Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing a national maternity improvement strategy.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

We expect all women to be shown the utmost care and respect when receiving maternity and neonatal care. This year’s planning guidance requires integrated care boards and providers to deliver the key actions in this final year of NHS England’s three-year delivery plan. It is clear from listening to the harrowing stories of bereaved and harmed families, however, that we must do more. The Secretary of State is urgently considering the significant action needed to ensure that all women and babies receive the care they deserve.

[Jack Rankin]

Last year’s birth trauma inquiry report exposed that maternity services in this country are woefully underfunded, and now the Health Secretary intends to cut the budget for maternity improvement from £95 million to just £2 million, equating to less than £4 per child born in this country each year. What kind of change is that? What message will that send to mothers across the country? Does the Secretary of State plan to implement any of the recommendations from the birth trauma inquiry report, many of which were committed to by the previous Government?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman is not correct: maternity funding is not ringfenced at the same level—I think that is what he is referring to. It has, however, absolutely been committed to as far as ICB allocations are concerned. Local leaders will decide how best to allocate that money. We will continue to work with Donna Ockenden and the families who have been affected by previous incidents and ensure that the recommendations of her report and the maternity review are fully implemented.

Down Syndrome Act 2022: Local Authority Guidance

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I feel so strongly about the subject of this debate because of one particular campaigner in my constituency, Millie-Anna. Her commitment to raising awareness and campaigning on a range of issues for people with Down syndrome is inspiring. She is a leading light for people with this condition everywhere.

The main thing I have learned from my discussions with Millie since becoming her Member of Parliament is that, when making policy that affects people with Down syndrome, the best thing that the Government can do is listen to those who actually live with it, as well as their families and groups such as the National Down Syndrome Policy Group. That is why I put in for this debate today: to urge the Minister and her Department to listen to groups such as the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, and to make publishing the Down Syndrome Act guidance, which this Parliament has compelled the state to do, a Government priority. The guidance is essential for making sure that those with Down syndrome are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve across a range of public bodies—from the NHS and the school system to other local authority services such as housing. If done well, it could set the gold standard for publishing other guidance for those with unique conditions.

Importantly, the guidance must be specific to the unique needs of those with Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome may sometimes have learning disabilities, but Down syndrome is not a learning disability. In my view, the civil servants are seeking an easy life by mopping up the issue with everything else, but that is not what Parliament has told them to do. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care rightly called out NHS England as a public body that served the institution rather than patients and the instructions of this House, but frankly, when it comes to this matter, the Minister needs to look at the Department of Health and Social Care itself.

In the Department’s call for evidence, it was mooted that the guidance could be extended to cover those with broader learning disabilities. That was never the purpose of the Act and risks watering down the legislation so far as to make it meaningless, particularly given that the call for evidence also made it clear that the needs of those with Down syndrome are distinct. The extension of the guidance would undermine the Act’s whole reason for being. Will the Minister commit to separating learning disabilities from the guidance completely and instead add a supplementary document? That would be a way of pleasing all interested parties without watering down the guidance.

Currently, only 25% of those with Down syndrome are included in mainstream secondary schools. Some 94% are unemployed, and sadly their life expectancy is just two thirds that of the general population. If we provide authorities with specific guidance, I really believe that we can move the dial and that those with Down syndrome can play a full role in society and be afforded the opportunities that they deserve.

Specific guidance has the power to improve health outcomes by directing NHS professionals, and it will improve school outcomes, as it will stop those with Down syndrome from automatically being pushed towards specialist schools when they may benefit from being in the mainstream. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that professionals delivering services to people with Down syndrome will have to undertake Down syndrome-specific training and that that will be included in the forthcoming guidance.

The publication date for the draft guidance has faced multiple delays; the most recent extension—that it should be published by Easter—has been postponed yet again. The new target is set for the summer. Sir Liam Fox’s Act got on to the statute book as far back as 2022, but still families are left waiting. I say it again: Parliament has given its instruction and the relevant officials should get on with it. Unfortunately, today is just the latest in a long list of debates, questions and letters from the all-party parliamentary group and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, which time and again have been brushed aside and ignored.

Following the passing of the Act, each integrated care board in England has been required to have a board-level executive lead for Down syndrome, who is accountable for ensuring that the ICB meets its duties and supports people with Down syndrome effectively, including implementing the Down Syndrome Act 2022. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) pointed out last week in his Westminster Hall debate, there are currently only three listed leads for the 42 ICBs in England. Progress has been far too slow in all these areas. That, frankly, is an affront to the democratic process and reflects badly on this country.

Although I recognise the difficulties in transitioning from one Government to the next, I feel strongly that this issue needs to be at the top of the list of the Minister’s priorities. This is about a binding statute and it is really not a party political matter. Even when submitting my application for this debate to the Table Office, my original wording was flagged because the commitments were officially made under the previous Government. I am sure that that was some kind of administrative confusion, but will the Minister commit to the official record that bringing the guidance forward is also a policy of this new Government?

When Sir Liam’s Act was passed, it was a landmark piece of legislation. It gave so much hope to families across the country and sent the message that their campaigning and hard work had been rewarded but, as is so often the case, MPs now face an ongoing battle with the grinding Whitehall machine.

As well as specific guidance being necessary, the Act creates accountability in public institutions. I am afraid that the Minister’s officials are again dragging their feet in their own self-interest. They have never wanted to set the precedent that the public could find someone accountable and responsible for their care. God forbid anybody in the British state should be held accountable, but Parliament has legislated to give instructions, and I want my constituents with Down syndrome to know who is responsible for their care.

In getting on with it and properly capturing people’s unique needs in the specific guidance, the Government need to engage with the right people. However, of the key stakeholder groups tasked with developing this guidance, only three of the 11 organisations involved are specifically focused on Down syndrome and are expert in the condition.

Furthermore, the civil service has admitted in correspondence that it is unsure of the specific needs of those with Down syndrome. This is understandable, but why not listen to those who do understand, those who are part of the community and the Down syndrome APPG? Why not listen to people like Millie Anna?

The APPG and the NDSPG have been pushing for a meeting for six months, and I am afraid to say that each time they have been rebuffed with a generic response. I hope that my raising this issue today, following last week’s debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, will be the wake-up call the Government need to take this issue seriously.

Sir Liam has contacted the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee to request an inquiry into this ongoing issue and to explore the reasons for the delays in the publication of the guidance. This is something I wholeheartedly support. From my discussions with the APPG, I know it has found that the Minister’s response to last week’s Westminster Hall debate left many unanswered questions, so I hope that bringing this topic back to Parliament today has given the Minister a chance to develop her response.

I am afraid to say it is also notable that the Minister responsible for this area of policy has been absent from both this debate and last week’s debate, and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will pass on my asks.

Given the delay and the treatment of the Down syndrome community, which has been far from ideal, I now think that a meeting with the Secretary of State is required to reassure those with Down syndrome that the Government have not forgotten them. Will the Minister commit today to arranging such a meeting in the very near future?

We need to get this guidance published as a priority, but only if it reflects the true intentions of Sir Liam’s original Bill—specific to Down syndrome and with proper accountability. I thank the Minister for making the time today. I look forward to her response on all these issues, particularly on: arranging a meeting; separating learning disabilities from Down syndrome in the guidance; the current lack of ICB leads; and a timeline for the publication of the guidance associated with the Act.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

As is usually the case, I find myself agreeing with my right hon. Friend, and that is of course why we have tabled the amendment: it will give us the evidence that we and the enforcement authorities require to make sure that the black market is reduced.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is not a risk that a black market will open, because a significant black market in tobacco already exists? In 2021, some 23.6 billion cigarettes were sold under duty, whereas in 2024 the figure was 13.2 billion, a 44% reduction. Yet an Action on Smoking and Health survey has found that smoking has reduced by only 0.5%. The black market is already here—it is not a new thing that will be created—so the Bill presents an even greater risk.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We know the black market exists, but the amendment would enable the Government to understand the scale of that black market and the changes in it, so that regulation could be enforced more robustly.

On amendment 90, as currently drafted the legislation will ban all forms of advertising of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes, nicotine products and sponsorship that promotes those products. Adverts will no longer be permitted on posters, billboards or the sides of buses, and sports teams will be prevented from being sponsored by a vaping company. As a Member of Parliament and a children’s doctor, I have been very concerned by the sharp increase in children addicted to vaping and, more recently, the other nicotine products such as pouches that have begun to flood the market. Schoolteachers have reported that children are unable to concentrate or even to complete a whole lesson without visiting the bathroom to vape.

Action to tackle the rise in vaping is welcome, and I support steps that restrict the appeal of vapes to young people, including through flavours and packaging. However, as the Minister mentioned in her opening speech, vaping can be a useful smoking cessation tool for adult smokers trying to quit; in my view, that should be their only purpose. Within the context of proposed advertising restrictions, amendment 90 would ensure that vapes that are targeted solely as a quit aid, to help adults stop smoking, can continue, in recognition of their role in bringing down smoking rates.

Finally, new clause 20 would introduce a requirement on online vaping products to operate an age verification policy, as is currently the case in Scotland. Whether someone is buying vaping products online or in store, robust provisions must be in place to ensure that the purchaser is of legal age, and businesses must have a robust policy in place. As we have seen through recent tragedies, the age verification process for online sales on age-restricted products has not always been effective. The new clause would be an important step towards protecting children from accessing products online that they should not be able to buy.

In closing, the Conservative party has a strong record of action on tobacco control. It was under a Conservative Government that plain packaging was introduced for all tobacco products and that minimum pack sizes for cigarettes and rolling tobacco were introduced—policies that have been demonstrably effective at reducing smoking rates. I have personally campaigned passionately on the issue of tobacco and vapes for over two years, and I am pleased that some of my original amendments to the Bill have made it beyond Committee stage and are with us today. I was also glad to see some of the new Government amendments introduced on Report that were born of debates we had in Committee, which have strengthened the Bill.

Our amendments are designed to highlight some of the difficulties in the Bill. We oppose the Government’s power-grab—creating powers to ban smoking and vaping wherever they choose by regulation, but without consultation or enough notice. We have concerns about how the Bill will operate in practice, especially the burden on small businesses, and the potential for unintended consequences, such as a growth in the black market for tobacco products, so we ask that the Government seriously consider our amendments today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

My hon. Friend identifies an important point about the protection of young people, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister address it in her winding up.

Non-smokers should never vape, but we should acknowledge that vaping can help a hell of a lot of smokers to quit, and that the evidence base we have on relative harm shows that vaping is far less harmful than tobacco smoking. The consolidation of vaping into a more utilitarian device used solely for the cessation of smoking is something we should pursue. That necessitates measures that stop the worrying rise in young people getting their hands on vapes in the first place. During evidence in Committee, Trading Standards articulated that online age gating has a far lower failure rate than sales over the counter. We heard from various sources about how vapes are still far too easy for our bairns to get their hands on through proxy or underage counter purchases. There is still work to be done to put the onus on the vaping industry to safeguard our bairns.

That why I put my name to new clause 6 and new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon). They would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations mandating vape retailers to sell only vapes that include approved age-gating technology, allowing adults to lock their vapes and prevent bairns being able to use them. That would align with and strengthen the Bill’s objectives of deterring underage use by seeking to extend protection away from the point of sale to the point of use. I will ask Ministers to commit to meet me and the all-party parliamentary group to discuss how age-gating technology and wider measures can be supported in the United Kingdom to strengthen the shared aim we all have to stop bairns vaping.

The Bill grants the Secretary of State similar powers to bring in regulations relating to the display, packaging and flavours of vapes. On that, I will make a few brief points. The Bill should not deter smokers switching to vapes. Flavours are a huge reason why smokers quit and stick by quitting, and we should not regulate in any way that undermines the crucial message we must get to stick with adult smokers, which is that vaping has a far lower relative harm than continuing to smoke.

If we can, across this House, acknowledge the scientific consensus that there is no non-harmful consumption of tobacco, the Bill should be supported. It is time to take a step that will do a substantial amount to deter smoking, prevent nicotine addiction and secure a generation against smoking-related disease and premature death.

[Jack Rankin]

I hesitate to break up the consensus ever so slightly, but I do disagree fundamentally with the Bill. In my view, a generational smoking ban misrepresents the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and creates two tiers of adults. Members will be heartened to know that, recognising the will of the House on Second Reading, I do not intend to plough on with that argument too far. What I have tried to do with my amendments, however, is to genuinely improve the main aim of the Bill in a way that gets people off smoking in the interests of public health, which, whether we are for or against a generational ban on smoking, is something that we should all support. That is why I am grateful to Members from across this House—on the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Democratic Unionist Benches, as well as some independent Members—for supporting the measures in my name, new clauses 8, 9 and 10 and amendment 46.

The message behind those measures is simple: let us ensure less harmful vapes and nicotine products get to the adult smokers who could benefit from them so that smoking rates continue to fall. In that regard, I associate myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).

I feel the risk of the Bill is that Ministers may inadvertently weaken the decline in smoking in Britain somewhat. As the Minister and shadow Minister both said in their opening remarks, vaping is a legitimate and desirable smoking cessation tool for adults who currently smoke.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I associate myself with much of what he has said already. He will understand that when plain packaging was introduced, just that kind of inadvertent effect was felt, as those who wished to counterfeit tobacco products were able to do so at will, using plain packaging that looks no different from legal tobacco packaging.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks, and also associate myself with the same remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). We have to be a little careful about the inadvertent effects of what might be the goodwill of all of us in this House.

Regardless of how one sees the state’s role in this matter, we should all welcome the decrease in smoking in this country from the highs of almost 30% in the early 2000s to 11.6% today. We have to recognise that that is partly due to education, partly to do with social stigma and partly because of legislation that this House has brought forward. We should also acknowledge, however, the essential role that the free market has played, particularly with vapes and other non-tobacco products, in getting adult smokers to stop smoking.

There are still 6 million smokers in this country, and none of them will come under the umbrella of the generational ban. We therefore need to ensure that there are safer alternatives out there for them. In my view, the Bill as currently drafted risks hanging those smokers out to dry by treating vapes and nicotine products—although they are not included in the ban—in the same way as cigarettes are treated, which is a false equivalence that is not backed by the science.

Sitting on the Public Bill Committee, I realised how prevalent the view is among the public that vapes and other smoking cessation tools, such as non-combustible tobacco, are as bad as cigarettes, when in reality vapes are at least 95% safer than cigarettes, according to Public Health England and Dr Khan’s independent review—look at any smoking cessation website to find a similar message. Any smoker knows how difficult it is to go cold turkey, and less dangerous off-ramps like vapes can be a lifeline for those looking for a way out of cigarettes. In fact, in many aspects, the NHS actively promotes such tools through its swap to stop scheme, and has found that almost two thirds of people who vape alongside using a stop smoking service quit smoking.

What concerns me primarily is the blanket ban approach to marketing, particularly for vapes and nicotine products, which my new clauses 8 and 9 would address. I know that many across this House have supported the new clauses and share those concerns. Although I totally support the need to stop disposable, rainbow, candy floss-flavour vapes being aimed at children—that is absolutely unacceptable—adult smokers do need to know that there is a safer alternative to cigarettes.

On that concern, many smokers now believe vaping to be as dangerous as cigarettes. Cancer Research UK has found that 57% of adult smokers think that vaping is just as harmful, if not more harmful, than smoking cigarettes. The risk of a draconian approach to vaping, as I consider the Bill to take, will only reinforce that incorrect messaging, which is damaging to public health.

By permitting marketing in limited circumstances and under strict restrictions, as my new clauses aim to do, we can get the message to the 6 million adult smokers that there is a safer alternative out there. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment recognises the risk of the

“Health impacts of fewer people using vapes and nicotine products to quit smoking.”

I say respectfully to the Minister that this should set off alarm bells in Government.

That is what new clause 8 does. It simply asks the Government to have a proper consultation on the potential impacts of a marketing ban, digging deeper than the sparse bullet points currently given to it in the impact assessment. This would allow us to listen to the consumers who actively use these products and find out how these changes will impact them. In the Public Bill Committee, the consumer voice was largely absent. Restrictions on flavours and packaging and vape-free areas are already subject to consultation and this amendment would simply bring marketing in line with that.

A deeper consideration of the impact of the marketing ban would help us maintain our progress towards a smoke-free 2030 and allow the Government the opportunity to prevent the unintended consequences of the Bill. Education through marketing is one of the best tools the Government have at their disposal, so why not wield the free market to effect real social change and let vape companies do the leg work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

Specifically on amendment 46, which I have a degree of sympathy for, who would be responsible for enforcing the advertisements and ensuring that it was only those over the age of 18 who were seeing them?

[Jack Rankin]

I am assuming, to be honest, that it would be the same people who are responsible for the licensing of alcohol advertising.

All my amendments speak to the principles that I have outlined, which I think are consistent with the aims of the Bill, and for which I have received support from across the House. I hope that Members both in here and in the other place will recognise the value of my amendments and that the Government will take these concerns seriously.

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping, I have followed the progress of the Bill closely. I will speak to new clauses 4, 6, 7 and 15, as well to amendments 36, 37 and 88, all of which stand in my name. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and on stepping up so wonderfully to help move the Bill forward today.

Youth vaping is an enormous public health challenge that forms one of the Government’s central messages in the Bill. All of us in this place will have heard concerns from teachers and parents about the prevalence of youth vaping, and the challenges that schools face in tackling it. The Bill sets out to reduce the appeal of vaping to children, but a delicate and calculated approach must be taken when addressing youth vaping. In addressing one problem, it is incumbent on us all as legislators to not give rise to another—in this case, deterring tobacco smokers from making the switch.

We still have more than 6 million smokers to reach, and vaping is 95% safer than smoking, according to King’s College hospital and the former body Public Health England, and it is the most successful tool to help smokers to quit. According to data from Action on Smoking and Health, 3 million adult vapers are ex-smokers. There are hard yards that we still have to take to reach smokers, and I fear that the Bill, at present, is losing sight of what the evidence base says about the relative harms.

Vape flavours can play a significant role in passporting adults towards a less harmful alternative. I was pleased to see in the response to a written question I tabled that the Government recognise that flavours are a consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit. The previous Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), said that

“it is important we strike the balance between restricting vape flavours to reduce their appeal to young people, whilst ensuring vapes remain available for adult smokers as a smoking cessation tool.”

A study led by the University of Bristol last year found that flavour restrictions could discourage adults from using e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking. Amendment 37, which stands in my name, seeks to strike a balance between banning flavour descriptors, which would remove flavours that deliberately appeal to children such as gummy bear and bubble gum, and allowing adults to use their smoking cessation product of choice.

Sticking on product requirements, amendment 36 would empower Ministers to regulate the design and interoperability of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high-puff count vaping devices. These products are typically cheaper per puff, contain significantly more vape liquid and plastic content than other devices, and have a specific youth appeal. In January, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released new guidance outlining what can be considered a reusable product, aiming to prevent the retail of vapes with superficial charging and refilling features. I believe that this should be put on a statutory footing to ensure its consistent and effective application. The Bill should be amended to clearly stipulate “one device, one tank” to prevent irresponsible actors from flooding the UK with these products following the disposable ban.

New clauses 6 and 7, which stand in my name, would introduce a requirement for retailers in England and Wales to include age verification at the point of use. While the Bill seeks to tackle youth appeal, a fundamental issue is left unaddressed. Once a vaping product leaves a shop, there is no barrier to its being used by children, but technology against this already exists. I met with IKE Tech LLC, a company that has developed low-cost, Bluetooth-enabled chips that pair with a mobile app for secure identity verification. Its technology also includes geofencing, which can disable devices in certain areas, such as schools. The new clauses would harness the potential that innovation has to offer to address youth vaping accessibility head-on.

Turning to advertising, new clause 15 would create a limited and tightly defined exemption from the new advertising restrictions for in-store promotional materials in specialist vape shops, provided that these are not externally visible and that they meet any conditions around health warnings set by Ministers. I am fearful of a situation where specialist tobacconists are given exemptions to the restrictions set out under clauses 114 to 118 but specialist vape shops are not. These vape stores provide adult smokers with important advice and product consultations in their journey away from tobacco, and I have seen that in action.

Nicotine pouches are currently only regulated through the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, meaning that there is comparatively little regulation around these products, particularly regarding nicotine strength. Nicotine pouches with strengths ranging from 70 mg to 150 mg are easily obtainable. There is a pressing need to limit the strength of nicotine to lower levels. New clause 4, which stands in my name, would ban the manufacture and sale of pouches with more than 20 mg per pouch. This would eliminate the dangerous high-strength products while maintaining a threshold that minimises adverse consequences arising from the restriction, such as smoking and illicit pouches.

Before making any regulations under part 5 of the Bill, amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to consult

“any persons or bodies as appear to him or her representative of the interests concerned”,

instead of what is stipulated in the more limited current wording. The Bill provides Ministers with broad powers to make further regulations. It is vital that these powers are exercised in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including public health experts, enforcement bodies, cessation specialists, retailers and industry.

As chair of the APPG for responsible vaping, I hope that Ministers will be willing to engage in the coming months as regulations are brought forward. People who do not smoke should not vape. But for those who do use tobacco, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that legislation effectively harnesses the power of vapes as a smoking cessation tool.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member will have the answer to that if he reflects on what we are debating today. We introduced that legislation, yet here we are, revisiting the issue, because people are still smoking and health outcomes are still bad—and we have additional problems, which I will come to in a moment, namely the illegal purchase and supply of tobacco. We have tried this in the past—we have tried bans and all kinds of other measures—yet we still have the problem with us.

Let us consider the consequences. First, we are being asked to introduce legislation, the burden of which will fall on retailers, because it is at the point of purchase that the scrutiny required by the Bill, and its implementation, will have to take place. There is a question that we have not debated yet: what happens when a retailer is faced in a few years’ time with two people, one aged 29 and the other 28, both demanding tobacco? One says “I’m 29” and the other says “I’m 29 as well.” The retailer is meant to distinguish which of them he can sell tobacco to legally. That is a real, practical problem, and it places a burden on the retailer, because if he does not make the right decision, he faces a fine and the removal of his license, and that source of income for his business will be affected.

[Jack Rankin]

I agree about the practicalities of needing to pick between two adults of similar age in a shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the person selling the cigarettes will probably be a shop lad aged 18 or 19? He will have to draw a distinction between adults much older than him. We should consider the position that puts that young gentleman in.

[Sammy Wilson]

That was the next point I was going to come to; the hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was going to say. We will place a burden not just on the retailer, but on those who work in the retailer’s store. We are concerned about assaults on retail staff; we have taken legislation on the subject through the House. The evidence from the British Retail Consortium is that many of those assaults take place when goods are denied to individuals because they cannot offer identification and show their age, so we are placing retailers and those who work in shops in great danger. There may be a safeguard against that in some of the bigger stores that have security guards, but many of the shops that sell tobacco are small corner retailers that do not have security guards, or even anyone in the shop other than the shopkeeper or the person behind the counter. Yet we are demanding that they implement the legislation, regardless of how practical or impractical it is for individuals to make a distinction between somebody who is 37 and somebody who is 36, or whatever.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not pretend to have deep wisdom and insight into the whole population’s view on this, and I have not seen the studies the hon. Gentleman talks about, but I accept them. My concern is the need to be careful about the balance between the stated ambitions of all of us—or certainly most of us—on the Committee to reduce smoking as much as possible, and the rights confined within the Bill. If someone is legally allowed to smoke—that is, they were born prior to 1 January 2009—or is over 18 in the case of vaping, and they are in the privacy of their own vehicle without harming anybody else in said vehicle, they can do so. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a step too far.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a step too far. Does he also agree that this would be an enormous waste of police time? The police often get their priorities wrong as it stands, but the idea that they should spend time prosecuting smoking in a private vehicle is clearly a waste of police time.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I must confess, I am not clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Dartford will be able to tell us—who will enforce this regulation. If it is the police, then I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an unnecessary burden.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

Forgive me; I am not sure I fully understand the hon. Member’s point in relation to what I was just saying, but that is probably because I have not explained myself well enough, not because he has misunderstood it. I entirely agree that the advertising of tobacco and vape products should be banned, and I agree with the sentiment and the outline in the law. All I am saying is that when the Minister or the relevant authority seeks to prosecute somebody for this offence, there may be occasions, given the complexity of the internet these days, when people may not know that their website is hosting said adverts. I do not want to labour that point again, but I am sure the Minister can respond.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them.

One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation.

The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes.

On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have?

ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that

“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?

To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making some good points about the importance of ensuring that people can access nicotine replacement therapy in its various forms if they wish to stop smoking, because that will be healthier for them. I understand what the hon. Member for Winchester has said about prescription-only medicines, and that it is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, but not all nicotine replacement therapies are prescription-only medicines, so those can be advertised to the public at the moment.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said:

“In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”—

I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said:

“Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.”

As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid I might need to break the happy agreement on the Conservative side. While I understand my hon. Friend’s laudable aim of encouraging those who smoke to use a less harmful product, which is a good thing, the clear evidence we have seen is that tobacco, in all its forms, is essentially harmful. Moving people from smoking tobacco in cigarettes to using heated tobacco may or may not reduce the harm, but it would still be significantly harmful. It would be better if an individual saw their pharmacist or clinician to get proper nicotine therapy, which is designated by the MHRA as a properly medically regulated product, rather than moving on to a different commercial product that is still harmful for them.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Jack Rankin]

I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences.

I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to hon. Members for our discussion on amendment 87 and subsequent clauses. These amendments intend to make an exemption under the advertisement ban to allow vaping products to be promoted by businesses as a smoking cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers. I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intention behind the amendment to ensure that smokers are encouraged to use vapes as a quit aid. That is why the Bill as drafted will continue to support the promotion of vaping as a quit aid for smokers through the appropriate channels. By “appropriate channels”, I say to the hon. Lady that we mean public health authorities.

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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.

[Dr Johnson]

That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided.

I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, although it depends what we mean by the Crown; it can have two meanings. Clearly, it can mean His Majesty the King and members of the royal family, and I entirely agree that the work the royal family have done for many years to support charities and organisations that look after the health of the nation is extraordinary and commendable. In that context, I entirely agree that it is unlikely that any members of the royal family would want to promote tobacco or vape products. However, the other meaning of the Crown is, essentially, the Crown as it sits with entities: the buildings, this place—the Palace of Westminster—and so on. As I said, even though it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons authorities, for example, would want to have some sort of promotion of tobacco or vapes, it is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever we do to the public out there is mirrored in this place, to ensure consistency of public health messaging and to show that we are not being held to a different standard from the general public.

In clause 134 there are still a couple of potential challenges, which I hope the Minister will respond to. The first is oversight and compliance. Monitoring compliance within Crown entities could be complex. It is relatively easy to see if someone is selling vapes to children: people can be sent in to do mystery shopping, there can be reporting and the Minister—I have not yet said “bongs” in this debate—can see bongs in a shop window. However, how would these provisions be enforced in the Crown Estate, where there is not the same level of public access?

[Jack Rankin]

Is my hon. Friend also concerned that there might be a power imbalance in that set of circumstances? Windsor castle is in my constituency, and lots of deference is given to it. A lot of that is understandable, but I cannot imagine someone from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead trying to enforce on Windsor castle; it would not be in their culture to do so.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has two Windsor castles in his constituency: the big one where the royal family lives and a Lego model of it at Legoland. The enforcement of this clause should apply equally to Legoland and the real Windsor castle. But I agree that there is a power imbalance: it is unlikely that trading standards enforcement officers from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will go into Windsor castle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not know the answer to that question, but it is an important one to raise. I am not particularly a Formula 1 fan, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and Motorsport, so maybe she will be able to intervene at some point and give me the answer.

Clauses 47, 66 and 134 represent critical components of the Bill’s governance framework. By applying the Bill’s provisions to the Crown, they reinforce the principles of accountability, fairness and consistency. However, their successful implementation will require careful planning, adequate resources and ongoing evaluation. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass uphold the highest standards of governance, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support these clauses and to advocate for the measures necessary to address their potential challenges. Together, we can ensure that the Bill not only advances public health, but sets a benchmark for legal and governmental accountability.

[Jack Rankin]

Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point.

As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.

[Dr Johnson]

Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.

[The Chair]

Order. We are starting to go a little wide of the subject under discussion.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The point I was trying to make is that although, as Members have heard, I do not necessarily agree with all the impositions on civil liberties in the Bill, any that we choose to apply must apply equally to ourselves. To reiterate my hon. Friend’s point, they also have to apply to our friends and anybody else associated with us. All of us in this House have a responsibility to rebuild the relationship and the trust between ourselves and the public.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 specifically talks about Crown liability in this regard. It states that the Crown can have application only if it is applied to private individuals as well, so this entire conversation has already been covered in previous legislation.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for providing that clarity. That is good to hear, but it is important to put on the record that we in this House should apply the same rules to ourselves as we apply to our constituents.

Again, as a non-lawyer, I ask the Minister for some clarification on the implications of the non-criminal liability of the Crown in clause 47(2) and how that sits alongside the reference to

“persons in the service of the Crown”

in subsection (4). What I am seeking is consistency between what applies in the real world and what applies to the Crown. Perhaps the Minister could say what that provision means in laymen’s terms, so that I can say to my constituents that what we are applying to them also applies to us.

I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will be a bit parochial to illustrate the point. I said earlier that the Crown is quite a nebulous concept for a legislator, and where it begins and ends is difficult to understand. It is often taken to mean the state more broadly, but I have another example, from my constituency. Windsor Great Park is Crown Estate—the arm’s length Government body that the House has been legislating on in the past weeks—but the castle itself is owned and managed by the royal household. In my casework and when dealing with stakeholders, I often find that different rules apply to the Crown Estate and the royal household. The royal household seems to have much more personal control from the monarch, whereas the Crown Estate is very much run by the trustees, effectively on behalf of the Treasury.

It would be good to understand what we mean when we talk about the Crown. It is clear from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s remarks that we are talking about the palaces, but it would be good to know whether the clause applies to all these different arms of the British state in some way, shape or form, or whether other provisions apply to them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions on these clauses, which are entirely technical and appertain to the treatment of the Crown in relation to the measures in the Bill. They follow a general Crown application, being broadly similar to, and mirroring pretty closely, the way other Acts of Parliament deal with the Crown. I am not sure whether the fact we have spent more than half an hour debating them shows Parliament at its best or at its niggliest, but we are having the debate none the less.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 62 stand part.

Clause 80 stand part.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.

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

Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.

In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.

Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.

Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.

Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.

The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.

There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.

Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.

The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.

Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.

Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.

Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.

[Jack Rankin]

In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.

I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.

On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor.

The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions. I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations. It mentions in written evidence that

“The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws. A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.”

I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:

“(a) a passport,

(b) a UK driving licence,

(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,

(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or

(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.

I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Shame!

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?

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.