Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but while pharmacists are highly trained clinicians with the capacity to prescribe a number of products in specific cases, they are also businesses. One’s local pharmacy is a business. Pharmacists sell products; they take money and make variable amounts of profit. A GP is a private entity, as the Minister will have learned during the national insurance contributions debate. Some GP practices are dispensing practices—the GP prescribes a product, which is dispensed from that practice. There are also private clinicians who provide GP surgery or stop smoking services at a price. I do not think that “in the course of business” necessarily provides the distinction that the hon. Member for Cardiff West hopes it does, but perhaps the Minister will provide further clarity.

It might be possible for the Minister to include an extremely narrowly drafted exemption for medical professionals providing advice in relation to stop smoking services and antenatal clinics giving advice to a current smoker, but perhaps he feels that those clinicians are covered already. One of the reasons for tabling the amendments is to have this debate and ensure that the clauses are carefully considered. All of us, on both sides of the Committee and the House, want to improve the health of the nation; we all want the Bill to improve the health of the nation. If the chief medical officer’s advice is that for adult smokers, vaping is better, those products need to be available to adult smokers.

I will move on to clause 115, which extends the offence in clause 114 of publishing advertisements to those who design the advertisements for regulated products, such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. As in clause 114, to commit the offence the person must know that the advert has the purpose of promoting one of the regulated products and that it will be published in the UK. The latter part is important. Again, I would like the Minister to ensure that there is no loophole for people to design things and say they are expecting them to be promoted abroad, and then they are promoted in the UK. That could be quite a significant loophole. Businesses could get around that with contract clauses, I suspect.

Subsection (2) establishes the penalties for the offence, which are a conviction on indictment of two years, a fine or both. Summary convictions carry varying penalties based on the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. That does leave the situation where somebody who has committed the same offence in England, Scotland and Wales by publishing it across those jurisdictions could face several different fines in different jurisdictions for exactly the same advert.

Another question is about the designers. Individuals may be involved in the design of advertisements, but not have full control over the final content or how the advertisement will be published. Should liability be extended to individuals working on the design, or should it lie more squarely with the business or entity that ultimately publishes it? Is it fair to hold designers accountable for advertisements over which they have limited control? If they have only designed part of the advertisement, and it is not the bit in which the product is promoted, will they still be liable for the whole advertisement?

Clause 116 introduces another offence, this time for businesses that print advertisements that promote tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. They must know or have reason to suspect that they are printing an advertisement for those products—if they are printing it, they should know what they are printing—and that the advertisement will be published in the UK. Again, that will presumably have to be dealt with by contract law and involve some quite significant fines.

Clause 117 makes it an offence for persons acting in the course of business to distribute the advertisement. The question here is about physical and digital adverts. If a person is distributing the adverts on a sheet of paper, putting billboards on the wall or driving around a truck with a billboard on the back, it is clear that they know what they are doing and it is clear who is doing it. If adverts are appearing online or being distributed online, can the Minister specify who will be held responsible? Could somebody sharing an image that was produced by somebody else be a loophole?

Clause 118 expands the scope of responsibility to those who cause advertisements to be published and distributed within the UK. That seems sensible.

Clause 119 is the Government’s attempt to focus on the businesses that provide internet services. The provision is quite broad. Not all providers are UK-based, though. If they are not, how can they be held accountable? The provision could be seen to apply to various types of online platform, including social media search engines and website hosts. The key issue is whether a business that merely provides a platform or service for the publishing and distribution of advertisements can be held liable for content that is uploaded or shared by third parties, particularly where there is a huge volume.

The clause places responsibility on service providers that know or have reason to suspect that advertisements promoting tobacco or vaping products will be distributed through its services. That could apply to a wide range of internet service providers, from major global tech companies that are household names to the smaller, niche providers that operate in the UK market. I understand why that is important, but will the Minister say more about the person who is paying for the advertisement? The Bill covers publishing, designing and distributing an advert and providing it on the internet, but what about the individual paying for it? Ultimately, an advertisement rarely comes for free. How is that to be regarded?

The measures to reduce advertising for vapes and smoking products are sensible public health measures to reduce uptake. As we discussed in the debate on diet and obesity earlier this week, advertising clearly works. I recalled in that debate some of the adverts I remember from my childhood, such as “The red car and the blue car had a race” for Milky Way—I was pleased that the blue car won in that case, Sir Roger—and “A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat”. Those memories stick in the mind for many years. Advertising is effective and induces children to try products, so banning advertising for vaping and smoking products should be very beneficial, but I urge the Minister to consider whether he has covered the full scope of those who are responsible for adverts and at the same time excluded those who may play only a very small part in the advert and not realise that it will later become an advert for a smoking or vaping product. Has he considered carefully how a medical professional, clinician, pharmacist or similar person can still provide and openly discuss vaping products with their patients and clients, so that they can use them as a quit aid?

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I just want to go through something again. Obviously, the purpose of part 6 of the Bill is to establish the rules about advertising, which I completely understand. It sets out that it is an offence for a person in the course of business to publish an advertisement, to promote products, to design advertisements, to print an advertisement, to distribute an advertisement, to cause publication, design, printing or distribution in the UK, or to provide an internet service by means of which an advertisement is published or distributed.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

However, will teams from other nations that are coming to play in the UK be allowed to display such advertisements? For example, across the channel in 2023, Paris Saint-Germain announced a partnership with Geekvape. If the team comes to play in the UK, will the players be allowed to wear their usual shirts or will they need to be amended? Likewise, if a British team travels abroad to play in the champions league, or something like that, will they be able to wear shirts with such branding while they are abroad, on the basis that it is legal in the country that they are playing in, despite the awareness that the kit will be viewed on television by people in the United Kingdom? Would that be sufficient to invoke clause 124(1) to ensure that they cannot do so? We must think carefully about the potential for clever lawyers to try to work a way out of this.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

That is a very interesting point, and it goes to the heart of commercial contracts. Money talks and money is very powerful, but we must be careful about that when establishing these rules, because the legal system will always find a way to argue. I can imagine some big cases being brought in relation to this if we are not careful.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the point much more eloquently than I did that there is a difference in the clauses between the days when they come into force. As she is a lawyer who has been involved in contracts, can she confirm that there is no limit to how long someone can enter into a contract? If a contract were entered into in terms of sponsoring vaping or nicotine products before the Bill comes into force, it may last for quite some time.

[Sarah Bool]

That is a possibility. It always depends on the terms of the contract itself, but in theory they could agree a 10 or 15-year contract and sponsorship deal. It is interesting that this could be one of the overhangs that we see, so we have to be aware of it going forward.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses make it an offence for a person to be involved with a sponsorship agreement where the purpose is to promote in the course of business tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Anyone convicted of an offence under the provisions may be subject to imprisonment, a fine, or both. Tobacco sponsorship is currently banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. There is a long-standing, well-established relationship between tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption.

Clause 124 restates the current position for a person involved in the sponsorship of a tobacco product. We are consolidating existing tobacco legislation in the Bill to provide a coherent narrative for readers, rather than have it spread over lots of different pieces of legislation. A large part of the Bill brings the legislation into one place, so that from Royal Assent onwards, the go-to place for anybody with any questions about tobacco control will be this piece of legislation, rather than it being dispersed across different Acts of Parliament.

Tobacco sponsorship is already banned, but importantly, the Bill expands the offence to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping and nicotine products. The restriction will mean that vaping and other nicotine product companies will, for example, not be permitted to sponsor sports teams, which is something that we have seen in recent years. It might upset the hon. Member for Windsor, but I have to say that not a single child should ever be able to look up at their favourite sports stars—people who should be role models—and see them covered in branding for products that are harmful and addictive. That is the point here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point; I will take that away and look at it. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, everyone on the Committee agrees that we do not want our footballers, rugby stars or athletes to be emblazoned with adverts for vaping products, so the more we can do to tighten up the legislation further, the better.

I will just politely correct the hon. Member for Windsor that the term for someone from the historic County Palatine—including yourself, Mr Dowd—is a Lancastrian. My late father was the Lancashire cricket correspondent, first for Cricket Call, which was a BT paid-for service, and then for BBC North West. He was there in 1990 when Lancashire won both the NatWest and Benson & Hedges cup finals—the double at Lord’s. I still have copies of my late father’s book, “Double Delight”. I would say that they are available at all good booksellers, but they are available from me if the hon. Gentleman wants one.

The hon. Member for Windsor made an important point. I had just come out of secondary school in 1990, which shows how long ago it was, but it was pretty commonplace for tobacco companies to advertise at major sporting events like Lancashire cricket matches and others. The fact is that that was a long time ago, and things have changed for the better. The Benson & Hedges cup final, in cricket of all games, is a thing of the past. Hopefully, at some stage in the near future, we will look back at vape sponsorship of football clubs as a thing of the past, because that is where it deserves to be.

[Sarah Bool]

This is just off the top of my head, but on a technical point about clause 125(1), in terms of vape sponsorship, a person will be guilty of an offence only after the provision comes into force. I appreciate that there is the two months, but they also have the window of time while the Bill goes through Parliament, so they potentially have a couple more months for that.

I do wonder about how this is going to work in practice, because, in theory, a company that is offering sponsorship—if they enter into that agreement now—will not be in trouble for the next couple of years for doing that, yet under preceding clauses anyone who designed or printed material for any of those sponsorship deals would be guilty of an offence. We suddenly have a position where, potentially, the sponsors themselves are not guilty of an offence while the actual designers, and those who are publishing the sponsorship material, are. That is an interesting nuance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The shadow Minister is right. There will be a narrow window in which that will be possible—[Interruption.] She asks why, and it is because once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will bring in a two-month window. That is how the law is shaped, to give us the scope to get these measures right and ensure that we make the framework as watertight as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West wants. We believe that that is the proportionate way forward. We cannot make retrospective decisions; if contractual arrangements are under way at Royal Assent, an immediate cut-off could leave the Government open to challenge.

[Sarah Bool]

I understand that two-month period, but does it also apply to the earlier provisions on the creation of offences relating to publication? If we had some alignment there, neither party could potentially be in breach. That is merely a technical point, however.

The other point—perhaps for when the Minister goes back to the Department—is about force majeure, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned and which I would like more investigation into. Force majeure concerns acts of God, or something unexpected. I think lawyers would argue that a Government Bill was expected and foreseen, so there would have to be some other form of break clause or right. This debate is getting far too technical for this forum, but it is perhaps something that the Minister can take away.

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, we will take all this away and look at it in detail, and we will come back to Members. I am just about legally savvy enough to understand the point that the hon. Lady is making that a break clause or something like it would probably be required, because the coming into law of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill on Royal Assent is expected—it is not an act of God, and it will not come as a complete shock and surprise.

Finally, clause 133 allows us to extend all of part 6 to cover devices that enable a

“tobacco product to be consumed”

or

“an item which is intended to form part of such a device”,

but that are not in the Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill.

Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons.

That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue.

My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case.

Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says:

“In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”.

I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision

“as it applies to other persons.”

Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope.

Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.

[Sarah Bool]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.

Evapo also says that

“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”

That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.

I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. What does she think about the idea of having a single licence? If a shop—for example, a small convenience store—is selling alcohol, tobacco, where it is still permitted under the regulation, and vapes for those over 18, would a single regulatory process and licensing scheme be more efficient and more beneficial both to the customer and the retailer?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business. We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank Members for their contributions.

Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.

Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.

Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.

The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.

I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place

“whether made—

(a) by the offender or any other person, or

(b) by means of any machine”,

and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of

“any one or more of the following—

(a) tobacco products;

(b) herbal smoking products;

(c) cigarette papers;

(d) vaping products;

(e) nicotine products.”

They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.

Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:

“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”

Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:

“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—

(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—

(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);

(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);

(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);

(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—

(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);

(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”

For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?

I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?

Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine

“(a) the occupier of the premises, and

(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”

Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?

Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?

Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?

Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence

“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”

If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.

Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.

That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?

[Sarah Bool]

Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.

[Dr Johnson]

When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?

[Sarah Bool]

I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches the age of sale and vending machine restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. The clauses are based on and replace existing legislation.

A restricted premises order is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling from a vending machine, at least twice within the previous two years. The person who brought the proceedings for the sales offence makes a complaint to a magistrates court to apply for a restricted premises order in respect of the premises where the offence was committed.

Clause 24 requires notice to be given to people who might have an interest in a restricted premises order being made in England and Wales, and sets out situations where an interested person might challenge a restricted premises order. An interested person is the occupier of the premises or someone who has an interest in it, such as the manager or owner. The clause sets out the circumstances in which notice should be given to an interested person where a restricted premises order is being applied for. Interested persons are allowed to make representations to the court to try to prevent a restricted premises order from being issued, or at least to try to vary it. This is a safeguard so that suitable steps are taken before a restricted premises order is made, and to maintain fairness so that a relevant person is informed of an impending restricted premises order.

Clause 25 provides those in receipt of a restricted premises order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. This is important to the function of enforcement in the Bill as it enables businesses to appeal against a restricted premises order, such as where they feel they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. This provision maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.

Clause 26 makes it an offence to breach a restricted premises order in England and Wales. The offence is committed when a tobacco, herbal smoking product, cigarette paper, vaping or nicotine product whose sale is prohibited under a restricted premises order is sold on the premises. The offence occurs if a person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the sale was in breach of the order. It also provides a defence for the person charged, where they prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid a committing the offence. Making it an offence to breach a restricted premises order gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.

Finally, Clause 27 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to add to the offences for which restricted premises orders can be issued, in addition to what is already prescribed in the Bill. Offences added must be in relation to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products only. This re-enacts an existing power for Welsh Ministers, who must consult before making regulations under this power. The clause is therefore important as it maintains existing powers that enable legislation in Wales to be kept up to date to ensure that restricted premises orders can continue to be used as an effective enforcement tool.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.

If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?

With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.

The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.

[The Chair]

I will call the Minister. He may well wish to respond on the points related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 rather than the other points that have been raised, which can be taken up at another place and another time.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that. We will come on to those issues in more detail when we eventually reach those clauses, which given the rate of progress so far may be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, if Members decide so. The only reason why such paraphernalia is on display and legally sold is to consume tobacco, but we will get more information on that for her when we get to clause 45, which covers that issue.

I was talking about the Windsor framework. We believe that this policy is in accordance with our international obligations. In terms of what products are in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, including shisha, cigars and heated tobacco. That is because all tobacco products are harmful. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For example, tobacco smoke from cigars leads to the same types of disease as the smoke from cigarettes. In England alone, around five times as many people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, as did a decade ago, and children are a part of that increase. Shisha, to which the hon. Member for Windsor referred, also causes the same diseases as cigarettes, including cancer, respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The volume of smoke produced in the average 45-minute shisha session is estimated to be the same as around 25 cigarettes’-worth of tar, 11 cigarettes’-worth of carbon monoxide and two cigarettes’-worth of nicotine.

Finally, there is clear evidence about the toxicity of heated tobacco. The aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens, and there will be some risk to the health of anyone using those products. The crucial point is that, unlike with vapes, there is no evidence that heated tobacco supports smoking cessation. We must ensure that the Bill is future-proofed to include new or novel products, such as heated tobacco, to protect the public from the harms of tobacco use.

Although cigarettes are the most used form of tobacco, we do not want to create loopholes in the Bill so that the tobacco industry can pivot and continue addicting people to tobacco. As I said previously, the issue is about saying, “The market share you’ve got now is it. We are stopping the conveyor belt.” As we know, if we block one road, the tobacco industry finds another route through. We are making sure that the Bill is as watertight and future-proof as possible so that the tobacco industry can no longer continue to trade with another product that harms and addicts future generations.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I want to look specifically at clause 1(3), which relates to identity documents. In the previous sitting, the Minister said that he would have powers to change the list of identity documents; I think he was referring to clause 46. But at the moment the definition of identity documents is very tight; only the six listed are permitted. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned veterans cards, and this would be an ample opportunity to include those, as was the intention, because the definition is very strict—people will be able to use only the listed documents.

A further question that has been raised is that the list rules out digital forms of identification, as those listed are physical. I want to understand how retailers can best enforce the measures in practice.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do not want to go over the arguments that I have already put to the Committee in an earlier sitting, but there is an ability to use other forms of identification, as I set out. We will be working with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get in place procedures that retailers are confident with. They will be able to ask for veterans cards, for example.

[Sarah Bool]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Can the hon. Lady let me finish answering the point she put to me? In fact, I have now forgotten the point she put to me—[Laughter.]

[Sarah Bool]

I was talking from a legal perspective. Clause 1(3) is about what “identity document” means, which obviously means that those listed are the six that people are allowed to use. I take the point that later the Minister could introduce regulations to allow for veterans cards, but legally a retailer’s defence would have to be that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document, which means:

“(a) a passport,

(b) a UK driving licence,

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

(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or

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

The clause is very specific. Whatever the intention, the retailer would not technically be able to use having been shown a veterans card as a defence. Hence I am asking whether we should consider the issue at this point, rather than relying on the regulations mentioned in clause 46.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I stand by what I have already said. The intention is to work with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get the mechanisms in place that allow them to adequately enforce the measures in the Bill. We do not want to get this wrong. I politely say to the hon. Lady, however, that in the first instance it is highly unlikely that a veteran born before 1 January 2009 will seek to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products and be queried about their age. I will take on board what has been said and, if what I said earlier is incorrect, we can perhaps come back to the issue.

I want to come back to tobacco products because the point is crucial. We want to ensure that the tobacco industry has that conveyor belt cut-off. It is therefore rational for all the products that I have mentioned to be included in the smoke-free generation legislation. That will prevent anyone from taking up use of the products in the first place.

As I stated in my opening speech, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for bringing the discussion before the Committee, but while I appreciate his intention, it is not something the Government support. In relation to the amendments, I say to the Committee that the Government do not believe it is appropriate to establish a more lenient penalty regime for the offences, or to introduce a mandatory age-verification policy.

The clause seeks to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products. The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and putting us on track towards a smoke-free UK. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 48, which we obviously have not come on to yet, gives the interpretation of part 1 and all the definitions. The definition of cigarette papers in the Bill includes

“anything…to be used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.

Different chemicals are put in, believe it or not, to make the ash whiter—people are concerned, when they have burnt their cigarette, with the colour of the ash that has fallen from it, which seems remarkable to me. Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and titanium oxide can be added to affect the colour of not just the paper, but the ash produced. Seignette salts—sodium potassium tartrate and sodium citrate—are also added to make it burn faster, so that people go through cigarettes slightly more quickly. Then there is the glue of the acacia gum.

As far as I can tell, it is impossible to find out what is in the cigarette papers that one might wish to purchase; if one looks online, it is very hard to work out what is in them. I have seen medical reports of people allergic to the ingredients having: cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips; circumoral—around the mouth—inflammation; and finger dermatitis. If one is selling a ham sandwich, it is important to include the ingredients so that people know what it is in it, but it seems that for cigarette papers that is not the case and I am not entirely sure why. It is also the case that some commercially available papers contain copper, chromium and vanadium. As they burn, the pigments can lead to very high levels of exposure. These are not inexpensive; Amazon sells a random choice of eight flavours for £9.99. The issues are worth considering. It has been proposed that individual cigarette papers have on them a message saying “Smoking is bad for you” or something along those lines, but does that not involve adding further chemicals to the paper and therefore further risk?

Clause 2(3) states:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”

of proxy purchasing

“to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking”,

To which the somewhat obvious question is, “What on earth else would one use cigarette papers for?” With some trepidation, I asked Mr Google. Initially, all I could find was that they are used for smoking joints of cannabis, which did not seem to me a particularly good reason—the smoking of another illegal substance—for the Government to exclude them. Then I found out that some people use them for woodwind instruments. They place them underneath the key and press the key down, which allows extraneous water to be soaked up. They then release the key and pull the paper out. That helps to dry the instrument, prolong its life and prevent damage. Clarinet players—I did learn the clarinet but I did not know this; maybe that is why I was not so good at it—or players of the oboe, bassoon, flute or saxophone can buy cigarettes papers for that purpose.

The question of whether the Government need to provide an exemption for cigarette papers hinges on whether there is an alternative for the public to use for their woodwind instruments—and there is, of course. It is obvious in some respects that the market would provide one were cigarette papers banned. Connoisseurs of such instruments tell me that cigarette papers are not ideal to use for this purpose because of the additional, potentially toxic chemicals they contain—one is potentially inhaling bits of the chemicals back in—and because it is not ideal to get traces of the gum on one’s instrument. It is possible buy Superslick Pad and Yamaha cleaning papers. As far as I can tell, they do not contain toxic chemicals, because nobody would be interested in whether the ash burnt from them was white or otherwise since no one is going to set fire to them. Is it therefore really necessary to have a specific exemption for the use of cigarette papers for instruments, when in practice that is unlikely to be what they will be used for? There is an alternative and the most likely use—I think the Minister will understand this—is that they will be used for smoking joints.

[Sarah Bool]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. My first question was, “Well, what else they would be using cigarette papers for?” The second question—which maybe the Minister can answer—is about the level of proof. This comes up not only in clause 2(3), but elsewhere in clause 2. I know that the Minister will say, in relation to clause 2(3), that this is in line with legislation as it currently stands, but if we are tightening up on the whole, perhaps this is an area that we should consider tightening up further?

[Dr Johnson]

Indeed, it does seem contradictory, if not counterintuitive. It also leaves us with a bizarre situation where, were someone to be a bassoon player, for example, and they wished to buy these products to use for the alternative purpose of drying their keys, then they would have to get someone else to buy them because they would not be able to buy them themselves. For a child born after 1 January 2009 and learning to play such an instrument, either the market will need to provide another opportunity to buy such a product, or the child will need someone else to buy the product for them. That does not make sense. The rolling age of sale that we discussed in clause 1 means that, over time, the number of individuals wanting to buy the product for their instruments but not allowed to, compared to the number of people allowed to, would inevitably diminish. We would have a larger group of people trying to find an ever smaller group of people to buy their cigarette papers for them for that purpose. To some extent, it would be more sensible to remove subsection (3) all together because it creates a loophole that will be used almost entirely for illegal uses of these papers. There is a market already providing a reasonably priced alternative for people to use for their instruments—which in practice are better for instruments in any case.

The final point is on the burden of proof. As a defence, someone purchasing the product on behalf of another has to prove they have no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009. What does that really mean? Is that a reversal of the burden of proof? Is it saying a person has to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove them guilty? In what circumstances would it apply? In what circumstances is it necessary for someone to buy cigarette papers, other than the oboe player or the saxophone player? I guess if someone in his or her 70s attends a corner shop but has forgotten their ID, they could ask somebody older to buy the papers for them; I guess that would be okay. They may find that they have come with a veterans card, thinking that they can use it because it is usable for voter ID, but that particular type of ID is not included; we have discussed widening the scope of those documents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister says, clause 3 outlaws the use of vending machines that sell tobacco or tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I note that there are no amendments to clause 3, presumably because it is somewhat settled and established law.

In the same way as vapes and other nicotine products, which we will come to later, vending machines make it much easier for people under the age of 18—or, under clause 1, those born after 1 January 2009—to buy age-restricted products that they are not legally allowed to purchase. They are self-service machines, so it is difficult to prove age and easy to get around if it is machine led. Historically, such machines have often been unsupervised by staff in a shop, thereby providing easy opportunities for younger people to buy from them.

It was coalition Government legislation—the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010—that banned the sale of tobacco products from vending machines from 1 October 2011. That statutory instrument was made under section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which was inserted by section 22 of the Health Act 2009. That is a complex chain to follow, so having this clause where everything is in one place is much simpler. The clause also adds herbal smoking and cigarette paper vending machines to the legislation—on a personal level, I welcome that, for the reasons I have given already—and clarifies the penalty, which was more difficult to establish when looking at the previous trail of legislation.

However, the clause does change the terminology. Previously, it was illegal on the basis of sale “from an automatic machine”; the Bill talks about an “automatic machine from which” products “may be bought”. It seems that they are the same thing, but of course we heard repeatedly in evidence how the tobacco industry tries to get round these things.

I found a trail of people discussing online how to get round the vending machine legislation, which raised various questions. If I buy a product from a major retailer online, I can choose to get that delivered to my home, I can collect it from one of its stores, and I can also pick it up from our local Co-op, the local post office, or from a box with a keypad door, at the garage and in other locations. If one were to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers using an online app, and collect them from a dispensing machine—an automatic machine that dispenses cigarettes—in a pub, would that be covered by this legislation, or is that a loophole that could be exploited? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, because we have heard how inventive the industry is. Would it be possible for people to circumnavigate the Bill’s intent by creating a machine that does not sell the product but simply gives to a person the product they have already bought?

Clause 70 applies to Northern Ireland. It will insert into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the new article 4B, which is essentially the same as clause 3, so the same questions and comments apply. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that in Northern Ireland we have a level 5 offence, and in England and Wales we have a level 4 offence.

I wondered briefly why there was no clause for Scotland, but section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to have an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco products, regardless of whether the machine also sells other products, with a level 4 fine, so Members can be reassured that that is covered. I do not think the Minister answered this point in relation to the previous clause: clearly he chooses the fine levels for England and Wales in the Bill; why has he chosen to have the same penalty as Scotland but a lower penalty than that in Northern Ireland?

[Sarah Bool]

Clause 3(1) says:

“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a tobacco vending machine is available for use.”

My first point goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about the concept of that person, because that leads to some questions and confusion about where the liability sits. When it comes to the person who has management or control of the premises, we might expect there to be a landlord and a tenant, in which case perhaps the tenant has control legally under the terms of their lease. But if the landlord has a managing agent—the hint is in the name—could they be caught within the scope of the Bill if they have not done enough to prevent the machine from being on the property?

What about cases in which a landlord who is a licensor has a licensee? The concept is slightly different: it is not as official as a lease, but someone has the right to use the premises but not exclusive use or possession of the premises. We could potentially argue about who actually has the management and control of the property in that instance. It would be interesting to know whether in future landlords could be in trouble if they do not include in the lease a provision that bans the location and siting of a vending machine in the property. I do not think that would be where landlords currently stand, but that is perhaps worth considering. It seems pedantic but, knowing the way the legal system can go when people want to find defences, we do have to stress test the wording we use, so we need to examine the concept of a person having management and control.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point that I had not fully considered: who is responsible where you have a larger corporation with a group of shops beneath? You have the board level, the regional managers, the local shop manager, the shift supervisor and then the shop worker, so who has the control? Is that something the Government have a fixed position on, or would each company individually need to prove who that was? If trading standards was prosecuting such an offence and chose the wrong individual, would the Government allow the corporation to get off scot-free?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is something we are duty-bound to explore and test, to make sure we can avoid any problems with the roll-out and implementation of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Sarah Bool]

Why are we limiting this to cigarettes? Forgive me, I am not an expert—I have never bought herbal smoking products—but if we are applying the same rules and we just want an outright ban, perhaps we should apply it generally, in case there are rule changes, to the sale of not only unpackaged cigarettes but unpackaged herbal smoking products. That would add further to the emphasis on changing the term from “a tobacco retailer” to “a person”, as my hon. Friend suggested.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to talk about the quantity. If the principle behind this clause is to ensure that the quantity of sale is such that it restricts younger people from purchasing these products with their pocket money, what consideration has the Minister given to the quantities of herbal cigarettes, or herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers, so that they would be purchased in quantities not easily accessible to young people?

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about the fine levels, the fines are level 3, which in this case is consistent across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Clause 51 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to add proposed new section 4E, which essentially has the same effect—it is different wording, but it has the same essential effect of banning the sale of loose cigarettes. Clause 71 adds proposed new section 4C, which is essentially the same as clause 4, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to have the same effect. Again, it has the same fine, so there is some consistency across the four nations of the country, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I am concerned about whether we are accidentally and inadvertently creating a loophole here. If we are not going to ban someone from breaking down a cigarette packet and selling it, that is the way they will go about doing it. We should be going for consistency and tightness on this. I appreciate that that is the law as it stands, which is why we have applied it, but have we had the foresight to ensure that we do not create a loophole? It seems quite possible that we have.

[Andrew Gwynne]

If the hon. Lady is not talking about retailers breaking up packets, which is illegal, she is talking, effectively, about proxy purchasing—an adult buying tobacco products for children, splitting up the packet and selling those products on. It is already an offence for those children to get cigarettes—whether a full packet or part of a packet—even if they are not from retailers. It is proxy purchasing, and we have already covered that.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of messaging on individual cigarettes. I am not sure whether she was under the misapprehension that it is not covered in the Bill. The Bill restates the existing power to make regulations on the appearance of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only that, but it goes further by extending the power to other products, including cigarette papers. Although we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time, as we believe we already have strong health warnings in the existing measures, we will continue to monitor the situation. We do leave an open door to it, and the powers are there. We will, however, mandate pack inserts into cigarette packs. We believe that that is proportionate at this time, while not closing the door to going further.

Lastly, the shadow Minister noted that, in some cases, fines are consistent across the United Kingdom, but that, in others, there are differences. I am afraid that that is the result of the devolution settlement. We have built into the Bill the ability for all four nations to walk together on making our country smoke-free, but the levels at which fines are levied are entirely a matter for the devolved Administrations. That is why there is sometimes an inconsistency in fine levels.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Age of sale notice at point of sale: England

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

That is exactly the kind of situation I am thinking of. The language could be a bit more practical, less legal and it might aid that shopkeeper to point to an external source for validation.

I have two further points. One is a point of ignorance for me as a new Member, for which I apologise. I do not know what subsection (5) means when it says that

“Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

I hope someone can help me with that. Clause 6 is being taken together with clause 5, because clause 5 applies to England and clause 6 applies to Wales. To me, they appear to be exactly the same, apart from the age of sale notice described in clause 6(2) and the fact that clause 6 obviously also includes the Welsh version. I am going to take at face value that it says the same thing in Welsh, although I do not speak Welsh. It would be nice to clarify whether it is either/or whether it is both together. That is of interest.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I want to follow up on the points made on clause 5(3) and clause 6(3) in particular. Both specify that

“The notice must be displayed in a prominent position”.

I agree with many of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made about what that means in practice. In the information pack that we have been given, there is a quote from the Scottish Grocers’ Federation, which I want to read for the record. It explicitly states:

“In most convenience stores, space is at a premium and the suggested wording set out in UK Government proposals will require a significant surface area in order to be legible and accessible to all customers. The complexity of a moving ban will require very clear public messaging. Appropriate and mandatory signage is essential for good practice and the sale of age restricted items, SGF is concerned that multiple messages throughout the store relating to various product ranges and items could potentially create confusion and lead to challenging interactions between customers and staff.”

To protect our retailers, we must ensure that we enforce these regulations correctly. When making the regulations, the Secretary of State should take into account the voice of the retailers.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. In responding to points that have been made, I want first to reiterate that these two clauses do not relate to enforcement; they concern the nature of the signage that will be required to be displayed. We can come to those other matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I remind Opposition Members of what has been said in previous debates: we will use the very long lead-in time to engage fully with the retail sector to ensure that we get the delivery in shops right and to ensure that the Bill’s provisions can be implemented without any hiccups.

I also reiterate that we abhor any violence and abuse towards retail staff—or anybody else—and it is the intention of this Labour Government to introduce a new offence in this respect. Given the comments that have rightly been made in the course of this and earlier debates, I hope that it will command full support from all parts of the House.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked what is meant by “negative resolution procedure”. It is the procedure for the statutory instrument that will be have to be made to introduce these regulations. The fact that it is “negative” means purely that it will not require a parliamentary debate. It will be done through the usual secondary legislation processes.

There were questions about the nature of the clauses relating to different parts of the United Kingdom, and why we are approaching this with slightly different methods. I must say politely—particularly to the shadow Minister—that we have to respect the devolution settlement. These matters are entirely within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. Some things remain reserved for the UK Government, but for a lot of the measures in the Bill, the legislative competence rests with the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

That was the second question I considered when preparing for the debate on this clause. My first question was: what is snus? My second was: if it is a tobacco product, why is it treated differently? We have talked about all sorts of different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, snuff—yet this one has particularly robust regulation and a robust legal framework. The only reason I could find was that it is new, trendy and coming forward very quickly, and there were concerns that it would quickly take over the children’s market in the same way as vaping. That is the only suggestion I was able to find. I am sure the Minister will be able to help us to understand why snus is treated so robustly, although I am not sad to see that.

Clause 7 makes it an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products. Oral tobacco products are defined quite particularly as those that are for oral use but not intended to be inhaled or chewed, so they do not include chewing tobacco, which would be included under clause 1. They also have to be in either powder or particle form—as I said, they are in the form of ground tobacco. Currently, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 define “tobacco for oral use” similarly, as tobacco “intended for oral use”, not to be inhaled or chewed, and

“in powder or particulate form or any combination”,

whether presented in a

“sachet portion or a porous sachet, or in any other way”.

Regulation 17 provides for a UK-wide ban on the production and sale of snus. Schedule 6 to the Bill, which we will come to, will repeal that measure and replace it with clause 7.

I want to ask the Minister why it is an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products in the UK, and not an offence to manufacture other tobacco products. He has talked about the need for a smoke-free generation and his worries that smoking tobacco harms individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to choose, but he has not chosen to ban the production of other tobacco products. I found that the last time an English-produced cigarette rolled off the production line was at the Horizon Imperial Tobacco factory in Nottingham in May 2016, and the last UK-made cigarette was produced at Japan Tobacco International’s plant in County Antrim in October 2017. He may feel that such a ban is unnecessary because we are not producing any tobacco products, but I am interested in his thoughts on the matter.

The penalty here is the most severe so far. We have had some debate about different clauses containing fines at levels 3, 4 and 5 on the standard scale, but this clause contains a much more severe penalty for a product that may or may not be less harmful than cigarettes, although it has not been suggested that it is much more harmful. The fine for breaching clause 7 on the ban on manufacture of snus is, on summary conviction, imprisonment of six months, a fine or both. Six months is based on the current upper limit in a magistrates court, but the Lord Chancellor announced in October last year a plan to increase the maximum penalty for a magistrates court to 12 months’ imprisonment, which would presumably apply to this Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is the case and whether there have been any convictions under the existing legislation. The penalty for conviction on indictment would be imprisonment not exceeding two years, a fine or both—again, quite severe penalties when compared with other aspects of the Bill and other tobacco products. I am interested to understand why.

[Sarah Bool]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I am happy to give way—and to be promoted.

[Sarah Bool]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I might have misunderstood, so may I clarify the intended purpose here? If snus is illegal under earlier regulations, what is this further provision? Is it to ensure that nicotine pouches are also caught? The UK has already banned the sale of all oral tobacco products, including snus, under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which implemented European Union directive 92/41. I am hoping for some clarity about that, but perhaps it will come from the Minister.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—I am sure the Minister will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill does not apply to nicotine pouches per se, because nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. As I understand it, the brands we see in our local supermarket in similar round pots contain nicotine, and they are put in the mouth and absorbed in a similar way, but they are not tobacco products. As I read the Bill, clause 7 will not apply to them, and obviously they are not currently illegal, because they are widely sold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Sorry. Equally, I note that the vast majority of Members across the House, both in my party and in other parties, strongly agree with clause 10 and the other clauses that seek to ensure that children do not have access to these products. If someone sells a vaping or nicotine product to a purchaser who is under the age of 18, it is an offence. Under clause 10(2), the seller can defend themselves on the basis

“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and it confirmed the purchaser’s age as at least 18 years old, or…that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”

The Minister has talked about the simplicity of the smoke-free generation and his view that it is easier for shop workers to look at a piece of identification and establish whether someone’s birthday was before or after 1 January 2009 than to establish whether someone was born 18 years ago by doing the mathematics in their head from the person’s date of birth. That brings me again to the question of why we will not have a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free generation. Would it be classed as a reasonable step? If a shop worker had asked for ID, taken the proper ID, as defined in clause 10(3), and done the mathematics wrong in their head, would they have taken all reasonable steps or would their arithmetic error mean that they were to all intents and purposes a criminal? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

Acceptable identity documents for the purpose of buying nicotine or vaping products if one is over the age of 18 include a passport, a UK driving licence, a driving licence from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, a European photocard driving licence or a proof-of-age standards scheme card with a hologram. During the discussions of voter ID, there was a debate about how many people had access to different forms of ID. Passports are reasonably expensive and not everyone drives a car, so how would someone who did not drive a car or have a passport provide ID? When it came to voter ID, the previous Government looked at a number of reliable sources of identification that could be used, which included the veterans card, certain travel documents and the like.

[Sarah Bool]

Recent announcements from the Home Office have confirmed that businesses will be able to legally accept the use of digital proof of age for alcohol products. I would like to see that approach extended to these products, to make the life of retailers easier as far as identification goes. It would be good to have further consistency and an extension of the definition of identity documents to allow for digital forms.

[Dr Johnson]

Digital ID is not something that I am particularly familiar with, but nevertheless it sounds sensible, where ID is reliable, reproducible, not easily faked and easily identifiable by staff. Broadening the forms of acceptable ID would ensure that when somebody is old enough to legally purchase a product, it is not excessively challenging for them to obtain an ID to do so. Clearly the Minister would want people to be able to buy age-restricted products if they are old enough, so I am interested to hear his view not only on my hon. Friend’s intervention about digital identification, but on veterans cards, bus passes and other cards that demonstrate the age of the user and include a photograph for added reliability.

Clause 10(4) states:

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

On a personal level, selling vapes and nicotine products to children is a dreadful thing to do, as I am sure the chief medical officer has said. I am more than happy for the Minister to increase that fine if he wants to, but I am interested to understand why he has set it at that level. Notwithstanding any changes across the four nations, it is important that we look at the choices that the Minister has made. That is what we are here to scrutinise.

The problem that clause 10 seeks to address is vaping among children. Are children vaping? Yes, I am afraid to say that they are, in large quantities. The biggest report of which I am aware that looked specifically at rates of youth vaping was published in 2023 by Healthwatch Blackpool. It looked at over 4,000 children and found that just under a third of them—31%—said that they

“currently vape or sometimes vape”.

Of those children, 65%

“expressed a preference for fruity flavoured vapes”,

which we will deal with later in the Bill. There is clearly an issue that vapes are being directly marketed to children with bright, attractive colours. Some of the most popular flavours include bubble gum, cotton candy, strawberry ice cream and unicorn milkshake. What does unicorn milkshake taste like? I have no idea, but it is easy to see the appeal to children.

An investigation by The Observer in 2022 found that ElfBar, a company that makes vapes, was promoting its products to kids via TikTok. The TikTok platform is apparently used by half of eight to 11-year-olds and by three quarters of 16 to 17-year-olds. When I found that out, I had a look at the screen time of my own children to establish that they were not getting on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I echo what my hon. Friend is saying, particularly in relation to online sales. I think we are all very aware that one aspect is being in the shop and physically trying to buy a product with ID; I take it from the ingenuity of our younger generation that they will always find ways around that, especially online, so we should perhaps give some further thought to how we can ensure that the companies are operating effectively—that there is robustness without over-regulation and that we have the methods to ensure that people are not following another loophole.

[The Chair]

Order. Before we proceed, let me explain that Sir Mark has had to leave the Chair and I am taking over for the duration—for as long as you choose to sit. I have, however, been briefed, so I am sure that nobody in the room will seek to take advantage of a change of Chairman to cover the same subjects all over again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, on banning those who are under 18 from vaping. Many know about the health risks of smoking. They see it as a bad habit and disgusting, as the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon noted, but vapes are seen as being new age and social. Parents are in danger of encouraging vaping by buying something that they think is safer than smoking or drugs. We must be very careful about that, so this ban will be important in restricting sales. Children fear being excluded, so, through peer pressure, they are forced into vaping. We need to stamp out this practice.

Children are often confused about vaping. The problem is that they get an accidental addition to nicotine and struggle to pay attention in school, which has a negative impact not just on them but on their classmates. Apparently, children vape to deal with stress and anxiety—they are almost self-medicating, which is appalling. It is right that we protect our children by introducing this offence.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend talks about children self-medicating, but are they not making the situation worse? The use of vapes and nicotine products may exacerbate, rather than ease, any mental health symptoms that they have.

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a medical professional, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and we need to stop it as soon as possible to protect children.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I want to make two points about this part of the Bill. First, I support new clause 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It is essential that we close off all avenues for children to purchase vapes. In the Bill, the Government have done a very good job of dealing with physical retailers, but there is a gap in relation to online retailers. I hope the Minister is minded to support the new clause, either when we come to a vote on it in a few moments, or by inserting something similar into the Bill on Report to ensure we close off online retailers.

In my opinion, online retailers are more dangerous than physical shops. A child—especially a very young child—has to depart from their guardian or their adult to go and buy something in a shop, whereas they can purchase products online on their phone or computer in the comfort of their own home, and it is very difficult for a parent or a senior person in their family to spot that. We know that that is where a number of children and young people are getting these products, so we have to close off that avenue.

My second point is about a more fundamental issue with the clause itself. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister has said this quite extensively, but it bears repeating so that we get some answers from the Minister. It does not seem obvious why the Government decided to ban vapes for anyone under the age of 18, whereas for other tobacco products it is for anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. I completely accept that vapes can be used as a smoking cessation tool; it is important that they are used in that way.

When we come on to vending machines, there are medical settings in which people require some form of intervention to help to stop smoking, and we should be looking at that. However, it is not beyond the wit of the Bill’s drafting to apply 1 January 2009 to tobacco products, and then to create an exemption specifically for smoking cessation. I want to understand why the Minister has decided to make this distinction. Does he not see the potential risks in doing so? Hopefully, we all want people not to be addicted to any products that are harmful to them, but both retailers and consumers, when faced with two sets of rules for very similar products, could become confused and accidently fall foul of the law. Because of that confusion, the law might not be enforced as the Minister would like it to be. I very much hope the Minister addresses those two points in his closing remarks on these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Amendments 65, 66, 82 and 83 were specifically there to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalty portfolio across the Bill. The Minister has clarified his position on that. It is very important that we see those who are selling vapes to children or, in the case of clause 11, buying vapes for children, appropriately deterred from doing so or appropriately punished. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Vaping and nicotine product vending machines

[Sarah Bool]

I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 12, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 78 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

This amendment states:

“The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”

I tabled this amendment on the basis of the evidence provided to us. I put on record that the Committee received a letter by Peter Terry, a

“Smoke Free lead in a large Mental Health Trust in the North West of England”.

In his letter, he says,

“As you may be aware the success of hospitals and Trusts becoming smokefree environments (especially Mental Health units) is particularly challenging. Mental Health service users due to their conditions have little or no motivation to stop smoking. On the units of my trust the prevalence of smoking is consistently between 70-77%.”

He goes on to say:

“To ensure we allow service users who are hospitalized a safer way to manage their nicotine addiction...my Trust would require Vending machines. These would allow service users to purchase a closed pod system device, which is a lot less harmful than tobacco smoking. On admission they would be offered either free NRT products or to purchase a vape as described above.”

He is asking that we make an exemption.

The exemption was also supported in another submission from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS foundation trust. Ben Kingsbury, the tobacco dependency lead in that trust, wrote to express his concerns over the ban on the sale of vapes from vending machines. He indicated that his trust had installed vending machines back in May 2024

“to ensure that vapes are available to staff and patients at all times.”

He stated:

“Since installation of the vending machines in our Trust we have had over 2400 individual vends. Each vend represents a staff or service user making a positive decision to improve their health. 2400 individual vends in just 6 months represents a saving to the Trust of around £12,000.”

He argued:

“Removing the machines will reduce patients’ independence in buying their own devices while in hospital and will have a financial implication to our Trust, as wards would be expected to fund more vapes.”

He was also concerned that

“a lack of vape provision on our Trust premises may result in patients returning to smoking”,

which I am sure we all agree we do not wish to be the result. He also asked that we consider the financial implications, as well as health and wellbeing of service users, by implementing the exemption.

We can all empathise with those who are admitted to mental health units. They may have difficult and complex conditions that they need to work through, and coping with a potential addiction may be too much for them. There may be a logic to listen to the voices of the experts—especially if we end up having smoke-free places around hospitals and how that will work out—asking us to allow a mechanism to help someone with smoking cessation.

The Minister himself has just said that vaping can be good to help someone quit, but if they do not have access to a vape they may face difficulties such as cravings, anxiety, trouble concentrating and all the other elements that go with it, including potentially going back to smoking tobacco in its pure form. Taking away the option from those in mental health units will only make their recovery harder, longer and more expensive for the NHS. I heartedly commend to all members of the Committee that we all consider this amendment thoroughly, to ensure that we are not doing additional harm by taking an aggressive approach in this regard.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for moving the amendment. One thing we have seen across the debate thus far, and indeed during oral evidence, is that we have been led by the evidence—the Minister has clearly said that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has provided is from medical experts. These are not vape peddlers or people from the industry, or people who want to make a quick buck out of those who are addicted to nicotine. These are health professionals who are trying to ensure that there is a balance between what is absolutely right—we do not want to see people vaping—and the reality of the situation in medical settings, especially in mental health settings, where the ability for patients to have a certain amount of autonomy is often vital to their mental recovery.

My hon. Friend also made the valid point that if we remove smoking and tobacco products from in and around hospitals, which is a suggestion in the Bill that I think I support, we must ensure that those who are addicted—and we accept that it is an addiction—are dealt with appropriately. Obviously, in most regular acute trusts, that would be dealt with through a nicotine patch, but for mental health services, as I said, the requirement for autonomy should sometimes outweigh the functional nature of a nicotine patch. Indeed, my understanding is that nicotine patches do not work for everyone, because some of the addiction is in the holding as well as the imbibing.

I welcome the Minister’s response. As I have said to him on previous amendments, even if he is not happy with the precise wording my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has put forward, I hope that he can bring in some kind of exemption on Report, so that the medical professionals who have written to us are satisfied that their concerns have been heard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

In essence, in relation to clause 12, yes. I do not think that vending machines including tobacco and nicotine products or vapes are a good idea, and I moved a new clause for inclusion in the previous Bill because a ban on nicotine and vaping products in vending machines had not been included at the outset. Without such a measure, we will see an expansion of vending machines as a way of selling products to children and getting children addicted. It will be done as a way of making products more available to adults, but its effect will be that the products are more available to children. I do not want to see such products available to children, because they are clearly harmful for them. All the medical evidence we have had states that clearly.

With regard to individuals in mental health hospitals, some may be there as voluntary patients, and some under a mental health section. When someone’s liberty has been taken from them because they are being treated for a mental health condition, we need to be careful that we are not restricting them in other ways in which we would not restrict other people. That is a fair point to make.

We also have to be mindful of the staff. As we go through the Bill, the Minister will rightly be looking at exposure to vaping inside hospitals and at extending the tobacco regulations that limit smoking in public indoor places to cover vaping in indoor public spaces. Indeed, he and you, Sir Roger, will have seen the signs placed in the Tea Room by the Speaker, who rightly wants to see that we do not have vaping there. The public do not want vaping in their tea rooms or in the public domain either, so that is the right thing to do. We need to consider that there are staff and other patients in mental health hospitals who may not wish to vape and should not be inadvertently and unnecessarily exposed to vaping products.

I do not support the idea that 2,400 vends means that this is a positive choice. For some of these people, vaping may have been a positive change from smoking, but for others it may have been a decision to vape.

[Sarah Bool]

I appreciate that; those were the words of the NHS trusts themselves when they talked about positive decisions. We cannot always be sure exactly why someone made that decision, but we have to hope in the first instance that that move away from smoking would turn into vaping and, ultimately, into a smoke-free generation.

I am minded to tighten the wording of my amendment on Report to ensure that the vending machines are in those mental health units for the purpose of facilitating smoke-free policies and smoking cessation, because I do not necessarily want nurses and those working in those units to be exposed to any unnecessary products. When we are dealing with addiction, we all appreciate how difficult it is, and I want to ensure that a process is in place that means that we deal with both the mental health issues patients are dealing with and the addiction in a suitable and balanced fashion.

[Dr Johnson]

I know my hon. Friend’s heart is in a good place when she thinks about how we can protect individual mental health patients who also have an addiction to nicotine. She said that having no vapes on the hospital site could lead to patients taking up smoking, but there are of course no cigarettes on the hospital site either. I do not support the idea that the removal of one product will automatically lead to the use of another unavailable product.

If a member of the Committee, for example, wanted to leave the room now and go and get some vapes, they would need to leave the House, go and find a shop, and purchase them, and the same is true of an average patient: they would have to leave their home, find a shop, buy their vapes and come home again. The availability of a vaping vending machine on a ward in a mental health hospital would make vapes much more available to an individual and much more proximal than they would be under normal circumstances, which may lead to a greater consumption of nicotine than would be the case if the vapes had to be accessed elsewhere.

As we have mentioned repeatedly, nicotine is a very addictive drug, and I will not reiterate that beyond saying that if one is in a hospital unit and unable to leave because one is on a section, and one is used to using nicotine, the cravings would be extremely unpleasant and the withdrawal could be very nasty indeed. With that in mind, we wish to ensure that those individuals are cared for, and I know that the Minister wants to ensure that they are cared for too, but I remind the Committee that other nicotine replacements are available.

Several treatments are available from shops and pharmacies to help to beat the addiction, and those are available on prescription to individuals currently residing in a mental health unit, voluntarily or otherwise. Essentially, they are nicotine replacement therapies, by which I mean a proper medicine, as opposed to a consumer product, that provides somebody with a low level of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. They help to reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, and may affect mental health treatment too. They can be bought from pharmacies and shops, but a doctor can prescribe them and NHS stop-smoking services can provide them, and they are available in a whole range of forms. There are skin patches that provide a slower release, chewing gum and little inhalators that look like a small plastic cigarette. There are tablets, oral strips, lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays.

There is a huge variety of different nicotine replacement therapies. Some, such as the inhalators, gums and sprays, act quickly to provide nicotine, and some, such as the patches, release nicotine slowly. The treatment depends on the stage of craving and the stage of giving up that somebody is at, and on what is most suitable for them. Sometimes patients find that the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy is to have a low-dose patch that is worn all the time, with top-ups from a gum, inhalator or nasal spray if they have particular cravings. Treatment with such nicotine replacement therapy usually lasts eight to 12 weeks before the dose is reduced and eventually stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

Perhaps it is an added thing that doctors in mental healthcare can try to address, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire read out a letter from someone at the coalface, who takes the opposite approach from that of the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Bool]

I will say a little about the intention behind the amendment. We have obviously stressed throughout this debate how addictive nicotine is, but I want to ensure that if we are trying to deal with mental health issues, we are not creating an extra burden. The intention was not to encourage people to smoke, vape or take up other bad habits, but to make sure that we offer the best possible healthcare in the round, which means giving support.

Nicotine is addictive and so stresses are associated with it. Perhaps there are alternatives to give patients, but if they are not suitable for a particular patient or they do not work as well for them as nicotine, they will effectively be going cold turkey, which has its own issues. The intention behind the amendment was purely to encourage us to listen to the evidence from trusts themselves, to try to come up with a practical solution to enable this transition and allow us to get to a smokefree generation.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I agree with everything she has just said.

I will just finish my remarks to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. She talked about this measure being a further opportunity; I would suggest that the easy availability of nicotine products in certain instances would be an aid on that journey.

We should be working pragmatically on amendments such as this in Committee, to ensure that the evidence is considered and that the right balance is struck. I will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. Because the nicotine product vending machine measure is part of clause 12, I will vote against clause 12 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. This debate will not stop here at Committee stage; I am almost certain it will be raised on Report. If it is not concluded to the satisfaction of those who wish to see such provisions in the Bill, I have no doubt that it will be raised in the other place, too.

However, it is really important that we do not end up with unintended consequences. We have to get this legislation right. The smoking cessation services available are far-reaching in these settings, and I see no reason for an exemption, given that nicotine replacement therapies such as gums, patches, inhalers—important medicines—will still be still be available to patients with a nicotine addiction in mental health settings. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire to withdraw her amendment.

[Sarah Bool]

I would like to press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.

Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year-old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke-free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.

There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.

[Sarah Bool]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non-smoker.

[Dr Johnson]

I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.

On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law-abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.

Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

in clause 1 and insert the words

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date-specific restriction to a general age-based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.

[Sarah Bool]

I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age-restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

with the phrase

“under the age of 25”.

That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke-free generation to a fixed age of 25.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

My mother has some shareholdings in British American Tobacco, but that links to my parents’ having worked for Imperial Tobacco 50 years ago.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am an officer of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. My other question is about the difference between indoor and outdoor exposure to smoke. In this country, we have had laws preventing smoking in certain indoor spaces for many years now. How does exposure to smoke inside differ from exposure to it outside? Imagine sitting next to someone smoking on a park bench and someone smoking at a neighbouring table in a restaurant—what are the comparative health risks between those two?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think the first thing to say is that second-hand smoke is a very serious problem. I think that is underestimated among the general public because, if I am honest, the cigarette industry has been very successful in muddying the waters on this.

There are three key things that really make a difference. The first is the degree of concentration of the smoke. The second is the duration of exposure—let us say you sit next to someone for half an hour; the effect is more significant than if it had been just a couple of minutes. The third is the vulnerability of the people being exposed to it. That is one of the things that this Bill will help with.

Over 88% of the population do not smoke. There are roughly 6 million smokers still. There are significantly more people in the UK, non-smokers, who have medical vulnerabilities that mean that the smoke is particularly dangerous to them, perhaps acutely. They can be exposed to smoke and have an asthma attack, and that lands them in hospital. In severe cases it could land them in a very dangerous situation. The situation may also be chronic—for example, people living with diabetes already have a disease that is going to accelerate things like cardiovascular disease. If people are smoking on top of that, it will accelerate those things still further.

Although outdoor smoking is less in terms of passive smoking than indoor smoking, in most situations if you are close to someone, exposed for a long period or vulnerable, it can have very significant health impacts. In broad terms, if you can smell smoke, you are being exposed to significant amounts of smoke, and that is one of the things that the Bill is aiming to address.

I would like to make one additional point: the cigarette industry has been extraordinarily good at trying to pretend that to be pro-smoking is to be pro-choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smoking is highly addictive. Most smokers wish they had never started and want to quit, but they are trapped by addiction. Their choice has been taken away deliberately by these companies as part of their policy. And if you are talking about second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors, the person downwind or next door has no choice at all at any point. They are exposed to the risks with no advantages at all. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. Frank, do you want to add to that?

Sir Francis Atherton: The only thing I would add is that there is no safe level of smoking. As Chris says, if you smell it, you are breathing it in, and there is no safe level. Obviously, indoors is worse than outdoors. The dose response is a big issue, but there is no safe level. I think that is a really important point.

[Sarah Bool]

Q You mentioned that 88% of the population do not smoke, and the numbers are now declining. Can I ask why you supported a generational ban as opposed to raising the age from 18 to 21 or even 25? It is predominantly younger people whom we want to stop smoking.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I might ask Michael to come in. I can have the first go and Michael might want to come in after that, because this is a critical point. Historically, the cigarette industry, despite what it claims, has always targeted children. It always deplores it in public, but if you look at its internal documents you discover that that is what it has been aiming to do. Most people, the great majority, start as teenagers before they are 20—you are, of course, correct. To refer back to Dr Johnson’s original question, the same thing is now being done with vaping and exactly the same playbook is being followed. You get people at their most vulnerable and you addict them. That is the aim.

However, were we to stop at, let us say, 21, the cigarette industry, which is extraordinarily good at regrouping around whatever regulations are in place, would simply regroup around 21. To go back to my very first point about addiction, if you are a 21-year-old and you start, you become addicted and then you wish you had stopped. That does not change the fact that your choice has been taken away. So the logic of saying 21, 25 or 30—various people have looked at various ages—is no better than the logic of the current situation.

The advantage of the current model, which was first put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Mr Sunak, to whom we should all pay great tribute on the basics of the Bill, was to ensure that current children are not addicted and do not have their choice taken away, but that rights are not taken away from existing smokers. That is the reason why this particular model was chosen. Michael, do you want to add to that? You are on mute.

[The Chair]

We cannot hear; we will come back to you in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cooper]

Q Thank you so much to our witnesses for being here. I just want to take you back to a conversation you were having with a previous questioner about smoking cessation in hospitals. Could you give us your thoughts about vaping being available in hospitals, to allow people in hospitals who are quitting smoking, or who want to continue quitting, to continue vaping? Our CMOs talked about a smoke-free place being a vape-free place. What are your thoughts about vaping in hospitals—where it is a smoke-free place—and about access to vapes?

Suzanne Cass: In Wales, we have obviously implemented smoke-free legislation. We have seven different health boards and various approaches to that legislation when it comes to the implementation alongside vaping. When it comes to indoor spaces, there is already a huge amount of compliance with voluntary bans. People generally do not smoke in indoor spaces, so there is already that public consensus in those areas. When it comes to the outdoor spaces, there is not necessarily a consistent approach across Wales regarding smoking and vaping, which can cause confusion among the public.

I think that we need to be considering this very carefully, in terms of providing as much support to smokers as possible in these areas. We need to be considering exemptions to vape-free spaces, particularly in smoke-free spaces in hospital settings, mental health units and places where vulnerable patients who smoke are situated. That would be the message: we need to really consider those exemptions.

Sheila Duffy: In Scotland, we put medicinally therapeutic products front and centre with smoking cessation. Smoking cessation is vital, but we need to remember that there is no medicinally licensed e-cigarette product anywhere in the world, and that medicinally licensed products have a very different set-up. With e-cigarettes, you are talking about more than 30,000 different variants listed with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and four or five generations of devices, with very different health profiles.

Most of the comparisons are made with the toxins in tobacco, but there are different additional toxins in e-cigarettes, and there is new research—for example, AI modelling—on the impacts of heating some of the chemicals in e-cigarettes to vapour point, where they produce highly toxic outcomes. We need to bear that in mind. We also need to look at the research on air quality, because e-cigarettes conclusively contain the kind of particulates that we worry about for air quality and that cause harm to health. I think that that is an issue arguing for vape-free spaces.

In Scotland, we are supporting people to quit smoking in whatever way works for them—we are supporting individuals—but we are actively recommending only medicinally licensed products, because they have that context of appropriate use, safety and quality control, which e-cigarettes do not have.

[Sarah Bool]

Q I want to follow up on that point, because clause 12 of the Bill will actually include a ban on vending machines for vaping, but I know that there have been mental health trusts that have said that, actually, they would call for those to be exempted. Is that one of the exemptions that you would perhaps go for, and actually allow those vending machines in hospitals?

Suzanne Cass: Absolutely. I think we need to consider the vulnerable smoker at the heart of this and how they are managing to abstain from that addiction. It comes back to that addiction all the time. With smoking, nicotine is such an addictive substance that it is very difficult just to tell somebody that they cannot do it. You need to give them the right support, as well as the support that they want. When it comes to choice, that is where we need to be looking at what their choices are and how they choose to move away from that deadly tobacco use.

Hazel Cheeseman: On the mental health settings, we have done a lot of work in England with mental health trusts, and vending machines have been one way in which they have been facilitating access to vapes in quite a large number of mental health trusts. It is certainly something that we would be interested in looking at, because it will make it a bit more challenging for them to implement smoke-free policies in mental health settings if the vending machine rule applies across the NHS estate.

Also, going back to Dr Cooper’s question, in mental health settings and those places with vulnerable smokers, vapes have been really important in England in facilitating. We do not have legislation in relation to smoke-free grounds in England, but obviously it is the policy across the NHS estate that they are smoke free. Allowing vaping, particularly in those mental health settings, has been very facilitative of creating smoke-free grounds and supporting those people to maintain their smoke- free status as they move out of mental health settings as well.

Sheila Duffy: Scotland already has a ban on e-cigarettes in vending machines and has had for some years.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q I notice in your submission that you have a recommendation:

“The government should make good on their pledge to publish a ‘roadmap to a smokefree country’…with a strong focus on tackling inequalities.”

I am from the north-east region, where we have high deprivation and high smoking prevalence. It is the only region that has a clear vision—if you like—and declaration from Fresh and the directors of public health for how to achieve a smoke-free country. Could you explain a bit more why we need that vision and that strategy going forward?

Hazel Cheeseman: The legislation is fantastic; it is world-leading and brilliant, and it will really set us on that path toward being a smoke-free country. However, it will not be the last word in how that is achieved. We have 6 million smokers across this country, and we need to ensure that all of our agencies are lined up to do the job that they need to do to help those people stop smoking—the NHS, local government and integrated care boards across the system need to have the right approach. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to do that too. The Government have committed to the funding in stop-smoking services in local government, but we also need to see funding in mass media campaigns. The chief medical officer was talking earlier about people’s waning understanding of the harms of second-hand smoke. One way to address that would be to go back on TV and radio and explain to people what the harms of second-hand smoke are. That package of measures alongside this legislation would really help us to accelerate progress.

The Bill will massively raise the saliency of the harms of smoking with the public—there is no doubt about that. There has been, and there will continue to be, a strong public debate on the measures in this Bill. By really riding the wave of that public understanding through that coherent strategy and that investment, we could really see smoking rates start to drop, particularly in those disadvantaged populations where we continue to have persistently high levels of smoking.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q Finally from me, in the previous iteration of this Bill, the fixed penalty notices were to be set at £100. There was criticism and concern from trading standards representatives, who advocated for increasing the value of the fixed penalty notice. Notwithstanding your answer to the shadow Minister’s question, do you think that doubling the fixed penalty notice to £200 strikes a better balance?

Lord Michael Bichard: Yes, I think we feel that. You might also consider an increase for second offenders before you move to prosecution. I do not think anyone wants to move to prosecution, because it is such a time-intensive process. I know we have limited time, but one thing we have not talked about is retailers. We also ought to be concerned about the online market—or rather, you should be concerned, as we are. It is a difficulty for us and for local authorities, because no single local authority thinks it should be responsible for enforcing legislation in an online marketplace.

We have a solution to that, which is that we have a lead authority that we think could deal with this and avoid the problem with individual local authorities. I think that will become an increasingly important element of the vape marketplace.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Q To build on a point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made a moment ago, the Scottish Grocers’ Federation has indicated in some of the information it sent to us that, in its latest crime report, the most prevalent cause of threatening behaviour in stores is the refusal of sale and asking for proof of age. I am concerned about that rise in retail crime and what more can be done. I know that the education piece is needed, but is any thought being given to how we can further prevent some of these problems?

Lord Michael Bichard: It seems to me that it is now such a part of life that it is not as big a problem as it was; I think it is a problem that will diminish.

Wendy Martin: Certainly the retail violence is of concern and has been well publicised. It is clearly a policing issue rather than a trading standards issue. I guess it needs activity to make sure that everyone understands what is being done and why it is being done, and to make sure that there is a policing response, if possible, where there are issues. I know that local authorities work through community safety partnerships and things like that in local areas if there are particular incidents. Again, it is not specifically a trading standards response, but local authorities and local police forces will work together to do their best to address these things, because nobody wants anyone to be threatened with violence.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Q Thinking specifically about vapes, do you feel that this Bill goes far enough in providing tougher regulations and more resources for enforcement, while balancing the burden on businesses that probably have not had this level of regulation?

Lord Michael Bichard: We think it does. You have to look at the package, because you do not just have age regulation or display and promotion regulation; you also have the proposal for licensing—which, by the way, we do not see trading standards being equipped to do; that is a local authority business and, as a former local authority man, I would have to say “with the resources”, because there is always a danger that you give local authorities more power but you do not give them the money.

You have regulation, you have licensing and you have registration of products. If you put all that together, I think it is quite a powerful package, but it does need to be backed up with the resources, because it is delivering it that really matters. We are all used to legislation that sounds great and never gets delivered.

Wendy Martin: I agree; we think the balance is there, hopefully with good communication to businesses. Again, in a similar way, this is not going to be entirely new territory—certainly for those businesses that are already involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco in particular—in understanding where to go for support and the kind of controls that are in place. Certainly, if the changes are made to the product registration scheme, which should then make it more effective for businesses to be able to check that a product they are stocking is legal and compliant—if the package is right, as Michael said—it should not be too complex for businesses to comply with it.