Department of Health and Social Care

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a consultant paediatrician. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important debate on the finances of the NHS.

Labour said that it had a plan to reform and improve our NHS. Unfortunately, it has become clear from the series of consultations—on the NHS plan, the 10-year plan, the patient safety review, leading the NHS and the independent commission to transform social care, to name just a few that are in progress—that Labour did not have a plan, other than to get into power and then consider what its plan should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds has said, we need improvements in productivity, technology and long-term investment. I completely agree, and as a medic I could give many examples of wasteful spending, especially in relation to paperwork and increasingly inflexible guidance and procedures that are well-meaning but often unhelpful.

There is general talk of productivity improvements from Government Members, but few specifics. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide any specifics in her closing remarks, but let us see what the Government have said and done so far. In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that overall NHS funding would be increased by £22.6 billion over two years—for this year, that is £10.6 billion. The Government are asking us to welcome that extra money. It sounds great, but is it extra or not?

Julian Kelly, NHS England’s chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that the proposed 2.8% pay rise for 2025-26 would cost £3.8 billion. The NICs pressure is worth around £1.7 billion, alongside £1.9 billion in non-pay inflation, £0.8 billion for the GP settlement and £3.5 billion for basic demand growth in the NHS. Right hon. and hon. Members will note that those figures add up to more than £10.6 billion, and with the unions having threatened to strike again for even greater pay awards and with Labour’s propensity to capitulate to the unions, it is likely that that figure will increase. Can the Minister confirm whether the £10.6 billion that Labour talks about will really lead to an improvement in services, or will it merely cover inflation, tax rises and the pay rises given by the Labour Government to their union paymasters?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Johnson]

I will give way in a moment; let us first look further at those tax rises. It is clear that the Chancellor had not properly considered the effects of the NICs rise on the wider healthcare system. For example, the Government have exempted the NHS from that tax rise, but that exemption does not cover general practice, hospices, charities, many social care providers—including many care homes—air ambulance charities, dental clinics, opticians, private healthcare providers, agency staff, local pharmacies and other suppliers and contractors, to name but a few.

[Alex McIntyre]

I am sure that the shadow Minister is about to come on to this in her speech, but given that she has just criticised this Government for lacking a plan —a plan that is about to come forward to the House later this year—surely she will now put forward her plan for how much extra the Conservatives propose to put forward for the NHS and how they would pay for it, and explain why they did not do that for the past 14 years.

[Dr Johnson]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the figures, he will see that there has been a substantial real-terms increase in NHS funding over the past 14 years. That cannot be said for this year, potentially, which is why I am asking the question.

[Mr Betts]

Perhaps I will ask the shadow Minister an easier question, then. She has just rejected the pay deals that this Government have agreed to give a proper reward to our nurses and doctors. By how much does she think that pay deal should be reduced to bring it in line with her policy? If she is opposed to the deal that has been agreed, she must have an alternative in mind.

[Dr Johnson]

One of the key things about the Government’s deal is that they have given in on money without asking for anything in return in terms of productivity. The Government needed to agree a pay deal that was sensible and affordable, not talk about the money that they are giving to the NHS while taking away with the other hand in taxes.

Let us hear what some healthcare providers have had to say about the implications of Labour’s NICs rises for their constituents’ healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the NICs increase will force GP practices to choose between redundancies and closure. The hospice sector believes that the cost of national insurance rises could be £30 million a year. The Government have given that sector a capital grant worth £100 million, which is welcome and will improve facilities; however, if those facilities are empty and cannot be staffed, they will not deliver much in the way of improvement. Air ambulances are also under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes in last year’s autumn Budget, with the local service in my constituency, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance—which is entirely charitably funded—needing to find another £70,000 just to pay for those national insurance rises.

The Independent Pharmacies Association estimates that the rises in employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will cost the average pharmacy over £12,000 a year, totalling more than £125 million for the sector as a whole. Nick Kaye, chairman of the National Pharmacy Association, has warned that

“Pharmacies face a financial cliff edge at the beginning of April, with a triple whammy of rising National Insurance, National Living Wage, and business rates all arriving at once.”

What impact will this have on our constituents’ health? The Government talk a good talk about bringing healthcare closer to the community, but actions speak louder than words, and putting extra pressure on community-delivered services is not a good way of delivering their aims.

The Nuffield Trust suggests that the national insurance rise alone will add a £900 million burden to the adult social care sector. With other new costs factored in, the care sector is believed to be facing a bill of an additional £2.8 billion, dwarfing the £600 million extra allocated to the local authorities responsible for providing social care. This will have a devastating knock-on effect: the amount of care that can be bought by local authorities will fall, the cost of private care will rise—so more people will be reliant on the state, rather than the private sector—and the waiting lists that the Government claim to prioritise will also rise. The Nuffield Trust warns that many small care providers will either have to increase prices, stop accepting council-funded patients, or go bust.

That will have a knock-on effect on the hospital sector, as people are unable to be discharged because there is not adequate social care for them. The Government talk about creating a new national care service, but they have managed to damage the existing one by hiking the costs borne by care homes through national insurance rises and other tax and wage increases.

In January, the Government announced a deal with private hospitals in an attempt to cut waiting lists. The deal, which sounded good to start with, would see private hospitals being paid for each patient that they treated, incentivising them to treat as many people as possible. However, The Times reported that NHS England has recently capped the amount that each hospital can be paid. The chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network has warned that the policy will actually lengthen waiting times. Will the Minister comment on that?

The Minister is focused on prevention, but when the Government announced that they would be cutting the overseas development aid budget by 40%, the Prime Minister said that the UK would continue to play a key humanitarian role on a range of issues, including global health and challenges such as vaccination. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on whether the global health budget will be cut, or whether the cuts will be made from other aspects of the ODA budget.

Workforce is the key asset of the NHS, yet sickness levels are running at around 5.5%, which is a considerable cost to Government and drag on productivity. They vary considerably across trusts and professions, with consistently less than 2% of consultants off sick, but almost 8% of ambulance support staff. If those rates could be reduced, it would lead to improved productivity and patients being treated much faster. What is the Minister doing to look at that? Perhaps she will have another one of her reviews.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The hon. Member has frequently been quick to criticise NHS pay rises. Will there be more or fewer sickness absences in the ambulance service if its staff are better paid?

[Dr Johnson]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that whether someone becomes ill is entirely dependent on whether they get another 2% in their pay packet? I am not sure that it is.

The Government promised a great deal when they came into power last July. Since then, they have handed out inflation-busting pay rises, raised costs and abandoned election pledges. At the centre of the Government’s approach is a classic socialist trick—a sleight of hand, taking money away from NHS providers in taxes with one hand, and expecting praise when they give some of it back with the other. The public will see straight through it.

Draft Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister said, the regulations use a Brexit freedom to deregulate, and I welcome the fact that the Government are choosing to use that opportunity to reduce the amount of regulation that may be unnecessary.

I was also pleased to hear the shadow Minister talking about the economic benefits—[Laughter.] I am sorry; it is early in the morning. The Minister talked about the benefits, including financial benefits, that our great food industry provides to this country. As a farmer’s wife, I am very familiar with those, and I would encourage hon. Members—particularly Government Members—to go to the farmers’ protest and rally in Downing Street and Whitehall after the Committee this morning. They will be able to get a pancake and some of our other great British food, and also to learn about what the Government are doing to the farming industry and why that is important.

The first of the two changes in the regulations removes the requirement for 10-yearly renewals of authorisations for feed additives, genetically modified organisms and smoke flavourings, aligning the regimes with those for regulated food and feed products that do not require renewal. The second change eliminates the need for secondary legislation to bring the initial authorisations into effect, allowing them to be enacted following a ministerial decision and to be published in an official register.

That will certainly make the process more efficient and more effective, but I am interested to understand the Minister’s views on the level of oversight that can be provided. If I heard her correctly, she talked about approving 500 renewals over the next three years. Given the many other significant demands on her time, can she guarantee that those renewals will be given the scrutiny and oversight required?

The FSA and FSS will continue to assess products at the initial application stage and will maintain their powers to review authorised products if new evidence of risks emerges. The Minister talked about reviews, but what mechanism will trigger them? How will those organisations know that the risks are there if they are not doing regular reviews?

The Minister talked about how applications will work in Great Britain, but can she tell us more about what regulatory framework will be available in Northern Ireland. How does she see trade between GB and NI working, given the difference on either side of the Irish sea?

In summary, we do not plan to divide the Committee on the regulations, because we recognise their benefits, but we are keen to understand how the Minister feels that Parliament—and she herself—will be able to keep track of the various changes she will be making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. Removing renewals and statutory instrument requirements will not lower food and feed safety or standards.

On scrutiny, removing SI requirements for authorisations will not change the FSA’s or the FSS’s robust risk analysis and public consultation process. Public consultations will remain open to all for scrutiny, and recommendations to Ministers for all authorisations of products will take those responses into account.

The shadow Minister asked how Ministers will be able to keep track of decisions. Of course, whether decisions come under this new proposal or the existing process, they will need to be assessed. Under this new process, Ministers can take advice from the FSA and the FSS, and we will then lay those decisions in the public register. If we did not bring this proposal forward, everybody would be involved in multiple SIs, which I am sure the shadow Minister will agree is a far more onerous process.

In response to concerns about divergence with Northern Ireland, our priority is to ensure that Northern Irish consumers benefit from the same robust public health protections as the rest of the UK, while also facilitating the smooth movement of goods to consumers. The robust system of controls that applies across the UK enables all consumers to trust that the food they buy and eat is safe and is what it says it is. Any differences in approach are managed through the relevant common frameworks.

As has been stated, the current requirement for renewals applies only to three regulated product regimes: feed additives, food or feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms, and smoke flavourings. No other regulated products, including novel foods and food additives, have this requirement at the moment. These reforms introduce a consistent, proportionate and evidence-based approach.

The FSA and FSS will focus on horizon scanning and risk assessment so that they can respond to new safety evidence as it emerges. We are not going to ask businesses to bring their products routinely for review. However, if there are any changes in a product’s make-up, or it comes to light that the product has any new impacts, that will trigger the FSA and the FSS to look into those.

[Dr Johnson]

I did not quite understand the Minister’s point regarding Northern Ireland. At the moment, under the new regulations, it is clear what will be done in Great Britain to approve new products. However, if a new product has been produced in another part of the United Kingdom—that is, Northern Ireland—how will it be assessed? How will products that have been assessed under the system in GB be able to be sold in Northern Ireland? Will they require further investigation?

[Ashley Dalton]

Businesses in Northern Ireland that develop new regulated products and wish to place them on the market in the EU must apply to the EU for authorisation—that is all within the Windsor framework, and the reforms in this SI do not affect the operation of the Windsor framework in any way. Regulated products that are approved in Great Britain can be placed on the Northern Ireland market if moved via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. I think that that answers the question.

To return to the safety concerns, by carrying out horizon scanning and risk assessment, the FSA and the FSS will consistently provide insights into whether already authorised products are safe to remain on the market, instead of working arbitrarily to renew authorisations on fixed timetables. The burden on industry and the public sector of having a comprehensive review for all products, even if there is no evidence to suggest that a review is needed, will be removed. We are looking for an evidence-based review system to help focus resources on new and innovative products and on where there may be problems.

The reforms build on existing powers under which the FSA and the FSS can request information for review, and it is in the interests of businesses to proactively provide it. The reforms ensure that the regulatory framework remains comprehensive and adaptive, and enables regulators to respond swiftly and effectively to the emerging risks we have discussed. Where necessary, approvals can be modified, suspended or revoked if a safety concern is identified.

The FSA and FSS, along with the independent scientific advisory committees, have the expertise to assess all applications for authorisation. Ministers must provide reasoning if they disagree with the advice from the FSA and FSS when making authorisation decisions. So there are appropriate tools and resources to allow hon. Members and the public to scrutinise regulated product applications and authorisations. The reforms will speed up the process, use resources more productively, efficiently and effectively, and align with other UK regulatory systems.

In summary, the reforms will remove requirements for the periodic renewal of authorisations for the three regulated product regimes I mentioned, and will allow authorisations to come into effect following ministerial decisions. The changes will streamline the process, allow regulators to keep pace with innovation, and support economic growth without compromising consumer safety. I am grateful for all the contributions today.

Question put and agreed to.

HIV Testing Week

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for sharing his lived experience of this condition.

As we mark National HIV Testing Week 2025, we should be proud of the progress we have made since the ’70s and ’80s in raising awareness of the disease and reducing stigma, but we must reflect on the great challenges that remain in the battle against HIV and AIDS. I pay tribute to charities such as the National AIDS Trust, the George House Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust, whose work has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV and to improve the nation’s sexual health.

The campaign strapline for National HIV Testing Week is “I test”—a message that cannot be repeated enough. Public campaigns such as this have helped to normalise HIV testing as routine and beneficial to both the individual concerned and society at large. Testing is quick, easy, confidential and free. It is the gateway to prevention and treatment and, ultimately, to ending new HIV transmissions. During National HIV Testing Week, anyone in England can order a free postal HIV test, funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust, as part of the national HIV prevention programme for England. I encourage anyone who is concerned to get such a test and take it.

There has been encouraging progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV across England in recent years. In introducing a national HIV action plan, the last Government sought to achieve an 80% reduction in new infections by 2025. Remarkably, the UK achieved the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets back in 2020: 95% of individuals living with HIV were thought to be diagnosed, 99% of them were on treatment and 98% were achieving good viral suppression.

A growing proportion of HIV testing has been taking place by post or at home—44% in 2023 compared with 19% in 2019—which shows that the tests are acceptable to the public and welcomed by them. There has been a substantial increase in the number of tests taking place in emergency departments, with 857,000 in 2023 compared with 114,000 in 2019, mostly because of the opt-out testing introduced by the last Government.

We cannot be complacent. Although there have been areas of progress, in recent years we have seen a reversal of hard-won gains in reducing HIV transmission. Data published by the UK Health Security Agency in 2024 shows that the number of heterosexual men and women in England newly diagnosed with HIV has increased by more than 30% since 2022. Around 5,000 undiagnosed people are currently living with HIV in England.

HIV and AIDS cannot be solved in the UK without acknowledging the global context. Last year, AIDS-related illness claimed as many lives as the total of all wars, homicides and natural disasters that have ravaged our planet. In parts of southern Africa, in countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, more than a fifth of the adult population is living with HIV. Such figures remind us that the global fight with HIV is far from over.

I was troubled to hear in a House of Lords debate earlier this week that the head of UNAIDS has warned that global HIV infections could increase by more than 600% by 2029 if the US continues to suspend the UN HIV/AIDS programme. That will mean higher infection rates here in the UK, as communicable diseases do not recognise national borders.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. Does she share my concern that data and research from the Elton John AIDS Foundation shows that almost 228,000 people a day will miss out on HIV testing due to the pause in US aid? What should we do collectively, on a cross-party basis, to call that out?

[Dr Johnson]

The key is to ask the Government what support they will give to the UN and what conversations they are having with their US counterparts about the benefits to people both overseas and at home of ensuring that the battle against HIV and AIDS is won.

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Lady was formerly the public health Minister, so I know she cares passionately about this issue. Does she agree that HIV has to be a cross-party issue, and that both the Government and the Opposition should be calling out the US pause?

[Dr Johnson]

It is clear that the battle against HIV is a cross-party issue. We have seen strides and improvements over the years under Governments of different colours. Yes, I was the public health Minister, and we met at an event where I announced the results of the first year of the opt-out testing and its success in reducing infections.

HIV testing is really important. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister test earlier this week; that is helpful in reducing the stigma associated with testing. It showed that anybody in any circumstances can have a test. Opt-out testing has identified cases where people who were thought to be very low risk unexpectedly turned out to be HIV-positive. When we brought in the opt-out testing, we targeted first the A&Es in areas of the highest risk, and we need to continue to target those highest-risk areas.

In October 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care revealed that over half of those with HIV had been previously diagnosed abroad. Will the Department consider the implications of these trends when it puts together its new HIV action plan in order to achieve the goal of no new HIV transmissions in the UK by 2030? Countries such as Australia and New Zealand require applicants to take an HIV test before they obtain a visa. Have there been any discussions between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office about introducing such a requirement in the UK, as we have for tuberculosis?

Guidance from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities—the Government’s own guidance, effectively —suggests that all men and women, and recently arrived children, known to be from a country of high prevalence should be recommended a test. It might be helpful if the Government followed their own guidance, because if we test the high-risk population, we stand more chance of picking up more cases, which would be beneficial.

Under the opt-out testing scheme brought in by the Conservative Government, a patient can explicitly decline instead of explicitly accept an HIV test. It has been rolled out in many A&Es across the country, and I am pleased that it will be coming to more. It has identified hundreds of people who were undiagnosed or lost to follow-up for treatment for HIV, and includes hepatitis B and C. Identification of those cases helps the individuals concerned and helps to reduce transmission across the wider population.

Between 2019 and 2020, the estimated number of diagnosed cases in England declined. However, somewhat counterintuitively, opt-out testing suggests there are more cases than we realise. Does the Minister have plans to re-estimate the number of undiagnosed HIV cases that may be out in the community waiting to be treated, in the light of the evidence from opt-out testing? The Opposition welcome the Government’s commitment to fund opt-out testing until March 2026, but NHS services need clarity on funding beyond that point. Will the Minister clarify whether long-term funding for opt-out HIV testing will be considered as part of this year’s spending review?

HIV prevention goes beyond testing. A perennial issue is access to PrEP treatment, to maintain the reduction in HIV cases in England. PrEP has been described as a miracle drug, which prevents HIV-negative people from acquiring the virus, and is a key tool to stop new HIV transmissions by 2030. However, waiting times for PrEP are too long—at one point, they were measured in months rather than weeks. What steps is the Minister taking to improve that? The last Government improved access to PrEP across the country by setting up the PrEP access and equity task and finish group. What steps have been taken to implement the group’s recommendations since the Government took office?

We have only one Parliament left to finally eradicate new cases of HIV by 2030. We owe it to everyone who has lost their life to this virus, everyone who has faced the stigma—thankfully, that is reduced but it still exists—of being HIV-positive and everyone who is living with HIV today to end new transmissions once and for all. I hope the Government continue the progress of the last Government with their new HIV action plan, and I hope that it will be developed soon. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), said in November that the plan was in production. I hope that it is getting closer to completion and that the Minister can give us an idea of when it will be complete. I hope that today’s debate will inspire thousands of people to get themselves tested.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

There were almost 67,000 cases of serious antimicrobial-resistant infections in the United Kingdom in 2023. War is increasing such infections globally; 80% of patients in one Kyiv hospital in Ukraine are said to have such infections. The Conservative Government had a plan to tackle that. Do the Labour Government plan to follow that plan, are they on track to meet those targets, and if not, what will the Secretary of State do about it?

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted that Dame Sally Davies continues her work on antimicrobial resistance. That is an absolutely critical issue, and I pay tribute to the previous Government, particularly Minister Quince, for their work on it. It is in the national interest that we maintain not just the national focus but the international focus on antimicrobial resistance, which is why UK leadership in those global fora is so important.

[Dr Johnson]

Another time when it is important to work together is during a pandemic, such as by sharing research. Unfortunately, recent history tells us that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses out. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, whatever emerges from discussions with the World Health Organisation, he will not reduce the UK’s capacity to take decisions in the interests of the British people.

[Wes Streeting]

May I just say how regrettable it is that a sensible shadow Minister is sent along to parrot the absurd lines of her leader?

National Cancer Plan

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank all the NHS workers, charities, scientists and others working to help those with cancer.

We can all agree that tackling cancer should be a top priority for the NHS. From diagnosing people quickly to starting treatment quickly and using the latest technology and drugs, we all want to see improvements. The recent trends in cancer survival rates are positive. The one-year survival rate for cancer increased by 5.9% between 2010 and 2020, and the five-year survival rate increased by 4.3% in the same period. Despite those improvements, we are not yet where we want to be, and we will be up front about that.

In government, we took action to catch cancer sooner and boost survival rates, with initiatives such as lung cancer screening and prostate cancer trials, and we welcome that Labour is continuing with that mission. We will work constructively with the Government on that, as we all want to achieve the same positive outcomes. However, the statement as a whole is rather disappointing. The Minister has told us that this is a cancer plan, but it is not; it is a statement that there is to be one. The Government saying that they want cancer survival rates to increase and that they are going to have a plan does not make it so—we need the plan itself.

The announcement of the AI trial in breast cancer is a welcome approach. Artificial intelligence has the capacity to revolutionise the way we diagnose disease, and I am delighted that the Government wish to explore those opportunities. We also very much welcome the relaunch of the children and young people’s cancer taskforce, and are pleased it will be able to continue its valuable work under the co-chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and Professor Darren Hargrave. It is just a shame that the Labour Government wasted seven months by suspending the Conservative taskforce, only to reinstate it now.

I note the Minister’s comments about waiting times to start treatment, and we agree that these must improve. I am sure it will not have escaped his notice that NHS Wales, which has been under a Labour Administration for 25 years, has a poorer performance, and I am certain he would not want party politics to affect such an issue. Can he tell the House what conversations he is having with his Welsh counterparts to improve cancer care there?

I am also concerned that last month, the Government appeared to quietly abandon the target of ensuring that patients receive treatment a maximum of 62 days from an urgent referral of suspected cancer, despite the Health Secretary having said before the election that a Labour Government would meet that target within the first term. Will the Minister clarify his commitment to the 62-day target?

More scanners are, of course, welcome, but what are the Government doing to ensure that there are enough trained professionals to interpret the results of the scans effectively?

With charities such as Macmillan and Marie Curie being hit with devastating increases in national insurance contributions, what help will be provided so that they do not have to cut back the vital support and guidance services they provide to cancer patients?

Anyone who has faced cancer will know that time is of the essence. The second half of the year—if it is not until December—could be quite a long time from now. Will the Minister therefore be more clear about when he intends to publish the plan? May I recommend using the evidence collected in our 2022 call for evidence, as well as the policies of the interim major conditions strategy, published in 2023, to speed up the plan? The quicker the Government act, the more lives they will be able to save.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I start by genuinely thanking the shadow Minister for the co-operation she has pledged as we seek to improve the outcomes for people with cancer. This is not a party political issue. We all want people to be diagnosed more quickly and to be put on the effective treatment pathways as quickly as possible, and we all want people to have better outcomes. I would just remind her, however, that while progress was made over the past decade, as I referred to in the statement, Lord Darzi clearly set out that the rate of progress was much slower than in comparator countries, and that we could and should have been on a much better trajectory.

That is why we are committed to a new national cancer plan—something for which the sector has been calling for some time. We are going to consult on that plan. I hope the shadow Minister is not suggesting that we should just pull a plan out of thin air without any consultation with the sector, patients or anybody with any interest in cancer.

Of course, things have changed over recent years. New technology has advanced and scientific progress is advancing, although there are still some areas where, stubbornly, there is not enough research. We need to build up the case for research and get the funding in; I think especially of brain tumours, where, quite frankly, things have not progressed at all. We need to ensure that in the 10-year cancer plan, we really drive forward in some of those areas, using the latest technology and scientific advances.

The shadow Minister asked about targets. I just say to her that we have actually strengthened targets, rather than setting new ones for cancer. Currently, the NHS is on track to deliver against its cancer targets for this year. Yes, we should be ambitious where we can, and that is exactly what this Labour Government are going to do.

Accessibility of Radiotherapy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir John.

As we discuss the future of radiotherapy services, it is essential that we acknowledge the vital role our radiographers, medical physicists and oncologists play, along with all the nursing staff and others, in the delivery of care.

The professionals are the backbone of any successful radiotherapy service, and without them progress is impossible. However, it is clear that Governments have faced significant challenges in both staffing and infrastructure. I will take this opportunity to scrutinise the current state of radiotherapy services and the plans to address those concerns. The demand for radiotherapy has increased substantially in recent years, driven primarily by one factor: our ageing population, and the fact that as we grow older our chances of being diagnosed with cancer increase significantly. However, radiotherapy is and remains one of the most cost-effective treatments available within the NHS. Previous Governments recognised that fact, and between 2016 and 2021 they invested £162 million to enable the replacement or upgrade of approximately 100 radiotherapy machines.

Since April 2022, the responsibility for investing in new machines has sat with local integrated care boards in England, supported by the 2021spending review, which set aside money for the purpose. As hon. Members have said, to keep up with increasing demand and the need for cutting-edge care, there must be significant sustained investment in radiotherapy services. Radiotherapy is one of the most technologically advanced areas of healthcare, so it is incumbent on us to keep up with the latest scientific developments.

It is welcome that the Government have announced £70 million for new radiotherapy machines, but Radiotherapy UK has said that that is not enough and has suggested that the Government invest five times that amount to upgrade out-of-date machines. I would appreciate clarification on that point. The Government have consistently stated in written answers that funding for new radiotherapy machines will be allocated by ICBs using criteria set by NHS England, but how will they monitor the upgrading of the machines across ICB areas to ensure that that takes place and to prevent the postcode lottery that Members have described? Furthermore, NHS England has confirmed that it will give high-performing local systems greater freedom around capital spending. Will such freedoms include capital retention, which can be used to invest in new radiotherapy equipment?

One of the most pressing issues is the need for a comprehensive long-term strategic plan for radiotherapy from the Government. The absence of such a plan hinders the ability to think strategically about the future of cancer care and to make the necessary investment to meet growing demand. I am glad that today, World Cancer Day, the Government have committed to produce a new cancer plan. We are told that it will include details about how outcomes for cancer patients, including waiting times, will be improved. Will the Minister indicate whether it will provide specifics on the roll-out of radiotherapy machines in the short, medium and long term?

In response to a written question last month, the Minister clarified:

“NHS England does not hold any data on the effectiveness of radiotherapy machines relative to the number of doses that they deliver.”

Hon. Members have said that newer machines will be able to deliver more doses more quickly. I would be interested to know whether the Department has any plans to collect such data.

Of course, any strategic plan should focus not just on the machines, but on the people who operate them—the radiotherapy workforce. What steps are the Government taking to improve the recruitment and retention of the radiotherapy workforce?

In a written question, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked the Government whether they had consulted or planned to consult with clinical experts, the radiotherapy industry, patients or charities about how best to allocate the funds announced in the Budget for the new radiotherapy machines. The Minister responded by saying:

“The Department has no plans to consult on this matter”,

and reiterated that the funding would be allocated using NHS England criteria. The Minister today announced the plan to produce a cancer strategy. Will that include radiotherapy? Will he commit to working with Radiotherapy UK and providers to improve access to radiotherapy treatment where it is currently lacking?

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a very compelling case about long journeys. He spoke about a service in his constituency, and there are others that are similarly affected. We know that earlier treatment affects survival rates. I asked the Minister a question in the main Chamber earlier about the 62-day target, and I did not hear him answer. Will he confirm that he intends to stick to the Health Secretary’s previous commitment to reaching the 62-day target by the end of this Parliament?

In addition to Government investment, the private sector plays a role in ensuring the future success of radiotherapy services. The NHS has signed a significant partnership agreement with the independent sector to increase capacity for diagnostic and elective procedures, which will help to reduce waiting times, but it is not clear whether that agreement includes treatment equipment such as radiotherapy machines. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will work with the independent sector to upgrade equipment such as radiotherapy machines? A partnership that includes capital investment in radiotherapy equipment could ease the burden on the NHS and speed up access to treatment for patients.

I know the Minister is hugely motivated to do all he can to improve cancer care, as we all are. This debate should have helped to give him a steer on how that can be achieved.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a few moments for Mr Farron to say a final word of wind-up, and Mr Farron, in turn, to leave me a few moments to put the question.

Draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Minister said that 17.5 million people in the United Kingdom are living with a long-term health condition. Every time the news comes on of an evening, they will hope that it brings some hope of a new treatment that promises the cure or effective treatment of their condition, or the condition of one whom they love. Unfortunately, the news today tells them that AstraZeneca has cancelled its investment in the UK, which is a big loss for life sciences and cures for people in this country.

Never the less, these regulations are a positive change. This instrument will reform the UK’s clinical trial regulatory regime with the aim of delivering a more

“proportionate, streamlined and effective clinical research environment”

by amending the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. These draft regulations are a response to a public consultation launched under the Conservatives in 2022, which asked for feedback on how the regulation of clinical trials could be improved and strengthened in the UK.

I agree with the Minister that we have an opportunity, now we have left the European Union, to design a world-class, sovereign regulatory environment for clinical trials that supports the development of innovative medicines and ensures that the UK retains and grows its reputation as a world-leading base for life sciences, generating opportunities for skilled jobs in the UK. As Conservatives, we welcome innovation and want to support UK patients getting early access to new and innovative treatments. For those reasons, we welcome the changes.

Among the many changes this instrument would make, it would legislate for a notification scheme to enable lower-risk clinical trials to be automatically approved by the licensing authority, where the risk is similar to that of standard medical care. A favourable opinion from an ethics committee would still be required to safeguard people taking part in the trial. The impact assessment estimates that around 20% of initial clinical trial applications would qualify for the notification scheme.

When asked about eligibility criteria for the scheme, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency explained that an application would be eligible if the medicine being investigated is used in line with its authorised use or established practice, supported by evidence; a previous similar clinical trial of a product has been approved in the last two years; or the same trial has been approved in the United States or a European economic area country.

While the clinical trial sponsor is responsible for determining whether the application meets the criteria for notification, the MHRA stated that a verification process would ensure their determination is correct. The notification scheme currently exists on an opt-in basis. The MHRA says that that has reduced the time required to initiate lower-risk clinical trials by more than 50% without compromising patient safety. That will clearly help people to get the new treatments quicker, and is to be welcomed.

We consider that the draft regulations will simultaneously remove obstacles to sponsors’ carrying out clinical trials, while ensuring the focus remains on protection of those participating in the trials. It will remove the aspects of legislation that are more prescriptive, in favour of introducing greater flexibility and more risk proportionality, to reflect that trial design and operation is evolving with innovations in the products that trials investigate. Ultimately, these proposed new requirements will ensure that trial participants and their safety are at the heart of legislation.

One thing I would like the Minister to clarify is that on the one hand he was saying that this change in regulation will be revolutionary for people getting trials and drugs more quickly, whereas on the other hand he gave a de minimis amount in terms of the financial benefit. Could he explain that contradiction?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the shadow Minister for her support for this piece of secondary legislation, which marks the most substantial update to UK clinical trial regulations in more than two decades. This is an important step forward to deliver a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, all while ensuring the safety of the trial participants. The reforms will deliver a proportionate, flexible and efficient clinical research environment, with patients at the very heart of the process.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of AstraZeneca and the support for life sciences in the UK. Without straying too much from the measures before us, Sir Desmond, I want to reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector. Today we have heard about how vital clinical trials are in driving the health and wealth of the UK. The sector has experienced strong growth in recent years; between 2022 and 2023, the number of UK industry-led clinical trials increased by 3.7%. The UK has also gone up in the global rankings for phase 2 trials, moving from sixth to fourth place.

That progress is a testament to our thriving research ecosystem, something that was developed under the previous Government and that we want to build on, which is what this set of regulations is all about. They are about making sure that our country is at the cutting edge of the latest developments in medical science and that British patients are able to access those treatments as early as possible, through clinical trials and then through the early adoption of those medicines once they are brought to market.

The shadow Minister asked about the de minimis assessment. An assessment of the updated legislation has been produced, which estimates that there will be a total transition cost of approximately £720,000 to business for organisations to familiarise themselves with and operationalise the changes. It is expected that the annual total benefit to businesses will be £1 million, primarily due to the changes in the approval processes. I sought to correct the record in my opening remarks because it had originally been anticipated that we would need to have the full assessment, but on closer scrutiny that is not necessary because of the reasons that I have just set out.

[Dr Johnson]

When the Minister talks about £1 million, is that the benefit to businesses in the current level of trials? Or is that his estimate of the rise in the number of trials as a result of the changes?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Question (28 January) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

When we adjourned on Tuesday evening, we were talking about this clause, which relates to shipping and a power to prohibit vaping and so on ships. We were —or I was—talking about the history of maritime restrictions on tobacco and cigarette use and why that has been the case. I had a couple of questions about the clause for the Minister.

My first question relates to the fixed penalty notices and the powers of entry mentioned in relation to previous enforcement. How would they apply on board ship, given the international nature of shipping? What is the role of maritime authorities and enforcement, or is it down to the captain? Who is going to enforce this? How will it work across different jurisdictions? Many ships operate internationally, so it is relevant to consider how the regulation interacts with international maritime law. For example, if a ship is registered in one country but operates in another jurisdiction, how will enforcement of the new provisions vary?

Enforcing a vape ban on ships operating in international waters, or outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, raises the question of which laws apply. Ships registered under a particular nation’s flag are typically subject to the laws of that nation, but in international waters, enforcement may be complicated by the lack of physical presence of the authorities in the country whose law is being enforced.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. On the questions that the hon. Member is asking about maritime law, are those kinds of issues not already tackled? Drinking, gambling and so on can happen on ships, but do not happen when they enter countries, and that is based on agreements between international partners, shall we say.

[Dr Johnson]

We are talking about something that will be illegal in the United Kingdom and how United Kingdom law is enforced. My question relates to how people might behave in other countries’ waters on the basis of local laws. The question is, if this is a law that we are bringing in to apply to British ships, how will the Government expect it to apply when the British ship is not in a British port or in British waters, but perhaps in international or foreign waters? It could lead to difficulties in compliance and potential jurisdictional conflicts where the local laws do not agree. If the ship is operating in another nation’s territorial waters, that country might have its own laws on vaping or smoking. Which law prevails? Another question is when trying to enforce a ban when transporting humanitarian aid or refugees, in that the people who are being picked up might not realise that there is a ban. How would that be enforced in such circumstances?

Some people might ask whether the extent of the regulations for vaping and heated-tobacco devices is too inflexible? Such devices do not pose the same fire risks as cigarettes or pipes, although they are not without risk. Modern Royal Navy deployments, as I understand them, can typically last six to nine months, and vaping is used when smokers are trying to quit as a cessation tool. What discussions has the Minister had about the health of our military personnel deployed for such periods of time? How will he ensure access to nicotine replacement therapy and smoking cessation services so that we are not leaving people without access to what would, for them as an adult, be a legal product?

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. There is light at the end of the tunnel: today is the day that we will have a Bill in one shape or another, having reached the end of Committee stage and deliberated everything; and if not, of course everything that has not been debated gets accepted anyway, so we will have a Bill.

The clause amends an existing regulation-making power in section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that any safety regulations—this is what we are talking about here. Health and safety regulations in merchant shipping that are made under section 85 provide for heated tobacco and vape-free provision for ships, which will correspond with the provisions in the Health Act 2006.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, put a couple of questions. We have the power to make provision about health and safety in the merchant shipping sector already, under the 1995 Act. Those powers are already there, are already being implemented and are already being enforced. All that this measure will do is extend the provision to vapes and heated-tobacco devices, to bring it into line with everything else we have done over our debates.

The matter is one for the Department for Transport. It owns this policy, and health and safety in merchant shipping. We will continue to work with the Department for Transport as we consider any future regulations to create additional smoke-free places, but it is for the Department for Transport to implement and to enforce health and safety regulations in merchant shipping, as it does now. It will continue to do that, but with an extension of its powers. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 158 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 159

Application to Parliament

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

[Dr Johnson]

This is an interesting clause, because it applies the Bill to the parliamentary estate. According to Erskine May, there has been some confusion about whether statute law can apply inside the parliamentary estate, because of the principle of exclusive cognisance. That means that Parliament has control over its own internal matters and that not all laws automatically apply within Parliament. To quote from Erskine May directly:

“Actions in respect of which exclusive cognizance is claimed and has been admitted are not restricted to formal acts of either House. This privilege has been held to extend to the sale of intoxicating liquor within the precincts of the House, though those responsible did not hold a licence.”

Smoking, for example, has technically been prohibited in the Commons Chamber, public and Members’ Lobbies and Committee Rooms since 1694. According to Erskine May, MPs agreed

“That no Member do presume to take tobacco in the gallery of the House or at a committee table”.

Around the estate, however, historically it was the custom to smoke in the bars and the Tea Room, and in the Committee Corridor outside this very Committee Room we are in today. There are legal exceptions and exemptions that are worth discussing now.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel published guidance on Crown application in 2021 and noted that the Palace of Westminster is Crown land. The guidance explains the general presumption that an Act does not bind the Crown unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. Often, an Act includes a clause on Crown application, specifying whether the Act applies to Crown land, but the Health Act 2006 does not include such a clause.

The position set out by case law is that the Health Act 2006 does not apply to the Crown, as in the 2017 case of R (on the application of Black) v. Secretary of State for Justice. In that case, the prisoner, named Mr Black, was serving an indeterminate sentence at Her Majesty’s Prison Wymott. He was a non-smoker with a number of health problems that were exacerbated by tobacco smoke—we talked about prisoners and vaping earlier. He complained that the smoking ban was not being properly enforced in the common parts of prisons, and issued proceedings for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to provide access to the NHS smoke-free compliance line to prisoners.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mr Black’s appeal, holding that Parliament must have intended the Crown to not be bound by the smoking ban, otherwise it would have made an express provision for it in the Act. In the words of Lady Hale:

“there are powerful indicators in the language of the Act itself that the Crown was not to be bound by the smoking ban.”

In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that the ambiguity had led to many inconsistencies in statute law. That Committee considered that it was not practicable to resolve the inconsistencies without sweeping retrospective change, which could have unforesee- able consequences. It concluded that in the absence of legislation, the safest way forward—however undesirable it might be as a statement of principle—was to reiterate and formalise the current presumption that legislation does not apply to Parliament unless it expressly provides otherwise. That was agreed on, and now there is a rule that legislation creating individual rights that could fit with parliamentary activities must expressly say that it applies within Parliament.

Here we are today, with clause 159, which stipulates that the Bill and regulations made under it will apply to the parliamentary estate. The Bill does not replace the smoke-free provisions in the Health Act 2006 and does not otherwise provide directly for the smoke-free restrictions discussed above. There is no obvious means by which clause 159 will place the parliamentary estate within the scope of the 2006 Act. However, clause 136 enables Ministers to add to the list of places designated as smoke-free by introducing new regulations under proposed new section 4(1) of that Act. It is therefore possible for new regulations to designate the parliamentary estate as smoke-free, but I have seen no indication from the Government that they plan to do that. Clause 136 also enables Ministers to make exceptions to smoke-free legislation.

The extent to which the Bill can be used to place the parliamentary estate within the scope of smoke-free legislation is therefore a matter for legal interpretation, and I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that. Earlier in the debates that we have been having during line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we talked about the snuff that is kept outside the door, with the Doorkeepers, and the Minister suggested there was no reason why that could not continue, but I am interested to understand his thoughts in relation to clause 159.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I concur with the rationale and explanation that my hon. Friend has just given. The question about how we will deal with snuff and other products in the House is an interesting one, because we do not want to see any of our Doorkeepers perhaps being criminalised for having something on the estate or how they have supplied it. I know that earlier discussions focused on the BBC—

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support in this discussion. Is it not also the case that the House has a lot of peculiarities and traditions that are sometimes eccentric, but interesting, and that although we would not necessarily want to create exceptions for MPs to use a product that is not available to members of the public, the inability to have the box there would be a loss of a tradition, which would be a bit of a shame?

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. One of the things that I have most enjoyed over the last few weeks and months has been learning all the different traditions and the meanings behind them. Having done my original degree in history, I appreciate all that, so the many history lessons that we have had from the shadow Minister in the course of these debates have been much appreciated by me. It is interesting that that is why clause 159 has been put in place, but I would like the Minister to expand on how he thinks that it will work in practice. Will we see the removal of the snuffbox? How will that work in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is a standard clause. It provides that the measures in the Bill and regulations made under it apply to the parliamentary estate. I hope that Opposition Members do not think that the parliamentary estate should be above the law that Parliament will, I hope, pass. This clause requires the parliamentary estate to adhere to the tobacco and vaping control measures under the Bill and regulations made under it, ensuring consistent application of the law. The wording of the clause was previously agreed with the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament—both the House of Commons and the other place—so that the whole of the parliamentary estate will be covered by the same laws that will apply outside the parliamentary estate. It will include, for example, the shops, to ensure that there is consistent application of the law. It appertains to the House of Commons shop, the House of Lords shop and the retail outlets on the parliamentary estate. Those regulations that apply to retailers outside the parliamentary estate will apply within the parliamentary estate.

[Dr Johnson]

Is the Minister aware of any retailers on the parliamentary estate at the moment that actually do sell any tobacco or cigarette products?

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, I am not, but the point is that the law has to apply equally within Parliament and outside of Parliament. There has to be a consistency of approach, and just because a person cannot get the House of Commons snuff from the House of Commons shop does not mean that the House of Commons shop should have a different set of regulations from any other retail outlet in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Clerks and the Cabinet Office were consulted before the inclusion of this clause. They were content for it to be included, and that is why it is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 21.

[Dr Johnson]

I know that the Minister enjoyed grandstanding about equality, but I am not sure that he actually answered the question. Clause 160 talks about consequential amendments, and one question that I asked him about clause 159 was whether it would have the effect that he says it will. It says:

“To the extent that this Act or regulations made under it would not…apply in relation to the Parliamentary Estate, they do so apply”,

but it does not include the Health Act. As there are consequential amendments in clause 160, would there need to be a consequential amendment to the Health Act? It is that Act, as amended, that provides for the regulations in relation to smoking.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 160 and schedule 21 provide further general consequential amendments relating to this Bill. The specific amendments to existing legislation are set out in the schedule. Those amendments help the provisions in the Bill to function effectively within the existing legislative framework. This is a standard supplementary clause that enables the legislation to function as intended following the Bill’s introduction.

The shadow Minister refers to different aspects of legislation. Many of the clauses that we have already debated bring together existing tobacco control legislation in one place, so the consequential powers that we are seeking through this clause will make sure that the existing legislation set out in the schedule will be amended, to ensure the smooth running of the legislation. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 agreed to.

New Clause 2

Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme with one or more of the following purposes—

(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any producer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,

(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products,

(c) providing for any producer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.

(2) In this section—

‘importer’, in relation to tobacco products, and ‘tobacco products’ have the meaning as in Part 5 (see section 112),

‘producer’, in relation to tobacco products, is to be construed in accordance with the meaning of ‘production’ in Part 5 (see section 112).”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will not be pushing this new clause to a vote; nevertheless, I think it is a policy that the Minister should take into consideration. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on a “polluter pays” levy. The Minister will know that I and members of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have campaigned for this for some time. It was also recommended in the Khan review in 2022 and, more recently, by the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on health and prosperity.

Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs England more than £43 billion a year. That is more than £27 billion in productivity costs, nearly £14 billion in social care costs and more than £1.8 billion in NHS costs—and much more. A “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers could raise around £700 million a year, with that money coming from tobacco companies’ profits, not raised from consumers.

A levy of this kind would provide sustainable funding for tobacco control and could be given to organisations such as Fresh, the tobacco control programme in the north-east, which does such vital work in ensuring that no one gets left behind as we move to a smoke-free future. In fact, all the Government’s programmes on tobacco, including mass media campaigns, incentives for pregnant women and support for smokers with mental health problems, could be funded many times over, with cash to spare that could go to other public health initiatives.

This would be subject to consultation, but the model proposed by Action on Smoking and Health would cap the wholesale price of tobacco, similarly to how we cap the prices of essential utilities and hence limit profits. The big four tobacco companies account for 95% of UK sales and make excessive profits selling a highly addictive product that kills two in three long-term users when used as intended by the manufacturer. Tobacco manufacturers make an estimated £900 million in profit per year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%. For context, the average profit margin for UK manufacturing is 10%.

There is widespread public support for this measure: 79% of adults in Great Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, with only 5% opposed. I hope the Government will seriously consider this, because it would complement the intentions of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested by this new clause. Tax is applied to some products that the Government would like us to consume less of, to make them more expensive so that we consume less of them, and that has been the case with tobacco for some time.

Looking at the current levels of tobacco duty, we see that tax on cigarettes is 16.5% of the retail price of £6.69 for a pack of 20, which is quite a substantial proportion of the cost. Cigars are taxed at £4.17 on a 10 gram cigar, and there is 14.3% tax on a £30 packet of hand-rolling tobacco.

The Government introduced an escalator for further increases in tobacco taxation in their autumn Budget. In addition, they have introduced a tax on vaping products, which will help to take them out of the reach of pocket money. Personally, I have been quite concerned about the fact that vaping products are so cheap that children can easily buy a vape with pocket money, and if they are potentially about to get caught, they can discard it without worrying and then buy another one. A tax on vaping products is, therefore, a welcome initiative.

However, as I understand it, the Government make £8.8 billion per year from tobacco taxation—I am sure the Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong—and it is in the gift of the Chancellor to increase these taxes if she wants to. She is quite good at increasing taxes, so I am sure she knows that that is the case.

As I understand it, the hon. Member for City of Durham proposes that the tax on these products should automatically go towards improving the health—including the public health—of the nation, as opposed to going into general funds. In practice, the Government are already free to spend the money that they receive from tobacco and vape taxation on the health service. They certainly already spend more on the health service than they receive in tobacco taxes. It is a choice. To govern is to choose, and they are choosing how they wish to spend the taxes they raise.

The new clause proposes

“limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer”.

Presumably, that would require some sort of open-book system, and I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady thinks that would work. This level of regulation of the market would require quite detailed open-book working. Perhaps she would like to explain why she thinks that is necessary, when the Government already have in their remit the levers of taxation specifically for these products.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The difference is that the tax would not come from the consumers. This would be a tax on the big four tobacco companies, rather than raising taxes from consumers. We know that consumers of these products are already likely to come from deprived backgrounds. In addition to raising revenue, the measure would allow us to impose much tighter controls on the prices of tobacco products. That would disincentivise the tobacco industry from creating so much profit from their products.

Although the Chancellor can use taxes for whatever purpose, this measure would be a tax on those companies whose product, as we know, kills one in two of the people who use it. Just raising taxes in the way that the hon. Lady describes would be an extra burden on the consumers who we are trying to help quit tobacco.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation, which was really helpful. I am grateful that she, as a Labour MP, understands that a tax on business will be passed on to the consumer, because it seems that the Chancellor does not. Perhaps the hon. Lady should apply for a new job.

The hon. Lady is right that if taxes are applied to a business, the business will pass them on to the consumer. The only way to avoid that is through price control. Nevertheless, I do not think that makes price control a desirable thing for the Government to interfere with. That level of regulation would go too far, and other measures in the Bill already seek to restrict and disincentivise smoking in so many different ways. I hope that they will be effective and that there will be no need for such onerous regulation.

[Sarah Bool]

The hon. Member for City of Durham has proposed a very interesting concept. Although she may not be pressing the new clause to a vote, it is interesting to discuss the concept in principle, so I thank her for tabling it.

Essentially, the proposal is that the Secretary of State would have to consult on a scheme that would regulate prices and limit profits, and then they would calculate the tax:

“by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products”.

That is an interesting concept, but I wonder whether it could be deemed anti-competitive. I know that the ultimate aim is to close down the tobacco companies, and that is essentially what the measure would drive towards, but in the interim, when many people will still be legally able to smoke, what arguments might the companies make in that regard? The Chancellor says she is pro-business and is encouraging business. The tobacco companies are perhaps not the businesses she has in mind, but the provision would have wider repercussions that could flow into other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause would be a game changer. One of the questions was whether the measure might later be applied to other areas—I presume that the hon. Member means taxing the big alcohol and gambling companies—but tobacco is a uniquely lethal and addictive product, so in this case the intervention is justified. She makes a good and compelling point, but I think the Government’s overall health strategy is to shift from sickness to prevention, which will require looking at all habits and supporting people to live healthier lives in healthy environments.

[Dr Johnson]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she have a price for tobacco products in mind? Governments of different colours have increased tobacco duty a bit at a time, presumably to nudge behaviour. If we do not increase it enough, we do not have the desired effect, but if we increase it too much and too fast, we potentially drive people into illicit-market tobacco. We heard from the chief medical officer about the difficulties people have in giving up cigarettes because of the profoundly addictive nature of nicotine, so if we were to increase the prices too quickly, we could end up making life difficult for people who are poor and addicted to nicotine, without the necessary support in place. If the prices are going to go up to somewhere in the middle, how is that different from taxation?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause asks for a consultation, so a lot of issues would need to be worked through with the Chancellor. However, the tobacco companies make exorbitant profits from a product that kills the folk to they sell it to, so I am sure that the shadow Minister would agree that that means we should use some of their profits to pay for the damage being done.

[Dr Johnson]

I certainly agree that it is immoral to sell products that they know are addictive, are dangerous and kill people.

[Sarah Bool]

I am almost glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is not here, because at this point we would probably be launching into a much longer and more protracted debate, so we are lucky in that regard—[Interruption.] I am being chastised by the shadow Minister.

We should consider that interesting point and its knock-on impact because, in common with the hon. Member for City of Durham, I have concerns about the illicit tobacco market. I very much agree that we should be moving to a new system of preventive medicine. As I have mentioned, I have type 1 diabetes, and I want to see a greater and earlier use of technology to prevent long-term problems. The new clause provides a useful point for discussion, and I thank the hon. Lady for tabling it.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Ban on supply of cigarette filters

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) In this section,

‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dartford is not here to discuss his important new clause 4, which is about a ban on cigarette filters. I asked the Minister why cigarette filters were not included in clause 1, along with cigarette papers and tobacco products. Cigarette filters have a health effect, but it is not necessarily the effect that most people think. Filters were first introduced in the 1950s in response to mounting scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of smoking. The tobacco industry seized upon the opportunity to present the filter as a way to make cigarettes safer. It claimed that they reduced the inhalation of harmful substances such as nicotine, tar and other toxicants.

The early filters were made of cork, which is the origin of the cork pattern that can still be seen on many cigarettes. By the end of the 1950s, sales of cigarettes with filters had surged to more than 40% of the market, and by 1965, more than 60% of cigarettes were manufactured with filters. Alongside that shift, the marketing of light and mild cigarettes with ventilated filters further enhanced the illusion—and it is an illusion—of reduced harm, making smoking appear to customers more palatable, and to some extent reducing customer awareness of the risks involved.

There were some early studies that appeared to support the tobacco industry’s claims. Filter tip cigarettes at that time were thought to be associated with lower rates of lung cancer and mortality, compared with their unfiltered counterparts. However, when comprehensive and rigorous studies were completed over time, the initial findings were disproven. Subsequent epidemiological data revealed that both ventilated and non-ventilated filter tip cigarettes were just as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes. In fact, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma—a type of lung cancer that has increasingly replaced the more prevalent squamous cell carcinoma—has risen significantly in recent decades. The rise in adenocarcinomas is believed to be linked to the use of ventilated filters, as they affect smoking behaviour and the combustion of the product.

One of the key reasons why filter tip cigarettes fail to reduce the risk of lung cancer and other diseases is the changes they cause in smoking behaviour. When cigarette filters were introduced, they altered the way people smoked. For example, smokers began taking longer and deeper puffs, increasing their exposure to harmful chemicals in the smoke. Such behaviours may have upset the potential benefits that some individuals thought filters might have in reducing the toxic smoke inhaled.

The presence of a filter, especially those with ventilation, changed the combustion of the cigarette itself. That led to a greater exposure in smokers to tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens and a major contributor to lung cancer. The filtering process did not remove those harmful substances, and in some cases may even have enhanced their presence in the smoke that smokers inhaled.

Another concerning aspect of modern cigarette filters is the material from which they are made. The most common material used is cellulose acetate—a synthetic plastic that, when inhaled, can contribute to respiratory issues. The fibres and microplastics from filters can embed in the lungs, potentially leading to long-term damage. Although that material can be effective in filtering out some particles, it does not remove gases of low molecular weight, such as carbon monoxide, which are also harmful to health.

Despite cigarette filters being marketed as a safer option, their widespread use over the past 60 years has had little effect on reducing the health risk of smoking. In fact, it may have contributed to a decrease in public awareness about the dangers of smoking, and may have led to more people becoming addicted to smoking without fully understanding the risks involved.

I note that new clause 4 suggests that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be used to ban the supply of cigarette filters, because they have a significant environmental impact. Roughly 4.5 trillion cigarette filters are disposed of annually, making them the most littered man-made waste item in the world and accounting for roughly a third of all litter found in coastal and urban clean-ups. Despite their small size, the sheer volume of discarded cigarette butts would fill almost 50,000 shipping containers every single year, and that is expected to increase by 50% in 2025.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was absolutely shocked to learn that cigarette butts account for one in five pieces of discarded plastic. When it is predicted that by 2050 there will be more tonnage of plastic in the ocean than fish, we should look at every way possible of protecting the environment and wildlife from plastic pollution. Back in 2019, a third successful dive was made to the Mariana trench—the deepest part of the ocean; it is 36,000 feet deep, which is greater than the height at which jumbo jets fly—and I was surprised that when the people were down there documenting previously unseen life forms, they came across plastic pollution. This is such a serious issue that we need to look at every way possible of reducing plastic pollution. Those tiny cigarette butts in particular can be swallowed by a huge number of creatures, as well as contaminating the environment.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He is absolutely right that these items are a huge danger to the environment, and it is sad when we go to parts of our world that are still not well explored, such as the Mariana trench, and find evidence of damage caused by the human race, such as plastic pollution. Although I have huge sympathy for people who have become addicted to nicotine and find it difficult to quit smoking, there is no excuse for the litter that it creates all over our beaches and our urban and rural areas.

Cigarette filters are neither biodegradable nor effectively recyclable. They are made, as I said, primarily from cellulose acetate—a plastic material that does not biodegrade. Even after two years of decomposition, cigarette filters will have lost only about 38% of their mass, and the remaining material continues to persist in the environment. During that time, filters leach harmful substances, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals such as arsenic, that have been inhaled through the filter and into the surrounding environment, further contaminating soil and water sources.

Cigarette butt waste has been shown to impact marine and coastal environments. Studies have demonstrated that cigarette filters affect the micro-biodiversity of coastal sediment and that they pose harm to marine animals that ingest them. That is a growing concern, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, as plastic waste continues to accumulate in the ocean, harming wildlife and disrupting ecosystems. The Ocean Conservancy’s international coastal clean-up has, over the course of 32 years, collected more than 60 million cigarette butts from the ocean. Although that sounds like a lot, that accounts for just 0.00001% of all cigarette filters thrown away in a single year, so this is a difficult thing to clean up.

Despite the growing awareness of the environmental impact of single-use plastics, cigarette filters have not been subject to the same regulations as other plastic products. For example, the European Union banned many forms of single-use plastic in 2019, but cigarette filters were not included, leaving a significant loophole. As cigarette consumption remains widespread, the environmental impact of the filters continues to grow. In October 2024, Santa Cruz county in California became the first jurisdiction in the world to approve a ban on filtered cigarettes and cigars.

One of the questions I have for the hon. Member for Dartford who tabled the new clause—he sadly is not here—is why he has chosen to use the 1990 Act. The previous Conservative Government banned a number of single-use plastics on the basis that they were harmful to the environment, that there were non-plastic, more environmentally friendly and more suitably priced items available, and that it would help to improve the environment, which is a very good thing. However, one of the reasons for introducing those bans through secondary legislation under the 1990 Act was that there was not an opportunity to do so in primary legislation, because of the time constraints of the parliamentary calendar. The Minister has talked about getting time for primary legislation already.

This Bill is a piece of primary legislation, and to add cigarette filters to it only requires the Government to write in clause 1 “and cigarette filters too”, and to make consequential amendments through the Bill on that basis. I agree with the principle that cigarette filters are a bad thing for the environment, and they are not good for people’s health, but I am not entirely sure why the 1990 Act is being used and why the Minister has not included filters in clause 1 and consequentially throughout the Bill. Perhaps he can tell us in winding up.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation. I did not know that it was cork that gave the colouring, so that is another benefit of her history lesson. We are aware that the previous Conservative Government took strong action to try to remove plastics in the environment. We introduced the UK-wide prohibition on the use of plastic microbeads in the manufacture of some cosmetic and personal care products, such as face scrubs, toothpastes and shower gels, where the little beads could wash into the sea. That was one of the reasons why those beads were banned. It is therefore an interesting argument to make that we should ban cigarette filters with their plastic content, because we do not want further pollution of our beautiful natural environment.

The World Health Organisation has advocated for banning those filters. As my hon. Friend compellingly said, there are no health benefits to such filters being used—which I had not appreciated. One would assume that those filters would have helped, but it is interesting that they do not. I note that the UN General Assembly is also advocating for a ban on filters, particularly given their plastic content.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the plastic content. I just spotted that in the explanatory statement for new clause 4 from the hon. Member for Dartford, he talks about wanting specifically to ban cigarette filters that contain plastic, as opposed to other cigarette filters. That would improve the environment, but a question is raised by the fact that when a cigarette filter is in use, the toxic chemicals present in the cigarette flow through that filter and becoming lodged in it. So as well as the plastic pollution as the filter is littered into the environment, causing a hazard, there is also the fact that as it decomposes, those other toxic chemicals present in the tobacco smoke are in the filter and leach out into the environment. That presumably would be the case even if the filter was not made of plastic, although the plastic is clearly extra harmful.

[Sarah Bool]

I agree. That is a good conclusion to have worked through, which we perhaps had not had the opportunity to turn our attention to. I would like to see a provision of this nature. I am intrigued, as my hon. Friend said, by why the Minister has not included filters in the outright initial ban. That should be considered, perhaps on Report.

As a general principle, we need to look after our natural environment. A ban on the plastic contained in cigarette filters would surely be a sensible move. As my hon. Friend has said, however, the filters do not achieve what anyone was hoping and do not make smoking safer. I therefore think we must have further discussion. Will the Minister give a little more explanation on some of the rationale and whether the measure can be included in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Given that the shadow Minister moved the new clause, it is for her to press or withdraw. Shadow Minister, do you want to withdraw it or press it to a vote?

[Dr Johnson]

That depends on whether the Minister can assure me that he intends to bring forward legislation under the Environment Act 2021 to deal with plastic filters.

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is way above my pay grade. It is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford that I will speak to ministerial colleagues in DEFRA. We are very sympathetic to the aim of the new clause, but we do not support the Bill being the mechanism to achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I take the Minister at his word. He is an honourable man and I hear that he has sympathy for the new clause. The important thing is that it gets done, not necessarily that it gets done in a particular piece of legislation. I will take him at his word and look forward to seeing the legislation come before an SI Committee for DEFRA. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Ban on manufacture and sales of high-strength nicotine pouches

“(1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength nicotine pouch.

(2) It is an offence to—

(a) sell or expose for sale a high-strength nicotine pouch, or

(b) offer or expose a high-strength nicotine pouch for sale.

(3) It is an offence for a person to have a high-strength nicotine pouch in their possession with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.

(4) In this section “high-strength nicotine pouch” means a nicotine pouch that—

(a) is intended for oral use,

(b) is not intended to be inhaled,

(c) does not contain tobacco, and

(d) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per pouch.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.

(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.”—(Mary Glindon.)

This new clause provides for a ban on the manufacture and sale of high-strength nicotine pouches.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 5 was tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), who is not on the Committee, and addresses an important issue that is causing me huge concern as well: that of nicotine pouches. We have heard repeatedly in this Committee, and from our witnesses in the evidence sessions, about how the tobacco industry behaves—how it seeks to addict people to nicotine for a lifetime and how it seeks to do so in relatively young people, who are most susceptible to its marketing and to the nicotine addiction itself.

Nicotine pouches are tobacco-free products that are becoming increasingly popular in the UK. They first entered the market in 2019 and are most prevalent among smokers trying to quit, although there is now a substantial market for non-smokers, in the same way that we have seen with vaping and other products over time—this is the latest one, as it were. The main type of oral nicotine products comes from brands like Zyn, Velo, Nordic Spirit, LOOP and White Fox. There are also stronger variants, like Siberia and Killa. They are a tobacco-free product that is placed between the lip and the gum and held there for oral absorption of nicotine, similar to Swedish snus. They are pre-packaged, pre-portioned pouches produced in a variety of flavours.

The Health and Social Care Committee went to Sweden last spring—around the time that the previous Government’s Bill was in Committee—where we saw rows upon rows, floor to ceiling, of these products in shops across Sweden, where they are very popular. We have seen the same pattern of marketing towards children as we are seeing for vapes and have seen for tobacco in the past. If mint is one’s favourite flavour, one could go for crispy peppermint, mighty peppermint, peppermint storm, witty spearmint, humble spearmint or even spiffy spearmint. If fruit flavours are more your thing, Mr Pritchard, choices include wintry watermelon, blueberry boost, hot berries, blushy berry, groovy grape, breezy mango and punchy lime. These pouches are now available in a whole variety of flavours, also including cinnamon flame, nutty Virginia and fizzy lemonade, and they have become more popular. They have attracted investment from the world’s biggest tobacco companies, eager to shift to so-called reduced-risk products as regulation and health concerns tighten worldwide, and have become a viral hit with consumers, many of whom are too young to already be smokers.

Philip Morris International acquired Zyn maker Swedish Match in 2022 for about $16 billion and said that the product had helped to boost its revenues by almost a fifth in the first nine months of last year as it delivered its third quarter results. It said that Zyn was now available in 30 countries, with recent launches in Greece and the Czech Republic. British American Tobacco owns the Velo brand and said in August that nicotine pouches were its fastest-growing new category, with organic revenue up more than 48% in the first half of 2024 compared with 2023. I am sure the Minister will look at this carefully and, as he seeks to protect the population’s public health in relation to nicotine products, I am sure he will be cognisant of the need to protect under-18s from these products.

New clause 5 focuses specifically on the nicotine content of these products. The nicotine content of oral nicotine pouches can vary. Typically, it is between 4 mg and 18 mg of oral nicotine per pouch, but there are many that contain much more. Some online retailers sell products containing up to 150 mg of nicotine per pouch. Oral nicotine pouches are sold in a variety of flavours but also in a variety of strengths. The comparison with a cigarette is quite stark:

“Researchers at the University of Stirling found that some pouches for sale on the UK high street had a nicotine content equivalent to 10 cigarettes.”

Those products are being put on people’s gums and giving them the equivalent of 10 cigarettes over a short period of time. The Financial Times article from 5 November 2024 goes on:

“‘They are strong enough to be psychoactive and they can cause local irritation,’ said Rosemary Hiscock of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. ‘Even if flavours are safe for food, we can’t be sure that they’re actually going to be safe if they’re held in the mouth for a long time, next to the gum line. There’s not been research on the interactions of that at all.’”

Oral nicotine pouches, alongside other novel nicotine products such as nicotine toothpicks and nicotine toothpastes that could emerge or have already emerged on to the market, are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Under the regulations, there is no current age of sale for retailers to impose, so these products are legally being bought by those under the age of 18, though the Bill will help to resolve that. Nicotine products are also not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, because no medical claims are made and they are not an alternative to an authorised medical product. They are not being used as a medical prescription stop smoking device, but are sold more as a recreational form of nicotine by tobacco producers, who see their market in tobacco shrinking and want to find another way to addict the next generation of people to nicotine, thereby removing their choice and potentially damaging their health.

We have seen social media and website, content and brand advertisements promoting nicotine pouches as performance enhancers for gaming and sport. We have seen the promotion of JTI’s Nordic Spirit pouches at music festivals; and Zyn and Velo, which are owned by tobacco companies, run reward programmes allowing consumers to swap empty packets for prizes such as iPads. I hope the Minister can confirm that those will be prevented by the Bill—they will be prevented by legislation if the Minister regulates, as he is given the powers to do by the legislation. We hope that he intends to do so.

The Advertising Standards Authority has tried to control this within current powers; a major nicotine pouch brand implying mood enhancement and stimulation was banned by the ASA in 2021. There is little reliable evidence that nicotine has any performance-enhancing benefits in sports, but a report by Loughborough University in May 2024 found that one in five 5 professional footballers in England currently use nicotine products and that two in five have used nicotine products at least once.

UK survey data shows that nicotine patches are becoming increasingly prevalent in the UK. In 2020, a survey of the UK showed that 2.7% of people had tried nicotine patches, but that had essentially doubled by 2024 to 5.4%, with an increase in popularity among young people, which shows increased awareness among young people; shop displays, bus banners and social media promotion are making them more and more of a problem among young people.

Does this matter? Well, of course being addicted to something one does not want to be addicted to does matter, but what health issues might be caused by these nicotine pouches? According to the impact assessment for the Bill,

“a recent scoping review, found that oral nicotine pouches claimed to be less toxic than cigarettes and deliver comparable nicotine, although data was mainly available from industry funded studies. Despite potentially lower toxicity than cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches still contain nicotine, which”

is still addictive and still

“can have harmful effects. A systematic review considering the harmful effects of nicotine found nicotine to adversely affect various systems within the body including the cardiovascular, renal, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, it has also been shown to be a carcinogenic.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

New clause 5 would introduce a ban on the manufacture and sale of high-strength nicotine products, with the maximum level of nicotine in a pouch set at 20 mg. Unlike nicotine vapes, there is currently no set nicotine limit for nicotine pouches; as we have heard, nicotine strengths vary from 2 mg per pouch to as high as 150 mg per pouch. There is also significant variation in these products internationally.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the arguments from the shadow Minister, from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and indeed from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend. It is important to define the correct and safe nicotine level of a nicotine pouch. That is why we are already taking powers in the Bill that would allow the Government to limit the amount of nicotine in a pouch and to ban any other ingredient in a pouch that might be harmful.

We believe that secondary rather than primary legislation is the appropriate way to legislate on these matters, for all the reasons we have already debated. Legislation always has to be flexible enough to be amended based on new and emerging evidence. That allows the Government to set the right level of technical detail to ensure legal clarity. We will therefore consider the matter very carefully in our consultations post Royal Assent. I note that the shadow Minister referred to “if” we decide to use these regulations. Let me be very clear: these are precisely the kinds of things we will be looking at when we are moving like the clappers to get the regulations through.

In addition, nicotine pouches will be covered by all our other measures designed to reduce the appeal and accessibility of such products to children, such as powers to restrict flavours and regulate packaging, as well as those on general advertising. The shadow Minister gave an example of promotions that give out iPads in exchange for empty pouches. We clearly need to look at that specific promotion, but we are confident that it would be banned under the advertising restrictions that we have already debated and agreed to in Committee. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I understand that he is sympathetic. I know that he is going to go like the clappers; “going like the clappers” is apparently an RAF phrase, but I doubt that he is going as fast as a Tornado jet or a Typhoon—[Interruption.] Maybe he will: he is indicating that he might.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I reassure the shadow Minister that on some of these things I am going to go supersonic.

[Dr Johnson]

Hear, hear. However, in reality, regulations take time, and a sonic boom could damage the windows of this beautiful Palace of Westminster.

I do not know where the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, who tabled new clause 5, has got the 20 mg figure, but my understanding is that 20 mg is a higher level than we would expect in a cigarette. Anything stronger than a cigarette could certainly not be considered a stop smoking device: it will just get people more addicted to nicotine than they would ever wish.

I will press the new clause to a vote, because I feel very strongly that over time we will see these pouches becoming the latest thing for children to become addicted to, despite the Minister’s best intentions.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 50, in clause 168, page 120, line 30, after “3” insert

“, save Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 51.

Amendment 51, in clause 168, page 120, line 39, leave from “force” to end of line 41 and insert

“on such a date as the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint following the consultation on licensing regulations (see section (Consultation on licensing regulations)).”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 50 and NC6, would require the Secretary of State to consult on licensing scheme regulations before Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2 come into force.

[Dr Johnson]

New clause 6 will introduce a process of consultation and scrutiny of the licensing regulations for the retail sale of tobacco products, when the relevant sections of the Tobacco and Vapes Act come into effect. New clause 6 is designed to ensure that the implementation of the licensing system is transparent and effective.

Subsection (1) lays out the following requirement:

“Within two months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations for the licensing of retail sale of tobacco products etc in England.”

The Secretary of State says he is working like the clappers, at supersonic speed, so I am sure that that should be more than achievable, but the new clause holds his feet to the fire on timing.

The provision is crucial because it sets a clear and reasonable timetable for the initial stage of the regulatory process. The publication of the draft regulations will provide a starting point for discussions about the rules governing the sale of tobacco, enabling relevant stake-holders, including retailers, public health experts and consumer advocacy groups, to examine responsive proposals. The two-month window allows the Secretary of State to move promptly—like the clappers—while also giving enough time for key groups to review the draft and contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Subsection (2) further strengthens the consultation process, and it states that after the draft regulations are published, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence. This is an invitation for the public, industry participants and experts to provide their view on the proposed regulations. The goal of the call for evidence is to gather insights on the efficacy and suitability of the draft regulations, helping the Government to understand whether the proposals will achieve the intended outcomes and whether they are feasible in practice. Furthermore, the subsection ensures that the Business and Trade Committee will be invited to scrutinise the draft regulations, ensuring that any regulations that are developed are subject to thorough review and are held to the highest standards of accountability.

Subsection (3) requires that within six months of passing this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report that responds formally to the evidence gathered through the consultation process, details the Government’s response to the feedback received and outlines any changes made to the draft regulations. In addition, the Government will address any recommendations put forward by the Business and Trade Committee in their scrutiny of the draft regulations.

The report will provide a mechanism for the Government to explain how public input and parliamentary scrutiny have influenced the final regulations, thus reinforcing the transparency and accountability of the process. The report also gives Parliament the opportunity to assess whether the Government sufficiently considered evidence before moving forward with the regulations.

Finally, subsection (4) introduces an important safeguard, and states:

“The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 168(4) bringing Sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2 into force until the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament”.

This ensures that significant changes are not implemented without the proper review, approval and scrutiny of the House.

In summary, the new clause will strengthen the legislative framework of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill by ensuring the licensing regulations on the sale of tobacco products are subject to a thorough process of consultation, scrutiny and formal response. By requiring early publication, gathering public input, inviting parliamentary review and ensuring that no major changes are enacted before proper scrutiny, the new clause guarantees that the regulations will be well informed, balanced and accountable.

It will also ensure that the Minister does indeed go like the clappers, because it gives quite a tight timetable. One of my concerns, which I raised earlier in the debate, was that it would take some time for the regulations to come in. If we allow the time taken to bring in the regulations and consult to drag out, more children and adults will become addicted to these products, and that will be bad for the public health of the nation. The new clause provides a reasonable timetable to ensure the regulations are brought in swiftly, as the Minister has described.

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

It is good to be back after a short lunch break, Mr Pritchard; I trust Members are well nourished ahead of this afternoon’s sitting.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for this set of amendments. They would require the Government to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the licensing scheme in England, as set out in clauses 16 to 18 and schedules 1 and 2. The new clause stipulates that those regulations must be published within two months of Royal Assent of the Bill, and that a report on a mandated call for evidence, including a response to the Business and Trade Committee, must be laid before both Houses six months after Royal Assent.

I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s desire to move swiftly in this space. It is certainly my intention and the intention of the Government to move at pace—like the clappers, in supersonic fashion—in a whole range of areas. However, as with similar amendments relating to the registration scheme, we believe that new clause 6 would place an unreasonable and impractical constraint on Government. The reality is that to publish the regulations within two months of Royal Assent is simply not feasible, and the new clause does not reflect the processes and stages required for the development of proportionate, appropriate and well-considered regulations.

Development of secondary legislation takes time, and the arbitrary timescales proposed would not enable effective policy development. Forcing the Government to proceed with producing new legislation at the pace that the shadow Minister seeks to stipulate would open the Government up to the risk of creating flawed policy. Creating flawed policy carries clear risks, not least the potential for the Government’s work to be legally challenged, thereby delaying measures either for a further period of time or indeed for good.

The Bill imposes on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to consult ahead of the introduction of any regulations. Through that process, we will be able to carefully consider views from stakeholders, including the retail sector, in order to build a licensing scheme that supports legitimate businesses while cracking down on rogue retailers.

Finally, to echo points that I have already made, the Bill has been developed in collaboration with colleagues across the United Kingdom, and such close working and close alignment will continue through the development of all secondary legislation. My concern about new clause 6 is that it risks creating inconsistencies with licensing regimes elsewhere, particularly in Wales and Northern Ireland. We are approaching this together, and that is why I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

We have learned from the Minister that terms such as “like the clappers”, “quickly”, “in due course” and “soon” all mean a timescale longer than publishing a draft within two months and the final version within six. In practice, that means the concerns I have expressed about the Bill are true. This will take a long time, and the Minister’s “soon” is not really soon enough.

I understand the Minister’s concern that if he does not get the work done in time, it will cause the Government problems, but the answer to that is simply to get the work done in sufficient time. The Minister has been clear all along that this is an urgent public health measure. Two thirds of the people who get addicted will die as a result of the tobacco they are consuming. Not to agree that he must produce draft regulations within two months, when he knows much of what the consultation will say—indeed, the previous Government consulted on much of it anyway—is to say that the Government will move slowly and not like the clappers at all.

I understand that he is concerned about inconsistency between the nations, but he has not expressed such concern before. In fact, throughout our debate, when we have discussed the nations, we have spoken repeatedly about respecting devolution and the ability of other nations to go at different paces, do different things in different ways, and impose different fines and other penalties.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure whether it is because of selective amnesia, or whether the shadow Minister has had a really good lunch, but she seems to have entirely forgotten our previous debates. We have debated the licensing regime at length, and I made it perfectly clear to the whole Committee that Scotland is doing its own thing because it believes that that works well for Scotland, but that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be moving in lockstep on this. If she was not aware then, she should be now.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the Minister for making my point, which is that some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing to do this in a different way.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We are doing this together.

[Dr Johnson]

But there is nothing to stop the Union doing it together. In the event that England chose to do things at a particular pace, as it has a right to do, the Scots have already chosen to do things differently, as is their right, and the Welsh and the Northern Irish could then choose to do things at the same pace—the same appropriately quick, or reasonable, pace—or they could decide that they want to go more slowly. That would be up to them. What is in the Minister’s control is to decide that he is prepared to act at a suitable pace to ensure that these regulations come into force as properly and as quickly as possible, including with scrutiny from the House.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s zeal in desiring to see this Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, and in many ways I agree with her. Following on from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, my concern is that putting in something that is perhaps impractical, and may have unintended consequences, might undermine the good intention that no doubt underpins her new clause.

For example, if new clause 6 became part of an Act and, for whatever reason, the draft regulations were not published within two months, and therefore the Government failed to meet the requirement in subsection (1), would subsection (4) not mean that clause 168(4) could never be implemented? Would that not have the opposite effect to what I think she is trying to achieve?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but the answer is no, because a report has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. If the Government were late in doing that, they would have breached the requirement in the clause and demonstrated themselves to be slow off the blocks, but, as I read it, that would not stop the other measures being brought into place.

We are trying to encourage the Government to move more quickly. My worry is that much of the Bill consists of provisions that give the Secretary of State the capacity to make regulations to do a whole range of things, most of which are very good and will help to protect public health—if he does them. I do not doubt the Minister’s zeal to ensure that the Secretary of State does so, or indeed the Secretary State’s desire to do so, but the fact is that the Government seem to have all sorts of priorities, and if this one gets put on the back burner, it could be many years before any of this comes into force.

The Minister is shaking his head, but what we are suggesting here begins after Royal Assent. Bear in mind that the Bill still has to move to Report, go to the House of Lords and then come back for Third Reading, so it has a long way to go through this Parliament before we get to the start of the two-month period. It does not start today, when we finish line-by-line scrutiny in the House of Commons Bill Committee. Even if we said that it would start two months from now, with six months until the report was published and the regulations put forward in their final form, it would be closer to a year by the time we got through all the parliamentary scrutiny, so the Minister has much more time even than the new clause would suggest.

If we put two-month and six-month markers into the legislation, the actual time involved would be more than two months and more than six months, because of the further parliamentary stages that the Bill must go through before we even get to Royal Assent. Those time periods start from the point at which the Bill becomes law, so I think the Minister has more than enough time, particularly if he is going to go supersonic, like the clappers.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 52, in clause 169, page 121, line 21, after “etc)” insert—

“, save Sections 95 to 98,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 53.

Amendment 53, in clause 169, page 122, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Sections 95 to 98 (Registration and information requirements) come into force on such a date as the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint following the consultation on Registration and information requirements (see section (Consultation on Registration and information requirements)).”

This amendment, together with Amendment 52 and NC7, would require the Secretary of State to consult on registration and information requirements before Sections 95 to 98 come into force.

[Dr Johnson]

The purpose of new clause 7 is to ensure that the regulations surrounding tobacco products are both well informed and effective before they come into force. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations concerning the registration and information requirements for tobacco within two months of the passage of the Act. This provides an initial, timely step towards addressing these critical regulatory areas and ensures that the Government take swift action to establish clear guidelines for the tobacco industry, particularly regarding registration and information requirements. Again, we are trying to avoid delay. The two months do not start until the Act has passed, which means that the deadline is significantly more than two months from now—more than enough time for the Minister to produce the draft regulations, particularly given that, I suspect, much of the work is done already, and some of it was done by the previous Government anyway.

Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State, following the publication of the draft regulations, to issue a call for evidence. That call for evidence will seek views on the efficacy and suitability of the draft regulations from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry experts, public health organisations and other interested parties. Additionally, the Secretary State is required to invite the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise the draft regulations. This subsection aims to ensure a transparent process that involves detailed external scrutiny of proposed regulations, helping to identify any potential issues or improvements before they are finalised.

Subsection (3) mandates that six months after the passage of the Act—I should mention again that that is more than six months from now—the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the Government’s formal response to the evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence under subsection (2), as well as any recommendations made by the Business and Trade Committee. This requirement ensures that the Government are held accountable for considering all feedback and making any necessary adjustments to regulations before they are implemented. It promotes transparency and enables Parliament to monitor how the Government have addressed public and expert input.

Subsection (4) specifies the Secretary of State cannot make an order under clause 169(1A) bringing clauses 95 to 98 into force until the report mentioned in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. That report sets out the Government’s response to consultation and any recommendations from the Business and Trade Committee, if there are any. Again, this is trying to make sure that the Government act at appropriate speed to get things done.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I repeat my point, perhaps inarticulately made earlier, about new clause 6, which applies to new clause 7. If subsection (4) said “any report”, my point might not stand, but it says

“the report specified in subsection (3)”.

If the Bill passed and the report was for some reason laid not six months later, but nine months later, would that not mean, because of the way the new clause is drafted, that an order under clause 169(1A) could not be implemented by the Secretary of State, thereby hampering their ability to bring about some important public health legislation?

[Dr Johnson]

The only thing that would inhibit the Government is not getting the work done in time—if they did not hand their homework in on time. We have all been at school and we know that if we do not hand our homework in on time, it causes us trouble. The simple fact is that the purpose of the clause is to get the Government to do their work in an appropriate time frame. So that is the point—we do not want to create a whole load of capacity in this legislation for the Government to do stuff only for them to put it on the back burner because they are too busy, do not have the time and do not see it as a priority. Legislating to have the power to do things and doing them are not the same thing. The purpose of this new clause is to make sure that the Government get them done.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her new clause 7. It would require the Government to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the registration and information requirements set out in clauses 95 and 98. It stipulates that these regulations must be published within two months of Royal Assent of the Bill, and that a report on a mandated call for evidence, including the response to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, must be laid before both Houses six months after Royal Assent.

Again, I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s desire to move swiftly in this space, but as with her similar proposals relating to licensing, this new clause would place an unreasonable and impractical constraint on the Government. To draft and publish these regulations within two months of Royal Assent is simply not feasible, and the new clause does not reflect the required processes and stages for the development of proportionate, appropriate and well-considered regulations. Development of secondary legislation takes time, and the arbitrary timescales proposed would not enable effective policy development.

The Bill imposes on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to consult on the appropriate parties ahead of introducing any regulations on this issue. Through this process, we will be able to carefully consider views relating to the existing notification schemes for tobacco products and nicotine vapes, as well as to get views on how a future registration scheme might work, and, importantly, use that input to shape and draft the required regulations. Forcing the Government to proceed hastily with producing new legislation opens up the risk of creating flawed policy. Creating flawed policy creates clear risks, not least the potential for the Government’s work to be legally challenged. I know that that is not what the shadow Minister wants, so I therefore ask her not to push her new clause to a vote.

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is inevitable that much of this will be legally challenged, because the effect of the legislation is to hamper severely an industry that has a lot of money. They are going to challenge every dot and comma of it—I am quite sure of that. The purpose, however, of this new clause is to get the Government to move at speed. The Government have been in power for more than six months now, so they cannot say that they are not capable of producing draft guidelines for regulations within six months of the date of Royal Assent, which is many weeks from now, given that they have managed to publish the Employment Rights Bill, the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Finance Bill and various other things. I do not understand why the Minister is not keener to get these things done.

I will therefore push the new clause to a vote. Yes, the Minister could get himself in trouble if he did not work quick enough, but I have every confidence that if this new clause were enacted, the Minister would—like the clappers, at supersonic speed—be more than capable. I have every confidence that the Minister is more than capable of drafting regulations within the time available if he is forced to do so.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 is designed to require the Government to produce annual reports detailing the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products. Subsection (1) would mandate the Secretary of State to prepare reports on the scale of illegal tobacco and vaping products in the UK. The reports would focus on providing a detailed overview of the prevalence and impact of illegal, counterfeit and contraband products in the market. Subsection (1) would also require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of each report before the Houses of Parliament, ensuring transparency and parliamentary oversight.

Subsection (2) outlines the specific information that each report would have to include. It stipulates that the reports would have to cover the estimated amount and value of illegal, counterfeit and contraband cigarettes and other tobacco products available for sale in the UK; the estimated amount and value of illegal or non-compliant vapes available for sale; a breakdown of the actions taken by the Government and relevant authorities to tackle the illicit sale of tobacco, tobacco products, vaping devices and vaping products; and an assessment of the impact that the illicit trade of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products had been having on public health and safety. That is crucial to understanding not just the scale of the problem, but the broader implications for public health.

Subsection (3) sets out a requirement for the first report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passing of the Act. That would ensure that the Government addressed the issue of illegal tobacco and vaping products promptly after the Bill was enacted. Subsection (4) establishes that each subsequent report would have to be laid

“annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”

That annual cycle would ensure that ongoing monitoring of the illegal trade, providing a regular and up-to-date picture of the situation in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, new clause 8 would establish a consistent and systematic process for reporting on the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products in the UK. By producing detailed annual reports assessing the scale of the illicit trade and its impact on public health and safety, the Government would be held accountable for addressing this issue. Furthermore, the new clause would provide Parliament with the necessary information to scrutinise the actions taken by the Government to combat the illegal trade, promoting transparency and informed decision making.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. New clause 8 would require the Government to produce annual reports on the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products and the impact on public health and safety. I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s aim to ensure that the benefit and progress made as a result of our measures is known and seen by the public. However, this new clause is not needed, given that the Government already publish data on the illicit tobacco market and we will be doing the same for vapes following the introduction of the new vaping products duty.

On tobacco, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already regularly provides data and reports on various aspects of the illicit trade. For example, HMRC periodically publishes the tobacco tax gap report, which estimates the difference between the theoretical duty liability and the actual amount of tobacco duty collected by HMRC. That report also estimates the market share of illicit tobacco. HMRC also publishes the annual outputs for tackling tobacco smuggling, which include figures on tobacco seizures, including the number of criminal prosecutions and amount of civil penalties issued. National Trading Standards, too, provides public reports and updates related specifically to enforcement activity, which include the illegal sale and importation of vapes and related products. Additionally, HMRC intends, following the introduction of the vaping products duty, to publish annual estimates of the size of the illicit market, using tax gap data as well as data on activity targeting vaping duty fraud, such as the number of seizures.

It is important that enforcement agencies produce the estimates and figures on enforcement activity, given that that is their area of expertise. An annual report from the Secretary of State would only duplicate that information. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to this new clause. Can he confirm that the reports are produced on an annual basis, and will continue to be produced on that basis by both relevant authorities through this Parliament?

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is our intention that the reports will be published in accordance with the mechanisms with which they are published now, with the frequency that they are now published. Therefore, we do not need this new obligation on the Secretary of State.

[Dr Johnson]

I take the Minister at his word, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Prohibition on manufacture and retail of high-capacity count vaping devices

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce regulations relating to the design, manufacture and sale of vaping devices and products that ensure—

(a) refill containers cannot be attached to a vaping device post-purchase to increase a device’s overall capacity during use, or allow for multiple pods to be attached at the same time to a device to increase its functional capacity beyond a 2ml limit.

(b) devices only have a single pod or tank that does not exceed 2ml limit.

(c) refill devices do not exceed a 10ml capacity and must be sold separately and not in the form of a clink-on tank.

(2) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) manufactures, designs for manufacture, imports or supplies for sale a vaping device that is contrary to the regulatory requirements set out in subsection (1).

(b) sells or retails a vaping device that is contrary to the regulatory requirements set out in subsection (1).

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (2)(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £20,000.

(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (2)(b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £10,000.”— (Dr Johnson.)

This new clause would seek the introduction of regulations and new offences to prohibit the manufacture, design and retail sale of high-capacity count vaping devices.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 is designed to regulate the design, manufacture, and sale of high- capacity vaping devices, specifically addressing concerns around devices that allow for an increased capacity beyond a specified limit. The proposal seeks to ensure that vaping products sold in the UK remain within acceptable safety standards and prevent devices from becoming overly powerful or difficult to control. The clause places limits on the size of pods, tanks, and refill containers for vaping products.

Subsection (1) introduces specific requirements regarding the design, manufacture, and sale of vaping devices and products. It mandates that vaping devices sold within the UK should not allow for refill containers to be attached to a device post purchase to increase its capacity beyond the legally accepted limits. That part of the clause ensures that devices can only hold a single pod or tank that does not exceed a 2 ml capacity. This is a critical public health measure, because larger capacities could encourage excessive consumption of nicotine, posing potential risks to users, particularly younger people or those who may be more vulnerable to nicotine addiction.

It is worth pointing out that in line with the vote we had this morning on nicotine pouches of very high strength, if vapes are there to help people to stop smoking—as the industry says they are—there is no requirement for those devices to be stronger in nicotine than a cigarette is. Otherwise the addiction to nicotine will go in precisely the wrong direction.

Furthermore, subsection (1) ensures that refill devices, such as e-liquids, must not exceed a 10 ml capacity. Importantly, these refill devices must be sold separately, preventing sellers from marketing click-on or multi-pod systems that could encourage users to exceed the capacity limits in a single vaping session. By introducing the restrictions, the clause aims to maintain control over how vaping products are consumed and reduce the potential harms associated with unregulated usage.

Subsection (2) establishes that it is an offence for anyone to manufacture, import, supply for sale, or sell a vaping device that does not conform to the regulations outlined in subsection (1). The provision is designed to create accountability within the vaping industry, ensuring that businesses involved in the design, production, or sale of vaping products are held to strict standards. The penalties outlined in the clause will deter manufacturers or retailers from attempting to circumvent the capacity restrictions for financial gain.

Subsection (3) specifies the penalties for manufacturers, designers, or importers who are found guilty of violating the regulations set out in subsection (1). Specifically, those found guilty of manufacturing or importing non-compliant vaping devices could face a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction. That substantial fine acts as a deterrent against non-compliance by manufacturers, encouraging them to adhere strictly to safety standards.

Subsection (4) establishes penalties for retailers who sell non-compliant vaping devices. If a retailer is found guilty of selling a vaping device that does not meet the specified requirements, they could be fined up to £10,000. The tiered nature of the fines, with higher penalties for manufacturers and lower penalties for retailers, reflects the differing levels of responsibility in the supply chain.

New clause 9 introduces important regulations to prevent the manufacture, sale, and distribution of high-capacity vaping devices that could pose greater health risks. By limiting the size of tanks, pods, and refill containers, and imposing penalties for non-compliance, the clause seeks to protect public health and prevent the misuse of vaping products.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this important discussion to the Committee. The provision would regulate high-capacity count vaping devices, which we understand to mean so-called “big puff vapes”, or devices that provide more than 600 puffs, by ensuring that the Secretary of State regulates the amount of liquid in a tank and ensures that the refill container cannot be connected to the vape device, creating more liquid and thus more puffs.

Although I empathise with what the shadow Minister is trying to do, the Bill already provides powers that allow us to regulate for the size of a tank or refill container and the amount of liquid that can be included, as well as powers to standardise vapes and to further restrict liquid availability. In addition, the Bill contains powers that allow us to regulate the amount of nicotine in a puff, so as to restrict not only the amount of nicotine in the tank, but the amount of nicotine that can be emitted in the vapour.

We have a duty to consult on ways in which vapes and vape devices can be standardised before we make regulations. This will ensure that the right decisions are taken, based on evidence, which will reduce the legal risk to Government from any future litigation.

Moreover, many so-called big puff vapes currently on the market will be caught by the upcoming ban on single-use vapes, which will be led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and comes into force on 1 June, because most of them are disposable products and do not have replaceable coils.

It is for these reasons that I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The key thing is that although the Bill does have powers for all that to happen under regulation, we have already established that the regulations will take more than two months to write and more than six months to review, even after the Bill has gained Royal Assent in a few months’ time, so we will probably be sitting here next year with no restrictions at all on vapes, because the Government will not have written them. Therefore, I think it is important that in the meantime we try to use the Bill to make the most clear and important changes, including the size of the tank limit.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

This clause outlines the territorial extent of the Bill: part 1 applies to England and Wales, part 2 to Scotland, part 3 to Northern Ireland, and parts 4 to 6 and 8 to the entirety of the United Kingdom. Part 7 contains only amendments to existing legislation, and therefore, by virtue of subsection (1), its extent does not need to be explicitly stated. This is a standard clause that helps the measures in the Bill to function effectively; I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister says, clause 167 provides for the extent of the Bill. I am particularly interested in the way that part 3 extends to Northern Ireland. As part of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland is subject to 283 Euro laws, including the EU’s tobacco directive. Article 24 of the tobacco directive says:

“Member States may not…prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”,

apparently contradicting this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course that has been considered. It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to ensure that any legislation appertaining to Northern Ireland is compatible with the Windsor framework—that is clear. In drafting the Bill, the Government have taken into account all our domestic and international obligations. It has been put together following full consultation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we intend it to be United Kingdom-wide legislation for a smoke-free UK, in accordance with our international obligations.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that that is the Minister’s intent—indeed, it would be my intent to see people in Northern Ireland, as part of our great country, be as healthy as the rest of those in the United Kingdom—but intent is not enough to make things happen, in the same way that the Government saying they will go for growth does not make it happen, particularly if they do things that have the opposite effect. What is the legal position on which the Minister believes the clause will stand?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Bill is and will be, as an Act of Parliament, in full accordance with our international obligations. We will have a smoke-free United Kingdom, and the measures appertaining to Northern Ireland fit within our international and domestic obligations under the Windsor framework.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 167 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168

Commencement: Parts 1 to 4

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Perhaps it shows that history does matter and we can learn from it. Never mind Henry VIII powers: perhaps when we bring forward the regulations, we will have papal powers to go further.

[Dr Johnson]

As the Minister is aware from my previous contributions, I am delighted to see both the Bill’s passage and that the Government have taken on board some of my amendments to the Conservative Bill, which was similar. I very much enjoyed the history lesson from the hon. Member for City of Durham and hope that the Minister’s version of “like the clappers” will be just as quick.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister. We have been greatly entertained by her history lessons—I now know more about snuff than I ever wanted to. We have had tradition. We spent such an inordinate amount of time on clause 1: I thought we would never reach this stage. We were certainly not going like the clappers or supersonic at the start. I suspect that we have heard a large amount from ChatGPT—[Interruption.] Well, I think perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham certainly did a good google.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister credits me with more tech savvy than I have. ChatGPT is well outside my portfolio.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, if we have not heard from ChatGPT, we have certainly had, through the Institute of Economic Affairs, a bit of ChatSHT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Dr Johnson]

I think there is another person to whom thanks need to go on the record, and that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). Let us not forget that while this Bill is coming through now, the vast majority of it is similar in content to—in some cases, it is entirely verbatim—the Bill that came through a similar Committee last spring, thanks to the visionary leadership of my right hon. Friend.

[Andrew Gwynne]

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for his thanks. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister. When we were debating clause 1—all those many, many moons ago—I said that it took a lot of political bravery for a Conservative Prime Minister not just to go as far as he did, but to announce it at Conservative conference. I know from some of my Conservative friends that it raised significant eyebrows within that conference hall, but it was the right thing to do. That is why the Labour Opposition supported this legislation in the last Parliament. We would have loved to have seen it taken through the wash-up procedure before the general election, but that was not part and parcel of the deal that was put.

However, we are here today with this Bill, which includes many of the things that the shadow Minister wanted to have included in her Bill. What is transformative is that once what we have taken through Committee today—we have Report and Third Reading to go—gains Royal Assent, it will ensure that no child born after 2009 will legally be able to be sold tobacco products ever again. We are stopping that conveyor belt, as I have described it, for the tobacco industry, and through stop smoking services and support we are coming after the market share that they have protected. We are going to make sure that vapes are never promoted, advertised or displayed in a way that will encourage children to take up vaping.

The Bill is a landmark and it is life-changing. In just 25 years’ time, if the Government’s impact assessment is correct, the smoking prevalence of people under the age of 30 will be near to zero. It started here, with this Bill. Well done, and thanks to all Members.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Once again, the Minister has made convincing arguments for why now may not be the right time for this amendment to become legislation and be adopted. However, I think that within the next decade or so this measure is likely to become law one way or another, so for the moment I am content not to press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 136, page 77, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 7 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (6), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’

(3B) In section 8 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (7), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 136 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in England) being beyond a fine of level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 85, in clause 142, page 85, line 29, at end insert—

“(ya) in section 1 (Offence of permitting others to smoke in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (4), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’

(za) in section (2) (Offence of smoking in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (3), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 142 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Scotland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

Amendment 97, in clause 147, page 93, line 13, at end of line insert—

“(1A) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1B) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon ynagored i rybuddiad.’

(1C) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1D) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon yn agored i rybuddiad.’

(1E) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1F) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’

(1G) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1H) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offences pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Wales being a fine or imprisonment and makes provision for the penalty for a first offence pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions to be a cautionary warning.

Amendment 86, in clause 153, page 109, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) In Article 8 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’

(3B) In Article 9 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) subsection (6), after ‘scale’ insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 153 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Northern Ireland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a conditional caution.

[Dr Johnson]

This group of amendments comes back to the principle of proportionality, because there is not complete coherence between the different penalties across the United Kingdom and on the different offences that can be committed under the Bill.

The first part of amendment 84 would ensure that if someone admits guilt of a first offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, they should be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3, which is £1,000 on the standard scale, or a caution. That is a lot of money for lighting up in the wrong place, so it seems reasonable.

The second part of amendment 84 relates to the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, which is where somebody who is in charge of an area or building fails to prevent people from smoking there. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider the proportionality of the penalty if this has not happened before, compared with a repeat offender, who we would want to throw the book at, metaphorically speaking.

Amendment 85 relates to Scotland. Amendment 97 relates to Wales and is partly in Welsh, and amendment 86 relates to Northern Ireland. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider whether the penalties are proportionate to the offence committed and whether the legislation gives due flexibility and enough guidance for someone committing an offence for the first time, perhaps inadvertently, to be treated differently from someone who is repeatedly flouting the law.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. I have a sense of déjà vu, given that we have already debated ad nauseam her desire to weaken the enforcement regime and the penalties.

[Dr Johnson]

That’s not true!

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady says that is not true, so maybe it is not quite ad nauseam, but we have covered an awful lot of ground on these arguments.

[Dr Johnson]

I do not seek to weaken the Bill or its enforcement. I wish to see the Bill be successful in stopping people smoking and vaping, particularly our young people, and I wish to see people who are repeatedly flouting the law in this way treated appropriately. However, I am keen to understand whether the Minister feels there is enough flexibility to deal with offenders appropriately, particularly if it is an inadvertent first offence.

[Andrew Gwynne]

We will have to agree to disagree, because I think anything that brings in lesser penalties than those that already exist in tobacco control, and I will resist that as I resisted the shadow Minister’s earlier temptations to be more lenient to certain people.

These amendments would change the penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

[Dr Johnson]

Does the Minister accept that a fixed penalty notice of £200 is actually a more lenient penalty than a fine of £1,000 or a caution, which incurs a criminal offence?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come on to those points in due course to explain to the Committee why I think the shadow Minister is wrong in this regard and why she was wrong in all previous discussions about weakening the penalty system for first-time offenders. The amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing one of these offences, if it is the person’s first-time offence. It would establish that someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or instead to a caution in England and Northern Ireland, or a recorded police warning in Scotland.

For the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, that is two levels higher than the level of fine someone is liable to under the current legislation, which is level 1 or £200 in England, and it is the same as the current level of fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For the offence of failing to prevent smoking, the new maximum fine would be one level lower, which is level 3 or £1,000, than the level of the fine that someone liable to under the current legislation, which is level 4 or £2,500, in all three nations. In Wales, amendment 97 would remove a fine altogether and someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable to a caution.

While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s intention in seeking to alter the penalty regime for first-time offenders, amendment 84 is not appropriate. We do not want to create a penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place that has the potential to be stricter for first-time offenders than for repeat offenders. This amendment would see first-time offenders face a maximum fine of £1,000 on conviction, while repeat offenders would face a maximum fine of £200 on conviction in England. That is not consistent with our approach to the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation, where enforcement action can be escalated such that repeat offences may lead to harsher penalties. For example, repeated age-of-sale offences can result in a restricted premises order.

We also do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for tobacco and vape offences, including the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that existing consequences are not weakened for first-time offenders or for anyone who has committed these offences. It is therefore not appropriate to lower the maximum possible fine that an offender who has failed to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place for the first time may face. It is for those reasons that I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his thoughts on the matter, and I do not want to see the Bill weakened in this regard. As such, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 142 stand part.

Clauses 147 and 148 stand part.

Clause 153 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

The clauses mean that the devolved Governments will have equivalent powers to make additional smoke-free places. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for setting out what the clauses do, which is, essentially, to provide for smoke-free places in England.

Clause 136 introduces changes to the Health Act 2006, and specifically updates provisions regarding smoke-free places in England to allow for the addition of smoke-free areas beyond those already designated under existing law. It empowers the Secretary of State to extend smoke-free regulations to more places—and, I would argue, to essentially any place—with the aim of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and promoting public health.

Although it clearly is the Government’s intention to use these powers to improve public health, they are very wide-ranging. As far as I can see, the clauses give the Secretary of State carte blanche to extend the smoke-free legislation to any place without needing a reason, because the Government did not accept our amendment that it should only apply to places that have a significant risk of actually having any smoke. I understand that the measures allow for greater flexibility, but I would be interested in the Minister’s reasons for the wide-ranging scope.

The Minister has said that he wants to focus on three areas: hospitals, children’s playgrounds and educational settings, and I believe that that is his intention. Unfortunately, over time, that may not be the intention of the rest of his Government, which is a risk for the Committee in allowing these measures to stand.

The Welsh have banned smoking on hospital sites. We heard in our evidence that compliance regarding playgrounds has been very good but that compliance around hospitals has been relatively poor. Does the Minister have any figures to add to that evidence about compliance in Wales? That could be the number of people who have been prosecuted or convicted of such an offence, or surveys from hospital trust leaders on the prevalence in their site, accepting that not all people will necessarily be caught or prosecuted. If we are to be successful, it is not simply enough to write laws in Westminster; there has to be a practical application in the real world. Has the Minister had any conversations with his Welsh counterparts on the perceived reasons why the law on hospitals in Wales has been followed less well than it has been in other areas, so that we can understand why?

The Bill states in proposed new section 4(2) of the Health Act 2006—this is interesting terminology—that if

“the place is used as a place of work or open to the public only some of the time the regulations must provide for it to be smoke-free only when so used.”

That means that if a place is used for the public only some of the time, it can only be a smoke-free place during the time that it is in use. That could lead to a whole queue of people standing outside a hospital. If it were, say, a community diagnostic centre, so it is not open around the clock, or a GP practice, we could have people smoking outside just as people arrive for work in the morning and as the first patients arrive, which would be somewhat counterproductive to the aims of the Bill.

I wonder whether the word “must” would be better off as “should” or “could”, or perhaps we could allow leeway either side for hospitals or schools that are open from a set time. If a school opens at 8.45 am for the children to arrive, when is it officially open and when can people be expected to stop smoking outside it? It seems to me that the risk for children is that people are smoking as they arrive at school, and some children may arrive just before it opens. I remember standing outside the school with my son, waiting for the doors to open before I went to work. This particular question is important. It is sensible that if somewhere is closed and private most of the time, it would not have to be smoke-free except when it is open. However, some thought needs to be given to the detail of that and how it would apply in practice to places that are insufficiently open.

The regulations can also be tailored to different situations. The Bill states that the smoke-free designations can be applied to certain “places or vehicles”, in specific circumstances at particular times or if certain conditions are met. That flexibility ensures that the regulations can address a variety of scenarios and settings, including potentially temporary or conditional restrictions based on factors such as the type of location or event. The regulations also have the option to include exceptions, such as allowing areas within designated smoke-free places to be designated as non-smoke-free, based on the discretion of the person responsible for the area. That would potentially undermine the principle of the Bill, so I would be interested to hear more about that.

Before implementing any new regulations to designate additional smoke-free places, the Secretary of State “must consult” relevant individuals or groups, which again seems sensible. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on the definition outlined in proposed new section (4)(1), which allows the Secretary of State to designate “any place in England” as smoke-free if it meets the criteria of being “a workplace” or “open to the public”. But “any place” is very broad and could be interpreted to include beaches or open-air public festivals. Does the Minister intend to include other places open to the public within the remit of this legislation, such as public woodlands or national parks? Has he spoken to his counterparts in Scotland about the areas that are subject to the right to roam, and therefore open to the public to some extent? That includes, for example, public footpaths and rights of way through farmland. Could the very remotest piece of land in the United Kingdom be designated smoke-free and subject to legal repercussions thereof, if it were also open to the public?

I want to ask whether the enforcement of such broad measures would be feasible. If every public space, regardless of size, location or usage, was subject to a smoking ban, would it be realistic for local authorities or enforcement officers to monitor compliance across such vast and varied spaces?

In the modern day and with the change in working practices since covid, what counts as a workplace? In the age of working from home, can private homes count as workplaces? If a man sits down with his computer to work on a park bench, as is sometimes done, is that a workplace? If someone is working in an open area on the beach—we have heard that some people apparently do—does that make it a workplace? Does that place alternate between being smoke-free and non-smoke-free, depending on whether the man is typing away on his computer, or whether he is having a little break for a cup of tea?

Our hypothetical al fresco worker could be hashing out his latest policy report, but he could also be having a little break to play solitaire or chess. Would that count as working or slacking? Would that then be a workplace or not? Would the police officer attending the scene have to check that the man is working before issuing a fine to nearby smokers? I suppose playing computer chess could count as work if the man were a professional chess player—perhaps he is. How would the offending smoker or the police officer know what the person near them is doing?

These are somewhat colourful hypotheticals, but I hope I have demonstrated that the clause does throw up a great deal of colourful hypotheticals. For the sake of the Bill’s integrity, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on the terms used in the clause.

Furthermore, I would appreciate clarification on how we designate the physical borders of a smoke-free area. With three children, I have been to a fair number of playgrounds. Some playgrounds have physical barriers around them, often some sort of knee-high fencing, making it easy to say where the physical borders of the playground are. But some do not—some are play areas within a park where there is no clear boundary between where the play equipment is and the rest of the park. Does that make the rest of the park a playground or not, and where would the edges be?

Given the seriousness of the offence and the significance of the penalties, the Government should ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that people know when they are violating the law. In this case, will physical markers need to be built around every smoke-free area to ensure that smokers know exactly when they enter one? I can think of many village playgrounds local to me where there is no such marking. Has the Minister considered the cost of providing barriers or markings to ensure that people know where the boundary is?

The nature of second-hand smoke throws up another issue. The Minister well knows that the smoker need not be physically present in the smoke-free area for the effects of second-hand smoke to be felt in one. How does the clause propose to seek to address that scenario? If a park is designated smoke-free, and is or is not barriered, but someone is sat there smoking, watching her children play—she wants to be reasonably close to them so she can keep an eye on them, protect them and keep them safe—would she be violating the smoke-free area if her cigarette smoke wafts beyond the bounds of the park? What if the wind blows the other way? Would that then be legal? Are the mother’s actions based entirely on which way the wind happens to blow?

The principle behind the clause is very sensible: smoking is dangerous, passive smoking is a danger to others, and people—particularly children—should not be forced to breathe in other people’s smoke. But the enforcement of this clause requires it to be made very clear what people should and should not do, and where they should and should not do it. I am not entirely sure that the clause is clear enough on that.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Like the shadow Minister, I agree with the essential thrust of clause 136, notwithstanding the amendments that I voted for earlier, but there is a clear problem with second-hand smoke. We have seen in studies from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory diseases, heart disease, and lung cancer—particularly among vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly, as the Minister outlined.

However, we have to understand that there are clearly differences in how much smoke could be inhaled, depending on the setting. Where air circulation dissipates smoke, such as outside, the risks are probably not as pronounced as they are indoors. Although I do not dispute—I do not think anyone does—the dangers of second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, the question remains whether outdoor areas such as parks and public squares should be subject to the same restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this area over such a long period of time, is absolutely right. I will come to some of the enforcement arguments. Our primary aim is to tackle passive second-hand smoking, but it is important that smoking is not so obviously prevalent in areas where children are present —for example, around children’s playgrounds and outside schools. It is not just that the issue of second-hand passive smoking is important—although it is—it is about the clear statement that smoking around children really should be something for the history books. That is why we have removed the public health test from the 2006 Act. Children’s playgrounds probably would not fall within the scope of that test, but it is a clear priority of the Government to remove the prevalence of smoking around children.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her excellent point; I agree entirely with her that we need to ensure that children are not exposed to cigarettes. Could the Minister clarify a couple of points on that basis? First, the edges of playgrounds have been difficult to define—when is the playground the park and when is the park the playground? If it is his intention that children do not see smoking and that that de-normalises the behaviour, which seems a noble aim, would that mean that if someone was within sight of the playground, they would not be able to smoke? Secondly, lots of hospitality venues have playgrounds within them. In fact, one attraction of some pubs that people take children to is that the children will be entertained, while the food is being cooked, by a play area. Will those play areas within hospitality venues be covered by these measures?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I refer the shadow Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago. These are all matters of detail that will be subject to consultation. We will have the arguments as to the definition of a children’s play area—whether it includes children’s playgrounds in hospitality settings or whether it is just in relation to playgrounds in housing estates and parks—and how the edges are defined. These are all matters for consultation and detail, before we get to the secondary legislation.

I want to challenge some of what the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said. To be fair to him, he rightly agrees that second-hand smoke is dangerous, but he makes the case that in outdoor settings it is potentially less dangerous than it is in enclosed settings. That was the view of the chief medical officer: clearly, if someone is indoors, in a constrained area, the prevalence of the toxicity that they are taking in as a second-hand smoker is much greater than it is outdoors—but even outdoors, if someone can smell it, they are breathing it in and it poses a risk to their health. The chief medical officers were really clear on this point: there is no safe level of exposure to smoke. That is particularly important for children, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

A really interesting statistic that the English chief medical officer told the Committee was that at this moment in time, in January 2025, there are more people with clinical vulnerabilities in this country than there are smokers. That is really important when we talk about the balance of rights and responsibilities. The fact that there are now many more people with hidden clinical vulnerabilities than there are smokers shows, I think, where the balance needs to be.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is making a very powerful argument that smoking outside also poses a danger to the health of the nearby public. On that basis, if I were taking an older relative—with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, perhaps—to a beer garden, I would be reluctant to sit outside in the summer in case someone sat down and smoked near her. Is the Minister not making an argument for including hospitality, on the basis that people who are outside in the beer garden are vulnerable to dangerous smoke?

[Andrew Gwynne]

People sitting in a beer garden where smoking is prevalent are breathing in second-hand smoke, but as the chief medical officers reminded the Committee, there is a balance here, and the United Kingdom Government of which I am a member have decided that that balance is appropriate in order to protect the hospitality business. That is why Ministers—myself, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—have made it very clear that outdoor hospitality will not fall within the scope of the consultation that we intend to bring forward like the clappers. That is our view and it is what we will do. That is not to say that there is a risk that is mitigated for somebody sitting outside. There is a risk, and we cannot mitigate that risk, but it is the balance that the Government have come to. There have to be trade-offs and, given the precarious nature of the hospitality business, we have decided that we will not consult to extend the outdoor smoking provisions to hospitality. I know that that disappoints the shadow Minister—it probably delights other Members on the Opposition Benches—but that is where this Government are.

The powers in the Bill allow for a change at some stage in the future, when it may well be that the balance has shifted and people no longer desire there to be smoking outdoors in hospitality settings. The hospitality trade may say, “This is such a minority pursuit that it is putting off good people from coming to my restaurant.”

[Andrew Gwynne]

The point I am making is that industry collectively may come to Ministers and say, “You know what? This carve-out that we’ve been given is no longer needed.” Ministers may well then come to the conclusion that, given that most of these hospitality businesses at some stage in the future are already imposing outdoor smoking bans because that is where their customer base is, we should bring the law into line with that and make it illegal. The provisions are written in the way that they are so that at some stage in the future, when things change, we can change the law, but right now, as I have said on umpteen occasions, we will consult on outside hospitals, outside schools and public children’s play areas, and that is it.

[Dr Johnson]

Can the Minister clarify a point? There seems to be a contradiction in my mind, but perhaps I have not understood him correctly. On the one hand, he is being very clear in stating that hospitality will not be included and that children’s play areas will—that seems very clear. Hospitality venues, however, do include children’s play areas. When I asked him about this before, he seemed to say that children’s play areas in hospitality would have to be part of the consultation. If children’s play areas within hospitality are included, then aspects of hospitality are included, are they not?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is why it will be down to the consultation as to what precise details we will bring forward. It is not our intention to include hospitality settings, but the hon. Member has rightly raised that some pubs and restaurants have children’s playgrounds. As part of the consultation exercise, we will have to work out how a children’s play area is defined for the purposes of these measures, so that there is absolute clarity on what constitutes a children’s playground. These are not matters for now; they are matters for when Ministers seek to bring forward proposals. We will have that debate then.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, I hope that I will be a Minister for a very long time, both at the Department of Health and Social Care and with this public health brief, which I absolutely love. I will follow the evidence as and when it appears, but it is not my intention to bring forward changes any time soon. The reason that we are discussing changes now is that the last time that places were designated for a smoking ban was in 2006, and a lot of things have changed since that law came into force in 2007.

It may well be that, in a similar length of time into the future, things have changed sufficiently that the arguments we are having today on hospitality have become obsolete, and that the law needs to be brought into line with the facts on the ground. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon—I am a man of my word—that it is not my intention, nor the intention of this Government to include the hospitality industry, but at some stage in the future, if things change, it may well be that Ministers do come back to the House on this. I cannot judge how long or short that time period may be, but I politely remind him and other Members of the length of time between 2006-07—when these issues were last being debated—and now, and hope that that gives him some reassurance.

The hon. Gentleman said that I have not been emphatic enough on beaches, woodlands, public parks, rights of way and public squares; these are all scenarios that are subject to consultation at some stage in the distant future. It is not our intention to cover these areas in England. I have been very clear about the three areas that we seek to extend smoke-free places to.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I remain a bit confused. On the one hand, the Minister has been very clear: no consultation on hospitality areas. On the other, he has been clear that consultation will occur on play areas. Fair enough. He then said that play areas in hospitality will be discussed as part of the consultation. In that case, how can he be discussing play areas in hospitality but not be discussing hospitality? I am completely confused by that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Maybe I was not clear enough for the shadow Minister. We are seeking to bring children’s play areas into the scope of the Bill, and, as we have said, we will consult on restricting smoking around children’s play areas. How we define children’s play areas will be a matter for the consultation.

The hon. Lady has rightly raised a reasonable point that some pubs and restaurants have children’s play areas within them. The Government will have to come to a view, in advance of any future consultation, as to whether that would be included in the definition of children’s play areas—but those are debates for the future, not for now.

We have been clear that smoking will still be permitted in outdoor settings for hospitality. It may well be that there is a smoking facility in the beer garden and it is smoke-free around the children’s play area. That is a matter for a future consultation, but we are not going to bring outdoor hospitality settings into the scope of the smoke-free consultation. If anybody is a smoker today and wishes to sit in a beer garden, and that licensed establishment allows smoking—a growing number of pubs and restaurants are already making their outdoor settings smoke-free because that is where their customer base is—smoking will still be allowed. That will not be part of the scope of future consultation. I cannot be any clearer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clause relates to an existing regulation-making power in the Health Act 2006 that allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations that permit performers in England to smoke during a performance. The exemption would enable the creation of defences to the offences of smoking in smoke-free places and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place. It would be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a performance.

The creative industry is a significant part of the UK economy, and we have to balance a range of priorities while protecting the most vulnerable and ensuring that businesses are not financially impacted. The Bill aims to protect those who are most vulnerable to second-hand smoke, and we are of the view that the relative harm from the exemption is low. Without the exemption, it would not be possible for a film or TV show that is made in England to include an actor smoking, regardless of how of how integral that might be. The provision updates an existing power in the 2006 Act, so an exemption to allow performers to smoke during a performance is not new. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is right to say that the clause recasts an existing regulation-making power in section 3(5) of the Health Act 2006, whereby the Secretary of State may make regulations that allow performers to smoke during a performance

“if the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate”,

and is allowed, on that basis, to create a defence to the offences of smoking in a smoke-free place and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

The act of smoking in film, theatre and other forms of art can be a character-defining gesture that speaks volumes about the person’s identity or emotional state, or about the period in history they represent—think of images of Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart and James Dean. It can also establish the period in which a person lived. It was commonplace for virtually everyone to smoke in the 1940s and 1950s, and the smoke swirling around characters became as much a part of their onscreen presence as their dialogue or expressions. Although smoking in real life is certainly not cool, and comes with myriad negative health implications, its role in art and culture can deepen the portrayal of certain iconic figures and their stories.

The Minister says that the exemption has been part of law for a long time, and that it has worked. There are essentially two ways in which a performance can mimic smoking. The first is to have a fake cigarette, six of which can be bought on Amazon for less than a tenner. They look a bit like a cigarette and an actor can hold them, but they do not have any smoke coming from them. My understanding is that currently the most common prop cigarettes used by actors are cigarettes that contain no nicotine and no tobacco but some herbal items. They produce smoke but are less harmful than a cigarette because they do not contain tobacco, and less addictive because they do not contain nicotine.

The Bill provides for tobacco products to be banned for certain generations of people, and adds herbal smoking products to that ban. Could that inadvertently lead to individual actors and actresses smoking tobacco rather than the less harmful alternative, particularly if there is a price differential between the two? Has the Minister considered how the law will apply to actors and actresses who are born on or after 1 January 2009? Will there be an exemption from the other aspects of the Bill, either allowing them to buy the cigarettes themselves or allowing someone to give them cigarettes as a proxy sale, which would currently be banned under the first part of the Bill? At present, actors may be above the age of 18, but the Bill is intended to be future-proof, so if we roll forwards 15 years or so, when younger actors will be banned from smoking and buying cigarette papers and the like, how does the Minister envisage it working in practice?

Freedom of expression is essential to the arts, but the laws and practices that protect and nurture free expression are often poorly understood by practitioners and those who enforce the law. The question is, then: what is a performer? Section 3(8) of the Health Act 2006 states that “performance” can include

“the performance of a play, or a performance given in connection with the making of a film or television programme, and…if the regulations so provide, include a rehearsal.”

That seems a rather narrow definition of performance. Performance art can cross disciplines such as dance on the stage or on the street. If we go to the south bank, just opposite this House, we can see performers performing solo activities on the weekend. Contract law for those engaged in paid work offers some recognition and potential protection for performance-related work, defines it and outlines the conditions of the performance—it is indeed the performer and not other members of the performance who are included.

To create another hypothetical situation, suppose there is an interactive performance in which the performer on stage requires mass audience participation for their act and suggests that the people in the crowd have to join in with them. Would the artistic integrity of the performance trump the laws that prohibit smoking? The line between performer and audience can be blurred, so if an audience member were invited up on the stage by the performer, would they be allowed to try a cigarette or vape? Proposed new section 7(3) of the Health Act 2006 does not suggest that the performance needs to take place on stage or even in the theatre; some occur outside hospitality venues, as we have discussed.

To give a colourful example, imagine there is a performance called “Smokers”, taking place in a pub in, say, Sleaford, in my constituency. It features performers smoking and chatting in a pub. It is quite an experimental, interactive performance, and the members of the audience —in other words, regular pubgoers—can take part in the performance and light up a cigarette themselves should they wish to. Technically, does this scenario not fall within the remit of the law? We have to bear in mind that the tobacco industry is creative in looking for loopholes. Smoking is required in order to preserve the artistic integrity of this alleged performance. Will the Minister provide clarification on this point? Although my examples may sound inventive, the tobacco industry does come up with inventive ways of circumventing the legislation.

My other point relates to performers who are born after 1 January 2009 smoking or vaping on stage. We need some clarity on that.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

To follow on from what the shadow Minister said, the Minister said that performers who smoke during performances would not be a problem because the second-hand passive smoking would not be big enough of an issue. But why can a cigarette be smoked as part of a performance, yet a cigar cannot be smoked once a year by a single person? Why is smoking allowed for this artistic purpose, yet it is not allowed for someone who would like to smoke a cigar recreationally?

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is an existing power, in the Health Act 2006, that we have retained in the Bill at the request of the creative industries in England. I reiterate what I said in opening the debate: the exemption will be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a particular performance, so smoking would not be allowed in the hypothetical situations we have heard about. The provision is intended solely to allow the artistic integrity of a performance to be retained.

The shadow Minister asked whether the provision would merely encourage actors to smoke tobacco. Of course, that is not the case. Herbal smoking products are covered under “smoke-free” as well, so they are treated the same.

[Dr Johnson]

With respect to the Minister, the point was that they are treated the same. My understanding is that, because of the rules around tobacco, actors who are non-smokers are more likely to use a non-tobacco herbal product that does not contain nicotine. Given the Minister’s previous comments about tobacco being more harmful, why not make the exemption specific to products that do not contain tobacco and nicotine?

[Andrew Gwynne]

We are following the request of industry. This is an existing power in the 2006 Act and it is to be used only in the exceptional circumstances in which cigarettes or indeed herbal smoking products are appropriate for the authenticity of the performance. That is exactly what the law is now.

I agree with the shadow Minister that it is not cool to smoke. I may have mentioned in previous sittings that I have been successful in getting not one but four stories in LADbible. One of them made precisely the point that the shadow Minister made: that smoking is not cool and it is not glamorous. It is a dirty, stinking, horrible habit that kills two thirds of people who start it. That is why we are committed to a smoke-free generation.

I suspect that this exemption for the creative industries, which is pre-existing, may become obsolete at some point in the near future, not least because I would imagine that as more and more actors themselves are brought up smoke-free as a consequence of the measures we are introducing, actors will eventually point-blank refuse to smoke a cigarette, whether it adds creative authenticity or not.

As I have said, this is a follow-on from an exemption that was previously granted in the Health Act 2006, which is why I seek the Committee’s permission to retain it in the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that the Minister is saying this is what the industry is asking for and that it existed before. However, as a result of the change in regulations, people who act as if they are smokers in a video or film are currently able to smoke herbal cigarettes that are designed as prop cigarettes and do not contain tobacco or nicotine. Although it may not be terribly good for their health for them to do so, those cigarettes do not contain the tobacco that kills two thirds of its users, and they do not contain nicotine either. In providing the exemption for the creative industries, will the Minister at least consider providing an exemption for the least harmful version of what will appear to the audience as a cigarette and cigarette smoke, so that we can protect actors as much as possible?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am open to taking that suggestion away and having a look it, but at this stage it is our intention merely to copy and paste the existing exemption that applies for the creative industries in England, which is what the clause does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

No-smoking signs in England

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 143, 149 and 154 stand part.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 138 relates to no-smoking signs in England and amends section 6 of the Health Act 2006, setting out that whoever occupies or manages no-smoking premises must ensure that the relevant no-smoking signs are displayed in or near the premises—which is, of course, very sensible.

We talked earlier about the importance of people understanding what the law is and where they can and cannot smoke. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations further to the no-smoking signs. That is sensible for outdoor spaces, but does the Minister have information on how the regulations will define the size and edges of those spaces, and on the cost to industry and local councils of providing signage?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The exact requirements of the position of the signs for smoke-free locations will be set out in regulations, but we will ensure that they are required to be in a prominent position near the smoke-free place.

The other matters that the hon. Lady raises relate to questions that we will need to consult on and work through in regulation—for example, who will be required to provide the signs and whether it will be down to public bodies such as NHS trusts and local authorities. All the costs, including any requirements to put up signs and their exact locations, will be considered as part of any future impact assessment of the policy. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to vape-free places across the four nations. They will allow the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also provide that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the vape-free locations, and they give the power to set requirements in respect of those signs.

Although vapes are less harmful than smoking, they are not harm-free. There are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term harms of vaping. Vapes produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potentially to other toxicants. This poses health risks to children and vulnerable people in particular, for example the risk of triggering an asthma attack. It is important and right that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms.

Many businesses and enclosed public places already voluntarily have schemes in place to prohibit vape use in their premises. We want clearer legislative requirements so that it will be easier for the public to understand where vapes can be used and for enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. The clauses will therefore give the relevant Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland powers to restrict the use of vapes in areas, but only those areas already designated as smoke-free. Those could include spaces such as indoor pub areas, public libraries or buses.

In addition to making it an offence to vape in a vape-free place, the clauses will place duties on persons who control or manage vape-free places—that can include drivers of vape-free vehicles—to ensure that their premises or vehicle remains vape-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a vape in a vape-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the obligation is to cause someone who is vaping in a vape-free place to stop using the vape. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The clauses make provision to permit the use of a vape during a performance if the use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, this takes the form of a defence to the offences of vaping in a vape-free premises or failing to prevent vaping in a vape-free premises. In England, the Secretary of State has the power to create equivalent defences.

The power to designate any spaces vape-free will be subject to a full and open consultation, and the evidence for imposing any restrictions will be considered before regulating. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Johnson]

This is an important clause that I am pleased to see, as I have campaigned against vaping in children for quite some time, as the Minister is aware. As the Minister says, if you can smell it, you are breathing it in. That is an obvious statement, but I have had people tell me that vapes do not give out any smoke and that it is therefore not possible for them to cause damage to anyone nearby. They may not give out smoke, but they certainly give out chemicals that are inhalable by anyone next to the person vaping. Otherwise, it would not be possible to smell the blueberry, or whatever flavour the person has chosen.

Key findings from studies on second-hand vaping include those on nicotine exposure. E-cigarettes emit nicotine in their vapour—in lower concentrations than cigarettes, to be fair, but they do emit it. The amount of second-hand nicotine depends on the brand; nicotine emissions vary among products. One study found second-hand exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes to be lower than that from tobacco smoke generally. Nevertheless, it exists, and it is still undesirable for people, particularly children, to be forced to inhale such a toxin. It is particularly harmful to pregnant women and those with cardiovascular conditions. The potential long-term effects of such low-level nicotine exposure are unclear.

Although e-cigarettes do not release compounds such as carbon monoxide, as cigarettes do, they do emit other chemicals such as propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine, which have been associated with respiratory irritation. Certain volatile carbonyl compounds, such as formaldehyde, have been identified in cigarette vapour, which could pose health risks with long-term exposure.

One of the persistent limitations with vaping is the lack of long-term data on the health effects of second-hand e-cigarette vapour. Most researchers focus on the acute effects, but as e-cigarettes are a relatively new product, certainly on a mass-market scale, we still do not fully understand the potential long-term health consequences of inhaling these vapours regularly, especially in confined spaces.

I would argue—it seems from the clause that the Minister agrees—that we need to be careful, particularly with our children. We do not want to addict a whole load of generations to this habit. We do not want others to experience second-hand vapours. There have been cases of people dying of second-hand smoking. As the Minister has said, we know that second-hand vapour can cause asthma and other lung diseases.

Parliament itself has been a place where one experiences second-hand vaping. I was pleased to see last year that Mr Speaker had put notices in the Tea Room and elsewhere around the House stating that there should be no vaping in public. We are due to vote shortly, as you said, Mr Pritchard; even during votes, I have gone into the ladies’ rest rooms, where we have a little seating and sofa area, and found female MPs vaping, including one member of the Cabinet. It is prevalent in all parts of society. We should not be exposed to such things in the workplace. Children, in particular, should not be exposed to such chemicals at all.

Clause 139 will amend the Health Act 2006 by inserting a new chapter, “Vape-free places in England”, which will establish a framework for prohibiting the use of certain vapes in designated areas and in vehicles in England, ensuring that specific places remain vape-free, much like the existing rules for the smoke-free environment. Does the Minister intend there to be an overlap? Clearly it would be much simpler, both for enforcement and for understanding among the public, if there were a direct overlap with the incongruity between the smoke-free and vape-free environments. I know that some say that if we make places vape-free we are encouraging people to smoke, but they cannot smoke there either, so that seems to be a false argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to heated tobacco-free places. They provide for the Secretary of State in England, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as heated tobacco-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also require that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the heated tobacco-free place, and they give powers to set requirements in respect of those signs.

In addition to making it an offence to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place, the clauses also place duties on persons who control or manage heated tobacco-free places, which can include drivers of heated tobacco-free vehicles, to ensure that their premises or vehicles remain heated tobacco-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the obligation is to cause someone who is using heated tobacco in a “free from” place to stop using the device. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The provisions for England will also provide powers for the Secretary of State to create defences to permit the use of heated tobacco devices during a performance if that use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. All tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. There is evidence from lab studies of the toxicity of heated tobacco. There are less harmful, tobacco-free products that can support people to quit instead of using an alternative tobacco product. It is therefore important that heated tobacco products be included within the scope of the Bill.

We are considering making all currently smoke-free indoor places heated tobacco-free, and making outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. However, that is subject to consultation. There is a statutory duty to consult, as I have mentioned on umpteen occasions, before bringing forward regulations to designate any spaces heated tobacco-free. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

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

“although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 17.

Clause 146 stand part.

Schedule 18.

Clause 152 stand part.

Schedule 19.

Clause 157 stand part.

Schedule 20.

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 141 is fairly self-explanatory and links to schedule 17, which contains the amendments to other legislation consequential on clauses 136 to 140. I do not have any specific comments to make on it.

[Andrew Gwynne]

These clauses and schedules ensure that the definitions in existing legislation align with those used in the Bill, and that references are accurate and reflect any provisions inserted into or removed from the relevant Acts. I therefore commend the group to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 142 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 147 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clauses 153 to 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 158

Power to prohibit vaping etc on ships

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

[Dr Johnson]

Clause 158 relates to shipping. I think a question was raised earlier about why ships were specifically excluded. That is partly because ships are important enough to have their own specific, separate clause. Clause 158 amends section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and makes provision regarding safety regulations that are made under that Act to provide for vape-free and heated tobacco-free provision for ships and hovercraft, corresponding to provisions in the Health Act 2006.

As I mentioned in an early sitting of this Bill Committee—I am glad that the Minister enjoyed the history of tobacco—maritime history and tobacco are inextricably linked. The allure of tobacco in the new world enchanted European sailors and left an indelible mark on global commerce as well as on our culture. Famous sailors, both factual and fictional, were smokers, from Captain Cook—who came from a place very close to where I was born, Marton in Middlesbrough—to Ernest Shackleton, and from Popeye the sailor man to Captain Haddock in the Tintin books. Smoking was a fact of life—worryingly, even aboard wooden vessels.

For four centuries, seamen and passengers used cigarettes, pipes and matches, which were a significant cause of maritime fires and disasters. The earliest dated clay pipe comes from a ship that sank off Alderney in the Channel Islands, probably in November 1592. A sea captain wrote in Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country in 1875, I think, a piece entitled “The Dangers of the Sea”. In it, he chastised the carelessness of merchant seamen. He said:

“It is to be regretted that in all classes of merchant ships smoking below is an acknowledged custom. Jack lies on his dirty bed of straw with pipe in mouth, reading some old scrap of a newspaper, or the pages of a novel, and not unfrequently falls asleep with the burning embers beside him”,

adding that the mystery is not why the ship in question was burned,

“but why such accidents are not constantly occurring from this and other causes.”

Indeed, we talked earlier in Committee about the dangers of house fires from people falling asleep while smoking in bed.

More than eight decades later, in a 1957 booklet, the Ministry of Transport still blamed smoking more than any other reason for fires on board ships. It said:

“Lighted cigarettes smoked surreptitiously are abandoned in combustible cargo and cause fires which smoulder unnoticed for days before bursting into flame. They are thrown away on deck where the wind catches them and blows them into an open port, hatch, or ventilator where they may land on inflammable material. They are left on the edges of ashtrays in the saloon or dropped from men’s hands as they fall asleep.”

With reports like that, it is no wonder that smoking was eventually banned in the maritime context.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)