Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I would like the chance to put my No on record, so I would appreciate a Division.

[The Chair]

Regrettably, we have moved on.

Clause 2

Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

I shall answer some of the points made, which were valid. To answer the shadow Minister, cigarette papers are within the scope of the existing legislation. They are included because burning them adds to the volume of smoke and because, with their bleaches and dyes, as she rightly set out, the range of toxicants in the smoke contributes to the additional risks to smokers.

On filters, I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s premise. Although cigarette filters have historically been marketed to make smoking safer, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. All tobacco products are harmful. However, as with all regulations, it is important that measures are considered fully and that the evidence base is there, with no unintended consequences. I do not want to give the tobacco industry the opportunity to greenwash and to say, “Not only are filters healthier for you, but they are healthier for the environment.” We absolutely do not want that. We have powers in part 5 of the Bill to restrict the flavours in cigarette papers, so the argument set out by the shadow Minister is covered. On single-use plastics, it is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to legislate, and it already has powers that enable it to consult on single-use plastics in cigarette filters.

As we have heard, a number of relevant products—for example, pipe cleaners and cigarette papers—can be used for musical instruments, as well as for crafting, art, model making and a whole range of other uses. We do not want to restrict those uses; we want to make it more difficult for people to access such products for the provision of smoking. As we said when we discussed clause 1, we are not making the smoking of tobacco illegal; we are preventing the next generation from getting hooked. The restrictions therefore strike a proportionate balance. A current smoker will be able to smoke until the until the day they die. Although we will do everything we can to give them the opportunity to give up, they will be able to access the products legally, but the Bill will introduce restrictions on them.

We think we have got the balance right, but we will take away the arguments and consider them, because they are valid arguments about how a musician, or someone who wants to use them for crafting and modelling, will still able to access these products if they want to use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

The nub of clause 3 is age verification. The reason the Minister and the Government do not want tobacco vending machines in operation is not that they do not want convenience for the customer, but rather that they want to make sure that people are of a suitable age under the law. Without somebody to check, that is a problem.

In my youth, I used to play snooker in what was the Minister’s constituency. There was a little area of the club, with a little gate, where the gambling machines were, and there was a tobacco vending machine in there. The only thing preventing us from going in there was honesty. Whereas it stopped me as a teenager, I do not suppose that it would have stopped adults in the same way—if you wanted to restrict adults from being a smoker in the future, that would not serve as a deterrent.

My question is about nicotine products, which I was hoping the Minister could come to, perhaps when he winds up. Nicotine products are defined separately from tobacco products in this legislation, so it would still be acceptable for things such as nicotine patches to be sold through vending machines. That does not sound unsensible, because it does not seem to me that people trying to evade this law would be attracted to nicotine products in the same way they might be to other tobacco cessation devices. Perhaps the Minister can comment on how he proposes to treat them when he winds up.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Let me first say to the shadow Minister that we are aware of the new type of machines she mentioned, and we are concerned by their presence. The Department is looking to ensure that there are no loopholes in this legislation and that these machines, which may seek to bypass the age of sale restrictions, are not able to. Secondly, she has already answered the point about Scotland: the reason these measures do not appertain to Scotland is that Scotland already has legislation covering them.

To other Members, I say that we are overcomplicating this. As I said in opening, the clauses merely restate the existing ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are consolidating the legislation to make it easier to understand the law but also to enforce it from one place—and that is it. This is the consolidation of existing powers that are working now.

The hon. Member for Windsor is absolutely right when he says that we want to ensure that age of sale is absolutely enabled to be enforced. As he said, when he was playing snooker in my old constituency, he would have been able to purchase tobacco products from a vending machine, and it was basically on the basis of trust that people were able to do that. That is no longer acceptable. We are bringing in the age restrictions, and we therefore need to make sure that they are adhered to.

I do not wish to stray on to nicotine products, because those are subject to a debate further on in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw a distinction in the way he has. That is why the whole Bill treats nicotine products separately to, and very differently from, tobacco products, for reasons we will get to in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Sale of unpackaged cigarettes

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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