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 (Tenth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister is considering the regulations under clause 90, he needs to consider not just what the packaging would look like in a real-world shop, but how he can ensure that the same product will not simply be available online in the original packaging?

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and valid point. I would like the Minister to address how we are going to tackle the issue online. If someone cannot go into a physical shop, going online is the next alternative, and we want to ensure that we protect our young ones as much as possible.

I want to highlight one other point from Cancer Research. It said that it is also important that the legislation future-proofs against the use of bright coloured lights or similar displays that could appeal to young people. Again, we need to be careful of that. As has been said, manufacturers are often very good at finding their way around these regulations, so we do not want to make the products attractive in another vein.

My second point focuses on clause 90(3)(b), which says that provisions may be made about

“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.

We had some evidence submitted from the North East Public Protection Partnership, which is a regional partner-ship that brings together chief officers of 12 local authorities in the north-east, representing environmental health, trading standards and licensing services. The partner- ship is in support of the measure, but believes that certain requirements should be put on packaging itself—it thinks that inserts in the packaging should be regulated. I have learnt, as I have not come across them often before, that inserts are used internationally, in Canada and Israel. They are proven to encourage people to give up smoking when they are placed inside the packaging. They usually contain positive messages to encourage people to quit—for example, by going into detail about improved breathing within a matter of days of quitting or the 50% reduction in the risk of heart attacks within a year, or by detailing how much money a smoker is likely to save.

The North East Public Protection Partnership believes that there should be specific regulations around the inserts and the packaging, setting out the type and size of font, the colour, the layout, and dimensions. It thinks that the specific information to use on packaging should be defined and that the information provided on where to seek more help to quit should also be included. It also says it is essential to set a date for suppliers for when packaging must appear on the UK market and that the penalties on manufacturers for non-compliance should be set out.

The partnership also said:

“The Government will need to liaise with Trading Standards in order to ensure that the appropriate offence, or offences, are included in regulations on pack inserts. We would recommend an offence is included which relates to the sale or supply of a tobacco product without the correct insert, so that Trading Standards can take enforcement action against the person selling. An example of this includes the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 where there is an offence to produce as well as supply product in breach of regulations.”

Finally, it adds:

“Health messaging should be on the outside of all tobacco, nicotine and vape products.”

My final question to the Minister is: have he and his Department turned their mind to inserts, what they might contain, and the role they could play in future?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We have had a good debate on clause 90—that is all we are up to.

To answer why this is an issue, unlike standardised cigarette packaging, vape packaging can—as we have already heard—come in many different colours, styles, and shapes. The previous call for evidence that the shadow Minister referred to showed that this increases the appeal of vapes to children, and it can encourage them to start vaping. That is what we want to crack down on with this clause.

A number of Members have asked why we are extending the provisions, given that tobacco packaging is already standardised. Only cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco are subject to the most stringent regulations. This includes standardised packaging, specified packet shape, amount within packs, material, colour and appearance requirements, and so on. In England, around five times more people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, than a decade ago. There has been an increase in that consumption and we are committed to addressing this, which is why we are extending the measures to other tobacco products.

In terms of requiring dissuasive messages, of course, these are things that we can look at in the future—it is not something that we are looking at now. We will be mandating pack inserts for cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco packaging, and we will be running a call for evidence on standardising the packaging of all other products. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked whether the Secretary of State or Ministers will use the powers. We are coming to Parliament with this landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as we committed to in our manifesto, precisely because we want to use these powers. We are seeking these powers. The Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Minister are seeking these powers precisely because we all want to use them to tackle the scourge of youth vaping and move our country to smokefree 2030. Our manifesto committed to stopping vapes being branded to appeal to children, and the Bill provides new regulation-making powers to make this commitment a reality.

As has been alluded to, Members have asked over the course of our deliberations why the restrictions are not on the face of the Bill. In particular, the shadow Minister has gone into the level of detail that we will go into when the regulations are brought before the House, following consultation. My answer is that the technical and detailed nature of the requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. We might need to amend the requirements in response to future developments in the market, and scientific knowledge and evidence may change, which means that we will have to react where appropriate. It might also be necessary to gather further evidence post-implementation—this is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon made about ensuring that everything is evidence-based, that the data is there and that we scrutinise it, rightly. We may well come to decide that our regulations are the wrong regulations, or that they were the right regulations three years ago, but now need to be changed. That is the why the powers in the Bill are permissive.

It is also important to gather information about the effectiveness of the packaging regulations, to see whether they have indeed discouraged youth vaping. All the evidence from other jurisdictions that do this suggests that they will; however, we need to ensure that the evidence is relevant to the United Kingdom. We will also need to keep a close eye on what happens to adult vapers, particularly those who want to stop smoking, and whether vapes remain accessible to adults who are trying to quit smoking, which is something we need to be clear about.

To be clear, the requirements for vape packaging are yet to be determined, as I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister. The proposed restrictions will be subject to consultation, to ensure that any unintended consequences on adult smoking rates are considered. Research suggests that neutral packaging can remove appeal to youth without being dissuasive to adult smokers—the point made in the information from Cancer Research UK, which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire rightly raised. Further analysis and consultation will take place before any regulations are made, because we absolutely want to get this right.

It is crucial that we do not rush into this, but have measures that are proportionate and workable, and that there are no unintended consequences. That is why there will be a transition period for businesses before any new regulations come into force, and the length of the transition will be considered as part of the consultation process. This is a balance to be struck between acting quickly to curb youth vaping and carefully considering unintended consequences on smoking rates, in order to ensure the most impactful change possible. That is why we have included a statutory duty to consult, to ensure that the relevant stakeholders are engaged, and to consider their responses and insights as regulations are developed.

Of course, we will provide more information about the timeline for our secondary regulation programme once we have Royal Assent, but let me make it clear to all members of the Committee that it is our intention to move at pace. We want to use these powers, so we want to make sure that, once the Bill becomes law, we start the process of getting the relevant regulations in place, especially for smokefree, because although many of the measures in the Bill will come into force on 1 January 2027, some regulations might be done beyond that date. We will have a lot of work to do in secondary legislation, to get the measures in the Bill—which we hope will all be approved in the course of our deliberations prior to Royal Assent—so that we can hit the ground running and get to 1 January 2027 smoke-free.

--- Later in debate ---

When the Minister looks at the regulations under clause 91 and the powers that may be given to him if it passes—as it is likely to—he should consider the effects on children in particular and standardise the shape of vaping devices. I am sure that a smoker wishing to quit will not need a vape shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants.

[Sarah Bool]

To build on that point, it is interesting that, often, one of the biggest difficulties for those who smoke and want to stop is missing the physical act of holding a cigarette. It would be interesting to see whether these regulations can take that into account and, while not being aimed at children, aim them in a way that would help people who want to move away from smoking, in terms of the physical side of it. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is right: if a smoker is trying to quit cigarettes, why would a device shaped like a highlighter pen be needed or desirable? I can see why that is desirable to children, as I have said, but why would it be desirable to an adult?

Perhaps the Minister is choosing, on balance, to protect children from vapes that they may be able to easily conceal from parents, caregivers and teachers. He may have come across industry suggestions that regulating vape appearance would reduce the appeal of vapes to adult smokers, but I am not sure that is true. In fact, even if there is evidence that it is true, I suspect that the majority of adult smokers will be so keen to protect their children from taking up the habit of being addicted to nicotine—that those smokers have fought so hard to quit themselves—that they would be only too happy to have a standard-shaped vape to ensure that children are not brought into nicotine addiction. Subsection (1)(e) allows the shape to be regulated, and paragraphs (d) and (f) allow the size and other features to be regulated.

The Government have sought to look at the impact of this policy. The mod or tank devices are often wrapped in more neutral packaging. Vape liquids and disposable vapes are regularly sold and marketed with brightly coloured designs, as we have said. In fact, it is not uncommon to see them displayed as a rainbow. Again, I think that is designed for children. The cartoons and flavours—we will come to flavours later, so I will not talk about them now—increase children’s intention to try different vaping products.

In their impact assessment, the previous Government consulted on options that could be implemented using the powers conferred by this clause. Option one was to do nothing. That would have meant that there would continue to be no regulations on the product presentation of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes, which would essentially be a rejection of clause 91. Option two prohibited the use of cartoons, characters, animals, inanimate objects and other child-friendly imagery, including on the vape device, but still allowed colouring and tailored brand designs—35.8% of respondents were in support of that option. Option three prohibited the use of all imagery and colouring on both the vape packaging and the device, still allowing for branding such as logos and names —18.2% of respondents were in support of that option.

The previous Government also consulted on the more stringent option four, which prohibited the use of all imagery, colouring and branding for both the vape packaging and the vape device. That option was somewhat equivalent to the standardised packaging rules on tobacco, and 46.1% of respondents were in support of it, showing that the general public, as consulted by the previous Government on the powers in relation to vape appearances, favour the more stringent regulatory option, which would be open to the Minister should clause 91 go through. When I began my campaign to tackle vaping, I found a number of examples of products shaped in bright, child-friendly cases, some even with cartoon characters.

We know that product presentation, as in clause 91, must be considered separately from the packaging, as we considered previously in the debate on clause 90, because for many vaping products, the small, smooth, colourful cases the vape is enclosed in is part of the attraction for children and for non-smokers.

Paragraph 1101 of the impact assessment states:

“According to ONS data on adult vaping prevalence in Great Britain, 31.6% of adults that currently vape are also current smokers, and 18.7% are ex-smokers. The exact impact on the number of smokers not quitting and ex-smokers relapsing as a result of regulating would depend on what vape packaging and product presentation was regulated.”

It is clear that the difference will depend on which step someone takes, but it is also clear that option 4, which is a more stringent approach to the regulations on offer in clause 91, would be preferable. Action on Smoking and Health provided some evidence to the Committee on how vapes are branded and promoted in shops. It talked about limiting their display, as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire earlier.

I now turn to tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as mentioned in the impact assessment. Although the vaping regulation is much newer than the tobacco regulation, the powers in clause 91 offer the Minister an opportunity to regulate tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers further than he has done. Section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 already enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on features of tobacco products across the UK. Clause 91 will widen this power so that tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are all within the scope of regulations.

On herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and tobacco-related devices, a simple internet search brings up sites, such as Etsy, advertising papers and rolling trays with cartoon characters. One can get a Hello Kitty grinder. In fact, it is not just a picture of Hello Kitty but a picture in which Hello Kitty appears to be vaping. There are rolling trays with pictures of Princess Jasmine, Cinderella and Snow White. Again, those characters are smoking in the picture—I am sure they are not from any Disney production; I certainly do not recognise them from any of the Disney productions I have watched.

Apart from copyright issues, such images are a clear ploy to entice younger audiences. One questions the legitimacy of the plastering of those brands on the products. Have they given their permission for these images? I very much doubt Disney has given permission for its cartoon characters, such as the Disney princesses designed for younger children, to be used in pictures of smoking or vaping.

[Sarah Bool]

Etsy is a very good company; it enables small businesses to sell their products, which is admirable and laudable, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely inappropriate for images of Disney characters to be changed. Sometimes the changes involve putting glasses on them, which is good as that makes young children feel that they are not isolated if they look slightly different. However, it is outrageous to make the characters appear to be using smoking products. I hope that the powers under this regulation will prevent that from happening further.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point. Of course, Etsy is an online marketplace. We have talked already about the difficulties in regulating some of these changes in the online world and about the fact that some of the current regulations on tobacco products can be circumvented by the purchase of online products. People can circumvent regulations on things such as snus by buying them online from overseas. When the Minister brings forward regulations under clause 91, how will he ensure that they are applied and enforced in both the offline and online world, which is so crucial these days, particularly for younger people?

Cancer Research UK provided evidence relating to the change of packets and products. It said it would respond to the consultation. The British Medical Association also provided written evidence. I declare an interest: as well as being a consultant paediatrician, I am a member of the British Medical Association. In relation to clauses 90 and 91, it suggested

“All imagery, colouring and branding should be prohibited”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which she has already made during her interventions on this clause. It is vital to understand what is in the chemical make-up of the different flavours when the Minister is making those decisions.

That brings me neatly on to my next point, which is about the flavours themselves. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister have raised unicorn milk, tutti-frutti and bubble gum flavours and all those kinds of things. I suggest to the Minister that it is less the flavour itself that appeals to children—as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, I do not know what unicorn milk tastes like, and I doubt any child does either—but that the phraseology “unicorn milk” sounds exciting and appealing to a child, whereas orange or banana may be less exciting.

When the Minister looks at this issue, I suggest that he looks not necessarily to ban a flavour, but to ban the naming and descriptions of those flavours, which are clearly appealing to children. If someone is looking to stop smoking and is using a vape to do so, it is not unreasonable that they should know whether what they are buying is orange, blackberry or strawberry-flavoured, whereas the terminology being used, which we have discussed in this debate already, appeals to children.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I obviously agree with the Government’s intention to target specific flavours that appeal to young people to preserve harm reduction, but we need to monitor and assess the impact of that regulation over time. When the Minister winds up the debate on the clause, will he give some indication of how that analysis and the impact assessment of the bans on specific flavours has impacted on smoking cessation, hopefully stopping children being dragged into vaping?

[Sarah Bool]

I want to build on the points my hon. Friends have made. As we have said, clause 92 relates to the flavouring of vapes. In the future, we will have to be incredibly agile in regulating in this area. It clearly needs further investigation, because different bodies are all disagreeing on whether we should limit the number of vapes, the flavours or the range and on what is going on. In the written evidence provided to Members, Cancer Research UK, which the shadow Minister mentioned, made some interesting observations, which I will put on record. It says that:

“Current evidence seems to suggest that e-cigarette flavours influence vaping initiation in both young people and adults who smoke. We know that the range of flavours of e-cigarettes are a large part of the appeal for both young people and adults. When taking action on e-cigarette flavours, a balance needs to be struck between dissuading uptake in young people and maintaining an appeal to those who use vapes to quit smoking, so they are not deterred from transitioning away from tobacco”.

I think we all agree with that. It further goes on to say:

“Although we believe there is currently insufficient evidence to justify banning specific e-liquid flavours, as the evidence base related to the role of flavours in youth and adult vaping increases, powers to regulate flavours will be an important lever for Government to use to reduce youth vaping.”

It then says:

“It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes…this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described”—

which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made—

“rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.”

If we go on the basis that, actually, we should limit the way the flavours are described, perhaps one day we will know what unicorn milk actually tastes like.

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

It is interesting that the hon. Lady points to that evidence, because I have actually been considering it myself, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with some of the ways that Cancer Research UK phrased it. On the point that the hon. Lady has just read out—which, for the record, is paragraph 40 of written evidence TVB18 —does she agree that it does not have to be an either/or and that it could be both?

Ultimately, what I think we are particularly focused on here—setting aside the cessation point with respect to adults—is the attractiveness and the clear advertisement from tobacco companies to children, with these flavours that have absolutely no relevance to adults. Although mint, menthol and fruit may be helpful cessation tools, flavours such as bubble gum are clearly aimed at children, and that is absolutely what we need to stamp out.

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. I think the hon. Member makes a valid point. It is part of the bigger discussion that we have to have, with the ability to be a bit more agile in how we actually decide, because I do not want us to take the wrong approach and have unintended consequences.

Again, that goes to another point that the shadow Minister raised, about what flavours are potentially harmful in themselves. The hon. Member for Cardiff West is right and I take his point about flavours such as bubble gum entirely, but apparently even cinnamon, vanilla and butter are toxic. They are fine for us to eat —butter in moderation, of course—but inhaling them is a different matter. I think it will be very interesting to see what combinations are used and what the impact is, because, apparently, if certain flavours and chemicals are combined, that can actually be even more toxic than before. That is something that the regulations, and some of the research, will have to look into for us.

Interestingly, the Royal College of Physicians also gave its view on this topic in the written evidence. That was along similar lines but slightly different. It says:

“While we know flavours can attract young people to vaping, the use of flavours by adults trying to quit smoking is an integral part of the effectiveness of vaping as a quit aid. We know that many adult smokers report wanting to move away from the taste of tobacco. Other nicotine replacement therapy…products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours. The RCP supports limiting the number of flavours available and recommends restricting flavour descriptors. Bland descriptors, alongside limiting the number of flavours and removing those most popular with young people non-smokers from vaping without the unintended consequences of perpetuating smoking for adults.”

I agree with the points that have been made, but I think that we have to be careful about how we decide which flavours are used and their range. I take the point that we often want to move people away from tobacco, because a tobacco-flavoured vape is not pleasant, or so I am told, but my concern is that, if someone do not necessarily have a tobacco-flavoured vape, then with something as nice as peach and mango—which a vaper I know really likes—people will actually vape more than they ever smoked because it is tastier for them. I think we will really have to look into that as well.

I would also like some further clarity from the Minister on clause 92(3) and the clause what regulations the Department is currently thinking about, particularly when it comes to the imports of any of these vaping products.

Finally, subsection (4) that that there will be

“provision for a determination to be made by a person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State”

to make the decision on the flavours. Who is in mind to be given those powers? A bit more clarity on that would be much appreciated.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Let me start with the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on the need for agility. I have argued in respect to a number of clauses that we have to be agile. That is why the Bill is permissive in nature. It grants powers to Ministers to consult and bring forward secondary legislation at further stages. It also allows Ministers to amend the regulations, if set, or to introduce new ones if not at a future date, without having to go back through the primary legislation processes, to make the Bill always fit for purpose and for the future.

That is the case in clause 92. As I said in opening, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit smoking. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, the scope and impact of any future restrictions will have to be carefully considered by Parliament, following consultation, in secondary legislation. We will consult further on any regulations on flavours before they are laid in Parliament. This is really important—I can assure Members that we are not saying here and now what the changes are likely to be. We want them to be considered based on the evidence and consultation, because we want to get the balance right between preventing youth vaping and not having the unintended consequence of pushing people away from vapes as a smoking cessation tool, thereby missing our ambition for Smokefree 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The clause deals with non-compliant images, and subsection (1) grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. There is a theme here—the Secretary of State is gaining a lot of powers to make regulations, but it is not clear to what extent he will use them. We could end up with a very effective piece of legislation or not, depending on how effectively these clauses are used.

The clause states:

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from doing the following in the course of business—

(a) publishing an image of the retail packaging of a relevant product”

—that includes tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarettes, vapes and nicotine products—

“from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 90 have not been complied with;”.

Essentially, this is a packet that does not follow the rules. The clause continues:

“(b) publishing an image of a relevant product from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 91 have not been complied with;”.

That might be publishing a picture of a vape shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants—assuming that the Minister decides that that is not a suitable form for a vape to take—or

“causing the publication of an image of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).”

Subsection (3) states:

“Regulations…are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

The explanatory notes set out that the clause means that an online retailer would not be able to display images of non-compliant products. As we discussed earlier, it is important that we ensure that online retailers are subject to the same regulations as in-person retailers about what they can and cannot sell. Otherwise, the rule will be ineffective, because people will still access these things by simply moving online to buy them, rather than buying them in stores. From my perspective, that is welcome.

I will make a couple of other points. Although the clause authorises the Secretary of State to regulate non-compliant images, it leaves the process of enforcement somewhat open-ended. There may be inconsistencies in how regulations are applied or enforced across different sectors or different regions, especially as the clause refers broadly to various product categories.

More widely, I would be interested to know how the clause might relate to clothing. The clothing brand MCS, formerly known as Marlboro Classics, made extensive use of Marlboro branding, employing the iconic lettering and colouring on its clothes. I understand that MCS has since distanced itself from its roots and rebranded under a new parent company. Many of its older clothes can still be found in vintage clothes shops. Many of them display tobacco product branding, as might old football or Formula One merchandise from the times when those sports received sponsorship from tobacco firms. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how such products might be affected by the regulations.

Finally, does the Minister intend the regulations to confer an exemption on law enforcement officers who may wish to produce such images to demonstrate and educate retailers about what sort of images they may or may not be allowed to publish?

[Sarah Bool]

Thinking about the more modern age, I want to explore how the clause would apply to social media and television.

The clause states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from…publishing an image of the retail packaging”

and from

“publishing an image of a relevant product”.

There is not really a definition of image. My first question is this: does the clause apply to moving images, such as those on television?

I almost cannot believe that I am saying this in the House of Commons, but the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special was very popular and contained a scene where a main character, Nessa, was smoking and vaping simultaneously. I wondered about the wider implication for the arts. How will it work in practice when we are trying to prohibit things? How will the BBC deal with it—perhaps it will come under licensing—and how will other media outlets deal with it?

I have a further point about younger children and young adults, given that we are in the social media age. The clause will

“prohibit a person from doing”

certain things

“in the course of business”.

On Instagram, there are influencers. Obviously, their work is monetised; they will be paid for promoting products, or just for general clicks and likes. I wonder how the provisions will work in practice for social media, if they apply to videos as well. A very popular trend is videos in which people unwrap products with the sound up, for the ASMR—autonomous sensory meridian response—qualities. Basically, the sounds of unwrapping can be very relaxing for followers to listen to. Such videos are incredibly popular, and there are thousands of them. I wonder how the measures will impact them. If influencers are making videos for that purpose, will they be caught by the clause? If so, how will we prohibit such activity, especially on social media?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The hon. Member is talking about publishing. Is she not talking about the second definition of it in law—to communicate to a third party? Is that not what we are referring to, as opposed to print or social media?

[Sarah Bool]

I was going to ask that as well, because around the concept of publishing there is a big debate about social media—is X a publishing platform or a form of conversation? There is no definition that I can see of what publish means, nor a specific definition of what image means. I am trying to work it through and find out whether there are loopholes, and how they will play out in the modern age. I want to make sure the provisions are at their most effective. I can understand that if an influencer posts a picture, they have to make sure it complies with the rules, but how does that apply in the wider context? Perhaps I am over-examining, but I can imagine where this could go, and some clarity around from the Minister that would be interesting.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Can I ask a question?

--- Later in debate ---

I am a politician, so nobody is going to listen to me if I wag my finger and say, “Don’t vape. Don’t smoke,” but as a dad and a grandad, I will just say this: smoking is not sexy. It gives you bad breath, turns your fingernails yellow and gives you a horrible cough. It is not a good thing. It is not a good look. It is not sexy—actually, that is the line that LADbible went with. We have to start challenging this pervasive imagery on certain parts of social media.

[Sarah Bool]

The Minister is making a powerful point. I was concerned about the idea that an influencer might be able to publish an image of a retail packet that is not compliant. At the moment, there are no restrictions, especially if they are abroad. Obviously, some of the influencers with the biggest followings are outside the UK, and I am therefore not sure how we ensure compliance, other than by doing what X does with community notes that pop up. I think there will have to be a discussion with Instagram and some of the other companies, because they are making money out of it. Indirectly, I think the Bill does catch this issue, but I thank the Minister for his clarity.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Again, that is the beauty of the permissive nature of this Bill. Where loopholes are being exploited, Ministers will be able to come back to Parliament with a simple piece of secondary legislation, through a Delegated Legislation Committee. The shadow Minister said that secondary legislation does not quite get the scrutiny of a Bill, but it does get up to 90 minutes —I am sure she would find it easy enough to fill that. There is therefore scrutiny of secondary legislation.

We are very aware of this issue, which is why I have signed off the anti-youth vaping campaign on TikTok, which will hopefully be going out fairly soon.

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 (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 (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 (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 (Fourth sitting)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the next speaker, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant, we do not use the second person in debates—that is, “you”—because when you talk about “you”, you are talking about me. I respectfully ask people to bear that in mind and use another person—maybe the third person.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Speaking specifically about amendments 17 and 18 and the age restriction of 25, I understand the arguments that have been made: Government policies often offer entitlement to one age, but not to another. For example, people have cited the state pension, which you will not get at 55, but you will after you hit 66. I would argue that those are one-off burdens of proof, because once you are 66, you will automatically—

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry, I do not want to have to push this, but when you talk about “you”, you are addressing the Chair. This is not about me, so please, for the purposes of our protocols, will people remember that? Thank you.

[Sarah Bool]

Once one has turned 66, that person does not have to confirm their age each and every couple of days or necessarily carry ID to claim their state pension—it is noted on the record, and that is that. Here, potentially, however, if we have an outright ban from 1 January 2009, whenever someone tries to buy a cigarette, after 2034 retailers will have to ask on every single occasion how old they are, for fear of a fine.

I agree that we already have the age 25 verification, but it is safe to assume that people reach an age when they do not have to prove it. I find it incredibly flattering when I do get IDed, but we all reach a point when we do not need it. In the Bill, however, we do. It might seem to be a quick check—one simply looks at the date of 1 January 2009—but we can foresee that being troublesome for retailers. Also, we very much have to bear in mind the issue of the abuse of staff and, as British retailers have mentioned, the increased financial and administrative burden, in particular for smaller shops, which is often where vapes and tobacco are sold. That will have a big impact on their businesses.

Indirectly, a potential effect is the introduction of legal inequalities and giving sanction to age discrimination by creating a create a class of under-aged adults. Furthermore, a point I would like to stress is that, as a lawyer, one of my main concerns is enforceability. I do not disagree with the principle of the next generation being smoke-free—I think that is admirable and important—but I want to ensure that we pass a piece of legislation that will work in practice. We have to think about how this will work in due course, even if in 10 years’ time. That is something I wanted to put on the record.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today.

These Liberal Democrat-tabled amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. The amendments also seek to change the age-of-sale notices to align with the change in the age of sale, which is why there are so many consequential amendments.

This group of amendments also includes amendments 29 and 30, which cover proxy sale of tobacco products in Scotland. To save time, I assure the Committee that, instead of now, I will discuss those particular issues during the clause 2 debate, which I hope will begin shortly, as that relates directly to the points in that group on proxy sales, rather than to age of sale.

As we heard from our expert witnesses during oral evidence, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, of disability and of ill health: it claims about 80,000 deaths a year across the United Kingdom; it causes one in four of all cancer deaths and it kills, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, two thirds of its long-term users. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that there is no liberty whatever in addiction. We seek to ensure that the next generation is never addicted to tobacco products in the way that the current generation and previous generations have been. That is the real freedom here: the freedom not to be addicted to a product that, frankly, would not be allowed were it invented today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to go back to the evidence. One of the things we were told in the evidence provided by National Trading Standards and the Local Government Association, particularly on Tuesday, was that they want discretion, but also that they want first-time offenders to be treated more leniently. That was a clear ask from our witness, who explained that educating or warning first-time offenders was a better option than fining them.

Each of the amendments that I have tabled seeks to make available a police caution that will not count on a criminal record and so means the person will not be criminalised, unlike someone’s being taken to court and given a fine. The amendments would add in a lower level, as well as reduce the overall top fine. What I am trying to get from the Minister before Report is an understanding of whom he is trying to fine and proportionality in the amount of the fine. We need guidance on that issue, so that we can fully understand how a Saturday shop worker will be treated if they inadvertently sold some tobacco to somebody in a first offence versus how a shopkeeper and licence holder will be treated if they repeatedly commit such offences. I want some guidance from the Minister on that.

[Sarah Bool]

To build on that point, it is also important that we have clarity from a legal and enforcement perspective. The person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine “not exceeding” a certain level. I take the point about what trading standards may do in practice, but if the practice changes and they decide to always go for the upper level, there is nothing in the law that allows for a cautionary approach and another level. The amendment provides a benchmark and a safety catch, so that there is slightly different treatment. It would ensure that those who the Bill intends to punish are punished. From an enforcement perspective, it is a sensible amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to get some indication in legislation that there are different groups of people: those who commit this offence inadvertently on a one-off basis and those who do so repeatedly and deliberately. Different individuals or corporations need different treatment. I hope that the Minister, when wrapping up this set of amendments, will let the Committee know whether the guidance on this sort of sentencing has been produced yet, as it was before the previous Bill Committee debated the subject. If it has not, can he give some indication of when it will be produced and, in particular, whether it will be produced before Report? That will be really helpful.

In relation to the fines, I also want to discuss the principle of proportionality. Tobacco is a harmful, age-restricted product, but it is far from the only product subject to restrictions. When I looked into this, I found there are many more age-restricted products than I thought, and it was difficult to find out what the penalties were for selling them, inadvertently or deliberately, to someone below the age threshold. Selling a lottery product, including scratch cards, to someone under 18 is against the law. The penalty for doing that is more severe than for selling tobacco. I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of these wrong. I looked at various council, trading standards and Government websites to find this information, but some of those websites, despite being official or council-based, are out of date. I have done my best, and I will be grateful for any correction the Minister can provide.

The penalties I was able to find were an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison. It is also illegal to pay out the prize to someone under 18, so one could argue that buying a ticket in the first place is somewhat futile. This is generally enforced by the lottery operator itself. Underage sales can also lead to termination of contract and removal of the lottery terminal. Not included in the penalties, which the Minister may want to speak about on amendment 57, is a penalty to the licence holder in terms of his or her licence, but we might come to that later.

Butane or lighter fluid are also age-restricted, and selling them to an under-18 carries an unlimited fine or six months in prison. These are more severe penalties than for the tobacco offence. Fireworks have different age restrictions based on their category: for some the threshold is 18, but crackers, which have a small spark in them, have an age restriction of 12, which I did not know. I could have inadvertently breached that had I worked in a shop that sold such things.

Films in the cinema have age restrictions. When I was younger, I used to think that the higher restrictions meant that the film was cool, and therefore movie producers wanted to get the highest rating possible to make the film seem as cool as possible. Fortunately, I have gained a little bit more understanding since then. There is an unlimited fine for the cinema offence but, again, this is not a fine on the individual who sells the cinema ticket; it is a fine on the cinema itself as a business. That is why who pays these fines is important. There can also be six months’ imprisonment for the person running the cinema.

Alcohol is another example of an age-restricted product where there are fines and penalties. Selling alcohol to someone under 18 can lead to an on-the-spot fine of £90, a criminal caution, or formal prosecution with an unlimited fine. With alcohol, there is a different approach for offending persistently. If someone persistently sells alcohol to under-18s, they can be given an immediate closure order for their shop of up to 14 days or an unlimited fine. Also, shops need a licence to sell alcohol. Petrol or diesel from a petrol station cannot be sold to anyone under 16. That risk is mitigated using the licencing process, and again, there is a penalty of an unlimited fine and up to 12 months in prison. Selling a blade or a knife to someone under the age of 18 is illegal and carries an unlimited fine and up to six months in prison, as is the case for solvents too.

A challenge with the fines for the different age-restricted products is that they vary from product to product without a clear explanation necessarily being given. It is also worth considering the age of the customer, because this is not a law that applies to children. Most of these other examples I described are there to protect children. As a society, we have a job to protect children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the Minister’s point. However, my point was that even in a world where things are illegal, we do have aggravating and mitigating circumstances in law. I suggest that, particularly as the rolling generations get older, selling to a child becomes an aggravating offence. I ask the Government to consider that.

[Sarah Bool]

Obviously, if someone is liable for a conviction or a fine, the defence is that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission. Given that in this instance we are talking about perhaps a fleeting look at a passport or something, will companies or shops now actually have to take scans or register that they have seen it?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suggest, so that I do not try the patience of the Chair, that we discuss that when we get to clause 1 stand part, because it speaks to the substance of the clause rather than the substance of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is shaking his head. So what is a reasonable step? Unless one is to ask everyone for ID, the first step will be to decide whether to ask the customer in front of them for ID. That step will be, in essence, that shopkeeper or shop worker assess the person’s age.

Research shows that people are usually off by about eight years in their estimates of people’s ages by face alone. In fact, some research shows that if groups of people are shown a face, and the face that they are shown immediately before was a younger face, they will pick a younger age for that second person. If they are first shown an older face, they will pick an older age for that same person. That suggests that who the customer came in with, or who the previous customer was, may have an effect.

At the moment, we are asked to conduct a Challenge 25 check on a customer, but is it as easy to check the age of a 40 or 41-year-old as it is to check the age of someone under 25, or to tell whether someone is young or relatively young? The evidence seems to suggest that people who are close to 25 are quite good at telling whether people are under or over 25, and people who are close to 41 are apparently better at telling whether people are 40 or 41. It depends on age, and there is also an effect of sex and ethnicity.

Given that the Minister rejects new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham on a policy on checking ID, he does not want people to have a policy on when to check, he does not want people to check everybody and he just indicated that he does not want people to rely on what they think based on looking at people, what reasonable steps would he expect to take place? The Government need to provide further guidance on that.

In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment for a nicotine-free generation. She made the point that we have a rolling age of tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, so why not have one for all nicotine products? We know that nicotine is addictive and that the industry will evolve to try to get people hooked to a different form of nicotine product—that may be less or more harmful than tobacco, but it will still be addictive. Their choices will still be taken away, and they will still be having something that they do not want, which costs them money and potentially makes them poorer as a result. If it were to become apparent later that these items were particularly harmful, and one wished to do another rolling ban, one could end up in a situation where there is an age for sale of alcohol, fireworks and all sorts of other things, and two rolling ages with two different dates—one for tobacco, herbal products and cigarette papers, and another for vaping and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches.

Many of the amendments to the Conservative Government’s very similar Bill were included by this Government in their Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister could comment on why that particular amendment from a Government Member was not included.

[Sarah Bool]

To take a step back, I am still not satisfied that I understand, in practice, what the defence for someone to prove that they were shown ID means in practice? Perhaps that will form part of the guidance. If one is to suggest that CCTV is required, is that in the GDPR? In some circumstances, it would be quite difficult to prove. Given the seriousness of the offence and the repercussions, I just want some reassurance.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention. I, too, am not entirely clear what the Bill means by reasonable steps. We seem to have established what some reasonable steps might not be, but I am still not clear what they might be. It would be helpful if the Government elucidated that point further.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made a point about how people tell the age of somebody who is in front of them. Earlier, I explained that evidence shows that people are not very good at discerning the age of another person, particularly someone who is not in the same generational age group, or of the same ethnicity or sex.

[Sarah Bool]

Drawing on the point that my hon. Friend is making, one issue with the drafting of subsection (7) of new clause 3 is that businesses will need to have this age verification policy, but the national authority may—and it is only a “may”—publish guidance, so there is not clarity. Some form of template would be needed to make the provision effective. The intention is obviously to have a full policy in place, but the guidance could be just a piece of paper with three bullet points, and that would not meet the intention. Also, do we really need two fines in place when there is already a fine, as the Minister said, for selling? I do not think there needs to be a fine for not having a piece of paper with a policy.

[Dr Johnson]

If one is expected to have a policy, guidance on what that policy should contain is certainly important. If one is going to be held accountable for not having such a policy in law, it is clearly not sufficient to say, “You must have a policy but we are not going to tell you what it must say or do.” It comes back to the point that I have been making throughout the day. Who will face this fine? How will it be decided who the fine applies to? Will it be applied to the retailer as well as to shop workers, shop supervisors, shift supervisors or CEOs, and under what circumstances? I think there needs to be guidance on that so we have a clear pathway.

Clause 1 states that it is a defence if someone has taken “all reasonable steps”. If having a policy is not to be a reasonable step—there are arguments for why we might not want it to be, because it is an extra regulatory burden on business, and some very small businesses could struggle with that—and neither is looking at someone and making one’s own mind up, it is important to understand what is. I do not think we have got to the bottom of that yet.

My final question for the hon. Member for City of Durham, who tabled new clause 3, is: why not Northern Ireland? I think one reason why she has chosen to introduce this is because there is such a policy for Scotland, but not for England and Wales. I do not believe there is such a policy for Northern Ireland either, and I wonder why she did not seek to correct that in her new clause. It may be something that she wants to consider in refining such a new clause before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I cannot point to any evidence in statistics, but retailers welcome it. I think 90% of retailers in Scotland are in favour of it. In England, 83% of small retailers agree with it, and I am sure that is because it takes away those cloudy grey areas. It means that once someone shows their ID, that is the end of it.

On the point about this being a slippery slope towards mandatory ID cards, young people now are used to carrying ID. In fact, the Bill provides a list of different forms of ID that people can provide, including passports and driving licences. I believe the Government are talking about introducing digital ID checks for the purchase of alcohol. If this were applied to tobacco, individuals would not need to carry a physical ID with them. The measure is supported by retailers and by seven out of 10 members of the public, as well as by the Local Government Association and trading standards, which both believe it would help with enforcing the legislation and aid prosecution.

I have tabled the new clause to simplify things. This has already happened in Scotland, and it would make the Bill consistent with the Government's four-nation approach. Given the issues that we have been discussing today, having mandatory ID would make things so much easier and simpler. Just to be clear, I will not be pushing it to a vote.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to take a step back and look again at clause 1 itself. Enforceability has to be considered as an important element of achieving the smoke-free generation. As I keep stating, as a former lawyer, I want to be absolutely sure before I can give further support.

I seek assurances from the Minister on the implementation of the policy with regard to Northern Ireland, if it is truly to be a smoke-free nation. One of the provisions of EU law in the Windsor framework is the EU’s second tobacco products directive—TPD2—which applies to Northern Ireland. It lays down various requirements that must be satisfied for tobacco products and vapes to be marketed in the EU—for example, on ingredients, emission levels and packaging. Most crucially, it also states that member states, which include Northern Ireland for these purposes,

“may not...prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products which comply with this Directive.”

So a generational smoking ban may be incompatible with TPD2.

Similar plans for generational bans in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland were ditched in 2022 and 2024, respectively, because of TPD2. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Health and Social Care has any plans for this issue, and whether the Attorney General has formed a view that can be shared with us. I think we have learned over the years that it is imperative that we do not jeopardise our Northern Irish friends.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the shadow Minister for her comprehensive look at the clause, and the amendments and new clauses that go with it. I look forward to similar in-depth discussion on the rest of the Bill over the coming sittings.

I will state at the outset that I have never smoked a cigarette or tobacco-based product, or indeed any other product—legal or illegal—and I come with a background of being vehemently anti-smoking, so it may surprise some Members that I abstained on Second Reading. I did so for two reasons, really.

I support entirely the vapes element of the Bill, and had the Bill contained just that, I would have supported it wholeheartedly. I will not talk about vapes now, because that is a separate part of the Bill. My concern is with the enforceability of the tobacco element of the Bill, and indeed about some of the civil liberties that I outlined earlier. That said, I hope that hon. Members take my comments as helpful, supportive and inquisitorial rather than critical of the principle of the Bill. I entirely support the idea that we must have a smoke-free generation, as outlined in clause 1.

I abstained for two reasons. The first was personal. My paternal grandparents were both chain smokers. I do not have medical evidence of this, but I would say that both died because of that chain smoking. My grandfather died when I was three months old, so I do not have any recollection of meeting him. Having heard from people in Haslemere who did know him since becoming the Member of Parliament for the area where he lived, I feel that I am definitely the poorer for having not had the chance to meet him. My grandmother lived a lot longer; I knew her very well and loved her very much. But I have to say that the smell of tobacco and smoke in her house was not something I looked forward to as a child; in fact, I dreaded it. When I went back to visit that property, which is now in the hands of a lovely woman in Haslemere, it was refreshing that it did not have the pervasive smell of smoke and, to be frank, decay that went with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I am interested to hear those facts. I know the hon. Lady will not press her new clause to a vote, and given that the Government do not support it, as far as I can tell, it is probably not going to be part of the law, but perhaps we can have a further discussion on Report.

[Sarah Bool]

On that point, the concept of having an age verification policy so that all retailers know what to do in these situations is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the difficulty perhaps lies in making it an offence not to have one, because it will be in-built as part of that process.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We in this Committee want to ensure that nobody who does not have to dies of smoking or tobacco-related issues, but we do not want to make the regulations so tight that they make things more complicated than necessary for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I will move, then, to tobacco products, the definition of which is in clauses 1, 50 and 68—forgive me that digression, Mr Dowd, but I got blown off course a little by some Labour Members. I made a differentiation between smoke-free and cigarette-free. All the arguments I have heard about the hugely detrimental nature and health challenges of a life of smoking pertain, in the majority, to cigarettes. I find the widest possible definition of tobacco products to be unnecessary.

I have made the point about recreational cigars. The Minister said that there was no safe level of consuming tobacco, but I would suggest that an adult can make a perfectly reasonable choice to, once a year, have a couple of cigars. Yes, there will be detrimental health effects, but an adult in a reasonable country should be able to make that choice. The definition should not include recreational products that do not have the same hook as cigarettes. I do not feel the need to have a cigar on January 8 because I had one on 31 December.

There is also a degree of puritanism to having the widest possible scope of tobacco product. I mentioned heated tobacco earlier. Although I know it has negative health effects, I understand that the data shows that to be significantly less than for cigarettes. Heated tobacco could be used as a cessation device, so the heavy-handed approach here might be overdoing it. In the same way, I would be interested in how the Minister thinks about nicotine patches.

To achieve the smoke-free future we all want, the UK must move in an evidence-based way that differentiates clearly between various smoke-free products and traditional cigarettes, because I do not think the current approach has necessarily been justified. We need to exclude reduced-risk products from the generational ban, which will help minimise confusion and encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to put on record that I concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, particularly about vapes. My hesitation so far has always related to my concern about tobacco in clause 1.

I can reassure the Minister that I firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We have one of the finest legal systems in the world, and it is that basis that I have concerns: the greatest frustration in practice is that, while the principles are well intentioned, the drafting does not follow suit, which leads to litigation and sometimes to unintended consequences.

I firmly believe that health is wealth. As a type 1 diabetic, I do not want anyone else to experience any form of chronic suffering. I do not smoke and I never will, but I want to have strong law, which is what we are here to achieve. I therefore ask the Minister to give me some reassurances on Northern Ireland and TPD2, because that is fundamental to the roll-out of this smoke-free generation. I also have a question on what we will do about imports of cigarettes to ensure that we do not have the illicit trade we were talking of.

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.