Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting)

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Focusing on clause 90, my view is that the Government are taking the right step. Some on the Back Benches of my party may not agree, but I think the clause plays a vital role in shaping the future of tobacco control in the UK. The debate surrounding retail packaging regulations is, however, complex and the Minister clearly has to juggle the balance of public health interests, consumer rights, and industry and legal concerns. I believe that clause 90 is a significant legislative step that aims to standardise packaging to reduce the appeal of tobacco and vaping products, and to ensure that consumers are better informed about the health risks while restricting marketing strategies that encourage nicotine use.

The primary aim of clause 90 is to safeguard public health. Research from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation has consistently demonstrated that standardised tobacco packaging, free from branding and marketing embellishments, reduces the attractiveness of the products—particularly, as the shadow Minister said, among young people. By extending the regulations to vaping and nicotine products, clause 90 takes a proactive stance in preventing nicotine addiction. I welcome that.

Marketing tactics and eye-catching packaging clearly play a crucial role in enticing young people to experiment with tobacco and vaping products. As has been mentioned, studies indicate that standardised packaging reduces the appeal of smoking among young people, reinforcing the message that these products are harmful. Like us, Australia, which implemented plain packaging laws in 2012, has seen a significant decline in smoking rates, particularly among young people.

Clause 90 mandates clearer health warnings and restrictions on misleading information on packaging. Research shows that graphic health warnings, as we already have on cigarette packets, and standardised packaging improve consumer understanding of the risks associated with smoking and vaping. That also aligns with international best practices, as seen in places such as Canada and France, where strong packaging regulations have contributed to reduced smoking rates.

Although cigarettes are currently subject to strict packaging regulations here, the vaping and nicotine products listed exploit the regulatory gaps used to make attractive branding and misleading claims. Clause 90 ensures that similar restrictions apply to all tobacco-related products, creating a much more consistent regulatory framework. That has the public health benefits I have mentioned but also makes it easier for the consumer to see a standardised product that they understand has implications for their health.

Many countries have likewise already introduced stringent packaging laws to curb tobacco and vaping consumption. We should be proud that the UK has long been a leader in tobacco control. Clause 90 reinforces that leadership by adopting global best practices, ensuring that our laws remain in line with international commitments such as the WHO framework convention on tobacco control.

Plain packaging has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of relapse among former smokers, by minimising the branding cues that trigger cravings. By eliminating marketing strategies that glamorise tobacco use, clause 90 strengthens the UK’s efforts to support smoking cessation initiatives. Standardised packaging could include sophisticated track and trace systems to help to identify illicit products. Will the Minister be considering that as part of the new regulations he puts forward? These systems reduce counterfeiting and smuggling, ensuring that any tax revenues are protected and that illegal sales do not undermine the well outlined public health efforts.

However, clause 90 raises issues that we need to consider. Although it has a number of advantages, it is essential to address some of the concerns that could arise from its implementation. I suspect that I am pre-empting comments that may be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. There is clearly an impact on consumer choice. Some argue that standardised packaging restricts consumer choice by making it harder to distinguish between products. Although health concerns clearly must take precedence, policymakers must ensure that consumers can still access product information without ambiguity.

[Dr Johnson]

Can my hon. Friend illustrate whether there is any evidence suggesting that, as the result of plain packaging, consumers are less able to identify whether they have the right product in their hand as they leave the shop?

[Gregory Stafford]

I have not seen any evidence of that, but I want to ensure through the regulations that the consumer understands, from a health benefit point of view, what is in the product that they are taking away with them.

Unlike tobacco, vaping products are often promoted as a harm reduction tool for smokers who are trying to quit. Some argue that overly restrictive packaging rules could deter smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives, and I urge the Minister to assess how clause 90 affects vaping uptake among smokers seeking cessation tools.

As we have heard previously, the tobacco and vaping industries have historically opposed packaging regulations, often challenging them through legal means. Many countries have seen lengthy lawsuits after implementing plain packaging laws. I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK is prepared to defend clause 90 against potential challenges and ensure that the regulations that might come through are legally sound and enforceable. Some critics also warn that overly stringent packaging laws could drive consumers towards the illicit markets, where unregulated products may pose greater health risks. Again, the Government must complement clause 90 with robust enforcement mechanisms to prevent black market proliferation.

[Dr Johnson]

Is it not right that in the past, when increased tobacco regulations have been made, the black market has shrunk with the overall market?

[Gregory Stafford]

Absolutely, and we heard that clearly in the evidence sessions before we began examining the Bill in detail. However, as Members on both sides have mentioned, the tobacco and vaping industries are extraordinarily innovative in getting around regulations; that is really what I was referring to. That brings me to my next point. The effective implementation of clause 90 will require strict monitoring and enforcement, so local authorities, through their teams, must be equipped with sufficient resource to ensure compliance and tackle any attempts to circumvent the regulations.

My final point is about what I call the potential stigmatisation of vapers. We clearly do not want anyone to start vaping, but those who are already vaping or those who may be trying to use vapes as a smoking cessation tool must be taken into account. Although discouraging nicotine use is a priority, the Minister must avoid unintended consequences, such as stigmatising vapers using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool. The regulatory framework should differentiate between the combustible tobacco products and reduced-risk alternatives where appropriate.

To ensure that clause 90 achieves its intended objectives while addressing the concerns that I have raised, I ask the Minister the following questions. Will he consider differentiated regulations for vaping products, ensuring that the public health messaging does not inadvertently deter smokers from switching to the less harmful alternatives? We need clear guidelines for implementation, so comprehensive guidance should be issued to businesses, law enforcement and regulatory agencies to ensure smooth implementation. There needs to be a public awareness campaign that complements that to educate consumers about the changes of packaging and reinforce the risks of tobacco and nicotine addiction, and we must have certain timelines for producers so that they understand what the new requirements are and how they will be implemented.

We need to ensure that the Government conduct regular evaluation of the effectiveness of clause 90 using data-driven analysis to assess its impact on the smoking and vaping rates, and we need strong law enforcement and border control agencies to prevent the illicit trade and ensure compliance with the regulations. Perhaps this does not need to be said, but the Minister should engage with public health experts and harm reduction advocates to refine the regulations and address any emerging concerns as they come in the future.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It seems to me, both from the text of the clause and from his introductory remarks, that the Minister aims to do two things. He aims to bring regulations on packaging to apply more widely to vaping and nicotine products, and to consolidate the law so that tobacco and nicotine products are all dealt with in one place.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked the Minister to commit, with these powers, not to undermine the regulation on cigarettes thus far. Unlike the shadow Minister, I have no concern that the Minister might water down any such remarks. I trust the Labour manifesto in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Given that the hon. Member for City of Durham has decided not to press new clause 1 to a vote, I will not elaborate on it much, but she did mention that she might bring it back so I will just make a few comments. New clause 1 emphasises putting specific health warnings on individual cigarette papers and cigarettes. The hon. Member mentioned that Canada has introduced this and that Australia is thinking of doing so in coming months, specifically on the butts of the cigarettes. I believe there are warnings such as “toxic addiction” and “poison in every puff”—obviously, the phraseology has to be relatively succinct, given the size of a cigarette.

I understand that the point in trying to make it clear to those using the product that it is unsafe, unhealthy and will have negative implications on their health, but I am not aware that there is any substantive evidence to suggest that placing such wording on individual papers or products has a noticeable impact on smoking cessation. If the hon. Member for City of Durham is planning to bring the new clause back later, or if the Minister is minded to pick it up in some way, we—as the Minister said during the debate on clause 90—must be data-driven along these lines. We should not put extra burdens on the producer and customer if there is no evidence that having individualised health warnings on individual cigarette papers and cigarettes has any noticeable effect on smoking cessation.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

In my speech, I referenced evidence from Canada—the Health Canada survey. If the hon. Gentleman would like some more information on that, he could get in touch with ASH, which has the results. There was evidence to suggest that having health warnings had an impact, particularly on young people.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is very helpful. If I have not already seen it in the evidence packs that have been sent to us, then I will look that up.

I move on to clause 91—the features of the product. Implementing the regulations could require significant adjustments from manufacturers. To quote the Minister back to himself, he wants to move “like the clappers” on this. Although I welcome that, there needs to be a period where manufacturers have the opportunity to adapt to the rules.

[Dr Johnson]

“Like the clappers” sounds quick, but it has not been defined any further than that, which leaves us in the dark. There is also a balance to be struck. On the one hand, manufacturers may need time to adapt, but on the other hand every day that these attractive products are available to children is another day when more children will become addicted to them.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a key point, and she has been making it throughout our discussions, as have others. Clearly, we want to move as rapidly as possible to ensure that as few children as possible are addicted to cigarettes or ever pick one up. I completely agree that we should move as fast as possible, but we need to do it in a sensible way to ensure that manufacturers can implement what we want them to implement, and that we do not end up in a situation where they are caught out by that.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I am not pressing the new clause to a vote, although I suggested that the Minister or Department could look into the issue once the Bill has received Royal Assent. But just for information, Canada is the first country in the world to require mandatory health warnings on cigarettes. That legislation came into force in 2023. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point, there was a minimum lead-in time for king-size cigarettes of nine months for manufacturers and 12 months for retailers, and longer lead-in times for other products. Australia followed suit by passing legislation in December 2023; its regulations will come into force by July this year.

[Gregory Stafford]

Those sound like fairly reasonable timeframes; if the Minister were minded to follow those, I would support him, notwithstanding what I have already said.

On clause 91, which I support, we need to ensure that there is a comprehensive stakeholder consultation for whatever the Minister plans to do in this area. There needs to be some kind of phased implementation—by which I mean an eight or nine-month period, or whatever—to ensure that manufacturers can catch up with whatever is being implemented. As I have said previously on other clauses, there must be robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure that manufacturers and retailers comply. Once again, this is all about educating the public about what the legislation means and what they should be expecting. Public education campaigns on this matter are essential.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the Committee for this discussion. Amendment 5 and new clause 1 require the Secretary of State to consult on regulations to introduce health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers. I am sympathetic towards the aim of the amendments, which encourage current smokers to quit by providing them with information on the harms of tobacco.

However, the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which emphasise the heath harms of tobacco. That includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packs. A post-implementation review published in 2022 stated that these measures still remain effective in helping smokers to quit and in deterring children from taking up the habit. As set out in our response on 5 November 2024 to the consultation on tobacco pack inserts, we will implement positive quit-themed health messaging into the packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco. That could contribute up to 150,000 additional quit attempts and 30,000 successful quits over two years.

We are also going further. We will look to extend the legislation on pack inserts to cover all tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. To do that, we are running a call for evidence on standardised packaging to consider introducing more stringent packaging requirements for the different tobacco-related product types wherever possible.

On pack inserts in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham asked about implementation. Of course, we are working to implement that as soon as we can, but only after engagement with relevant stakeholders, as I said in the previous debates. We will consult on the final specifications before laying the legislation before Parliament. There is a lot of clapping going on; this is something else on which we will be working like the clappers to get over the line. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that pack inserts are a priority for the Government. We will move at pace to get that done.

On a technical note to my hon. Friend’s amendments, the Bill restates the existing power to make regulations on the appearance of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only that: it goes further and extends that power to other products, including cigarette papers. We therefore do not believe that the amendments are required to bring in dissuasive messages on cigarettes, because the powers already exist in this Bill should Ministers seek to consult in the future and bring forward secondary legislation.

While it is not our plan to introduce dissuasive messages on cigarettes at this time, because we already have strong health warning measures in place, we will continue to monitor the evidence. As has rightly been said, we want to be evidence-led in the measures we seek to introduce. I want to see the success of such measures in Canada and elsewhere so that we can use that evidence at a future stage.

While my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has indicated that she will withdraw the amendments, I hope I have given her some reassurance that the amendments are not needed because we have the powers to do precisely what she wants to do. At some stage in the future, a Minister—it may or may not be me—may come forward with secondary legislation following a consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I believe before we were interrupted we were discussing clause 92, which relates to flavouring provisions. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations currently restrict certain ingredients, including colourings, caffeine and taurine, but do not restrict any combinations of flavour or flavour types. Multiple systematic reviews have found that a majority of young people are more likely to initiate vaping through flavoured vapes. The use of vapes with flavours traditionally not found in tobacco products, such as fruit and coffee, is higher among youths and young adults than older adults, highlighting that restricting flavours in vapes may reduce vaping prevalence among youths by preventing initiation.

The Government’s impact assessment for clause 92 estimates that restricting the flavour of e-liquids to tobacco only would affect a large proportion of people who vape. Among children, just 4.5% of those who vape most frequently choose tobacco or menthol-flavoured liquids. A further 0.5% reported not using flavour at all. That means that around 95% of children who vape could be affected in some way by the option of regulating the flavours of vapes.

The impact assessment goes on to note the relation- ship between a restriction on flavours and littering. Paragraph 1023 states that

“research commissioned by Material Focus found that almost 5 million disposable vapes are either littered or thrown away in general waste every week, equivalent to around 260 million a year. If the estimated reduction in demand for vaping products from Nova Scotia in Canada from restricting flavours of 12.15% is also seen in the UK, we could expect a similar reduction in the amount of vapes that are littered or thrown away in general waste. This would be equivalent to around 600,000 fewer vapes disposed of each week and around 30 million fewer each year.”

I understand that the Government have moved to ban single-use vapes. Nevertheless, the principle stands that having fewer flavours leads to fewer changes of product, and therefore to less litter.

There is also an impact assessment of enforcement of flavour restrictions. Paragraphs 1070 and 1071 of the impact assessment state:

“Any restriction of vape flavours could require additional enforcement activity to ensure that non-compliant vapes do not remain on the market…

There is also evidence from the US that enforcement of any flavour restrictions is important to ensure that it has an impact on the flavours that are used by people that vape. For example, a study based on the impact restricting flavours had on vape use in three US states found that most respondents to the survey continued to use vapes with flavours that had been banned, and out of them, over 45% had purchased them in-state stores.”

That leaves us with a difficulty. If flavours are banned but illicit products are made to look like they have different flavours in them, it will be quite difficult for enforcement officers to work out the contents of any given vape. However, as the Minister has said, the Bill only provides a regulation-making power; there are no enforcement costs arising from this particular measure, and it would be the responsibility of each local authority in England to enforce the regulations made using the powers conferred by the Bill. This matter must therefore be considered further. When writing regulations, the Minister must ensure that they are enforceable and that the necessary resources are made available to local authorities.

In its written evidence, Cancer Research UK highlights the importance of considering the motivations of smokers wanting to quit alongside the clear requirement to steer non-smokers away from beginning to vape. It states:

“It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes (through other powers in the Bill), this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described, rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.”

One of the challenges the Minister will face if he is to restrict flavours rather than banning them is which he chooses to retain. The evidence that we have heard so far is that different chemicals are used to create different flavours, which seems somewhat obvious, but it is not clear that all companies use the same chemicals to make the same flavour, or the same apparent flavour, and it is not clear which chemicals may be harmful when inhaled over a long period of time. Strawberries are eaten quite safely by most people but inhaling one is very dangerous. We know from the chief medical officer that inhalation, as a vector of bringing a substance into the body, can be more damaging than eating it. How will the Minister choose which flavours to keep, if he is going to do so?

The other reason why I disagree to an extent with Cancer Research UK is that, when I asked people in the industry directly why they need flavours, they said, “Because it helps people to continue using vapes.” I asked them what their purpose is and they said, “If somebody is smoking, their taste buds are affected by the smoking. Therefore, their ability to taste and smell things is not as great as a non-smoker.” That means that when they stop smoking and start vaping, which we want them to do, they realise after a couple of weeks that tobacco vapes taste awful and, as such, they stop using them—and that is a good thing. They decide that they do not like the taste of tobacco and so stop using the product. That is the intention of nicotine replacement therapy: the smoker starts the therapy, they continue for a short period and then they stop, after which point they are not addicted to nicotine or using anything.

It was clear from speaking to the industry representatives that individuals will begin using vapes for the flavour. If they do not like one flavour, they will go on to a different one, but they will then continue to use the product as it is more pleasant than a tobacco-flavoured one. Instead of moving them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper, to a non-user of nicotine, flavoured vapes will move them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper—and there they will stay. For the industry, they have not swapped to stop; they have swapped to continue paying the money and making the profit. I can see why that is the industry’s intention, but it is clearly not the Government’s intention or the right thing for the individual’s health. I think that is an important consideration and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it.

In its evidence, Action on Smoking and Health talks about flavour descriptors, and it is certainly true that, where flavours are retained, the descriptors will be important. ASH says that gummy bears and unicorn shake are not acceptable, and it goes on:

“In New Zealand they have set out in regulations which words can be used to describe flavours, removing descriptions such as Cotton-Candy and Bubble-Gum and replacing them with more generic flavour descriptions.”

Again, it comes back to the problem of what is in each individual flavour, which ones should be kept—if any at all—and why.

The evidence from ASH continues:

“Manufacturers must choose a maximum of two flavour descriptor words from an approved flavour list. The approved flavour list should limit the descriptors which are most popular among young people. An alternative to the New Zealand approach would be to replace product names with alpha numeric codes…For example, caramel tobacco flavour e-liquid refills can be bought garishly branded with a cartoon character on the front called Momo Salt Caramel Tobacco. Alternatively a very similar tobacco caramel vanilla salt e-liquid can be bought in plain packaging with an alphanumeric code of RY6, with the flavour components in the detail rather than the product name. Such an approach could be mandated.”

Has the Minister considered people who have allergies to all these different flavours? Has he considered whether the details of what each vape liquid contains should be put very clearly on the packaging, so that if anyone has an allergy, which can in some cases be life-threatening, they are aware of what chemicals they are using?

[Gregory Stafford]

We are talking about clause 92, which concerns the restriction on flavours in vapes. Children are born with tastebuds that are more aligned to sweet flavours, so clearly vapes that are flavoured with sweeter content will be more appealing to children than those that are not. I therefore support the Government’s intention to ensure that, as far as possible, children are not tempted to purchase or are not given vapes under age. Children copy what adults do. They think that it is “cool” to copy things that adults can do that children are technically not allowed to do under the law.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is probably much younger than me, but does he remember the sweets that were like little cigarettes, from when we were children?

[Gregory Stafford]

I am considerably younger—no, that is not true at all, and I certainly do not look it. I do remember the sugar things that look like cigarettes, and although I have said previously that I have never smoked anything, or smoked tobacco, clearly when we had those, we all pretended that we were smoking stuff, because, again, it looked “cool”.

When we were children, we forced ourselves to ingest things that we did not like the taste of; I am sure that we can all remember the first time we had a cup of coffee or, for most of us, a beer. We did not actually like the taste, but we pretended to like it until our neural pathways developed in such a way that we genuinely started to enjoy the bitterness and mildly caustic sensation that we experienced. It is also true that girls have a greater sensitivity to sugar and sweet flavours than boys do. That said, children crave, and are craving even more so these days, sweet flavours—often because they have a diet of processed foods that contain more sugar and salt, which train their tastebuds to be even more addicted, for want of a better phrase, to those sweet flavours.

Research shows that flavoured tobacco products, especially menthol and fruit-based flavours, make smoking more appealing to young people. We have heard about studies from around the world. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the States found that 80% of young people who use tobacco started with a flavoured product. By regulating the flavours, clause 92 aims to curb that youth smoking initiation and promote healthier choices.

The clause aligns us with international standards. The hon. Member for City of Durham has already mentioned Canada, and the European Union has also implemented bans on flavoured tobacco products. Canada saw a 32% decline in youth smoking rates following a ban on menthol cigarettes, and we have also banned menthol cigarettes in this country.

However, the Minister needs to consider a study— I think it was in The Lancet—that showed that, despite the ban on menthol cigarettes, the number of people who ingest tobacco via menthol-flavoured means has not diminished significantly in the UK. That is not because they are buying menthol cigarettes illegally or through illicit means, but because the manufacturers have found ways of putting that menthol-based flavour into the products. That can include things such as filters and other things. Indeed, I googled this before I came into the Committee, and I can buy cigarettes—it said, “Great news! There are some great menthol cigarette alternatives available to shop for here.” Presumably that is totally legal and I could buy them in the UK.

My point is that the industry will try to get round the Government’s good intentions to ban menthol and other flavours in the vapes market. How does this legislation ensure that any kind of adaptation to a vape that can inject a flavour into it, not just the flavour of the product, is restricted and does not happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he agree that the Minister will have a huge challenge in working out which flavours to choose, if he is going to choose from some? Perhaps he is deciding whether he has banana or cherry, but if we do not know whether the banana flavour or the cherry flavour is the least harmful to the individual, which do we know to recommend to the smoker who is trying to quit?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which she has already made during her interventions on this clause. It is vital to understand what is in the chemical make-up of the different flavours when the Minister is making those decisions.

That brings me neatly on to my next point, which is about the flavours themselves. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister have raised unicorn milk, tutti-frutti and bubble gum flavours and all those kinds of things. I suggest to the Minister that it is less the flavour itself that appeals to children—as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, I do not know what unicorn milk tastes like, and I doubt any child does either—but that the phraseology “unicorn milk” sounds exciting and appealing to a child, whereas orange or banana may be less exciting.

When the Minister looks at this issue, I suggest that he looks not necessarily to ban a flavour, but to ban the naming and descriptions of those flavours, which are clearly appealing to children. If someone is looking to stop smoking and is using a vape to do so, it is not unreasonable that they should know whether what they are buying is orange, blackberry or strawberry-flavoured, whereas the terminology being used, which we have discussed in this debate already, appeals to children.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I obviously agree with the Government’s intention to target specific flavours that appeal to young people to preserve harm reduction, but we need to monitor and assess the impact of that regulation over time. When the Minister winds up the debate on the clause, will he give some indication of how that analysis and the impact assessment of the bans on specific flavours has impacted on smoking cessation, hopefully stopping children being dragged into vaping?

[Sarah Bool]

I want to build on the points my hon. Friends have made. As we have said, clause 92 relates to the flavouring of vapes. In the future, we will have to be incredibly agile in regulating in this area. It clearly needs further investigation, because different bodies are all disagreeing on whether we should limit the number of vapes, the flavours or the range and on what is going on. In the written evidence provided to Members, Cancer Research UK, which the shadow Minister mentioned, made some interesting observations, which I will put on record. It says that:

“Current evidence seems to suggest that e-cigarette flavours influence vaping initiation in both young people and adults who smoke. We know that the range of flavours of e-cigarettes are a large part of the appeal for both young people and adults. When taking action on e-cigarette flavours, a balance needs to be struck between dissuading uptake in young people and maintaining an appeal to those who use vapes to quit smoking, so they are not deterred from transitioning away from tobacco”.

I think we all agree with that. It further goes on to say:

“Although we believe there is currently insufficient evidence to justify banning specific e-liquid flavours, as the evidence base related to the role of flavours in youth and adult vaping increases, powers to regulate flavours will be an important lever for Government to use to reduce youth vaping.”

It then says:

“It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes…this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described”—

which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made—

“rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.”

If we go on the basis that, actually, we should limit the way the flavours are described, perhaps one day we will know what unicorn milk actually tastes like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 93 is somewhat interestingly titled, but what does it do? Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to create regulations that concern

“the nature and amount of the substances that may be released into the body of a person”

using the following: tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Subsection (2) states that the regulations may impose “prohibitions, requirements or limitations” on the “production, importation or supply” of these products in “the course of business.”

Subsection (3) clarifies that the regulations may specify how

“the nature and amount of substances or emissions released by a product are to be determined”

potentially by an authorised person designated by the Secretary of State. Again, the Minister may have comments on how the Secretary of State would choose such an individual.

Subsection (4) specifies that that these regulations will also be

“subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This means there will be a vote in Parliament. In relation to this, section 13 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 currently sets a maximum permitted emission level for cigarettes that are produced by the manufacturer for export in the UK. Section 36 of that regulation sets out product requirements for e-cigarettes and refill containers, including current maximum nicotine quantities.

Paragraph 1403 of the impact assessment produced by the Government in relation to the Bill states,

“Currently, to supply certain tobacco, herbal, and nicotine vape products on the…market you must first notify your product. Producers must provide data such as the name and contact details of the person who manufactures the product, a list of all ingredients contained in the product, emissions resulting from its use, as well as toxicological data and a declaration that the producer bears full responsibility for the quality and safety of the product when supplied.”

In the UK, the EU tobacco products directive and the UK’s nicotine inhalation system regulations aim to control what substances are present in nicotine products. For example, e-liquids are capped at 20 mg per ml of nicotine strength, and that aims to reduce the addictive potential of vaping products. That said, I am aware of a scandal that broke in 2023 involving the widescale overfilling of vaping products by Elfbar, which required a media investigation to expose. I would be interested to know, first, how the new clause differs from previous legislation in its effect and, secondly, how the Minister intends to enforce it so that misdeeds such as the overfilling of vapes cannot occur again on the scale they have before.

There are also questions about the amount of nicotine in things such as nicotine pouches, and there has been the suggestion of limits to those as well. I ask the Minister, when he is thinking about that in relation to regulations under clause 93, to consider that, although a normal cigarette reportedly contains between 8 mg and 20 mg of nicotine, the individual smoking the cigarette absorbs only a fraction of that—around 1 mg to 2 mg per cigarette. The suggestion that pouches contain 20 mg of nicotine would lead one to believe that the level is extremely high and would add to the addiction and the dependency, but the Minister should consider the limits on how much nicotine is in the nicotine pouch or other nicotine products in accordance with that. We would not wish to push an individual away from a product that is harmful and addictive on to another product that is possibly harmful and more addictive.

I would also be interested to know how, if at all, the Government intend to exercise the powers in clause 93. There are several additives that could be reduced or removed from tobacco products with significant benefit to the smoker. I will give just two examples of chemicals that could be limited under the clause. Ammonia compounds, such as ammonium hydroxide, are used to enhance nicotine delivery to the smoker. Ammonia increases the pH of the smoke, making nicotine more readily absorbed by the lungs. This enhances the addictive properties of cigarettes by increasing the hit of the nicotine. Ammonia and its compounds are toxic, and exposure can cause respiratory problems, as well as irritation to the eyes throat. The use of ammonia compounds also contributes to the overall toxicity of the smoke, as ammonia can form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. Reducing or removing the ammonia compounds would not only mitigate these risks, but reduce the addictive potential of cigarettes by reducing the introduction of nicotine without changing their basic function.

Butane is the second substance I want to talk about. Some Members may recall it as a lighter fluid, but it is sometimes used as a chemical accelerant to aid the burn rate of tobacco. Butane helps to maintain an even burn rate throughout the cigarette, ensuring it does not go out prematurely—potentially risky. Butane is toxic, causing particular damage to the lungs and to the nervous system when inhaled. The removal of butane or its replacement with less harmful alternatives would likely not change the cigarette’s function significantly; the burn rate can still be controlled, but the risk of exposure to toxic gases will be reduced. I urge the Minister, as we look to create a smoke-free generation, not to forget those individuals in society who are already addicted to this dreadful habit, and to do what he can to ameliorate the risks to them, either by reducing the harm of the cigarette itself or by encouraging people to quit the habit.

The other question I have for the Minister with regard to clause 93 is: what are the penalties? If someone breaks the rules, if a business is found to be breaching the regulations for how much nicotine is allowed in a product or the concentration, or for how big the tank is or what the components are, what will be the penalties? Companies, largely, will be incurring the penalties, as we have talked about before. The deterrent may need to be quite a large fine in order to make a breach not worth their while.

[Gregory Stafford]

The clause in essence allows the Secretary of State to regulate emissions from tobacco and nicotine products, ensuring that harmful substances released during use are controlled. This is a vital measure to protect smokers and non-smokers from hazardous emissions. My first question is on that last point: can the Minister confirm that the regulations will be designed to protect those who suffer from second-hand smoke? The evidence on vaping is weak, and the evidence on the effects of second-hand inhalation of vapour from vapes is even weaker, but some studies suggest that it is dangerous, especially given that, according to Public Health England, while cigarette smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, 70 of which are known to be carcinogens, there are significant problems—as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said—from the chemicals that are, and potentially could be, in the vapes.

The clause ensures that the regulations can limit the release of those toxic substances and therefore reduce health risks for the users and those exposed to the second-hand smoke. We know that second-hand smoke causes serious health issues, including heart disease and lung cancer. Studies from the World Health Organisation suggest that exposure to second-hand smoke is responsible for 1.2 million deaths globally each year; I suppose, in the world’s population, that does not sound like a vast number, but given the fact that those people have done absolutely nothing wrong and are often, unfortunately, children and young people who suffer smoke from their parents and carers, I think it is worth controlling and regulating. Stronger emission controls would definitely reduce those deaths. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, while vaping has been deemed less harmful than smoking, concerns remain about long-term exposure to certain chemicals in the e-liquids. The clause allows regulators continually to assess and update guidelines on vaping emissions—I welcome that—to reflect the latest scientific advice.

I am certain that the industry will push back on this measure, as they have done on many other points, but I hope that the Government are ready for any possible legal challenges on the regulations when they are brought in. Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes or vapes have a vast array of formulations, and therefore creating effective regulatory standards that balance the harm reduction with the safety will be complex. Will the Minister outline how he intends to go about that once the regulations are in place?

[Andrew Gwynne]

As has been said, the measures in the clause make provision for the amount and nature of substances that may be released into the body by vaping products, tobacco products and related devices, nicotine products, cigarette papers, and herbal smoking products. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 set out the maximum levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide emitted by cigarettes, and they require all cigarette brands to be tested for emissions. However, we do not have the same requirements in place for vapes and other nicotine products, and the clause expands the scope so those products can be regulated in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure whether my social media clips from this Committee or any other parliamentary proceedings are quite made for TikTok, but who knows?

[Gregory Stafford]

I do—not at all.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not think so either. I do not think I would get terribly many followers, and I am not sure I could ever be described as an influencer, except perhaps for Government Members—[Interruption.] Maybe. Even that has come to a Division. Politics can be brutal.

I will go into more detail on how the later advertising clauses interrelate with this clause when we discuss them, because there are clearly cross-overs. The clause will enable the Government to make restrictions that would prohibit an online retailer having pictures of products with non-compliant packaging on their website. That is to make sure that when we bring in the restrictions on the packaging, there cannot be images of a completely different product online or in the shop that would potentially attract children and young people to obtain it.

Hon. Members have asked why we need this clause if we are banning advertising. Without this power, businesses could continue to publish images of vapes that appeal to children both online and in store. As we know, research clearly shows that bright colours and cartoon figures have helped to fuel youth vaping. This clause will stamp that out.

The shadow Minister raised a fair point about clothing. Clause 123, if we ever reach it, contains powers on brand sharing. That could, subject to consultation—that is the caveat that most of these clauses seem to have—capture the images and logos that she mentioned.

On enforcement, clause 104 sets out that regulations can make provisions on enforcement, so that detail will be set out in regulations.

I will write to hon. Members about moving images to make sure that they are covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Registration

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 95 relates to the registration and information requirements of the relevant products. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 require producers to notify the Government when they place or intend to place nicotine-containing vapes in refill containers and tobacco products in the UK market. Regulation 31 deals with refill containers and regulation 22 deals with tobacco products. Producers must make their submissions to DHSC for products to be sold in England, whereas in Scotland, the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for publishing these notifications.

Is the MHRA the right organisation for this? We heard in evidence that when some consumers see that a product has been regulated by the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, they believe the product to have been medically tested for safety, which is not the case. They are not tested to the same standard as the other products that the MHRA tests, such as medicines to be prescribed by the doctor or chemist. It is misleading; I wonder whether the Minister also thinks it is misleading. In her evidence, Dr Laura Squire said that it concerned her. For Northern Ireland, the EU common entry gate for producers can be used to place products on the Northern Ireland market. The notification does not currently apply to nicotine-containing vapes and refill containers, so this clause is an improvement.

Clause 95(1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a register for products such as tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Subsection (2) provides that these regulations

“may impose prohibitions or limitations on the supply of an unregistered product in the course of business.”

Subsection (3) outlines the matters that the regulations may address, including who will maintain the register, who will be eligible to be registered, and the need for producers to provide information to the registrar. Regulations may also cover the content of the register, the expiry, renewal, cancellation or suspension of a product’s registration, and the publication of the register. Furthermore, the regulations may set fees for registration or continued registration, which could be used to cover the cost of administering the provisions.

We heard in evidence that although products are registered, there is no ongoing monitoring of those registered products. We have seen examples where even supermarkets have been selling products that did not meet the requirements of notification. What will the Minister do to ensure that the regulations he produces can be adequately adhered to and enforced?

Subsection (4) specifies that regulations made under the clause may require producers to provide various types of information, such as reasons for including ingredients in a product, images of the product or its packaging, information about the risks, details about substances released into the body, information about the producer’s operations, and details about any nominated responsible person. That all sounds sensible, but we are asking the industry to mark its own homework. I wonder if the Minister has any comments on how reliable industry-provided information might be on some of these, particularly in relation to risk, because the history of the industry is not strong in that area.

Subsection (5) clarifies that the regulations may allow the retention of payment of register fees into the Consolidated Fund, which we discussed last week. Subsection (6) reiterates that the regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have also talked about.

What is the rationale for the intervention in this clause? As I understand it, to support a compliant market, it is important that we have products that are registered and can be shown to meet the regulations. This clause will help to ensure that legitimate products are available to sale and will let retailers know what the products are.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is not currently clear to me what this clause means by a “product”. Does the shadow Minister feel that it is a specific product, potentially with a brand name, or a product that fits within a set of standards or regulations? For example, is this regulating precisely “Bob Smith’s vape”, and somebody else’s vape? Or do the regulations provide that a vape with a certain length, with a certain number of milligrams of nicotine in it, with a certain dispensing unit, will be compliant and therefore anybody who produces a vape that fits within those specifications will be compliant? Or is it that every single producer of every single vape and product will have to register with the relevant authorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. To let the Committee know, last week I gave the Opposition a week’s notice, and I shared it again this morning. It should have been shared.

[Gregory Stafford]

Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. Generally, such things are agreed between the Whips, but it was not agreed on our side. I put back a counterproposal that I thought was reasonable, and no response was received from the Government Whip.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I made it very clear that I was not going to accept that proposal, and I explained last week why not. Again, I outlined the Government proposal. The counteroffer did not meet halfway; in essence, it stuck to the Opposition proposals. At the end of the day, I decided that we had a clear target of what we are trying to achieve, and we wanted to give Members reasonable time to discuss the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

May I get this absolutely clear? My intention was simply to tell Members what I understood the situation to be. It is not for me to make any judgments at all. It was just to give an indication, in effect, that we are moving on to amendment 6 and that I understand that the intention for today is to get to schedule 21. That is all. Frankly, I do not know how many new clauses we will be dealing with in due course. Tonight, I am focused on, for Members’ benefit, everyone’s understanding that that is the intention. I do that purely for Members to get the gist of what is going on. I make no judgment on it at all. It is not a matter for the Chair to make any such judgment. That is how I understand the position.

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. To be clear, my understanding is that at a new day, we have to stop. Does that mean that the sitting runs until midnight, or can we carry on after that? My understanding is that a new day starts at one minute past midnight or one second past midnight.

[The Chair]

No, we would just carry on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head.

Clause 96(1) grants the Secretary of State the authority to make regulations requiring producers or importers of products including tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products to provide information about these products to specified persons. The regulations may also govern the publication of this information. Subsection (2) outlines specific types of information that may be required, including details about the ingredients, the risks posed by the product, the emissions or substances released by the product, the producer’s operations and any individual nominated by the producer to be responsible for the product. Subsection (2) also specifies that the regulations may also require sales data or market research relevant to the product. If subsection (3) already requires this, I do not think that providing that data to the general public is necessarily something there is precedent for, but I may be corrected on that. Subsection (4) affirms that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that they will go to a vote of a Committee of the House.

The provisions in subsection (2)(b) on sales data go back to the point by the hon. Member for Dartford and raise questions about how the data will be used. Could the information be used to unfairly favour certain companies or enable them to gain an advantage over competitors? There are privacy concerns to consider. How will sensitive business information such as sales strategies, pricing models or consumer preferences be protected? While the Government want to limit the number of people who smoke and deter smokers from smoking, by not banning cigarettes outright they have given their indication that cigarettes are a lawful product to be bought by those who smoke already and who are over the age of 18 and anyone who chooses to smoke who was born on or before 1 January 2009. Having allowed businesses lawfully to exist, they should be allowed lawfully to get on with their job.

Subsection (3) suggests that the regulations will detail when and how information must be provided. That raises questions about the practicalities of the process. How frequently will the information need to be submitted? Will it be annually—in which case, how useful will it be? Or will it be quarterly, or more often—in which case, how burdensome will it be? Will there be specific deadlines? What penalties might businesses face if they fail to comply? Moreover, the process by which businesses submit their data and the verification of the information provided will need to be transparent to ensure that businesses are adhering to the rules consistently. Will there be regular audits or checks to ensure that the data is accurate and truthful?

The information required under this clause could provide valuable data for public health officials, researchers and policymakers to monitor trends in product composition, usage pattern and health impacts. However, a critical question is how effectively this information will be used to achieve tangible health outcomes. In other words, is it collecting information for the sake of collecting information, or is it collecting information that will actually be beneficial and useful? Will it help regulators to identify new risks or trends in the market? Will it support more targeted interventions to reduce smoking and vaping-related harm?

It is worth considering how information related to new products such as novel vaping devices or alternative nicotine delivery systems will be evaluated and whether the data will be used to inform better regulations in future. I suppose there is an argument that if particular flavours, for example, are prevalent in a particular area and there is an immediate harm in that area that correlates with a particular flavouring, that is a sign that there is a problem with that flavouring. But in practice, since we have been given medical evidence that suggests that any changes are usually over a period of time and fashions change over time, it will be very difficult to weed that out of a huge amount of information. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how the information will be used. I am sure the Minister will be able to provide further information in that regard.

Clause 97 looks at studies that might be required. Subsection (1) authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations that require a producer of a relevant product to conduct a study on a product or an ingredient within it. The producer may be required to submit a report on the study’s findings to a specific person. That may be helpful, but if a company is asked to provide information on a product that it sells and the information is detrimental to the prospect of further sales, how impartial can that be considered, how much will the consumer trust that information and how much point is there in doing it?

Will the Minister consider whether the study should be done independently rather than by the producer? If so, how does he envisage that working? If the producer of the product commissions the report, the way in which the question is phrased, the way in which the study is designed and other things can influence the result that is achieved. That may lead to a bias in the study so that the Government will not get the information they really want.

Subsection (2) defines a relevant product as a tobacco product, a tobacco-related device, a herbal smoking product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product. Subsection (3) outlines the specific provisions that may be included in the regulations. They include determining when and how the study should be conducted and the report submitted, specifying the questions that the study must address and defining the content and structure of the report. Subsection (4) specifies that the regulations made under this clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, meaning that they must be approved by Parliament.

The impact of the studies is assessed in paragraphs 1418 to 1426 of the Government’s impact assessment. The background to that is that the TRPR currently requires nicotine vape manufacturers to submit toxicological data regarding the product’s ingredients, including its ingredients in printed form, when the chemical composition may change, and emissions, referring to the effects on the health of customers when inhaled and considering things such as the addictive nature of the product.

Currently, producers of non-nicotine containing vapes and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches are not required to test their products or the ingredients contained within. Those products fall under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, under which the only obligation is that a producer must supply a generally safe product. Therefore, manufacturers of vaping products should carry out tests on their products to determine how the device works, how it delivers nicotine and how the ingredients react with each other to produce certain emissions—that is important to protect consumers.

In some instances, we will see the use of new chemicals and ingredients that are not well researched or well tested. If a manufacturer wishes to put such an ingredient in its products, it could be required to perform studies on its safety. As I said before, it may be that the industry does that itself initially, but there must be a provision to allow the Government to commission independent research to avoid biases in that information.

Manufactured cigarettes are the most thoroughly researched tobacco product and also the most uniform. We know much less about other products, such as novel tobacco products, non-nicotine products and smokeless tobacco. They are a hugely diverse range of products and much less well studied. We currently depend entirely on manufacturers and lack the capacity to verify industry claims. Smokeless products are of particular concern; they are often produced by small and medium-sized enterprises in low and middle-income states and then imported.

There will be an impact to industry from the cost of carrying out a study of their products and ingredients and submit the study to the relevant body. If the test for menthol was added to the standard routine testing for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide—TNCO—currently conducted on all cigarette brands, it would be expected to impose only a small additional cost. However, any additional tests that regulations require manufacturers to conduct would also have additional costs. If manufacturers have that product safety information for all the chemicals in their products, including for vapes, which have lots of different flavours—the long-term effects of vaping those chemicals are in many cases unknown, but suspected in some cases to be harmful—how will the Minister decide which chemicals to test? Will he require independent testing of all chemicals that are used in the vapes? That would take time: it is very difficult to work out what something will do over 20 years without waiting 20 years to find out.

I remember that when mobile phones were new there was a rumour that they might cause types of brain cancer. Around 20 years ago, I entered the cohort study of mobile phone use and health, or COSMOS, in which data was—and may still be—collected on my telephone usage and provided to university researchers in London. They measure my usage and periodically ask where I keep my telephone—whether in my front or back pocket, in a bag, or wherever—and whether I hold my phone to my ear when I am talking or hold it in front of me, on speaker. They also look at my medical records to see whether that usage has had any effect on my brain, and how many people who are in the study have subsequently got cancer. Does the Minister envisage encouraging the setting up of such long-term studies to check on the outcomes from vaping, for example?

There would also be a cost to developing the body that is required to review the studies that the producers of these products submit. For context, the extra cost of testing 12 tobacco products for menthol was around £50,000 per year. The cost to the relevant body of additional tests required by the regulations may be in a similar region. Those regulations would be subject to consultation, but has the Minister considered that the fewer flavours there are, the fewer chemicals that he needs to pay to have tested, or that he needs to encourage business to pay to have tested? The range of flavours means that there are more chemicals out there potentially needing investigation.

Clause 97 does not refer to conflicts of interest and does not require independent, objective experts—perhaps the Minister intends to include those in regulation. In instances in the past when tobacco companies conducted studies through their own research groups, they provided—perhaps unsurprisingly—remarkably optimistic conclusions about the hazards of smoking. I hope the Minister is not expecting such companies to mark their own homework again. The regulations should specify the qualifications of those conducting the studies and the methodologies that they should follow to help ensure that studies are scientifically valid and unbiased.

Subsection (3)(c) allows regulations to define the content and structure of reports that producers must submit. Although that provides flexibility to the regulators, it could also lead to confusion if the requirements for report structure and content were not clearly defined. Will there be a standardised format for reports, and how detailed will they need to be? Should the reports be publicly accessible? Will they remain confidential to the producers and regulatory bodies, or will they be more widely published, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggested other data should be?

These questions are important and the Minister’s intentions are important, as unclear guidance could result in inconsistent reporting across producers or even incomplete or misleading reports. The primary goal of requiring studies and reports is to provide regulators with information that could be used to improve public health outcomes, such as understanding the health risks associated with smoking, vaping or nicotine products. It is essential to question how this information will be used once submitted. Will it be analysed promptly and used to update product regulations to inform public health campaigns? If studies highlight emerging risks or issues, how quickly will regulators be able to act on the findings? The impact of those studies will largely depend on how efficiently the regulatory system uses that data to protect public health and respond to new threats. Are we collecting data for the sake of collecting data, so that the information is there, or are the resources going to be provided to look at the data, analyse it and act upon it? Otherwise, we may end up in a situation where we knew the answer but we did not see the wood for the trees.

Finally, clause 98 talks about the responsible person. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that require producers of tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products to nominate an individual who will be responsible for the information that must be provided under the regulations we have discussed under clauses 95 and 97.

Subsection (2) provides that the regulations may include provisions on who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. That could include requirements for the nominee to be a resident of the United Kingdom, or to have another connection to the country. Subsection (3) mandates that the regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without first obtaining consent, which seems to me very clear and straightforward. Subsection (4) clarifies that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring Parliamentary approval before becoming law.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to define who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. It is essential to ask whether there are any clear criteria for that eligibility. For instance, must the individual be a senior company representative, public health expert or legal representative? The definition of eligibility could significantly impact the effectiveness and accountability of the regulation. Subsection (2) of the clause mentions that the regulations may require the nominated responsible person to be

“resident in, or to have another connection to, the United Kingdom.”

What exactly constitutes a connection to the UK? One of my aunts moved to the States when she got married and she lived there and had her family there. Although she has sadly passed on, I have cousins in the States. Is that enough of a connection? What counts as a connection? Is it enough for the person to have a business address in the UK, or do they need to be a UK citizen or a UK taxpayer? Do they need to live in the UK for a certain period?

This is particularly important when considering that many of the largest players in the vape industry, such as Elfbar and Lost Mary, are Chinese companies and are headquartered abroad. To my understanding, Elfbar has used its geographical distance from the UK to stay at arm’s length from a range of controversies caused by their products, not least the selling of vapes with illegally high levels of nicotine and the use of TikTok influencers with large followings among children to promote their products, which I am pleased to hear the Minister will be countering with his own adverts.

The clause specifies that the regulations prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without their consent. What process will be put in place to ensure that consent is genuinely obtained and documented? Will there be a formal registration or reporting system for nominees, and how will we ensure that the nominee knows—and that we know that the nominee knows—that they have been nominated? Will the person responsible be held personally liable for product safety or compliance failure if the product manufacturer fails to meet certain standards? Will it be the responsible person facing the fine, penalty or other consequences, the company, or both? That is an important consideration given both the nature of the penalties and also the person’s willingness to be nominated.

The clause covers a broad range of products, including tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, vaping products, herbal smoking products and nicotine products. Will the nominated responsible person be expected to oversee compliance with specific regulations for each product category, or will there be a single standard compliance regulation for all? I think primarily of cases where large companies have major stakes in both the tobacco and vaping industries.

[Gregory Stafford]

We are debating a number of clauses and the amendments to them. I will first touch on amendments 6 to 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford. I completely understand where he is coming from in trying to use data collected by companies producing such products and by retail outlets. It could have a significant health benefit. The hon. Member for Worthing West is a public health consultant and will, therefore, sympathise with the ambitions in the amendments.

Where there is a problem, however, is in the sharing of such data. Clearly, to make that effective from a public health point of view, the information needs to be shared with the Department of Health and Social Care and with relevant public health authorities at a local level, whether that be combined authority mayors—or whatever comes in the Government’s reorganisation— or local authorities. My concern is that the data will be publicly available to everyone, including competitors in that market. That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

We would not do something similar with alcohol, although we must agree that alcohol also harms, or with fatty foods or sweets. I am sure the Minister will tell me later, and I completely agree with him, that tobacco and vape products are not in the same scale as fatty foods and alcohol, but I still think that there is an anti-competitive nature to some of the measures in the Bill, especially in the amendments, in particular when it comes to different sizes of companies. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned the big players in this market. Let us remember that we are not banning vapes—we are just banning them for those under the age of 18, and rightly so—but by using this data, the big competitors in the market could squeeze out smaller retailers and smaller companies that produce vapes.

Perhaps that was the hon. Member for Dartford’s intention, but giving succour to the big beasts in this game is probably not the way we want to go. I am not sure whether he will press his amendments to a vote, but, if the Minister and the Government accept the proposals, in this form or another, we should look at a way of ensuring that we can use this data for public health benefit without the unintended consequences that might come about from sharing it with competitors.

Clauses 96 to 98, as drafted, all include a lot of positives. Clause 96 empowers the Secretary of State to require producers and importers of tobacco and vaping products to provide information about their product sales and potential health risks. Obviously, transparency is critical to ensure consumer protection, and to inform our policy making and effective regulation of the sale and manufacture of such products. A study by the World Health Organisation found that countries with strict tobacco information disclosure laws saw a 20% decrease in tobacco-related illnesses over a decade. That very much sits with my point about using data to drive policy. Mandating the detailed reporting that is mentioned in the clause will ensure that consumers have access to crucial data about product contents and the health implications.

[Dr Johnson]

We have talked a bit this evening about social media companies and the production on social media by influencers of what are in essence adverts, together with the difficulties in imposing any regulations on that. Does that not mean that, if all this data were published as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests—with great intentions—we could end up in a situation in which we are informing the industry exactly where they should target next with their social media posts? We all know that those can be directed to certain geographies.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is a real risk of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dartford. Essentially, we would be mandating the companies to show their competitors and potential new entrants to the market where the potentially fertile—in the sense of wanting to buy the product, to be clear—areas of customers are so that they would know to target them. It seems rather strange that we would want to do that. I am sure that that is not the hon. Member’s intention, but it is a potential conflict of interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. I am sure he would agree that, essentially, there is no point in naming a responsible person for the company if that responsible person is not sufficiently able to pull the levers of power within the company if they find that something is not up to scratch. We need someone who is not in fear of being sacked if he or she raises concerns—somebody who is at a high level within the company.

[Gregory Stafford]

Yes, absolutely. I think the shadow Minister is completely right. There is that point, in terms of potential fear—if that is the right word—for this person if they are not in a senior position. Indeed, some of the less scrupulous companies may seek to intimidate said compliance officer. Also, to be frank, a lack of expertise in this area could lead to ineffective compliance oversight. While that is something undesirable in and of itself, it can also potentially have negative impacts on the consumer.

Finally, could the Minister say a bit about the potential legal-liability issues of this person? Nominating a single individual raises questions about personal legal liability. Will this individual be legally responsible for compliance —or non-compliance—or will that be the chief executive or someone else, or will there be corporate responsibility or liability for breaches of the standards? I really think that provisions should be in place to ensure that the company—the manufacturer, the producer—bears the ultimate responsibility, rather than this named individual.

The clause needs a clear set of qualifications and criteria regarding the experience of said responsible person. We should make sure that the accountability is structured to prevent scapegoating of individuals, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, and some kind of training programme is in place to support those compliance officers in their roles so that they can enact their duties responsibly. We should also ensure that, should something go wrong, it is the company that holds ultimate responsibility and liability in law rather than that individual.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for this discussion today, and particularly for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. His amendments would require the Government to make regulations under clause 96 within six months of Royal Assent to the Bill, and for the required information to be published.

I am really sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency in the tobacco industry, and we take our obligations as a party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control very seriously. Indeed, we take our membership of the WHO very seriously, and, given events on the other side of the pond this week, I think it needs a champion on the world stage. Multilateralism works, and the globe is a better place for having the World Health Organisation. It is not perfect and it needs reform—like a lot of major multilateral organisations—but if we did not have the WHO, we would have to invent something pretty similar to it.