Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not claim to have a medical qualification, but my guess would be that there is no difference between specialist and other forms of tobacco. One might even say—again, I am not medically qualified —that specialist tobacco may be more harmful, because a pipe has no filter, and nor are there other things that could mitigate, at least minimally, the harmful nature of the tobacco. The shadow Minister is right, and the Minister has been clear, that there is no such thing as safe smoking in any form.

It is interesting that the Minister has decided to exempt specialist tobacconists in this regard. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to how many specialist tobacconists there are in the United Kingdom, and how many consumers currently buy their tobacco from a specialist tobacconist. That would give us some indication of how prevalent the issue is.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I encourage my hon. Friend not to criticise the Minister for doing something quite sensible in pursuing this evidence-based approach. I have said before that people who have a cigar on new year’s eve and who use specialist tobacconists—that is where I get mine—are the kind of people we should be letting off a little. The Minister is right.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend and I agree on most areas of policy, but this is probably one on which we do not entirely see eye to eye. Another hon. Member asked me yesterday to mention the personal benefits of cigars for his stress levels. I informed him very clearly that reducing any amount of stress with a cigar only exacerbates the effect on his lungs; although he might feel a little less stressed in the moment, he will feel much more stressed when, unfortunately, he has a tobacco-related disease. I therefore disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.

That being said, and I have mentioned this previously on other clauses, we must be consistent between larger and smaller retailers and not bring in anything that will disadvantage the smaller ones. Perhaps that is what was in the Minister’s mind when he included this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The clause grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate brand sharing related to tobacco products, vaping products, nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I think the provision is instrumental in preventing indirect advertising strategies that could undermine the public health efforts in the Bill aimed at reducing consumption of those products.

Brand sharing, in my understanding, refers to the practice of using a brand name, a logo or some kind of distinctive feature associated with a particular product across a range of different product categories. In the context of tobacco and vaping products, brand sharing can manifest in several ways. Cross-product branding uses a tobacco brand’s name or logo on a non-tobacco product such as clothing or accessories to maintain brand visibility despite the advertising restrictions.

On event sponsorships, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned how we banned the advertising of tobacco products at Formula 1, the cricket and so on. Associating a tobacco or vape brand with events indirectly promotes the brand to a broader audience. Merchandising—the selling or distributing of merchandise bearing the branding of tobacco or vape products—can appeal to various demographics, especially young people.

[Jack Rankin]

I wholeheartedly support the Government on tobacco, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that there might be an inconsistency being applied here? For example, vaping and nicotine products are being outlawed, but sport is awash with gambling and alcohol brand sharing. Does he not think that that is an inconsistent application of the message?

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth; I am sure he can respond to my hon. Friend when he gets up. I think there has been relative unanimity on the Committee. Unlike alcohol and gambling, to use the two examples that my hon. Friend gave, tobacco is significantly more dangerous. Whereas there are safe levels of indulgence in gambling and alcohol, there is no safe indulgence in tobacco products. I think the Minister has made that very clear. If I have misinterpreted what he said, I am sure he will correct me.

The rationale for the clause is important: it closes advertising loopholes. Traditional advertising channels for tobacco products have been progressively restricted to reduce their appeal and accessibility, especially to young people. However, brand sharing could present a loophole that companies could exploit to continue to promote their products indirectly. By regulating brand sharing, the clause aims to close that gap, ensuring the intent of the advertising restrictions, which we have previously discussed, is fully realised.

Secondly, as with measures throughout the Bill, the clause aims to protect public health. Indirect advertising through brand sharing can subtly influence consumer behaviour, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents. Exposure to branding on non-tobacco products or at events can normalise tobacco and vape use, potentially leading to their initiation and then continued usage. Regulating brand sharing is therefore a critical step in protecting public health by limiting the avenues through which these products are promoted.

Once again, the clause brings us into line with a number of international standards. Many countries have already recognised the risks associated with brand sharing and have implemented regulations to address it. For example, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, which I previously mentioned, recommends comprehensive bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including indirect forms such as brand sharing. By empowering the Secretary of State to regulate brand sharing, the UK is aligning itself with international best practices in tobacco control.

However, there are some challenges and considerations. The first is defining the scope of brand sharing. One of the primary challenges I see in regulating brand sharing is establishing clear definitions and boundaries. Determining what constitutes brand sharing requires careful consideration to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited. I hope the Minister will give us some understanding of what the guidelines and boundaries might look like. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure that both regulators and businesses understand the limitations and comply accordingly.

The definition of brand sharing in subsection (2) involves broad and somewhat ambiguous terms, such as

“anything which is the same as, or similar to, a name, emblem, or any other feature”.

The use of such open-ended language could create uncertainty about what constitutes a violation of the regulations. How precise must the similarities between a relevant product and another service product be in order to be considered brand sharing? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand that.

There is also then the balancing of the regulation with commercial rights, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor alluded to earlier. While the object is clearly to protect public health, it is also important to consider the commercial rights of businesses. Over-restrictive regulation could have unintended economic consequences, particularly, again, for small businesses involved in merchandising or event sponsorship. I have said this before: if the product is legal to consume, we must ensure that whatever regulations we apply are equal and fair for both a large retailer or manufacturer and a small retailer or manufacturer. The regulation is either highly restrictive or highly permissive, but it must be the same. A balanced approach is necessary to achieve the public health goals without imposing undue burdens on legitimate commercial activities.

As I have said before in debates on other clauses, enforcement and compliance potentially bring some logistical challenges. The monitoring of so many various channels, including events and merchandise digital platforms, requires substantial resource. Ensuring compliance among diverse industries and settings necessitates a co-ordinated effort between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders and the public.

In addition to the questions I have already asked, could the Minister tell us what will be in the accompanying comprehensive guidelines? I urge the Minister to collaborate with public health experts, industry representatives and legal advisers to formulate clear and detailed guidelines on what constitutes prohibited brand-sharing practices. Those guidelines should be regularly updated to address any emerging trends and technologies, which we have discussed previously.

Stakeholder engagement is entirely appropriate and important. That includes with businesses and consumer groups, because we need to understand the regulations and encourage, where possible, voluntary compliance rather than compliance through enforcement operations. Educational campaigns can help stakeholders recognise the public health rationale behind regulations.

Finally, to go back to what I said about having robust monitoring mechanisms, we need to establish some kind of body to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance. Using technology and public reporting mechanisms can aid in identifying the violations and taking prompt action.

In conclusion, I support the intentions of the clause, but the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes brand sharing is something I would like to hear about from the Minister. Potentially, some challenges in enforcement are posed if the clause and the Bill become law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I have some brief points to make on clauses 124 and 125 about the prohibition of sponsorship and the exceptions to it. Clearly, indirect advertising through sponsorship is a subtle form of advertising, associating brands with popular events and activities to enhance their appeal. By prohibiting such sponsorship, the Bill seeks to close that indirect advertising channel, and that is important, especially when it comes to youth protection. Sponsorships often target events frequented by young people, such as concerts and sporting events. I accept that neither of those things are exclusively for young people, but they often have a preponderance of younger people. Preventing such associations reduces the likelihood of youth exposure to brand imagery that could encourage the initiation of smoking or vaping.

I understand why there need to be exceptions to the sponsorship prohibition, and clause 125 mentions some. But although those exceptions acknowledge certain realities—I am not going to pretend that they do not exist—they need to be carefully regulated to prevent abuse. As I said in debates on previous clauses, clear guidelines are necessary to delineate the boundaries of the exceptions. I hope the Minister can once again give us some clarity and assurance on those.

[Jack Rankin]

In my home office, I have a wonderful watercolour painting of the Lord’s pavilion that celebrates Lancashire winning the Benson & Hedges cup final sometime in the mid-1990s. I know the Minister is a proud Lancashire man, like me, and I agree with him that although we want to see again the days of Lancashire winning cricket tournaments, none of us would want to go back to the days of Benson & Hedges sponsoring sports competitions, so I will support the Minister and the Government on clause 124.

On clause 125, however, I will have to disagree with the Government. As we have already discussed, vaping and nicotine pouches are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. In my view, this clause opens us up to inconsistency across the board. I say that because sponsorship is currently permitted for alcohol and gambling. To me, it makes no sense for vapes to be treated differently. In response to my earlier comments, the point was made that tobacco is uniquely harmful; it is different, in its public health damage, from alcohol and gambling. But I do not fully buy that. I see these things as a spectrum. If people want to say to me that cigarettes are uniquely harmful versus alcohol and gambling, I am prepared to believe that, but I am afraid that when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products and to gambling, these things are a spectrum.

I represent Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses. Ascot racecourse is in effect the Wembley of racing worldwide, and Royal Windsor is very much in the top tier. I find myself having to defend them quite often when people want to legislate on gambling, because having a cash bet at a racecourse event is a healthy thing to do as part of a day out. That should be treated very differently from somebody in an online casino in the early hours of the morning or on a fixed odds betting terminal. Gambling is a spectrum, and I suggest to the Committee that tobacco and nicotine products are also a spectrum.

I say this with sincerity. The Labour party’s seats may spread much further than they used to, but certainly Labour’s core seats, which perhaps the Minister and the Chair represent—

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

From a public health point of view, I just point out to the hon. Member that we are basing this Bill on evidence and therefore we are looking at the evidence of tobacco harm, which I think we agree on. There is incontrovertible evidence; tobacco is undoubtedly harmful. People should not start smoking tobacco, and we should assist those who come forward to stop.

In relation to vaping, I go back to a previous comment I made, about the precautionary principle. There is evidence on vaping; there do appear to be some harms associated with vaping. There is not sufficient evidence right now for it to be incontrovertible, but it would be irresponsible not to adopt the precautionary principle that we use in public health.

In relation to gambling, I just urge caution—again, on the evidence. There may not be incontrovertible evidence about gambling, but there are undoubtedly health harms from gambling that we need to look at as we move forward.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

[Dr Johnson]

I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing West about the precautionary principle. One of the differences between tobacco products—for example, cigarettes—and vapes is that tobacco products in the form of cigarettes are relatively more uniform in their component parts than are vapes, and it may take quite a long time to work out which of the chemical components of vapes are harmful, so we do need to be more precautionary with that.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here.

Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

We are straying from the point a little, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Premier League will shortly initiate a shirt front ban on gambling sponsors? His examples of free advertising and sponsorship of gambling will probably be out of date soon.

[Jack Rankin]

I am glad to hear that—it sounds like positive news, but I will finish my point and go down the list. Crystal Palace FC is sponsored by Net88, a Vietnamese betting company; Everton FC by Stake, an Australian online casino; Fulham FC by SBOBET, a Philippine gambling company; Leicester FC by BC.Game; Nottingham Forest FC is—

[The Chair]

Order. I take the point, but I can allow the comparison to go only so far. We are not talking about gambling. Members must try to stick to the debate that we should be having, not to the one that we should not be having.

[Jack Rankin]

I will bring my remarks to a close, Mr Dowd, but I will make the point that some of these sponsors are online crypto casinos. I would argue that they are worse than vapes, so I think some inconsistency is being introduced in the law.

Let me suggest one way in which we could un-work that inconsistency, which I have seen in the Six Nations. Guinness Zero now sponsors the competition, rather than Guinness. It seems to me that we should allow low or no-alcohol beers to engage in these activities, and I see vaping as analogous. I believe that there is an analogy there, but an inconsistency is being applied by this clause.

I will also make a point about the technicality of some of the clauses—I hope that the Minister can point to some of this later. Clause 125(1)(c) mentions sponsorship of

“a herbal smoking product…cigarette papers…a vaping product…a nicotine product,”

but annex B of the explanatory notes on page 102 mentions

“any device which is intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products or herbal smoking products”.

Will the Minister provide clarity on what other devices we are seeking to capture? For instance, will tobacco filters fall under the sponsorship ban? Will his Department propose a Government amendment to update the text of the Bill to provide clarity and remove that potential loophole?

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

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

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

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

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