Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her predecessors for all the excellent work that they did in getting this legislation through Committee and in their representations in the House of Lords.

As has rightly been said by Members across this Chamber, this is a seminal piece of legislation that puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation. It is a Bill that will be modelled in other nations around the world and that reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was growing up in the 2000s—not that many years ago some might say—smoking was a real problem in schools. Among under-18s in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. I am a former schoolteacher, and if we fast-forward to today, that figure has dramatically reduced. However, we see new technologies such as vapes and chewable tobacco taking the place of smoking.

I welcome many of the measures in this Bill and the fact that we are the cheerleaders taking it forward. I also welcome the cross-party consensus in accepting many of the Lords amendments and in accepting proposals from representative groups outside the House. Those proposals include the ban and restrictions on filters, which are evolving as I speak; in many cases around the world, filters are quickly changing, so they still remain a problem.

I accept some of the changes regarding vending machines. One of the big things discussed in Committee was vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as smoking-cessation tools. It is welcome that, as a result of the debate in Committee, we have accepted that vaping remains a smoking-cessation tool. Broadly speaking, until evidence is presented that shows otherwise, vapes are a far healthier product than cigarettes, so they continue to have a place in smoking cessation.

I thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments on the issuing of fines of up to £2,500 by local authorities and the ringfencing of that money for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco. My council in Medway in Kent has one of the most successful track records in identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. These products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product that can be severely damaging to people’s health.

I also want to mention restrictions on advertising. We know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know that tobacco companies have sought to advertise specifically to young people so that they become addicted at ever younger ages. That is not a new technique; it has been happening for generations. I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendments on advertising to ensure that we restrict it on television and in other marketing efforts.

This Bill and all the amendments tabled by Members across this Chamber and in the other place, reflecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are broadly speaking extremely sensible, and I am glad that the House is not dividing on the Lords amendments tonight.

Lastly, I pay tribute to all the people working in our health services, who have been the most clear advocates for this Bill. They are the people who have been at the coalface every single day dealing with the consequences of tobacco, be they lung conditions, heart disease or concurrent conditions. It is because of their work over many years that we are here today with this Bill and these Lords amendments.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I served on the Bill Committee, and the subsequent process of scrutiny of this Bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns, in particular those of the high street businesses and the hospitality industry, which it will impact on most. I disagree with this socialist Bill on principle. Although I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I am sorry to see my Front Benchers continuing to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It creates two tiers of adults and, at its core, is fundamentally illiberal.

However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the Government to improve the legislation, which is why I tabled a series of common-sense amendments both in Committee and on Report. They would have allowed for the advertisement of smokefree products in venues that are already adult-only; required a consultation on the impact of advertising bans on retailers; and permitted the targeted advertisement of vapes and smokefree alternatives to existing adult smokers. Those proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two of them were taken up by peers in the other place, notably Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for the Opposition.

Throughout this process, I have engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses. However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the Government in improving this Bill, which is driven more by puritan ideology than by evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen it forced through by the Labour Government and their little helpers, the illiberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences. Today, we are likely again to wave through 100 Government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny.

All parties will welcome the fact that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000s to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in that, with companies creating less harmful, smokefree alternatives such as vapes and nicotine pouches. There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking, and I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this Bill on flavours and advertising will stop adult smokers from making the switch.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I recognise the passion with which he speaks. Does he recognise that one issue with vape products is that a number of people who smoke vapes have not previously smoked cigarettes? That is a concern. Vapes are not just an alternative to smoking and a means to stop people smoking; young people are being drawn to vapes rather than cigarettes because of their colours. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an issue that needs to be addressed?

[Jack Rankin]

I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands.

Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers.

If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate points about the pressures facing small businesses at the moment, but does he not agree that there must be better ways of supporting small businesses than facilitating children to get cancer?

[Jack Rankin]

I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so.

As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill.

The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected.

Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.

Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that?

Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected.

Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group, in which I succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon).

As a member of the Bill Committee and part of the envious generation who will precede the smokefree generation this Bill promises, I welcome its return to the House and welcome the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), to her place. It cannot go without saying that we also welcome the immense contribution of her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and her mammoth work in guiding the Bill through Report and Third Reading. Finally, I welcome the contributions of Members from all parts of the House to the Bill.

It is critical that the powers enabled by the extensive secondary legislation that this Bill provides for are employed with our constituents’ health at the forefront of Ministers’ minds. My primary hope is that the Bill will drastically bring down smoking-related illness and early death, which are still far too prominent among smokers in this country. It has been proven by all currently available evidence that for smokers, switching to vaping is a substantially preferable and healthier choice than continuing to smoke. To put it simply, if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice for your health. That is a message we should never tire of repeating, especially considering that four in every 10 smokers still believe that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, if not more harmful, despite the scientific and medical consensus.

As we pursue a smokefree generation for those turning 18 at the turn of the year, the Government must recommit at every opportunity—including through this Bill—to rebutting this harmful misunderstanding of the relative harm of vaping through both words and actions. Lords amendment 72 acknowledges this by providing a defence for public authorities to the offences in clause 113 on advertising that would enable the ongoing use of vapes and nicotine products for the promotion or protection of public health. I note that that defence applies only to non-branded vaping and nicotine products. When she sums up, will the Minister clarify whether the amendment would permit the use of flavoured vapes or nicotine products in pursuit of the promotion or protection of public health? The written and verbal testimony of ex-smokers across the country who have made the switch to vaping is clear that they rely on flavours to quit, to stay quitting, and to quit for good.

When we consider the use of secondary powers as part of the powers available to Ministers under the Bill, we must fairly balance the crucial public health objective of getting adult smokers to quit for good against the rising concerns about youth vaping across the country. It is the sadly too common gaudy and immediately apparent displays in shops, the ridiculous flavour descriptors and the packaging associated with illicit manufacturing and retailing that are driving youth vaping far more than the flavours themselves. We talk about the proliferation of vape shops on high streets, but it is the illicit and unregulated market that we must pursue as a priority. We certainly should not group that market with specialist retailers that pursue strong age verification, muted displays, safe storage and the ability to support smokers to quit.

On enforcement, Lords amendments 9 to 13 make necessary clarifications on the definition of an enforcement authority in England and Wales. Lords amendments 14 to 20 subsequently clarify where the responsibility to issue fixed penalty notices sits. Enforcement of this Bill will be necessary if it is to achieve its aim to crack down on illegal and illicit vape products, but we must not forget that the proliferation of the illegal vaping business is still concentrated at points of entry to the UK market. We must pursue that important objective, because we cannot prejudice public and consumer opinion against the sale of legal vapes from the regulated industry by allowing them to be displayed alongside illicit and unregulated products that we all want to see off the shelves of our local corner shops. Those are the products that are driving youth vaping, not the regulated ones. We must therefore ensure the adequate resourcing of Border Force, trading standards and local enforcement authorities. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will seek to achieve that within the scope of this Bill?

Lords amendments 21 and 22 to clause 38 are a welcome step. They permit relevant local enforcement authorities to retain the sums and reinvest them in connection with their enforcement functions, rather than those sums going to the national Consolidated Fund. Can the Minister clarify the purposes for which those funds can be utilised? As I understand it, they can be used only in connection with the enforcement function and not to support swap-to-stop schemes or any broader activity. I would appreciate that clarity when she winds up.

The need for enforcement against illicit retail practices has rightly become an increasingly salient issue, especially in Scotland following the tragic fire earlier this month in Glasgow. While it is important for us to state that no cause of the fire has yet been definitively established—that is rightly for the relevant authorities to investigate— will the Minister expand on how secondary legislation and associated Government action around trading standards could better enable local authorities to enforce against the illicit practices that the Bill seeks to address? How will the Government encourage retailers to drag themselves up to the best practice of specialist retailers on display, storage and age verification?

To conclude, the Bill’s primary aim to create a smokefree generation is welcome. I welcome that it will directly make that generation healthier and happier, and enable them to live far longer than those who preceded them. We must do all that, however, while enabling the millions of adult smokers in Britain to quit quicker and to get healthier.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. I worked with her predecessors when I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland, when this Bill first came about. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), because this legislation started its iterations under the previous Government. Very little has changed between what was debated then and what is before us now, because it is the right thing to do. It is the common-sense thing to do for the health of the entirety of our nation.

I remember having those conversations with the then MP for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was passionate about what the Bill would bring about. She was receiving the same advice as I was from chief medical officers across the nation about how the cessation of smoking across generations would dramatically change not just health, but the income of many families. In respect of that four-nation approach, I seek reassurance again from the Government—I have received reassurance on this from the last Government and this Government—that the Bill will apply equally in Northern Ireland and all parts of the nation.

[Jack Rankin]

The hon. Member is right that the Bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. Under the Windsor framework—the sell-out that is disgracefully named after my constituency—Northern Ireland is subject to the tobacco products directive, is it not? Is it possible, then, for the Bill to apply equally to Northern Ireland?

[Robin Swann]

That is the concern, but I point out that the Windsor framework was negotiated and implemented by the previous Government, who left Northern Ireland in this current situation. When I was in post, I received reassurances from the previous Government and from this Government. I would like to be in a place that I can take both at their word that they have done their due diligence about the applicability of this legislation, and the Minister responded to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will definitely write to my hon. Friend, rather than just guess, but I suppose that we will see fewer young people vaping—the numbers should go down. To quote chief medical officer Chris Whitty, as someone did in an excellent speech earlier:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape.”

That is what we want the message to be, but I will commit to writing to my hon. Friend about how we will follow the metrics.

I come to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), who asked about the levy. The measures in this Bill to reduce the use of tobacco are world leading. Given that the Bill will create a smokefree generation, and that we have a proven and effective model for increasing tobacco duties, we do not think that introducing a new, bespoke levy is the best way forward.

My hon. Friend also asked about advertising. We must stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. The Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to stopping the blatant advertising of vapes to children while continuing to support adult smokers in quitting. She said that it would be appropriate for nicotine pouches to be in scope of the ban on advertising, and I can commit to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) made a very thoughtful contribution, which sadly was followed by a not-so-thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Windsor. He and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) called this a “socialist Bill”, but I remind the House that it started its life under a Conservative Government, and was lost in the wash-up prior to the general election.

[Jack Rankin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will finish responding to the hon. Member’s ideological arguments. This is not about liberty or choice for smokers. Up to two thirds of deaths among smokers can be attributed to smoking; three quarters of smokers wish they had never started; and the majority want to quit. That is not freedom of choice. The tobacco industry took away their choice by addicting them at a very young age.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the Minister for her implied compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, who voted against this Bill on Second Reading when the previous Prime Minister brought it forward. She voted against it because the Bill does not respect the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and does not deliver equality under the law, so we will take that as a compliment in the new Conservative party, which is being refreshed in an authentically conservative direction.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The freedom to be addicted—I think that is what the hon. Member has just defended. I am sure that those on his Front Bench will take note of that. He also asked me about smokefree places. No smoker wants to harm people, but they do so through second-hand smoke, as we all know. On 13 February, the Government published our consultation on “free from” places. As we have previously set out, this Government are consulting on making outdoor public places smokefree and free from heated tobacco, including children’s playgrounds and spaces outside a number of health, social care and educational settings. Children and medically vulnerable people who visit such places should not be exposed to harm through no choice of their own. Additionally, we are consulting on making areas outside playgrounds and schools vape-free. With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smokefree, we are consulting on making the majority free from heated tobacco and vape-free. The consultation does not consider extending the proposals to outdoor hospitality.

Moving on to the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), I can confirm that, for smoking cessation purposes, flavoured vapes can still be promoted by businesses if they have an agreement with public health authorities. We recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers who are seeking to quit smoking, which is why the Government recently committed to consulting on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), in his really good speech, mentioned concerns about Northern Ireland. The Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in close partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework, as I said earlier. The UK Government notified the EU’s technical regulation information system—TRIS—that certain provisions in the Bill relate to Northern Ireland; this is a standard process, not an approval process. Certain EU member states issued opinions setting out concerns about the compatibility of the smokefree generation policy with EU law, and it is not unusual for member states to submit opinions on TRIS notifications. For instance, several member states recently wrote to France when it proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states having already introduced such a ban.

The Government have provided a comprehensive response to the opinions that we have received, which sets out the strong public health justification for the policy, and explains why the smokefree generation policy complies with EU law as it applies under the Windsor framework, and the European Commission has now responded, noting our response. This concludes the TRIS process. I hope that answers some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

We had really good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns). If I have not answered any of their questions because I was not quick enough to write stuff down, I commit to writing to both.

I very much hope that this House will support all the amendments under consideration, and that the Governments amendments will return to the other place for due consideration. I hope that this landmark Bill can complete its passage shortly, and that we can move forward with delivering a smokefree UK.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 28 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 21 and 22.

Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 28 made.

Lords amendment 29 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29 made.

Lords amendments 30 to 123 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 32 to 34, 37, 38, 43 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17 December 2025 (National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Imogen Walker.)

Question agreed to.

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 & 3rd reading
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 (Fourteenth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

We hope that most people will comply with the regulations. That is certainly what we found with the smoking regulations, but those are perhaps slightly less easy to get around than the vaping regulations will be. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points, but overall I welcome the measures. As I say, the Bill is a good public health measure.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am afraid to say to Government Members and to the shadow Minister that I am going to break up the cosy consensus. I had lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has given me some classical liberal vibes. I know that that will warm the Minister’s heart.

Part 7 of the Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to designate smoke-free places through secondary legislation; clause 139 will do the same for vape-free places. I have a few concerns about that approach. First, it has the potential to force people who have already switched or are in the process of switching from cigarettes to vapes—or indeed to heated tobacco, which is the subject of the next clause—to use their devices in the same areas as smokers, which runs the risk of their moving back to cigarettes. There is a risk that the places designated for vaping will often be the places designated for smoking. We all agree that even though we do not want people to start vaping, we would rather that people vaped if they are on cigarettes. In my view, the clause will be detrimental to its own aims.

[Dr Johnson]

I appreciate that we do not agree on the point about vape-free places, but the argument that they will make people smoke seems to be based on the premise that if someone cannot have a vape in their office, they will pick up a cigarette. They cannot pick up a cigarette in their office either. If, as has been suggested, there is congruity between smoking and vaping, how is it that a person who cannot smoke or vape in a place will then decide to smoke when they go outside to an area that is not designated as smoke-free?

[Jack Rankin]

It is not that people are not going to vape. They will go outside to the designated vaping spot, which in the overwhelming majority of instances will be either the same place that is designated for smoking or immediately adjacent to it. If someone is a recent ex-smoker or is trying to quit, effectively forcing them to vape in an area near cigarette smoke seems incredibly damaging to public health. I do not think that that is a particularly controversial statement.

[Dr Johnson]

Surely the alternative is asking people to vape elsewhere, although they would be exposing non-vapers and non-smokers—perhaps with clinical vulnerabilities, or perhaps children—to their vapes instead.

[Jack Rankin]

I will come on to the point about the relative effects of second-hand vaping and of smoking, but I will make some progress first.

My second point, which I have made throughout our debates on the Bill, is that we are potentially conflating vapes with cigarettes in legislation, which will exacerbate the misinformation that such alternatives are equally harmful to cigarettes. That will further undermine the Government’s goal of helping smokers to quit. Indeed, Action on Smoking and Health found:

“Half of all smokers…incorrectly believe vaping is more or equally as harmful as smoking…This is the highest ever proportion with this misconception across all waves of the survey and a significant increase on misperceptions found in 2023. Only one third of smokers understand vaping is less harmful than smoking.”

It seems to me that if we group vapes and cigarettes together and treat them in the same way, that misperception will only be exacerbated. That may further reduce the inclination of smokers to switch to vapes.

[Sarah Bool]

I concur. Cancer Research UK followed a similar argument in written evidence to the Committee:

“It is important that any measures to restrict vaping do not exacerbate harm misperceptions, and do not deter or reduce accessibility of people who smoke from quitting with the use of e-cigarettes.”

I put it on the record that I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

[Jack Rankin]

It is nice to have a fellow freedom fighter on the Committee—[Interruption.] I am trying to get the Minister to intervene.

My third point is one to which I think the Minister alluded earlier, but I ask him to repeat it in summing up. This part of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make decisions without really having the full approval of Parliament. The Minister has said that the Government will consult on the expansion of smoke-free areas, but as I understand it from the drafting, it is not necessary for the Government to consult on expanding vape-free and heated tobacco-free spaces in the same way. I think he might have touched on that point in his remarks, but I would welcome his confirmation.

My fourth point relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on second-hand smoke. My understanding is that the rationale for smoke-free places, as initially envisaged, was that the smoker is affected as a result of them having made an informed decision, but people nearby are affected who have not. That is the point of the smoke-free place. Cancer Research UK, however, states that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

Public Health England has also found:

“Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds.”

In my view, therefore, the point about second-hand smoke does not make anywhere near the same kind of sense for heated tobacco products as it does with cigarettes.

Even the Bill’s impact assessment states:

“There are currently no legal restrictions in the UK on where a person may vape. However, many businesses, venues, educational institutions, health service providers and public transport providers have voluntarily introduced their own rules preventing vape usage in these locations.”

We all recognise that that is the case. Given that the impact assessment also notes that

“There is currently limited evidence of health harm from ‘passive vaping’.”

should it not continue to be for the proprietors of such venues to make their own decisions, based on the needs and desires of their customers? That is my position.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend always tempts me with his libertarian arguments. I am not quite with him on this Bill, but almost. Proposed new section 8B(2) of the Health Act 2006 says:

“Only smoke-free places may be designated as vape-free.”

I understand that to mean that there will potentially be places that are smoke-free but not necessarily vape-free, and I wonder whether that gives him any solace. I am specifically interested in our discussion about introducing vapes in vending machines in mental health trusts. Does he think there is a case—perhaps the Minister will comment on this in his remarks—for vapes to be used as a smoking cessation tool in certain places where we cannot smoke a cigarette or use other tobacco-based products?

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the point that I am making. Vapes can be a tool to help the Government in their desire to create a smoke-free generation, and this legislation could be counterproductive to that, by their own measures of success. Members—certainly those on the Opposition Benches—have to engage with not necessarily the law that is written but how it will be implemented in reality. Businesses are likely to respond to this legislation by just putting up a sticker on the smoking shelter that says it is the designated vaping place as well. That is the risk.

[Dr Johnson]

Although I disagree with my hon. Friend on the principle of vape-free places, he is making a reasonable point about the enforcement and congruity with smoke-free areas. If there is not congruity with smoke-free areas, this legislation will be more difficult to enforce, because people will not know which is which and it will lead to more inadvertent errors. He also talks about the idea of vape-free areas being less important because vaping is potentially less harmful, but we do not know that.

[Jack Rankin]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not a doctor as she is, but I will repeat that Cancer Research UK said that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

and Public Health England made a similar comment. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West has made a few times about the precautionary principle, but we could take that to any excess.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is important to remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Someone said to me a while ago that having a smoking section in a restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

[Jack Rankin]

I am not sure there is a question there, but the hon. Member has put a smile on my face.

My final point is about the visibility of vaping, because I think the Minister should consider the wisdom of this clause by his own logic. Public Health England guidance says:

“while smokefree law protects people from the harm of secondhand smoke, forcing smokers outdoors has increased public visibility of smoking, including to children and young people. Having a more enabling approach to vaping can mitigate this and help make smoking less of a social norm”.

Ensuring a differentiation between where people can vape or smoke might assist in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping, which would undoubtedly have a net positive public health benefit. In addition, allowing people to continue vaping indoors in places such as pubs, bars and nightclubs, which are age-gated anyway, would reduce the visibility of vaping in public and keep it away from people who are under age. When it comes to protecting people who are under age from picking up vaping in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government and the shadow Minister.

Those are the five points I wanted to make. First, are we sure that we want to push vapers to vape in the same place as smokers when they might be trying to give up smoking? Secondly, do we really want to conflate vapes with cigarettes, which might undermine the Government’s goal to help smokers to switch? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to consulting on any expansion of vape-free spaces, as he has for tobacco? Fourthly, the evidence is weak that second-hand vaping is a problem, but that is effectively the rationale for smoke-free places. Fifthly, is the Minister not concerned that he could be inadvertently putting vapes on show, particularly to young people, by forcing people out of age-controlled spaces such as pubs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am sure it has. I was using shorthand, Mr Pritchard, and the wonderful people at Hansard will of course have the hon. Gentleman’s full title. Being the Member for Gorton and Denton, I know how important it is that we reference both Gorton and Denton, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Many public venues and spaces have already put in place their own policies on vaping. For example, many hospitals and public transport providers have banned vaping on their premises. Subject to consultation, the clause will merely make those bans official.

There is an emerging evidence base, and it is important that we continue to monitor it. That is why my Department, my officials and I, as the Minister for public health and prevention, are in regular contact with stakeholders. I have to tell the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that that includes Cancer Research UK, which is a major stakeholder of the Bill. It is also important to put clearly on the record that it fully supports the measures in the Bill. I do not want anybody reading Hansard at subsequent stages, such as on Report or in the House of Lords, to be under the misapprehension that Cancer Research UK does not fully support the Bill, because it does.

Turning to the hon. Member for Windsor, I am not sure that I am going to take public health advice derived from a briefing from the office of idiotic economic arguments, otherwise known as the IEA. It is not clear whether the IEA gets funding from the tobacco and vaping industry, but I suspect that it does. Therefore, we have to take what it says with a large modicum of prejudice thrown in.

[Jack Rankin]

I think the Minister is teasing me ever so slightly. I just want to say that I did write what I said; it was not given to me by the IEA.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman obviously wrote it after being inspired by his wonderful dinner with members of the idiotic economic arguments committee. I only half jest and half pull his leg, because I will never forgive the IEA for crashing the country’s economy, but we are not here to talk about the last Conservative Government, under the leadership of Liz Truss.

I do have some sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. We agree—and I think it has already been established—that vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective smoking cessation tool, so that is an area that we definitely want to get right. Clearly, we want to continue to ensure that adult smokers can use vapes as a quit aid, while protecting others from the risks of vaping. That is why only places that are smoke-free can also become vape-free. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, which the hon. Gentleman has raised on a number of occasions, the scope and impact of any future restrictions will be carefully considered. We will design the regulations in a manner that does not result in greater smoking harm.

I want to politely educate the hon. Gentleman on the process of secondary legislation, as he is a new Member—I do not mean this disrespectfully. Every statutory instrument that comes before a Delegated Legislation Committee appears on the Order Paper for a subsequent day on the Floor of the House of Commons. Before the Adjournment debate and the House adjourns, and after whatever votes we have had on the business of the day, there is something called the remaining orders of the day, which is all the secondary legislation that has been approved in Delegated Legislation Committees.

Should a Member shout “Object”, that leads to a deferred Division of the whole House. When the hon. Gentleman goes through the No Lobby, gets his pink card and puts a “No” next to Government legislation, as I am sure he has done on umpteen occasions since 4 July, that is a vote of the whole House on a statutory instrument that has been passed by a Delegated Legislation Committee. On all the measures that we introduce through secondary legislation, he will have the opportunity —I am sure his Whip and the shadow Health Secretary are taking note—to shout “Object” and cause a deferred Division.

On the question of who will enforce vape-free legislation, I accept that vaping is easier to conceal than smoking, and therefore it is much easier to enforce a prohibition on smoking in a designated area than to prevent someone from having a sly puff on a vape, but this policy is about ensuring consistency, notwithstanding the difficulties there will be in enforcing it. As we have argued before, the majority of the British public are law-abiding citizens. This does not need to be a heavy-handed policy. Most people will enforce it themselves, and they will encourage those around them to be considerate to others.

In England, enforcement of any extension of smoke- free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by the same allocated teams within local authorities that currently enforce smoke-free legislation. That is typically the responsibility of the environmental health teams within local authorities. As with smoking in a smoke-free premise, someone found to be vaping in a vape-free premise in England may be issued with a fine on conviction of up to £200, or an on-the-spot fine of £50.

In Scotland, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local environmental health officers, which is the case now with existing smoke-free places. As with smoking in smoke-free places, those vaping in a vape-free place in Scotland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

In Wales, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing existing smoke-free legislation. The police are also authorised to enforce the smoke-free requirements in relation to private cars carrying children. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Wales face a fine on conviction of up to £200, or a £100 on-the- spot fine.

In Northern Ireland, local councils are primarily responsible for enforcing the existing smoke-free rules; we would expect that to extend to vape-free places as well. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Northern Ireland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Clause 140 and the associated provisions for the other parts of the United Kingdom provide powers for the Secretary of State to prohibit the use of heated tobacco products in England in places that are already smoke free. That will need to be enforced by people who may not be familiar with heated tobacco devices. Will the Minister comment on the training?

I have only once come across a heated tobacco device at a dinner at Westminster. I initially thought the gentleman was vaping at the table, but it turned out he was using a heated tobacco device, which I had a look at—I had never seen anything like it before. It may be all well and good in metropolitan London, where people may be more familiar with heated tobacco, but how will people who are not familiar with these devices and have perhaps never heard of them be expected to recognise them and know they are not legal?

Has the Minister any plans on how to educate the public on the presence of heated tobacco, what it is used for and what the devices look like, in order that the law can be enforced? How will he do so without providing an advert for it to people who are old enough to buy it—at least in the short term, until it becomes illegal?

[Jack Rankin]

Government Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to repeat my points from the previous clause. Like the shadow Minister, I am less familiar with heated tobacco products, but I suspect the arguments I made regarding clause 139 apply to clause 140.

I want to make two or three points specific to heated tobacco. As with vaping, designating smoke-free areas as also being heated tobacco-free is dangerous, as it forces consumers to use their less harmful products alongside smokers. The risk is to increase the chance of their moving back to cigarettes. I will quote Public Health England:

“Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potential harmful compounds.”

It is not clear to me that there is an effect on a bystander of someone using these devices. The Cochrane review cited an earlier review on heated tobacco products that concluded that users and bystanders were exposed to toxicants,

“although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on the relative harms, but I am not convinced.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

With the hon. Member’s libertarian view on freedoms, what does he think about the choice somebody has not to inhale carcinogens and other products? He is indicating that people who vape in areas where people do not smoke at all would force that choice on them.

[Jack Rankin]

I would not describe myself as libertarian; I would say I was arguing straightforward centre-right classical liberal opinions, rather than libertarian ones, but we might differ on that. An arbitrary line must obviously be drawn. The same argument could be made about someone idling in a car and people on the street. There is obviously a difference between that and smoking, where we have drawn a line. I acknowledge that I know less about heated tobacco products but, from what I have read, the spill-over effect from nearby users does not reach a threshold to merit state intervention—though I agree that that judgment is qualitative. That is the argument I am advancing. I again make the point to the Minister that heated tobacco, while a recent innovation, has been reported to be positively associated with success in quitting. We should therefore be careful and not treat it the same way as cigarettes in an effort to advance the aim of the Bill, which is to get more adult smokers to use this product and move away from smoking.

[Gregory Stafford]

Like my hon. Friend, I am no expert in heated tobacco products, but is he suggesting that they can also be used as a smoking cessation tool? If that is the case, his argument bears some weight. Does he have any understanding of where in the spectrum of harms—from cigarettes and cigars at one end to not smoking at all at the other, with vapes placed at some point on that continuum—where heated tobacco would sit? Is it closer to traditional tobacco-based products or to vape products? Is it an intermediary step, whereby someone who is trying to quit might move from smoking a cigarette or a cigar to heated tobacco, to vaping, and then eventually to quitting? Is that how he would see it?

[Jack Rankin]

That is effectively the argument I am advancing. In terms of the quantum of harm as a percentage of a cigarette, I do not know. As I understand it, even though we do not fully know yet the dangers of heated tobacco, it is similar to vaping in that we do not want anybody to take it up, but if someone smokes we would prefer them to use it as a cessation device. I understand that that is the way they are marketed.

[Andrew Gwynne]

indicated dissent.

[Jack Rankin]

The Minister is disagreeing, but he can combat that in his speech.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding is that the industry, in the same way that it in the past marketed filters as a way of making things less harmful, when in actual fact the microplastics may have made them more harmful, may have advertised heated tobacco as a way of saying, “You’re not smoking it, so it’s not as bad for you.” It is not therefore a recommended quit aid, but a way for the industry to try to maintain its market.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend’s points have been noted for the record. From what I have read and seen in the representations to the Committee and more widely, heated tobacco seems to me to be similar to vaping, in the sense that we do not people to start it as a product, but it is less harmful than cigarettes, so we should try to facilitate a way for people to use those methods as cessation devices.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come to the shadow Minister’s point at the end, but first I want to nail the pernicious lie peddled by the tobacco industry that there is a tobacco product that is an adequate smoking cessation tool. There is no form of tobacco that is safe. That is why we are stopping the sale of tobacco in any form to anybody born on or after 1 January 2009. That is a clear aim and objective of the Bill.

I do not want to rehearse old arguments but, taking us back to the almost two-day-long debate we had on clause 1, I made it clear that we are effectively saying to the tobacco industry that as far as its market base is concerned in the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—this is as good as it gets. There will be no other route to peddle this deadly, toxic ingredient called tobacco that, were Sir Walter Raleigh to bring it to these shores today, would be illegal. However, because we have a 500-year history, which the shadow Minister kindly researched and gave us chapter and verse on in the debate on clause 1, we know we are where we are as a consequence of the tobacco industry. We will heaven and earth, however, to make sure that there is no other route for the tobacco industry to grow its market share. The lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool is precisely that—a lie.

There are smoking cessation tools that we are championing that are tobacco-free, which is why we have a differential between vapes and tobacco products in the Bill. We recognise that vaping has a value as a smoking cessation tool, but I will never, ever concede that another tobacco product is a smoking cessation tool.

Tobacco is uniquely harmful. It kills two thirds of its user base. It is a major cause of death and of cancer in this country to this day. Whether it is cigarettes, cigars or heated tobacco, tobacco is tobacco, and tobacco is dangerous. I will not concede to the hon. Member for Windsor on the tobacco industry’s lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool. He wants to switch on the conveyor belt, albeit slowly, but that conveyor belt is stopping—and stopping for good.

The shadow Minister raises an important point about how people will identify heated tobacco products if they are not aware what such products look like, in order for the measure to be self-enforcing in the way that not smoking in smoke-free places has largely been self-enforced, and as we expect measures on vaping to be. I reassure her that when the measures in the Bill are enacted, there will be a comprehensive information campaign so people will be aware of what is restricted as a consequence of its measures. That should raise awareness of products such as heated tobacco without promoting them, as the hon. Member for Windsor would like, as a pseudo-miraculous device for people to quit their addiction.

As I say, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 140 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 141

Amendments consequential on sections 136 to 140

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

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 (Tenth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

This may be the first aspect of the Labour manifesto that we can trust, so perhaps there is something to celebrate.

[Jack Rankin]

Indeed. In fairness, I also share both the Minister’s and the shadow Minister’s concern. It is very clear that the incremental changes to tobacco retail packaging are one of the public health interventions that have diminished cigarette use, which is desirable.

However, I also ask the Minister to make assurances that, despite the consolidation of the law, he will treat vaping and nicotine products in quite a different way. I echo some of the thoughts that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon expressed. It seems to me that, certainly when it comes to vaping, we should have proportionate and targeted regulation of vaping and nicotine products. In particular, we should be cracking down on anything that is particularly or unduly appealing to those who are under age, whether that is toys, cartoons or sweet-type imagery. That view would be shared right across the House. In the Minister’s introductory remarks, he called vaping an effective quit aid. Yes, we do not recommend it to children, but we do want to maintain that.

My concern about these quite sweeping regulations is this. I take the Minister’s point that delegated legislation will have to come forward in the future and will buff out how exactly the Minister plans to take this matter forward, but to me, moving towards, for example, plain packaging is likely to undermine the effectiveness of vaping as a cessation tool, which would undermine the objective that the Bill is trying to arrive at: in my understanding, a smoke-free generation by 2030. I ask the Minister to give us some assurances that he will treat vaping and nicotine products in quite a different way from tobacco products. After all, vaping is the fastest growing—I think this is uncontentious—smoking cessation method, and I think that here there is scope for quite wide-ranging powers.

I also urge the Minister to accept this point. I do not know how he considers this, but in my view there are responsible vape businesses and I think he should work with them to understand how they think they could change things so that people are directly using vaping as a smoking cessation tool and it is not appealing to people who would be new smokers. It is my understanding, from some of my research ahead of coming on to this Committee, that a Cochrane review said that vaping is twice as effective as any other stop-smoking tool. I do not think the Minister should be seeking to under- mine that.

I know that we do not get on to the issue of flavours until clause 92, so I will keep my comments brief on this, but it does seem to me to be legitimate to advertise flavours, perhaps in a delimited way. The shadow Minister talked about candy floss flavours, which should not be allowed, but it seems to me that people could legitimately advertise to adults various factual flavours that show vaping as something we can progress on smoking cessation with.

I would also oppose the cancer-type warnings that we see on cigarette packs in relation to vaping. I do not believe the evidence is quite there yet. The research on vaping is in its infancy, so it is too early to say whether that is appropriate.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that my hon. Friend does not believe that there is evidence at the moment on particular health disbenefits of vaping, but would he agree to be guided by the chief medical officer and other experts in this field when making that decision? At one time, medical professionals did not think smoking was bad. Things change and evidence comes out over time.

[Jack Rankin]

It should be given great weight, but generally speaking, there should be a permissive rather than a prohibitive bent in public policy—something the shadow Minister and I might disagree on.

This point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon also made, is a bit more academic. In the last few years, there has been an increasing view among the public that vaping is just as bad as smoking; up to 40% of the British public now believe that. Even though there might be some contention around the true levels of harm—I do not think the science is quite settled; vaping is not harm-free, but it is certainly a lot less harmful than cigarettes—we have to ensure that, in our messaging as politicians, we do not put vaping in the same box as tobacco, because we could stamp down on the best smoking cessation tool there is. I invite the Minister to address those points in his closing remarks.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I will not press these provisions to a vote but they are worth raising now, and perhaps for consideration at a later stage of the Bill, further down the line.

The amendment and new clause would require tobacco manufacturers and importers to put health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. The Government are consulting on pack inserts which, of course, is welcome. However, those warnings do not catch those who buy individual cigarettes or those who are offered one out of someone else’s pack. Warnings on individual cigarettes—dissuasive cigarettes—were recommended by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health in 2021, and by the Khan review in 2022. These warnings already exist in Canada, introduced in August 2023, and will be implemented in Australia from July this year. Research commissioned by Health Canada into the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes showed that cigarettes with health warnings were seen as less appealing than those without. That is true the other way too; cigarettes without health warnings were perceived as less harmful. We all know about the harms of smoking, and we have heard it again and again in these sessions, but the more that we can convey that message to consumers, and particularly young people, the better.

Overall, participants in the research felt that labelling individual cigarettes made packages complete and impactful. That was particularly true among youths who do not smoke, smoked occasionally or wished to quit. We know how addictive cigarettes are. It is often said in these debates that the only choice is the first cigarette. For many, even that may not be true; children are four times more likely to take up smoking if their parents smoke. If we truly want to stop the start, we need to make sure that people know how harmful these products are, even if they are offered just one of them.

It is great that the Department is currently consulting on pack inserts, but that does not quite capture those who may purchase or are offered single cigarettes.

[Jack Rankin]

Earlier in the debate, we voted on a clause about splitting up cigarettes—I was just trying to find which clause it was—so I think we are already proposing to make it illegal to sell single cigarettes. Does the hon. Lady not think that, given that we voted for that clause to stand part, these amendments are unnecessary?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

No, I do not. As I said, the Department is consulting on pack inserts, but that may not capture the people who have or are offered one cigarette. We all know that it takes only one cigarette to become addicted. Does the Minister have a timeframe that the Department is working to for the introduction of pack inserts? Will the Department monitor the effectiveness of that and continue to look at evidence from other countries, such as Canada, where dissuasive cigarettes do have an impact, and potentially use the powers in the Bill to introduce dissuasive individual cigarettes at a later stage?

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.