Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 87 is to clause 114. This group of clauses represents a substantial part of the Bill, as it applies to advertising and sponsorship. Those became an issue as part of the Health and Social Care Committee review of vapes back in the last Parliament. They were also discussed during debate on the last iteration of the Bill last Easter. In fact, I tabled a fair number of amendments on the subject in the last Parliament.

Clause 114 creates an offence where a person, acting in the course of business, publishes an advertisement in the UK promoting certain regulated products such as tobacco, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. To commit the offence, the person must know, or have reason to suspect, that they are publishing advertisements for such products and that the advertisement will promote those items.

Subsection (2) outlines the penalty for this offence, which is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. For summary conviction, the penalties vary by jurisdiction, with different maximum prison terms in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a fine may be imposed in all cases. The clause aims to regulate the advertising of tobacco and nicotine products by placing responsibility on businesses and individuals publishing such advertisements, to ensure they comply with the law.

I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire regarding use of the word “publish”, and I have in mind particularly the online environment. Could the Minister confirm who is the publisher of, for example, a TikTok video? Is it the individual who uploaded it, or is it TikTok itself?

I also have a question about the words “purpose” and “effect”. Are they too vague? Could they lead to overreach and confusion about what constitutes promotion? It is unclear whether an advertisement needs to explicitly promote a product or whether a more subtle influence will be sufficient. How broad does the Minister intend the interpretation of “purpose” and “effect” to be? Can an advertisement for a lifestyle product that features someone smoking or vaping in the imagery be considered as promoting a tobacco product, even if it is not the main focus?

Another issue arises from the clause’s reliance on subjective knowledge or suspicion. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they know or have reason to suspect that the advertisement has the purpose or effect or promoting the product. In cases where the individual involved in the publication of an advertisement did not have direct knowledge of, or did not suspect, the advertisement’s purpose, what level of proof is required to say that they “know” or “have reason to suspect”? For example, if an advertisement is published by the third-party platform or agency, perhaps online, can a person who did not directly control the advertisement’s creation still be held liable? This is really important when it comes to the online world, where the sheer volume of hosts may make it incredibly challenging for an online provider to look at every single post that is put up.

On advertising, the impact assessment provided by the Government says on page 101:

“Despite advertising restrictions existing for nicotine vapes in some settings including television, radio and through information society services, such as internet advertising or commercial email, evidence shows advertising is noticed more by young people, and this has increased in some settings in recent years. Additionally, despite being prohibited under TRPR, the ASA report social media is increasingly being used to advertise vapes to children.”

I note the differences between the devolved nations. Under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, Scotland has powers to go further on advertising and sponsorship—for example, powers to ban nicotine vape advertising in more settings than those in TRPR, to ban sponsorship agreements involving nicotine vapes, and to introduce regulations on brand sharing.

Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:

“CRUK estimate the annual cost of advertising for the sector in 2019 was £32m. Under this policy proposal, no advertising would be permitted so this previous cost would be saved by businesses, and partially offsetting their lost profits from reduced vape sales outlined in the monetised costs section.”

Paragraph 666 states:

“Similar to the monetised benefits above for vapes, businesses who currently fund advertising of nicotine products, herbal smoking products, and/or cigarette papers will save this money”.

Of course, advertising companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. To me, it seems sensible to restrict the advertisement of these products, as I said before.

We must remember that young people are at the heart of this Bill, and the impact assessment also notes how susceptible young people are to advertising and why this clause is of particular relevance. Paragraph 499 highlights a survey conducted by Cancer Research showing that advertising is more noticed by young people. The survey results reveal that

“for all types of media analysed, apart from ‘email/SMS’, youth (16 to 19 years) noticed advertisements more than adults (18 years and older) in 2018 in England. The locations and media channels surveyed included: inside shops selling cigarettes; kiosks; web/social media; billboards/posters; newspapers/magazines; events/festivals; bars/pubs; and email/SMS. The largest difference in the two age groups was seen for 'billboards and posters’ with 31.4% of youth noticing marketing compared to 5.9% of adults.”

It also notes that

“youth (16 to 19 year olds) never users (who have never smoked or vaped) report higher noticing of vape advertising across all media types, apart from email/SMS compared to adult exclusive smokers”.

Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that

“more than half (55%) of 11 to 17-year-olds are aware of vape promotion in shops compared to 37% two years ago, while 15% see adverts on billboards, up from 12% two years ago.”

It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.

Amendments 87 to 92 ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that people who are smokers understand the information that is available to help them quit. At the moment, a smoker might go into a doctor’s surgery or an antenatal clinic and see information on smoking being bad for them, which is appropriate. They may also see information on opportunities for nicotine replacement therapies, or even on vaping as an alternative. If the Minister is keen to ensure that people who are smokers can use vapes as an alternative, which is believed to potentially be better for them than continuing to smoke, how will they be given that information if the products cannot be advertised or promoted?

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

The hon. Lady is eloquently articulating the necessity of controls around advertising. Does she share my concern about the risk of creating a loophole, whereby advertising could still happen if there were warning notes on adverts? The Bill seeks to reduce any type of loophole through which an advertiser might promote vaping—with words underneath that this is a smoking cessation device—in all settings. Does she also agree that the NHS is already able to articulate smoking cessation methods to patients, without the need for brand advertising?