Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Bool]

I entirely agree, and we have been trying to promote that argument. It has unfortunately been claimed that Northamptonshire could become the warehousing capital of the UK, but we should be using the roadsides. We sometimes see airports using the side banks for solar panels. Solar panels should be installed on the covers of petrol stations and on the roofs of warehouses. I know that the last Government were consulting on whether more warehouse space could be used. I know that some people make technical arguments that the roofs are not strong enough and cannot be reinforced, but that is absolute nonsense. We can definitely work to ensure that the roofs are sturdy enough for solar panels.

There is debate about whether it should be the landlord or the tenant who bears the cost of the initial outlay, and about who gets the benefit. All those things are completely surmountable, and we should be able to work on a programme for that going forward. It all goes back to planning, because meaningful requirements could enable solar power generation. I am often concerned that these initiatives end up just being greenwashing and that we are only putting them in place to be able to tick a box. What we want to see is these schemes being meaningfully integrated.

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

My hon. Friend is making a great speech about the importance of thinking about things strategically. Does she agree that if one was thinking about the strategic placement of ground-mounted solar, one would not put it on the best and most versatile farmland that we have for food security?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. It certainly should not be put there, and the national planning policy framework states we should not be doing that. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that we are still having debates on this issue. There are certainly other alternatives, and they must be explored, so I really do hope that the Government take this issue seriously as it progresses over the years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for making those points. Yes, all the different incentives matter. In the farming environment, our farmers have struggled with a lack of certainty. With the removal of the sustainable farming incentive and with the capping and closure of all the different funds, there has been no certainty. In an industry that requires certainty, they cannot just suddenly change a crop halfway through. They have to rely on security, and it has not been delivered so far. We need to do whatever we can to put in place long-term guarantees of funding and make sure that they realise that they are secure for the future.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous with her time. Does she have any comment on the scale of some of these proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) talked about an 8,000-acre proposal, and 9,340 acres are currently open to planning in my area. It can be quite difficult to appreciate quite how big that is, so for the Minister’s benefit let me say that the constituency of Rutherglen stands at a total of 10,230 acres. That means that the solar farms planned in my constituency would cover 91% of his area.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 14 defines a local authority as

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

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 (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will focus on two main points from two different organisations.

The first point, which builds on the points made by my hon. Friends, was made by Cancer Research UK when discussing packaging for vapes. The organisation is obviously in support of placing some restrictions on packaging to reduce youth vaping, but it believes that the right balance must be struck between dissuasive and neutral packaging. Interestingly, it said that it does not believe that vape packaging should be made to resemble tobacco packaging in order to reduce worsening harm misperceptions, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.

Cancer Research UK said that more evidence is needed to determine which colours would reduce the appeal for young people, but it is important that in doing so, we do not reduce access to vapes for adults who use them to quit smoking. It said that it wants to avoid worsening misperceptions that vapes are as harmful as, or more harmful than, tobacco, so it would make sense to choose a neutral colour for vaping packs rather than the same drab green colour of tobacco packs.

The organisation went on to talk about displays, which was a point raised earlier, but it is also interesting in this wider piece. Cancer Research UK said that, to make vapes less appealing to young people, they could be behind the counter but still on display. In its view, if the UK Government change the packaging of vapes through the powers in the Bill, that will go a long way to reducing the appeal of vapes overall, and therefore they might not need to go as far when restricting the display itself. It argued that the balance would help to ensure that vapes are still visible and accessible to adults who wish to use them to quit. It would also create a differential from tobacco, so that vapes would be behind the counter with less appealing packaging, but still visible to adults who smoke and want to quit.

[Dr Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister is considering the regulations under clause 90, he needs to consider not just what the packaging would look like in a real-world shop, but how he can ensure that the same product will not simply be available online in the original packaging?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and valid point. I would like the Minister to address how we are going to tackle the issue online. If someone cannot go into a physical shop, going online is the next alternative, and we want to ensure that we protect our young ones as much as possible.

I want to highlight one other point from Cancer Research. It said that it is also important that the legislation future-proofs against the use of bright coloured lights or similar displays that could appeal to young people. Again, we need to be careful of that. As has been said, manufacturers are often very good at finding their way around these regulations, so we do not want to make the products attractive in another vein.

My second point focuses on clause 90(3)(b), which says that provisions may be made about

“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.

We had some evidence submitted from the North East Public Protection Partnership, which is a regional partner-ship that brings together chief officers of 12 local authorities in the north-east, representing environmental health, trading standards and licensing services. The partner- ship is in support of the measure, but believes that certain requirements should be put on packaging itself—it thinks that inserts in the packaging should be regulated. I have learnt, as I have not come across them often before, that inserts are used internationally, in Canada and Israel. They are proven to encourage people to give up smoking when they are placed inside the packaging. They usually contain positive messages to encourage people to quit—for example, by going into detail about improved breathing within a matter of days of quitting or the 50% reduction in the risk of heart attacks within a year, or by detailing how much money a smoker is likely to save.

The North East Public Protection Partnership believes that there should be specific regulations around the inserts and the packaging, setting out the type and size of font, the colour, the layout, and dimensions. It thinks that the specific information to use on packaging should be defined and that the information provided on where to seek more help to quit should also be included. It also says it is essential to set a date for suppliers for when packaging must appear on the UK market and that the penalties on manufacturers for non-compliance should be set out.

The partnership also said:

“The Government will need to liaise with Trading Standards in order to ensure that the appropriate offence, or offences, are included in regulations on pack inserts. We would recommend an offence is included which relates to the sale or supply of a tobacco product without the correct insert, so that Trading Standards can take enforcement action against the person selling. An example of this includes the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 where there is an offence to produce as well as supply product in breach of regulations.”

Finally, it adds:

“Health messaging should be on the outside of all tobacco, nicotine and vape products.”

My final question to the Minister is: have he and his Department turned their mind to inserts, what they might contain, and the role they could play in future?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We have had a good debate on clause 90—that is all we are up to.

To answer why this is an issue, unlike standardised cigarette packaging, vape packaging can—as we have already heard—come in many different colours, styles, and shapes. The previous call for evidence that the shadow Minister referred to showed that this increases the appeal of vapes to children, and it can encourage them to start vaping. That is what we want to crack down on with this clause.

A number of Members have asked why we are extending the provisions, given that tobacco packaging is already standardised. Only cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco are subject to the most stringent regulations. This includes standardised packaging, specified packet shape, amount within packs, material, colour and appearance requirements, and so on. In England, around five times more people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, than a decade ago. There has been an increase in that consumption and we are committed to addressing this, which is why we are extending the measures to other tobacco products.

In terms of requiring dissuasive messages, of course, these are things that we can look at in the future—it is not something that we are looking at now. We will be mandating pack inserts for cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco packaging, and we will be running a call for evidence on standardising the packaging of all other products. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked whether the Secretary of State or Ministers will use the powers. We are coming to Parliament with this landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as we committed to in our manifesto, precisely because we want to use these powers. We are seeking these powers. The Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Minister are seeking these powers precisely because we all want to use them to tackle the scourge of youth vaping and move our country to smokefree 2030. Our manifesto committed to stopping vapes being branded to appeal to children, and the Bill provides new regulation-making powers to make this commitment a reality.

As has been alluded to, Members have asked over the course of our deliberations why the restrictions are not on the face of the Bill. In particular, the shadow Minister has gone into the level of detail that we will go into when the regulations are brought before the House, following consultation. My answer is that the technical and detailed nature of the requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. We might need to amend the requirements in response to future developments in the market, and scientific knowledge and evidence may change, which means that we will have to react where appropriate. It might also be necessary to gather further evidence post-implementation—this is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon made about ensuring that everything is evidence-based, that the data is there and that we scrutinise it, rightly. We may well come to decide that our regulations are the wrong regulations, or that they were the right regulations three years ago, but now need to be changed. That is the why the powers in the Bill are permissive.

It is also important to gather information about the effectiveness of the packaging regulations, to see whether they have indeed discouraged youth vaping. All the evidence from other jurisdictions that do this suggests that they will; however, we need to ensure that the evidence is relevant to the United Kingdom. We will also need to keep a close eye on what happens to adult vapers, particularly those who want to stop smoking, and whether vapes remain accessible to adults who are trying to quit smoking, which is something we need to be clear about.

To be clear, the requirements for vape packaging are yet to be determined, as I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister. The proposed restrictions will be subject to consultation, to ensure that any unintended consequences on adult smoking rates are considered. Research suggests that neutral packaging can remove appeal to youth without being dissuasive to adult smokers—the point made in the information from Cancer Research UK, which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire rightly raised. Further analysis and consultation will take place before any regulations are made, because we absolutely want to get this right.

It is crucial that we do not rush into this, but have measures that are proportionate and workable, and that there are no unintended consequences. That is why there will be a transition period for businesses before any new regulations come into force, and the length of the transition will be considered as part of the consultation process. This is a balance to be struck between acting quickly to curb youth vaping and carefully considering unintended consequences on smoking rates, in order to ensure the most impactful change possible. That is why we have included a statutory duty to consult, to ensure that the relevant stakeholders are engaged, and to consider their responses and insights as regulations are developed.

Of course, we will provide more information about the timeline for our secondary regulation programme once we have Royal Assent, but let me make it clear to all members of the Committee that it is our intention to move at pace. We want to use these powers, so we want to make sure that, once the Bill becomes law, we start the process of getting the relevant regulations in place, especially for smokefree, because although many of the measures in the Bill will come into force on 1 January 2027, some regulations might be done beyond that date. We will have a lot of work to do in secondary legislation, to get the measures in the Bill—which we hope will all be approved in the course of our deliberations prior to Royal Assent—so that we can hit the ground running and get to 1 January 2027 smoke-free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

To build on that point, it is interesting that, often, one of the biggest difficulties for those who smoke and want to stop is missing the physical act of holding a cigarette. It would be interesting to see whether these regulations can take that into account and, while not being aimed at children, aim them in a way that would help people who want to move away from smoking, in terms of the physical side of it. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is right: if a smoker is trying to quit cigarettes, why would a device shaped like a highlighter pen be needed or desirable? I can see why that is desirable to children, as I have said, but why would it be desirable to an adult?

Perhaps the Minister is choosing, on balance, to protect children from vapes that they may be able to easily conceal from parents, caregivers and teachers. He may have come across industry suggestions that regulating vape appearance would reduce the appeal of vapes to adult smokers, but I am not sure that is true. In fact, even if there is evidence that it is true, I suspect that the majority of adult smokers will be so keen to protect their children from taking up the habit of being addicted to nicotine—that those smokers have fought so hard to quit themselves—that they would be only too happy to have a standard-shaped vape to ensure that children are not brought into nicotine addiction. Subsection (1)(e) allows the shape to be regulated, and paragraphs (d) and (f) allow the size and other features to be regulated.

The Government have sought to look at the impact of this policy. The mod or tank devices are often wrapped in more neutral packaging. Vape liquids and disposable vapes are regularly sold and marketed with brightly coloured designs, as we have said. In fact, it is not uncommon to see them displayed as a rainbow. Again, I think that is designed for children. The cartoons and flavours—we will come to flavours later, so I will not talk about them now—increase children’s intention to try different vaping products.

In their impact assessment, the previous Government consulted on options that could be implemented using the powers conferred by this clause. Option one was to do nothing. That would have meant that there would continue to be no regulations on the product presentation of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes, which would essentially be a rejection of clause 91. Option two prohibited the use of cartoons, characters, animals, inanimate objects and other child-friendly imagery, including on the vape device, but still allowed colouring and tailored brand designs—35.8% of respondents were in support of that option. Option three prohibited the use of all imagery and colouring on both the vape packaging and the device, still allowing for branding such as logos and names —18.2% of respondents were in support of that option.

The previous Government also consulted on the more stringent option four, which prohibited the use of all imagery, colouring and branding for both the vape packaging and the vape device. That option was somewhat equivalent to the standardised packaging rules on tobacco, and 46.1% of respondents were in support of it, showing that the general public, as consulted by the previous Government on the powers in relation to vape appearances, favour the more stringent regulatory option, which would be open to the Minister should clause 91 go through. When I began my campaign to tackle vaping, I found a number of examples of products shaped in bright, child-friendly cases, some even with cartoon characters.

We know that product presentation, as in clause 91, must be considered separately from the packaging, as we considered previously in the debate on clause 90, because for many vaping products, the small, smooth, colourful cases the vape is enclosed in is part of the attraction for children and for non-smokers.

Paragraph 1101 of the impact assessment states:

“According to ONS data on adult vaping prevalence in Great Britain, 31.6% of adults that currently vape are also current smokers, and 18.7% are ex-smokers. The exact impact on the number of smokers not quitting and ex-smokers relapsing as a result of regulating would depend on what vape packaging and product presentation was regulated.”

It is clear that the difference will depend on which step someone takes, but it is also clear that option 4, which is a more stringent approach to the regulations on offer in clause 91, would be preferable. Action on Smoking and Health provided some evidence to the Committee on how vapes are branded and promoted in shops. It talked about limiting their display, as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire earlier.

I now turn to tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as mentioned in the impact assessment. Although the vaping regulation is much newer than the tobacco regulation, the powers in clause 91 offer the Minister an opportunity to regulate tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers further than he has done. Section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 already enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on features of tobacco products across the UK. Clause 91 will widen this power so that tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are all within the scope of regulations.

On herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and tobacco-related devices, a simple internet search brings up sites, such as Etsy, advertising papers and rolling trays with cartoon characters. One can get a Hello Kitty grinder. In fact, it is not just a picture of Hello Kitty but a picture in which Hello Kitty appears to be vaping. There are rolling trays with pictures of Princess Jasmine, Cinderella and Snow White. Again, those characters are smoking in the picture—I am sure they are not from any Disney production; I certainly do not recognise them from any of the Disney productions I have watched.

Apart from copyright issues, such images are a clear ploy to entice younger audiences. One questions the legitimacy of the plastering of those brands on the products. Have they given their permission for these images? I very much doubt Disney has given permission for its cartoon characters, such as the Disney princesses designed for younger children, to be used in pictures of smoking or vaping.

[Sarah Bool]

Etsy is a very good company; it enables small businesses to sell their products, which is admirable and laudable, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely inappropriate for images of Disney characters to be changed. Sometimes the changes involve putting glasses on them, which is good as that makes young children feel that they are not isolated if they look slightly different. However, it is outrageous to make the characters appear to be using smoking products. I hope that the powers under this regulation will prevent that from happening further.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point. Of course, Etsy is an online marketplace. We have talked already about the difficulties in regulating some of these changes in the online world and about the fact that some of the current regulations on tobacco products can be circumvented by the purchase of online products. People can circumvent regulations on things such as snus by buying them online from overseas. When the Minister brings forward regulations under clause 91, how will he ensure that they are applied and enforced in both the offline and online world, which is so crucial these days, particularly for younger people?

Cancer Research UK provided evidence relating to the change of packets and products. It said it would respond to the consultation. The British Medical Association also provided written evidence. I declare an interest: as well as being a consultant paediatrician, I am a member of the British Medical Association. In relation to clauses 90 and 91, it suggested

“All imagery, colouring and branding should be prohibited”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The clause deals with non-compliant images, and subsection (1) grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. There is a theme here—the Secretary of State is gaining a lot of powers to make regulations, but it is not clear to what extent he will use them. We could end up with a very effective piece of legislation or not, depending on how effectively these clauses are used.

The clause states:

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from doing the following in the course of business—

(a) publishing an image of the retail packaging of a relevant product”

—that includes tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarettes, vapes and nicotine products—

“from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 90 have not been complied with;”.

Essentially, this is a packet that does not follow the rules. The clause continues:

“(b) publishing an image of a relevant product from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 91 have not been complied with;”.

That might be publishing a picture of a vape shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants—assuming that the Minister decides that that is not a suitable form for a vape to take—or

“causing the publication of an image of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).”

Subsection (3) states:

“Regulations…are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

The explanatory notes set out that the clause means that an online retailer would not be able to display images of non-compliant products. As we discussed earlier, it is important that we ensure that online retailers are subject to the same regulations as in-person retailers about what they can and cannot sell. Otherwise, the rule will be ineffective, because people will still access these things by simply moving online to buy them, rather than buying them in stores. From my perspective, that is welcome.

I will make a couple of other points. Although the clause authorises the Secretary of State to regulate non-compliant images, it leaves the process of enforcement somewhat open-ended. There may be inconsistencies in how regulations are applied or enforced across different sectors or different regions, especially as the clause refers broadly to various product categories.

More widely, I would be interested to know how the clause might relate to clothing. The clothing brand MCS, formerly known as Marlboro Classics, made extensive use of Marlboro branding, employing the iconic lettering and colouring on its clothes. I understand that MCS has since distanced itself from its roots and rebranded under a new parent company. Many of its older clothes can still be found in vintage clothes shops. Many of them display tobacco product branding, as might old football or Formula One merchandise from the times when those sports received sponsorship from tobacco firms. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how such products might be affected by the regulations.

Finally, does the Minister intend the regulations to confer an exemption on law enforcement officers who may wish to produce such images to demonstrate and educate retailers about what sort of images they may or may not be allowed to publish?

[Sarah Bool]

Thinking about the more modern age, I want to explore how the clause would apply to social media and television.

The clause states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from…publishing an image of the retail packaging”

and from

“publishing an image of a relevant product”.

There is not really a definition of image. My first question is this: does the clause apply to moving images, such as those on television?

I almost cannot believe that I am saying this in the House of Commons, but the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special was very popular and contained a scene where a main character, Nessa, was smoking and vaping simultaneously. I wondered about the wider implication for the arts. How will it work in practice when we are trying to prohibit things? How will the BBC deal with it—perhaps it will come under licensing—and how will other media outlets deal with it?

I have a further point about younger children and young adults, given that we are in the social media age. The clause will

“prohibit a person from doing”

certain things

“in the course of business”.

On Instagram, there are influencers. Obviously, their work is monetised; they will be paid for promoting products, or just for general clicks and likes. I wonder how the provisions will work in practice for social media, if they apply to videos as well. A very popular trend is videos in which people unwrap products with the sound up, for the ASMR—autonomous sensory meridian response—qualities. Basically, the sounds of unwrapping can be very relaxing for followers to listen to. Such videos are incredibly popular, and there are thousands of them. I wonder how the measures will impact them. If influencers are making videos for that purpose, will they be caught by the clause? If so, how will we prohibit such activity, especially on social media?

[Sarah Bool]

I was going to ask that as well, because around the concept of publishing there is a big debate about social media—is X a publishing platform or a form of conversation? There is no definition that I can see of what publish means, nor a specific definition of what image means. I am trying to work it through and find out whether there are loopholes, and how they will play out in the modern age. I want to make sure the provisions are at their most effective. I can understand that if an influencer posts a picture, they have to make sure it complies with the rules, but how does that apply in the wider context? Perhaps I am over-examining, but I can imagine where this could go, and some clarity around from the Minister that would be interesting.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Can I ask a question?

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 (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 (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 (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 (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Sarah Bool

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to go back to the evidence. One of the things we were told in the evidence provided by National Trading Standards and the Local Government Association, particularly on Tuesday, was that they want discretion, but also that they want first-time offenders to be treated more leniently. That was a clear ask from our witness, who explained that educating or warning first-time offenders was a better option than fining them.

Each of the amendments that I have tabled seeks to make available a police caution that will not count on a criminal record and so means the person will not be criminalised, unlike someone’s being taken to court and given a fine. The amendments would add in a lower level, as well as reduce the overall top fine. What I am trying to get from the Minister before Report is an understanding of whom he is trying to fine and proportionality in the amount of the fine. We need guidance on that issue, so that we can fully understand how a Saturday shop worker will be treated if they inadvertently sold some tobacco to somebody in a first offence versus how a shopkeeper and licence holder will be treated if they repeatedly commit such offences. I want some guidance from the Minister on that.

[Sarah Bool]

To build on that point, it is also important that we have clarity from a legal and enforcement perspective. The person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine “not exceeding” a certain level. I take the point about what trading standards may do in practice, but if the practice changes and they decide to always go for the upper level, there is nothing in the law that allows for a cautionary approach and another level. The amendment provides a benchmark and a safety catch, so that there is slightly different treatment. It would ensure that those who the Bill intends to punish are punished. From an enforcement perspective, it is a sensible amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to get some indication in legislation that there are different groups of people: those who commit this offence inadvertently on a one-off basis and those who do so repeatedly and deliberately. Different individuals or corporations need different treatment. I hope that the Minister, when wrapping up this set of amendments, will let the Committee know whether the guidance on this sort of sentencing has been produced yet, as it was before the previous Bill Committee debated the subject. If it has not, can he give some indication of when it will be produced and, in particular, whether it will be produced before Report? That will be really helpful.

In relation to the fines, I also want to discuss the principle of proportionality. Tobacco is a harmful, age-restricted product, but it is far from the only product subject to restrictions. When I looked into this, I found there are many more age-restricted products than I thought, and it was difficult to find out what the penalties were for selling them, inadvertently or deliberately, to someone below the age threshold. Selling a lottery product, including scratch cards, to someone under 18 is against the law. The penalty for doing that is more severe than for selling tobacco. I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of these wrong. I looked at various council, trading standards and Government websites to find this information, but some of those websites, despite being official or council-based, are out of date. I have done my best, and I will be grateful for any correction the Minister can provide.

The penalties I was able to find were an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison. It is also illegal to pay out the prize to someone under 18, so one could argue that buying a ticket in the first place is somewhat futile. This is generally enforced by the lottery operator itself. Underage sales can also lead to termination of contract and removal of the lottery terminal. Not included in the penalties, which the Minister may want to speak about on amendment 57, is a penalty to the licence holder in terms of his or her licence, but we might come to that later.

Butane or lighter fluid are also age-restricted, and selling them to an under-18 carries an unlimited fine or six months in prison. These are more severe penalties than for the tobacco offence. Fireworks have different age restrictions based on their category: for some the threshold is 18, but crackers, which have a small spark in them, have an age restriction of 12, which I did not know. I could have inadvertently breached that had I worked in a shop that sold such things.

Films in the cinema have age restrictions. When I was younger, I used to think that the higher restrictions meant that the film was cool, and therefore movie producers wanted to get the highest rating possible to make the film seem as cool as possible. Fortunately, I have gained a little bit more understanding since then. There is an unlimited fine for the cinema offence but, again, this is not a fine on the individual who sells the cinema ticket; it is a fine on the cinema itself as a business. That is why who pays these fines is important. There can also be six months’ imprisonment for the person running the cinema.

Alcohol is another example of an age-restricted product where there are fines and penalties. Selling alcohol to someone under 18 can lead to an on-the-spot fine of £90, a criminal caution, or formal prosecution with an unlimited fine. With alcohol, there is a different approach for offending persistently. If someone persistently sells alcohol to under-18s, they can be given an immediate closure order for their shop of up to 14 days or an unlimited fine. Also, shops need a licence to sell alcohol. Petrol or diesel from a petrol station cannot be sold to anyone under 16. That risk is mitigated using the licencing process, and again, there is a penalty of an unlimited fine and up to 12 months in prison. Selling a blade or a knife to someone under the age of 18 is illegal and carries an unlimited fine and up to six months in prison, as is the case for solvents too.

A challenge with the fines for the different age-restricted products is that they vary from product to product without a clear explanation necessarily being given. It is also worth considering the age of the customer, because this is not a law that applies to children. Most of these other examples I described are there to protect children. As a society, we have a job to protect children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the Minister’s point. However, my point was that even in a world where things are illegal, we do have aggravating and mitigating circumstances in law. I suggest that, particularly as the rolling generations get older, selling to a child becomes an aggravating offence. I ask the Government to consider that.

[Sarah Bool]

Obviously, if someone is liable for a conviction or a fine, the defence is that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission. Given that in this instance we are talking about perhaps a fleeting look at a passport or something, will companies or shops now actually have to take scans or register that they have seen it?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suggest, so that I do not try the patience of the Chair, that we discuss that when we get to clause 1 stand part, because it speaks to the substance of the clause rather than the substance of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is shaking his head. So what is a reasonable step? Unless one is to ask everyone for ID, the first step will be to decide whether to ask the customer in front of them for ID. That step will be, in essence, that shopkeeper or shop worker assess the person’s age.

Research shows that people are usually off by about eight years in their estimates of people’s ages by face alone. In fact, some research shows that if groups of people are shown a face, and the face that they are shown immediately before was a younger face, they will pick a younger age for that second person. If they are first shown an older face, they will pick an older age for that same person. That suggests that who the customer came in with, or who the previous customer was, may have an effect.

At the moment, we are asked to conduct a Challenge 25 check on a customer, but is it as easy to check the age of a 40 or 41-year-old as it is to check the age of someone under 25, or to tell whether someone is young or relatively young? The evidence seems to suggest that people who are close to 25 are quite good at telling whether people are under or over 25, and people who are close to 41 are apparently better at telling whether people are 40 or 41. It depends on age, and there is also an effect of sex and ethnicity.

Given that the Minister rejects new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham on a policy on checking ID, he does not want people to have a policy on when to check, he does not want people to check everybody and he just indicated that he does not want people to rely on what they think based on looking at people, what reasonable steps would he expect to take place? The Government need to provide further guidance on that.

In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment for a nicotine-free generation. She made the point that we have a rolling age of tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, so why not have one for all nicotine products? We know that nicotine is addictive and that the industry will evolve to try to get people hooked to a different form of nicotine product—that may be less or more harmful than tobacco, but it will still be addictive. Their choices will still be taken away, and they will still be having something that they do not want, which costs them money and potentially makes them poorer as a result. If it were to become apparent later that these items were particularly harmful, and one wished to do another rolling ban, one could end up in a situation where there is an age for sale of alcohol, fireworks and all sorts of other things, and two rolling ages with two different dates—one for tobacco, herbal products and cigarette papers, and another for vaping and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches.

Many of the amendments to the Conservative Government’s very similar Bill were included by this Government in their Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister could comment on why that particular amendment from a Government Member was not included.

[Sarah Bool]

To take a step back, I am still not satisfied that I understand, in practice, what the defence for someone to prove that they were shown ID means in practice? Perhaps that will form part of the guidance. If one is to suggest that CCTV is required, is that in the GDPR? In some circumstances, it would be quite difficult to prove. Given the seriousness of the offence and the repercussions, I just want some reassurance.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention. I, too, am not entirely clear what the Bill means by reasonable steps. We seem to have established what some reasonable steps might not be, but I am still not clear what they might be. It would be helpful if the Government elucidated that point further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

Drawing on the point that my hon. Friend is making, one issue with the drafting of subsection (7) of new clause 3 is that businesses will need to have this age verification policy, but the national authority may—and it is only a “may”—publish guidance, so there is not clarity. Some form of template would be needed to make the provision effective. The intention is obviously to have a full policy in place, but the guidance could be just a piece of paper with three bullet points, and that would not meet the intention. Also, do we really need two fines in place when there is already a fine, as the Minister said, for selling? I do not think there needs to be a fine for not having a piece of paper with a policy.

[Dr Johnson]

If one is expected to have a policy, guidance on what that policy should contain is certainly important. If one is going to be held accountable for not having such a policy in law, it is clearly not sufficient to say, “You must have a policy but we are not going to tell you what it must say or do.” It comes back to the point that I have been making throughout the day. Who will face this fine? How will it be decided who the fine applies to? Will it be applied to the retailer as well as to shop workers, shop supervisors, shift supervisors or CEOs, and under what circumstances? I think there needs to be guidance on that so we have a clear pathway.

Clause 1 states that it is a defence if someone has taken “all reasonable steps”. If having a policy is not to be a reasonable step—there are arguments for why we might not want it to be, because it is an extra regulatory burden on business, and some very small businesses could struggle with that—and neither is looking at someone and making one’s own mind up, it is important to understand what is. I do not think we have got to the bottom of that yet.

My final question for the hon. Member for City of Durham, who tabled new clause 3, is: why not Northern Ireland? I think one reason why she has chosen to introduce this is because there is such a policy for Scotland, but not for England and Wales. I do not believe there is such a policy for Northern Ireland either, and I wonder why she did not seek to correct that in her new clause. It may be something that she wants to consider in refining such a new clause before Report.

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.