Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“as it applies to other persons.”

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

Evapo also says that

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

“whether made—

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

(b) by means of any machine”,

and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of

“any one or more of the following—

(a) tobacco products;

(b) herbal smoking products;

(c) cigarette papers;

(d) vaping products;

(e) nicotine products.”

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

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

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

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

“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—

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

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

(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“(a) the occupier of the premises, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

That was the second question I considered when preparing for the debate on this clause. My first question was: what is snus? My second was: if it is a tobacco product, why is it treated differently? We have talked about all sorts of different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, snuff—yet this one has particularly robust regulation and a robust legal framework. The only reason I could find was that it is new, trendy and coming forward very quickly, and there were concerns that it would quickly take over the children’s market in the same way as vaping. That is the only suggestion I was able to find. I am sure the Minister will be able to help us to understand why snus is treated so robustly, although I am not sad to see that.

Clause 7 makes it an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products. Oral tobacco products are defined quite particularly as those that are for oral use but not intended to be inhaled or chewed, so they do not include chewing tobacco, which would be included under clause 1. They also have to be in either powder or particle form—as I said, they are in the form of ground tobacco. Currently, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 define “tobacco for oral use” similarly, as tobacco “intended for oral use”, not to be inhaled or chewed, and

“in powder or particulate form or any combination”,

whether presented in a

“sachet portion or a porous sachet, or in any other way”.

Regulation 17 provides for a UK-wide ban on the production and sale of snus. Schedule 6 to the Bill, which we will come to, will repeal that measure and replace it with clause 7.

I want to ask the Minister why it is an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products in the UK, and not an offence to manufacture other tobacco products. He has talked about the need for a smoke-free generation and his worries that smoking tobacco harms individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to choose, but he has not chosen to ban the production of other tobacco products. I found that the last time an English-produced cigarette rolled off the production line was at the Horizon Imperial Tobacco factory in Nottingham in May 2016, and the last UK-made cigarette was produced at Japan Tobacco International’s plant in County Antrim in October 2017. He may feel that such a ban is unnecessary because we are not producing any tobacco products, but I am interested in his thoughts on the matter.

The penalty here is the most severe so far. We have had some debate about different clauses containing fines at levels 3, 4 and 5 on the standard scale, but this clause contains a much more severe penalty for a product that may or may not be less harmful than cigarettes, although it has not been suggested that it is much more harmful. The fine for breaching clause 7 on the ban on manufacture of snus is, on summary conviction, imprisonment of six months, a fine or both. Six months is based on the current upper limit in a magistrates court, but the Lord Chancellor announced in October last year a plan to increase the maximum penalty for a magistrates court to 12 months’ imprisonment, which would presumably apply to this Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is the case and whether there have been any convictions under the existing legislation. The penalty for conviction on indictment would be imprisonment not exceeding two years, a fine or both—again, quite severe penalties when compared with other aspects of the Bill and other tobacco products. I am interested to understand why.

[Sarah Bool]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I am happy to give way—and to be promoted.

[Sarah Bool]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I might have misunderstood, so may I clarify the intended purpose here? If snus is illegal under earlier regulations, what is this further provision? Is it to ensure that nicotine pouches are also caught? The UK has already banned the sale of all oral tobacco products, including snus, under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which implemented European Union directive 92/41. I am hoping for some clarity about that, but perhaps it will come from the Minister.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—I am sure the Minister will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill does not apply to nicotine pouches per se, because nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. As I understand it, the brands we see in our local supermarket in similar round pots contain nicotine, and they are put in the mouth and absorbed in a similar way, but they are not tobacco products. As I read the Bill, clause 7 will not apply to them, and obviously they are not currently illegal, because they are widely sold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Sorry. Equally, I note that the vast majority of Members across the House, both in my party and in other parties, strongly agree with clause 10 and the other clauses that seek to ensure that children do not have access to these products. If someone sells a vaping or nicotine product to a purchaser who is under the age of 18, it is an offence. Under clause 10(2), the seller can defend themselves on the basis

“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and it confirmed the purchaser’s age as at least 18 years old, or…that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”

The Minister has talked about the simplicity of the smoke-free generation and his view that it is easier for shop workers to look at a piece of identification and establish whether someone’s birthday was before or after 1 January 2009 than to establish whether someone was born 18 years ago by doing the mathematics in their head from the person’s date of birth. That brings me again to the question of why we will not have a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free generation. Would it be classed as a reasonable step? If a shop worker had asked for ID, taken the proper ID, as defined in clause 10(3), and done the mathematics wrong in their head, would they have taken all reasonable steps or would their arithmetic error mean that they were to all intents and purposes a criminal? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

Acceptable identity documents for the purpose of buying nicotine or vaping products if one is over the age of 18 include a passport, a UK driving licence, a driving licence from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, a European photocard driving licence or a proof-of-age standards scheme card with a hologram. During the discussions of voter ID, there was a debate about how many people had access to different forms of ID. Passports are reasonably expensive and not everyone drives a car, so how would someone who did not drive a car or have a passport provide ID? When it came to voter ID, the previous Government looked at a number of reliable sources of identification that could be used, which included the veterans card, certain travel documents and the like.

[Sarah Bool]

Recent announcements from the Home Office have confirmed that businesses will be able to legally accept the use of digital proof of age for alcohol products. I would like to see that approach extended to these products, to make the life of retailers easier as far as identification goes. It would be good to have further consistency and an extension of the definition of identity documents to allow for digital forms.

[Dr Johnson]

Digital ID is not something that I am particularly familiar with, but nevertheless it sounds sensible, where ID is reliable, reproducible, not easily faked and easily identifiable by staff. Broadening the forms of acceptable ID would ensure that when somebody is old enough to legally purchase a product, it is not excessively challenging for them to obtain an ID to do so. Clearly the Minister would want people to be able to buy age-restricted products if they are old enough, so I am interested to hear his view not only on my hon. Friend’s intervention about digital identification, but on veterans cards, bus passes and other cards that demonstrate the age of the user and include a photograph for added reliability.

Clause 10(4) states:

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

On a personal level, selling vapes and nicotine products to children is a dreadful thing to do, as I am sure the chief medical officer has said. I am more than happy for the Minister to increase that fine if he wants to, but I am interested to understand why he has set it at that level. Notwithstanding any changes across the four nations, it is important that we look at the choices that the Minister has made. That is what we are here to scrutinise.

The problem that clause 10 seeks to address is vaping among children. Are children vaping? Yes, I am afraid to say that they are, in large quantities. The biggest report of which I am aware that looked specifically at rates of youth vaping was published in 2023 by Healthwatch Blackpool. It looked at over 4,000 children and found that just under a third of them—31%—said that they

“currently vape or sometimes vape”.

Of those children, 65%

“expressed a preference for fruity flavoured vapes”,

which we will deal with later in the Bill. There is clearly an issue that vapes are being directly marketed to children with bright, attractive colours. Some of the most popular flavours include bubble gum, cotton candy, strawberry ice cream and unicorn milkshake. What does unicorn milkshake taste like? I have no idea, but it is easy to see the appeal to children.

An investigation by The Observer in 2022 found that ElfBar, a company that makes vapes, was promoting its products to kids via TikTok. The TikTok platform is apparently used by half of eight to 11-year-olds and by three quarters of 16 to 17-year-olds. When I found that out, I had a look at the screen time of my own children to establish that they were not getting on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, on banning those who are under 18 from vaping. Many know about the health risks of smoking. They see it as a bad habit and disgusting, as the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon noted, but vapes are seen as being new age and social. Parents are in danger of encouraging vaping by buying something that they think is safer than smoking or drugs. We must be very careful about that, so this ban will be important in restricting sales. Children fear being excluded, so, through peer pressure, they are forced into vaping. We need to stamp out this practice.

Children are often confused about vaping. The problem is that they get an accidental addition to nicotine and struggle to pay attention in school, which has a negative impact not just on them but on their classmates. Apparently, children vape to deal with stress and anxiety—they are almost self-medicating, which is appalling. It is right that we protect our children by introducing this offence.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend talks about children self-medicating, but are they not making the situation worse? The use of vapes and nicotine products may exacerbate, rather than ease, any mental health symptoms that they have.

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a medical professional, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and we need to stop it as soon as possible to protect children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 65, 66, 82 and 83 were specifically there to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalty portfolio across the Bill. The Minister has clarified his position on that. It is very important that we see those who are selling vapes to children or, in the case of clause 11, buying vapes for children, appropriately deterred from doing so or appropriately punished. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Vaping and nicotine product vending machines

[Sarah Bool]

I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 12, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, in relation to clause 12, yes. I do not think that vending machines including tobacco and nicotine products or vapes are a good idea, and I moved a new clause for inclusion in the previous Bill because a ban on nicotine and vaping products in vending machines had not been included at the outset. Without such a measure, we will see an expansion of vending machines as a way of selling products to children and getting children addicted. It will be done as a way of making products more available to adults, but its effect will be that the products are more available to children. I do not want to see such products available to children, because they are clearly harmful for them. All the medical evidence we have had states that clearly.

With regard to individuals in mental health hospitals, some may be there as voluntary patients, and some under a mental health section. When someone’s liberty has been taken from them because they are being treated for a mental health condition, we need to be careful that we are not restricting them in other ways in which we would not restrict other people. That is a fair point to make.

We also have to be mindful of the staff. As we go through the Bill, the Minister will rightly be looking at exposure to vaping inside hospitals and at extending the tobacco regulations that limit smoking in public indoor places to cover vaping in indoor public spaces. Indeed, he and you, Sir Roger, will have seen the signs placed in the Tea Room by the Speaker, who rightly wants to see that we do not have vaping there. The public do not want vaping in their tea rooms or in the public domain either, so that is the right thing to do. We need to consider that there are staff and other patients in mental health hospitals who may not wish to vape and should not be inadvertently and unnecessarily exposed to vaping products.

I do not support the idea that 2,400 vends means that this is a positive choice. For some of these people, vaping may have been a positive change from smoking, but for others it may have been a decision to vape.

[Sarah Bool]

I appreciate that; those were the words of the NHS trusts themselves when they talked about positive decisions. We cannot always be sure exactly why someone made that decision, but we have to hope in the first instance that that move away from smoking would turn into vaping and, ultimately, into a smoke-free generation.

I am minded to tighten the wording of my amendment on Report to ensure that the vending machines are in those mental health units for the purpose of facilitating smoke-free policies and smoking cessation, because I do not necessarily want nurses and those working in those units to be exposed to any unnecessary products. When we are dealing with addiction, we all appreciate how difficult it is, and I want to ensure that a process is in place that means that we deal with both the mental health issues patients are dealing with and the addiction in a suitable and balanced fashion.

[Dr Johnson]

I know my hon. Friend’s heart is in a good place when she thinks about how we can protect individual mental health patients who also have an addiction to nicotine. She said that having no vapes on the hospital site could lead to patients taking up smoking, but there are of course no cigarettes on the hospital site either. I do not support the idea that the removal of one product will automatically lead to the use of another unavailable product.

If a member of the Committee, for example, wanted to leave the room now and go and get some vapes, they would need to leave the House, go and find a shop, and purchase them, and the same is true of an average patient: they would have to leave their home, find a shop, buy their vapes and come home again. The availability of a vaping vending machine on a ward in a mental health hospital would make vapes much more available to an individual and much more proximal than they would be under normal circumstances, which may lead to a greater consumption of nicotine than would be the case if the vapes had to be accessed elsewhere.

As we have mentioned repeatedly, nicotine is a very addictive drug, and I will not reiterate that beyond saying that if one is in a hospital unit and unable to leave because one is on a section, and one is used to using nicotine, the cravings would be extremely unpleasant and the withdrawal could be very nasty indeed. With that in mind, we wish to ensure that those individuals are cared for, and I know that the Minister wants to ensure that they are cared for too, but I remind the Committee that other nicotine replacements are available.

Several treatments are available from shops and pharmacies to help to beat the addiction, and those are available on prescription to individuals currently residing in a mental health unit, voluntarily or otherwise. Essentially, they are nicotine replacement therapies, by which I mean a proper medicine, as opposed to a consumer product, that provides somebody with a low level of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. They help to reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, and may affect mental health treatment too. They can be bought from pharmacies and shops, but a doctor can prescribe them and NHS stop-smoking services can provide them, and they are available in a whole range of forms. There are skin patches that provide a slower release, chewing gum and little inhalators that look like a small plastic cigarette. There are tablets, oral strips, lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays.

There is a huge variety of different nicotine replacement therapies. Some, such as the inhalators, gums and sprays, act quickly to provide nicotine, and some, such as the patches, release nicotine slowly. The treatment depends on the stage of craving and the stage of giving up that somebody is at, and on what is most suitable for them. Sometimes patients find that the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy is to have a low-dose patch that is worn all the time, with top-ups from a gum, inhalator or nasal spray if they have particular cravings. Treatment with such nicotine replacement therapy usually lasts eight to 12 weeks before the dose is reduced and eventually stopped.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.