicotine replacement therapy or tablet pharmacotherapy. One thing those people want to get away from is the taste of tobacco, and having flavours allows them to do that. Actually, other NRT products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours—it is not just vapes. Flavours are an integral part of helping people to get away from smoking.

Equally, as we know, flavours attract young people to smoking, so it is really important that we limit the number of them. However, the flavour descriptors are perhaps more important: I think we need to make them bland. The Bill, as it stands, provides powers to restrict all sorts of elements related to vaping, such as the number of flavours, the descriptors, the packaging, the appeal and the advertising. Having bland descriptors and eliminating flavours that we know are popular among children would be really helpful.

[Dr Johnson]

Q That leaves the Government with a difficult choice, does it not? At the moment, there are a whole plethora of flavours. You can make the descriptions boring very easily but, if you are going to choose a small range of flavours, the intent will presumably be to choose the ones containing those chemicals that are thought to be the least harmful. Is there evidence that would enable you to choose which flavours may, or may not, be less harmful?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: First, there is good survey evidence of what is popular among adult smokers who are using vapes to try to quit, so that is one helpful factor. Then there are flavourings that are potentially associated with harm. Cinnamaldehyde has been associated with harm, so that would be one, for example, that you would remove.

[Dr Johnson]

Q Okay, but you do not have specific evidence that compares flavours. Say the popular flavours are cherry and raspberry—you do not have anything that says which is safer.

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: No.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q Welcome to the Committee, and I thank you both for your time. In answer to the shadow Minister, you have outlined some of the early impacts of vaping that we are seeing in patients. But I am interested in smoking—tobacco is a killer. Following on from the evidence this morning from the CMOs from across the UK, what impacts of smoking do you see in your patients—I include second-hand smoking in that analysis—and what difference do you think the measures in the Bill will make?

Professor Steve Turner: Smoking is bad whether you are an active smoker or a passive smoker. Sadly, there are lots of children who still actively smoke, but there are many hundreds of thousands of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home. There is undeniable evidence that that exposure is harmful. I do respiratory paediatrics. Asthma admissions are very common and are clearly associated with exposures.

We can look at natural experiments. For example, in Scotland we had the “Take it right outside” campaign, which was a smoke-free homes initiative. After that, there was a reduction in the number of children coming into hospital. When we brought in the ban on smoking in cars in Scotland, there was another reduction. On that whole-population basis, there is a lot of evidence of benefit to the population, particularly children, from smoking interventions. There are also benefits to the birth weight of children.

There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of harm from second-hand smoke, and anything that reduces the population’s exposure to second-hand smoke will benefit the whole population. As we heard earlier from Matthew, the headteacher, it is part of a package, and it is part of education as well. Smoking continues to be something that children should not do. Children should never vape. Children should never smoke. They continue to do so, and anything that we as a responsible society can do to stop that is to everybody’s benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the record, our final witness is Andrew Gwynne MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention at the Department of Health and Social Care. We have until 5.20 pm.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I have a few questions about understanding the thought process behind some of the Government’s decisions. One of the suggestions made by a Labour Back Bencher in the previous Bill Committee —I think we were both on it—was that of a nicotine-free generation. Today, in particular from the CMO, we heard about how the industry flexes to maintain its pool of addicted people. We have heard before how young people are particularly vulnerable to starting an addiction. You have also talked about simplicity and the importance of making it easy for retailers to do the age checks. When raising the age of sale for tobacco products, why did you choose not to raise the age for other nicotine products at the same time and have one simple process?

Andrew Gwynne: Thank you for that question. I was not actually on the Bill Committee when the previous iteration of this measure went through Parliament, because I was the shadow Social Care Minister—I had been bumped away from public health, only to return to it in government.

The starting point is a recognition that the previous Government brought forward a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was incredibly foresighted of them. I thank those—including you—who supported that proposed legislation. We have to be mindful of the fact that the first thing we are seeking to do is to make the United Kingdom smoke-free, and smoke-free as soon as possible. As we heard from the chief medical officers from the various nations that make up the United Kingdom, tobacco is a killer. Our first target has to be driving down the instances of smoking and, as a consequence, of tobacco-related death and illness, and the harms caused by second-hand smoking. That is why the measures in so far as tobacco is concerned are far weightier than the measures in respect of vaping.

The other thing I would like to say in answer to your question—this is an important point; we are concerned about nicotine addiction—is that we need to get the balance right. We recognise that vaping is an important smoking cessation tool—as the CMO said, not all countries share that point of view, but in the United Kingdom we see it as an important part of the package to help people to quit smoking. There has been a very successful scheme in this country, the Swap to Stop initiative, and that is an important part of this.

We are really concerned about the scourge of child and youth vaping, however, and that is why we think that the measures in the Bill are proportionate, because we are tackling a specific issue: stopping children taking up vaping and trying to dissuade adults who have never smoked from taking up vaping. As the CMOs have said, vaping is better than smoking, but not vaping and not smoking is the best option of all.

This is a proportionate measure. As you know, we are seeking quite far-ranging powers, and that is to ensure that, across the four nations, we can react as industry reacts to these changes so that this Bill will be future-proof. If we were overly prescriptive, we would then have to come back to Parliament with further primary legislation. While we are not seeking to be nicotine free at this moment in time, there will be powers in the Bill that allow, at some stage in the future, the Governments that make up the United Kingdom to consult to go further. The aim now is to stop smoking, to get to our smoke-free targets and to crack down on childhood vaping.

[Dr Johnson]

Q I am not sure that I completely understand your argument, because the rise in age of being able to smoke will also inevitably raise the age of people who are wishing to quit. Of course, if a Government want to do it later, you could end up in a very tricky situation where you are asking people to enforce an age of sale of 18 for alcohol, a requirement that no one born after 1 January 2009 is allowed to buy tobacco, and another requirement as yet to be determined for vaping. That could make things more complicated still, so I am not sure about that, but thank you for your answer.

My other question is about advertising. You will be aware that I put forward an amendment to the Conservative Bill to try to restrict advertising, because I think it is important to try to restrict advertising to children. How will health professionals who are promoting vaping as an alternative to smoking specifically in a medical setting, not necessarily on the tube or the side of a bus, be protected from being criminalised?

Andrew Gwynne: This is an area in which this Bill really does build on the previous Government’s iteration of the Bill. I want to take the politics out of it and thank Members such as yourself who really pushed this last time round. We are able to do this because it was a commitment of the Labour party in the 2024 manifesto that we would ban the advertising of vapes and the promotion of vapes in sponsorship. There is 75% support for an advertising ban on vapes.

In terms of being able to promote vapes as a quit aid, of course, you will have read in part 6 of the Bill that it is only an offence if advertising is done in the course of business. That excludes the promotion of vapes as a quit aid. That is something that hopefully you will welcome.

[Dr Johnson]

Q What was your thought process on shisha, bongs and other paraphernalia, which some people feel are not adequately covered by the Bill?

Andrew Gwynne: Oh, you will get me on my hobby horse, having mentioned bongs. All tobacco products will be covered by the measures in this Bill. Shisha is covered. Shisha is a harmful product, as are other tobacco products. In respect of paraphernalia, I have raised with officials and colleagues in the Home Office what I see as a potential issue: if this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, and there is further consultation on the packaging and display of vapes, we could end up with a situation where vapes, like cigarettes and other tobacco products, are hidden behind cabinets in plain packages, but those same newsagents have bongs in the window. I am assured by my officials that bongs and grinders can also be used for the consumption of tobacco, and therefore will fall within the scope of the measures in this Bill in that they will not be able to be displayed.

[Dr Johnson]

Q My final question is about the awareness of public spaces legislation. You are creating the powers to restrict people’s ability to smoke and vape outside in places that you have chosen reasonably sensibly, but you could extend them. If you do extend them, how will you ensure that people know so that they are not inadvertently criminalised? If the Secretary of State wakes up in the morning and decides that he or she, depending on who it is at the time, wants to change this public spaces legislation, they can very easily do so, so how will we make sure people know that has been done?

Andrew Gwynne: Well, we cannot easily do so. The powers in the Bill mean that we have a statutory duty to consult. As we have already heard, Wales already covers the areas that we wish to consult on in respect of England. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have their own consultations. But as far as England is concerned, the Government have been very clear that, should this Bill pass, we will consult on implementing smoke-free areas outdoors around children’s playgrounds and schools and outside hospitals.

Given the media interest and speculation over the summer as to outdoor areas to which the Government might extend the outdoor restrictions, including hospitality, it would not be possible for any Government to just wake up one day and decide they were going to extend these measures to x, y and z and for nobody to notice. It would be on the front cover of every newspaper and all over X, Facebook, Bluesky and other social media. People would be very aware of a Government’s intentions to extend outdoor smoking and we would be under a statutory duty to consult and to pursue secondary legislation, which is ultimately subject to a vote of the House.

[Dr Johnson]

Q The Welsh Government are apparently struggling with compliance in hospital areas. What have you learned from your Welsh counterparts on how you can ensure better enforcement and compliance in England?

Andrew Gwynne: That is a really important question. It is why, at every opportunity today, I have been asking those with an interest in public health in Wales what lessons we can learn. We want to get this right. The reality is that alongside the package of enforcement we will bring forward—the registration; the licensing scheme; the fixed penalty notices—we have to approach this with a degree of proportionality, particularly to ensure that there is as good a compliance with the regulations as possible.

Most people are law-abiding citizens, and we saw with the indoor smoking ban introduced in 2006-07 that most people complied from day one. I really expect that most people will comply in respect of children’s playgrounds, schools and hospitals. I would hope that the enforcement agencies use a degree of discretion and proportionality at the outset to ensure that those not complying understand that they are potentially breaking the law and should stop doing what they are doing.

[The Chair]

We have about 15 minutes left, and five Members wish to ask questions. Could they do that briefly, and could we have brief answers too?

NHS Backlog

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very happy new year to you. May I also wish the grandmother of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) a speedy recovery? I should declare an interest as a consultant practising in the NHS. My brother is a GP and I am on an orthopaedic waiting list, so I am one of the statistics.

I am looking forward to working constructively with the Government over the next year to deliver for patients across this country. The NHS has been looking after us for more than three quarters of a century. During that time, the practice of medicine has transformed. Cures have been found, and people are living longer and healthier lives. I thank all those staff who have been working in the NHS and social care across the Christmas and new year period.

We all recognise that the NHS is under pressure. We have an ageing population, patients with more complex needs and innovative, but expensive treatments. The pandemic added a huge strain to the NHS. Resources were redeployed away from elective care, and much elective care was postponed to reduce the spread of covid. For example, before the pandemic, 54 women had been waiting more than 12 months for a gynaecological appointment. By the time the pandemic was over, that number had gone from 54 to 40,000. That was replicated across other departments in hospitals across the country.

Although the NHS now treats 25% more patients than it did in 2010, waiting lists are sharply higher. We took steps as a Government to bring them down again. Those measures were working, though not as quickly as we wished. For example, the 18-month waiting list was virtually eliminated, and the 52-week list was steadily falling, despite industrial action. Meanwhile, in Wales, where Labour has been in power for more than 25 years, waiting lists continue to rise.

There is more to do, and no one is suggesting that the issues have been resolved. Waiting lists are still too high, and that is why we funded the £3.5 billion NHS productivity plan in full to upgrade IT, to expand the NHS app and to capitalise on the benefits of artificial intelligence. The Government were elected in July on the promise of a plan, but sadly the plan has still not yet been published. The Government were also elected on a promise to deliver 40,000 more appointments per week. I wish them huge success with that, but I am not optimistic. The Secretary of State has repeatedly been asked when those additional appointments will become available, but there have been no clear answers. Will the Minister please provide one, or tell us what progress has been made?

This morning we heard more about Labour’s elective reform plan. I was really pleased to hear that the Government will continue with many Conservative initiatives, which were working.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I will not, because I have a time limit.

I was pleased to hear that the Government will continue many Conservative initiatives, such as expanding the surgical hubs programme and extending the work of community diagnostic centres, but some of the other parts were a little confusing. Patients are to have a choice of where they are treated, but they already do. They are also to receive text messages to remind them of appointment times. That is great, but it is already happening. In fact, a look back through my phone revealed that the earliest text message I could find reminding me of an appointment for my child at Peterborough city hospital was sent on 28 July 2015, so this is not a new initiative. Patients are to get results online. Well, again, they already do. If the Minister has not seen that, I urge her to visit Addenbrooke’s hospital, where, via the MyChart system, patients can already log on and read their MRI or blood results or reports. Spreading good practice is to be welcomed, but it is not a revolution. It also faces significant headwinds.

The Government are to direct activity to general practice, but GPs are already rather busy and facing financial challenges caused by national insurance contributions. How will shifting pressure improve capacity? When will GPs be able to budget? Will the funding settlement be greater than their increased costs from national insurance contributions? If resources are moved to general practice, how will that deliver more secondary care appointments? One person can only do so much work. What is the Government’s plan for the workforce, which will be so key?

Of course, it is not just GPs who are affected by the national insurance contributions. The Secretary of State talked about record investment in hospices, but before Christmas the Minister was repeatedly unable to say whether that record investment would cover the rise in national insurance contributions that those same hospices are facing. Can she update the House now?

Patients are to have the choice on whether to have follow-up appointments, which will apparently reduce a million unnecessary appointments every year. Will that be a choice for patients to have a desired follow-up appointment that is not recommended by clinical staff—in which case, that could actually increase the number of appointments required—or will it be a choice not to have an appointment that a doctor or clinician has recommended? In that case, is that wise?

It is cold outside, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, this morning I woke up to blizzard conditions at my window. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of extra admissions that have occurred this winter for elderly patients who have been cold due to the removal of their winter fuel allowance?

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way? She has heard me.

[Dr Johnson]

I have heard the hon. Lady but will not give way, because the Deputy Speaker has been clear about the time constraints in the debate.

Has the Minister made an estimate of the number of extra admissions caused by elderly people who are cold due to the removal of the winter fuel allowance, what impact that is having on hospitals, and how many elective appointments that would otherwise have occurred have been cancelled as a result? We heard the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talk about his cancelled ENT list from this morning.

We have had six months of a Labour Government. They have cancelled the building of 24 hospitals, they have launched a series of reviews, they have significantly increased costs on indirectly provided NHS services because of national insurance, and they have re-announced what has already been happening, in some cases for many years. I am a doctor and I am a patient, and I really want the Government to succeed in improving the NHS; we all do—we have heard too many troubling tales from our constituents and again this evening—but stating aims does not make them happen, and launching reviews and press releases is simply not enough.

Hospice Funding

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on hospice funding.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for asking that important question. This Government want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life. We will shift care out of hospitals into the community to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate settings. Palliative end of life care services, including hospices, will have a big role to play in that shift. Most hospices are charitable, independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. The amount of funding that each charitable hospice receives varies both within and between integrated care board areas.

On children and young people’s hospice funding, the Minister for Care met representatives from NHS England and Together for Short Lives and one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care to discuss children’s palliative and end of life care, and that funding stream was discussed at length at that meeting.

This Government recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years, so today I am delighted to announce the biggest investment in hospices and end of life care in a generation. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that those hospices have the best physical environment for care, and with £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The funding will support hospices and deliver much needed funding for improvements, including refurbishment, overhaul of IT systems and improved security for patients and visitors. It will help hospices in this year and next year in providing the best end of life care for patients and their families in a supportive and dignified physical environment.

Hospices for children and young people will receive that further £26 million in funding for 2025-26 through what was, until recently, known as the children’s hospice grant. We will set out the details of the funding allocation and dissemination in the new year.

We completely understand the pressures that people are under. To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor chose to support health and social care in the Budget. The alternative is not to fund. The sector has suffered from 14 years of underfunding, and we are righting that historic wrong. This Government are committed to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality palliative and end of life care as part of our plan for change. We are taking immediate action to make our healthcare fit for the future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and everyone in the House will welcome this announcement. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to give the House an early Christmas present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think you might find that I granted the urgent question, but don’t worry, Minister. I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

After the confusion of yesterday, I welcome the fact that further details on hospice funding have been announced, albeit by our dragging them out of the Government on the very last day of Parliament before the recess.

On 30 October, the Chancellor decided to break her election promise by increasing employers national insurance contributions and reducing the threshold at which employer contributions are payable. It was later confirmed that hospices would not be exempt from the increase in costs. Now the Government have announced new funding for the sector, which they have the audacity to call

“the biggest investment in a generation”.

Let us be clear about what is going on: the Government are taking millions of pounds off hospices and palliative care charities, and then think those hospices and palliative care charities should be grateful when the Government give them some of that back. That is socialism at its finest.

We will look more closely at the funding announced today, but despite many questions from right hon. and hon. Members, to date the Government have refused to give any clear answers on how much their tax rises will cost hospices. I will try again: will the Minister please tell us how much the Government estimate they will raise from taxing hospices more? Was an impact assessment ever produced on how hospices will be hit, and how that will affect the care that they provide? Do the Government expect the funding that they have announced today to cover the additional costs in their entirety?

At the heart of this discussion are charities that provide compassionate care to terminally ill people in their final days, weeks and months. While hospices were left without information, Hospice UK reported that 300 beds have already closed, with many more closures to come. Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that? Ultimately, it is patients who will pay the price.

While we welcome this update for hospices, when will the Health Secretary come forward with more details on the many other health providers who have been hit by Labour’s tax increases, including GPs, community pharmacies and dentists? Will they be expected to be similarly grateful for getting back some of the money that the Government have taken from them?

[Karin Smyth]

To govern is, indeed, to choose. The Conservative party chose neither this sector nor any other health sector and it refused to govern. Within five months, we have not only increased the funding to the health sector to stabilise it but made today’s announcement.

Beneath all that, there might have been a welcome for the announcement—I am not entirely sure—whereas the sector is pleased to have the money. The chief executive of Hospice UK said:

“This funding will allow hospices to continue to reach hundreds of thousands of people every year with high-quality, compassionate care. We look forward to working with the government to make sure everyone approaching the end of life gets the care and support they need”.

The chief executive of Haven House children’s hospice said that it is

“very positive to hear about the government’s plan to invest significantly in the wider hospice sector; we hope that there will be as much flexibility as possible to determine locally how this new money is spent.”

This is an important issue for many hon. Members, and we look forward to working with the sector in the new year on the specifics of the announcement.

Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on securing this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, as I am a practising NHS consultant, although in paediatrics rather than in any form of gynaecological surgery.

I begin by expressing my heartfelt sympathies to the women affected by injuries from pelvic mesh and, indeed, mesh in other sites, as we have heard about. Mesh is a surgical material and technically, therefore, a medical device, which was implanted in thousands of women to treat organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. However, in many cases, as we have heard today, it has caused serious long-term effects, including chronic pain, infections, organ perforation and, in some cases, permanent disability, which continues even after the mesh has been removed.

The exact number of affected women is still not known. Some have estimated the number to be 10,000, and today we have heard an estimate of 40,000. However, it is clear that it is a very large number of women. I echo the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) in thanking Baroness Cumberlege, the Conservative peer who published the independent medicines and medical devices safety review in 2020. The review panel spoke to more than 700 women and their families from across the country. The document is exceptionally comprehensive, and it puts patients’ and families’ views at the heart of the review. Their experiences make for harrowing reading. The women speak of lives damaged, families put under immense strain, relationships destroyed, careers broken, financial ruin and chronic pain.

Last week, I spoke to a woman who is suffering after having had such mesh put in. Following the surgery, the skin never healed because of a low-level infection. That lady faces awful difficulties. The mesh is visible through the skin, from the surface. It is incredibly difficult to remove. Indeed, she has not been able to find a surgeon who is willing to even try to remove it, so she suffers in the house, unable to go out and experiencing infection after infection, an increasing number of which are resistant to some antibiotics. She knows that without the mesh removal, her prognosis is poor. It is an awful situation to be in, as I am sure the Minister will agree. I know he will be doing his best to try to help. Our healthcare system has to learn from those it has failed, such as that lady, and ensure that patients are put at the front and centre of healthcare so that this cannot happen again.

The Minister needs to focus on two things: how we help those affected by the mesh scandal, and how we prevent similar incidents with medical devices that we do not yet know the harms of, or that may not yet have been invented. People should not have to pay privately for treatment to rectify things that the NHS has done wrong. When someone has had a mesh put in and the mesh needs removing, the NHS should pay for that care. If the NHS cannot provide it, the NHS and the Minister must find a way of funding that care, provided by whoever can provide it, so that women are not financially out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds for something that is not their fault.

The nine centres have been set up, and that is a good thing; they have been set up with a full multidisciplinary approach, which is also good. However, as we have heard, the outcomes are not 100% good in all cases. Surely it is intuitive that women should not have to see the same surgeon again. They should not be forced to make that explicit. It should be automatic, unless they want to see the same surgeon; it should be an opt-in system.

I urge the Minister to look at what the centres do. They provide help for women who have had pelvic mesh repair, but there are people suffering with mesh problems who have had mesh put into other places, for example near the rectum or in the abdominal wall. That may be women, but it may also be men, and they may suffer quite significant problems as a result. They need a centre, or several centres, of people who can support them and ensure that their mesh is removed, or their treatment needs are met, to stop the suffering they are experiencing.

We need a balance between ensuring that a similar scandal does not happen again and that long-term effects are picked up, and not restricting people’s access to new and innovative good treatments. In this place, we often have debates on treatments that are widely available, but not necessarily available here yet. We want to make good treatments available here quickly, but we need a robust system to identify problems as quickly as possible.

Part of that system includes the Medical Devices (Post-market Surveillance Requirements) (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2024, on which the hon. Member for Harlow, the Minister and others were recently involved in debate. When that statutory instrument was discussed in the Lords, the noble Lord Cryer said that the Government intended to introduce implant cards, and that the SI was part of a wider review of the regulation of medical devices that would be carried out in due course. Will the Minister give us some information on what that will entail? What are his thoughts on the process, and when will it happen? People need these things quickly.

I recognise the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) has done over a long time on many topics affecting women’s health, including the menopause and other concerns, and I congratulate him on that work. He represents female constituents very effectively. He talked about the fact that when surgeons inserted pelvic mesh, they often thought that it was the right thing to do. Only over time did it turn out not to be the panacea that it had been thought to be.

I remember in my medical training being told that a good surgeon is not just a surgeon who can operate well; the best surgeons are those who know when they should not be operating. It is very sad to hear that for many of the women, treatments that did not involve surgery could have been done instead, and that would have meant that those women did not suffer in the way they have done.

I highlight the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on the importance of research. When we are trying to resolve the problems caused by the mesh, we need to know that we are doing that in the most effective way. We need someone to look at the clinical outcomes and ask what we are doing, whether we are doing it in the best way and what other options might be available. This problem is not limited to the United Kingdom. What is being done elsewhere? Are there international comparators that do this better, and can we emulate what they are doing?

What we need from the Minister is rapid action to address the problems faced by women who have had this mesh put in. We need him to assure us that he is doing what he can to introduce proportionate regulations that will ensure that any other devices in use and in circulation across the United Kingdom do what they are supposed to do, and do not do any harm.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave two minutes at the end for the Member who secured the debate to reply.

Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I will be brief.

The Opposition note that the draft regulations are a response to a Conservative Government-launched consultation, more than 91% of respondents to which were supportive. As Conservatives, we welcome innovation and want to support UK patients getting early access to new and innovative treatments. I urge the Government to ensure that funding and hospital resources are available so that patients can benefit from them, and that businesses are structured so that they can use UK hospitals to innovate.

World AIDS Day

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

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

As we mark World AIDS Day, we are called to reflect on the progress that we have made, on the challenges that remain and on the road ahead in our collective fight against HIV and the stigma so often associated with it, especially in the past. The UK has much to be proud of in that effort. Through the introduction of an HIV action plan, we set ambitious goals, such as an 80% reduction in new HIV infections by 2025. Remarkably, we achieved the UNAIDS 95-95-95 target back in 2020: 95% of individuals were living with HIV diagnosed, or presumed to be living with it diagnosed; 99% of them were on treatment; and 97% were achieving good viral suppression. Those figures reflect the dedication of our healthcare professionals and the effectiveness of our public health strategies. When diagnosed early, people with HIV in the UK can now expect a relatively normal life expectancy. The disease is no longer the death sentence it once was. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke about that.

Sadly, that is not the case worldwide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) highlighted the starkness of the global picture. Last year, AIDS-related illnesses claimed as many lives as did the sum total of all wars, homicides and natural disasters that ravaged our planet. In parts of southern Africa, in countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, more than one fifth of the adult population live with HIV. Such figures remind us that the global fight against AIDS is far from over.

Troublingly, within our own borders, we are starting to witness a reversal of hard-won gains. A long and steady decline of HIV rates in the UK has suddenly and sharply risen in recent years. HIV diagnoses in England doubled from roughly 3,000 to a little more than 6,000 between 2020 and 2023, unfortunately reversing more than a decade of progress and throwing the Government’s goal to end HIV transmission by 2030 into some jeopardy.

We must focus on what is driving that resurgence. One key factor is a worrying trend identified by the World Health Organisation: a decline in condom use, especially in younger populations. Between 2014 and 2022, a survey of nearly 250,000 adolescents across Europe found that only 61% of sexually active young men and 48% of young women in England reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about the success of PrEP, its greater availability and how it is an important tool in preventing HIV infections. It has undoubtedly saved lives. The Minister therefore has a complex challenge in how he will continue to promote lifesaving interventions such as PrEP while reinforcing the importance of safe practices such as the use of condoms. I am interested in the Minister’s plans to achieve that.

Another part of the answer is an effective testing strategy. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said—to quote more of his speech—it is about testing, testing, testing. I know that the Labour party like to have the same word three times in a row. Successive Governments have been working very hard to reduce stigma and normalise HIV testing through campaigns such as the “I Test” programme, which helped to normalise HIV testing as something routine and beneficial, both for the individual concerned and wider society. Such campaigns have largely been targeted at communities with a higher HIV presence.

The Conservative Government introduced opt-out testing, which has had a significant impact and is now available in 34 emergency departments across the country. It has identified hundreds of people who were previously undiagnosed or had been lost and followed up with treatment of HIV and hepatitis B and C. The identification of those cases helps the individual concerned and also helps to reduce transmission among the wider population.

What plans do the Government have to expand the testing into more areas of the country and into A&Es across the country so that we can find out what other undiagnosed cases might be out there? Between 2019 and 2021, the estimated number of undiagnosed cases in England declined, but opt-out testing has suggested that there are more cases than we realise. Does the Minister have plans to re-estimate the number of cases of undiagnosed HIV that may be out in the community waiting to be treated?

When one studies the statistics of new HIV diagnoses, it is clear that there has been a rise driven more recently by the migration of individuals who are HIV positive. I wonder what considerations the Minister has given to HIV testing for this population, and what plans he has to target measures to reduce HIV within that group.

Finally, I want to talk about education, which has been and remains a key pillar in protecting young people from HIV and AIDS and reducing the stigma associated with testing and living with HIV. We must recognise the extent to which the pandemic disrupted health outreach programmes and traditional learning, leaving many young people without access to vital information. It is important that young people feel comfortable seeking advice and accessing resources. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the tireless work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and local sexual health clinics, who have continued to provide lifesaving services under incredibly difficult circumstances. However, those organisations cannot tackle the crisis alone. Indeed, with the Government’s new Budget, they face high charges for national insurance contributions. The Terrence Higgins Trust employs more than 200 people. What conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury about exempting such charities from paying national insurance on their employees so that they can continue their good and lifesaving work, rather than just paying more tax into this Government?

We need to ensure that those charities have the funding and resources to expand their outreach, particularly in underserved and high-risk communities. On this World AIDS Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to ending this epidemic. Let us celebrate the progress we have made while recognising that there is still much work to be done. Let us ensure that future generations can live in a world that is free from the shadow of AIDS.