Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025.

Clause 158 - Power to prohibit vaping etc on ships

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

Sadik Al-Hassan (Labour, North Somerset)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

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

Clause 159 - Application to Parliament

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

We have spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the House of Commons snuffbox. Let me make it very clear, as I thought I had done the previous time and the time before that: we are not against tradition. That snuffbox can stay for evermore. We have a lovely gold-plated stationery holder on the Table of the House that was the gift of a country called Southern Rhodesia, which no longer exists. It is now Zimbabwe, and it is no longer in the Commonwealth, but we still have that lovely gold-plated stationery holder, because it is tradition. It was a gift from a former British possession when the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt. The snuffbox will still be there, but it will not have snuff in it, because we will be applying the law of the land. I have no reason to think that future Doorkeepers will not still want their names on that historical artefact, the snuffbox, because that is tradition. It is just that we are snuffing out the snuff.

I commend this simple clause, which has the support of both Houses, to the Committee.

Clause 160 - Further consequential amendments

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 21.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

New Clause 2 - Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

The new clause proposes

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

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

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

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

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

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

As the Minister has often said, tobacco sales are declining, so perhaps the new clause would not be as effective as it needs to be in the long term, although I see the principle behind it. I am also concerned that if we put on caps or try to close down the market, we may end up with poorer quality, illicit-market tobacco. I am trying to think about the wider implications. Perhaps the hon. Lady wants to say something further in that regard.

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for tabling the new clause, because it allows us to have a debate about a really important matter. As has been discussed, the new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult and report on a scheme to regulate and to raise funds from the prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Duty on tobacco raises around £8.8 billion a year. The Government’s preferred approach is to continue with a proven and effective model of dealing with tobacco products through increases in tobacco excise and through duties. This generates finances that can support a full range of public services, including public health and the NHS, as well as smoking cessation services. We believe the proposed scheme would be complex to implement and might take several years to materialise.

Alongside the Bill, we are taking strong action to reduce the affordability of tobacco, which is an effective measure to trigger smoking cessation. The United Kingdom already has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. The World Health Organisation recommends that total taxes on tobacco are at least 75% of the retail price on typical cigarettes. The United Kingdom comfortably meets this target, with taxes at around 80% of selling price.

As announced at the autumn Budget 2024, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased in line with the tobacco duty escalator by 2% above retail price index inflation. The duty rate on hand-rolling tobacco was increased by a third of 10%, to 12% above RPI inflation, to reduce the gap with duty on cigarettes. Those changes came into effect on 30 October 2024.

Cigarettes are also subject to minimum excise tax, which sets a minimum amount of duty collected on a pack of cigarettes. That discourages manufacturers from selling cheap cigarettes, as it reduces the profitability of cigarettes sold at or below minimum excise tax trigger prices. The new minimum excise tax is £8.93 for a pack of 20, and it applies to cigarettes sold at or below £13.59 for a pack of 20.

We are still going further on tobacco tax. As announced in the autumn Budget, there will be an additional one-off increase for all tobacco duties. That will come into force on 1 October 2026, when the vaping duty comes into effect. From a financial perspective, that will maintain the incentive for smokers to switch to vaping once the new excise duty on vaping products comes into force.

On one last technical note, His Majesty’s Treasury can consult on tobacco taxation and fiscal policy at any time, so that does not need to be set out in the Bill. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to withdraw her new clause.

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4 - Ban on supply of cigarette filters

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for moving this new clause for debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for tabling it. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit the supply of cigarette filters that contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters that contain plastic.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the premise of the new clause. Cigarette filters, as we heard from the shadow Minister, have historically been marketed as making smoking safer, and we know that smokers can perceive cigarettes with a filter as tasting smoother and being of lower risk. Evidence shows that there is no proven health benefit to cigarette filters. All tobacco products are harmful to health.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

The hon. Member for Dartford has now arrived, so perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to allow him to intervene.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Hang on. It is for the Minister to decide who he wants to give way to. Minister, carry on speaking; if somebody catches your eye, it is up to you whether you allow them to intervene.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford wants to intervene, he need only ask.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I thank the Minister for giving way and welcome the fact that I am serving under your chairship, Mr Pritchard; it is an honour. I apologise to the Committee that I was not present to move the new clause and thank those who have moved it and spoken on it. The Minister has outlined some of the health dangers connected with filters. They do not prevent any of the toxins and carcinogens that—

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

May I pause the hon. Gentleman for a moment? If he wants to make an intervention, that is great, and he can make as many as he wishes. If he wants to make a speech, he can also do that, but that will come a little later.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I am quickly coming to the point of my intervention; I reserve the right to say something else later. The Minister has outlined the fact that the health benefits of filters are non-existent, but is he also aware that, according to Keep Britain Tidy, cigarette butts make up 66% of all littered items and cost UK local authorities around £40 million per year to clean up? Would he consider that relevant to this new clause?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Litter is something that this Government take seriously. Tobacco litter remains a concern for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with cigarette filters consistently scoring as the most littered item in surveys. Local authorities already have the powers to punish those who litter through prosecution. They can also create smoke-free areas through the use of public space protection orders.

Nevertheless, my colleagues in DEFRA believe that the best way to tackle littering of filters is through a reduction in smoking rates. We therefore continue to support all initiatives designed to encourage people to quit smoking. This Bill aims to reduce smoking prevalence in the UK. Our published modelling, which I have referred to, shows that smoking rates in England among 30-year-olds and under could be close to zero as early as 2050, which is likely to reduce overall litter levels, as there will be fewer tobacco and tobacco-related products sold and disposed of each year.

We need to be very wary of unintended consequences. I know for certain that my hon. Friend, like me, does not want to give tobacco manufacturers the opportunity to greenwash and to say that they have created a product that is not only healthier for people because it has a filter—we know that that is utter nonsense, but it is the lie they have peddled to date—but better for the environment. We will not allow the tobacco industry to improve its reputation by making itself appear to be environmentally aware and taking action.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the premise of the new clause, but we do not think it necessary, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already has the power to consult or introduce legislation on banning single-use plastics in cigarette filters at any time. It may well be that my hon. Friend will pursue that directly with the Environment Secretary and Ministers in DEFRA to get the outcome that he wishes to see, but placing the measure in a specific piece of tobacco control legislation runs the risk of allowing the tobacco industry to say that it is environmentally friendly.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

Without necessarily endorsing the ban that the new clause would lead to, is the Minister prepared to think about supporting a move to other parts of Government, and perhaps about even moving to ban cigarette filters, as part of the consultation that his Department is about to undertake? That would generate momentum for what he rightly says would be a positive move for the environment and for health.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We are very clear about the measures in the Bill that we will consult on, but I reassure my hon. Friend that I am in regular contact with Ministers across Government about a whole range of issues, not least because the health mission board has decided that I have a lead role in bilateral discussions on the health mission. I will certainly continue to raise the issue of cigarette end litter with colleagues in DEFRA, and to see whether we can get DEFRA to use some of the powers at its disposal in order to meet the aims and ambitions of my hon. Friend, but it need not be included in this Bill specifically, because it is a DEFRA-led policy.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked why cigarette filters were not covered in earlier clauses. In the Bill, we have taken a power to update the legislation to include tobacco devices and accessories that enable a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a pipe. It would not cover filters, as they do not enable a product to be consumed. That is the legalistic reason that cigarette filters are not in scope of the Bill, as we debated way back when. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I thank once more the shadow Minister for moving my new clause in my absence. If I were moving it, I would be content, given the Minister’s assurances to pursue this matter, to withdraw it. I know that there are others on both sides of the Committee who will work with me to make the right representations to DEFRA to see the point of the new clause carried forward in another part of Government. Were I moving my own new clause, I would be happy to withdraw it at this point.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear, although it is technically your decision, shadow Minister.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

New Clause 5 - Ban on manufacture and sales of high-strength nicotine pouches

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I find high-strength nicotine pouches incredibly concerning, as I had not been aware of their existence. There is a Member of the House who happens to use them; I had simply thought that that hon. Member was partaking of mints, but that is clearly is not the case.

This is an interesting area. As the shadow Minister has noted, pouches are discreet. When they are aimed at children, it is hard for parents to know what their children are taking, so they are particularly pernicious in their effect.

Many hon. Members will know that I often go back to social media. Apparently one of the main brands is called Zyn and is now trying to promote the trending of “Zynfluencers” via Instagram. The aim is to appeal to the younger generation. I do not think that that is acceptable, especially when some of these pouches are of a strength of up to 100 mg, as the shadow Minister mentioned.

Like the shadow Minister, I ask whether the Minister has any thoughts about whether the cap should be reduced further, because 20 mg may not be the right number. Given that the impact of long-term use of these pouches, which I happened to raise with the Member I saw taking one, includes mouth sores, gum irritation and oral cancer, I think we probably need a further discussion about them. I welcome any comments that the Minister may have.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

New Clause 6 - Consultation on licensing regulations

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

See explanatory statement to Amendment 51.

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Subsection (1) lays out the following requirement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We are doing this together.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

New Clause 7 - Consultation on registration and information requirements

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“, save Sections 95 to 98,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 53.

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

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

“the report specified in subsection (3)”.

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

New Clause 8 - Reports on illegal sale of tobacco and vaping products

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

New Clause 9 - Prohibition on manufacture and retail of high-capacity count vaping devices

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

New Clause 10 - Age verification requirement for online sales of vaping devices and products

Clause 161 - Power of Secretary of State to make consequential provision

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 162 to 166 stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The clauses concern powers for relevant Ministers to make consequential amendments and the procedure for making regulations under the Bill. Clause 161 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations that are consequential on the Bill. Clause 162 confers a power on Scottish Ministers to make provisions that are consequential on part 2 of the Bill, as well as clauses 142 to 146 and schedule 18. Clause 163 confers a power on Welsh Ministers to make provisions that are consequential on part 1 of the Bill, as well as clauses 147 to 152 and schedule 19, provided they are within their legislative competence. Clause 164 confers a power on the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make provisions that are consequential on part 3 of the Bill, as well as clauses 153 to 157 and schedule 20.

Those regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation passed before or in the same Session of Parliament as the Bill, as well as any provision made by the Bill itself. Regulations may amend primary as well as secondary legislation. During the development of the Bill, every effort was made to identify any consequential amendments that are required and to make provision for them on the face of the Bill. However, as the Bill brings together legislation that has been made over the last century, there is a small likelihood that further consequential amendments may be required to enable it to function effectively. It is therefore prudent that powers are conferred on the relevant Minister to make such changes via secondary legislation. Any regulations amending primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, in line with guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Clause 165 provides that any regulations made under the Bill, except for regulations made under clauses 168 to 170, may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision. It also provides that such regulations may make different provision for different purposes and for different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, in relation to regulations made under the powers in part 5, on registration requirements for products, different provision may be needed for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to take account of their pre-existing legislative frameworks.

Clause 166 provides for the procedures for making regulations under the Bill. Regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers are to be made by statutory instruments, regulations made by Scottish Ministers are to be made by Scottish statutory instruments and regulations made by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland are to be made by statutory rules. The clause also sets out in one place what is meant by the affirmative resolution procedure and negative resolution procedure for making regulations. Defining these terms is a drafting practice, and this is a standard clause that enables the measures in the Bill and regulations made under it to function effectively. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Clause 167 - Extent

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

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

apparently contradicting this Bill.

It is claimed in paragraph 350, on page 44 of the explanatory notes to the Bill:

“Under the Windsor Framework Agreement, the requirements of the EU Tobacco Products Directive continue to apply in relation to Northern Ireland. If regulations are made under the powers in Part 5 of the Bill which cover matters which the Directive applies to, then appropriate provision will be made in respect of Northern Ireland to ensure that the UK government meets its obligations under the Windsor Framework.”

The Minister will be aware that several MPs, including the former Member for North Antrim, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, have asked whether the Bill will fall foul of the tobacco directive by restricting the sale of tobacco, and will therefore be unenforceable in Northern Ireland. I notice that formal submissions to the Committee have suggested so too. The Minister will be aware that a King’s counsel has expressed similar concerns in the press. I share the concerns of other Members, no doubt, that that potential shortcoming could be exploited by tobacco companies looking to undermine the Bill.

Responding to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim on 26 November, the Minister said that he was assured that the Bill

“complies with the requirements of the Windsor framework”

and that it

“covers all four nations of the United Kingdom”. —[Official Report, 26 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 725.]

In the fifth sitting of this Committee, on 14 January, the Minister said:

“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.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 175.]

That intent is, of course, good, but the Minister does not appear to have laid out clearly how the Bill can be fully applicable to Northern Ireland while also compatible with the Windsor framework. For the benefit of the Committee, will he please do so?

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I want to build on the shadow Minister’s point, because I raised that concern in one of the previous sittings. I want to refer to the words of the King’s counsel, Jason Coppel, of 11KBW chambers, in relation to this point. In an article published online, he notes that TPD2, the tobacco products directive,

“lays down various requirements concerning matters such as ingredients, emission levels and packaging which must be satisfied by tobacco products, vapes and other smoking products if they are to be marketed within the EU. Member States are not permitted to prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of products which satisfy these requirements (article 24(1)). However, TPD2 does not seek to harmonise domestics sales arrangements for these products and positively encourages Member States to introduce age limits on their sale (recitals (21) and (48)). The key issue is therefore whether a GSB”—

a generational sales ban—

“would be a selling arrangement or age limit which is compatible with TPD2 or a gradual prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco and other products which meet the product requirements of TPD2, which would likely be incompatible with TPD2. There are, on any view, powerful arguments in favour of the latter view. The age limits referred to in TPD2 were limits on the sale of tobacco products to minors, not to adults. Unlike an age limit, the intention and effect of a GSB is to phase out the use of tobacco products entirely. It is equivalent in effect to an absolute ban on the sale of tobacco products, but a ban which is introduced very slowly, with an extent which increases day by day. If that analysis is correct then cl 68-69 of the Bill, if enacted, would likely contravene TPD2 regardless of whether they can be established by the Government to be a proportionate restriction in the interests of public health. It is reasonable to infer that the positions adopted by the Danish and Irish Governments were dictated by arguments along these lines. If a GSB would indeed contravene TPD2, it is relatively clear, from a series of decisions of the Northern Ireland courts applying the Windsor Framework, that TPD2 would have direct effect so as to override the GSB, pursuant to section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018.”

I appreciate that that is heavy legalese, but it is important to stress Mr Coppel’s point. I do not feel that I had a sufficient answer from the Minister last time, so I would appreciate it if he could confirm that that has been considered.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Clause 168 - Commencement: Parts 1 to 4

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 168, page 121, line 1, after “force” insert

“(so far as not in force by virtue of subsection (2))”.

Clause 168(2) brings the regulation making powers under Part 1 into force on royal assent. This amendment indicates that the Welsh Ministers’ power to bring certain provisions into force is subject to that and is intended to ensure consistency with the drafting in clause 168(4).

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 98.

Clause stand part.

Clause 169 stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Clauses 168 and 169 provide for the commencement of provisions in parts 1 to 4 and parts 5 to 8 respectively. Provisions in parts 1 to 4 come into force six months after the day the Bill is passed, with certain exceptions, including the regulation-making powers contained in parts 1 to 3, including powers to implement a licensing scheme, which will be commenced on the day the Bill is passed. Provisions to implement the smoke-free generation policy across the UK will come into force on 1 January 2027, when those born on 1 January 2009 turn 18 years old. Clause 168 also provides for the commencement of various other provisions that are specific to the devolved Governments, such as the provision to update the definition of a tobacco product in Scottish legislation. The remaining provisions in parts 1 to 4 will be commenced by regulations or by order.

Provisions in part 5 of the Bill, which relate to product and information requirements, are regulation-making powers, so they come into force on the day the Bill is passed. The majority of the provisions in part 6, such as those that prohibit the advertising of products including vaping products, will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. Provisions in part 7 will come into force on such days as the relevant national authority may appoint by regulations. That includes regulation-making powers to create additional smoke-free places, and making smoke-free places vape-free. These are standard clauses that are required for the implementation of measures in the Bill.

I turn now to Government amendments 15 and 98, which stand in my name. These technical amendments to clause 168 have been tabled at the request of the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Government amendment 15 concerns powers for the Welsh Ministers to commence provisions in part 1 relating to the licensing of retail sales in Wales and the handing over of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, and vaping and nicotine products, to under-age people.

Government amendment 98 concerns equivalent powers for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commence provisions in part 3 relating to the extension of the retailer register and the licensing of retail sales in Northern Ireland. Some parts of the provisions will be commenced automatically by clause 168(2) where they provide powers for the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make regulations. Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that the power for the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commence provisions cannot be used on those provisions that have already been commenced. The amendment serves to align the drafting for Wales and Northern Ireland with the equivalent provisions for England in clause 168(4). For that reason, I encourage the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Clause 170 - Transitional provision

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 170, page 122, line 3, at end insert—

“(za) sections 19 to 22 and Schedule 3 and 4 (licensing of retail sales of tobacco products etc in Wales);”

This amendment confers power on the Welsh Ministers to make transitional or saving provision in connection with the commencement of certain provisions that they have power to bring into force by order under clause 168(5).

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Clause 170 provides powers for Ministers in each of the devolved nations to make transitional and saving provisions. Transitional provisions address how existing legislation will be phased out or replaced by new legislation. Saving provisions preserve certain rights, obligations or legal consequences from existing statute. The power to make transitional and saving provisions is given to Ministers in each devolved Government to aid the implementation of specific measures in the Bill within their legislatures. This is a standard provision that enables measures in the Bill to function effectively.

Government amendment 16 is being made at the request of the Welsh Government. This technical amendment provides powers to the Welsh Ministers to make transitional or saving provisions in connection with the commencement of provisions relating to the retail licensing of products in Wales. As the Welsh Ministers have the power to commence those provisions by order, it is appropriate that they have the power to make transitional or saving provisions in connection with their commencement. That aligns with the approach taken throughout the Bill whereby such powers are given to the relevant Minister responsible for their commencement. For that reason, I encourage the Committee to support Government amendment 16.

Clause 171 - Short title

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The clause currently provides that the Bill may be cited as the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2024 once passed. As it is now 2025, the short title will be updated when the Bill, as amended in Committee, is printed to refer to 2025 rather than 2024.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

This is a remarkable moment in parliamentary history, because we have got the Tobacco and Vapes Bill through Committee. I thank you, Mr Pritchard, as well as Sir Roger, Sir Mark and Mr Dowd, for your diligent chairing. Please pass on the whole Committee’s appreciation for the way in which you have kept us going throughout.

I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee for the role that they have played, particularly as many are new Members. It has been a baptism of fire for some of them, but I hope that they have found the experience of amending, scrutinising and debating a really important piece of legislation to be of benefit. New Members should be assured that their Whips have already noted that this will be their first Committee of many.

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to indulge in a history lesson of my own, as that seems to have been the order of the day for most of the Committee’s sitting days. While I am overjoyed that the Bill is one step closer to becoming law, I must make the Committee aware of a previous smoking ban introduced in the 16th century by Pope Urban VII. During his short period as pope—it lasted 13 days—he went like the clappers to bring in a smoking ban, before he snuffed it. That ban was taken further by Pope Urban VIII, who banned snuff and threatened to excommunicate anyone smoking it, chewing it or sniffing it in or anywhere near a church. I only wish that the hon. Member for Windsor was in his place to realise that the Bill is positively liberal compared to the papal bulls of those popes.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

May I say that that was completely within scope? [Laughter.]

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I am not sure that is in order.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I take it back, Mr Pritchard—only because the hon. Member for Windsor is not here.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

By the way, just for the record, that is not an endorsement or a lack of endorsement of that organisation; it is just a question of whether that language is parliamentary.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

It was just three letters.

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

I join the Minister in congratulating everyone involved in the Bill, including the Clerks and everybody behind the scenes. On the question of history, I think I recall from our copious sessions the mention of LADbible, in which the Minister has featured four times. I wonder whether we can make history by getting him featured a fifth time once the Bill gets into statute.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am almost like a standing article now for LADbible. I am not sure whether that makes me a social media influencer—about which we have heard a lot during the course of the debate—or just a media tart. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was not one, two or three but four features we got out of LADbible —and who knows; we might get a fifth.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

As a new Member, and someone who came into politics with a passion for health—specifically public health—and addressing inequality, I am really proud to have been a part of this group. I remember the chief medical officer saying that the Bill will not only have the biggest impact on public health of any legislation in about 20 years, but it will be one of the biggest interventions to help even up inequality, especially in life expectancy. As a new Member, and as part of the Liberal Democrat health team, I am really pleased to be involved in this.

Unfortunately he is not here today, but on several occasions the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon pontificated on what the flavour of unicorn milk in vapes might be. I never contributed but, as the only vet here, I could have made some assumptions. Assuming that the unicorn’s horn does not influence the flavour of the milk, we can probably extrapolate that it tastes very much like a horse’s milk. As someone who has regularly had to milk a mare to feed a newborn foal, I can tell the Committee that when the mare does not enjoy that, the milk often sprays everywhere—sometimes into one’s mouth. It does not taste terrible, but I would not advise vape manufacturers that it is a good flavour to put into vapes.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I now know more about the equine sector than I ever wanted to. We have got to the accidental squirting of horse milk into one’s mouth, but of course, we started the Committee with a whole tale about getting one’s hoof trimmed—which, I have to say, Mr Pritchard, has a whole other meaning in Manchester.

Sadik Al-Hassan (Labour, North Somerset)

As a pharmacist, I have greatly enjoyed all Members’ contributions to the debate in Committee, but I am very much looking forward to a future in which I do not have to do a stop smoking consultation again.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

And so say all of us. The last thanks I want to give are to my private secretary and my team of officials from the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are the ones who have been up late most days, ensuring that the packs are ready for me and the Government Whip, that I am well briefed and that I have the time to question them about the various clauses. I am really grateful to them.

We have had a lot of good, detailed scrutiny. Most of the debates have been good natured, and it has shown the House of Commons at its best. To echo the hon. Member for Winchester, this is a landmark Bill. It will be the single most important piece of public health legislation for a generation, and we are all part of that. We have made history.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

There is one last person the Committee should thank, and that is the Minister himself. I am sure we will get a chance to say this again on Third Reading, when we will no doubt debate these things again, but I have to say that the passion, good humour, knowledge and commitment with which he has taken this legislation through Committee is something for which we should all be grateful. Thank you, Minister.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

rose—

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

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

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

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

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

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

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Before I put the question, if I may, I will put on record my thanks to you, Minister—I actually said “you”; I mean the hon. Gentleman. I am breaking my own rules, or the House’s rules. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry North West, and the shadow Whip, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, who is not here today. I thank all Members for their contributions to debating this serious subject, but with good humour.

Written evidence reported to the House