Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 28th January 2025
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Pritchard.
Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 pertain to audiovisual and radio broadcasting restrictions on tobacco, vapes and the related products that we have been discussing endlessly in this Committee. Although there is a strong argument for the measures from a public health perspective, there may be legitimate concerns regarding freedom of expression and the impact on broadcasters and advertisers —I may be pre-empting points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor will raise.
One of the most compelling arguments for the clauses is their role in protecting young people from exposure to tobacco and vaping products. Studies have consistently shown that advertising plays a significant role in influencing smoking and vaping initiation. Research from Cancer Research UK indicates that young people who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to start smoking, and similar findings have been observed with vaping products, where targeted marketing strategies have contributed to a rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers.
By restricting tobacco and vape-related advertisements on television, radio and on-demand services, the clauses aim to reduce the normalisation of smoking and vaping. The UK has already seen the benefits of such measures in relation to tobacco: since the implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, smoking rates have declined significantly. Extending similar restrictions to vaping is the logical next step to ensure that history does not repeat itself, with a new generation becoming dependent on nicotine.
Critics might argue that the clauses may have unintended consequences for broadcasters, advertisers and the creative industries. The sector relies heavily on advertising revenue, and restrictions on tobacco and vaping-related content may limit potential funding sources, particularly for smaller, independent broadcasters, in an already challenging economic environment. However, as we have seen with the existing bans in relation to tobacco, the public health benefits clearly outweigh the potential issues with the funding that broadcasters could get from vape advertisements.
There is a practical consideration about how the clauses are enforced. We must ensure that broadcasters and on-demand services comply with the new restrictions, and that will require regulatory and oversight resources. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of how the provision will be enforced, whether that is through Ofcom or some other means. There is also a concern about what I describe as cross-border broadcasting. Many streaming services operate internationally, so content produced abroad but accessible in the UK may not be subject to the same restrictions, and if it is, ensuring compliance with UK regulations on the global platforms will present a significant challenge. How does the Minister intend to enforce the provisions in those cases?
This is a complex issue and a balanced approach is necessary, but as I have said, investing in public health campaigns alongside the regulatory measures could help to ensure that the public receive accurate information about smoking and vaping. I therefore support the clauses.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I support the clauses too, although I have a couple of questions. I hope the Minister will be so kind as to answer them.
Clause 126 outlines that part 6 does not apply to independent television or radio services, services provided by the BBC or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, on-demand programme services, or non-UK on-demand programme services that are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. Essentially, they will be covered by Ofcom. Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify exclusions for independent television and radio services regulated by Ofcom, provided they are not classified as additional services. Will the Minister clarify how additional television services and digital additional sound services are defined in practice, and what criteria will be used to classify services at the margins of those categories?
The clause exempts services that are defined as on- demand services under section 368A of the Communications Act from provisions of the Bill. In the rapidly evolving digital media landscape, does the Minister believe that the definition of an on-demand programme service is sufficiently clear to encompass emerging service models? Given the rapid growth of online platform streaming services and the desire he previously expressed to future-proof the bill, does he foresee current exclusions in clause 126 remaining relevant in the future? Should how these platforms, whether UK or non-UK based, are regulated be reconsidered, to ensure they adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast media in relation to tobacco and vapes while being viewed in the UK? We keep coming to this point—how online services can be used to circumvent measures of the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a good point, raised in a number of our debates, about future-proofing the Bill. There is a big discussion going on about artificial intelligence and how that plays in. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has thought about that, or whether the Minister can clarify how artificial intelligence may be used by the tobacco and vaping industry to get round some of the provisions, and whether the future-proofing is strong enough to deal with that.
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend is very interested in AI. I am sure that if it is possible to do so, these industries will use any means available to them to maintain their market.
The clause extends the regulations from tobacco to cover all vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. Given my concerns about children and vaping and the use of nicotine, I think this is a sensible measure, which I support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 contain provisions relating to audiovisual services and radio broadcasting. Clause 126 provides that part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, does not apply to certain categories of television and radio service. That is because these services are already prohibited under the Communications Act 2003.
Clause 127 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Communications Act 2003. The amendments extend provisions in that Act that ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products in certain TV and radio services to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. That ensures that the advertising ban on tobacco in television, radio and on-demand programme services is extended to all of those products. In practice, the measure means we will no longer see banned products or promotional material for those products on any of those mediums.
The shadow Minister rightly points out that the services listed in the clause include ITV, independent television and radio, the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru, and on-demand programme services—that covers the points that Members have made—and non-UK on-demand programme services, which are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it also includes programmes produced and aired outside the United Kingdom that are brought into the United Kingdom.
As a helpful aide-mémoire for the Committee, the Communications Act 2003 regulates telecommunications broadcasting. It confers functions on the Office of Communications, a regulator, to oversee the services. The Act puts in place effective rules for the advertising of tobacco on television, radio and on-demand services. By amending the Act, we ensure that this existing framework also applies to vaping products, nicotine products, and cigarette and herbal smoking papers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and add more to the Bill, as we can use the existing provisions in the 2003 Act. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 129
Enforcement authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The clause outlines the responsibilities and jurisdictions of enforcement authorities tasked with ensuring compliance with part 6, which covers advertising and sponsorship. Subsection (1) establishes that the enforcement authorities are legally bound to enforce the provisions of the Bill, and subsection (2) contains the definition of an “enforcement authority”. All that sounds very straightforward and sensible, but my question is about funding. If the weights and measures authorities are given an obligation to enforce something but not given the resources to enforce it, they are being given a legal obligation with which they have not got the resources to comply.
Paragraphs 613 and 614 of the impact assessment state that the average trading standards service, of which there are 197, has 9.4 full-time equivalent professionally qualified staff. It is assumed that all those staff would need to be familiarised with the policies and all the various regulations once they are passed through Parliament. We have talked about the amount of regulations that will be created under the Bill; staff will need to be trained in all that. In 2024, the cost of such training was estimated at £23,137, but given that the Bill will not come into force until later—we are in 2025 now—that is a moot point. How much does the Minister think training will cost once all the regulations are up and running? Clause after clause of the Bill provides for regulations to be made, which may be done in one go or several, repeating the need for training.
The impact assessment also talks about the cost of training for the Advertising Standards Authority, estimating it to be £1,945. If it costs that to train all the staff from the ASA on a given topic, it suggests the rest of the public sector’s training could definitely be made more efficient. I suggest that the Minister has a chat with the Chancellor about it—I believe she is looking for ways to make the country more efficient, which she has done so far by making businesses not exist—as it seems a little out of kilter, although I was not sure whether it was a dot or a comma. The impact assessment also measures what it believes Ofcom would need to enforce the training under the new measures. It estimates £3,500 for the staff there, but again, does the Minister think that is realistic?
Clause 130 is about the power of Ministers to take over enforcement functions in a specific case. We have talked at some length in previous debates about the potential for abuse of power in such measures. Clause 131, similarly, is about the power of Ministers to take over proceedings as part of the enforcement functions in respect of a specific case. Again, while I can understand the Minister’s desire to be able to take over from a weights and measures authority as a whole if there were to be a problem with the way it was functioning in a specific case, can he give assurances that there would not be any abuse of power in that respect?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. The Government are investing over £100 million over five years to boost His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force’s enforcement capability to tackle illicit tobacco. In 2025-26 we will invest £30 million of new funding for enforcement agencies, including trading standards, Border Force and HMRC, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting them to implement the Bill.
Decisions on funding for trading standards in future years will be made as part of the spending review process, but given our clear commitment to enforcement in the Bill and the fact that we have put down the payment of £30 million for enforcement in the next financial year, I hope hon. Members are assured that we take these matters seriously. We are investing £3 million over two years specifically to enhance the work led by National Trading Standards to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales. That work is carried out through enhancing market surveillance and enforcement action on ports, online sales enforcement, and boosting the storage and disposal of illicit vapes. The new funding for 2025-26 will build on this work to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales.
The shadow Minister asked how trading standards will use their additional enforcement funding. The crucial point is that we want to boost trading standards’ capacity, to enable the services to conduct more under-age sales test purchases, remove illicit products from the market and identify non-compliant products and bring them into compliance where possible.
Dr Johnson
My question was not simply how trading standards will use the money allocated, but whether the Minister feels that the money he has allocated is adequately purposed?
Andrew Gwynne
I do, which I have just said. The £30 million in the next financial year to boost the enforcement agencies will meet the needs that the Bill sets out. It is also about boots on the ground and having greater capacity. We will be working with trading standards on this additional enforcement funding to ensure that they increase their capacity and are able to take on the roles and responsibilities that the Bill places on them. We will continue to discuss with trading standards how we can best support them in respect of the measures of the Bill. I commend the measures to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 130 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133
Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 133 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, and the Communications Act 2003 to other products, specifically products that are devices of a specified description enabling a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a heated tobacco device or pipe, or an item that is intended to form part of such a device. It allows the Secretary of State to consult with the required persons and gain consent where required with the devolved legislatures. However, how will the Secretary of State further define that, and can the Minister give us some examples of the types of products that might be included under the power? Could it allow for the expansion of regulation to a wide range of products not originally envisaged in the Bill?
The inclusion of devices and items potentially covers a wide array of consumer products without any clear boundary. What are the specific criteria or considerations that the Secretary of State must use when deciding whether to extend the provisions? Could that lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decision making, depending on the political or public health priorities of the Government of the day? The wording seems to give considerable latitude, but not much clarity on when or how the Secretary of State should exercise the power.
Andrew Gwynne
I am very happy to answer the question posed by the shadow Minister. It is a simple answer: we need clause 133 to avoid loopholes. Otherwise, newer products such as heated tobacco—and those products that have not even been developed yet—are in scope of the restrictions, but devices used alongside them could still be used to promote tobacco consumption.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 136
Addition of smoke-free places in England
The Chair
I remind Members that we are at this point talking about amendments, so any comments should be restricted to those amendments. We can talk about the generalities of the clause later in the debate. It is always helpful to have a reminder of that—for myself as well.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for clearly laying out what he seeks to do. I understand that his desire to see a healthy population is driving his good intentions behind this amendment, but I have some concerns. We are creating an offence of smoking in specific places: that requires buy-in from the public, because we police with consent, and the public need that knowledge. I visit Newcastle a reasonable amount, and I did not know that there was a rule banning smoking on park benches. I do not smoke, so it did not apply to me in any case, but it is conceivable that others are not aware that Newcastle has local rules.
I am concerned about the consistency of such measures and about people’s awareness of where it is possible to do something; otherwise, we will create criminal offences and fine people large amounts of money for doing something they had no reason to prevent themselves from doing because they had no way of knowing. The Government are also in the midst of reorganising —or trying to reorganise—all the local authorities; if local authorities are going to make such decisions and then be reorganised, that could further add to complexity and confusion for the public.
For people who smoke, we want to limit the harms to their health and ensure they have the opportunity to quit or to minimise those harms. Not everybody has a garden or outside space of their own. If they live in a flat and are a smoker, only being able to smoke in that flat because all the outside spaces are gone will increase the dangers to them, for health and for other reasons. My personal opinion is that these laws, or at least the principle of which spaces may and may not count, should be made nationally—even if there is some local guidance to be followed.
That is why we will come to the principle of which sort of spaces, because at the moment it is any space. It is conceivable therefore that, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, a group of local councils could decide to make all outdoor spaces of all kinds smoke-free. While I would find that desirable as a non-smoker, it would not be good for the overall health of the 11% of people who do smoke.
Gregory Stafford
Looking at the amendments, I can see why the hon. Member for Dartford wants to do this. There clearly could be public health benefits and, as a localist myself, I am naturally sympathetic to having local decisions made as close to people as possible. I think the point I made during the intervention stands, however: the potential for confusion among people who are potentially not from the area, or who are from the area but do not understand the local byelaws, probably makes the amendments unworkable.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned that smoking prevalence is higher in places of social deprivation. The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting it would therefore be better to enforce regulations, or byelaws for regulations, in those areas. I can see the public health impact, but we must not ghettoise people who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and who are more likely to smoke, as seen in the evidence. The shadow Minister makes a good point that people who do not have outside space, and who may have children and not want to smoke and vape in their properties because they are rightly worrying about their children’s health, will find that difficult if there are local byelaws in place that prevent it. I think that is especially true with women who smoke.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Taking on board what you said, Mr Pritchard, I just want to build on the point that my hon. Friend made about enforcement—I always talk about enforcement in practice. I want to know how rules will be advertised between different jurisdictions. I think we will end up spending an inordinate amount of money on trying to run a campaign that could have been better spent on helping with smoking cessation or on more practical measures.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about the enforcement and practicalities of such a move. If we have a national campaign and national uniformity about the areas in which one can and cannot smoke, that will be quite straightforward for people to understand and there will be no real excuses for breaking the rules. If the advertising has to be done locally, it will have to be continuous to reach all the visitors and tourists who come to that town or city.
Sarah Bool
I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like us to consider this issue when we look at whether to take these proposals any further. I cannot see how we can ensure in practice that everyone knows what is happening without there being a national campaign.
Sarah Bool
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that point. Many Members would prefer that local councils were dealing with potholes rather than advertising those different spaces, but I thank him for his amendment and his proposal.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 14 defines a local authority as
“a county council…a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”
By the time we get to next summer, Lincolnshire will probably have district councils, a county council and a mayoral authority—I do not agree with having a mayoral authority, because I think that is too many tiers of government, but that is an aside. What if those authorities do not agree? If we give them all the power to make regulations, they could all make different regulations based on different opinions—as is currently the case in Lincolnshire, the various authorities are not always under the control of the same political party.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for bringing this issue before the Committee. As we have heard, amendment 11 would introduce a power for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places in England, which would sit alongside the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations in the same regard.
As we know, the Bill expands the Secretary of State’s powers to create additional smoke-free places at the national level. In England, the Government have already indicated that we intend to extend the smoke-free designation to outdoor places including children’s playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, but not to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces such as beaches. The reforms we are setting out in the Bill will be subject to full consultation, and we want to hear the views of people from across the country to ensure that we get them right.
As drafted, the Bill gives no additional powers to local authorities. However, they have existing mechanisms for designating certain spaces as smoke-free. As we have heard, areas such as Manchester, my home city, have already used pavement licensing provisions to ensure that people have smoke-free options when they consume food and drink in certain locations, and that works well. Some local authorities have implemented public space protection orders to prohibit smoking in certain areas. For example, the London borough of Enfield has used a public spaces protection order to restrict smoking within the boundaries of children’s playgrounds. Of course, that will be obsolete should the consultation for the national scheme extend to children’s playgrounds, as we intend it to.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for making those interesting points. Can he clarify whether powers such as those enacted in Enfield create a criminal offence?
Andrew Gwynne
We want to ensure that people who are smokers are not criminalised. Public space protection orders do potentially go down the criminal route. We want to ensure that that is not the case, which is why the Enfield scheme would of course be obsolete under the later provisions—which we are going to discuss today, hopefully—in relation to extending national outdoor smoke-free places.
Andrew Gwynne
I suspect we are straying off the measures before us, Mr Pritchard, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is a statutory duty in this Bill. Were the Secretary of State, or indeed Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish Ministers, to seek to change the scope in the future, they would have a duty at every stage to consult further. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I was talking about Enfield and its public spaces protection orders. It is of course for the local authority to determine whether a PSPO is appropriate and that the legal test for implementing a PSPO is met, along with completion of the relevant consultation requirements. Nottingham has created a voluntary smoke-free zone at events, especially those where children are present, and it introduced a smoke-free play park policy in 2015. Other local authorities, such as Oxfordshire county council, have introduced voluntary smoke-free school gates policies. Given the options already available to local authorities and the national reforms introduced through this Bill, which we will debate further, neither the Government nor I think it is necessary to grant these byelaw-making powers via the Bill.
In answer to a point that the shadow Minister raised, which I hope to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, legislation sets out all the different types of local authority. Enforcement in terms of the requirement to police any changes would appertain to the particular local authority, because it would be on that local authority’s land that the measures would apply. For example, in a two-tier area, if the county council as the highways authority deemed that pavement licensing were to be introduced, it would be for the county council to enforce its own measures; if a district council brought in measures in a park for which it was responsible, it would be for the district council. I think that is quite a simple explanation.
I understand that we have a complex jigsaw of local government, but it is for the particular type of council or authority that introduces a measure to enforce it. For example, the pavement licence in the City of Manchester is for the City of Manchester to enforce—not Andy Burnham as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, or indeed the Greater Manchester combined authority. That is pretty simple.
Dr Johnson
My question was not so much about the enforcement, which is defined in the Bill as the local weights and measures authority. Amendment 11 says that a local authority may make byelaws. The local authority that may make these byelaws includes the whole range of county councils, district councils and combined authorities, implying that, whoever is enforcing it, those that could make a byelaw could overlap and have contrary views.
Andrew Gwynne
Obviously, if a local authority introduces byelaws, as the City of Manchester has done in respect of pavement licensing, it is for that local authority to ensure that those byelaws are adhered to. Of course, in that case, the weights and measures authority is the City of Manchester, so I suppose that makes it easier.
These powers are already being used. Local authorities are already designating areas, whether it is for pavement licences, public space protection orders or just deeming that land within their own responsibility is smoke-free. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I kindly ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to withdraw them.
Dr Johnson
I shall speak to amendments 95 and 94, which stand in my name. Amendment 95 is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dartford a few minutes ago. Members will remember that earlier in the summer the Labour Government suggested that they would include hospitality venues within the scope of outside spaces, which led to pushback from a number of sources, mostly the hospitality industry. Speaking to Sky News on 5 November, the Secretary of State said that it was
“a leak of a Government discussion”,
but that it had promoted
“a really good debate about whether or not it would be proportionate”.
He then said:
“I think people know that the UK hospitality industry has taken a battering in recent years—”.
I agree with the Secretary of State on that. Covid-19 certainly challenged the hospitality industry. The previous Government supported it through business loans, reduced taxation and furlough schemes. Now, just as the industry is getting back on its feet, this Government have battered hospitality providers by raising national insurance contributions, increasing the minimum wage for young people, increasing business rates, introducing the deposit return scheme, and nearly doubling business rates for small businesses. They are indeed taking a battering; we can agree on that. In that Sky News interview, the Secretary of State also said:
“we do not want to add to their pressures, so we are not proposing to go ahead with an outdoor hospitality ban at this time”.
That was in November, but does he still mean it now? How will we know?
The challenge of this clause is trust. The Prime Minister has talked about trust. Before the general election, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, at the Country Land and Business Association conference, that Labour had no intention of changing the rules on agricultural property relief—but they have. The Government’s manifesto said that they would not increase national insurance on working people —but they have. On 11 June, Rachel Reeves told the Financial Times that she had no plans to increase capital gains tax—but she did. Labour said that it would not make changes to pensioner benefits, but then removed the winter fuel allowance. So there is no trusting that this Government will do what they say they are going to do and not do what they explicitly say they will not. I hope the Minister understands my reasoning.
It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats have a similar amendment to the Conservative amendment on this topic. As I said before, people need some form of open space and not everyone has a garden. There is some confusion about hospitality venues. For example, some pubs have a kids’ play area; will that be treated as a play area within the scope of the regulations, or will it be a hospitality area? Under the current statement, the Secretary of State will not include play areas, but the powers under the clause, which we will come to as a whole, give wide scope for the Minister and the Secretary of State to designate virtually anywhere as smoke-free, with criminal sanction for those smoking or vaping. The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that their only intention is to use these policies for NHS properties, hospital buildings, children’s play areas and education facilities. This being the case, I cannot see why the Minister would not be happy to have that on the face of the Bill. It is the stated intent. I am sure the Government will understand my point about trust.
There are a few minor differences between the Liberal Democrat amendment 4 and the Conservative amendment, mainly in that the Conservative amendment includes nurseries and the Liberal Democrat amendment defines play areas and playgrounds, as opposed to simply playgrounds. These are relatively small differences other than the addition of nurseries, which is beneficial that is where the smallest children are. Clearly smoking in a nursery school is an antisocial behaviour, so it would make sense for them to be included.
Amendment 94 states that:
“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”
The Health Act 2006 states that the Secretary of State has to be clear, in his own mind, that there is a risk of high levels of smoke if he is going to ban smoking, so it is a measure of proportionality. Smoking in an outdoor space, miles from anywhere with nobody about, exposes no one but the smoker, making it slightly safer to smoke outside than inside for both the smoker and the people around them.
Why did the Minister choose to remove the “significant smoke” measure from the legislation? Does he feel that there is no significant amount of smoke to be inhaled by somebody who is in an outdoor space with somebody else? What is the chief medical officer’s advice on the amount of smoke that is likely to be inhaled by someone in an outdoor space alongside or nearby someone who is smoking? I understand that there will be a duration issue—how long the person is sat there, how long the smoker is smoking for and how many cigarettes they have, how close the person is and how windy it is—but will the Minister explain why he chose to remove that measure?
Gregory Stafford
I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be.
It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it.
The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I have great respect for her public health abilities and knowledge. I accept the points that she made, but Opposition Members feel that including in the Bill areas that will potentially be consulted on being smoke-free is proportionate to ensure that there is not overreach. I know that if the amendments are accepted and, at a future point, attitudes and science change, she will be a doughty campaigner to have the law changed, and I am sure that she will achieve it, if that is the way she wants to go.
Dr Johnson
In response to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Worthing West are saying, as a doctor, I have a lot of sympathy with her position. Certainly, if I take my children out for a meal in a restaurant and we sit outside in the summer, having a lovely day in the beer garden, and along comes a family or another group of people who sit and smoke, I dislike that. Whether it should be made illegal is a different matter, but it is something that I do not like.
As my hon. Friend said, there is a balance between enabling someone to do something that we have decided will be legal—that is, someone who is born in the right timeframe to be able to smoke—and giving them somewhere safe to do so. Over time, I suspect the measures that the Bill as a whole grants will lead to a reduction in smoking, which, of course, is its intention. As smoking becomes less prevalent, it is likely that smoking in front of children, particularly in outside hospitality spaces or in other places, will become less socially acceptable. We saw hospitality bring in non-smoking areas in the past.
The hon. Member for Winchester talked about having two different beer gardens in the same pub, one for smoking and one without. It is within the capacity of any given hospitality business to choose, as smoking becomes a minority and antisocial pastime, not to allow it within their facility, and to police that by throwing people out. It is also possible for individuals to choose not to attend a beer garden of a pub where smoking is allowed. To some extent, therefore, the ability of people to choose and vote with their feet, and the desire of the market and hospitality industries to maintain their custom, will surely have some effect on this over time.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to speak to amendments 4, 95 and 94; as they are very similar, my comments will apply in the generality. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister’s cynicism about the commitments made by the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Barros-Curtis
She may well have given a few examples—I can think of a litany of examples from the previous 14 years of Tory Government. However, that would stray from the amendments, and as we do not have the time, I will not indulge the Committee with that. But I would suggest that that cynicism is not merited because, as the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown in these sittings—
Andrew Gwynne
I can speak only for England, but I am legislating for the United Kingdom with the permission of Health Ministers. It may well be that Health Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom decide not to consult at all. In Wales, for example, they already have the coverage of all the areas that we are going to consult on in England.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon says he is now even more worried. Well, I tell him this: worry not, because his amendment relates to England only. If he is so mithered about the rights of the Welsh to consult Welsh business on Welsh matters, he should have put Wales in his amendment. If he so bothered about the rights of the Scots to consult on Scottish matters with Scottish business, he should have put Scotland in his amendment. If he is so bothered about the rights of the Northern Irish to consult Northern Irish business about Northern Irish matters, he should have put Northern Ireland on the face of his amendment. He doth protest too much, Mr Pritchard!
The hon. Gentleman has actually made my case for why these measures are proportionate: they cover the whole of the United Kingdom and it will be down to Ministers in the respective parts of the United Kingdom to decide who they will consult, why they will consult and what areas they will consult on. But as far as England is concerned, I cannot be any clearer: hospitality is out of the scope of our consultation. We will consult on three things: hospitals, schools and play areas.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way, although I would point out that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon’s amendment at all.
Dr Johnson
He is supporting it, but the Minister asked why my hon. Friend did not include things in it. The answer is that he did not write it. The amendments were written by others, one by the Liberal Democrats, and supported by him, which is not the same thing.
The Minister will no doubt have caused concern for the people in hospitality industries in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who are following proceedings today. Could he tell the Committee a bit about the discussions he has had with his counterparts? Have any of them indicated to him their intent regarding hospitality areas in their designated parts of the United Kingdom?
Andrew Gwynne
I certainly can. I have had umpteen conversations with Health Ministers from across the United Kingdom, and none of them has indicated to me that they intend to extend this to hospitality. But the point is that, as Ministers in their own legal jurisdictions, it for them to decide who they are going to consult and on what basis they are going to consult. In terms of the powers in this Bill, which areas they want to extend—if any—is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me or for this Parliament.
We are merely legislating to give those Health Ministers the tools; if they wish to go beyond the scope that the English Ministers are setting out, it is their right to do so. That is the devolution settlement. But they will, of course, have the statutory duty to consult, and they will, of course—I would imagine—want to work with businesses, in Northern Ireland, in Wales, or in Scotland, to make sure that whatever measures they bring forward are right and workable, just as we would in the Department of Health and Social Care, should we decide, at some stage in the future, to go further again.
Dr Johnson
I doubt whether the Minister has provided a huge amount of reassurance to the hospitality sectors in those jurisdictions.
I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his intervention about prisons. As far as I can tell, closed prisons are smoke-free environments—that is already the case both inside and outside—but I understand that prisoners in closed prisons are allowed to vape, including in their cells, where they may be vaping near other prisoners who may not wish them to have that choice. We are depriving people of their liberty for good reason when sending them to prison, but we should not be exposing them to chemical vapour as part of that if they are not vapers themselves.
Could the Minister talk to us about the discussions he has had with Justice Ministers about how provision is made for the public health of those currently in prison?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who is now making my case perfectly for why we need to have the regulations as we do. It may well be that, at some stage in the future, a Public Health Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, having had conversations with and guidance from the Ministry of Justice, seeks to quickly and simply extend provisions within the prison estate. Were the hon. Lady’s amendments to pass, the ability to do that would not be in the Bill.
We have had conversations with Ministers across Government. This Bill has been subject to the usual write-around, so it has the collective support of the Ministry of Justice. The details of which areas would be in or out of the scope of different measures within the Bill will be a matter for the regulations and for consultation. With that, the shadow Minister has precisely made the case for why having things prescriptively in the Bill ties the hands of Ministers.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is suggesting that to be able to restrict access to these products in prisons, he needs to have a wide scope within clause 136. Given that prisons are already smoke-free areas, that surely cannot be the case.
Andrew Gwynne
No, but the point the hon. Lady is making is about what conversations Ministers have had with other Ministers to extend the scope, to protect the rights of others and so on. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill is drafted as it is. At some stage in the future, a Government Minister in another Department may well decide that they want to extend the scope, using the powers we are talking about. Under her amendment, we would then have to find a slot in primary legislation to amend a piece of primary legislation. That is precisely why her amendments are unworkable.
The mechanism in place would allow a consultation on an extension; following consultation, secondary legislation would be debated as part of the affirmative process—there would be a debate, a discussion, and a vote in Parliament. That is precisely why the amendments are unworkable, and I call on the Committee to resist them.
I move on to the removal of the test in the Health Act 2006. That is to enable the Secretary of State to more easily make regulations designating outdoor spaces as smoke-free, but only where such a space is a workplace or open to the public. Reinserting the test would conflict with our intention to extend smoke-free status to places I have mentioned—for example, children’s playgrounds probably do not meet the requirement of there being significant risk of significant quantities of smoke. However, making them smoke-free would almost certainly protect some of the most vulnerable.
Since 2006, the evidence base for harms of second-hand smoking has evolved. It is therefore necessary to update the current legislation, as clause 136 does, to provide more flexibility should the Government wish to designate additional smoke-free places in future.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is making a reasonable point. However, the evidence can change on what constitutes a significant amount of smoke—in the past, people may have believed that someone had to be smoking in order to come to harm and then that someone could also come to harm in an enclosed indoor environment with someone smoking. It may be that the evidence now shows that even being in proximity to someone smoking outdoors—the fact that you can smell it means you are breathing it in—means you are coming to harm on some level. But does the amendment not account for that with the word “significant”? Amendment 94 says:
“if in the Secretary of State’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”
A significant quantity of smoke may in the past have been considered to be quite a high volume, but now might be a much lower volume. The flexibility the Minister is seeking is already provided for in the amendment.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister would probably have a large degree of sympathy—at least one of her Back Benchers less so—with our updating the Health Act 2006 to allow us to take action to make more places smoke-free. We think that is right. We now have the ambition to make the whole United Kingdom smoke-free, and this is part of that effort.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is being generous with his time. He knows my thoughts on smoking and vaping, particularly in relation to children, and how important I think creating a smoke-free and nicotine-free generation is—although he does not share the second part. He is talking about how the Secretary of State needs to be able to move with the evidence. I completely and utterly agree with that, but the clause says that there is a significant risk that without designation, persons present will be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.
I support the addition of the smoke-free legislation for spaces like playgrounds. If a playground were to be included, the Secretary of State could quite easily justify that by saying that even seeing someone smoking would encourage children to smoke, particularly if it is their parents, and that therefore it is a sensible action to take.
The words—drafted, I believe by the Minister’s predecessors—are “exposure to significant quantities”. “Exposure” does not necessarily mean breathing it in; children could be seeing it across the playground. “Significant quantities” does not necessarily mean a quantity enough to do them harm. If they cannot see it, they are not being exposed to it and it is not doing them harm, why would we want to stop it happening?
Andrew Gwynne
The point is that that is open to interpretation; that now runs counter to our ambition to have a smoke-free United Kingdom. We have put in place a much more flexible and workable measure. The measure from 2006 was right for 2006, but it is not right for 2027, when we hope to introduce the Bill. That is why we are looking to the measures in the Bill rather than the measures as they stood in 2006.
Lastly, I remind the shadow Minister that her amendments apply only to the clause in the Bill that relates to England. If we agreed to them, the powers in England would not be consistent with the powers in the rest of the devolved jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. This is a UK-wide Bill that provides a consistent legislative framework for the whole of the United Kingdom—all four nations—while allowing devolved nations to go further on subsequent regulations if they so wish. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for those comments; I will do my best to answer them. Compliance with the measure is still not where we would like it to be: the last survey undertaken by an independent company on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health indicates that 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds say that
“they travel in a car with someone smoking some days, most days or every day in 2024.”
The current law also does not protect those with clinical vulnerabilities. The smoke-free powers in this Bill are driven by a desire to protect people with clinical vulnerabilities from second-hand smoke. That includes pregnant women and those with asthma and lung conditions, among others. No smoker wants to harm their family, friends, pets or co-workers, so no smoker should smoke in an enclosed vehicle.
The evidence is clear: concentrations of smoke in vehicles where someone is smoking are greater than in any other small, enclosed space. If we are to be led by the evidence when extending smoke-free places, we have to consider vehicles. That would provide consistency in policy and raise awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke even further than they currently extend. It would be easier to enforce than the current law, where we have to check who else is in the vehicle, and would make the regulations on vehicles simpler and easier to understand—“It’s a straightforward ban; you can’t do it.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is supported by the public, with 67% of British adults saying they are in favour of an outright ban on smoking in vehicles.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of what he wishes to achieve. I have great sympathy with it, because nobody wants to see people making their health worse by smoking in a car. However, his statistics are quite interesting. He said that 9% of children find themselves on a regular basis in a car where someone is smoking, yet the Minister has said already this morning that 11% of people smoke. Given that not all of the 11% of people who smoke have children with whom they travel in a car, that implies that the measure is pretty badly enforced and badly adhered to at the moment. He might argue that a complete ban in all vehicles would make it more uniform and easier to enforce, but I am not sure that that is the case.
I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the amendment whether he has any information or statistics on the number of prosecutions that have occurred under the current legislation. I support the legislation that prevents someone from smoking in a car with children, and I would support an extension of that to include vaping and other nicotine products. I would also support a ban on people smoking while driving; if someone is holding a lit cigarette in their hand, that will have an impact on their ability to manoeuvre the car, particularly in an emergency situation.
Essentially the hon. Member is proposing to say to someone in a parked-up vehicle, perhaps in someone’s drive, “Although you are in a private space, you are not able to smoke.” I understand what he said about no smoker wanting to hurt someone—I am sure that is true—but I cannot imagine that there is any adult smoker that does not realise that smoking in a car with children is bad for the children. I find it very difficult to believe that that would be the case. I invite him to consider whether he is trying to prevent what is a legal activity—even under this Bill, if someone is the right age—in a private space that is theirs and theirs alone?
Gregory Stafford
My comments follow on the shadow Minister’s. My understanding of amendment 10 is that, even if the occupant of the vehicle is entirely alone in their private vehicle, the hon. Member for Dartford is seeking to ban them from smoking in that vehicle. We are in danger here of overreaching on what we need to do to achieve a smoke-free generation.
Gregory Stafford
I accept that point, but I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor’s point was that the police do not currently have powers to stop people who are driving dangerously. I completely accept that they should stop people using their mobile phones or doing things that constitute dangerous driving. The shadow Minister gave the view that smoking a cigarette could be counted as driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, so that may be a way of enforcing it. However, I think that having the police stop someone simply smoking in their own vehicle—something that is legal in every other private location—when they are over the legal age required in the Bill and they are not harming anybody else, is an overreach.
Dr Johnson
The key difference between a mobile phone and a cigarette is that with mobile phones, it is the driver using a mobile phone while driving that is the problem. If one is pulled over in a parking space in one’s private car, one can use one’s mobile phone to one’s heart’s content, and likewise when one is parked in one’s drive. If one wants to sit in one’s car on one’s drive and use a mobile phone, provided the car is stationary, that is also a legal thing to do. What the hon. Member for Dartford is suggesting is not that someone is unable to smoke while driving, which would be quite a sensible measure, but that if one’s car is stationary and private and one is essentially alone in an enclosed space like one’s home, one still would not be allowed to smoke, which seems a little odd.
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree with the shadow Minister. I have two final points. Proposed new subsection (1B) makes reference to the meaning of an enclosed vehicle. I just want to clarify what that means. The amendment says:
“which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.”
Is the amendment trying to capture convertible cars—someone driving with the top down on a sunny day?
Speech and Language Therapy
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on his introduction to today’s debate. I also particularly congratulate Mikey Akers, who I understand introduced this petition, for the work that he has done in raising awareness of verbal apraxia—work that will no doubt help people right across the country. I know that he has been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on this issue too, and no doubt that will also be helping people. I also welcome Chris Kamara to the Gallery. He is doing great work on raising awareness too. The more awareness we raise, the better it will be for everybody, and the easier it will be for people to be treated for the conditions they have.
As we have heard today, speech and language therapists have a wide range of skills for people of all ages. The issue is much bigger than speech itself. It also includes swallowing, from newborns with developmental delay to the elderly, who may be struggling to swallow after a stroke. It is about communication, feeding issues, and specific sound delays—a stammer. Speech and language therapists are involved in a huge amount of work.
I have seen in my own family the work that speech and language therapists do, with one child unable to say “s”, and having speech therapy to try and encourage her to do so—one of her younger siblings, having spent much time attending these appointments, consequently learned to say “s” about 18 months earlier than she was supposed to.
I also had a child with a stammer who was treated successfully. I learned from that that the whole family needs to be involved in treating the child, and I am grateful for the support that I got from the NHS speech and language therapists for my family. When I went along, particularly with the child with the stammer, I learned that the parent, and indeed the whole family, had to play games every day. I had to learn to play with my child without asking her any questions, which is a lot harder than it looks.
I learned about the importance of sleep and that early therapy is better. I remember the speech and language therapist likening the condition to a record getting stuck in a groove on a record player. If someone got stuck in a particular groove, the more times the disc went round the deeper it got and the harder it was to jump out, so it is important to ensure that speech and language therapy is instituted as early as possible to make it easier to treat the patient.
I want to ask the Minister about parent resources. If early is better, special guidance on aspects of treatment and management even before the patient sees a speech and language therapist would be helpful. I saw that Hereford and Worcestershire health and care NHS trust had some very good online resources for parents and what they can do to help their child with a speech or language condition.
The priority of reducing overall waiting times for community services was reflected in NHS England’s operational planning guidance for 2024-25. Local systems across England were asked to develop the comprehensive plan by June 2024 to reduce the overall waiting times for community services, including reducing waits over 52 weeks for children’s community services. The waiting lists have reduced from roughly 76,000 last July to 63,000 at the end of last year, which is still too long. Will the Government focus on trying to reduce the waiting lists still further? And does the Minister have a target in mind for next year to see how far he would consider it successful to have reduced those waiting lists?
What is also clear and has been reflected in many hon. Members’ speeches is that the demand for speech and language therapy has gone up. According to Department for Education data, in 2023-24 370,000 pupils had a speech, language and communication need in England—an increase of over 64%, from 225,000 in 2015-16. That is not related to an overall increase in the number of school-age children, so why is that the case?
One could perhaps consider that more people are aware of the conditions, thanks to active campaigns. That is a good thing because people are getting referred earlier and treated earlier. But it also would appear that the number of children affected by speech and language conditions has gone up. The Minister and his Government have talked a lot about prevention being better than cure, and I agree with that. So what work has he done to look at the causes of the rise in speech and language difficulties?
As I was researching causes, I came across the issue of screen time. What is the effect of screen time? It reduces imagination, peer-to-peer speaking and verbal problem solving. It is also a solitary rather than truly social activity. We know that children are spending more and more of their time online, particularly young children. Families are smaller. Does that mean that people have less time to interact with other children? We have an increase in the number of bilingual children. Although that in itself does not cause speech and language problems, it can cause temporary language mixing at younger ages, and in some cases slower vocabulary acquisition in early years. What is the Minister doing to find the cause of the rapid increase in the number of children with speech and language difficulties so that we can prevent them rather than waiting for them to occur and then treating them?
I also want to talk about the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, known as NELI, which was mentioned earlier. It is a teaching assistant-delivered programme that has been accessed by over 11,000 schools since the pandemic. It is known to improve the speech and language communication of the children who go through the programme by three months; the improvement is much greater for more disadvantaged children. Can the Minister commit to continuing to ensure that children have access to the NELI programme?
Pre-election, the Department of Health and Social Care worked with the Department for Education to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities received the right support. The collaboration included working together to implement the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published on 2 March 2023. Those two Departments also worked together on SEND workforce planning and established a steering group to oversee the work, with a view to completing it by 2025. Will the Minister provide an update on the steering group’s work and what plans there are to commission research into supply and demand for speech and language therapy?
In 2023 the Department for Education launched the two-year early language and support for every child pathfinder project with NHS England to improve access to speech and language therapy. Funding for that is due to run out this year, so can the Minister confirm whether it will be renewed to allow the project to continue?
The Government are also due to refresh the NHS long-term workforce plan this year. Back in 2023, that plan set out an ambition to increase allied health professional training places by 25% by 2031-32. However, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others have highlighted that that is likely to cover only speech and language therapists in the NHS workforce, and the Minister also needs to address shortages in educational and criminal justice settings. Can he confirm what work he is doing with his colleagues across Government to ensure that is the case?
Many speeches today have been focused on the social speech and language needs of children, which is understandable, but in the Minister’s wrapping up, will he talk about what work he is doing to support adults with speech and language difficulties or swallowing needs? Finally, we understand from the newspapers that many aspects of care across the NHS are now to be deprioritised, and Ministers are to focus on one specific target. While I would not expect the Minister to comment on any leaks, can he confirm that speech and language therapy will not see a reduction in real-terms resources?
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsThursday 23rd January 2025
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2025 - (23 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Dowd. These clauses concern the defences and exemptions to the advertising bans on relevant products—tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products—as set out in clauses 114 to 119, which we have just debated.
Clause 120 sets out three situations in which someone has a defence to the advertising bans. Those are trade adverts, sending information in response to a request and adverts for outside the United Kingdom. The clause sets out that adverts contained only in communications between members of specific, relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. For example, a vaping company could send promotional materials to someone responsible for buying products to sell, but that would otherwise be banned if aimed at members of the public. Similarly, a defence exists if the advert is contained in a publication that is not printed or intended to be marketed in the UK. The final defence is that if businesses receive a direct request about their products, they are permitted to respond to that request with material that would legally be considered an advert.
Clause 121 restates existing law that allows specialist tobacconists to advertise specialist products in their shops. Specialist tobacconists will therefore be exempt from the restrictions on advertisements in part 6 of the Bill, provided that their adverts meet certain criteria, such as being visible only inside the shop. The clause empowers the appropriate national authority in each of the devolved Administrations to make regulations to specify what health warnings and information must be included in the adverts. Specialist tobacconists make up a tiny percentage of the market in the UK and are focused on specialist products such as pipes and cigars, and this exemption reflects the specialist nature of the trade carried out by these shops. However, tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, so we will continue to monitor the specialist market closely in case the situation changes.
Clause 122 ensures that no offence is committed under part 6 of the Bill for something that is regulated under the law on displays. For example, displaying a relevant product or the price of the product in accordance with any regulations concerning displays would not be considered an advertisement for the purposes of advertising offences. Without this provision, a display of a relevant product or other material that is permitted may be prohibited as an advertisement. The provision therefore allows for shops to display a vape, subject to the restrictions set out in legislation on their display, without it being considered an advertisement.
However, in the relevant provision for Scotland, the clause refers only to the legislation on the display of the tobacco products themselves and does not include the legislative provision on the display of the prices of the tobacco products. Government amendment 1 has been made to ensure that both are captured when determining whether something is subject to the law relating to displays, as the equivalent provisions do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That has been done at the request of the Scottish Government to make the approach in Scotland consistent with that in the other three jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that the Government commend this amendment and clauses 120 to 122 to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I noticed that Government amendment 1 was included in this grouping. Does the Minister want to talk about it?
Dr Johnson
Oh, sorry. I must have had a moment.
Clause 120 concerns advertising defences. I wanted to ask specifically about the defence relating to the relevant trade communication being directed solely at persons involved in that trade. Does that include adverts within trade magazines? Does it include trade shows and trade stands where these adverts might be visible? Will these adverts or promotions need to be explicitly directed at trade, and will they need to be only visible to trade, or could this actually create a loophole in which there is a suggestion that these are trade magazines, but are actually more widely available than that and therefore provide an advert to the public? How will that work? What if one is doing a trade show in a relatively public venue such as an exhibition centre?
Andrew Gwynne
I can answer that very quickly and clearly, because it was set out in my opening speech. I am not sure whether the shadow Minister was fully paying attention, because it also included Government amendment 1, in relation to bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom on these measures. The legislation sets out that adverts contained only in communications made between members of specific relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. I think that is pretty clear.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if members of a trade body are being spoken to at a trade show, for example, will the people running the show need to make sure that people who are not members of the trade do not come? Sometimes, people may bring other people along with them. Will there need to be provisions to ensure that when that trade show is advertised, it is not done in a way that promotes the product itself? If the show is to happen, people will need to know about it, so how will they find out? This is just about making sure there are no loopholes.
There is also the business of who is publishing and who is distributing. If someone were to design, produce and print leaflets in the belief that they would be distributed abroad, but then someone gave some young delivery chap, perhaps in his teens, some money to deliver them to a group of households, as happens with pizza delivery adverts and such things, the young lad would be committing an offence of which he may or may not be aware. That is no excuse under the law, of course, but the person with greater culpability would be the person who gave him the leaflet. How does the Minister intend the law to be applied in such a situation?
Clause 121 concerns specialist tobacconists. The Minister has been quite consistent on every aspect of this legislation—apart from penalties—in saying that tobacco in all its forms is bad for people and needs to be eliminated, so I am interested in this specialist tobacco exemption. I understand that the advert is going to be available inside the store, and not visible from the outside, and that it will exclude cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am interested to understand why it will specifically exclude those and not other forms of tobacco. The Minister might say, “That is what the legislation says at the moment, and we want to keep it the same,” but passing new legislation is an opportunity to change things, review what we currently have and decide whether it needs to be different. I am interested in his reasons for that decision.
The clause defines a “specialist tobacconist” as a shop
“more than half of whose sales…derive from the sale of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories.”
That would appear to be on the basis of the cost or value of sales. What is the reason for that definition? It may be that that is the existing definition, but has the Minister considered whether specialist tobacconists should be defined according to whether they sell a greater or a lesser amount of such products? Also, we see vape shops on virtually every high street now, so how will the Bill apply to them?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that Government amendment 1 simply makes a correction to bring things into line, so I very much doubt that we will oppose it.
It is clearly necessary and right to have some defences written into law, but I have a few questions about clauses 121 and 122. As the shadow Minister said, the Minister and the Government have been extraordinarily clear that tobacco-based products, as well as vapes, are unhealthy and have a significant impact on public health. It is therefore interesting that the Minister has not been so consistent when it comes to what one might call specialist or traditional tobacco.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about specialist tobacco. Can he or the Minister enlighten the Committee as to whether specialist tobacco is less harmful than any other form?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he agree that the timing will be important too, because this legislation will come into force more quickly than the regulations? The Minister said that he would “go like the clappers”, but we have not had further definition of what that means or of how quickly regulations will come into force. Regulations on displays may lag behind the Bill’s provisions on advertising, so companies are likely to use the display provisions to circumvent the advertising provisions until the Minister brings the regulations in.
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree. It is essential that not only this clause and the regulations it will bring in, but all the clauses we have talked about—both those where regulations are included on the face of the Bill and those that give the Minister, the Department for Health and relevant authorities the power to implement other regulations and restrictions—are phased appropriately, so that retailers and manufacturers can adjust to the new laws. They must also be introduced rapidly enough that there are no loopholes, and in the right sequence so that people cannot take advantage of any loopholes.
That brings me to the point that vigilant enforcement and clear guidelines are necessary to prevent such exploitation. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether that links back to the previous clauses, in which we talked about the display of notices.
Likewise, we need to ensure that there is consistency across the jurisdictions. We have devolved government in this country, but if regulations concerning the display and advertisement of tobacco and vape products vary between the different countries of the United Kingdom, there could be cause for some legal issues. It is therefore vital to ensure that clause 122 is applied consistently across all parts of the United Kingdom to prevent confusion among retailers and to maintain the stated aim of the Bill, which is uniform public health standards.
I have a few questions to the Minister. First, will he be developing comprehensive guidelines for what constitutes a display versus an advertisement? These guidelines should include visual examples to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the regulations. I mentioned it before, but regular training and communication is essential so that retailers can be educated about the distinctions and the legal requirements. Continued regular communication will help to address any ambiguities and keep retailers informed about any changes to the laws or regulations that the Minister or his successors might introduce. The Minister is laughing, but I think it is more that he received a funny text than because of my speech.
Finally, robust monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that there is compliance with clause 122. That should include routine inspections and clear processes for addressing violations to ensure that the distinction between displays and advertisements is respected. In conclusion, the clause plays a pivotal role in balancing the rights of retailers to display their products with the necessity of restricting advertising that could promote tobacco and vape usage. We on this side of the Committee—mostly—agree with the clause, and I hope that the Minister will answer some of the queries that we have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank hon. Members for their questions. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon just referred to my smirk, and it was indeed a text from somebody asking whether we should define “clappers” in our guidance as well.
To return to the substance of the Bill, the Government amendment is minor and technical; there was a drafting error, and the Scottish Government have since requested the amendment to correct it and to ensure the regulations and the law, as it appertains to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be the same for Scotland.
On the subject of “specialist tobacconists”, let me first make a point of clarification for the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. We are not saying there is specialist tobacco—there is no such thing. Tobacco is dangerous and uniquely harmful. Tobacco is tobacco. There is nothing specialist about it. A very small number of retailers around the United Kingdom sell niche products; they are specialist tobacconists. That is different to the tobacco being special. There is nothing special about tobacco. The tiny number of retailers that sell things such as pipes and cigars exist in a limited number of places and there are already exemptions in the law for them. As we move towards smoke-free, the reality of market economics means that those specialist tobacconists are not necessarily likely to be around at some stage in the future.
The impact assessment that the Government have provided alongside the Bill makes it very clear. With the measures in the Bill, by 2050—25 years’ time, that is all—we are looking at smoking prevalence in the under-30s being nearly zero. Given that reality, the Government believe that the current exemptions for that small number of retailers will continue. Due to the specialist nature of their trade—they focus on a small number of other tobacco products, such as cigars—they only make up a tiny proportion of the UK market. We know that all tobacco products are harmful, so the Government will, of course, keep a watchful eye on it to make sure that we do not inadvertently grow a new market but, at this stage, we do not believe that will happen.
Specialist tobacconists are not permitted to advertise cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco because those are the most commonly used types of tobacco. The existing bans on tobacco advertising therefore relate to the sale of those products, whether in specialist tobacconists or the local supermarket, so we are really talking about the advertising exemption for other products. That is a continuation of the existing exemption, which has not caused any issues such as younger people taking up smoking. Any advertising the retailers have cannot be visible from outside the premises. That is really important so that a child walking past one of these random Hogwarts-looking shops that sell a product of which they are hopefully not aware will not ever be attracted to what goes on inside.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that the Minister is considering how shops look from the outside because, when one walks down the high street at the moment, it is not uncommon to find shops where the entire shop window has been turned into a picture of various types of vapes.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely—I agree with the hon. Lady that how it looks from the outside does matter. That is why, when these exemptions were put into earlier legislation, it was clear that none of the adverts for these niche products could be visible in the shop window from the outside, precisely to protect future generations from ever being enticed to think, “I wonder what a pipe tastes like, or what a cigar is like,” although I am sure the hon. Member for Windsor could, if he chose, give us an hour-long explanation. That is why the legislation is drafted in the way it is. However—and hopefully the industry is listening to this—the Government will, of course, continue to keep an eye on whether this exemption is working in the way that it has previously worked and that we expect it probably will work in the future. If in the future we have evidence that it is not working, the Government can come back and look at it again. However, as things stand, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exclusion for advertisements that are displays
Dr Johnson
The clauses deal with sponsorship. Clause 124 covers tobacco products, and clause 125 vaping, nicotine and other products. Why do businesses get involved in sponsorship? Basically, as a way of advertising their products and to associate them with whatever sponsors them. They might want to associate their products with Formula 1, because it is seen by many as sexy, as the Minister put it—fast or cool, or a good thing to be associated with. They might want to associate their products with other sports such as football or rugby, because athletes who participate in them are seen as healthy, fit and cool. Businesses are therefore associating their brands, which may not be healthy or cool, with those athletes.
On the clauses, the Government’s own impact assessment talks about linking sports sponsorship to smoking. A UK study found that when cigarettes were advertised in motor racing, boys aged 12 to 13 who liked motor racing were significantly more likely to smoke than boys who were not so interested in that sport. Clearly, such advertising works; if it did not, companies would not spend so much money on it. Sports sponsorships and endorsements are highly effective marketing tools.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is, of course, correct.
On advertising and sponsorship, page 101 of the impact assessment states:
“Sponsorship agreements are a form of indirect advertising”—
I agree—
“and there has recently been growing concern about the existence of agreements which promote vaping and nicotine products. These agreements normalise the products and may make them seem cool, having a potentially negative influence on the usage of the products among children and non-smokers.
For nicotine vapes, Ofcom regulations prohibit sponsorship of news and current affairs programmes, and any sponsorship of programming which promotes nicotine vapes. The Communications Act 2003 also prohibits sponsorship of on-demand programme services or a programme on these services which promote nicotine vapes. However, for broader settings such as sports events and teams, music festivals and cultural events, sponsorship which promotes nicotine vapes is permitted.”
It is good that the Minister, in this clause, seeks to prevent such sponsorship—particularly the sort of sponsorship that targets children.
Subsection (1)(a) of both clauses states that a person is party to an agreement entered into “at any time”. That provision does not appear to differentiate between agreements made before and after the Bill becomes law. I understand that the Minister wants to ensure that there is not a sudden flurry of activity in the commercial world to put sponsorship agreements in place before these regulations come into force—we do not want companies to say, “Well, we are bound by this contract for so many years, Minister. We are stuck now”—but does he intend to apply the clause retroactively? Somebody who saw the Bill when it came before the House in March and April, saw it in its other format, or saw the manifesto commitments of all major parties to this Bill in some form or another, may have entered into such agreements already. I would be interested to hear what plans the Minister has to deal with those circumstances.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In my previous life, I worked in commercial contracts. The hon. Lady can be reassured that a typical commercial contract would require that any participant to it must adhere to the laws and applicable regulations in any jurisdiction in which the contract is governed. Regardless of the Government’s intention, which I am sure the Minister will talk about, there should be an overarching clause in most standard commercial contracts about adherence to applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction to which the contract applies.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. That is another example of why it is important to have a wide spectrum of people on Committees. Of course, that is usually the case, but I am interested to know what the Minister’s intention is with “at any time”. Does he intend it to apply to contracts retrospectively? Presumably he does, but I want to clarify that.
I welcome the constraints on tobacco, vape and nicotine product advertising and sponsorship for this purpose, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions.
Dr Johnson
I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing West about the precautionary principle. One of the differences between tobacco products—for example, cigarettes—and vapes is that tobacco products in the form of cigarettes are relatively more uniform in their component parts than are vapes, and it may take quite a long time to work out which of the chemical components of vapes are harmful, so we do need to be more precautionary with that.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here.
Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.
Sarah Bool
I will make two points. First, I understand where my h F the shadow Minister is coming from in terms of the questions about enforceability and when these things come into effect. Clause 124(1)(a) states that for tobacco products:
“A person commits an offence if…the person is party to an agreement (entered into at any time),”
which will obviously be consistent; but clause 125(1)(a) states that a person commits an offence only if
“the person is party to an agreement entered into on or after the day on which this section comes into force”.
I can see the point that the Minister is making. Will we see a rush of sponsorship agreements on vaping coming in in the next few weeks before we get this Bill on the statute book? That is a legitimate question to raise, and we should all be aware of that possibility.
Generally, it is important that we tackle and take on seriously the role of sponsorship. I do not think that I am alone in recalling the impact of Pepsi and its sponsorship of the Spice Girls when I was young. Its campaign aimed at Generation X had 92 million cans with the Spice Girls on them, which obviously had a big impact. I will be honest and say that I loved the Spice Girls, but seeing anything like that has a massive impact when we are children, so tackling it is absolutely right. Pepsi sponsors the National Football League, Coca-Cola sponsors the Olympics and I think Carlsberg has always sponsored Liverpool FC, so we can see that brand alignment.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point much more eloquently than I did that there is a difference in the clauses between the days when they come into force. As she is a lawyer who has been involved in contracts, can she confirm that there is no limit to how long someone can enter into a contract? If a contract were entered into in terms of sponsoring vaping or nicotine products before the Bill comes into force, it may last for quite some time.
Sarah Bool
That is a possibility. It always depends on the terms of the contract itself, but in theory they could agree a 10 or 15-year contract and sponsorship deal. It is interesting that this could be one of the overhangs that we see, so we have to be aware of it going forward.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses make it an offence for a person to be involved with a sponsorship agreement where the purpose is to promote in the course of business tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Anyone convicted of an offence under the provisions may be subject to imprisonment, a fine, or both. Tobacco sponsorship is currently banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. There is a long-standing, well-established relationship between tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption.
Clause 124 restates the current position for a person involved in the sponsorship of a tobacco product. We are consolidating existing tobacco legislation in the Bill to provide a coherent narrative for readers, rather than have it spread over lots of different pieces of legislation. A large part of the Bill brings the legislation into one place, so that from Royal Assent onwards, the go-to place for anybody with any questions about tobacco control will be this piece of legislation, rather than it being dispersed across different Acts of Parliament.
Tobacco sponsorship is already banned, but importantly, the Bill expands the offence to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping and nicotine products. The restriction will mean that vaping and other nicotine product companies will, for example, not be permitted to sponsor sports teams, which is something that we have seen in recent years. It might upset the hon. Member for Windsor, but I have to say that not a single child should ever be able to look up at their favourite sports stars—people who should be role models—and see them covered in branding for products that are harmful and addictive. That is the point here.
Dr Johnson
Would the Minister like to comment on whether many of the athletes may feel uncomfortable wearing shirts with such branding on?
Andrew Gwynne
Well, some of them are—the way Man City have been playing this season, I am not quite sure. Anyway, we will get back on to the Bill as quickly as possible.
The ban will apply to agreements entered into after the clause comes into force, two months after Royal Assent. It will be an offence if a contribution is made from either party after the specified date, which will be set out in future regulations. The ban will apply to any agreements entered into after that date, and will therefore not apply to existing contracts. The reason for the two-month period is to provide businesses with advance warning and to prevent them from entering into new agreements.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked whether this could create a rush to get sponsorship deals in place within that two-month window. That is a fair question, but I think that is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, sponsorship deals are pretty tricky contracts and it tends to take more than two months to reach contractual agreement. Secondly, even if matters were expedited, most clubs already have their deals in place, and they would not replace something when they already have a contractual arrangement for something else. Were that unlikely scenario to play out, we would be looking at only a small number of cases anyway.
When drawing up the regulations, we will have to be careful to ensure that no new contract can be signed, and certainly not for the kind of time period that the shadow Minister set out. That would be really out of the spirit of this legislation and the Government might have to come back to tighten it up further.
Dr Johnson
I have a couple of questions about the rush of people trying to get contracts. First, presumably such a contract would not need to start straight away, so one could enter into a sponsorship agreement for some future period. As the Minister said, the sponsorship agreements are done for this season and being negotiated for the next, but presumably that would not stop a business entering into a contract to provide sponsorship for the next season, or even the season after. When the Government brought in VAT on private school fees—I should declare an interest here—they put in a forestalling measure that prevented anyone from entering into a contract to pay them ahead from, I believe, 28 July last year. They seem to be taking a much more lenient approach to the advertisers and sponsors of vaping and nicotine products than they are to parents wishing to pay for their children’s education.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point; I will take that away and look at it. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, everyone on the Committee agrees that we do not want our footballers, rugby stars or athletes to be emblazoned with adverts for vaping products, so the more we can do to tighten up the legislation further, the better.
I will just politely correct the hon. Member for Windsor that the term for someone from the historic County Palatine—including yourself, Mr Dowd—is a Lancastrian. My late father was the Lancashire cricket correspondent, first for Cricket Call, which was a BT paid-for service, and then for BBC North West. He was there in 1990 when Lancashire won both the NatWest and Benson & Hedges cup finals—the double at Lord’s. I still have copies of my late father’s book, “Double Delight”. I would say that they are available at all good booksellers, but they are available from me if the hon. Gentleman wants one.
The hon. Member for Windsor made an important point. I had just come out of secondary school in 1990, which shows how long ago it was, but it was pretty commonplace for tobacco companies to advertise at major sporting events like Lancashire cricket matches and others. The fact is that that was a long time ago, and things have changed for the better. The Benson & Hedges cup final, in cricket of all games, is a thing of the past. Hopefully, at some stage in the near future, we will look back at vape sponsorship of football clubs as a thing of the past, because that is where it deserves to be.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend sets out a really important point. I am happy to take that away for officials to look at. We want to ensure that companies that currently sponsor sports kits are no longer able to do so, and that sports clubs that have entered into such contracts are not allowed to extend them beyond the dates of their current existence. His brain is much more legalistic than mine, and we do not want the intention behind the law to be circumvented using legal routes that the best lawyers in the land will probably use to try to find a way around it. I will ask my officials to look at that in more detail, because it is a really important point. I hope he accepts that response.
Dr Johnson
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is trying to make about a standard clause being that if a contract breaches the law, the contract falls. In clause 125, however, the Minister appears to be giving a company that promotes vapes by sponsorship an opportunity to enter into a contract, before the legislation comes into force, that would be legal afterwards.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is right. There will be a narrow window in which that will be possible—[Interruption.] She asks why, and it is because once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will bring in a two-month window. That is how the law is shaped, to give us the scope to get these measures right and ensure that we make the framework as watertight as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West wants. We believe that that is the proportionate way forward. We cannot make retrospective decisions; if contractual arrangements are under way at Royal Assent, an immediate cut-off could leave the Government open to challenge.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsThursday 23rd January 2025
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2025 - (23 Jan 2025)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 99 relates to testing. The clause allows the Secretary of State powers so they may by regulation require a person specified in the regulations, such as manufacturers, importers or other relevant parties, to carry out tests on the products to ensure they comply with any of the registered requirements. Testing is a sensible thing to be able to do, subject to making provision for far more new tests to be carried out, because it is important that testing is done properly.
Some examples of where the Secretary of State has given flexibility include the timing and methodology; where, when and how the tests are to be done; who is authorised to carry out testing on behalf of the specified person, so whether a manufacturer or a third party can undertake testing themselves; how the products are to be tested, for example if all products are to be tested or just a sample; whether samples are required to be provided to a third party for testing; and whether there will be any charges for tests, which could be set based on the costs involved or other regulations.
Subsection (3) states that charges will apply and subsection (2)(e) allows regulations to specify how those charges will be used, including provision on whether the fees collected can be kept by the authority responsible for testing or whether they should be paid into a consolidated fund via the Government’s general revenue. Subsection (4) states that any regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so voted for in Committee.
I have a few points to raise. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a person who would be required to carry out the test. It is important to clarify who that person might be, and whether it refers to manufacturers, importers, independent testing bodies or other stakeholders. As I have already mentioned, it would not be reasonable to get big tobacco companies to mark their own homework, so how will the Secretary of State determine who is specified for those tasks?
Additionally, once the product is tested and deemed compliant, will there be any follow up or long-term monitoring of product safety and health impact over time? There is post-market surveillance for medical devices, but what mechanisms will be in place to monitor the ongoing compliance with consumer products post market? At the moment, it seems that all a company needs to do is say what is in a product, be believed and be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Currently, that happens simply on a company’s word. I am sure that in most cases—perhaps almost all—the company’s information is fair and true, but, in some cases, as has already been shown, that has not been the case, so it is important to consider that issue.
Furthermore, the phrase
“selection of products for testing”
in subsection (2)(c) is vague and could be exploited. The provision could allow a situation where only certain products are selected for testing, potentially skewing the results if products likely to fail are excluded from the testing process. If it is not properly regulated, that could result in cherry-picking, where only the “cleanest products” are tested to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
There will clearly be some cost to industry for testing. Does the Minister have any further information on how much those costs will be? Based on the impact assessment, costs for the testing requirements and the testing of individual components could be quite high, so will the Minister provide more information about that?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am sure the shadow Minister can come in after me if she wishes to opine on clause 100.
Clause 99 grants the Secretary of State the authority to introduce and amend regulations concerning tobacco and vaping products. The provision ensures flexibility and responsiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of tobacco control that we have talked about previously. It is vital to ensure that the UK’s tobacco and vape regulations remain robust and up to date, especially given the increasing prevalence of vaping among young people and the emergence of new tobacco alternatives.
There are a number of real positives about clause 99. First, it provides adaptability to emerging public health concerns. The regulatory flexibility allows the Secretary of State and his Ministers to swiftly address any new health risks. A 2021 study by Action on Smoking and Health UK found that youth vaping rates had risen from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2021, so, by ensuring that new products can be regulated promptly, clause 99 provides a mechanism for responding to those emerging trends.
The clause aligns us with international partners and best practices, and with global tobacco control standards, such as the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. Nations such as Canada and Australia have successfully implemented similar regulatory powers to adapt quickly to the new threats posed by novel tobacco products, demonstrating that adaptable regulations lead to better public health outcomes.
The final positive of the clause is the stronger consumer protections. Without the ability to introduce rapid regulatory amendments, harmful substances may enter the UK market. As I have mentioned, in 2019 illicit vaping products containing vitamin E acetate led to serious lung illnesses, noted in the US. By strengthening the regulatory framework, Government can proactively prevent such issues.
I have a couple of potential challenges. First, as I mentioned, there is always potential for malign industry influence. The tobacco and vaping industries have a history of lobbying against stringent regulations. Indeed, since this Bill Committee has been sitting over the past week or so, my inbox has filled with such representations. The UK must ensure transparency and public health prioritisation in all its regulatory decisions.
Secondly, in balancing the public health and economic impacts, we have to be careful about over-regulation possibly stifling innovation within the vaping industry, which some argue plays a role in harm reduction by helping smokers quit traditional cigarettes. Opposition Members have made that point a number of times: we want to ensure that the regulations are effective and robust, but, where vaping is being used as a smoking cessation tool, the regulations must be flexible enough to allow novel products to come on to the market, which could in future help smokers even further.
Clause 100 clarifies the scope and the applicability of the Bill, which means that it ensures coherence of enforcement. A clear definition of which products and businesses fall under the new rules will prevent, I think, ambiguity in their implementation. The positives of this clause are that, where there is clear application, the reduced ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement means that businesses will understand their obligations and consumers will know their rights. That is absolutely essential.
For example, the smoke-free public places legislation that came into effect in 2007 clearly benefited from the defined scope, which reduced any legal disputes. By defining the reach of the Bill, clause 100 allows authorities to target enforcement promptly. Without clear application provisions, which we see in this clause, regulatory loopholes could be exploited. The clause closes them.
Likewise, tobacco companies may attempt to bypass our regulations by selling non-compliant products online from overseas suppliers. Again, the strong application in clause 100 ensures that the law extends to online and cross-border sales. However, perhaps the Minister will outline how he understands that that will be enforced.
That brings me to my real concern, or I suppose question, about clause 100. The risk of online sales makes enforcement much more complex than it would have done had we introduced such a Bill 10, 15 or 20 years ago. How will the UK work with other international bodies to curb illicit cross-border sales, especially when things are sold online? Also—I have mentioned this point before, but I will continue to do so—when small retailers are struggling with compliance, there has to be some form of education and support for them from Government so that they can comply. The majority of the vaping industry, where we have decided it is legal, obviously needs a clear set of guidelines from the Department and the regulatory bodies to comply with the regulations.
Dr Johnson
Clause 100 concerns product safety, which is important. Even when a product is not safe, it should still be as safe as it can be and should contain only those things that are expected. When Lincolnshire police took a sample of vape devices from children from a school in my constituency, they found that many of the vapes contained dangerous ingredients that should not have been in there, including, in one case, I believe, an ingredient banned in the UK for many decades.
Clause 100 is important: the Minister must ensure that items on the market are safe. I come back to the evidence from Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA. She said that licensing a medical product does not mean that it is safe, and that these vapes are not medical products either. I am grateful to the Minister for saying in the last session that he is looking for a new home for the licensing and registration process for vapes and vaping products, because “MHRA-registered” suggests to the consumer that those things are in some way safer and more fully tested than they have been.
Clause 100 suggests very sensible regulation, but it gives the Minister the power to do that without significant oversight, even though the affirmative procedure applies. Since clause 90, all the Bill has done is to confer powers on the Secretary of State to regulate without actually providing a huge amount of detail on the Secretary of State’s intent. One never knows what the intent of a future Secretary of State could be in this regard.
Will the Minister comment on why regulation will be in secondary legislation rather than being detailed in the Bill? I understand the need to be agile and to think quickly to try to stay ahead of an industry that will try to adapt to addict more people to nicotine in other forms, but it would have been possible for the Minister to put much of that detail in the Bill, and to have taken a power in a final clause to amend parts of those regulations by statutory instrument. Most of the intent and most of the regulation would then have been known very quickly, but could be altered and adapted later. Why has the Minister taken the approach that he has, rather than a more up-front approach?
Clause 100(1)(a) requires
“producers or importers to have processes in place”.
Again, this is an important point. Most of these products seem to be made overseas, where of course the UK courts do not have jurisdiction. It is at the point of import, and with regards to the person who is importing, that we may need to be more responsible than with a producer where the items are made overseas.
I also urge the Minister, echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, to consider online sales. We see already that some regulations that are in place for the real world rather than the virtual world create loopholes for regulations to be circumvented. Clearly, public safety has to be the Government’s first priority. The testing in clause 99 and the product safety regulations in clause 100 are a welcome initiative, but clearly the devil will be in the detail and the detail is not available to us today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am sorry that your croakiness is getting the better of you, Sir Roger, but hopefully you will be on fine form tomorrow for the private Member’s Bills—I am not sure whether the Whips on either side of the House are praying for that.
On clauses 99 and 100, I will go through the questions posed by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. It is the responsibility of trading standards to test products if they believe a product contains illegal substances or could contain too much nicotine. Trading standards currently test products on an ad-hoc basis, which is contingent on funding. We aim to establish a testing regime to regularly check that products on the shelves are what they say they are. That will support overall enforcement, will ensure that registered products are safe for consumers and will allow retailers, in both brick-and-mortar establishments and online, to have greater clarity about and confidence in the products that they are able to stock to sale.
It is really important to consider online sales as a growing area. These measures have to be taken within the wider context of clauses and measures that we have already debated, in that any product for sale in the United Kingdom, whether in a shop or online, will have to be registered, and any retailer, whether a shop or online, will have to have the appropriate licences in place. There are clear and substantial penalties for breaching those licensing arrangements, and there are real and substantial consequences for selling products that are not in accordance with the descriptions on the registration of those products. When all of that is put into context, and testing is added in, we believe that this will be a robust regime.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 101 and 102 deal with the treatment of, and matters dealt with by, the 2016 tobacco regulations. Again, they provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations. Whether or not that will be done well, we are not really sure at this stage.
I understand the point the Minister made in response to the last debate, and it is of course true that regulations can be different in each part of the United Kingdom. In his discussions with Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they may have wished to proceed with regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill. However, that does not explain why the Minister has chosen to do the same, and I would be grateful if he could explain his choice to make regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill, with the power to modify. I ask particularly because we are now into, I think, the 12th consecutive clause that provides powers to regulate and that offers detail only on what any regulations might or might not say, rather than necessarily on what they will say.
In that vein, clause 101 outlines provisions to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to, or corresponding with, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. That is to be done under a new regulatory framework, which would seem to be designed to cover gaps that may exist in the powers under those regulations. Subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision…that is similar to or that corresponds to any provision of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016…other than Part 7 of those Regulations”.
Part 7 of those regulations deals with electronic cigarette advertising. The Minister may feel that later parts of the Bill will deal adequately with this point, but I would be grateful if he could explain why that part has been taken out. That is not instinctive, because other aspects of those regulations could be too. What is the reason for excluding that part? Otherwise, I have no particular points to make about clauses 101 and 102.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 101 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to any provisions set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 —the TRPR, which we discussed in our debate on the earlier clauses—thereby amending them if needed.
In 2016, the TRPR implemented the 2014 EU tobacco products directive. The TRPR deals with the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products, including herbal products for smoking, nicotine, vapes and refill containers, as well as smokeless and novel tobacco products. However, it does not regulate all products. As we know, new nicotine products such as nicotine pouches have emerged on the market—we discussed such things in our earlier deliberations—and we currently have no powers to change the regulations. We are also limited in what we can do within the existing powers—for example, on vape packaging.
The Bill builds on the TRPR and allows us to go much further, with new powers on, for instance, packaging and flavour requirements, and new registration powers that could be extended to non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco devices and cigarette papers. As we have ascertained, the tobacco and vaping industries are extremely innovative and have previously attempted to circumvent regulations and exploit loopholes. The clause helps to stop them doing that by allowing us to amend the TRPR if necessary.
Clause 102 enables regulations to be made under powers in part 5 of the Bill to amend provisions in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations that are within scope of those powers. This is a technical provision because, as I said in the previous debate, we have limited powers to amend the TRPR. For instance, if we introduce new vape packaging requirements using powers in the Bill, the clause will allow us to amend the TRPR if necessary, so that the new packaging requirements fit with those imposed under the TRPR.
The shadow Minister raised issues relating to secondary legislation. The technical and detailed nature of many of the Bill’s requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. For example, we may need to amend those requirements in response to market changes. It is also necessary to include detail on the circumstances of when products must be recalled, which will change over time.
There is a broader point here: with all the regulations that we propose to bring before Parliament, we want to get the measures right. We have a statutory duty in the Bill to consult before bringing in regulations, which is in part why we are making the measures in the way that we are. Part 7 of the TRPR is excluded because those things will now be in part 6 of the Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Sub-delegation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 105 states:
“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions.”
I confess that I do not understand what that means. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation.
Clause 106 is about the power to make provision binding on the Crown, which we have discussed at some length. My only point is on subsection (4), which clarifies that public servants are still accountable under the regulations. Some may have concerns about the enforcement of regulations within Government bodies. Could the Minister say anything further on that?
Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State power to make amendments to this legislation through regulations. It is quite a broad and flexible position: the Government can remove outdated laws that are inconsistent with new regulations established under the Bill and ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve. To some extent, that makes sense. Again, the Government seem to be keen to ensure that they can stay one step ahead of a very adaptable industry and try to protect the country from nicotine addiction. However, the clause is quite broad. I would be grateful if the Minister could further elaborate on his intent in it.
Clause 108 provides for the consequential removal of section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 because it is no longer needed. Clause 109 is about enforcement.
Clause 110 is about the consultation process. The requirement to consult before making regulations promotes transparency and accountability in the decision-making process and allows for adjustments and feedback from various groups, in the same way that line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill allows adjustment in line with discussion. It ensures that regulations are fair and based on a broad range of insights and evidence. However, I would be keen for the consultation not to be so long as to delay bringing in the regulations. As I have said before, much of the Bill hinges on the regulations the Government can provide. If the consultation processes are very long and drawn out, it could be a long time before any of these measures come into force to protect our children, in particular.
Andrew Gwynne
Sub-delegation allows functions to be carried out by someone who is not named in the primary legislation. We believe that that is vital for flexible implementation of Government policy and to keep the wheels of Government turning. Sub-delegation is a long-accepted part of the legislative process, and having the ability to allow technical experts to undertake technical tasks, or to set out very detailed technical criteria in guidance instead of using parliamentary resource, will allow us to get on with implementing the measures in part 5 of the Bill.
The shadow Minister is right to be concerned about having safeguards to ensure that any sub-delegation of authority is not abused. Sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I have previously said, there is also a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under part 5. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.
On the wider consultation the shadow Minister referred to, the Government chose to include consultation clauses because we want valuable input from different stakeholders on our proposals before they are introduced. As is conventional with such clauses in primary legislation, the clause does not prescribe the specific people the Secretary of State must consult. That is to ensure that the Government can consult appropriate stakeholders, and the list may evolve over time.
UK-wide regulations made under part 5 might deal with devolved matters. The UK Government are therefore required to seek consent from the devolved Governments. My Department will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments on proposals for UK-wide regulation of products. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Publishing advertisements
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 114, page 63, line 16, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 88, in clause 115, page 64, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 115 stand part.
Amendment 89, in clause 116, page 64, line 30, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 116 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 117, page 65, line 18, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 117 stand part.
Amendment 91, in clause 118, page 66, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 118 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 119, page 67, line 8, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Amendment 93, in clause 119, page 67, line 24, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 119 stand part.
Before I call the shadow Minister to speak to amendment 87, I should indicate to her that, since the clauses each have amendments proposed to them, it would be helpful to know as we work through the debate whether she wishes to press them to a vote.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 87 is to clause 114. This group of clauses represents a substantial part of the Bill, as it applies to advertising and sponsorship. Those became an issue as part of the Health and Social Care Committee review of vapes back in the last Parliament. They were also discussed during debate on the last iteration of the Bill last Easter. In fact, I tabled a fair number of amendments on the subject in the last Parliament.
Clause 114 creates an offence where a person, acting in the course of business, publishes an advertisement in the UK promoting certain regulated products such as tobacco, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. To commit the offence, the person must know, or have reason to suspect, that they are publishing advertisements for such products and that the advertisement will promote those items.
Subsection (2) outlines the penalty for this offence, which is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. For summary conviction, the penalties vary by jurisdiction, with different maximum prison terms in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a fine may be imposed in all cases. The clause aims to regulate the advertising of tobacco and nicotine products by placing responsibility on businesses and individuals publishing such advertisements, to ensure they comply with the law.
I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire regarding use of the word “publish”, and I have in mind particularly the online environment. Could the Minister confirm who is the publisher of, for example, a TikTok video? Is it the individual who uploaded it, or is it TikTok itself?
I also have a question about the words “purpose” and “effect”. Are they too vague? Could they lead to overreach and confusion about what constitutes promotion? It is unclear whether an advertisement needs to explicitly promote a product or whether a more subtle influence will be sufficient. How broad does the Minister intend the interpretation of “purpose” and “effect” to be? Can an advertisement for a lifestyle product that features someone smoking or vaping in the imagery be considered as promoting a tobacco product, even if it is not the main focus?
Another issue arises from the clause’s reliance on subjective knowledge or suspicion. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they know or have reason to suspect that the advertisement has the purpose or effect or promoting the product. In cases where the individual involved in the publication of an advertisement did not have direct knowledge of, or did not suspect, the advertisement’s purpose, what level of proof is required to say that they “know” or “have reason to suspect”? For example, if an advertisement is published by the third-party platform or agency, perhaps online, can a person who did not directly control the advertisement’s creation still be held liable? This is really important when it comes to the online world, where the sheer volume of hosts may make it incredibly challenging for an online provider to look at every single post that is put up.
On advertising, the impact assessment provided by the Government says on page 101:
“Despite advertising restrictions existing for nicotine vapes in some settings including television, radio and through information society services, such as internet advertising or commercial email, evidence shows advertising is noticed more by young people, and this has increased in some settings in recent years. Additionally, despite being prohibited under TRPR, the ASA report social media is increasingly being used to advertise vapes to children.”
I note the differences between the devolved nations. Under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, Scotland has powers to go further on advertising and sponsorship—for example, powers to ban nicotine vape advertising in more settings than those in TRPR, to ban sponsorship agreements involving nicotine vapes, and to introduce regulations on brand sharing.
Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:
“CRUK estimate the annual cost of advertising for the sector in 2019 was £32m. Under this policy proposal, no advertising would be permitted so this previous cost would be saved by businesses, and partially offsetting their lost profits from reduced vape sales outlined in the monetised costs section.”
Paragraph 666 states:
“Similar to the monetised benefits above for vapes, businesses who currently fund advertising of nicotine products, herbal smoking products, and/or cigarette papers will save this money”.
Of course, advertising companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. To me, it seems sensible to restrict the advertisement of these products, as I said before.
We must remember that young people are at the heart of this Bill, and the impact assessment also notes how susceptible young people are to advertising and why this clause is of particular relevance. Paragraph 499 highlights a survey conducted by Cancer Research showing that advertising is more noticed by young people. The survey results reveal that
“for all types of media analysed, apart from ‘email/SMS’, youth (16 to 19 years) noticed advertisements more than adults (18 years and older) in 2018 in England. The locations and media channels surveyed included: inside shops selling cigarettes; kiosks; web/social media; billboards/posters; newspapers/magazines; events/festivals; bars/pubs; and email/SMS. The largest difference in the two age groups was seen for 'billboards and posters’ with 31.4% of youth noticing marketing compared to 5.9% of adults.”
It also notes that
“youth (16 to 19 year olds) never users (who have never smoked or vaped) report higher noticing of vape advertising across all media types, apart from email/SMS compared to adult exclusive smokers”.
Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that
“more than half (55%) of 11 to 17-year-olds are aware of vape promotion in shops compared to 37% two years ago, while 15% see adverts on billboards, up from 12% two years ago.”
It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.
Amendments 87 to 92 ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that people who are smokers understand the information that is available to help them quit. At the moment, a smoker might go into a doctor’s surgery or an antenatal clinic and see information on smoking being bad for them, which is appropriate. They may also see information on opportunities for nicotine replacement therapies, or even on vaping as an alternative. If the Minister is keen to ensure that people who are smokers can use vapes as an alternative, which is believed to potentially be better for them than continuing to smoke, how will they be given that information if the products cannot be advertised or promoted?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is eloquently articulating the necessity of controls around advertising. Does she share my concern about the risk of creating a loophole, whereby advertising could still happen if there were warning notes on adverts? The Bill seeks to reduce any type of loophole through which an advertiser might promote vaping—with words underneath that this is a smoking cessation device—in all settings. Does she also agree that the NHS is already able to articulate smoking cessation methods to patients, without the need for brand advertising?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman and I agree that we need to restrict the advertising of these products, because we do not want people, particularly young people and children, to start becoming addicted to nicotine. We agree on that. However, the Bill does not say an advert needs to promote a brand of nicotine product to be considered promotion or illegal under the Bill. It simply says “a nicotine product” or “a tobacco product”. I am keen to ensure the Minister clarifies that a doctor—I declare an interest as a doctor—or other health professional such as a pharmacist, like the hon. Member for North Somerset, will not find him or herself on the wrong side of the law for promoting vaping to individuals who smoke.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Current medicine regulations do not allow products to be advertised, but do not get in the way of smoking cessation clinics that currently take place at GP surgeries or pharmacies. The amendments the hon. Lady is proposing are, therefore, not needed. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggests, they could be used as a loophole for advertising by an industry that has been shown to be very successful at finding ways around legislation to increase market share and the numbers of smokers and vapers.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He comes to this debate with significant experience as a pharmacist himself. In bringing forward this amendment, it is not our intention to create a loophole. None of us wants to see children vaping or using nicotine products and developing an addiction they struggle to quit for the rest of their lives, with the associated costs to their health and their purses. However, I want the Minister to assure the Committee that he has considered the position of pharmacists and people who will legally be selling these products as a stop smoking device, perhaps in a hospital clinic or as a health professional, and made sure they will not be criminalised.
If we are to follow the chief medical officer’s advice—that vaping is not suitable for children but is suitable for adults who smoke as a harm reduction measure—and are to have that harm reduction process in place, which I believe is the Minister’s intention, it is important to consider how it will continue under these regulations. It is important to consider how pharmacists and other health professionals will be able to have discussions with their patients or clients in which they may wish to say, “Vaping is better for you,” and in so doing effectively promote the process—not a specific product, but the genre of products.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I share the concerns expressed by the shadow Minister and by my hon. Friends about inadvertently creating a loophole, which we know the tobacco industry and others will drive a coach and horses through. I understand that part of the purpose of tabling the amendments is to get reassurance and clarity on certain aspects of the Bill, but on the point she was just making, is not the relevant provision subsection (1)(a), which refers to the person
“acting in the course of business”?
I am sure the Minister will clarify later, but perhaps the clause deals not with medical practitioners, pharmacists or doctors, but with media agencies or companies whose reason to exist is as a business for selling media, for publishing, for design. They do not operate cessation services and are not medical professionals or pharmacists themselves. In the realm of instructions to a service industry, whether it be a publisher or a business that designs advertisements, does this provision not simply make it crystal clear that, no caveats, they cannot do anything that is listed in the clause, because to do so will be an offence?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but while pharmacists are highly trained clinicians with the capacity to prescribe a number of products in specific cases, they are also businesses. One’s local pharmacy is a business. Pharmacists sell products; they take money and make variable amounts of profit. A GP is a private entity, as the Minister will have learned during the national insurance contributions debate. Some GP practices are dispensing practices—the GP prescribes a product, which is dispensed from that practice. There are also private clinicians who provide GP surgery or stop smoking services at a price. I do not think that “in the course of business” necessarily provides the distinction that the hon. Member for Cardiff West hopes it does, but perhaps the Minister will provide further clarity.
It might be possible for the Minister to include an extremely narrowly drafted exemption for medical professionals providing advice in relation to stop smoking services and antenatal clinics giving advice to a current smoker, but perhaps he feels that those clinicians are covered already. One of the reasons for tabling the amendments is to have this debate and ensure that the clauses are carefully considered. All of us, on both sides of the Committee and the House, want to improve the health of the nation; we all want the Bill to improve the health of the nation. If the chief medical officer’s advice is that for adult smokers, vaping is better, those products need to be available to adult smokers.
I will move on to clause 115, which extends the offence in clause 114 of publishing advertisements to those who design the advertisements for regulated products, such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. As in clause 114, to commit the offence the person must know that the advert has the purpose of promoting one of the regulated products and that it will be published in the UK. The latter part is important. Again, I would like the Minister to ensure that there is no loophole for people to design things and say they are expecting them to be promoted abroad, and then they are promoted in the UK. That could be quite a significant loophole. Businesses could get around that with contract clauses, I suspect.
Subsection (2) establishes the penalties for the offence, which are a conviction on indictment of two years, a fine or both. Summary convictions carry varying penalties based on the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. That does leave the situation where somebody who has committed the same offence in England, Scotland and Wales by publishing it across those jurisdictions could face several different fines in different jurisdictions for exactly the same advert.
Another question is about the designers. Individuals may be involved in the design of advertisements, but not have full control over the final content or how the advertisement will be published. Should liability be extended to individuals working on the design, or should it lie more squarely with the business or entity that ultimately publishes it? Is it fair to hold designers accountable for advertisements over which they have limited control? If they have only designed part of the advertisement, and it is not the bit in which the product is promoted, will they still be liable for the whole advertisement?
Clause 116 introduces another offence, this time for businesses that print advertisements that promote tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. They must know or have reason to suspect that they are printing an advertisement for those products—if they are printing it, they should know what they are printing—and that the advertisement will be published in the UK. Again, that will presumably have to be dealt with by contract law and involve some quite significant fines.
Clause 117 makes it an offence for persons acting in the course of business to distribute the advertisement. The question here is about physical and digital adverts. If a person is distributing the adverts on a sheet of paper, putting billboards on the wall or driving around a truck with a billboard on the back, it is clear that they know what they are doing and it is clear who is doing it. If adverts are appearing online or being distributed online, can the Minister specify who will be held responsible? Could somebody sharing an image that was produced by somebody else be a loophole?
Clause 118 expands the scope of responsibility to those who cause advertisements to be published and distributed within the UK. That seems sensible.
Clause 119 is the Government’s attempt to focus on the businesses that provide internet services. The provision is quite broad. Not all providers are UK-based, though. If they are not, how can they be held accountable? The provision could be seen to apply to various types of online platform, including social media search engines and website hosts. The key issue is whether a business that merely provides a platform or service for the publishing and distribution of advertisements can be held liable for content that is uploaded or shared by third parties, particularly where there is a huge volume.
The clause places responsibility on service providers that know or have reason to suspect that advertisements promoting tobacco or vaping products will be distributed through its services. That could apply to a wide range of internet service providers, from major global tech companies that are household names to the smaller, niche providers that operate in the UK market. I understand why that is important, but will the Minister say more about the person who is paying for the advertisement? The Bill covers publishing, designing and distributing an advert and providing it on the internet, but what about the individual paying for it? Ultimately, an advertisement rarely comes for free. How is that to be regarded?
The measures to reduce advertising for vapes and smoking products are sensible public health measures to reduce uptake. As we discussed in the debate on diet and obesity earlier this week, advertising clearly works. I recalled in that debate some of the adverts I remember from my childhood, such as “The red car and the blue car had a race” for Milky Way—I was pleased that the blue car won in that case, Sir Roger—and “A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat”. Those memories stick in the mind for many years. Advertising is effective and induces children to try products, so banning advertising for vaping and smoking products should be very beneficial, but I urge the Minister to consider whether he has covered the full scope of those who are responsible for adverts and at the same time excluded those who may play only a very small part in the advert and not realise that it will later become an advert for a smoking or vaping product. Has he considered carefully how a medical professional, clinician, pharmacist or similar person can still provide and openly discuss vaping products with their patients and clients, so that they can use them as a quit aid?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I just want to go through something again. Obviously, the purpose of part 6 of the Bill is to establish the rules about advertising, which I completely understand. It sets out that it is an offence for a person in the course of business to publish an advertisement, to promote products, to design advertisements, to print an advertisement, to distribute an advertisement, to cause publication, design, printing or distribution in the UK, or to provide an internet service by means of which an advertisement is published or distributed.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them.
One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation.
The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes.
On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have?
ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that
“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?
To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making some good points about the importance of ensuring that people can access nicotine replacement therapy in its various forms if they wish to stop smoking, because that will be healthier for them. I understand what the hon. Member for Winchester has said about prescription-only medicines, and that it is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, but not all nicotine replacement therapies are prescription-only medicines, so those can be advertised to the public at the moment.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said:
“In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”—
I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said:
“Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.”
As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I might need to break the happy agreement on the Conservative side. While I understand my hon. Friend’s laudable aim of encouraging those who smoke to use a less harmful product, which is a good thing, the clear evidence we have seen is that tobacco, in all its forms, is essentially harmful. Moving people from smoking tobacco in cigarettes to using heated tobacco may or may not reduce the harm, but it would still be significantly harmful. It would be better if an individual saw their pharmacist or clinician to get proper nicotine therapy, which is designated by the MHRA as a properly medically regulated product, rather than moving on to a different commercial product that is still harmful for them.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—
Jack Rankin
I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences.
I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to hon. Members for our discussion on amendment 87 and subsequent clauses. These amendments intend to make an exemption under the advertisement ban to allow vaping products to be promoted by businesses as a smoking cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers. I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intention behind the amendment to ensure that smokers are encouraged to use vapes as a quit aid. That is why the Bill as drafted will continue to support the promotion of vaping as a quit aid for smokers through the appropriate channels. By “appropriate channels”, I say to the hon. Lady that we mean public health authorities.
Dr Johnson
I want to clarify one small point, if I have not made myself completely clear. On a personal level, I do not particularly want people to be persuaded to go from smoking to vaping, because I think it is an alternative addiction that they will get stuck on. I would much prefer them to be directed towards other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, which will be effective and more short lived. However, given that the current medical advice is that vaping is better, I think it is important that it is available.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that the shadow Minister is dancing on a pinhead, but she has brought to the Committee a set of amendments for which that would be the purpose. If they are pushed to a vote, I am sure we will have the bewilderment of the shadow Minister yet again abstaining on measures that the shadow Minister has brought before the Committee.
We believe it is for public health authorities to promote vaping as a quit aid for current smokers. For example, local stop smoking services will continue to be able to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative following the passage of the Bill. We strongly believe that any promotion of vaping as a way to quit smoking is best led and delivered by the appropriate authorities, such as local stop smoking services, public health professionals and the national health service.
The clauses in part 6 of the Bill, taken in totality, will form a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products, bringing them all in line with tobacco. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the sides of buses and in shop windows when they make their way to school.
Clauses 114 to 117 make it an offence for anyone
“acting in the course of business”
to publish, design, print or distribute an advertisement
“whose purpose or effect is to promote”
a relevant product within the Bill. Upon conviction, anyone who has committed an offence under part 6 will be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both. These clauses are an essential part of the overall suite of restrictions that will ban advertising of relevant products within the UK. Taken together they will ensure that even if someone has not designed or published an advert, it will still be an offence to print or distribute that advert. This is key to stopping their eventual distribution. I hope that answers the questions about whether there is a loophole allowing adverts produced for international markets to be distributed in the United Kingdom. The distribution of those adverts will be an offence.
Clause 118 makes it an offence to cause the offences I have just set out. It would be an offence if a person “knows or has reason to suspect” that they are causing these things, whereas if someone unknowingly delivered a package containing leaflets, they would not be guilty of the offence. Without this clause, it would be possible to instruct others to publish, design, print or distribute adverts without committing an offence. Clearly, we need to ensure that it is also an offence to cause these things to happen.
Lastly, clause 119 makes it an offence to provide an internet service in the course of a business by means of which an advert for a relevant product is published or distributed. This would mean that an organisation that provides a service to a person—for example, Sky or TalkTalk—would commit an offence if they provided a service that enabled the online advertisements to happen and if they permitted that space to be used to promote relevant products. That could include becoming aware that the service is hosting a vape advert and subsequently failing to take that advert down. This is particularly important, as young people, and some not-so-young—we now know that, if we have a hoof that needs trimming, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is our man, although I am not sure whether he provides the service or just passes the request on—
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 119 is important, as children spend a lot of time online and therefore are more exposed to a variety of internet services. It is unacceptable that a child using the internet to study might be exposed to a variety of vape adverts. We need to take action to stop these products being deliberately advertised to children, to protect future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.
The shadow Minister’s amendments would in theory allow any shops or businesses to advertise vaping products to existing tobacco smokers. It would be incredibly difficult to target the advertisement of vaping products to current smokers alone, without the risk of children and non-smokers seeing the promotional material. That would not only make enforcement complicated, but make the messaging about the ban inconsistent. Research on tobacco advertising bans has shown that comprehensive bans were significantly more effective than partial restrictions in reducing smoking rates.
Hon. Members has posed a number of questions, which I will address. What constitutes an advert and how will the decisions be made? The Advertising Standards Authority is the regulator, and it will take a proportionate approach. All adverts are captured. Decisions on whether something is an advert will be made on a case-by-case basis, and it is for the ASA to decide. If the purpose or effect of something is to promote a product, it will most likely be captured. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor, “Worry not”: the ASA knows how the internet works, because it is dealing with it daily, and as we speak.
How does liability work? The offence will be charged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, we expect that this will involve a company. The ASA is experienced in making decisions on tobacco restrictions at the moment, and the provision merely extends the powers and responsibilities that it is already undertaking with regard to a variety of other products. On social media influencers, it depends on how the ASA approaches the matter; if it decides that something is constituted as an advert, action can be taken. Nobody is above the law of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Windsor asked why we are making changes to the law without consulting. To be clear, tobacco adverts are already banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and the provisions in part 6 of the Bill will simply maintain the existing ban on tobacco advertisements. We were elected with a mandate to carry out our manifesto commitments, one of which was to stop the advertising of vapes to children. We already know that the measures to restrict vape advertising are strongly supported: 74% of adults in Great Britain support banning the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes at point of sale, at the till, in stores and as people enter shops, and only 6% are opposed.
Does aligning vapes with tobacco in this area contribute to misconceptions that vapes are just as harmful as tobacco? Although the approach towards vapes and towards tobacco will align in this area, our future regulations on other vape measures will be carefully considered so that there is a clear difference between these products. Given that vapes are less harmful than tobacco, we do not intend to treat them in exactly the same way as tobacco. To be clear, there is no more dangerous product that is legally sold in our shops than tobacco—a product that kills two thirds of its users—but we do not want to inadvertently addict a new generation to nicotine. That is the reason for the advertising measures.
Will the ban on the advertising of heated tobacco products increase the demand for traditional cigarettes? The Department’s opinion is that heated tobacco products are covered under the 2002 Act, which prohibits the advertisement and sponsorship of tobacco products. The new definition just ensures clarity on the scope of the legislation, as well as future-proofing policy. This is not a new ban; we believe that the existing tobacco advertising ban appertains to heated tobacco products in any case.
We very much want people to give up all forms of tobacco. That is why this Government have invested a further £70 million for smoking cessation services in the new financial year, and why I maintain that, although we are saying to tobacco companies, “This is as good as it gets,” we will move heaven and earth to shrink their customer base even further with appropriate smoking cessation. With that, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment, and commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister knows that I believe strongly that we need to stop people smoking, because of its dangers, and that we need to stop children from taking up any form of nicotine, because we have heard how harmful nicotine is to them. He will also be aware of my argument—which I made in relation to the previous iteration of the Bill—that advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be included to reduce the appeal of the products to children. I support the clauses, but I was keen to debate how smoking cessation services will be able to discuss these products. The Minister has been reasonably, if not absolutely, clear on that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 115 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 21st January 2025
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2025 - (21 Jan 2025)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd.
As we discussed before the adjournment, clause 89 forms part of part 4 of the Bill. It provides the power to Revenue and Customs officers to seize and detain snus. We talked briefly about the time of detention being 48 hours. I was about to ask how one would decide that the amount was suitable to seize.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 already provide for snus. Clause 7 bans UK manufacture. Clause 8 bans sales in the UK, but not where people buy it abroad or online and import it. Clause 9 covers the possession of snus with intent to supply, but does not give any indication of what sort of volume one would anticipate could lead to supply.
I am aware that when it comes to some illegal drugs, there is a rough and ready reckoning of how much would be considered as being possession with intent to supply and how much as being for personal use. It may be more complicated in this case, however, because the personal use of this product, which it is legal to import, will affect how often one wishes to import it.
For example, it is unlikely that someone who is importing snus for their own personal use would need to make an import on a daily or perhaps even weekly basis. Some people may decide that they are going to do it monthly or annually, which may mean that they are importing quite a sizeable amount that some customs officials may consider as not for personal use, but for supply.
Could the Minister indicate how it will be decided what counts as personal use and how people can prove that? We do not want a loophole that allows people to use this dangerous product.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Dowd.
These are of course operational matters for customs officials who already utilise the powers that they have been given in a variety of different forms of legislation. It is common practice for customs officials to seize illicit goods at the border, irrespective of what those illicit goods are. That will now apply to snus.
Border Force officials will decide on a case-by-case basis—on the evidence in front of them in any particular case and on the intelligence that they might have—whether the goods that they have seized are likely to be for personal use. I imagine that given the quantities that would likely be needed, in the case of seizing illicit goods, we would be talking about large quantities of a product that clearly would not be for personal consumption. It would therefore not be unreasonable for Border Force officials to come to the conclusion that the illicit goods that they have seized may well be sold on, which is illegal.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not. That is pretty clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Retail packaging
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
The clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations about the retail packaging of vaping, tobacco and nicotine products, as well as cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. It also covers tobacco-related devices. For instance, regulations made under this power could restrict the appearance of packaging, as well as what information is provided on it, its shape and its texture.
Although vapes can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, vaping is never recommended for children. It risks addiction and unknown long-term health impacts while their lungs and brain are still developing. Despite that clear health advice, there has been a significant and alarming rise in the number of children vaping. There are also reports of increased use of nicotine pouches among children and adolescents. That increased use is partly due to the blatant marketing of vapes to children through brightly coloured packaging and the use of child-friendly images such as cartoons. That is an unacceptable practice that the Government intend to stop.
We have seen the effectiveness of standardising tobacco packaging for youth smoking rates, and the evidence tells us that reduced brand imagery can decrease the appeal of products to children. This clause will allow us to make changes such as banning the use of cartoon characters on packaging and regulating the colours that can be used. The clause also replaces existing regulation-making powers for tobacco packaging, so that the power to regulate all the relevant products is in a single piece of legislation. I therefore commend this clause to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 90 is in part 5, on product and information requirements, and deals with the retail packaging of various products. Clause 90(1) grants the Secretary of State the authority to make regulations concerning the retail packaging of tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. This is one provision where tobacco-related devices are included; they have not been previously, in most clauses. The packaging is of the device, which may be supplied separately from a refill, so that is an important addition.
Clause 90(2) specifies that the regulations may include
“prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the production, importation or supply of such products in the course of business.”
That is relevant because a quick search on the internet reveals that although quite a lot of things are prohibited in the UK, including different forms of cigarettes—those with branded packaging, coloured cigarettes and the like—and they may not be legal to sell in this country, it is perfectly possible to go on to a website, buy them in British pounds and have them supplied to one’s home, so there is a clear loophole that needs to be considered.
Subsection (3) outlines particular aspects that the regulations may cover, including the markings on packaging, such as the use of branding, trademarks and logos. I think the use of the word “logo” is key, because if I were to draw a pair of golden arches, people would know what I meant without my needing to write “McDonald’s” next to them, or if I did a little tick, people would know what I meant before I said that it was for Nike. The same is true of various logos, such as for Amazon and others, where the picture has become so well known that the name of the brand is not required to identify it. There is actually a board game that people can buy for their kids to test how good they are at identifying logos. Clearly, brand marketers are very aware of the use of shapes—as well as just the name—for identifying their products.
It is also possible to regulate the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product and the appearance of packaging. We have seen pretty coloured packaging and packaging designed to entice children with its texture, size and shape. I have seen vape holders that are teddy bear-shaped, so that while someone is not using their vape, they can put it in a teddy bear that comes in a range of colours. They are available on Etsy. It is even possible to regulate the means by which packaging is opened.
Those are useful powers for the Secretary of State to take, but only if he uses them. If he takes them and does not provide any regulations at all, they are worse than useless. Can the Minister explain the timescale in which he expects to perform any consultation required to introduce regulations to the House?
In addition, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to address in his or her regulations any packaging features that could distinguish between different brands, the number of individual products in a packet or the quantity of a product in a packet. Products then become standardised items that are less attractive, particularly to children. Subsection (4) specifies that any regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, meaning that they must be approved by Parliament before coming into force.
The regulations proposed as a result of the Secretary of State’s powers under the clause will build on previous regulations on shape and packaging. We are all aware that the shape, size and appearance of packaging has changed over our lifetimes. Indeed, on 20 May 2016 the UK implemented the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016—the TRPRs—following the European Union’s tobacco products directive 2014/40/EU. The TRPRs form part of the current regulations retained as EU law after Brexit, and they contain a comprehensive set of rules for the regulation of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and related products, often referred to as vapes.
The TRPRs introduced several important product standards for nicotine-containing vapes, which marked a turning point in how those products are perceived and controlled. Notably, they placed limits on the nicotine strength allowed in e-liquids, restricted the size of refill bottles and tanks, and mandated specific health warnings on the packaging. The packaging requirements were introduced to ensure that customers were fully informed of the risks associated with using nicotine products.
Again, placing the new regulations on top of the old ones will work only if they are properly enforced, and we have all seen examples of them not being properly enforced or followed. Under the current Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, nicotine-containing products such as e-cigarettes and e-liquids are required to carry a mandatory health warning on their packaging. However, the law allows significant flexibility on the colour, shape, style and types of branding used on those products, as we can see in the adverts when we walk down the street. Some of them are smooth-shaped, some are sharp, and some are shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants or teddy bears. There are also various flavours, although we will come to flavours later. The colours, branding and shapes are all part of the advertising to try to make the products attractive to users, and in some cases particularly to children.
The approach to vapes under the current regulations is in stark contrast to the stringent requirements already in place for tobacco packaging, which is covered by the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. The regulations maintain that cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco packaging must be plain, with no branding, logos or colours that could attract potential smokers. The stark difference between tobacco and vape packaging raises important questions about how best to protect young people from the growing appeal of vaping products, which are still seen by many as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes. We must be clear that they may be safer for smokers, but not for children or people who do not smoke.
It is important to understand the context behind clause 90. Before we had formal packaging regulations, cigarettes were sold with little to no concern for public health. Tobacco companies focused primarily on branding and advertising to create an appealing and recognisable product. The early 20th century saw the rise of the iconic cigarette brands, each seeking to distinguish itself through distinctive packaging designs. Often vibrant, colourful and glamorous—as we are seeing with vapes—they were designed to entice new customers, including young people, and to create a sense of status or sophistication.
Cigarette packaging became a key component of the advertising strategy, with slogans, logos and images intended to convey a lifestyle associated with smoking. Of course, a young person attracted to them would have bought that packet, carried it and shown it to their friends. The packaging would form part of the attraction of the product, and encouraged people to take on a product that we would not have wanted them to. There were no health warnings at that time, and little was done to inform the public of the dangers associated with smoking. That persisted for many years until the latter half of the 20th century. As Members will be aware, throughout the history of tobacco advertising, characters and mascots have played a significant role. These often colourful, friendly and appealing figures, designed to make smoking appear safe, desirable and even fun, were found on the packets.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is about not just the attractiveness of the packaging, but where products are located in the store. They are often near the sweets, so young people can go and grab some chocolate or sweets and a vape and then head out. One big benefit of changing the regulations is that vapes, like cigarettes, now have to be not only plain packaged, but kept behind the counter, where people have to ask for them. The culture of seeing them as something recreational, almost like junk food or a treat, would also be removed.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The aim of the regulations that were introduced to remove sweets from immediately adjacent to tills was to discourage children from taking sweets and pestering their parents at the till. That was part of a drive to reduce obesity levels, but the sad thing is that in many places those products have been replaced by vapes, which are more harmful to youngsters than sweets were.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we have seen that putting tobacco displays out of sight of children can help to reduce products’ attractiveness. Clauses 13 and 14 provide for display regulations in England and Wales—I cannot remember the clause numbers for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but those clauses also exist in the Bill. The clauses provide for displays to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman says: to ensure that children are not enticed through the display of these brightly coloured products.
To return to packaging, research has shown that graphic health warnings—particularly some of the graphic pictures—on cigarette packs can increase smokers’ awareness of the health risks and motivate some to quit. The larger and more vivid the warning, the more likely it is to have an impact, with some studies suggesting that plain packaging, combined with graphic warnings, can lead to higher levels of cessation. That is the effect of tobacco packaging, but we now need to look at vapes.
Now that vapes are so commonly used by children, the question is, what effect will vape packaging have? In recent years, research and public opinion surveys have shed light on the potential harm caused by the packaging of e-cigarettes and related products. The Government call for evidence on youth vaping published in 2023 found that many children were drawn to vaping products due to the bright colours, eye-catching designs and child-friendly images on the packaging. Those designs, which included cartoon characters and fun and vibrant logos, have led to concerns about vaping becoming mainstream and appealing to younger audiences who have never smoked.
We need to remember that, in theory, vaping is a stop-smoking device. The industry also tells us that it is—at least in theory—not trying to market vapes to non-smokers and children. However, that appears to be the effect of the marketing that it has done, and the use of packaging to target, or seemingly target, young people has become a concern for many health professionals and lawmakers and for the public and parents alike.
Research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association Network has reinforced those concerns. It showed that standardised packaging for vaping products, which reduces or eliminates brand imagery, could significantly decrease their appeal to young people. Interestingly, it did not seem to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to adult smokers. That suggests that although branding might attract young non-smokers, it does not play a critical role in attracting those who are already smokers or who are trying to quit—I did wonder whether that is because a plain packet is more enticing for those who are used to a packet with pictures of diseased lungs on it. It would also seem that colours are not necessary for adult smokers. Therefore, according to that research, we can bring in clause 90, without any concern that it will deter smokers from quitting, and in the knowledge that it may prevent children from starting to vape.
One study, which was particularly revealing, was designed to explore the association between different types of e-cigarette packaging—fully branded versus standardised—and the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes among youth and adults in Great Britain. Specifically, the researchers sought to determine whether standard packaging that removes brand imagery and uses a plain colour scheme could reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to young people without diminishing the appeal to adults who may be using them as a smoking cessation aid.
That research is particularly relevant in the context of public health policy, because the Government have been considering measures to reduce the attractiveness of e-cigarettes to young people, while encouraging their use as a cessation tool among adult smokers. The study focused on young people aged 11 to 18 and on adults aged 18 or over. It was conducted in 2021 and involved 2,469 young people and 12,046 adults. They were randomly assigned to view one of three kinds of packaging: fully branded e-cigarette packaging, for control; white standardised packaging with brand names; or green standard packaging with brand names. The experimental design allowed the researchers to compare the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes under those different conditions.
The colour of the packets, and the fact that the researchers chose a white one and a green one, are interesting. The Committee was given evidence about which colour should be chosen. Some people suggested that black or a very drab colour, as is used for cigarettes, might give the message that vapes are as dangerous as cigarettes, which may not be the case for current smokers.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is making a really compelling argument, but it would be best saved for the Delegated Legislation Committee following the consultation, so that we know exactly what the Government are proposing. She is setting out a resounding argument for different measures, but that is not of course what the clause sets out. It gives Ministers the power to consult and to bring secondary legislation to a future Delegated Legislation Committee. That is where the shadow Minister should be making these absolutely superb arguments, but we need the powers first.
Dr Johnson
With respect, it is unwise to give someone the power to do something you do not want them to do.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Mr Dowd—I am sure you have no opinion on this matter, as you are impartial.
Before giving powers under clause 90 to change packaging and make packaging regulations, it is important that we understand the Minister’s intention. Is it to strengthen or to weaken?
Andrew Gwynne
If the shadow Minister is seriously saying that the Government are bringing forward measures to weaken existing provision, she is living in cloud cuckoo land. She does not need to ask me or, through me, the Secretary of State whether it is our intention to weaken the provisions; it absolutely is not. It is in our manifesto that we would bring them in. We want to strengthen the measures. The shadow Minister actually needs to ask Opposition Members whether they would use the powers to weaken those measures. That is not a question for me; it is one on which she has to tussle with the Leader of the Opposition and with Opposition Back Benchers on the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but the Labour manifesto is not necessarily a document on which one can rely. I do not seem to recall its saying that the Government were going to take the winter fuel allowance from old people. I will not test your patience, Mr Dowd, by giving other examples of where the Labour manifesto did not reflect what the Government went on to do, but the point has been made.
One of the key issues from the public consultation on the Bill, which is therefore relevant to clause 90, is the growing concern and mounting evidence about vape packaging and the need to prevent products from appealing to children. The consultation paper issued by the Government expressed a clear desire to ensure that no vape packaging or vape devices should target young people. The Khan review, which was done under the last Government, recommended that restrictions be placed on packaging images and descriptions to ensure that vapes did not appeal to children.
In that vein, the Government have suggested that they will ban the use of cartoon characters, animal images, images of inanimate objects and other child- friendly visuals used on packaging and devices, recalling the infamous tobacco mascots of times gone by. By implementing such a measure, I believe that the Government aim to reduce the attractiveness of such products to children, acknowledging that current marketing practices may be encouraging the use of such products among young people who have never smoked.
A quick online search can dig up all sorts of vapes and vape paraphernalia clearly targeted at children. Vape packets with SpongeBob SquarePants, Mario Kart characters and other cartoon characters can be found online. I have listened to children who have said that they have discussed which vape they should have to match the outfit they are wearing at a particular event.
There is significant public support for stricter regulation of vape packaging. A 2023 public opinion survey commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health found that 76% of adults in England are in favour of limiting the use of sweet names, cartoons and bright colours on vape packaging. That shows that there is widespread concern among the public about the need for stronger safeguards to protect young people from becoming regular users of nicotine products.
The call for limiting the appeal of vape products to children is in line with broader efforts to tackle young vaping, which has become a growing public health issue in recent years, but public opinion is not the only factor that should drive the changes to packaging. The Government’s concern over youth vaping is also reflected in their efforts to develop a comprehensive regulatory approach. In addition to restricting the use of child-friendly images on packaging, there are other, broader changes, which I will not go into now.
The packaging of vaping products is not just a cosmetic issue. The clause talks about cosmetic things such as what materials can be used, what packages can look like, how big they are or what shape they can be, but those have real implications for public health. By regulating the appearance and branding of these products, we can significantly influence how they are perceived by the public and, most importantly, younger audiences. The goal of the regulatory measures has to be to strike a balance between ensuring that vaping remains available as a harm-reduction tool for adults trying to quit and reducing the risks associated with its increasing appeal to young people.
That delicate balance requires careful consideration and ongoing dialogue between health experts, industry stakeholders and the public. As the Minister pursues such consultation—if he is given the powers under clause 90—I hope that he will consider the matter of flexibility and the way in which the businesses tend to evolve, and that he will future-proof the regulations. The UK Government have taken an important step in recognising the potential risks posed by packaging and are actively working to mitigate those risks through public consultations, policy papers and regulatory changes. However, that is only the beginning. To effectively address the challenges posed by vaping, further measures will need to be introduced not just on packaging, but in relation to other matters, which we will come to later.
We have made the case for why we should consider giving the Secretary of State or Ministers the powers to regulate retail packaging. However, the question is what impact that will have. Will it have a big or small impact, and will we be putting a large amount of regulation on to businesses for minimal effect and increased cost? Will this make a big difference? The Government have produced an impact assessment of the measures in clause 90 and their desired outcome. It says that the appeal of vapes to children, and the subsequent number who go on to vape, is expected to reduce with the restriction of packaging presentation. Such restriction would therefore result in overall health benefits to our young people due to a reduction in vaping uptake and associated harms.
Moreover, such a decrease in vaping uptake and associated usage among young people is recognised in the impact assessment as also being potentially beneficial for the environment because of a reduction in the anticipated litter from vape-related packaging. Indeed, a litter pick with volunteers from Sleaford a little while ago drew my attention to the harm that vape-related waste is having on our environment. Again, in considering the material of packaging, the Minister may want to think about any environmental hazard posed, which is something that he can mandate under clause 90(3)(d) to ensure that the packaging is to a standard that helps to reduce the effect on the environment.
Furthermore, the impact assessment highlights that the illicit vape market has been increasing and suggests that it could be exacerbated if these powers were implemented. However, it could also be argued that more appropriate packaging restrictions could assist in distinguishing between compliant and illicit vape products, depending on how the regulations were brought forward. They could make it arguably more difficult to discretely stock, advertise or sell such illicit products, and easier to identify and tackle illegality in the sector. It is recognised that packaging-related restrictions are expected to reduce the number of children and adults vaping, thus reducing the profits for manufacturers and stockers because of packaging presentation.
The impact assessment also sets out that such measures are not expected to prohibit or affect the abilities of vape consumers themselves in making choices based on their own preferences or in purchasing the products they wish to consume. If one is already a vape customer, or one is a smoker wishing to stop, packaging will not have an effect, but it may well reduce the likelihood that children start vaping, which is a good thing. Consumers are free to engage in purchasing and consuming such products as they wish, albeit that by being in different packaging, it is less appealing to children and young people.
Although no studies have shown the real-world impact of standardised packaging for vaping products, evidence from experimental studies suggests that plain packaging may reduce the appeal of vaping products among young people. There is research in the impact assessment about standard olive-coloured packaging—I am not sure whether that is a green olive or a darker olive—in comparison with branded packaging. It found that young people aged 11 to 18 had a lower interest in trying vapes in standard packaging but there was no difference among adult respondents between the branded and plain standardised products. Research from King’s College London and Action on Smoking and Health shows that different effect, with young people being more likely to attracted by the packaging than adults.
A recent study also looked at a cross-sectional online survey to explore interest in the perceived harms of vaping products when it comes to packaging. The study found that not only did young people aged 16 to 19 in England, Canada and the US find e-liquids in white or olive-coloured standardised packaging less appealing compared with those in branded vape packaging, but that they inaccurately perceived e-liquids in that standardised packaging as being equally or more harmful than smoking, compared with e-liquids in branded packaging. Again, there is evidence that packaging influences children’s decisions. If they look at something in a plain packet, they are more likely to think it is not good for them than if they see it in a packet with Mario Kart or a teddy bear on it. I know that is instinctive, but the evidence also bears it out, as seen in the Government’s impact assessment.
I am interested to know how clause 90 differs from existing legislation, particularly on tobacco products. It is my understanding that under the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015, which came into effect on 20 May 2017, all products—including cigarettes, rolling tobacco and snuff—must be sold in standard packaging. The use of logos, trademarks and branding has been severely restricted and tobacco packaging must display the product name in standard font and size without any distinctive logos, colours or images.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Focusing on clause 90, my view is that the Government are taking the right step. Some on the Back Benches of my party may not agree, but I think the clause plays a vital role in shaping the future of tobacco control in the UK. The debate surrounding retail packaging regulations is, however, complex and the Minister clearly has to juggle the balance of public health interests, consumer rights, and industry and legal concerns. I believe that clause 90 is a significant legislative step that aims to standardise packaging to reduce the appeal of tobacco and vaping products, and to ensure that consumers are better informed about the health risks while restricting marketing strategies that encourage nicotine use.
The primary aim of clause 90 is to safeguard public health. Research from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation has consistently demonstrated that standardised tobacco packaging, free from branding and marketing embellishments, reduces the attractiveness of the products—particularly, as the shadow Minister said, among young people. By extending the regulations to vaping and nicotine products, clause 90 takes a proactive stance in preventing nicotine addiction. I welcome that.
Marketing tactics and eye-catching packaging clearly play a crucial role in enticing young people to experiment with tobacco and vaping products. As has been mentioned, studies indicate that standardised packaging reduces the appeal of smoking among young people, reinforcing the message that these products are harmful. Like us, Australia, which implemented plain packaging laws in 2012, has seen a significant decline in smoking rates, particularly among young people.
Clause 90 mandates clearer health warnings and restrictions on misleading information on packaging. Research shows that graphic health warnings, as we already have on cigarette packets, and standardised packaging improve consumer understanding of the risks associated with smoking and vaping. That also aligns with international best practices, as seen in places such as Canada and France, where strong packaging regulations have contributed to reduced smoking rates.
Although cigarettes are currently subject to strict packaging regulations here, the vaping and nicotine products listed exploit the regulatory gaps used to make attractive branding and misleading claims. Clause 90 ensures that similar restrictions apply to all tobacco-related products, creating a much more consistent regulatory framework. That has the public health benefits I have mentioned but also makes it easier for the consumer to see a standardised product that they understand has implications for their health.
Many countries have likewise already introduced stringent packaging laws to curb tobacco and vaping consumption. We should be proud that the UK has long been a leader in tobacco control. Clause 90 reinforces that leadership by adopting global best practices, ensuring that our laws remain in line with international commitments such as the WHO framework convention on tobacco control.
Plain packaging has also been shown to reduce the likelihood of relapse among former smokers, by minimising the branding cues that trigger cravings. By eliminating marketing strategies that glamorise tobacco use, clause 90 strengthens the UK’s efforts to support smoking cessation initiatives. Standardised packaging could include sophisticated track and trace systems to help to identify illicit products. Will the Minister be considering that as part of the new regulations he puts forward? These systems reduce counterfeiting and smuggling, ensuring that any tax revenues are protected and that illegal sales do not undermine the well outlined public health efforts.
However, clause 90 raises issues that we need to consider. Although it has a number of advantages, it is essential to address some of the concerns that could arise from its implementation. I suspect that I am pre-empting comments that may be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. There is clearly an impact on consumer choice. Some argue that standardised packaging restricts consumer choice by making it harder to distinguish between products. Although health concerns clearly must take precedence, policymakers must ensure that consumers can still access product information without ambiguity.
Dr Johnson
Can my hon. Friend illustrate whether there is any evidence suggesting that, as the result of plain packaging, consumers are less able to identify whether they have the right product in their hand as they leave the shop?
Gregory Stafford
I have not seen any evidence of that, but I want to ensure through the regulations that the consumer understands, from a health benefit point of view, what is in the product that they are taking away with them.
Unlike tobacco, vaping products are often promoted as a harm reduction tool for smokers who are trying to quit. Some argue that overly restrictive packaging rules could deter smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives, and I urge the Minister to assess how clause 90 affects vaping uptake among smokers seeking cessation tools.
As we have heard previously, the tobacco and vaping industries have historically opposed packaging regulations, often challenging them through legal means. Many countries have seen lengthy lawsuits after implementing plain packaging laws. I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK is prepared to defend clause 90 against potential challenges and ensure that the regulations that might come through are legally sound and enforceable. Some critics also warn that overly stringent packaging laws could drive consumers towards the illicit markets, where unregulated products may pose greater health risks. Again, the Government must complement clause 90 with robust enforcement mechanisms to prevent black market proliferation.
Dr Johnson
Is it not right that in the past, when increased tobacco regulations have been made, the black market has shrunk with the overall market?
Gregory Stafford
Absolutely, and we heard that clearly in the evidence sessions before we began examining the Bill in detail. However, as Members on both sides have mentioned, the tobacco and vaping industries are extraordinarily innovative in getting around regulations; that is really what I was referring to. That brings me to my next point. The effective implementation of clause 90 will require strict monitoring and enforcement, so local authorities, through their teams, must be equipped with sufficient resource to ensure compliance and tackle any attempts to circumvent the regulations.
My final point is about what I call the potential stigmatisation of vapers. We clearly do not want anyone to start vaping, but those who are already vaping or those who may be trying to use vapes as a smoking cessation tool must be taken into account. Although discouraging nicotine use is a priority, the Minister must avoid unintended consequences, such as stigmatising vapers using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool. The regulatory framework should differentiate between the combustible tobacco products and reduced-risk alternatives where appropriate.
To ensure that clause 90 achieves its intended objectives while addressing the concerns that I have raised, I ask the Minister the following questions. Will he consider differentiated regulations for vaping products, ensuring that the public health messaging does not inadvertently deter smokers from switching to the less harmful alternatives? We need clear guidelines for implementation, so comprehensive guidance should be issued to businesses, law enforcement and regulatory agencies to ensure smooth implementation. There needs to be a public awareness campaign that complements that to educate consumers about the changes of packaging and reinforce the risks of tobacco and nicotine addiction, and we must have certain timelines for producers so that they understand what the new requirements are and how they will be implemented.
We need to ensure that the Government conduct regular evaluation of the effectiveness of clause 90 using data-driven analysis to assess its impact on the smoking and vaping rates, and we need strong law enforcement and border control agencies to prevent the illicit trade and ensure compliance with the regulations. Perhaps this does not need to be said, but the Minister should engage with public health experts and harm reduction advocates to refine the regulations and address any emerging concerns as they come in the future.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It seems to me, both from the text of the clause and from his introductory remarks, that the Minister aims to do two things. He aims to bring regulations on packaging to apply more widely to vaping and nicotine products, and to consolidate the law so that tobacco and nicotine products are all dealt with in one place.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked the Minister to commit, with these powers, not to undermine the regulation on cigarettes thus far. Unlike the shadow Minister, I have no concern that the Minister might water down any such remarks. I trust the Labour manifesto in that regard.
Dr Johnson
This may be the first aspect of the Labour manifesto that we can trust, so perhaps there is something to celebrate.
Jack Rankin
Indeed. In fairness, I also share both the Minister’s and the shadow Minister’s concern. It is very clear that the incremental changes to tobacco retail packaging are one of the public health interventions that have diminished cigarette use, which is desirable.
However, I also ask the Minister to make assurances that, despite the consolidation of the law, he will treat vaping and nicotine products in quite a different way. I echo some of the thoughts that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon expressed. It seems to me that, certainly when it comes to vaping, we should have proportionate and targeted regulation of vaping and nicotine products. In particular, we should be cracking down on anything that is particularly or unduly appealing to those who are under age, whether that is toys, cartoons or sweet-type imagery. That view would be shared right across the House. In the Minister’s introductory remarks, he called vaping an effective quit aid. Yes, we do not recommend it to children, but we do want to maintain that.
My concern about these quite sweeping regulations is this. I take the Minister’s point that delegated legislation will have to come forward in the future and will buff out how exactly the Minister plans to take this matter forward, but to me, moving towards, for example, plain packaging is likely to undermine the effectiveness of vaping as a cessation tool, which would undermine the objective that the Bill is trying to arrive at: in my understanding, a smoke-free generation by 2030. I ask the Minister to give us some assurances that he will treat vaping and nicotine products in quite a different way from tobacco products. After all, vaping is the fastest growing—I think this is uncontentious—smoking cessation method, and I think that here there is scope for quite wide-ranging powers.
I also urge the Minister to accept this point. I do not know how he considers this, but in my view there are responsible vape businesses and I think he should work with them to understand how they think they could change things so that people are directly using vaping as a smoking cessation tool and it is not appealing to people who would be new smokers. It is my understanding, from some of my research ahead of coming on to this Committee, that a Cochrane review said that vaping is twice as effective as any other stop-smoking tool. I do not think the Minister should be seeking to under- mine that.
I know that we do not get on to the issue of flavours until clause 92, so I will keep my comments brief on this, but it does seem to me to be legitimate to advertise flavours, perhaps in a delimited way. The shadow Minister talked about candy floss flavours, which should not be allowed, but it seems to me that people could legitimately advertise to adults various factual flavours that show vaping as something we can progress on smoking cessation with.
I would also oppose the cancer-type warnings that we see on cigarette packs in relation to vaping. I do not believe the evidence is quite there yet. The research on vaping is in its infancy, so it is too early to say whether that is appropriate.
Dr Johnson
I understand that my hon. Friend does not believe that there is evidence at the moment on particular health disbenefits of vaping, but would he agree to be guided by the chief medical officer and other experts in this field when making that decision? At one time, medical professionals did not think smoking was bad. Things change and evidence comes out over time.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will focus on two main points from two different organisations.
The first point, which builds on the points made by my hon. Friends, was made by Cancer Research UK when discussing packaging for vapes. The organisation is obviously in support of placing some restrictions on packaging to reduce youth vaping, but it believes that the right balance must be struck between dissuasive and neutral packaging. Interestingly, it said that it does not believe that vape packaging should be made to resemble tobacco packaging in order to reduce worsening harm misperceptions, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
Cancer Research UK said that more evidence is needed to determine which colours would reduce the appeal for young people, but it is important that in doing so, we do not reduce access to vapes for adults who use them to quit smoking. It said that it wants to avoid worsening misperceptions that vapes are as harmful as, or more harmful than, tobacco, so it would make sense to choose a neutral colour for vaping packs rather than the same drab green colour of tobacco packs.
The organisation went on to talk about displays, which was a point raised earlier, but it is also interesting in this wider piece. Cancer Research UK said that, to make vapes less appealing to young people, they could be behind the counter but still on display. In its view, if the UK Government change the packaging of vapes through the powers in the Bill, that will go a long way to reducing the appeal of vapes overall, and therefore they might not need to go as far when restricting the display itself. It argued that the balance would help to ensure that vapes are still visible and accessible to adults who wish to use them to quit. It would also create a differential from tobacco, so that vapes would be behind the counter with less appealing packaging, but still visible to adults who smoke and want to quit.
Dr Johnson
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister is considering the regulations under clause 90, he needs to consider not just what the packaging would look like in a real-world shop, but how he can ensure that the same product will not simply be available online in the original packaging?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and valid point. I would like the Minister to address how we are going to tackle the issue online. If someone cannot go into a physical shop, going online is the next alternative, and we want to ensure that we protect our young ones as much as possible.
I want to highlight one other point from Cancer Research. It said that it is also important that the legislation future-proofs against the use of bright coloured lights or similar displays that could appeal to young people. Again, we need to be careful of that. As has been said, manufacturers are often very good at finding their way around these regulations, so we do not want to make the products attractive in another vein.
My second point focuses on clause 90(3)(b), which says that provisions may be made about
“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.
We had some evidence submitted from the North East Public Protection Partnership, which is a regional partner-ship that brings together chief officers of 12 local authorities in the north-east, representing environmental health, trading standards and licensing services. The partner- ship is in support of the measure, but believes that certain requirements should be put on packaging itself—it thinks that inserts in the packaging should be regulated. I have learnt, as I have not come across them often before, that inserts are used internationally, in Canada and Israel. They are proven to encourage people to give up smoking when they are placed inside the packaging. They usually contain positive messages to encourage people to quit—for example, by going into detail about improved breathing within a matter of days of quitting or the 50% reduction in the risk of heart attacks within a year, or by detailing how much money a smoker is likely to save.
The North East Public Protection Partnership believes that there should be specific regulations around the inserts and the packaging, setting out the type and size of font, the colour, the layout, and dimensions. It thinks that the specific information to use on packaging should be defined and that the information provided on where to seek more help to quit should also be included. It also says it is essential to set a date for suppliers for when packaging must appear on the UK market and that the penalties on manufacturers for non-compliance should be set out.
The partnership also said:
“The Government will need to liaise with Trading Standards in order to ensure that the appropriate offence, or offences, are included in regulations on pack inserts. We would recommend an offence is included which relates to the sale or supply of a tobacco product without the correct insert, so that Trading Standards can take enforcement action against the person selling. An example of this includes the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 where there is an offence to produce as well as supply product in breach of regulations.”
Finally, it adds:
“Health messaging should be on the outside of all tobacco, nicotine and vape products.”
My final question to the Minister is: have he and his Department turned their mind to inserts, what they might contain, and the role they could play in future?
Andrew Gwynne
We have had a good debate on clause 90—that is all we are up to.
To answer why this is an issue, unlike standardised cigarette packaging, vape packaging can—as we have already heard—come in many different colours, styles, and shapes. The previous call for evidence that the shadow Minister referred to showed that this increases the appeal of vapes to children, and it can encourage them to start vaping. That is what we want to crack down on with this clause.
A number of Members have asked why we are extending the provisions, given that tobacco packaging is already standardised. Only cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco are subject to the most stringent regulations. This includes standardised packaging, specified packet shape, amount within packs, material, colour and appearance requirements, and so on. In England, around five times more people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, than a decade ago. There has been an increase in that consumption and we are committed to addressing this, which is why we are extending the measures to other tobacco products.
In terms of requiring dissuasive messages, of course, these are things that we can look at in the future—it is not something that we are looking at now. We will be mandating pack inserts for cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco packaging, and we will be running a call for evidence on standardising the packaging of all other products. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked whether the Secretary of State or Ministers will use the powers. We are coming to Parliament with this landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as we committed to in our manifesto, precisely because we want to use these powers. We are seeking these powers. The Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Minister are seeking these powers precisely because we all want to use them to tackle the scourge of youth vaping and move our country to smokefree 2030. Our manifesto committed to stopping vapes being branded to appeal to children, and the Bill provides new regulation-making powers to make this commitment a reality.
As has been alluded to, Members have asked over the course of our deliberations why the restrictions are not on the face of the Bill. In particular, the shadow Minister has gone into the level of detail that we will go into when the regulations are brought before the House, following consultation. My answer is that the technical and detailed nature of the requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. We might need to amend the requirements in response to future developments in the market, and scientific knowledge and evidence may change, which means that we will have to react where appropriate. It might also be necessary to gather further evidence post-implementation—this is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon made about ensuring that everything is evidence-based, that the data is there and that we scrutinise it, rightly. We may well come to decide that our regulations are the wrong regulations, or that they were the right regulations three years ago, but now need to be changed. That is the why the powers in the Bill are permissive.
It is also important to gather information about the effectiveness of the packaging regulations, to see whether they have indeed discouraged youth vaping. All the evidence from other jurisdictions that do this suggests that they will; however, we need to ensure that the evidence is relevant to the United Kingdom. We will also need to keep a close eye on what happens to adult vapers, particularly those who want to stop smoking, and whether vapes remain accessible to adults who are trying to quit smoking, which is something we need to be clear about.
To be clear, the requirements for vape packaging are yet to be determined, as I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister. The proposed restrictions will be subject to consultation, to ensure that any unintended consequences on adult smoking rates are considered. Research suggests that neutral packaging can remove appeal to youth without being dissuasive to adult smokers—the point made in the information from Cancer Research UK, which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire rightly raised. Further analysis and consultation will take place before any regulations are made, because we absolutely want to get this right.
It is crucial that we do not rush into this, but have measures that are proportionate and workable, and that there are no unintended consequences. That is why there will be a transition period for businesses before any new regulations come into force, and the length of the transition will be considered as part of the consultation process. This is a balance to be struck between acting quickly to curb youth vaping and carefully considering unintended consequences on smoking rates, in order to ensure the most impactful change possible. That is why we have included a statutory duty to consult, to ensure that the relevant stakeholders are engaged, and to consider their responses and insights as regulations are developed.
Of course, we will provide more information about the timeline for our secondary regulation programme once we have Royal Assent, but let me make it clear to all members of the Committee that it is our intention to move at pace. We want to use these powers, so we want to make sure that, once the Bill becomes law, we start the process of getting the relevant regulations in place, especially for smokefree, because although many of the measures in the Bill will come into force on 1 January 2027, some regulations might be done beyond that date. We will have a lot of work to do in secondary legislation, to get the measures in the Bill—which we hope will all be approved in the course of our deliberations prior to Royal Assent—so that we can hit the ground running and get to 1 January 2027 smoke-free.
Dr Johnson
I am glad to hear that the Minister wants to use the regulations and strengthen the regulation around vaping—although I appreciate that that is not the view of the entire Committee—but he is talking about 1 January 2027, which is almost two full years away. Does he anticipate that the packaging regulations will come in before or after the legislation on the smoke-free generation?
Mary Kelly Foy
No, I do not. As I said, the Department is consulting on pack inserts, but that may not capture the people who have or are offered one cigarette. We all know that it takes only one cigarette to become addicted. Does the Minister have a timeframe that the Department is working to for the introduction of pack inserts? Will the Department monitor the effectiveness of that and continue to look at evidence from other countries, such as Canada, where dissuasive cigarettes do have an impact, and potentially use the powers in the Bill to introduce dissuasive individual cigarettes at a later stage?
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling this amendment, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I suspect that it is a reversal of the process from the last Committee, when my hon. Friend was on that Committee and moved a similar amendment, which was supported by the hon. Lady.
This is not a new suggestion. In fact, looking back at the debate from the last iteration of this Bill—I think it was about new clause 5 at the time—I discovered that it was the noble Lord Young of Cookham who first proposed warnings on cigarettes in 1979. He said:
“The solution to many of today’s medical problems will not be found in the research laboratories of our hospitals, but in our Parliaments. For the prospective patient, the answer may not be cure by incision at the operating table, but prevention by decision at the Cabinet table…Historically, a nation would look to its doctors for better health. Now they should look to their Members of Parliament.”
That is one of the reasons why I am here, standing with you today, and why I see a number of other medical professionals on the Opposition Benches. Parliament offers the opportunity not to look after one’s patients one at a time, but to look after the health of many patients all at the same time. I hope that we will seize that opportunity in relation to the public health measures in much of this Bill. My noble friend in the other House, Lord Young, has now been in Parliament for over 50 years—I hope we will get round to bringing forward some of the things he has proposed before another 50 years go by. The proposal was supported not only by the noble Lord Young, but by Sir Stephen Powis, then director of NHS England, and by the Khan review.
However, I have a couple of questions. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is making, which is that if people sell cigarettes only in packages and the packages are, as we have discussed, very thoroughly controlled in terms of what they look like and what they say, is it then necessary to mark the cigarettes that are inside them? I also understand that in clause 4, we as a Committee have chosen to introduce a measure that bans the sale of single cigarettes, but despite that being something people should already not do, it does happen, as we heard from the Royal College of Physicians in its evidence at the beginning of the Committee proceedings on 7 January.
There is some benefit to marking the cigarettes. It is also the case that it does not look terribly cool to have a stick sticking out of one’s mouth that says “Smoking kills”, and I get that. One question I would ask, though—perhaps the hon. Member for City of Durham will know the answer to this—is what they use to dye the papers chemically and what the effect of breathing in the smoke from the dyes is.
We talked about cigarette papers and why they are being banned at the beginning of the Bill; we talked about the chemicals put into cigarette papers to colour the paper, to ensure that the ash is white, to control how fast it burns and so on. If cigarette papers are to be marked with a message, that will require inks of some description, which will then be burned and the smoke from them inhaled. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has information on whether that can be done without adding additional harm to an already harmful product. On the one hand, what is the benefit of adding the message to reduce people’s uptake of cigarettes, and on the other, what harm is added to the cigarette by adding the message?
Cigarette papers already have a lot of pictures on them. I do not know whether the Minister will change that under clause 90, but health warnings on cigarette papers, as opposed to the cigarettes that come pre-rolled, would have the same effect: if one is printing a message on them, what harm is one adding and what risks is one taking away? I suppose he would have to look at both the risks and the benefits.
Clause 91 relates to the features of the products. Subsection (1) authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations on the features of various products, including
“(i) tobacco products,
(ii) tobacco related devices,
(iii) herbal smoking products,
(iv) cigarette papers,
(v) vaping products, or
(vi) nicotine products,”,
covering such aspects as the marking on the products, including branding, trademarks and logos, and the information provided with them. It also includes regulations on the appearance, size and shape of products and any distinguishing features that could differentiate brands.
Subsection (2) states that the regulations may include
“prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the production, importation or supply of such products in the course of business.”
Subsection (3) clarifies that regulations made under this section are also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the Minister is correct that at some point there will be a short delegated legislation meeting to debate them, but there will not be as much time to scrutinise them as there is in this Bill Committee.
The shape and size of packaging and of products have changed over time. Tobacco always used to be sold in bulk or in pouches by weight and wrapped in simple paper packaging. Cigarettes were not very common, and most tobacco products at that stage were loose-leaf cigars or pipe tobacco. The size and shape of the packages was straightforward, and the design at that time was more for preservation than marketing. As the industry grew, they became more standardised and recognisable. The first iconic package designs were rectangular boxes, usually made from cardboard, with a flip-top opening containing 10, 20 or 25 cigarettes.
Sarah Bool
To build on that point, it is interesting that, often, one of the biggest difficulties for those who smoke and want to stop is missing the physical act of holding a cigarette. It would be interesting to see whether these regulations can take that into account and, while not being aimed at children, aim them in a way that would help people who want to move away from smoking, in terms of the physical side of it. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is right: if a smoker is trying to quit cigarettes, why would a device shaped like a highlighter pen be needed or desirable? I can see why that is desirable to children, as I have said, but why would it be desirable to an adult?
Perhaps the Minister is choosing, on balance, to protect children from vapes that they may be able to easily conceal from parents, caregivers and teachers. He may have come across industry suggestions that regulating vape appearance would reduce the appeal of vapes to adult smokers, but I am not sure that is true. In fact, even if there is evidence that it is true, I suspect that the majority of adult smokers will be so keen to protect their children from taking up the habit of being addicted to nicotine—that those smokers have fought so hard to quit themselves—that they would be only too happy to have a standard-shaped vape to ensure that children are not brought into nicotine addiction. Subsection (1)(e) allows the shape to be regulated, and paragraphs (d) and (f) allow the size and other features to be regulated.
The Government have sought to look at the impact of this policy. The mod or tank devices are often wrapped in more neutral packaging. Vape liquids and disposable vapes are regularly sold and marketed with brightly coloured designs, as we have said. In fact, it is not uncommon to see them displayed as a rainbow. Again, I think that is designed for children. The cartoons and flavours—we will come to flavours later, so I will not talk about them now—increase children’s intention to try different vaping products.
In their impact assessment, the previous Government consulted on options that could be implemented using the powers conferred by this clause. Option one was to do nothing. That would have meant that there would continue to be no regulations on the product presentation of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes, which would essentially be a rejection of clause 91. Option two prohibited the use of cartoons, characters, animals, inanimate objects and other child-friendly imagery, including on the vape device, but still allowed colouring and tailored brand designs—35.8% of respondents were in support of that option. Option three prohibited the use of all imagery and colouring on both the vape packaging and the device, still allowing for branding such as logos and names —18.2% of respondents were in support of that option.
The previous Government also consulted on the more stringent option four, which prohibited the use of all imagery, colouring and branding for both the vape packaging and the vape device. That option was somewhat equivalent to the standardised packaging rules on tobacco, and 46.1% of respondents were in support of it, showing that the general public, as consulted by the previous Government on the powers in relation to vape appearances, favour the more stringent regulatory option, which would be open to the Minister should clause 91 go through. When I began my campaign to tackle vaping, I found a number of examples of products shaped in bright, child-friendly cases, some even with cartoon characters.
We know that product presentation, as in clause 91, must be considered separately from the packaging, as we considered previously in the debate on clause 90, because for many vaping products, the small, smooth, colourful cases the vape is enclosed in is part of the attraction for children and for non-smokers.
Paragraph 1101 of the impact assessment states:
“According to ONS data on adult vaping prevalence in Great Britain, 31.6% of adults that currently vape are also current smokers, and 18.7% are ex-smokers. The exact impact on the number of smokers not quitting and ex-smokers relapsing as a result of regulating would depend on what vape packaging and product presentation was regulated.”
It is clear that the difference will depend on which step someone takes, but it is also clear that option 4, which is a more stringent approach to the regulations on offer in clause 91, would be preferable. Action on Smoking and Health provided some evidence to the Committee on how vapes are branded and promoted in shops. It talked about limiting their display, as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire earlier.
I now turn to tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as mentioned in the impact assessment. Although the vaping regulation is much newer than the tobacco regulation, the powers in clause 91 offer the Minister an opportunity to regulate tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers further than he has done. Section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 already enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on features of tobacco products across the UK. Clause 91 will widen this power so that tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are all within the scope of regulations.
On herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and tobacco-related devices, a simple internet search brings up sites, such as Etsy, advertising papers and rolling trays with cartoon characters. One can get a Hello Kitty grinder. In fact, it is not just a picture of Hello Kitty but a picture in which Hello Kitty appears to be vaping. There are rolling trays with pictures of Princess Jasmine, Cinderella and Snow White. Again, those characters are smoking in the picture—I am sure they are not from any Disney production; I certainly do not recognise them from any of the Disney productions I have watched.
Apart from copyright issues, such images are a clear ploy to entice younger audiences. One questions the legitimacy of the plastering of those brands on the products. Have they given their permission for these images? I very much doubt Disney has given permission for its cartoon characters, such as the Disney princesses designed for younger children, to be used in pictures of smoking or vaping.
Sarah Bool
Etsy is a very good company; it enables small businesses to sell their products, which is admirable and laudable, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely inappropriate for images of Disney characters to be changed. Sometimes the changes involve putting glasses on them, which is good as that makes young children feel that they are not isolated if they look slightly different. However, it is outrageous to make the characters appear to be using smoking products. I hope that the powers under this regulation will prevent that from happening further.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for her point. Of course, Etsy is an online marketplace. We have talked already about the difficulties in regulating some of these changes in the online world and about the fact that some of the current regulations on tobacco products can be circumvented by the purchase of online products. People can circumvent regulations on things such as snus by buying them online from overseas. When the Minister brings forward regulations under clause 91, how will he ensure that they are applied and enforced in both the offline and online world, which is so crucial these days, particularly for younger people?
Cancer Research UK provided evidence relating to the change of packets and products. It said it would respond to the consultation. The British Medical Association also provided written evidence. I declare an interest: as well as being a consultant paediatrician, I am a member of the British Medical Association. In relation to clauses 90 and 91, it suggested
“All imagery, colouring and branding should be prohibited”.
Gregory Stafford
That is very helpful. If I have not already seen it in the evidence packs that have been sent to us, then I will look that up.
I move on to clause 91—the features of the product. Implementing the regulations could require significant adjustments from manufacturers. To quote the Minister back to himself, he wants to move “like the clappers” on this. Although I welcome that, there needs to be a period where manufacturers have the opportunity to adapt to the rules.
Dr Johnson
“Like the clappers” sounds quick, but it has not been defined any further than that, which leaves us in the dark. There is also a balance to be struck. On the one hand, manufacturers may need time to adapt, but on the other hand every day that these attractive products are available to children is another day when more children will become addicted to them.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a key point, and she has been making it throughout our discussions, as have others. Clearly, we want to move as rapidly as possible to ensure that as few children as possible are addicted to cigarettes or ever pick one up. I completely agree that we should move as fast as possible, but we need to do it in a sensible way to ensure that manufacturers can implement what we want them to implement, and that we do not end up in a situation where they are caught out by that.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Committee for this discussion. Amendment 5 and new clause 1 require the Secretary of State to consult on regulations to introduce health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers. I am sympathetic towards the aim of the amendments, which encourage current smokers to quit by providing them with information on the harms of tobacco.
However, the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which emphasise the heath harms of tobacco. That includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packs. A post-implementation review published in 2022 stated that these measures still remain effective in helping smokers to quit and in deterring children from taking up the habit. As set out in our response on 5 November 2024 to the consultation on tobacco pack inserts, we will implement positive quit-themed health messaging into the packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco. That could contribute up to 150,000 additional quit attempts and 30,000 successful quits over two years.
We are also going further. We will look to extend the legislation on pack inserts to cover all tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. To do that, we are running a call for evidence on standardised packaging to consider introducing more stringent packaging requirements for the different tobacco-related product types wherever possible.
On pack inserts in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham asked about implementation. Of course, we are working to implement that as soon as we can, but only after engagement with relevant stakeholders, as I said in the previous debates. We will consult on the final specifications before laying the legislation before Parliament. There is a lot of clapping going on; this is something else on which we will be working like the clappers to get over the line. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that pack inserts are a priority for the Government. We will move at pace to get that done.
On a technical note to my hon. Friend’s amendments, the Bill restates the existing power to make regulations on the appearance of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only that: it goes further and extends that power to other products, including cigarette papers. We therefore do not believe that the amendments are required to bring in dissuasive messages on cigarettes, because the powers already exist in this Bill should Ministers seek to consult in the future and bring forward secondary legislation.
While it is not our plan to introduce dissuasive messages on cigarettes at this time, because we already have strong health warning measures in place, we will continue to monitor the evidence. As has rightly been said, we want to be evidence-led in the measures we seek to introduce. I want to see the success of such measures in Canada and elsewhere so that we can use that evidence at a future stage.
While my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has indicated that she will withdraw the amendments, I hope I have given her some reassurance that the amendments are not needed because we have the powers to do precisely what she wants to do. At some stage in the future, a Minister—it may or may not be me—may come forward with secondary legislation following a consultation.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has been clear that he believes he has the power under clause 91 to put the messages on the cigarettes if he chooses to, which is interesting to note. Will he clarify whether that remains the case with information inserts? The clause refers to the appearance of the products, the shape and the messaging. Will it include pack inserts?
Andrew Gwynne
What the amendments seek to do is to put the messages on cigarettes themselves. Those powers exist in the Bill. I do not understand what the shadow Minister is talking about, because pack insert measures are happening: we will be moving at pace to ensure that they are further consulted on, that legislation is brought to Parliament and that we get the pack inserts in place. As far as dissuasive cigarettes are concerned, that is not our intention at this stage, but powers exist in the Bill for a Minister to consult and bring forward secondary legislation to put health warnings on individual cigarettes should Parliament and Government decide that that is the right thing to do.
Clause 91, included in part 5, provides the Secretary of State with the powers to make regulations about the future of vaping products, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices and nicotine products as well as cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. The clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate what information should be provided on a product as well as the size, shape and appearance of a product.
It is vital that we reduce the appeal of harmful and addictive products to children. A key part of that is through how these products appear themselves. There are currently no limits whatever on what a vape can look like. As we heard in evidence, there are vapes that look like highlighter pens and computer pen drives. There are vapes that look like mobile phones. There are vapes that are concealed in hoodies so people can vape through the string of the hoodie. These are pernicious attempts to hook young children and adolescents on nicotine products. That is why the measures are so crucial.
Dr Johnson
We had a little search at lunch time and found some examples that may contravene the law. Can the Minister advise to where we should refer those for enforcement?
Andrew Gwynne
Of course, trading standards enforces the sale of these things, so if the hon. Lady has concerns about particular products being sold in the online sphere, the first port of call is trading standards, which can investigate and take the appropriate action.
Regarding enforcement of online sales, the Bill enables Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce the licensing scheme that we have already debated for retail sale, including online retail sale, of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. Penalties will be capable of being brought against retailers who do not adhere to sales regulations. Obviously, as we have discussed —I do not want to tread on old ground—we will consult on the details of the licensing scheme before regulations are laid. Moreover, in the financial year 2025-26, this Government will invest a total of £30 million of new funding for the enforcement agencies, including trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting the implementation of measures in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly raised some concerns about how long manufacturers and retailers will have to implement the changes. There will be a transition period for businesses before any of the new regulations come into force. The length of the transition will be considered as part of the consultation exercise. There is clearly a balance to be struck between acting quickly to curb youth vaping and carefully considering the unintended consequences that we are all worried about. That is why these measures are a proportionate step. However, let me be clear that we will not stand idly by while industry knowingly and deliberately encourages children to use a product that will addict them to nicotine. Industry has failed to self-regulate. The fact that a quarter—25%—of all children aged between 11 and 15 have vaped shows that self-regulation has failed. We must now intervene to ensure that this can no longer happen—or get worse.
We are not banning the sale or manufacture of vapes; rather, we are ensuring that all the measures that we are talking about happen in a proportionate way that seeks to remove the harm and risk to our children and future generations. However, let me be clear that industry self-regulation has failed. That is why I call on hon. Members to support clause 91.
Andrew Gwynne
This clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to regulate substances, and the amount of a substance, used in vaping products, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.
We know that the use of tobacco products and herbal smoking products can increase when they are flavoured or are used alongside flavour accessories. For instance, menthol cigarettes appeal to young people because, compared with non-menthol cigarettes, they make it easier and less harsh to inhale smoke. That is why the sale of menthol-flavoured cigarettes was rightly banned in May 2020 by the previous Government, and I give credit to them for moving on that issue.
It is therefore very concerning that industry has used the same tactics for vaping and nicotine products. Research shows that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described. We have heard a lot over the past few weeks, particularly from the shadow Minister, as well as from others, about flavours such as gummy bear and rainbow burst. Unicorn milkshake was another favourite of the shadow Minister—not that I am suggesting that she vapes, just that it is one of her favourites to refer to.
Dr Johnson
I would rather the Minister said that it was a flavour I have commonly referred to than a favourite flavour, because I honestly cannot tell him what a unicorn’s milk tastes like.
Andrew Gwynne
I would not have a clue either, because I am one of those boring individuals who has neither smoked nor vaped. I am now 50 years old, and I do not intend to start either in my next half century—now that I have had my liver check, I know that I am going to live for the next half century.
There is no reason why flavours such as gummy bear, rainbow burst or unicorn milkshake should be made available. They clearly target one audience, and one audience only: children. We cannot let industry repeat the same tactics it used to hook a generation of children on cigarettes by enticing the next generation to start and continue vaping.
Furthermore, some specific substances can increase the risk of harm to users and must be properly regulated or banned completely. Equally, any tobacco accessory that imparts flavour should also be banned. The clause will mean that the Secretary of State can close the current loophole.
However, we recognise that vape flavours can be a consideration for some adult smokers, as was mentioned earlier, and particularly those seeking to quit smoking. To avoid any unintended consequences, the scope of future restrictions will have to be carefully considered, with a statutory duty to consult on any proposed restriction, to ensure that we get the balance right.
What we do not want to do is dissuade people for whom vaping is the best stop smoking tool from stopping smoking. The advice of the chief medical officers of the four nations was clear: “If you smoke, it is safer to vape. If you are a child, you should never vape and never smoke. If you are a non-smoker, the same is true: never vape, never smoke.” We have to ensure that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and revert those who we wish to stop smoking back to smoking.
That point has to be carefully considered when the consultation and the secondary legislation comes before Parliament, but let me make it clear: we will not allow these child-friendly flavours that are blatantly in existence for one purpose only, which is not to stop adults smoking; it is to hook kids on nicotine. That has to stop, and that will stop.
Dr Johnson
Does the Minister want to comment on the range of flavours available, and whether he thinks that has any impact?
Andrew Gwynne
It absolutely does. That is why these powers are framed in the way they are. It is something that the Secretary of State and Ministers, when considering the balance that I have just talked about, may well take into consideration. We still want vaping to be accessible and available to people as a stop smoking tool. We recognise that one of the attractions of vapes over cigarettes is that they tend to taste nicer—or so I am told. If cigarettes taste anything like how they smell, I can understand why that is the case.
What we do not want to do is create a loophole that retains the attractiveness of vapes to children. The range of flavours will also have to be considered in any future consultation so that there are no unintended consequences. We must get the balance right and stop these awful products being promoted to kids in the most pernicious way while respecting the fact that for a number of people, vapes are a route out of smoking. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out aspects of the clause, and particularly for his passionate speech making clear that he wants to see vaping among children stop. When I first brought forward on the Floor of the House measures on vaping, it was with the intention of protecting children from the rapidly rising trend before they became hooked on a form of nicotine. I am grateful that the Minister seems to share the same passion for protecting children; that is good to see.
Clause 92 deals with the contents and flavour of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. It provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the flavour of relevant products and the substances that may be included and their amount in any relevant tobacco, vape or nicotine product.
The Chair
No, I am quite happy for you to carry on, although I should clarify that if the Division bell goes, I will interrupt you. I am assuming that the Division will be in five minutes or so, so if you wish to carry on you can, or we can suspend now.
Dr Johnson
If the Government Whip is happy, we will keep going.
As well as cigars and cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and snuff became available in various flavours, including mint, apple and peach. These products targeted those who preferred an alternative to smoking while still seeking the satisfaction of nicotine. Flavoured smokeless products, in particular, gained popularity among younger users because of their sweet flavours and more discreet use.
From the 1990s onwards we have seen an acceleration in the marketing of flavoured nicotine products, particularly those aimed at younger people. At this time, the tobacco industry shifted focus towards expanding its consumer base by targeting young people through advertising and product innovation. Flavoured cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco became a key part of the strategy, with marketing campaigns emphasising the fun, sweet flavours. Notable products that emerged were fruit and dessert-flavoured cigarettes, often marketed in coloured packaging designed to appeal to younger, fashion-conscious consumers. Brands such as Marlboro, Camel and Newport produced sweet, fruity flavoured cigarettes including cherry, vanilla and grape varieties. Tobacco companies also started adding candy-like flavours such as sour apple and berry to smokeless products.
The quest for flavoured products is part of a broader marketing effort to make tobacco use more socially acceptable and less intimidating. These products were seen by some as more approachable, less harsh and more in line with consumer taste, whereas sugary and fruity flavours dominated the food and beverage industry. Recognising the role of flavoured cigarettes in widening the appeal of smoking, various countries began outlawing them in the 2010s. In 2016, flavoured cigarettes, including menthol cigarettes, were banned across the European Union and in the UK in response to the European tobacco products directive.
In response to that directive, the tobacco industry sought new ways to circumvent the ban on flavoured products and to continue to appeal to customers. These methods included introducing flavoured filters and flavoured papers for those who hand rolled cigarettes. Menthol papers and filters are widely accessible from retailers across the UK, both in store and online. British shoppers can also access, on websites such as Amazon, a gallery of flavoured cigarette papers including apple, cherry, peaches and cream—including ones with pictures of apples or peaches on them—as well as a few old favourites familiar to those in the vaping industry, such as chocolate, liquorice, bubble gum and cotton candy. One may almost forget they are smoking tobacco—perhaps that is the point.
No discussion of flavours would be complete without mentioning vapes. With the advent of vapes in the 21st century, we have seen an eruption of flavours on to the market, sometimes of the most implausible kind, the unicorn milkshake referred to by the Minister being an example—I have certainly never seen a unicorn or its milk. The standard menthol and fruit flavours are popular, but many more unusual flavours lurk in the dark corners of the vape market, including butter, roast chicken, garlic, tuna, black peppercorn, bacon and Worcestershire sauce. There are websites containing reviews of those flavours—some are not terribly popular, but there are lots of different flavours available.
While some of these are obviously more novel flavours, there has also been a rise in flavours with clear appeal to children and seemingly little appeal to adults, such as candy floss, fruit loops, milkshake and bubble gum. If that sounds too grown up, I understand that the vape market also offers not just unicorn milkshake, but unicorn blood, which sounds very sad, as well as honey bear and rainbow candy. Online, one can easily find vapes flavoured like specific sweets, such as Skittles, Starburst, gummy bears, jelly beans and Sour Patch Kids. It is not clear whether the owners of those brands have given permission for them to be used.
In dealing with an issue as wide-ranging as the flavours of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products, it perhaps worthwhile examining what products like this do to our society on a moral and aesthetic level. With that, the mind is drawn to Edmund Burke’s 1757 pamphlet, whose introduction is entitled “On Taste”, which is apposite to today’s discussion. Burke distinguishes between the rational and emotional elements in our judgment of beauty and taste. He posits that our emotional response to things—what pleases or displeases us—is so deeply tied to our senses and desires, which can sometimes override reason.
Flavoured vapes, with their artificially sweet, intense flavours and bright colours, cater to the immediate emotional pleasure of the consumer—what Burke describes as a “base” or overly indulgent form of aesthetic experience. These excessive and artificial flavours may distort or corrupt the finer faculties of taste. Burke identifies that aesthetics and taste have social and moral implications for society overall. No doubt he would view the proliferation of flavoured vapes as the very debasement of our society, especially if it targets youth or promotes unhealthy habits—as it does. Cotton candy-flavoured vapes, Burke would probably say, are an emotional and sensory indulgence that ultimately contributes to decay, where the immediate gratification of the senses trumps the more enduring experience that shapes a moral society.
That reminds me once again of when headteacher Laranya Caslin told the Health and Social Care Committee about students asking, “Have you tried this flavour? Have you tried that flavour? I prefer this one.” She said that
“if you want…to get involved in a social conversation and you haven’t watched the last episode of ‘Love Island’, you are a bit out of it,”
and explained that the same is true of conversations on vape flavours.
Ms Caslin made a very important point, which is sometimes neglected, that role of flavours—which is why they need regulating in clause 92—in this dynamic is not just about personal preference, but can for some children be about a sense of belonging. It is a powerful form of social currency. It is not just about the product itself, but about what it represents within the broader context of social life.
Some Members—but not the Minister, as he has been clear—may remember smoking cigarettes in their youth in an effort to fit in or look cool. The proliferation of flavours has made vapes more of a trend to be constantly followed and more than just a product; in many ways, they have become a cultural marker, as much the clothes people wear or the media they consume. We have heard examples of students who have chosen their vape for the day on the basis of its colour and flavour, to match what they are wearing.
The Government have looked at impact of clause 92. Paragraph 990 of the impact assessment states:
“In the UK, a 2024 survey by ASH shows that the most frequently used vape flavouring for people that vape under 18 years old is ‘fruit flavour,’ with 59% of people that currently vape under 18 using them, while 16% of children who vape choose sweet flavours such as chocolate or candy, and 5.9% choose to vape energy or soft drink flavours.”
I note the Minister’s comments about energy drinks in last night’s debate on obesity. The impact assessment continues:
“The use of flavoured vapes in adult smokers has also increased. In 2015, most adults who vaped used tobacco flavour. However, in recent years there has been a shift, and in 2023 more adults are choosing fruit flavours (47%), as well as mint and menthol (17%), than tobacco (12%).”
I asked one of the members of the industry very early on, “Why is it that you need the flavours?” [Interruption.]
Dr Johnson
I believe before we were interrupted we were discussing clause 92, which relates to flavouring provisions. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations currently restrict certain ingredients, including colourings, caffeine and taurine, but do not restrict any combinations of flavour or flavour types. Multiple systematic reviews have found that a majority of young people are more likely to initiate vaping through flavoured vapes. The use of vapes with flavours traditionally not found in tobacco products, such as fruit and coffee, is higher among youths and young adults than older adults, highlighting that restricting flavours in vapes may reduce vaping prevalence among youths by preventing initiation.
The Government’s impact assessment for clause 92 estimates that restricting the flavour of e-liquids to tobacco only would affect a large proportion of people who vape. Among children, just 4.5% of those who vape most frequently choose tobacco or menthol-flavoured liquids. A further 0.5% reported not using flavour at all. That means that around 95% of children who vape could be affected in some way by the option of regulating the flavours of vapes.
The impact assessment goes on to note the relation- ship between a restriction on flavours and littering. Paragraph 1023 states that
“research commissioned by Material Focus found that almost 5 million disposable vapes are either littered or thrown away in general waste every week, equivalent to around 260 million a year. If the estimated reduction in demand for vaping products from Nova Scotia in Canada from restricting flavours of 12.15% is also seen in the UK, we could expect a similar reduction in the amount of vapes that are littered or thrown away in general waste. This would be equivalent to around 600,000 fewer vapes disposed of each week and around 30 million fewer each year.”
I understand that the Government have moved to ban single-use vapes. Nevertheless, the principle stands that having fewer flavours leads to fewer changes of product, and therefore to less litter.
There is also an impact assessment of enforcement of flavour restrictions. Paragraphs 1070 and 1071 of the impact assessment state:
“Any restriction of vape flavours could require additional enforcement activity to ensure that non-compliant vapes do not remain on the market…
There is also evidence from the US that enforcement of any flavour restrictions is important to ensure that it has an impact on the flavours that are used by people that vape. For example, a study based on the impact restricting flavours had on vape use in three US states found that most respondents to the survey continued to use vapes with flavours that had been banned, and out of them, over 45% had purchased them in-state stores.”
That leaves us with a difficulty. If flavours are banned but illicit products are made to look like they have different flavours in them, it will be quite difficult for enforcement officers to work out the contents of any given vape. However, as the Minister has said, the Bill only provides a regulation-making power; there are no enforcement costs arising from this particular measure, and it would be the responsibility of each local authority in England to enforce the regulations made using the powers conferred by the Bill. This matter must therefore be considered further. When writing regulations, the Minister must ensure that they are enforceable and that the necessary resources are made available to local authorities.
In its written evidence, Cancer Research UK highlights the importance of considering the motivations of smokers wanting to quit alongside the clear requirement to steer non-smokers away from beginning to vape. It states:
“It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes (through other powers in the Bill), this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described, rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.”
One of the challenges the Minister will face if he is to restrict flavours rather than banning them is which he chooses to retain. The evidence that we have heard so far is that different chemicals are used to create different flavours, which seems somewhat obvious, but it is not clear that all companies use the same chemicals to make the same flavour, or the same apparent flavour, and it is not clear which chemicals may be harmful when inhaled over a long period of time. Strawberries are eaten quite safely by most people but inhaling one is very dangerous. We know from the chief medical officer that inhalation, as a vector of bringing a substance into the body, can be more damaging than eating it. How will the Minister choose which flavours to keep, if he is going to do so?
The other reason why I disagree to an extent with Cancer Research UK is that, when I asked people in the industry directly why they need flavours, they said, “Because it helps people to continue using vapes.” I asked them what their purpose is and they said, “If somebody is smoking, their taste buds are affected by the smoking. Therefore, their ability to taste and smell things is not as great as a non-smoker.” That means that when they stop smoking and start vaping, which we want them to do, they realise after a couple of weeks that tobacco vapes taste awful and, as such, they stop using them—and that is a good thing. They decide that they do not like the taste of tobacco and so stop using the product. That is the intention of nicotine replacement therapy: the smoker starts the therapy, they continue for a short period and then they stop, after which point they are not addicted to nicotine or using anything.
It was clear from speaking to the industry representatives that individuals will begin using vapes for the flavour. If they do not like one flavour, they will go on to a different one, but they will then continue to use the product as it is more pleasant than a tobacco-flavoured one. Instead of moving them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper, to a non-user of nicotine, flavoured vapes will move them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper—and there they will stay. For the industry, they have not swapped to stop; they have swapped to continue paying the money and making the profit. I can see why that is the industry’s intention, but it is clearly not the Government’s intention or the right thing for the individual’s health. I think that is an important consideration and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it.
In its evidence, Action on Smoking and Health talks about flavour descriptors, and it is certainly true that, where flavours are retained, the descriptors will be important. ASH says that gummy bears and unicorn shake are not acceptable, and it goes on:
“In New Zealand they have set out in regulations which words can be used to describe flavours, removing descriptions such as Cotton-Candy and Bubble-Gum and replacing them with more generic flavour descriptions.”
Again, it comes back to the problem of what is in each individual flavour, which ones should be kept—if any at all—and why.
The evidence from ASH continues:
“Manufacturers must choose a maximum of two flavour descriptor words from an approved flavour list. The approved flavour list should limit the descriptors which are most popular among young people. An alternative to the New Zealand approach would be to replace product names with alpha numeric codes…For example, caramel tobacco flavour e-liquid refills can be bought garishly branded with a cartoon character on the front called Momo Salt Caramel Tobacco. Alternatively a very similar tobacco caramel vanilla salt e-liquid can be bought in plain packaging with an alphanumeric code of RY6, with the flavour components in the detail rather than the product name. Such an approach could be mandated.”
Has the Minister considered people who have allergies to all these different flavours? Has he considered whether the details of what each vape liquid contains should be put very clearly on the packaging, so that if anyone has an allergy, which can in some cases be life-threatening, they are aware of what chemicals they are using?
Gregory Stafford
We are talking about clause 92, which concerns the restriction on flavours in vapes. Children are born with tastebuds that are more aligned to sweet flavours, so clearly vapes that are flavoured with sweeter content will be more appealing to children than those that are not. I therefore support the Government’s intention to ensure that, as far as possible, children are not tempted to purchase or are not given vapes under age. Children copy what adults do. They think that it is “cool” to copy things that adults can do that children are technically not allowed to do under the law.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is probably much younger than me, but does he remember the sweets that were like little cigarettes, from when we were children?
Gregory Stafford
I am considerably younger—no, that is not true at all, and I certainly do not look it. I do remember the sugar things that look like cigarettes, and although I have said previously that I have never smoked anything, or smoked tobacco, clearly when we had those, we all pretended that we were smoking stuff, because, again, it looked “cool”.
When we were children, we forced ourselves to ingest things that we did not like the taste of; I am sure that we can all remember the first time we had a cup of coffee or, for most of us, a beer. We did not actually like the taste, but we pretended to like it until our neural pathways developed in such a way that we genuinely started to enjoy the bitterness and mildly caustic sensation that we experienced. It is also true that girls have a greater sensitivity to sugar and sweet flavours than boys do. That said, children crave, and are craving even more so these days, sweet flavours—often because they have a diet of processed foods that contain more sugar and salt, which train their tastebuds to be even more addicted, for want of a better phrase, to those sweet flavours.
Research shows that flavoured tobacco products, especially menthol and fruit-based flavours, make smoking more appealing to young people. We have heard about studies from around the world. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the States found that 80% of young people who use tobacco started with a flavoured product. By regulating the flavours, clause 92 aims to curb that youth smoking initiation and promote healthier choices.
The clause aligns us with international standards. The hon. Member for City of Durham has already mentioned Canada, and the European Union has also implemented bans on flavoured tobacco products. Canada saw a 32% decline in youth smoking rates following a ban on menthol cigarettes, and we have also banned menthol cigarettes in this country.
However, the Minister needs to consider a study— I think it was in The Lancet—that showed that, despite the ban on menthol cigarettes, the number of people who ingest tobacco via menthol-flavoured means has not diminished significantly in the UK. That is not because they are buying menthol cigarettes illegally or through illicit means, but because the manufacturers have found ways of putting that menthol-based flavour into the products. That can include things such as filters and other things. Indeed, I googled this before I came into the Committee, and I can buy cigarettes—it said, “Great news! There are some great menthol cigarette alternatives available to shop for here.” Presumably that is totally legal and I could buy them in the UK.
My point is that the industry will try to get round the Government’s good intentions to ban menthol and other flavours in the vapes market. How does this legislation ensure that any kind of adaptation to a vape that can inject a flavour into it, not just the flavour of the product, is restricted and does not happen?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he agree that the Minister will have a huge challenge in working out which flavours to choose, if he is going to choose from some? Perhaps he is deciding whether he has banana or cherry, but if we do not know whether the banana flavour or the cherry flavour is the least harmful to the individual, which do we know to recommend to the smoker who is trying to quit?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which she has already made during her interventions on this clause. It is vital to understand what is in the chemical make-up of the different flavours when the Minister is making those decisions.
That brings me neatly on to my next point, which is about the flavours themselves. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister have raised unicorn milk, tutti-frutti and bubble gum flavours and all those kinds of things. I suggest to the Minister that it is less the flavour itself that appeals to children—as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, I do not know what unicorn milk tastes like, and I doubt any child does either—but that the phraseology “unicorn milk” sounds exciting and appealing to a child, whereas orange or banana may be less exciting.
When the Minister looks at this issue, I suggest that he looks not necessarily to ban a flavour, but to ban the naming and descriptions of those flavours, which are clearly appealing to children. If someone is looking to stop smoking and is using a vape to do so, it is not unreasonable that they should know whether what they are buying is orange, blackberry or strawberry-flavoured, whereas the terminology being used, which we have discussed in this debate already, appeals to children.
I will bring my remarks to a close. I obviously agree with the Government’s intention to target specific flavours that appeal to young people to preserve harm reduction, but we need to monitor and assess the impact of that regulation over time. When the Minister winds up the debate on the clause, will he give some indication of how that analysis and the impact assessment of the bans on specific flavours has impacted on smoking cessation, hopefully stopping children being dragged into vaping?
Andrew Gwynne
Let me start with the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on the need for agility. I have argued in respect to a number of clauses that we have to be agile. That is why the Bill is permissive in nature. It grants powers to Ministers to consult and bring forward secondary legislation at further stages. It also allows Ministers to amend the regulations, if set, or to introduce new ones if not at a future date, without having to go back through the primary legislation processes, to make the Bill always fit for purpose and for the future.
That is the case in clause 92. As I said in opening, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit smoking. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, the scope and impact of any future restrictions will have to be carefully considered by Parliament, following consultation, in secondary legislation. We will consult further on any regulations on flavours before they are laid in Parliament. This is really important—I can assure Members that we are not saying here and now what the changes are likely to be. We want them to be considered based on the evidence and consultation, because we want to get the balance right between preventing youth vaping and not having the unintended consequence of pushing people away from vapes as a smoking cessation tool, thereby missing our ambition for Smokefree 2030.
Dr Johnson
Can the Minister give us some timescales for the consultation and explain the various details that it will add to the consultation done by the previous Government?
Andrew Gwynne
Again, the shadow Minister is skipping ahead of herself. We have to get these powers through Parliament. I cannot tell her the scope or extent of the consultation, the consultees, or the nature of the restrictions we may seek to bring before Members, because Ministers do not have those powers yet. All I can do is give her assurances that these matters will be looked at, at speed and within good time, to bring a set of regulations before a Delegated Legislation Committee in due course.
We want to get the balance right, as Members across the House have amplified not just in this debate but throughout the course of proceedings on the Bill, because these are big changes, and they are landmark changes. If we get them right, they will do everything we aspire the Bill to do not just in tackling child and youth vaping, but reaching a Smokefree 2030. If we get them wrong, we could end up with smoking rates increasing, which is not what we want to see. We could see children starting to smoke again, which is absolutely not what we want to see. We could see all the work done in recent decades start to be undone. That is not the ambition or aim of the Bill. The aim and ambition of the Bill is to make smoking history and crack down on the scourge of youth vaping. I believe that if we get the regulations right, we will meet that aim. That is a good thing.
Dr Johnson
Clause 93 is somewhat interestingly titled, but what does it do? Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to create regulations that concern
“the nature and amount of the substances that may be released into the body of a person”
using the following: tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Subsection (2) states that the regulations may impose “prohibitions, requirements or limitations” on the “production, importation or supply” of these products in “the course of business.”
Subsection (3) clarifies that the regulations may specify how
“the nature and amount of substances or emissions released by a product are to be determined”
potentially by an authorised person designated by the Secretary of State. Again, the Minister may have comments on how the Secretary of State would choose such an individual.
Subsection (4) specifies that that these regulations will also be
“subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This means there will be a vote in Parliament. In relation to this, section 13 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 currently sets a maximum permitted emission level for cigarettes that are produced by the manufacturer for export in the UK. Section 36 of that regulation sets out product requirements for e-cigarettes and refill containers, including current maximum nicotine quantities.
Paragraph 1403 of the impact assessment produced by the Government in relation to the Bill states,
“Currently, to supply certain tobacco, herbal, and nicotine vape products on the…market you must first notify your product. Producers must provide data such as the name and contact details of the person who manufactures the product, a list of all ingredients contained in the product, emissions resulting from its use, as well as toxicological data and a declaration that the producer bears full responsibility for the quality and safety of the product when supplied.”
In the UK, the EU tobacco products directive and the UK’s nicotine inhalation system regulations aim to control what substances are present in nicotine products. For example, e-liquids are capped at 20 mg per ml of nicotine strength, and that aims to reduce the addictive potential of vaping products. That said, I am aware of a scandal that broke in 2023 involving the widescale overfilling of vaping products by Elfbar, which required a media investigation to expose. I would be interested to know, first, how the new clause differs from previous legislation in its effect and, secondly, how the Minister intends to enforce it so that misdeeds such as the overfilling of vapes cannot occur again on the scale they have before.
There are also questions about the amount of nicotine in things such as nicotine pouches, and there has been the suggestion of limits to those as well. I ask the Minister, when he is thinking about that in relation to regulations under clause 93, to consider that, although a normal cigarette reportedly contains between 8 mg and 20 mg of nicotine, the individual smoking the cigarette absorbs only a fraction of that—around 1 mg to 2 mg per cigarette. The suggestion that pouches contain 20 mg of nicotine would lead one to believe that the level is extremely high and would add to the addiction and the dependency, but the Minister should consider the limits on how much nicotine is in the nicotine pouch or other nicotine products in accordance with that. We would not wish to push an individual away from a product that is harmful and addictive on to another product that is possibly harmful and more addictive.
I would also be interested to know how, if at all, the Government intend to exercise the powers in clause 93. There are several additives that could be reduced or removed from tobacco products with significant benefit to the smoker. I will give just two examples of chemicals that could be limited under the clause. Ammonia compounds, such as ammonium hydroxide, are used to enhance nicotine delivery to the smoker. Ammonia increases the pH of the smoke, making nicotine more readily absorbed by the lungs. This enhances the addictive properties of cigarettes by increasing the hit of the nicotine. Ammonia and its compounds are toxic, and exposure can cause respiratory problems, as well as irritation to the eyes throat. The use of ammonia compounds also contributes to the overall toxicity of the smoke, as ammonia can form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. Reducing or removing the ammonia compounds would not only mitigate these risks, but reduce the addictive potential of cigarettes by reducing the introduction of nicotine without changing their basic function.
Butane is the second substance I want to talk about. Some Members may recall it as a lighter fluid, but it is sometimes used as a chemical accelerant to aid the burn rate of tobacco. Butane helps to maintain an even burn rate throughout the cigarette, ensuring it does not go out prematurely—potentially risky. Butane is toxic, causing particular damage to the lungs and to the nervous system when inhaled. The removal of butane or its replacement with less harmful alternatives would likely not change the cigarette’s function significantly; the burn rate can still be controlled, but the risk of exposure to toxic gases will be reduced. I urge the Minister, as we look to create a smoke-free generation, not to forget those individuals in society who are already addicted to this dreadful habit, and to do what he can to ameliorate the risks to them, either by reducing the harm of the cigarette itself or by encouraging people to quit the habit.
The other question I have for the Minister with regard to clause 93 is: what are the penalties? If someone breaks the rules, if a business is found to be breaching the regulations for how much nicotine is allowed in a product or the concentration, or for how big the tank is or what the components are, what will be the penalties? Companies, largely, will be incurring the penalties, as we have talked about before. The deterrent may need to be quite a large fine in order to make a breach not worth their while.
Gregory Stafford
The clause in essence allows the Secretary of State to regulate emissions from tobacco and nicotine products, ensuring that harmful substances released during use are controlled. This is a vital measure to protect smokers and non-smokers from hazardous emissions. My first question is on that last point: can the Minister confirm that the regulations will be designed to protect those who suffer from second-hand smoke? The evidence on vaping is weak, and the evidence on the effects of second-hand inhalation of vapour from vapes is even weaker, but some studies suggest that it is dangerous, especially given that, according to Public Health England, while cigarette smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, 70 of which are known to be carcinogens, there are significant problems—as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said—from the chemicals that are, and potentially could be, in the vapes.
The clause ensures that the regulations can limit the release of those toxic substances and therefore reduce health risks for the users and those exposed to the second-hand smoke. We know that second-hand smoke causes serious health issues, including heart disease and lung cancer. Studies from the World Health Organisation suggest that exposure to second-hand smoke is responsible for 1.2 million deaths globally each year; I suppose, in the world’s population, that does not sound like a vast number, but given the fact that those people have done absolutely nothing wrong and are often, unfortunately, children and young people who suffer smoke from their parents and carers, I think it is worth controlling and regulating. Stronger emission controls would definitely reduce those deaths. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, while vaping has been deemed less harmful than smoking, concerns remain about long-term exposure to certain chemicals in the e-liquids. The clause allows regulators continually to assess and update guidelines on vaping emissions—I welcome that—to reflect the latest scientific advice.
I am certain that the industry will push back on this measure, as they have done on many other points, but I hope that the Government are ready for any possible legal challenges on the regulations when they are brought in. Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes or vapes have a vast array of formulations, and therefore creating effective regulatory standards that balance the harm reduction with the safety will be complex. Will the Minister outline how he intends to go about that once the regulations are in place?
Dr Johnson
The clause deals with non-compliant images, and subsection (1) grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. There is a theme here—the Secretary of State is gaining a lot of powers to make regulations, but it is not clear to what extent he will use them. We could end up with a very effective piece of legislation or not, depending on how effectively these clauses are used.
The clause states:
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from doing the following in the course of business—
(a) publishing an image of the retail packaging of a relevant product”
—that includes tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarettes, vapes and nicotine products—
“from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 90 have not been complied with;”.
Essentially, this is a packet that does not follow the rules. The clause continues:
“(b) publishing an image of a relevant product from which it is possible to tell that the requirements of regulations under section 91 have not been complied with;”.
That might be publishing a picture of a vape shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants—assuming that the Minister decides that that is not a suitable form for a vape to take—or
“causing the publication of an image of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).”
Subsection (3) states:
“Regulations…are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
The explanatory notes set out that the clause means that an online retailer would not be able to display images of non-compliant products. As we discussed earlier, it is important that we ensure that online retailers are subject to the same regulations as in-person retailers about what they can and cannot sell. Otherwise, the rule will be ineffective, because people will still access these things by simply moving online to buy them, rather than buying them in stores. From my perspective, that is welcome.
I will make a couple of other points. Although the clause authorises the Secretary of State to regulate non-compliant images, it leaves the process of enforcement somewhat open-ended. There may be inconsistencies in how regulations are applied or enforced across different sectors or different regions, especially as the clause refers broadly to various product categories.
More widely, I would be interested to know how the clause might relate to clothing. The clothing brand MCS, formerly known as Marlboro Classics, made extensive use of Marlboro branding, employing the iconic lettering and colouring on its clothes. I understand that MCS has since distanced itself from its roots and rebranded under a new parent company. Many of its older clothes can still be found in vintage clothes shops. Many of them display tobacco product branding, as might old football or Formula One merchandise from the times when those sports received sponsorship from tobacco firms. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how such products might be affected by the regulations.
Finally, does the Minister intend the regulations to confer an exemption on law enforcement officers who may wish to produce such images to demonstrate and educate retailers about what sort of images they may or may not be allowed to publish?
Sarah Bool
Thinking about the more modern age, I want to explore how the clause would apply to social media and television.
The clause states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from…publishing an image of the retail packaging”
and from
“publishing an image of a relevant product”.
There is not really a definition of image. My first question is this: does the clause apply to moving images, such as those on television?
I almost cannot believe that I am saying this in the House of Commons, but the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special was very popular and contained a scene where a main character, Nessa, was smoking and vaping simultaneously. I wondered about the wider implication for the arts. How will it work in practice when we are trying to prohibit things? How will the BBC deal with it—perhaps it will come under licensing—and how will other media outlets deal with it?
I have a further point about younger children and young adults, given that we are in the social media age. The clause will
“prohibit a person from doing”
certain things
“in the course of business”.
On Instagram, there are influencers. Obviously, their work is monetised; they will be paid for promoting products, or just for general clicks and likes. I wonder how the provisions will work in practice for social media, if they apply to videos as well. A very popular trend is videos in which people unwrap products with the sound up, for the ASMR—autonomous sensory meridian response—qualities. Basically, the sounds of unwrapping can be very relaxing for followers to listen to. Such videos are incredibly popular, and there are thousands of them. I wonder how the measures will impact them. If influencers are making videos for that purpose, will they be caught by the clause? If so, how will we prohibit such activity, especially on social media?
Sarah Bool
I was going to ask that as well, because around the concept of publishing there is a big debate about social media—is X a publishing platform or a form of conversation? There is no definition that I can see of what publish means, nor a specific definition of what image means. I am trying to work it through and find out whether there are loopholes, and how they will play out in the modern age. I want to make sure the provisions are at their most effective. I can understand that if an influencer posts a picture, they have to make sure it complies with the rules, but how does that apply in the wider context? Perhaps I am over-examining, but I can imagine where this could go, and some clarity around from the Minister that would be interesting.
Andrew Gwynne
Again, that is the beauty of the permissive nature of this Bill. Where loopholes are being exploited, Ministers will be able to come back to Parliament with a simple piece of secondary legislation, through a Delegated Legislation Committee. The shadow Minister said that secondary legislation does not quite get the scrutiny of a Bill, but it does get up to 90 minutes —I am sure she would find it easy enough to fill that. There is therefore scrutiny of secondary legislation.
We are very aware of this issue, which is why I have signed off the anti-youth vaping campaign on TikTok, which will hopefully be going out fairly soon.
Dr Johnson
I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking on social media platforms to discourage young people from vaping; that is a very welcome intervention. Given that he has appeared in LADbible articles, I am curious to know whether he will appear in the TikTok videos. I do not have a TikTok account, but it might almost be worth joining to watch them—I think that would be great.
How does clause 94 relate to the advertising clauses, which we have not discussed yet but will discuss later? Presumably, if an influencer is receiving revenue, they are effectively advertising a product.
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether my social media clips from this Committee or any other parliamentary proceedings are quite made for TikTok, but who knows?
Andrew Gwynne
The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a register for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products for their permitted supply in the UK. That will improve the existing regime, which has separate notification processes for tobacco products and nicotine vapes. Non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products are not currently required to be notified. The clause will give the Government the power to establish a registration scheme covering all these products.
Currently, before they can sell nicotine vapes and tobacco products on the UK market, producers must notify their products to the relevant authority. For nicotine vapes, that is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, and for tobacco products it is the Department of Health and Social Care. That is meant to help to ensure that products comply with our regulations and that retailers are confident that they are selling notified and regulated products. However, there are weaknesses with those systems, and both fail to support enforcement agencies adequately. The clause allows us to establish a more robust scheme for the registration of products. The details of the scheme will be set out in regulations and subject to consultation.
However, in future, if a trading standards officer found a product to be different from its registration details, that product could be eligible for removal from the register until the information is updated. That will greatly improve the confidence of enforcement agencies in addressing issues with non-compliance. Unless they are well regulated, these products can be harmful, particularly for young people. Establishing a new registration system will play an important part in compliance to make sure that products meet the regulatory requirements and are safe for consumers, and it will improve retailer confidence in the products they are selling. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 95 relates to the registration and information requirements of the relevant products. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 require producers to notify the Government when they place or intend to place nicotine-containing vapes in refill containers and tobacco products in the UK market. Regulation 31 deals with refill containers and regulation 22 deals with tobacco products. Producers must make their submissions to DHSC for products to be sold in England, whereas in Scotland, the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for publishing these notifications.
Is the MHRA the right organisation for this? We heard in evidence that when some consumers see that a product has been regulated by the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, they believe the product to have been medically tested for safety, which is not the case. They are not tested to the same standard as the other products that the MHRA tests, such as medicines to be prescribed by the doctor or chemist. It is misleading; I wonder whether the Minister also thinks it is misleading. In her evidence, Dr Laura Squire said that it concerned her. For Northern Ireland, the EU common entry gate for producers can be used to place products on the Northern Ireland market. The notification does not currently apply to nicotine-containing vapes and refill containers, so this clause is an improvement.
Clause 95(1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a register for products such as tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Subsection (2) provides that these regulations
“may impose prohibitions or limitations on the supply of an unregistered product in the course of business.”
Subsection (3) outlines the matters that the regulations may address, including who will maintain the register, who will be eligible to be registered, and the need for producers to provide information to the registrar. Regulations may also cover the content of the register, the expiry, renewal, cancellation or suspension of a product’s registration, and the publication of the register. Furthermore, the regulations may set fees for registration or continued registration, which could be used to cover the cost of administering the provisions.
We heard in evidence that although products are registered, there is no ongoing monitoring of those registered products. We have seen examples where even supermarkets have been selling products that did not meet the requirements of notification. What will the Minister do to ensure that the regulations he produces can be adequately adhered to and enforced?
Subsection (4) specifies that regulations made under the clause may require producers to provide various types of information, such as reasons for including ingredients in a product, images of the product or its packaging, information about the risks, details about substances released into the body, information about the producer’s operations, and details about any nominated responsible person. That all sounds sensible, but we are asking the industry to mark its own homework. I wonder if the Minister has any comments on how reliable industry-provided information might be on some of these, particularly in relation to risk, because the history of the industry is not strong in that area.
Subsection (5) clarifies that the regulations may allow the retention of payment of register fees into the Consolidated Fund, which we discussed last week. Subsection (6) reiterates that the regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have also talked about.
What is the rationale for the intervention in this clause? As I understand it, to support a compliant market, it is important that we have products that are registered and can be shown to meet the regulations. This clause will help to ensure that legitimate products are available to sale and will let retailers know what the products are.
Gregory Stafford
It is not currently clear to me what this clause means by a “product”. Does the shadow Minister feel that it is a specific product, potentially with a brand name, or a product that fits within a set of standards or regulations? For example, is this regulating precisely “Bob Smith’s vape”, and somebody else’s vape? Or do the regulations provide that a vape with a certain length, with a certain number of milligrams of nicotine in it, with a certain dispensing unit, will be compliant and therefore anybody who produces a vape that fits within those specifications will be compliant? Or is it that every single producer of every single vape and product will have to register with the relevant authorities?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I guess that some of that will come under the regulations that the Minister would produce under this clause. The products are defined as tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products, so I guess anything that falls into those categories would need to be registered. However, as we have seen already, simply registering a product does not necessarily say that it is safe, or even necessarily guarantee that it contains what it says it contains. It is potentially helpful to have the ingredients, to know what people have consumed, but having something registered with the MHRA may suggest to some consumers that there is a safety check that has not been done here.
Tristan Osborne
In relation to the MHRA, we know from our brief look at the data that one in three products contains impurities. That is data that is currently provided. We absolutely accept that we need a robust regulatory environment. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that the regulator should, or should not, be the MHRA, in this case?
Dr Johnson
I am suggesting that there is a difference between regulating a product as a medicine, which requires stringent steps, and a statement of what the product does, the effect it is going to have on the body, the claims made about it, and why it is safe, or safer than having the problem that it is treating. Some drugs make people quite unwell but people are willing to trade off being unwell for being cured. For example, cancer drugs make people very poorly at times, but it is considered better to have chemotherapy than cancer, because cancer leads to fatality. That process lets a consumer know that the product has been robustly tested and that the quality is there. On an ongoing basis, someone is checking that the paracetamol bought from a supermarket contains the ingredients that it says it contains on the packet. This notification process does not do that. It says to a company, “Come along and tell us what’s in it. We’ll believe you. Thank you very much. We’re not going to check and we’ll hope it’s all right.” That is a weak process.
It is not surprising that there is a weaker process for a consumer product than for a medical product. However, having it also done by the MHRA could lead consumers to believe that the vapes have gone through the first process and not the second process. I think that is misleading—some of the Minister’s hon. Friends are nodding vigorously—and was something brought up by the MHRA itself in response to, I think, my question. The MHRA answered that this could mislead consumers to think that it is medical regulation of vapes when it is not. There is only a point in having a register if it will be used to achieve something. Having a list of stuff does not make a great deal of difference if no one is going to check that the list is accurate, and I cannot see that there is any great step to say that the list is accurate. What comes with a register is important, as well as the register itself.
The rationale, as I understand it, of the register is to support the compliant market by having products registered and shown to be meeting the regulations. Again, I understand that this registers that a company has said that it complies with the regulations but I cannot see where the provisions say that there is anyone checking. That may be something that the Minister will add, maybe in relation to later clauses.
The aim of the register is to help to ensure legitimate products are available for sale, and to let retailers know what they are. When a retailer—a chap running a corner shop—wants to buy some of these products to sell, and he has a licence, and he has checked people’s ages under the provisions of the earlier clauses, and he wants to sell the product, he wants reassurance that the product is genuine and not illicit. Checking this register for that product would be a step that a reasonable retailer can take to check the product is legit, or at least said to be legit.
Both industry and enforcement agencies have asked the Government to update the current notification systems. Although that was not part of the consultation process, I understand—and the Minister can perhaps clarify this—that subsequent consultation will be required to better inform the new registration system and its implementation.
The Government would like to ensure that non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products being sold in the UK market are subject to the current notification requirements of nicotine vapes. That is in line with the consultation undertaken by the previous Government in 2023, when the majority of responses were in favour of regulating all non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products under a similar regulatory framework as nicotine vapes. Again, I ask the Minister to consider whether the MHRA is the best organisation to be providing that service if it is not doing what most of the public may consider it is doing?
At the moment, if enforcement agencies find that the product is notified as not being compliant with regulations, they are unable to update the notification accordingly. The new powers will ensure that the register of products can be updated, and therefore that items can be removed if they are not meeting requirements. To ensure that we can effectively monitor the products and support enforcement, it is necessary for the Government to have the power to introduce the registration regime. I am not against the principle of that, but I think it needs to be well thought through. Perhaps it will be when it comes to the regulations in the statutory instrument—when we no doubt meet again. Adding regulations in general is not necessarily a welcome thing, but in that case it may be useful.
There will be some costs to industry, due to measures including product registration requirements, particularly on non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products. That may put off producers with lower standards and may improve the general safety standard of the industry, but it is also possible that those with lower standards will not bother, so the Minister needs to explain what the plan is for that—and also the plans for factories.
The registration requirements will also mean that consumers can access more information on non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products. I ask the Minister: will consumers have access to the information on what all the ingredients are? Will there be thought given to people with allergies who wish to use those products? There may be a cost to companies that have to request information from their suppliers and gather existing data on non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products. Companies will also have to spend resources on completing the required paperwork.
Based on the impact assessment for the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, I understand that the Government expect those tasks to take between 10 and 15 hours per notification, plus or minus any translations or translation costs that may be required. Given that any companies notifying the UK will be selling or operating in the UK, translation costs should be negligible. Therefore, it will be 10 to 15 hours work, plus currently a small fee of £150 to notify of a nicotine-containing vape product. There is also a fee for tobacco and herbal products set at £200, a fee for any modifications at £100, and a further annual reporting fee of £100.
A new fee will be imposed to register products, which will likely be in line with the current fees for tobacco, herbal and nicotine-vape products. Non-nicotine vape products and other nicotine products that were not subject to notification of fees will be charged a fee to register, with the amount to be determined through further consultation. That is another case where essentially what is happening is that the Government are taking a lot of power to do things, but not being terribly explicit about what they intend to do with them. While the Minister said that he is going to go like the clappers, we still have no clear indication of how fast those clappers are clapping away.
For potential new information requirements, there may be additional costs with acquiring that information. Some manufacturers may already collect new information, in which case there will be no additional costs other than staff time spent collating and submitting. Those costs may be more burdensome for smaller companies. The changes will be achieved through secondary legislation, which will be subject to consultation to determine what information should be notified, how the registration will operate, the process for any non-publication of notification and the level of fees associated with costs administering the system.
The impact assessment says that the Bill will also give the industry enough time for businesses to make any changes before the future regulations come into force. Again, the Government are saying that they are going to give enough time, and they are going to go like the clappers. But how fast are the clappers going and how much time is enough for industry? I still do not think we have any idea.
I have a couple of questions. In subsection (3)(a), where the regulations make a provision about who is to keep the register, will the Government clarify what that Government body or third-party private entity will be? Will it be the MHRA, or will it be something else?
Subsection (3)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to regulate eligibility for registration. There is room for debate about what constitutes eligibility and whether small businesses or new entrants will face excessive regulatory hurdles. The power may also raise concerns about what happens if a product or business fails to meet the requirements. Will they be shut out of the market? Will they be forced to make changes? How will that work?
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4) require producers to provide information about potential risks to human health and substances released by products, but the wording is relatively broad and could raise questions about how tobacco and nicotine product manufacturers will assess and report risks. What level of scientific evidence will be required? How will they balance transparency with proprietary information or concerns about trade secrets? What will happen if the product risk assessment is disputed, and how will disputes be resolved?
We may have a situation where the vape manufacturer says that their product and the flavourings are safe but the evidence from medical professionals suggests otherwise. Will they provide the information themselves or will they fund other people to do it? Will that be done under a general pool, or will it be specific to that product at that time? How much influence will the industry have over the results? If we ask a specific question, we will get closer to the answer we want.
In the case of vaping products specifically, the health risks are not yet fully known. It is fair to say that there is some debate on the matter, even among respected authorities. The American Lung Association claims that vaping is linked to a condition called popcorn lung, and the Harvard Medical School lists popcorn lung under the risks of vaping. However, the NHS and Cancer Research assert that vaping does not cause popcorn lung, so there is a dispute. Clearly, more research is needed, but in the meantime how will the regulations in the clause address an issue like this?
Subsection (5) introduces the idea of fees for registration, including provisions that allow the fees collected to reflect the cost of regulation. It raises issues about how the fees may affect small and independent producers in a market that is taxed. Do we have any indication about what the fees may be? Could the cost of registration become prohibitive for small companies and push them out of the market? Will there be mechanisms to ensure that the fees are not too burdensome for newer and small businesses, or is the intention to limit the number of products on the market by making the fees higher so that we get a smaller number of products and are therefore more able to regulate and assess what is in each of them?
Andrew Gwynne
I welcome this debate because it raises some important questions. First, we have had a long discussion about the MHRA, and under the existing legislation it is the appropriate body. I want to make one thing very clear by emphasising the point that the shadow Minister rightly made and that the MHRA also made in giving evidence to us on the first day of the Committee: no medically approved vape is available. Vapes being registered through the MHRA does not make them medically approved for health purposes. It is really important to keep emphasising that no vape currently available in shops in any part of the United Kingdom is medically approved for health purposes by the MHRA.
I take very seriously the point the shadow Minister makes about whether the MHRA is the appropriate body going forward for this aspect of the registration scheme. We are considering how a more rigorous registration scheme can best be delivered given the nature of these products, which I again emphasise are not healthcare products. We are scoping a potential new home for the registration scheme. Officials at DHSC and the Office for Product Safety and Standards have already met to discuss learning and best practice from other product registration schemes. I hope that gives some hope to Members. While the MHRA is currently the appropriate body, at some stage we might well decide that it is not necessarily the best place for this new registration scheme to sit.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that. I am grateful that he is looking for a new home for the regulation that more accurately reflects what is being done.
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, that is absolutely the case.
On the shadow Minister’s question about the ingredients in the vape—or any other product, for that matter—if those turn out to be different from those in the register, I reiterate that the product could be eligible for complete removal from the register until the information is updated. That is precisely the measure that enforcement agencies have asked for to give them the greater clout that they need when it comes to non-compliance: once those products are removed from the register, they would not be permitted for sale—end of.
Dr Johnson
Let us look back to the issues of the Elfbar items that had, as I understand it, a higher number of milligrams per millilitre—certainly a higher nicotine content—than they were supposed to. If there is no penalty other than being removed from the register until the information is updated, could not someone less reputable say, “Well, I’ll put on what I want to put on; if I get caught, I will at that point say what is really in it and go straight back on the market”? Is a period of not being able to sell the product envisaged? Is a stiff fine envisaged? What is the penalty envisaged or will the register simply have to be updated?
Andrew Gwynne
As the clause stands, the product would be removed from the register and could not be sold. Alongside that, we aim to establish a testing regime to check regularly that products on the shelves are what they say they are. That will help to support overall enforcement and ensure that all registered products are safe for consumers. As with other matters, all will be set out in regulations, subject to consultation. Ultimately, all this is down to the regulation-making powers. All of part 5 basically sets out the framework for what can be done in future, subject to regulations.
On the point about ingredients—the shadow Minister made this point twice, in particular about people who may be allergic to certain aspects of the ingredients in a product—under the TRPR, products already need to list the ingredients. We have sought to introduce powers, which we covered during our debates on the earlier clauses, whereby Ministers would be able to request even more information on packets or products, should that be deemed necessary. We have the measures already in place through the TRPR on publishing the ingredients. Were Ministers in future to decide that a particular compound was highly allergic to certain people so there needed to be further warnings on packets, they would have the power to make the necessary alteration through the usual processes of consultation and secondary legislation.
Dr Johnson
Will the Minister clarify whether the regulations require someone to print the ingredients in full on the vape packet, on the vape itself, on a website or on all three?
Andrew Gwynne
I will get back to the shadow Minister on that because I suspect that the House is about to divide, and I need a bit of inspiration from the box on the exact answer. I would not want to mislead the Committee inadvertently.
Clause 103 covers offences to provide false or misleading information. It will allow for the punishment of imprisonment or a fine, or both. I hope that covers the concern.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind colleagues that thus far we have done eight clauses and amendments. Before the end of today, I understand, in effect we have another 50 clauses, schedules and amendments to go. Everyone should be on the same page with regards to that.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Did you say 50 or 15? The reason I ask is that about 50 clauses remain to be discussed and about three days are still allocated to that purpose.
The Chair
I make no comment on the scheduling; I am just bringing people’s attention to the fact that that is the proposal for today, so that people are aware. I am not making any comment on it other than for people to be aware that that is what I understand the intention to be.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. To make the Committee aware, that proposal has not been shared.
Taiwo Owatemi
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I made it very clear that I was not going to accept that proposal, and I explained last week why not. Again, I outlined the Government proposal. The counteroffer did not meet halfway; in essence, it stuck to the Opposition proposals. At the end of the day, I decided that we had a clear target of what we are trying to achieve, and we wanted to give Members reasonable time to discuss the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I am confused about what the Opposition wish to achieve—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Government. It was the Government’s programme motion, which the Government produced and in which the Government suggested that we had a certain number of days and sittings. The Government had the numbers to decide how many sittings were allocated. Having allocated all those sittings, why have the Government suddenly decided that they want to complete the Bill in Committee three days early?
Taiwo Owatemi
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. We want the Committee to be able to discuss the new clauses. We are not finishing today; we are just trying to get to the new clauses, which will still need to be debated.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. Will the Chair clarify how many new clauses there are, and how many of the new clauses have already been debated?
The Chair
May I get this absolutely clear? My intention was simply to tell Members what I understood the situation to be. It is not for me to make any judgments at all. It was just to give an indication, in effect, that we are moving on to amendment 6 and that I understand that the intention for today is to get to schedule 21. That is all. Frankly, I do not know how many new clauses we will be dealing with in due course. Tonight, I am focused on, for Members’ benefit, everyone’s understanding that that is the intention. I do that purely for Members to get the gist of what is going on. I make no judgment on it at all. It is not a matter for the Chair to make any such judgment. That is how I understand the position.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. To clarify, there are 10 new clauses and we have already debated: new clause 1, when we were debating clause 91 earlier today; new clause 3, which we debated with clause 1; and new clause 10, which we debated with clause 10. That means that the Government have made a decision —I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that they will need to do seven new clauses over a period of three days, and all the remaining 50 clauses this evening. I am not sure that that is a reasonable expectation of civil service and House staff.
Jim Dickson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
Amendments 6 to 9 stand in my name and I will endeavour to speak to them quickly in the light of the discussion we have just had. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations that, in turn, require the producers of tobacco products and other related products to provide sales data by geographical area, and require the publication of such data.
Tobacco companies collect rich data on the sales of their products, which is used for commercial purposes. Many times in Committee, we have heard how smoking is now spread unequally across our communities, with people in deprived areas being far more likely to smoke. Data is collected by companies on their sales and distribution, and could be put to better use to inform public health responses. In my case, as cabinet member for health in a London borough, I know my director of public health would have found that data incredibly useful to shape local policy.
Such data could also help researchers get better insights into tactics used by the industry to subvert price policies, thereby informing tax policy in the area and consultations on a “polluter pays” levy, which the Committee will be considering with new clause 2. The data would enable local authorities to get better insights into what is happening with sales in their area and to identify possible upticks in illicit tobacco use. There may be National Trading Standards’ uses for such data to support enforcement activity and improve the intelligence that local authorities have available to assess local problems with illicit sales.
We know that manufacturers change their sales tactics regularly. In a written submission to the Committee, Action on Smoking and Health provided an example of how access to the data could aid policy. It states in its submission that it has recently identified that cigarillos—small cigars—
“are increasing in use among young people. With timely access to industry sales data public health agencies and researchers could have identified this trend far more quickly”
and acted to do something about it. It continues:
“These products have fewer restrictions on them than other tobacco products, something that will be addressed”
by the Bill,
“but lack of knowledge has inhibited swift public health response.”
A lot of this data is shrouded in secrecy, and I hope that the Committee agrees that requiring the industry to make it public could support public health endeavours. I am sure that Philip Morris International, which submitted evidence to us, would agree that the company is committed to delivering a smoke-free future. This is one way the industry could help, but the Government should require it to do so.
Dr Johnson
May I clarify, Mr Dowd, that you wish amendments 6 to 9 and clauses 96 to 98 stand part to be debated together?
Dr Johnson
Thank you. I also point out that last Thursday the Opposition Whip put forward sensible proposals, and we finished to time on the clauses that were required to be assessed, so we can act very reasonably when we are asked to.
Amendments 6 to 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Dartford, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring producers of tobacco products and other products covered by the Bill to provide sales data by geographical area, and would require the publication of such data. I am not clear how widely the hon. Gentleman wants the data to be published. Does he want it to be published and available on the internet, or does he want it to be provided just to the Government? Perhaps he could clarify his intentions.
I am not sure how helpful the hon. Gentleman thinks this measure will be, because people do not necessarily consume where they purchase. The figures for a major service station, for example—perhaps where the M1 meets the M25—could really skew the data that he intends to be collected. Data from around King’s Cross may reflect people having a cigarette before they leave on a long journey, and the same may be true at airports. Does he have a view on the effect of that, or how it would be mitigated?
Jim Dickson
Of course, occasionally there would be outlets for which the data is less useful, but if we looked at outlets in deprived areas—shops on estates, for example—and saw an uptick in a particular type of product being bought in the area, I think we could make a reasonable assumption that those products were being consumed pretty close to the place of purchase, and that would tell us something about trends in product use. That might tell us something very useful for public health purposes, if we were trying to promote smoking cessation or a decline in the use of particular products in the area.
Dr Johnson
I understand and support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. He seeks to ensure that individuals who smoke can be encouraged to quit, and to look at where products are sold more frequently as a way of trying to do that, but I wonder whether this data is, in effect, already collected by survey, and whether it would be a burden on businesses to require them to provide sales data. Does he envisage that the tobacco and vape companies themselves would provide data on which retailers they have supplied? Depending on how much stock a retailer is holding, that will not necessarily tell him how much has been sold. Or does he envisage that every corner shop would submit data to the Government? How much would it cost to process that data, and would it really tell us things we do not already know?
Jim Dickson
I can deal with that very quickly. We would be looking for the companies to publish the data they collect, broken down geographically, and to give us an idea of the volume of their sales, including of particular products. That is all information they hold already; we are merely suggesting that the Government should require them to publish it in that form, which would be particularly useful to public health professionals and, we think, for trading standards enforcement.
Dr Johnson
I support the hon. Gentleman’s aims, but can he clarify whether he intends the data to be published widely or just shared with the Government for the purposes of health? Will it be available to competitors, for example?
Jim Dickson
The data will be available publicly to anyone who wishes to look at the information. The companies may feel that that is a competition issue and try to make that case, but publishing the information for everyone to use, particularly public health authorities and trading standards, will be helpful in contributing to our objective of a smoke-free generation by supporting cessation efforts and enabling public health to shape policy around trends in the tobacco industry.
Dr Johnson
My support for the hon. Gentleman diminished slightly when he said that the data will be available for everyone to see. There is a point to saying that if the data is available, sharing it with Government, public health officials and those who treat it confidentially to try to improve the public’s health, and to trading standards to assist enforcement, may be useful, but providing data to competitors is the wrong thing to do.
First, that is unfair in a free market. Secondly, might not this data be used by companies in this industry, which we know is adaptable and agile, to increase sales in areas where they presumed a competitor was selling but have found out they are not? I am not sure that the data is required to be published for the public interest. The Minister could tell us whether there are any other instances where we expect private companies to tell us who they are selling to and where and to publish quantities of sale online for other companies to see. I cannot think of an example, but the Committee may be able to. Perhaps the hon. Member for North Somerset who is a pharmacist may be able to help, because he has more experience—
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head.
Clause 96(1) grants the Secretary of State the authority to make regulations requiring producers or importers of products including tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products to provide information about these products to specified persons. The regulations may also govern the publication of this information. Subsection (2) outlines specific types of information that may be required, including details about the ingredients, the risks posed by the product, the emissions or substances released by the product, the producer’s operations and any individual nominated by the producer to be responsible for the product. Subsection (2) also specifies that the regulations may also require sales data or market research relevant to the product. If subsection (3) already requires this, I do not think that providing that data to the general public is necessarily something there is precedent for, but I may be corrected on that. Subsection (4) affirms that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that they will go to a vote of a Committee of the House.
The provisions in subsection (2)(b) on sales data go back to the point by the hon. Member for Dartford and raise questions about how the data will be used. Could the information be used to unfairly favour certain companies or enable them to gain an advantage over competitors? There are privacy concerns to consider. How will sensitive business information such as sales strategies, pricing models or consumer preferences be protected? While the Government want to limit the number of people who smoke and deter smokers from smoking, by not banning cigarettes outright they have given their indication that cigarettes are a lawful product to be bought by those who smoke already and who are over the age of 18 and anyone who chooses to smoke who was born on or before 1 January 2009. Having allowed businesses lawfully to exist, they should be allowed lawfully to get on with their job.
Subsection (3) suggests that the regulations will detail when and how information must be provided. That raises questions about the practicalities of the process. How frequently will the information need to be submitted? Will it be annually—in which case, how useful will it be? Or will it be quarterly, or more often—in which case, how burdensome will it be? Will there be specific deadlines? What penalties might businesses face if they fail to comply? Moreover, the process by which businesses submit their data and the verification of the information provided will need to be transparent to ensure that businesses are adhering to the rules consistently. Will there be regular audits or checks to ensure that the data is accurate and truthful?
The information required under this clause could provide valuable data for public health officials, researchers and policymakers to monitor trends in product composition, usage pattern and health impacts. However, a critical question is how effectively this information will be used to achieve tangible health outcomes. In other words, is it collecting information for the sake of collecting information, or is it collecting information that will actually be beneficial and useful? Will it help regulators to identify new risks or trends in the market? Will it support more targeted interventions to reduce smoking and vaping-related harm?
It is worth considering how information related to new products such as novel vaping devices or alternative nicotine delivery systems will be evaluated and whether the data will be used to inform better regulations in future. I suppose there is an argument that if particular flavours, for example, are prevalent in a particular area and there is an immediate harm in that area that correlates with a particular flavouring, that is a sign that there is a problem with that flavouring. But in practice, since we have been given medical evidence that suggests that any changes are usually over a period of time and fashions change over time, it will be very difficult to weed that out of a huge amount of information. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how the information will be used. I am sure the Minister will be able to provide further information in that regard.
Clause 97 looks at studies that might be required. Subsection (1) authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations that require a producer of a relevant product to conduct a study on a product or an ingredient within it. The producer may be required to submit a report on the study’s findings to a specific person. That may be helpful, but if a company is asked to provide information on a product that it sells and the information is detrimental to the prospect of further sales, how impartial can that be considered, how much will the consumer trust that information and how much point is there in doing it?
Will the Minister consider whether the study should be done independently rather than by the producer? If so, how does he envisage that working? If the producer of the product commissions the report, the way in which the question is phrased, the way in which the study is designed and other things can influence the result that is achieved. That may lead to a bias in the study so that the Government will not get the information they really want.
Subsection (2) defines a relevant product as a tobacco product, a tobacco-related device, a herbal smoking product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product. Subsection (3) outlines the specific provisions that may be included in the regulations. They include determining when and how the study should be conducted and the report submitted, specifying the questions that the study must address and defining the content and structure of the report. Subsection (4) specifies that the regulations made under this clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, meaning that they must be approved by Parliament.
The impact of the studies is assessed in paragraphs 1418 to 1426 of the Government’s impact assessment. The background to that is that the TRPR currently requires nicotine vape manufacturers to submit toxicological data regarding the product’s ingredients, including its ingredients in printed form, when the chemical composition may change, and emissions, referring to the effects on the health of customers when inhaled and considering things such as the addictive nature of the product.
Currently, producers of non-nicotine containing vapes and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches are not required to test their products or the ingredients contained within. Those products fall under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, under which the only obligation is that a producer must supply a generally safe product. Therefore, manufacturers of vaping products should carry out tests on their products to determine how the device works, how it delivers nicotine and how the ingredients react with each other to produce certain emissions—that is important to protect consumers.
In some instances, we will see the use of new chemicals and ingredients that are not well researched or well tested. If a manufacturer wishes to put such an ingredient in its products, it could be required to perform studies on its safety. As I said before, it may be that the industry does that itself initially, but there must be a provision to allow the Government to commission independent research to avoid biases in that information.
Manufactured cigarettes are the most thoroughly researched tobacco product and also the most uniform. We know much less about other products, such as novel tobacco products, non-nicotine products and smokeless tobacco. They are a hugely diverse range of products and much less well studied. We currently depend entirely on manufacturers and lack the capacity to verify industry claims. Smokeless products are of particular concern; they are often produced by small and medium-sized enterprises in low and middle-income states and then imported.
There will be an impact to industry from the cost of carrying out a study of their products and ingredients and submit the study to the relevant body. If the test for menthol was added to the standard routine testing for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide—TNCO—currently conducted on all cigarette brands, it would be expected to impose only a small additional cost. However, any additional tests that regulations require manufacturers to conduct would also have additional costs. If manufacturers have that product safety information for all the chemicals in their products, including for vapes, which have lots of different flavours—the long-term effects of vaping those chemicals are in many cases unknown, but suspected in some cases to be harmful—how will the Minister decide which chemicals to test? Will he require independent testing of all chemicals that are used in the vapes? That would take time: it is very difficult to work out what something will do over 20 years without waiting 20 years to find out.
I remember that when mobile phones were new there was a rumour that they might cause types of brain cancer. Around 20 years ago, I entered the cohort study of mobile phone use and health, or COSMOS, in which data was—and may still be—collected on my telephone usage and provided to university researchers in London. They measure my usage and periodically ask where I keep my telephone—whether in my front or back pocket, in a bag, or wherever—and whether I hold my phone to my ear when I am talking or hold it in front of me, on speaker. They also look at my medical records to see whether that usage has had any effect on my brain, and how many people who are in the study have subsequently got cancer. Does the Minister envisage encouraging the setting up of such long-term studies to check on the outcomes from vaping, for example?
There would also be a cost to developing the body that is required to review the studies that the producers of these products submit. For context, the extra cost of testing 12 tobacco products for menthol was around £50,000 per year. The cost to the relevant body of additional tests required by the regulations may be in a similar region. Those regulations would be subject to consultation, but has the Minister considered that the fewer flavours there are, the fewer chemicals that he needs to pay to have tested, or that he needs to encourage business to pay to have tested? The range of flavours means that there are more chemicals out there potentially needing investigation.
Clause 97 does not refer to conflicts of interest and does not require independent, objective experts—perhaps the Minister intends to include those in regulation. In instances in the past when tobacco companies conducted studies through their own research groups, they provided—perhaps unsurprisingly—remarkably optimistic conclusions about the hazards of smoking. I hope the Minister is not expecting such companies to mark their own homework again. The regulations should specify the qualifications of those conducting the studies and the methodologies that they should follow to help ensure that studies are scientifically valid and unbiased.
Subsection (3)(c) allows regulations to define the content and structure of reports that producers must submit. Although that provides flexibility to the regulators, it could also lead to confusion if the requirements for report structure and content were not clearly defined. Will there be a standardised format for reports, and how detailed will they need to be? Should the reports be publicly accessible? Will they remain confidential to the producers and regulatory bodies, or will they be more widely published, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggested other data should be?
These questions are important and the Minister’s intentions are important, as unclear guidance could result in inconsistent reporting across producers or even incomplete or misleading reports. The primary goal of requiring studies and reports is to provide regulators with information that could be used to improve public health outcomes, such as understanding the health risks associated with smoking, vaping or nicotine products. It is essential to question how this information will be used once submitted. Will it be analysed promptly and used to update product regulations to inform public health campaigns? If studies highlight emerging risks or issues, how quickly will regulators be able to act on the findings? The impact of those studies will largely depend on how efficiently the regulatory system uses that data to protect public health and respond to new threats. Are we collecting data for the sake of collecting data, so that the information is there, or are the resources going to be provided to look at the data, analyse it and act upon it? Otherwise, we may end up in a situation where we knew the answer but we did not see the wood for the trees.
Finally, clause 98 talks about the responsible person. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that require producers of tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products to nominate an individual who will be responsible for the information that must be provided under the regulations we have discussed under clauses 95 and 97.
Subsection (2) provides that the regulations may include provisions on who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. That could include requirements for the nominee to be a resident of the United Kingdom, or to have another connection to the country. Subsection (3) mandates that the regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without first obtaining consent, which seems to me very clear and straightforward. Subsection (4) clarifies that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring Parliamentary approval before becoming law.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to define who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. It is essential to ask whether there are any clear criteria for that eligibility. For instance, must the individual be a senior company representative, public health expert or legal representative? The definition of eligibility could significantly impact the effectiveness and accountability of the regulation. Subsection (2) of the clause mentions that the regulations may require the nominated responsible person to be
“resident in, or to have another connection to, the United Kingdom.”
What exactly constitutes a connection to the UK? One of my aunts moved to the States when she got married and she lived there and had her family there. Although she has sadly passed on, I have cousins in the States. Is that enough of a connection? What counts as a connection? Is it enough for the person to have a business address in the UK, or do they need to be a UK citizen or a UK taxpayer? Do they need to live in the UK for a certain period?
This is particularly important when considering that many of the largest players in the vape industry, such as Elfbar and Lost Mary, are Chinese companies and are headquartered abroad. To my understanding, Elfbar has used its geographical distance from the UK to stay at arm’s length from a range of controversies caused by their products, not least the selling of vapes with illegally high levels of nicotine and the use of TikTok influencers with large followings among children to promote their products, which I am pleased to hear the Minister will be countering with his own adverts.
The clause specifies that the regulations prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without their consent. What process will be put in place to ensure that consent is genuinely obtained and documented? Will there be a formal registration or reporting system for nominees, and how will we ensure that the nominee knows—and that we know that the nominee knows—that they have been nominated? Will the person responsible be held personally liable for product safety or compliance failure if the product manufacturer fails to meet certain standards? Will it be the responsible person facing the fine, penalty or other consequences, the company, or both? That is an important consideration given both the nature of the penalties and also the person’s willingness to be nominated.
The clause covers a broad range of products, including tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, vaping products, herbal smoking products and nicotine products. Will the nominated responsible person be expected to oversee compliance with specific regulations for each product category, or will there be a single standard compliance regulation for all? I think primarily of cases where large companies have major stakes in both the tobacco and vaping industries.
Gregory Stafford
We are debating a number of clauses and the amendments to them. I will first touch on amendments 6 to 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford. I completely understand where he is coming from in trying to use data collected by companies producing such products and by retail outlets. It could have a significant health benefit. The hon. Member for Worthing West is a public health consultant and will, therefore, sympathise with the ambitions in the amendments.
Where there is a problem, however, is in the sharing of such data. Clearly, to make that effective from a public health point of view, the information needs to be shared with the Department of Health and Social Care and with relevant public health authorities at a local level, whether that be combined authority mayors—or whatever comes in the Government’s reorganisation— or local authorities. My concern is that the data will be publicly available to everyone, including competitors in that market. That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
We would not do something similar with alcohol, although we must agree that alcohol also harms, or with fatty foods or sweets. I am sure the Minister will tell me later, and I completely agree with him, that tobacco and vape products are not in the same scale as fatty foods and alcohol, but I still think that there is an anti-competitive nature to some of the measures in the Bill, especially in the amendments, in particular when it comes to different sizes of companies. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned the big players in this market. Let us remember that we are not banning vapes—we are just banning them for those under the age of 18, and rightly so—but by using this data, the big competitors in the market could squeeze out smaller retailers and smaller companies that produce vapes.
Perhaps that was the hon. Member for Dartford’s intention, but giving succour to the big beasts in this game is probably not the way we want to go. I am not sure whether he will press his amendments to a vote, but, if the Minister and the Government accept the proposals, in this form or another, we should look at a way of ensuring that we can use this data for public health benefit without the unintended consequences that might come about from sharing it with competitors.
Clauses 96 to 98, as drafted, all include a lot of positives. Clause 96 empowers the Secretary of State to require producers and importers of tobacco and vaping products to provide information about their product sales and potential health risks. Obviously, transparency is critical to ensure consumer protection, and to inform our policy making and effective regulation of the sale and manufacture of such products. A study by the World Health Organisation found that countries with strict tobacco information disclosure laws saw a 20% decrease in tobacco-related illnesses over a decade. That very much sits with my point about using data to drive policy. Mandating the detailed reporting that is mentioned in the clause will ensure that consumers have access to crucial data about product contents and the health implications.
Dr Johnson
We have talked a bit this evening about social media companies and the production on social media by influencers of what are in essence adverts, together with the difficulties in imposing any regulations on that. Does that not mean that, if all this data were published as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests—with great intentions—we could end up in a situation in which we are informing the industry exactly where they should target next with their social media posts? We all know that those can be directed to certain geographies.
Gregory Stafford
That is a real risk of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dartford. Essentially, we would be mandating the companies to show their competitors and potential new entrants to the market where the potentially fertile—in the sense of wanting to buy the product, to be clear—areas of customers are so that they would know to target them. It seems rather strange that we would want to do that. I am sure that that is not the hon. Member’s intention, but it is a potential conflict of interest.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a good point. I am sure he would agree that, essentially, there is no point in naming a responsible person for the company if that responsible person is not sufficiently able to pull the levers of power within the company if they find that something is not up to scratch. We need someone who is not in fear of being sacked if he or she raises concerns—somebody who is at a high level within the company.
Gregory Stafford
Yes, absolutely. I think the shadow Minister is completely right. There is that point, in terms of potential fear—if that is the right word—for this person if they are not in a senior position. Indeed, some of the less scrupulous companies may seek to intimidate said compliance officer. Also, to be frank, a lack of expertise in this area could lead to ineffective compliance oversight. While that is something undesirable in and of itself, it can also potentially have negative impacts on the consumer.
Finally, could the Minister say a bit about the potential legal-liability issues of this person? Nominating a single individual raises questions about personal legal liability. Will this individual be legally responsible for compliance —or non-compliance—or will that be the chief executive or someone else, or will there be corporate responsibility or liability for breaches of the standards? I really think that provisions should be in place to ensure that the company—the manufacturer, the producer—bears the ultimate responsibility, rather than this named individual.
The clause needs a clear set of qualifications and criteria regarding the experience of said responsible person. We should make sure that the accountability is structured to prevent scapegoating of individuals, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, and some kind of training programme is in place to support those compliance officers in their roles so that they can enact their duties responsibly. We should also ensure that, should something go wrong, it is the company that holds ultimate responsibility and liability in law rather than that individual.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 21st January 2025
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2025 - (21 Jan 2025)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill.
Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons.
That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue.
My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case.
Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says:
“In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”.
I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision
“as it applies to other persons.”
Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope.
Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about how the snuff is given out. At the moment, the snuffbox sits with the Doorkeepers near the No Lobby entrance, and it is available to Members. Obviously—or perhaps not obviously—there is no charge to Members. In fact, my understanding from the Doorkeeper who had the snuffbox last week is that the stuff that they have currently was provided by the BBC—[Interruption.] I can see that is a surprise; it was a surprise to me too, but that is where I was told it came from.
It brings into question the earlier clauses that relate to sale, because clearly the Crown may purchase it—I suppose the BBC is funded by taxpayers—and it is in a royal palace, which is a Crown site rather than a retail site, and it is not being sold to Members. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to consider that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.
Dr Johnson
That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided.
I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 47 asserts that part 1 of the Bill and any regulations made under it bind the Crown, but makes it clear that the Crown is not criminally liable under those provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Instead, acts or omissions by the Crown can be declared unlawful by the High Court. The key Government implication for this clause is ensuring accountability. By binding the Crown, clause 47 ensures that the Government are not exempt from adhering to the same standards and regulations that they set for others, which is entirely appropriate and demonstrates a good commitment to transparency and fairness.
There is also a symbolic commitment by the Crown to public health. Including the Crown in these provisions sends a strong signal. The Government recognise the urgency of tackling public health issues and the issues associated with tobacco and vaping, and the Opposition support that wholeheartedly. When we legislate in this House, we need to ensure that the public feel that we are legislating not only for them, but for ourselves as well. Given that the Bill now applies to us, this clause strengthens public confidence in its objectives.
On the role of judicial oversight, clause 47 enables the High Court to declare acts or omissions unlawful, which ensures that there is a mechanism for oversight. That preserves the rule of law and offers a balance of powers. However, there are some potential challenges to this clause. While the Crown is bound by the legislation, clause 47 explicitly exempts it from criminal liability, as far as I understand. Some may argue that that creates an imbalance, as individuals and private entities remain subject to prosecution whereas this House does not have criminal liability. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
On practical enforcement, applying the legislation to the Crown could raise questions about how enforcement agencies would address non-compliance in Crown-operated facilities, such as this House, Government offices, military bases, and so on. Can the Minister let us know how law enforcement agencies, trading standards and the police would enforce the Bill on Crown properties? Granting the High Court jurisdiction to declare Crown acts unlawful could increase its workload. What discussions has the Minister had with the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice on overburdening the courts with such matters?
Clause 66 amends the Crown application of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ensuring that its provisions extend to Crown entities within Scotland. That amendment reinforces the principle of equal application of public health laws. The key implications of this clause are to do with consistency across the jurisdictions, as we have talked about on other clauses. Extending the application of the 2010 Act to the Crown entities ensures that public health measures are uniformly applied across Scotland, irrespective of whether the premises are privately owned or Crown-owned.
The clause also enhances legal cohesion. Aligning the legal obligations of the Crown with those of private entities enhances the coherence of Scotland’s public health framework, reducing the ambiguities that might arise were this clause not in the Bill. The clause also promotes accountability. By amending the 2010 Act, it eliminates any loophole that might allow Crown entities to operate outside the scope of the tobacco control measures. However, there are some challenges around what I would describe as intergovernmental co-ordination—that is to say, co-ordination between the Westminster Parliament and the offices and authorities that act for it, and the devolved Administrations.
Implementing these provisions will require significant co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK and the relevant Ministries and Departments in the devolved Administrations. I was heartened by what the Minister said about cross-devolved-Administration working. It would be good to know whether that continues to be the case on these provisions. As we all know, working across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with their various different bodies, does create challenging and resource-intensive actions, due to the fact that they all operate slightly differently and have slightly different thresholds for legal prosecution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, when it comes to charging, there are different levels of fine and sentencing in the different administrations. While health is a devolved matter, this clause’s intersection with those reserved powers could prompt debate about the limits of legislative competence between those authorities.
Clause 134 is the Crown application of advertising and sponsorship restrictions and extends advertising and sponsorship restrictions under the Bill to Crown bodies.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes the point, which I had not raised earlier, that clause 134 applies to part 6, on advertising and sponsorship. Clauses 4 to 7 and 66 essentially apply to part 1. We do not appear at this time to be discussing the other parts as well, so presumably the Crown is bound in a similar way by each of those.
Gregory Stafford
I make the same assumption as my hon. Friend, given what I have read of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister clarified that matter. It would be appropriate to ensure that this does cut across all other parts of the Bill.
Clause 134 is critical in ensuring that the Crown entities adhere to the same advertising standards as private organisations. We need to have fair competition. It would be a nonsense to say that people could not advertise vapes from a commercial point of view, but that the Crown would be able to advertise. I cannot imagine what that might look like—I doubt Windsor Castle will be emblazoned with a banner advertising vapes, or that Buckingham Palace will fly a tobacco flag, but one never knows. However, it is important that this clause does cover the Crown as well to ensure that there is a level playing field, and to prevent the Crown entities from gaining an unfair advantage through less stringent regulations.
Dr Johnson
In a previous sitting I raised that in the last couple of years there have been events within Parliament at which free vapes were given out to Members and staff. Would this clause, given that it applies to the Crown, extend to all palaces? Could such events also still continue?
Gregory Stafford
My reading of this clause is that those events will be restricted under this clause and clauses 66 and 47. It would be useful if the Minister clarified whether or not that is the case. If it is not, would he consider inserting a provision to ensure that it is, either later in our discussions in Committee or on Report? I do not think the public will have any time for us in this place if we regulate those outside but do not hold the Crown Estate and Crown authorities to the same standards.
The unified public health messaging in this clause is helpful. Extending the restrictions to Crown bodies strengthens the overall impact of the Bill, ensuring that the advertising provisions are consistent with the public health messaging that we are putting out across the country. It prevents mixed signals. Allowing the Crown bodies to advertise tobacco or vaping products would undermine the Bill’s whole objective. Clause 134 ensures that the Government’s stance and the stance of all Members of the House of Commons present here is not contradicted by its own entities, such as the Crown Estate.
Dr Johnson
Is it not also the case that the Crown is extremely unlikely to wish to sell tobacco products, vaping products, herbal smoking products or indeed anything else covered by the Bill, or to advertise them, since members of the royal family attribute such importance to public health and have, sadly, suffered from ill health themselves in recent times? They have done a lot of work with various charities in relation to health, including on cancer and other conditions, so it seems unlikely that these provisions would be required.
Gregory Stafford
I very much hope there is no difference, and that is precisely my point: we need consistent enforcement across the piece—across the country—in line with the restrictions we already have on the sale and advertising of other items. That does not take away from the point that doing that will be a very complex procedure. As we are moving towards a tobacco-free generation, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know how that enforcement will be done across Crown entities and the Crown Estate.
The second point is around the legal ambiguities. Applying advertising restrictions to Crown entities might create legal ambiguities, particularly where such entities operate under multiple regulatory frameworks, which goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about who might be enforcing them and where.
The final point is about resource allocation. Ensuring compliance with advertising restrictions may require additional resources both within Crown entities and among enforcement agencies. To be frank, I do not know how current licensing laws are enforced here in the Houses of Parliament, for example, but if we bring in this Bill, which I very much hope we do, there may be some resource allocation within the Crown for that.
The inclusion of clauses 47, 66 and 134 in the Bill underscores its commitment to governance and legal fairness. However, as I said, their successful implementation hinges on addressing several broader considerations. First, there is what I call enhanced intergovernmental and interparliamentary collaboration. Effective implementation of these clauses will require close collaboration between UK-wide and devolved authorities. Establishing clear channels of communication and joint enforcement mechanisms will be crucial.
The second consideration is transparent compliance frameworks. The Government should develop transparent frameworks in order to monitor and enforce compliance within Crown entities. Those frameworks should include clear guidelines, reporting requirements and accountability measures. I do not expect there to be a vast burden on the judiciary but, as I mentioned, we may need to address any potential increases in judicial workload. Additional resources should be allocated to the High Court and other relevant judicial bodies to ensure that cases related to Crown compliance are handled efficiently and quickly.
Finally, there needs to be a public awareness campaign. Raising awareness about the application of the clauses can help to foster public support for the Bill by demonstrating to the public that we in the Houses of Parliament and across the Crown Estate are being held to the same standards.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making several good points. It is important that the law is applied equally to all. He may remember that when previous legislation was brought in around tobacco advertising, an exemption was made for Formula 1. It was not clear why such an exemption was made, but I believe that a substantial donation had been received around that time by the Labour party—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That was harmful at the time to trust in equality, so it is important that everyone—from His Majesty the King to every one of his subjects—has the same law applied to them.
Jack Rankin
Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point.
As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.
Dr Johnson
Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
I will make progress and answer the points that were made. Why are clauses 47 and 137 necessary parts of the Bill? The presumption is that legislation does not apply to the Crown unless expressly stated as doing so. The clauses clarify that provisions in parts 1 and 6 of the Bill, and in the regulations made under them, bind the Crown. They ensure that all bodies and persons acting as public servants of the Crown are held to the same standards as businesses and private citizens in England and Wales. They ensure consistent application of the Bill across the public and private sectors.
Does the Bill bind Parliament? Yes, it does. Parliament was consulted and was content with clause 159, in particular, being included. We have already had the debate about snuff, and it will be up to the House authorities to determine the rules of the House. There is absolutely nothing to prevent there being a box at the entrance to the Chamber with the latest chief Doorkeeper’s name engraved on it—that tradition can remain for evermore—just as we have a Smoking Room, which we can no longer smoke in but which is still called the Smoking Room. That is tradition. I really do not know why Members are overthinking these matters.
Members asked why there are differences between Crown applications in the devolved Administrations. As we have already discussed, the Bill brings together legislation from across the four nations. I believe it is a triumph, because it shows the close working relationship between the Labour Government and the devolved Administrations, irrespective of the parties in power in Cardiff Bay, Holyrood and Belfast. Because health is a devolved matter, and because the Bill builds on legislation dating back nearly 100 years in some cases, there are some differences in the provisions for each nation.
Members asked why only some parts of the Bill apply to the Crown. The fact is that clauses 47 and 134 explicitly provide that parts 1 and 6, and any regulations made under them, apply to the Crown. Other measures in the Bill also apply to the Crown without the Bill’s explicitly stating so because those provisions amend existing legislation, and the Crown application reflects whether the underlying legislation applies to the Crown.
There is an established precedent that smoke-free places legislation does not apply to the Crown in England and Wales, and that it is the responsibility of the Department responsible for running the relevant part of the Crown Estate to determine what is appropriate. That is precisely what the House of Commons did when it determined that the smoking ban would apply to the royal Palace of Westminster. The same is true of all the measures in the Bill.
Members asked which parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. Part 1 and regulations made under it apply to the Crown by virtue of clause 47.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about Northern Ireland. Part 3 amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland, and it does not apply to the Crown. That is an existing precedent, which the Department of Health in Northern Ireland wishes to retain. Part 2 amends the existing legislation in Scotland and part 1 amends the legislation in England and Wales. That is why there is a different approach to different parts of the United Kingdom in respect of the Crown.
Members asked why we need clause 66, the technical clause relating to the Scottish Government. It is because it corrects an omission in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and it is being made at the request of the Scottish Government. It is a convention that in an Act of the Scottish Parliament those responsible for the enforcement of the legislation are explicitly identified as being able to make an application to the Court of Session for the purposes outlined in the clause. Scottish Ministers may take over enforcement under the 2010 Act, so it is appropriate that they are listed alongside local authorities, which is what clause 66 achieves. The clause inserts a provision into the 2010 Act, which is Scottish law. There are no impacts on the law in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The clause is narrow and relates only to provisions in part 1 of the 2010 Act.
Members asked about overburdening the court. We are working the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the Bill does not introduce a significant burden. This is about regulatory change—and, look, most citizens are law abiding and will follow the law.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 49, 60, 63 and 64 stand part.
Schedule 8.
Clauses 83, 112, 113, 132 and 135 stand part.
Dr Johnson
This is quite a chunky group of clauses. Clause 48 provides a series of definitions that are to be used to interpret part 1. That is important; if the law is to be enforced, we must understand what the law means by each phrase it uses. The phrase “cigarette papers” is self-explanatory. It means anything that is
“used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.
We talked about cigarette papers previously. Likewise, “herbal smoking product”
“means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco”.
That is fairly straightforward.
The phrase “medical device” is important, and I will explain why in a moment. The clause refers to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618), which state that a medical device is
“any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, together with any…software…necessary for its proper application, which—
(a) is intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of—
(i) diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,
(ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,
(iii) investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or
(iv) control of conception; and
(b) does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, even if it is assisted in its function by such means,
and includes devices intended to administer a medicinal product”—
this is part of why it is relevant—
“or which incorporate as an integral part a substance which, if used separately, would be a medicinal product and which is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device.”
That is relevant to clause 10 onwards, on nicotine products.
In evidence on 7 January, Dr Laura Squire, from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told the Committee that one vape product received an MHRA medicines licence in 2015, but was never marketed. Theoretically, others could be marketed in the future. They would be exempt under the definition provided in clause 48, which I have just explained.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the shadow Minister for the points she has raised. Definitions are needed to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted with an appropriate understanding of the technical terms, and we have opted to take a co-ordinated approach to definitions across the four nations, which will hopefully ensure clarity for the public, retailers and enforcers.
As we know, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, particularly for adolescents whose brains are still developing. As mentioned in the Bill, a nicotine product means any device, part of a device, or substance containing nicotine that is intended to deliver nicotine to the human body. There are currently no age of sale or advertising restrictions for products such as nicotine pouches—and, unlike vapes, there are no set nicotine limits. Nicotine strengths can vary from 2 mg per pouch to, in some cases, 150 mg or more. Like vapes, they can come in a variety of flavours and colourful packaging designed to appeal to children. The use of nicotine products such as nicotine pouches is increasing, particularly among young men. As we are committed to doing everything we can to protect children from becoming addicted to nicotine, it is only right to take action to control these products.
Dr Johnson
On the point about nicotine pouches, it is of concern that they may be the next way in which this industry seeks to make our young people addicted to nicotine. We have seen in places such as Sweden a plethora of these products, which are now expanding across the UK as well. I know the Minister will be looking at some proposals to restrict the amount of nicotine in the pouches. When he does so, will he consider not just how much nicotine is in them compared with a cigarette, but how much is absorbed into the body? The amount in a cigarette that is absorbed as a proportion is much lower than that of a nicotine pouch.
Andrew Gwynne
Those are important considerations for when we are developing the regulations, and I take precisely the same view as the shadow Minister. These things have to be part of that overall analysis and equation when we come to look carefully at the regulations.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. First, she asked whether a provisional driving licence would be applicable, and the simple answer is that it would. She also asked whether there is a loophole here with medicinal products, and whether children could be restricted from purchasing vaping substances for a future vape that may have medicinal approvals. Of course, it is important to point out to the Committee that to date no such vape exists. As per all licensed medicines, if one existed, it would be regulated by medicine regulations, which are subject to higher standards set by the MHRA.
The health advice is that nicotine replacement treatment, for example, is most effective when provided alongside expert advice. That is really important, and that is why we are putting money into smoking cessation services and why measures in the Bill will permit the distribution of free vapes by the NHS and public health authorities; we think that is entirely appropriate.
There is no age of sale restriction for nicotine replacement therapies. In extreme circumstances, for example, were there a MHRA-approved vaping device that met the criteria of a medical device, I suppose the vaping liquid could be prescribed to a child if that were appropriate. That is all hypothetical because there is not such a device approved by the MHRA; therefore, there is not the loophole the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham thinks there might be, although she is right to raise it.
Dr Johnson
To clarify the point about there being no device available, that had been my understanding as well, but Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA said in evidence to the Committee that in 2015 a vape had been approved for medical use, but had never been marketed. Has the licence for that product lapsed in some way so that it is no longer available?
Andrew Gwynne
I do not know, but I will ensure the Committee is informed by officials. My point is that it is not marketed. Therefore, there is no medical device on the UK market, and all that is currently hypothetical. We have to legislate for the future, which is why I said that nicotine replacement therapy is the most appropriate form of treatment for children. Were there a device at some stage in the future that was available for the NHS to use in a medical context—as opposed to swap to stop—then it would be appropriate for a doctor to be able to prescribe that should they wish to. However, that would be within a highly regulated medical setting, as opposed to just getting liquids from a vape shop.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 48 and 49 exempt the medicinal product and medical devices. I understand why the Minister has done that, but how is he going to ensure that the industry does not find ways of making the nicotine replacement products that are currently legal and used only for medical purposes lemonade, gummy bear or unicorn milk-flavoured, and therefore attractive to children? The Committee has heard repeatedly about the way the industry behaves.
Andrew Gwynne
We absolutely have thought about that, which is why the measures in the Bill and the powers it gives to Ministers across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom enable regulations to be made to ensure that we always keep up with where the industry is going and—importantly—where the evidence is going. This is not just about where the industry might go; it may be that at some stage in the future there is new medical research showing that even the levels we are talking about lowering to have safety issues, and we will need to react to that.
That is why I will defend the way the Bill has been drafted, ensuring that Ministers will be able, at any stage in the future, to return to Parliament or the devolved legislatures to seek changes to secondary legislation to ensure that the measures are always relevant to the circumstances of the day.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 52 repeals the offence of purchasing tobacco under 18 in Scotland, as per the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010; clause 52(2) would omit section 5, concerning purchasing tobacco products by people under the age of 18, from the 2010 Act. This is a reasonable thing to do, because clause 50 replaces the current age of sale with the rolling age of sale and extends to those over 18.
However, subsection (3) of clause 52 is interesting, because it refers to the presumption of products in the contents of a container. Section 33 of the 2010 Act essentially says if a person has seen someone sell a packet of cigarettes to somebody, and the person can clearly see the packet of cigarettes, they do not have to prove that it contains cigarettes; they just have to see it. I suppose that prevents people from the defence of saying that they were selling empty boxes, that it was just role play, that the boxes only contain sweets, or that they do not really contain tobacco—they are just boxes. In some respects, those are fairly implausible defences, but perhaps those defending them could prove reasonable doubt on that basis. Section 33 presumes that cigar boxes contain cigars, for example, or that cigarette boxes contain cigarettes; in the context of their being bought that seems fairly obvious, but it is interesting that the Scots felt it necessary to have this section previously.
I respect that this is a devolved matter and the Scots’ wishes to amend section 33 of the 2010 Act, but could the Minister perhaps explain, from the conversations that I am sure he has had with Ministers in Scotland, why the Scots introduced it in the first place? Was it perceived that it might be an issue, or was it actually an issue that people were pretending or suggesting that what was in boxes of cigarettes was not cigarettes, and therefore, “It’s not illegal to sell a box; it’s only illegal to sell the cigarettes in it, and you can’t prove they were there, your honour.”?
Why has the Minister not chosen to replicate such a provision in England? Although I respect what he says about devolution, and the Scots have the competency to do as they wish in Scotland, in England it is up to him and he has the levers of power. Can he say in the rest of the UK where this defence has been used before? Has section 33 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 ever been used as a defence in litigation? If it has, was it successful? If it was, why does he not want to replicate the provision in England? It is a somewhat peculiar situation.
Andrew Gwynne
In answer to the shadow Minister, clause 52 will repeal the offence for someone under the age of 18 in Scotland of buying or attempting to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers. It means that it will no longer be an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy those products in Scotland. That is because Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which it is an offence for those under 18 to purchase tobacco products. The repeal will align the legal approach across the whole United Kingdom. It is being done after consultation and with the full consent of the Scottish Government. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer deemed necessary to retain this provision, as the age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products.
Clause 53 will repeal the power for constables in Scotland to confiscate tobacco products or cigarette papers from someone in a public place whom they suspect to be under 18. Both provisions were originally made in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. Repealing them will ensure that legislation in Scotland is in line with legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer considered necessary to retain the provision, as age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products. As we have already debated, that will ensure that we do not criminalise children.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Extension of tobacco legislation to herbal smoking products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 54 will extend tobacco legislation to cover herbal smoking products, which are products made from plant material and intended for smoking that do not contain tobacco. It will amend section 4 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act, which governs the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18, by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product” in subsection (1). This will mean that the sale of herbal smoking products is subject to the same restrictions as tobacco products and is prohibited to persons under 18.
The clause will also amend section 4C of the 2010 Act, which deals with the sale of tobacco-related products by persons under 18, by adding “herbal smoking product” so that individuals under 18 are also prohibited from selling herbal smoking products. This is distinct from the ability to buy them, for which there will be a rolling age; it applies to the selling of these products.
The clause will also modify section 6 of the Act, which addresses the purchase of tobacco products on behalf of individuals under 18, otherwise known as proxy purchasing. It will amend subsection (1) by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product”, making it illegal for anyone to purchase herbal smoking products on behalf of individuals under 18.
Finally, the clause will insert into section 35 a definition for herbal smoking products. This was covered in clause 48 and clause 1; clause 54 will add it to Scottish legislation. It specifies that a herbal smoking product is one that is made entirely or partially of vegetable matter and that is intended to be smoked, but that does not contain tobacco. Given our previous debate, these seem reasonable changes to make.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not detain the Committee on this question. As the shadow Minister says, these are reasonable changes to make and are in line with the clauses that we have just discussed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Possession of snus etc with intent to supply
Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
Clause 65 introduces schedule 9, which will amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to broaden the scope of the retailer register and make related provisions to include herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, alongside tobacco. The amendments that it makes aim to regulate businesses that sell those products in a similar way to tobacco products.
Essentially, in schedule 9, the key changes are as follows. There will be an expansion of the register: section 10 of the 2010 Act will be amended to require the Scottish Ministers to maintain a register of businesses that are selling tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products. It will ensure that all those categories are subject to the same regulatory framework as respects the register.
There is clarification within the schedule of a “registrable business”, which is now defined to include any businesses dealing with tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products. The term is used throughout the Act, ensuring that all relevant businesses are captured under the regulations.
The amendments that schedule 9 will make to section 11 of the 2010 Act require applicants to specify which type of registrable business they intend to operate at each premises —essentially, which products they wish to sell. Can the Minister confirm that that means that some businesses could register to sell some products but not others under the Act? Perhaps they could sell tobacco products but not nicotine products, or vice versa. The registration process will be updated to reflect those additions.
Section 12 of the 2010 Act, which deals with certifications and notifications, will be amended to require certificates of registration to specify the type of product that a business sells. Additionally, under section 13, businesses must notify the Scottish Ministers of any changes, such as if they no longer desire to sell a specific type of registrable product. The Act’s provisions concerning banning orders, offences and public inspection of the register will be updated to reflect the inclusion of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products alongside tobacco products.
In addition, schedule 9 will add new definitions, including of “herbal smoking product business” and “nicotine product business”, ensuring clarity in the application of the law.
Andrew Gwynne
I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments. Of course, health is a devolved matter. Scotland has a long-established and functioning register of tobacco and nicotine vape product retailers. The Bill will expand Scotland’s registration scheme to include retailers selling herbal smoking products and nicotine products. The Scottish Government’s view is that introducing a licensing scheme at this time would put undue pressure on local authorities and the retail sector in Scotland. In line with the Scottish Government’s tobacco and vaping framework, the technical infrastructure of the register is being improved, which has been welcomed by stakeholders. Each of the nations of the United Kingdom is taking forward an approach that best suits its population.
Dr Johnson
Clause 84 is a short clause that extends the retail register provisions in Northern Ireland. It states:
“Schedule 10 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (c. 4 (N.I.)) to extend certain provisions about the registration of tobacco retailers so that they apply in relation to retailers of vaping products and nicotine products.”
Schedule 10 ensures that retailers selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are covered by the scheme.
Andrew Gwynne
As the shadow Minister says, the clause extends the existing registration scheme by expanding it to businesses that sell relevant products. The register will be expanded while the new licensing regulations are introduced, ensuring a stronger and consistent enforcement regime at all times.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Power of officer of Revenue and Customs to seize and detain snus etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 89 is such an important clause in that it forms a whole part of the Bill, part 4, by itself; whereas other parts contain multiple clauses, part 4 only contains clause 89. The clause deals with the power of a Revenue and Customs official to seize and detain snus, which the Bill defines as an oral tobacco product that
“is not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.
Hon. Members will remember that snus is a tobacco product that the Bill treats differently from all other tobacco products; there is a much heftier penalty for sale and a complete ban on manufacture. In line with the fact that it is dealt with differently from other tobacco products and that it will be illegal to manufacture and import, there needs to be provision for customs officials to deal with the snus if they find it.
Subsection (1) allows a Revenue and Customs officer to
“seize any relevant oral tobacco products that have been imported and detain them for no more than 48 hours.”
I presume that 48 hours is standard; the Minister may be able to expand on that. Any products seized and detained under this clause
“must be dealt with during their period of detention in such manner as the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may direct…For the purposes of calculating the 48-hour period mentioned…any period falling on a non-working day is to be disregarded.”
The Minister will be able to confirm, but I presume that is essentially saying that, if a product were seized on a Friday at 4.50 pm, they would get all of Saturday and Sunday and until late on the Tuesday to deal with the snus and would be able to seize it for that period.
The clause says that non-working days are Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays; that is fairly straightforward. A relevant offence is an offence under clause 9 of the Bill in England and Wales, section 9C of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which is inserted by the Bill, and article 4G of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which is also inserted by the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
The shadow Minister quite rightly asked the Minister why there is a 48-hour period; it would be helpful to understand if that is just a standard period. What I am not clear on is what happens during, or indeed after, that period. Is the 48-hour period for some kind of destruction of the illicit substance? Is it for investigation? If His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for whatever reason breaches the 48-hour period, what recompense can the importer receive? Should they receive any kind of recompense, given that they are likely to be importing a banned substance?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right to probe the Minister on those questions. It is important to understand why things are chosen. The Minister has sometimes referred to things being chosen because that is the way they were before, but the writing of new primary legislation offers a not-frequent opportunity to change things that may not be working very well. When items are seized at the moment, is the Minister’s advice from his civil servants that 48 hours is an adequate period of time in which to deal with all the paperwork that presumably needs to be done? Is it too long, and could it be shorter if it needed to be?
The commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for dealing with the relevant oral tobacco product during the period of detention, but that will not prevent the importation of snus for personal use. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?
Andrew Gwynne
It is not illegal to consume snus in the UK—I got told off for pronouncing that in Mancunian as “snuss” earlier, but each to their own—or to possess it for personal use. Clause 89 is that is intended to form part of a robust legislative framework in relation to oral tobacco products, and specifically helps to enforce other provisions of the Bill that prohibit possession with intent to supply in the course of business. It is common practice for customs officials to seize suspected illicit goods at the border. That will now also be applicable to snus products imported into the UK. The 48-hour period is standard practice, but after 48 hours the enforcement agency is able to decide on what action it wishes to take. I hope that answers the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.
Dr Johnson
I want to understand how a customs official would make such a decision. The Minister has been clear that it is not illegal to possess snus—I hope I pronounced that properly—for personal use. However, it is an offence to manufacture it under clause 7, to sell it or offer it for sale under clause 8 or to possess it with intent to supply under clause 9. How would the Minister quantify an amount for personal use? Under ordinary circumstances, one could say—
Obesity: Food and Diet
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a children’s doctor and a farmer’s wife.
We all want to live healthy lives. It gives us a healthy life expectancy, reduces illness burden and gives us more happy years to spend with those whom we love. However, beginning in the second half of the 20th century and continuing today, the developed world has seen an unprecedented rise in obesity levels. The growth of high-calorie processed food and sugary drinks, along with our more sedentary lifestyles, has undoubtedly played a key role. In the UK, two thirds of adults are classified as overweight or obese. According to the recent House of Lords report, over a fifth of children are overweight or obese before they even start school, and by the time they leave school, that number has doubled.
As a children’s doctor, I have seen children with significant medical complications from obesity, including a child of 12 who weighed over 120 kg and a child of nine who weighed over 95 kg. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) said, doctors and other clinicians have a responsibility to let people know of the harms of obesity, but they do not always do so. That is partly because of time constraints and because there is not necessarily a clear path to point the individual towards. Such messages can also be received with hostility, which is another deterrent.
As hon. Members have said, obesity leads to health problems. The excess body fat disrupts the normal bodily functions, amplifying the risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and arthritis while weakening the body’s ability to fight infections. During the pandemic, an obese person had a 40% higher chance of dying from covid-19 than their peers of a healthy weight. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke of the human consequences. An obese mother is more likely to suffer from complications during pregnancy. She is more likely to miss out on important life events as the child grows up, and when her grandchildren are born, she will have a lower chance of being there to enjoy them.
What is causing this obesity? At its most fundamental level, overweight and obesity are the storage of fat as surplus energy—energy consumed as food that was extra to requirements—but the reasons may be more complex. Many hon. Members have discussed the lack of affordable food, but they did not recognise or heed support for those growing our food and our fruit and veg. Instead, this Government have so far attacked our farmers with high taxes during their lifetime and at death. That will only increase the price of fruit and veg. Lincolnshire grows 20% of the country’s vegetables, but the Labour Government seek to carpet our beautiful farmland with miles and miles of solar panels, reducing the area available for growing healthy fruit and veg, increasing imports and prices.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, time is key. For families in which both parents are working, finding time to collect children, prepare wholesome meals from scratch, help with homework and get children to bed on time can lead to pressure to grab quick food or use packet sauces. A YouGov survey from 2022 found that a third of British people feel that they need a recipe to produce food from scratch, and one in six feel uncomfortable even with a recipe, so confidence in the kitchen needs to be improved. It is also worth remarking that genetics play a part, as can medications and medical conditions. Hormonal responses to food restriction also play a part, so once someone has gained weight once, it is not necessarily as easy as just saying, “Eat less”.
I have spent a great deal of my time in Parliament sitting on the Health and Social Care Committee, where the need for greater focus on prevention was continually raised. Nowhere better is that illustrated than on the issue of obesity. For example, Public Health England’s laudable Better Health diet campaign that ran from 2020-21 cost only 0.05% of what the NHS spends on obesity and overweight treatment annually. Healthy eating begins with education. People should know how to create healthy nutritious meals on a budget, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) said. I appreciate the work done by the previous Government to expand nutritional education in state schools, and I would like to mention Washingborough academy and its headteacher Jason O’Rourke, who have won awards for locally produced healthy school foods.
People also need to know what is in their food so they can make informed choices when they eat on the go. The Conservatives took action to display calorie information on menus, so that people can make informed decisions. That can also influence portion sizes. The previous Government introduced the soft drinks levy in 2018, and in 2022 we restricted promotions on foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Recent data from the NHS health survey shows that obesity rates among adults have stabilised over the past five years, and the number of overweight or obese children is now at its lowest level since 2000—although I note that those figures have continued to rise in Scotland and Wales.
Let me turn to advertising. Does advertising work? Of course it does. If I say, “The red car and the blue car had a race,” I am sure that Members of a similar age to me would know which sweet that line advertised. If I asked them which sweet would be “Just enough to give your kids a treat,” they would know exactly which one I meant. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding—as are you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But is the problem the adverts, or is it what they are advertising? Is what they are advertising the same as or different from what they were advertising 20 years ago?
At the moment, the Government’s approach to advertising seems a little wrong-headed. Their plans to restrict the advertising of junk food before 9 pm paints with a very broad brush, and muesli, porridge and rice cakes are included under the ban. However, the NHS website says that porridge is a healthy breakfast. Does the Minister disagree with the NHS? Do the Government intend to implement a similar policy to that of Transport for London under the Mayor of London, which allows the advertising of fried chicken burgers but not of strawberries and cream? The Minister needs to think carefully about what he wants to promote as a healthy and diet and then work from there.
Before the general election, the previous Health Secretary asked the National Institute for Health and Care Research to gather evidence on the impact of ultra-processed foods on health. Have the Government developed a strategy to address the prevalence of ultra-processed foods in our diet? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned that many such foods contain artificial ingredients. One of my concerns is that a ban or tax on high fat, salt and sugar foods causes reformulation, but not necessarily to take sugar out and make an item less sweet, for example; it can be to add sweeteners and other chemical substitutes that may also trigger addictive eating behaviours. That may be more harmful and retains the sweetness, so it does not change people’s need for that sort of food.
Members have mentioned the prospect of new pharmaceuticals such as Ozempic in tackling obesity. The Government have expressed an interest in exploring that further, and we welcome the new partnership with life science companies to consider the potential of pharmaceuticals in tackling some of the challenges facing the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) talked powerfully of his use of Wegovy to lose 5 stone, and I congratulate him on his success in doing so. One important point that he made about that class of drugs is that they are not by themselves a silver bullet; they require willpower and people need to work with not against them, as he said. They are not without potentially severe side effects, and as they might only work when an individual is using them, they may require lifelong use. We need a judicious use of intervention with pharmaceuticals, combined with the necessary education and lifestyle changes for weight loss to be sustainable in the long term.
This debate has focused on the issue of nanny state versus the freedom to choose. This is a Labour Government, so of course they are very keen for widespread state intervention, but what we need is not a list of bans and taxes but a coherent policy based on a clear understanding of what they mean by “healthy diet”; a strategy for food security that includes more home-grown food; education on diet and cooking; the removal of the stigma associated with being overweight or obese, which many Members mentioned; the avoidance of bans and taxes leading to reformulation with additives and processing; and, as obesity is such a difficult condition to reverse, the judicious use of medication. Most importantly, prevention is better than cure, so let us focus on the children.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsThursday 16th January 2025
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place
“whether made—
(a) by the offender or any other person, or
(b) by means of any machine”,
and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of
“any one or more of the following—
(a) tobacco products;
(b) herbal smoking products;
(c) cigarette papers;
(d) vaping products;
(e) nicotine products.”
They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.
Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:
“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”
Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:
“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—
(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—
(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);
(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);
(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);
(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—
(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);
(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”
For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?
I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?
Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine
“(a) the occupier of the premises, and
(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”
Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?
Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?
Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?
Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence
“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”
If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.
Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.
That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?
Sarah Bool
Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.
Dr Johnson
When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?
Sarah Bool
I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.
Andrew Gwynne
In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.
Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.
Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.
If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?
With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.
Andrew Gwynne
I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.
First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.
That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.
On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.
On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.
On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.
I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Dr Johnson
I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.
Dr Johnson
I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?
Andrew Gwynne
It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.
In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.
The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?
Andrew Gwynne
Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.
If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—
Dr Johnson
Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?
Andrew Gwynne
All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.
Dr Johnson
With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?
Andrew Gwynne
Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.
This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.
Dr Johnson
I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?
Andrew Gwynne
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland.
Clause stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.
I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.
However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.
The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.
The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.
The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.
The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.
I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.
Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.
A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.
Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.
On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.
Dr Johnson
I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.
Dr Johnson
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Fixed penalties: use of proceeds
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.
This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.
Liz Jarvis
I have one sentence left.
The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.
I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.
I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with
“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,
so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dr Johnson
Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.
Dr Johnson
I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.
Andrew Gwynne
We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 42
Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Power to extend Part 1 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.
These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.
The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.
Dr Johnson
My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?
Andrew Gwynne
I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.
I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.
The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.
Dr Johnson
Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.
I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.
Gregory Stafford
I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?
Dr Johnson
One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?
Andrew Gwynne
We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.
Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.
I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.
Dr Johnson
Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?
Andrew Gwynne
That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.
I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.
On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsThursday 16th January 2025
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.
In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Clause 22 stand part.
Clause 85 stand part.
Schedules 11 to 13.
Dr Johnson
I put on the record my good wishes for a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dartford. He shares a birthday with both my daughter and my son’s science teacher, and I wish them all a happy birthday. While fully enjoying and engaging with this very important piece of legislation, I understand his urge to celebrate his birthday later, and I hope he will be able to do so.
This is quite a big group of clauses. They provide for the licensing regime for retail sales of various products, tobacco products and others in England and are quite complex.
Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the granting of personal and premises licences. It establishes a licensing system for the sale, storage, exposure and supply of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England and outlines the requirement for individuals and businesses involved in the retail of those products to hold specific licences.
The clause can essentially be broken down as follows. Subsection (1) establishes that individuals in England are prohibited from selling, displaying for sale or possessing certain relevant products, such as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, unless they have a valid personal licence. That ensures that all transactions are regulated and aims to control access, ensure compliance with legal standards and promote accountability among retailers in handling those products.
Clause 16 also effectively creates a licensing framework to monitor and enforce sale practices. That is important, because we have heard evidence—and seen for ourselves when we walk down the street—that virtually every shop, whatever it sells otherwise, sells vapes. The clause will help to reduce the number of outlets selling those products and ensure that they are being sold responsibly and only to those above the age of sale.
Subsection (2) mandates that premises cannot be used for certain activities involving the relevant products, including storing, displaying or supplying them without a valid premises licence. Again, that ensures that the locations themselves are regulated by requiring a licence, which allows for oversight of operations, ensures compliance with health and safety and legal standards and prevents and reduces unauthorised and illicit sales. That will help to enforce accountability and the responsible handling of regulated goods.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to create by regulations exemptions to subsections (1) and (2) if he or she wishes to do so. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to create regulations governing the granting of both personal and premises licences. That provision is essential to establish clear criteria and procedures for individuals and businesses seeking licences to sell, store or display relevant products. Subsection (4) will ensure that those activities are conducted responsibly and legally, aligning public safety standards and allowing for consistent oversight, as I said. It ensures that there is a thorough process in considering input from those who are directly affected by or have expertise in the matter.
Subsection (7) specifies that regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have talked about before. Subsection (8) defines key terms, such as “personal licence”, “premises licence” and “relevant products”, ensuring that there is clarity in the interpretation and application of the provisions so that individuals subject to them understand what their duties involve.
Schedule 1 concerns the retail licensing scheme for England only. To tackle the illicit market and protect legitimate businesses, the Bill provides powers to introduce a new retail licensing scheme in England for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The schedule details the regulations for a retail licensing scheme and explains the regulations that the Secretary of State can implement under the powers granted in clause 16, which mandate that retail sales of those products in England must be licensed.
There clearly needs to be a licensing authority, and the regulations will designate a local authority as the responsible body for granting licences to retailers that wish to sell tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. With regard to yesterday’s statement on the changes to some local authorities, it is important that the provisions in the schedule work, even in the event that the local authorities change as part of that process.
The regulations on licensing conditions can prevent the granting of licences in certain areas—for example, near schools—limit the number of licences in specific areas and require premises to be inspected before a licence is granted. The licensing authority can charge a fee to cover the cost of administering and enforcing a licensing scheme, and a portion of those fees may be allocated to other bodies involved in the enforcement process, especially if licensing and enforcement are handled by different authorities. The regulations will also do other sensible things; they mention the licence duration, public disclosure and how to renew and appeal any licence that has been either granted or refused. The Secretary of State will be able to provide guidance to the local authorities providing the licensing duty on how to carry out their duties in that respect.
The impact assessment on the Bill, which was published by the Department for Health and Social Care in November 2024, notes:
“A retail licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products would support enforcement (and in turn, public health) by:
a) strengthening retailers’ adherence to existing regulations”
and by
“b) providing the opportunity to introduce further restrictions…in the interest of public health, for example conditions relating to retail density.”
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.
Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty. To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so.
The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed. If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid. Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.
Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales. As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products. In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.
Gregory Stafford
I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.
Dr Johnson
I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon. Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important, however, that those who are selling online and those who are selling in shops have to have a licence to do so. I hope that the Minister does not intend to exempt online retailers from the need to have a licence to sell such products—he is shaking his head, so I suggest that is not the case, which is good.
One reason for tabling new clause 10 was to highlight the importance of ensuring that online retailers are held to the same standards as those real-world retailers. We have talked previously about ensuring that online apps and online sales cannot be used as a get-around—similar to vending machines, for example. It is important to ensure that the online world is not used to get around the Government’s intention to prevent smoking and the purchase of smoking, vaping and nicotine products by under-age individuals.
To return to clause 19, subsection (5) requires Welsh Ministers to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations, which is sensible. Subsection (7) specifies that the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which for Wales means that the proposed regulations must be formally approved by the Senedd before becoming law, increasing democratic accountability and providing an extra layer of scrutiny. Respect for Welsh devolution, as we talked about in the last session, is therefore included within the Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for retail licensing schemes in Wales, making provision regarding the granting of a licence in Wales, including provisions meaning that a licensing authority cannot grant a licence to premises in a particular area, for example, in proximity to a school, and limiting the number of licences within a particular area. We heard previously that specifying that licensed premises should not be near a school could cause difficulties in some rural areas where there may be only one shop in that village and no shops for many miles around it. That is one of the reasons decisions are made locally, because the local individuals providing those licences know the local circumstances, and that would need to be done cautiously. The regulations will also specify the duration of the licence, how it is enforced and the appeals process.
Clause 20 relates to offences in connection with licences in Wales and sets out how offences are committed, along with the penalties that may be put in place. I will not go through that in any more detail.
Clause 21 talks about the financial penalties in Wales. We have talked previously about how it is a matter for the devolved nations to decide how high those penalties should be. Subsection (1) grants the local weights and measures authorities in Wales the powers to impose those financial penalties relating to a breach of conditions attached to a personal or premises licence.
Schedule 4 outlines the procedure for local authorities in Wales, such as trading standards, to impose financial penalties for breaching licence conditions. Again, before imposing a penalty, authorities must issue a notice of intent and allow time for it to be challenged. If a penalty is imposed, a final notice is issued, which can be withdrawn or reduced, and the person can appeal the decision or the penalty amount to the magistrates court. Unpaid penalties can be recovered as if they were payable under an order of the county court and proceeds, after enforcement costs, are returned to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
Clause 22 is the repeal of register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. It proposes to repeal chapter 2 in part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which established a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. Clearly, if this Bill passes, that provision will no longer be required because the clauses in the Bill provide for new provisions. Clause 22 repeals that chapter of the 2017 Act so that it can be replaced, which is sensible.
Gregory Stafford
I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon. Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Chapter 2 of part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which is being repealed by the Bill, establishes a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. That Act requires the creation and maintenance of a register for all retailers of tobacco, cigarette papers and nicotine products. That register has to include detailed information about each registrant, such as their name, residential or business address, and the location of the premises. It also specifies whether the retailer sells tobacco, nicotine products or both. For mobile and temporary premises, such as stalls, tents or vehicles, the register must record the relevant local authorities where the business operates, if there is more than one.
Welsh Ministers may be designated as the authority responsible for overseeing the register, with additional details about registration requirements subject to regulations. To register, businesses must apply to the registration authority and provide comprehensive details about their operations, including the type of products sold and the methods of sale, such as online transactions or delivery services. Applications must comply with a prescribed format and a fee may be required. The authority must grant registration unless legal restrictions, such as restricted premises or sale orders, apply. Approved applications result in updates to the register.
Registered retailers are obligated to notify the authority of significant changes, such as modifications to business details, the cessation of operations at specific locations or the discontinuation of mobile operations in a local authority area. Notifications must be submitted within 28 days and the registration authority is responsible for revising the register to reflect the changes or correct any inaccuracies. Before amending or removing a registrant’s entry, the authority must provide notice to explain the reasons and allow time for the registrant to respond.
The chapter of the Act that is being repealed includes provisions to enhance the regulation of tobacco and nicotine businesses by ensuring access to the retailers register and enforcing compliance. The registration authority is required to publish a list identifying registered businesses and their premises. For businesses operating from moveable structures, such as stalls or vehicles, the list must specify the local authorities where operations occur, instead of physical addresses.
Local authorities are granted full access to information on the register relevant to the premises within their jurisdiction to enable effective monitoring. Certain premises may be exempt from the Act’s provisions, as specified in regulations. The application of the provisions to moveable premises may be modified if deemed necessary by Welsh Ministers.
Conducting a tobacco or nicotine business without registration is an offence, as is operating at locations not listed in the register. Exceptions apply to moveable premises, but failing to notify the authority of a change in business operations without reasonable cause also constitutes an offence. Offenders face fines proportional to the severity of the breach.
To enforce compliance, local authorities may appoint authorised officers and grant them powers to investigate potential offences. Officers may enter premises at reasonable times, provided that they suspect violations and need access for verification. Entry into dwellings for such a purpose requires a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which remains valid for 28 days. Warrants may also be granted for other premises under specific conditions, such as denial of access or risk of compromising an investigation.
Authorised officers have extensive inspection powers, including examining premises, taking samples and copying documents. They may also secure properties for analysis where necessary. Obstructing officers or failing to co-operate with a reasonable requirement is an offence. Fixed-penalty notices can be issued for minor breaches, offering offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution through prompt payment. Those measures, in the chapter of the Act that is being repealed, collectively aim to uphold public health standards and ensure the responsible sale of tobacco and nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.
Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.
Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.
Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.
The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.
There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.
Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.
The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.
Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.
Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.
Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.
Jack Rankin
In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.
I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.
On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.
Dr Johnson
It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.
Sarah Bool
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.
Evapo also says that
“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”
That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.
I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank Members for their contributions.
Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.
Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.
Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.
The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.
I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to Scotland in due course.
Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority. In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.
The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance. It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date. That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations. For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.
Dr Johnson
Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?
Andrew Gwynne
No. The local authority, not the parish council, would be and will remain the licensing authority, as is the case at the present time. Notwithstanding that there may be a quasi-additional tier in the form of a mayor and a combined authority, where areas move from a two-tier to a unitary authority, it will be the local authority that is the licensing authority. That is what happens in my constituency in Greater Manchester, where we have effectively had unitary authorities since the metropolitan county council was abolished in 1986. Tameside metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council are both unitary authorities. They are both the licensing authorities for their respective parts of my constituency, even though we have a Greater Manchester combined authority and a Great Manchester metro mayor. I hope that clarifies the issue.
Schedule 1 also establishes that regulations may make provisions regarding the granting, duration, renewal and revocation of licences, and enables the licensing authority to charge a fee for the granting of a licence. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor, the fee structure may be set at a level that takes into account administration and enforcement costs. The local authority will be able to use the fee to help cover the cost of granting licences and enforcing the scheme. That is the closest I can get: we intend it to be cost-neutral for the purpose of operating the scheme.
Schedule 1 establishes that regulations can place conditions on the licence. Retailers that breach those conditions will be subject to civil financial penalties. Regulations may make provision for licensing authorities to publish information about licences, such as the addresses of licensed retailers, and, to maintain fairness, regulations must include an appeals route, so that retailers can, for example, appeal decisions on the granting of a licence. Finally, regulations may require that a licensing authority must consider guidance published by the Secretary of State to support the smooth implementation of the scheme.
Clause 19 and schedule 3 establish the same power to introduce a licensing scheme in Wales, with the same framework for the regulations. The schedule establishes the licensing authority in Wales to be the council of the county or county borough. Clause 85 achieves the same in Northern Ireland by inserting a new clause into the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, while schedule 11 establishes the same framework. In Northern Ireland, a council will be the licensing authority.
Clause 17 creates offences in relation to the licensing scheme in England. It makes it an offence to sell, expose for sale, or possess for the purpose of sale any relevant products without, or not in accordance with, a personal licence. The clause also makes it an offence to use a premises in England for the storage of relevant product for the purpose of retail sale, the exposure for sale, or the supply of any relevant product to a retail customer without, or not in accordance with, a premises licence, and knowingly to provide materially false or misleading information in a licence application.
Anyone found to be committing a licensing offence may be issued with an unlimited fine on conviction. As an alternative to prosecution, trading standards may issue a £2,500 fixed penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine. Regulations can confer on courts a discretionary power to suspend or revoke a licence on conviction. The court may order relevant product to be forfeited and destroyed, to prevent a business from continuing to sell or unlawfully selling product.
Clause 20 establishes the same licensing offences in Wales, and clause 85 establishes the same licensing offences in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, district councils will enforce the licensing scheme. People convicted of a licensing offence face a fine of up to £5,000. As an alternative to prosecution, councils in Northern Ireland can issue a fixed penalty notice, the value for which will be determined in regulations.
Clause 18 creates civil financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions in England, to ensure that licensed retailers continue to follow the rules. Breaching conditions is a civil matter, not dealt with by the courts. The value of the civil financial penalty cannot exceed £2,500. The clause also provides a limited and specific power to update that value to account for inflation, to ensure that the value remains relevant. A civil penalty cannot be issued if the breach of the licence condition already constitutes a licensing offence. That is to ensure that someone cannot be subject to double punishment for the same licence breach.
Dr Johnson
The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent. Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?
Andrew Gwynne
As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation. That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)
Caroline Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 14th January 2025
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 View all Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2025 - (14 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Before we were rudely disturbed by the weekend—I hope that all Members had a good one—we were coming to the conclusion of the debate on this grouping. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to discussions last week; I will continue to respond to the outstanding points raised in the previous sitting.
On the Windsor framework, we are proud to say that the Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in partnership, in full, with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. This Government, and I hope this House, intend the smoke-free generation policy to apply to all four nations.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have a quick question for the Minister about some of his answers last week about the clause. He said that tobacco products would include bongs, and was quite passionate about that. But clause 48, which is meant to be read in relation to clause 1, defines “tobacco product” as something that contains tobacco. I have seen bongs made of glass, ceramics and various other things, but I have never seen one that contains tobacco. It is certainly easy to make one that does not contain tobacco. I am therefore interested in why the Minister believes that the Bill equates bongs and tobacco products.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that. We will come on to those issues in more detail when we eventually reach those clauses, which given the rate of progress so far may be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, if Members decide so. The only reason why such paraphernalia is on display and legally sold is to consume tobacco, but we will get more information on that for her when we get to clause 45, which covers that issue.
I was talking about the Windsor framework. We believe that this policy is in accordance with our international obligations. In terms of what products are in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, including shisha, cigars and heated tobacco. That is because all tobacco products are harmful. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For example, tobacco smoke from cigars leads to the same types of disease as the smoke from cigarettes. In England alone, around five times as many people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, as did a decade ago, and children are a part of that increase. Shisha, to which the hon. Member for Windsor referred, also causes the same diseases as cigarettes, including cancer, respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The volume of smoke produced in the average 45-minute shisha session is estimated to be the same as around 25 cigarettes’-worth of tar, 11 cigarettes’-worth of carbon monoxide and two cigarettes’-worth of nicotine.
Finally, there is clear evidence about the toxicity of heated tobacco. The aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens, and there will be some risk to the health of anyone using those products. The crucial point is that, unlike with vapes, there is no evidence that heated tobacco supports smoking cessation. We must ensure that the Bill is future-proofed to include new or novel products, such as heated tobacco, to protect the public from the harms of tobacco use.
Although cigarettes are the most used form of tobacco, we do not want to create loopholes in the Bill so that the tobacco industry can pivot and continue addicting people to tobacco. As I said previously, the issue is about saying, “The market share you’ve got now is it. We are stopping the conveyor belt.” As we know, if we block one road, the tobacco industry finds another route through. We are making sure that the Bill is as watertight and future-proof as possible so that the tobacco industry can no longer continue to trade with another product that harms and addicts future generations.
Andrew Gwynne
I stand by what I have already said. The intention is to work with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get the mechanisms in place that allow them to adequately enforce the measures in the Bill. We do not want to get this wrong. I politely say to the hon. Lady, however, that in the first instance it is highly unlikely that a veteran born before 1 January 2009 will seek to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products and be queried about their age. I will take on board what has been said and, if what I said earlier is incorrect, we can perhaps come back to the issue.
I want to come back to tobacco products because the point is crucial. We want to ensure that the tobacco industry has that conveyor belt cut-off. It is therefore rational for all the products that I have mentioned to be included in the smoke-free generation legislation. That will prevent anyone from taking up use of the products in the first place.
As I stated in my opening speech, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for bringing the discussion before the Committee, but while I appreciate his intention, it is not something the Government support. In relation to the amendments, I say to the Committee that the Government do not believe it is appropriate to establish a more lenient penalty regime for the offences, or to introduce a mandatory age-verification policy.
The clause seeks to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products. The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and putting us on track towards a smoke-free UK. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. May I ask a procedural question? I heard some Members shout, “Aye”, and some Members shout, “No”. In the previous session we recorded what Members said, but we have not done so this time. Can I inquire as to what the reason for that is? Last time there was a vote that was then recorded for Hansard, but that has not happened this time.
The Chair
That is because a Division was not called. I made the decision that the Ayes had it in this particular case and that the Noes did not. If a Member wished to challenge that at the time and call a Division, they were free to do so. They did not—
The Chair
They would just indicate that they wished for a Division—keep shouting, in effect.
The Chair
Regrettably, we have moved on.
Clause 2
Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end 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 provides for a discretionary caution.”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 56, 57, and 58, prevents penalties under sections 1 and 2 beyond level 3 for a first offence and provides for a discretionary caution.
Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) 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.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 seek to amend clause 2. Will we get the chance to debate clause 2 later, Mr Dowd?
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 go back to the principle of proportionality. I know the Minister gave his views on that last week, so I will not go on at length. But there is a difference between the individual shop assistant who may make an intentional error, and a shop that continues to repeatedly and recklessly sell to children or people who are too young to buy an age-restricted product. That is the principle of the amendments—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Can we be clear? If Members want to speak in the debate they should bob, just like in the Chamber. If you wish to intervene, Ms Jarvis—I assume you do, but I do not know—you could bring your request for the intervention to the person who is speaking.
Dr Johnson
My apologies. I was explaining the principle behind Opposition amendments 58 and 59, which are in my name. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Eastleigh was present on Thursday afternoon. Clause 2 refers to a “person” but does not specify who that person is, and there is as yet no guidance. The Minister said that the person could be the shopkeeper, the shop worker, the chief executive officer or whoever trading standards decided was the right person.
The fines to deter or punish illegal behaviour would necessarily need to be significantly larger for a large corporation than for a young chap of 19 working a few hours in the corner shop on a Saturday afternoon, for whom some fines would be quite punitive. The amendments allow for first offences to be treated leniently, in comparison with repeat offences, and their aim is to encourage the Government to think more carefully about guidance. When the previous Bill was introduced last Easter by the Conservative Government, with very similar wording in many cases, that Government produced guidance on how those charges would be applied. I am trying to encourage the Government to do the same thing. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I will endeavour to speak a bit louder. I do not know whether the hearing loop is working—
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As we have already argued, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of purchasing tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone under age—commonly known as proxy purchasing. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person could face for committing that offence, if it was the person’s first offence. The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an 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 liable instead to a discretionary caution in England and Wales or to a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the fine for which someone who committed that offence would be liable under the current legislation in England and Wales—level 4, which is £2,500. It is two levels lower than in Northern Ireland, where the fine would be at level 5, which is £5,000.
The amendments would have a similar effect on first-time offences as amendments that we have already discussed. If the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself as the rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same as that for amendments that we have already covered.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 75 and 76 have the same principle behind them, so I will not repeat myself. They relate to clause 69; as hon. Members will recall, clause 69 amends Northern Ireland legislation that is similar to the legislation in clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We are considering amendment 59 to clause 2, which was debated with amendment 58 to clause 2. Dr Johnson, have you decided whether you want to press amendment 59 to a Division?
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd, I just wanted to understand. In this morning’s groupings, which were sent by the Clerks, it appeared that not only amendments 58, 59, 75 and 76, but amendments 19 to 21 and 34 to 37 were to be debated before clause 2 stand part. Why were those latter amendments not called?
The Chair
As I indicated, the point had already been debated, so it was my decision that we would move on.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The Bill ensures that no one over the age of 18 is legally able to purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone under the legal age of sale, and there is a differential over time there. The age of 18 was chosen as it avoids criminalising children. This measure applies to all adults, and it does not allow for any ambiguity in law in the future. For example, it captures a situation in which someone over the age of 18, but under the legal age of sale for tobacco, attempts to buy products for a child. This action would be restricted, and the liability would not only be on the person selling the tobacco product, but also on the adult attempting to buy that product for the child.
These clauses align proxy purchasing offences with the new age of sale restriction for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They provide a defence if a person charged with this offence can prove they had no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009 or they can prove that they had no reason to believe that the other person intended to use the cigarette papers for smoking, which is in line with existing defences. These clauses are essential to ensure that there are no loopholes in the age of sale legislation, and they build on what works in the current age of sale legislation. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 2 makes it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to make a proxy purchase of tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for a person born on or after 1 January 2009. It essentially stops an older person going in and buying those products for a younger person, which we are aware has been happening for many years with both tobacco and alcohol. If found guilty, the person committing the offence faces a level 4 fine on the standard scale, which hon. Members will recall is £2,500.
The clause replaces the current offence under section 91 of the Children and Families Act of someone aged over 18 buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone aged under 18 in England and Wales. In many ways, that seems a sensible consequence to clause 1. If we want it to be illegal for people born after a set date to have tobacco, it makes sense to ensure that people cannot buy it for them.
However, I have some questions, particularly in relation to cigarette papers. I did not particularly talk about cigarette papers in our discussion of clause 1 because they are more rightly talked about in relation to clause 2, which treats cigarette papers differently, in so far as it makes them illegal unless a person can prove that they are using them for something else. I looked into what that something else might be. I naively thought that cigarette papers were essentially just bits of paper of a particular thinness that could be rolled up and stuck together with a little gum arabic once somebody had rolled whatever they wanted to roll inside them; in fact, that turns out not to be the case because of the law.
The papers contain ethylene-vinyl acetate, which makes them more fire-resistant. The sad situation is that every year people smoke in bed or in their armchair, fall asleep and cause themselves burns, and sometimes even cause death or house fires. The ethylene-vinyl acetate—a sort of plastic—added to cigarette papers helps them to self-extinguish and reduces the risk of fires; we know that some particularly dreadful fires, such as the Kings Cross fire, are believed to have been caused by loose cigarettes.
The cigarette papers are essentially made from plant fibre, such as bamboo flax and rice, but they can be flavoured and coloured. In the evidence given to the Committee last Tuesday, we heard about the tobacco industry’s aim of ensuring that younger people are enticed by colours and flavours. A quick look at Amazon—other sellers are, of course, available—reveals that people can buy cigarette papers in a whole range of bright colours. People can also buy cigarette papers with pictures of cherries, apricots, bubbles and all sorts of things on them. I thought it was interesting that that has not been covered in relation to cigarette papers. Why give an exemption allowing them to continue to be sold when the reality is that they will continue to be used for rolling either illegal tobacco or other forms of illegal drug?
Gregory Stafford
Is my hon. Friend saying that cigarette papers have a specific definition in law and therefore that the papers she talks about, which have chemicals to make them fire-resistant and so on, will be banned, or is she saying that the clause will ban anything that could be used as a cigarette paper within the law? If she does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister can pick that up when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Clause 48, which we obviously have not come on to yet, gives the interpretation of part 1 and all the definitions. The definition of cigarette papers in the Bill includes
“anything…to be used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.
Different chemicals are put in, believe it or not, to make the ash whiter—people are concerned, when they have burnt their cigarette, with the colour of the ash that has fallen from it, which seems remarkable to me. Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and titanium oxide can be added to affect the colour of not just the paper, but the ash produced. Seignette salts—sodium potassium tartrate and sodium citrate—are also added to make it burn faster, so that people go through cigarettes slightly more quickly. Then there is the glue of the acacia gum.
As far as I can tell, it is impossible to find out what is in the cigarette papers that one might wish to purchase; if one looks online, it is very hard to work out what is in them. I have seen medical reports of people allergic to the ingredients having: cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips; circumoral—around the mouth—inflammation; and finger dermatitis. If one is selling a ham sandwich, it is important to include the ingredients so that people know what it is in it, but it seems that for cigarette papers that is not the case and I am not entirely sure why. It is also the case that some commercially available papers contain copper, chromium and vanadium. As they burn, the pigments can lead to very high levels of exposure. These are not inexpensive; Amazon sells a random choice of eight flavours for £9.99. The issues are worth considering. It has been proposed that individual cigarette papers have on them a message saying “Smoking is bad for you” or something along those lines, but does that not involve adding further chemicals to the paper and therefore further risk?
Clause 2(3) states:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”
of proxy purchasing
“to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking”,
To which the somewhat obvious question is, “What on earth else would one use cigarette papers for?” With some trepidation, I asked Mr Google. Initially, all I could find was that they are used for smoking joints of cannabis, which did not seem to me a particularly good reason—the smoking of another illegal substance—for the Government to exclude them. Then I found out that some people use them for woodwind instruments. They place them underneath the key and press the key down, which allows extraneous water to be soaked up. They then release the key and pull the paper out. That helps to dry the instrument, prolong its life and prevent damage. Clarinet players—I did learn the clarinet but I did not know this; maybe that is why I was not so good at it—or players of the oboe, bassoon, flute or saxophone can buy cigarettes papers for that purpose.
The question of whether the Government need to provide an exemption for cigarette papers hinges on whether there is an alternative for the public to use for their woodwind instruments—and there is, of course. It is obvious in some respects that the market would provide one were cigarette papers banned. Connoisseurs of such instruments tell me that cigarette papers are not ideal to use for this purpose because of the additional, potentially toxic chemicals they contain—one is potentially inhaling bits of the chemicals back in—and because it is not ideal to get traces of the gum on one’s instrument. It is possible buy Superslick Pad and Yamaha cleaning papers. As far as I can tell, they do not contain toxic chemicals, because nobody would be interested in whether the ash burnt from them was white or otherwise since no one is going to set fire to them. Is it therefore really necessary to have a specific exemption for the use of cigarette papers for instruments, when in practice that is unlikely to be what they will be used for? There is an alternative and the most likely use—I think the Minister will understand this—is that they will be used for smoking joints.
Sarah Bool
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. My first question was, “Well, what else they would be using cigarette papers for?” The second question—which maybe the Minister can answer—is about the level of proof. This comes up not only in clause 2(3), but elsewhere in clause 2. I know that the Minister will say, in relation to clause 2(3), that this is in line with legislation as it currently stands, but if we are tightening up on the whole, perhaps this is an area that we should consider tightening up further?
Dr Johnson
Indeed, it does seem contradictory, if not counterintuitive. It also leaves us with a bizarre situation where, were someone to be a bassoon player, for example, and they wished to buy these products to use for the alternative purpose of drying their keys, then they would have to get someone else to buy them because they would not be able to buy them themselves. For a child born after 1 January 2009 and learning to play such an instrument, either the market will need to provide another opportunity to buy such a product, or the child will need someone else to buy the product for them. That does not make sense. The rolling age of sale that we discussed in clause 1 means that, over time, the number of individuals wanting to buy the product for their instruments but not allowed to, compared to the number of people allowed to, would inevitably diminish. We would have a larger group of people trying to find an ever smaller group of people to buy their cigarette papers for them for that purpose. To some extent, it would be more sensible to remove subsection (3) all together because it creates a loophole that will be used almost entirely for illegal uses of these papers. There is a market already providing a reasonably priced alternative for people to use for their instruments—which in practice are better for instruments in any case.
The final point is on the burden of proof. As a defence, someone purchasing the product on behalf of another has to prove they have no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009. What does that really mean? Is that a reversal of the burden of proof? Is it saying a person has to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove them guilty? In what circumstances would it apply? In what circumstances is it necessary for someone to buy cigarette papers, other than the oboe player or the saxophone player? I guess if someone in his or her 70s attends a corner shop but has forgotten their ID, they could ask somebody older to buy the papers for them; I guess that would be okay. They may find that they have come with a veterans card, thinking that they can use it because it is usable for voter ID, but that particular type of ID is not included; we have discussed widening the scope of those documents.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I understand that the term “cigarette paper” clearly indicates that the primary use for such an item is likely to be tobacco usage. However, it is not exclusive. As a model maker, I use cigarette papers in model making. I understand they are also used in art and in other activities. Although I am not suggesting that there are no alternative products to cigarette papers, it is not 100% exclusive. With respect, I think the clause refers to a person buying cigarette papers for another individual for a purpose other than smoking—if that can be proved. I accept what the hon. Lady is saying, but think she is stretching the point quite a lot.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I searched quite extensively for other uses of cigarette papers and had not come across that one; that is very interesting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks they need to have pictures on them—perhaps that helps with the art. I think there is still a difference in a cigarette paper that contains extra toxic chemicals to help it burn a particular colour, for example. I am not sure whether there is any particular art or model making application for having the cigarette paper with all the chemicals in, as opposed to any other type of paper that is produced for the purpose. Inevitably, the market would produce a non-cigarette paper for the purpose, which would reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that are used and therefore also the amount of toxic chemicals in our environment—given that, inevitably, once they finish being used, they get wasted.
The point stands that the papers themselves contain toxins that would not be required for any other uses, whether that be for models, art or music. Therefore, since such products are available on the market to buy separately from cigarette papers, though they may currently be slightly more expensive, the Minister may want to consider removing that exemption, because it inevitably creates a loophole for these products to be used for the smoking of illegal tobacco or a joint.
Gregory Stafford
It is interesting—now that we have moved on to the alternative uses—to note that anyone who has ever had children knows that pipe cleaners are an essential part of any craft kit. Obviously, they can be used for cleaning a pipe, as well as making a spider or whatever else. The Minister has not sought to ban pipe cleaners in the same way. I wonder why he has picked out cigarette papers, which have alternative uses, but not pipe cleaners, which clearly have alternative uses as well.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is bringing back painful memories of trying to create things with pipe cleaners for my children, and trying to make them stand up straight when they simply are not quite that stiff—but some fun memories, too. Yes, I do see that they are used in art. That suggests another question. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that the Government have chosen to ban cigarette papers because they want to reduce the amount of people smoking illegal tobacco; it is also an opportunity to reduce the amount of availability of papers for smoking cannabis and other illegal products, but why have they not included filters?
For many years, the tobacco industry has implied that smoking through a filter is safer and many in the population believe that smoking through a filter is safer, but it is a single-use plastic—and I am sure the Minister is very worried about the environment and the use of single-use plastics. The previous Government banned quite a lot of single-use plastic items to reduce waste. The cigarette filter is the most littered item globally every year and it is a single-use plastic. It contains a cellulose acetate filter, which I am told is a plastic pollution. It also increases the risk of a particular form of lung cancer, because the tiny little itty bits of plastic are inhaled into the individual who is smoking. They also increase the way that people draw on a cigarette, which means they could take in more of the toxins when there is a filter than when there is not. Will the Minister discuss whether he plans to include filters on Report?
Let us look at international examples. In 2011, the United States said that all cigarette papers should have Food and Drug Administration approval for their ingredients. Is the Minister considering publishing the ingredients on the packet here in the UK, so that if they are to continue to be sold, people are aware of the toxins they contain? Further, where these products are being used for modelling or art purposes, perhaps such steps will start to reduce the number of toxins contained in them.
As part of clause 2 we are also going to discuss clause 69 stand part. Clause 69 substitutes for article 4A of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That is, essentially, identical to clause 2, except for the fact that subsection (4) states someone guilty of an offence under the article is liable to a fine “not exceeding level 5”, whereas clause 2 says “not exceedingly level 4.” As the Minister is looking for consistency across the four countries of the United Kingdom, could he explain why he has chosen to have a lower level of fine for the proxy sales offence here than he has in Northern Ireland?
It should be noted that, although we have already discussed clause 50, that part of the Bill provides for legislation for proxy sales in Scotland, where the fine threshold is also set at level 5. I understand that the Minister is a fan of devolution, and wants devolved nations to be able to have different fines, so why has he chosen the fine level for this particular part of the country to be at level 4, which is lower than in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Additionally, section 5 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 says that it is illegal to buy, or attempt to buy, for oneself if under 18. Is it the Minister’s intention to amend that? That is my final question on clause 2.
Jack Rankin
I do not intend to go over the scope of the clause in great detail, because I think the principles largely flow form the principles of clause 1, but I will pick up on the cigarette paper point that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister made, and talk about clause 2(3):
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of cigarette papers to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking.”
I commend the shadow Minister’s researchers, because I can feel her thoroughness—I know a lot more about cigarette papers than I did an hour ago, and much more about cigarette papers than I thought there could possibly be to know, so she has answered some of my question.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has found today interesting. Does he also find it interesting that some of these papers that can currently be bought legally from major retailers in the United Kingdom are not just coloured and have designs on, but flavoured? That is clearly not necessary for someone using them for a model or artwork. They may make people smoke more, because they disguise the taste of the tobacco and make smoking more pleasant.
Jack Rankin
I believe that is the case, and it is something I did not know before today. My questions were along the lines of: is this not just paper, and, if so, why is it excluded in some sense? I was racking my brain for legitimate reasons, and, in her speech, the shadow Minister gave some legitimate reasons, whether that is the woodwind instruments, or the model making mentioned by the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It seems to me that—even though I disagree with the principle of the Bill—those extra properties would not be necessary for those legitimate uses in this instance.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the market should be able to make a difference. Clause 2(3) should be struck from the Bill, because it does not seem that there is a legitimate use for cigarette papers that would not be picked up in another way, shape or form if that subsection were removed. I understand from the guidance I received as a new Member on my first day here that I have to three days to table an amendment before discussion, but I would suggest the removal of subsection (3). Perhaps the Government will consider whether the provision should remain fully in the next iteration of the clause later in this process.
I also want to speak to the term “no reason to suspect”, because I am not clear where the burden of proof sits. If someone goes into a newsagent to order cigarette papers, the overwhelming likelihood is that they will use them to smoke cigarettes. I accept that other reasons exist, but is the shopkeeper supposed to ask? The Bill says “no reason to suspect”; I would expect shopkeepers to have every reason to suspect that people who buy cigarette papers smoke cigarettes. It seems a little woolly. What would the Minister expect the shopkeeper to do in those instances? Is he supposed to ask? If the person says, “I am using this for a woodwind instrument,” is that sufficient? If I were a person who wished to get around the law, I could pretty easily work out that that would get me around the clause.
Andrew Gwynne
That is a good question. Of course, if it was to be used for the consumption of tobacco, it would come within the scope of the Bill. We have to be clear that many of these products have dual uses, as we have heard. I am as guilty as anybody of making pipe-cleaner characters for my children and grandchildren—grandchild, rather, because I have only one so far.
We want to make sure that those who want to continue smoking are able to do so, but that obvious restrictions and boundaries are put in place regarding the accessibility of these products, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be sold them.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for engaging in this discussion, because although it is somewhat technical to discuss cigarette papers, it is important. The hon. Member for Worthing West made the key distinction, which is that it is about the ingredients that are in a product. It would be possible for the Minister to devise legislation that sought to ban cigarette papers, without preventing a market in a similar product that would be ineffective as a cigarette paper but useful for the average modeller.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps we will return to that on Report. I have every sympathy with what the shadow Minister says. We do not want to prevent the legitimate use—indeed, a whole variety of uses—of these products, which is why we have the exemption in the Bill. If we are able to do what she suggests under the powers in the Bill, that would be great; if we can do only some of what she asks for in respect of flavours, that would go part of the way, and we will need to look at how we can strengthen that. If the shadow Minister can be a little patient, I think we can come back to this on Report.
The Chair
Order. I do not mind Members seeking clarification, but when the Minister has sat down we need to leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Tobacco vending machines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses restate the ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and extend it to include vending machines that sell cigarette papers. The prohibition came into force in 2011 in England and in 2012 in Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the amendments made by the Bill it will be an offence for a person with management or control of a premises to have a vending machine available for use from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarettes may be bought.
The prohibition was originally introduced because tobacco vending machines were largely unsupervised and allowed under-age access to tobacco. In 2010, 8% of 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly smoked said that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes. The policy has successfully contributed to reducing smoking rates in young people and has been effective at enabling the age-of-sale restrictions to be implemented and enforced properly.
The existing legislation is consolidated in the Bill to replace the regulations that cover an automatic machine from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers may be bought. With all the restrictions that apply to such products covered in one Act, those who are affected by and who apply the legislation will find it easier to access them. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 3 outlaws the use of vending machines that sell tobacco or tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I note that there are no amendments to clause 3, presumably because it is somewhat settled and established law.
In the same way as vapes and other nicotine products, which we will come to later, vending machines make it much easier for people under the age of 18—or, under clause 1, those born after 1 January 2009—to buy age-restricted products that they are not legally allowed to purchase. They are self-service machines, so it is difficult to prove age and easy to get around if it is machine led. Historically, such machines have often been unsupervised by staff in a shop, thereby providing easy opportunities for younger people to buy from them.
It was coalition Government legislation—the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010—that banned the sale of tobacco products from vending machines from 1 October 2011. That statutory instrument was made under section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which was inserted by section 22 of the Health Act 2009. That is a complex chain to follow, so having this clause where everything is in one place is much simpler. The clause also adds herbal smoking and cigarette paper vending machines to the legislation—on a personal level, I welcome that, for the reasons I have given already—and clarifies the penalty, which was more difficult to establish when looking at the previous trail of legislation.
However, the clause does change the terminology. Previously, it was illegal on the basis of sale “from an automatic machine”; the Bill talks about an “automatic machine from which” products “may be bought”. It seems that they are the same thing, but of course we heard repeatedly in evidence how the tobacco industry tries to get round these things.
I found a trail of people discussing online how to get round the vending machine legislation, which raised various questions. If I buy a product from a major retailer online, I can choose to get that delivered to my home, I can collect it from one of its stores, and I can also pick it up from our local Co-op, the local post office, or from a box with a keypad door, at the garage and in other locations. If one were to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers using an online app, and collect them from a dispensing machine—an automatic machine that dispenses cigarettes—in a pub, would that be covered by this legislation, or is that a loophole that could be exploited? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, because we have heard how inventive the industry is. Would it be possible for people to circumnavigate the Bill’s intent by creating a machine that does not sell the product but simply gives to a person the product they have already bought?
Clause 70 applies to Northern Ireland. It will insert into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the new article 4B, which is essentially the same as clause 3, so the same questions and comments apply. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that in Northern Ireland we have a level 5 offence, and in England and Wales we have a level 4 offence.
I wondered briefly why there was no clause for Scotland, but section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to have an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco products, regardless of whether the machine also sells other products, with a level 4 fine, so Members can be reassured that that is covered. I do not think the Minister answered this point in relation to the previous clause: clearly he chooses the fine levels for England and Wales in the Bill; why has he chosen to have the same penalty as Scotland but a lower penalty than that in Northern Ireland?
Sarah Bool
Clause 3(1) says:
“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a tobacco vending machine is available for use.”
My first point goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about the concept of that person, because that leads to some questions and confusion about where the liability sits. When it comes to the person who has management or control of the premises, we might expect there to be a landlord and a tenant, in which case perhaps the tenant has control legally under the terms of their lease. But if the landlord has a managing agent—the hint is in the name—could they be caught within the scope of the Bill if they have not done enough to prevent the machine from being on the property?
What about cases in which a landlord who is a licensor has a licensee? The concept is slightly different: it is not as official as a lease, but someone has the right to use the premises but not exclusive use or possession of the premises. We could potentially argue about who actually has the management and control of the property in that instance. It would be interesting to know whether in future landlords could be in trouble if they do not include in the lease a provision that bans the location and siting of a vending machine in the property. I do not think that would be where landlords currently stand, but that is perhaps worth considering. It seems pedantic but, knowing the way the legal system can go when people want to find defences, we do have to stress test the wording we use, so we need to examine the concept of a person having management and control.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point that I had not fully considered: who is responsible where you have a larger corporation with a group of shops beneath? You have the board level, the regional managers, the local shop manager, the shift supervisor and then the shop worker, so who has the control? Is that something the Government have a fixed position on, or would each company individually need to prove who that was? If trading standards was prosecuting such an offence and chose the wrong individual, would the Government allow the corporation to get off scot-free?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is something we are duty-bound to explore and test, to make sure we can avoid any problems with the roll-out and implementation of this.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 4 makes it against the law to sell cigarettes that are not in their original packaging, so that individual or small amounts of cigarettes cannot be sold separately. That is in part because cigarette packets now have standardised formats, warnings and information designed to alert the smoker to the health problems caused by the smoking habit, and selling cigarettes outside the packets means the smoker avoids that information.
I asked the Minister earlier about proposals for warning notices about smoking on the cigarette paper itself, but I did not hear his thoughts. The notices might ensure that, were individual sales to happen despite the law, the warning would still be received by the child or smoker, but there is also the risk of adding additional chemicals to the paper. Where does he think the benefit or balance of risk lies in that respect?
Everywhere else the Bill makes it an offence for a “person” to do something, so why does the clause mention a “tobacco retailer” rather than a “person”? If the Minister does not wish cigarettes to be sold individually, why would it be more of an offence for a proper tobacco retailer to sell them individually than it would be for an individual who is not a tobacco retailer? Why the change in wording? I do not understand. If someone is not a tobacco retailer, it would clearly be illegal, because they would have no licence. Why not have this additional offence for the most reckless people, so that they can be dealt with more severely?
As the Minister says, the minimum pack size of 20 was brought forward in 2017, because it was felt that packs of 10 were closer to the level of pocket money and were encouraging the uptake of cigarettes by children. When we come to vaping, we will discuss the pocket money nature of some of these products.
Jack Rankin
Certainly in my experience, the only reason people sell unpackaged cigarettes is to make them cheaper for schoolchildren, so I find it strange that subsection (2) states that the fine is level 3 on the standard scale. If I understand what my hon. Friend said in the last sitting about the standard scale, level 3 is lower than the level 4 fine for sale. A sale could have been in error, but unpackaging cigarettes to sell to schoolchildren seems deliberately malicious, so I am surprised that it is not treated more severely. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on that.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right that the offence of selling a product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 is something someone could do unintentionally. They could genuinely believe the ID in front of them, or that the person looked so significantly older that it was not even necessary to ask them for ID, whereas selling cigarettes outside the packaging requires the deliberate act of removing them from the packet and selling them individually, in a way that is not normally done. I think my hon. Friend is right, and it is perhaps surprising to have a deliberate act at a lower fine level than a potentially unintentional one.
Sarah Bool
Why are we limiting this to cigarettes? Forgive me, I am not an expert—I have never bought herbal smoking products—but if we are applying the same rules and we just want an outright ban, perhaps we should apply it generally, in case there are rule changes, to the sale of not only unpackaged cigarettes but unpackaged herbal smoking products. That would add further to the emphasis on changing the term from “a tobacco retailer” to “a person”, as my hon. Friend suggested.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to talk about the quantity. If the principle behind this clause is to ensure that the quantity of sale is such that it restricts younger people from purchasing these products with their pocket money, what consideration has the Minister given to the quantities of herbal cigarettes, or herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers, so that they would be purchased in quantities not easily accessible to young people?
On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about the fine levels, the fines are level 3, which in this case is consistent across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Clause 51 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to add proposed new section 4E, which essentially has the same effect—it is different wording, but it has the same essential effect of banning the sale of loose cigarettes. Clause 71 adds proposed new section 4C, which is essentially the same as clause 4, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to have the same effect. Again, it has the same fine, so there is some consistency across the four nations of the country, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters. Again, it is a case of perhaps overcomplicating what the clause does. As with clause 3, clause 4 merely restates that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. We are not talking about proxy purchasing, or somebody breaking up a packet of cigarettes and selling them as an individual; we are talking here about retailers. This practice used to be quite common, but thankfully, because of the measures that are already in place, it is already an offence and we are reaffirming that offence in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it has been illegal for some time and that is an offence to sell loose cigarettes, and of course it has been. However, we heard in evidence from the Royal College of Physicians last week that the sale of loose cigarettes to youngsters was still a problem—it is an entry way into cigarettes. Does the Minister have any comment on whether reaffirming the offence with this legislation will actually help to enforce it to any greater degree?
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, I believe it will. Of course, this measure is not being taken in isolation, and it is not just a stand-alone measure. This is part of a whole package of tobacco control measures that form this part of the Bill. Taken together, these things will ensure that we drive down even further smoking prevalence in young people. However, we do not want to undo the legislation as it stands; we need it to be part and parcel of the whole raft of measures we are bringing forward.
Andrew Gwynne
Clauses 5, 6 and 72 replace the requirement for age of sale notices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to reflect the new age of sale for tobacco products. Clause 55 provides Scottish Ministers with the power to set requirements about warning statements, which are notices that reflect the new age of sale requirements there. Age of sale notices are required under current legislation and must state in a prominent position:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18.”
The Bill will replace that requirement with a requirement for notices to reflect the new age of sale, stating:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.”
The notices must comply with any requirements set out in regulations on the size or appearance of those notices. This updated wording on age of sale notices will support tobacco retailers in implementing the new age of sale restrictions by helping to clarify and underline them for customers and staff. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 5, 6, 55 and 72 make provision for age of sale notices. Clause 5(1) makes it clear on which premises the notices must be displayed. In some respects, that is obvious, but the fact that the Bill makes clear that the notices must be on the same premises where the tobacco is being sold is perhaps a sign that the Minister has the measure of the tobacco industry: if that was not clearly stipulated, there would be temptation to display the notices in head office or somewhere else where no one could see them. The fact that it is thought necessary to state what is blindingly obvious—that the notice must be displayed in the right place—is somewhat sad.
Subsection (3) deals with positioning. The statement that the notice must be prominent and readily visible at each point of sale is relevant to shops that have more than one till at the counter. One sometimes goes to the counter of a large supermarket, or similar, and sees a whole row of tills. It is therefore important that the signs are visible from all the tills, not just the one closest to the tobacco.
What the notice must say is provided for in subsection (2):
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.
That is clear, simple and informative, which is good. However, it does not mention cigarette papers or herbal smoking products. Why has the Minister chosen not to include the other items included in the rolling age of sale and the Government’s smoke-free generation on the notice for clarity? That is important because we heard in evidence, and have all read in the news, of examples where people who work in our retail sector have been treated in an abusive—sometimes violent—fashion or people have been very rude to them.
If the purpose of the notice is to be clear on what the law is, providing clarity that it also includes herbal smoking products and cigarette papers would enable the public to be aware of the law and the retailer to point to the sign and say, “I can’t do this—look.” The message as currently drafted does not do that, and that could cause shopkeepers or shop assistants more difficulty. I notice that under subsection (4), any aspect of the notices, including the appearance and wording, can be amended, so that could be done at a later date if the Minister feels that the shopkeepers’ evidence is that herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are proving a challenge. Why has he chosen not to do that at the outset?
Subsection (7) talks about a defence of having taken reasonable steps. I have two questions on that. First, is “It fell down and I hadn’t noticed, your honour” an adequate defence? How does the Minister envisage the reasonable steps defence? What are the reasonable steps? If the Government choose under subsection (4) to change the appearance or wording—perhaps if they discover it is inadequate in some way—what steps will need to be taken to ensure that all retailers are aware of those changes, and within what timeframe will retailers be expected to react to those changes?
The impact assessment says that the cost of putting up a new sign is not prohibitively expensive for an individual business—it is about £4 per retailer—but it means that there is an overall cost to small and micro-retailers of around £124,000 in England, and £143,000 in the UK. That is a cost to business overall, even if a small one to individual businesses. The impact assessment also notes the cost of staff training and awareness. There are an estimated 42,582 convenience stores in England, each with a store manager who would have to disseminate that information to the estimated 299,957 members of staff. Of those stores, 71% would be considered small or microbusinesses.
The cost of amending those things means that the Opposition invite the Minister to get the notice right the first time so costs are not incurred twice. There is an estimated cost of around £2 million in total on training. Although the cost to any one small or microbusiness is likely to be small—around £70 on average—that cost combined with £4 for a sign, at a time when small businesses are being squeezed by other budgetary measures the Government have brought in, is another potential straw to break the camel’s back.
The fine is at a level 3, and the person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail is the person who is liable. But what does it mean to be
“a person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail”.
Is it the director of the business? Is it the store manager who is on duty that day? Is it the overall store manager, or is it the licence holder?
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend has previously sought to amend the Bill in various places to add the qualifier “save for the first offence”. It seems to me that, particularly in the first instance, this could be a genuine oversight and that it would be appropriate for a council officer or someone from trading standards to simply bring it to the attention of store management and ask them to rectify it over a period of time. Does she think this clause should be tweaked in such a way, on the same principle on which that she has sought to amend other clauses?
Dr Johnson
I am going to disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. There will be licensing for tobacco products, and part of the due diligence of setting up to sell such products includes familiarising oneself with the legislation as it stands and thus with the regulations around signage, buying and putting up the appropriate signs, and providing the appropriate training. The challenge occurs if the Government seek to amend the notice, at which point they would need to ensure that they had given adequate notice and information to the company to ensure that it had the time, resources and information to put up the correct signs.
Tristan Osborne
On signs, if we accept the premise that the law is changed—as we have done in clause 1—to include a rolling scale with the date being 1 January 2009, signs will have to be updated in any event to reflect that. The current signs about being 18 would have to be removed. On the definition on the signs—tobacco products versus relevant products—is it not clearer to the public, who are going to be the purchasers of the products, if it is tobacco products? It does not preclude extra signage, which exists in many stores, of what can and cannot be purchased. While I accept the premise of the idea of relevant products versus tobacco products, for the public it would be clearer if it were tobacco products.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that those selling tobacco products legally now will need to change their signs to have the date of 1 January 2009 on them, as opposed to the age of 18, because that will be the law: that clause has now passed, and I expect that it will continue its passage through the House and the other place, because it has broad support among the public and within Parliament.
Dr Beccy Cooper
I just wanted to clarify something with the hon. Lady, because she is talking about the size of the signs in Wales, under clause 6, I think. Clause 6(4) says:
“The notice must comply with any requirements set out in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers”.
I presume that that is the response that she is looking for: the Welsh Ministers will absolutely be able to decide on the size of the signs.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making, I think, an important point about whether Ministers, either in England or in the devolved Administrations, can put signs together in order to reduce the burden on a business of having multiple, potentially confusing signs. I understand the point about devolution, but most ordinary people will look for a single regulated sign for this. I wonder whether there is any discussion—even if the Minister cannot legally enforce it within the Bill—about working in tandem with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that there can be a standardised sign, so that it is abundantly clear, whether someone is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, that that is the sign, and that it is both clear to consumers and it is clear to businesses what they are supposed to be displaying.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is of course correct that we have devolution, and the hon. Member for Worthing West is of course right that Welsh Ministers—in the same way as Scottish Ministers, and, as I will come to, Northern Irish Ministers—have the capacity to deal with changes to the signs, but it will be easier to have clarity. I am merely suggesting that the Minister could discuss these details with his devolved counterparts and put such measures on the face of the Bill now, rather than not do so and then require, for example, as I said before, the Scottish Ministers to then introduce an SI for something that could be changed much more cheaply with drafting now. It would require much less time and energy from the civil service in Scotland—and spend less taxpayers’ money—to achieve that.
I am interested by the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about joint signs. The point I was making was about the display space: if someone has to put a lot of different signs up—particularly given that the Minister has shown reluctance on the principle of a nicotine-free generation, which I suspect is where we will end up—and we need to do that at a later date, we will end up with yet another sign with yet another date on it. There comes a point at which the amount of display space available to retailers starts to become smaller, given the required font size.
Before I finish, I have one more quick point, which is just to note that clause 72 is the Northern Irish equivalent added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, so it is the same as clause 5, with the same effect.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)