Caroline Johnson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about nicotine pouches, it is of concern that they may be the next way in which this industry seeks to make our young people addicted to nicotine. We have seen in places such as Sweden a plethora of these products, which are now expanding across the UK as well. I know the Minister will be looking at some proposals to restrict the amount of nicotine in the pouches. When he does so, will he consider not just how much nicotine is in them compared with a cigarette, but how much is absorbed into the body? The amount in a cigarette that is absorbed as a proportion is much lower than that of a nicotine pouch.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill. Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons. That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue. My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case. Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says: “In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”. I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision “as it applies to other persons.” Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope. Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To clarify the point about there being no device available, that had been my understanding as well, but Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA said in evidence to the Committee that in 2015 a vape had been approved for medical use, but had never been marketed. Has the licence for that product lapsed in some way so that it is no longer available?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 89 is such an important clause in that it forms a whole part of the Bill, part 4, by itself; whereas other parts contain multiple clauses, part 4 only contains clause 89. The clause deals with the power of a Revenue and Customs official to seize and detain snus, which the Bill defines as an oral tobacco product that “is not intended to be inhaled or chewed”. Hon. Members will remember that snus is a tobacco product that the Bill treats differently from all other tobacco products; there is a much heftier penalty for sale and a complete ban on manufacture. In line with the fact that it is dealt with differently from other tobacco products and that it will be illegal to manufacture and import, there needs to be provision for customs officials to deal with the snus if they find it. Subsection (1) allows a Revenue and Customs officer to “seize any relevant oral tobacco products that have been imported and detain them for no more than 48 hours.” I presume that 48 hours is standard; the Minister may be able to expand on that. Any products seized and detained under this clause “must be dealt with during their period of detention in such manner as the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may direct…For the purposes of calculating the 48-hour period mentioned…any period falling on a non-working day is to be disregarded.” The Minister will be able to confirm, but I presume that is essentially saying that, if a product were seized on a Friday at 4.50 pm, they would get all of Saturday and Sunday and until late on the Tuesday to deal with the snus and would be able to seize it for that period. The clause says that non-working days are Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays; that is fairly straightforward. A relevant offence is an offence under clause 9 of the Bill in England and Wales, section 9C of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which is inserted by the Bill, and article 4G of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which is also inserted by the Bill.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making several good points. It is important that the law is applied equally to all. He may remember that when previous legislation was brought in around tobacco advertising, an exemption was made for Formula 1. It was not clear why such an exemption was made, but I believe that a substantial donation had been received around that time by the Labour party—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That was harmful at the time to trust in equality, so it is important that everyone—from His Majesty the King to every one of his subjects—has the same law applied to them.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about how the snuff is given out. At the moment, the snuffbox sits with the Doorkeepers near the No Lobby entrance, and it is available to Members. Obviously—or perhaps not obviously—there is no charge to Members. In fact, my understanding from the Doorkeeper who had the snuffbox last week is that the stuff that they have currently was provided by the BBC— [ Interruption. ] I can see that is a surprise; it was a surprise to me too, but that is where I was told it came from. It brings into question the earlier clauses that relate to sale, because clearly the Crown may purchase it—I suppose the BBC is funded by taxpayers—and it is in a royal palace, which is a Crown site rather than a retail site, and it is not being sold to Members. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to consider that.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point, which I had not raised earlier, that clause 134 applies to part 6, on advertising and sponsorship. Clauses 4 to 7 and 66 essentially apply to part 1. We do not appear at this time to be discussing the other parts as well, so presumably the Crown is bound in a similar way by each of those.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to probe the Minister on those questions. It is important to understand why things are chosen. The Minister has sometimes referred to things being chosen because that is the way they were before, but the writing of new primary legislation offers a not-frequent opportunity to change things that may not be working very well. When items are seized at the moment, is the Minister’s advice from his civil servants that 48 hours is an adequate period of time in which to deal with all the paperwork that presumably needs to be done? Is it too long, and could it be shorter if it needed to be? The commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for dealing with the relevant oral tobacco product during the period of detention, but that will not prevent the importation of snus for personal use. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided. I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not also the case that the Crown is extremely unlikely to wish to sell tobacco products, vaping products, herbal smoking products or indeed anything else covered by the Bill, or to advertise them, since members of the royal family attribute such importance to public health and have, sadly, suffered from ill health themselves in recent times? They have done a lot of work with various charities in relation to health, including on cancer and other conditions, so it seems unlikely that these provisions would be required.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In a previous sitting I raised that in the last couple of years there have been events within Parliament at which free vapes were given out to Members and staff. Would this clause, given that it applies to the Crown, extend to all palaces? Could such events also still continue?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 54 will extend tobacco legislation to cover herbal smoking products, which are products made from plant material and intended for smoking that do not contain tobacco. It will amend section 4 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act, which governs the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18, by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product” in subsection (1). This will mean that the sale of herbal smoking products is subject to the same restrictions as tobacco products and is prohibited to persons under 18. The clause will also amend section 4C of the 2010 Act, which deals with the sale of tobacco-related products by persons under 18, by adding “herbal smoking product” so that individuals under 18 are also prohibited from selling herbal smoking products. This is distinct from the ability to buy them, for which there will be a rolling age; it applies to the selling of these products. The clause will also modify section 6 of the Act, which addresses the purchase of tobacco products on behalf of individuals under 18, otherwise known as proxy purchasing. It will amend subsection (1) by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product”, making it illegal for anyone to purchase herbal smoking products on behalf of individuals under 18. Finally, the clause will insert into section 35 a definition for herbal smoking products. This was covered in clause 48 and clause 1; clause 54 will add it to Scottish legislation. It specifies that a herbal smoking product is one that is made entirely or partially of vegetable matter and that is intended to be smoked, but that does not contain tobacco. Given our previous debate, these seem reasonable changes to make.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is quite a chunky group of clauses. Clause 48 provides a series of definitions that are to be used to interpret part 1. That is important; if the law is to be enforced, we must understand what the law means by each phrase it uses. The phrase “cigarette papers” is self-explanatory. It means anything that is “used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”. We talked about cigarette papers previously. Likewise, “herbal smoking product” “means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco”. That is fairly straightforward. The phrase “medical device” is important, and I will explain why in a moment. The clause refers to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618), which state that a medical device is “any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, together with any…software…necessary for its proper application, which— (a) is intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of— (i) diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease, (ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap, (iii) investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or (iv) control of conception; and (b) does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, even if it is assisted in its function by such means, and includes devices intended to administer a medicinal product”— this is part of why it is relevant— “or which incorporate as an integral part a substance which, if used separately, would be a medicinal product and which is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device.” That is relevant to clause 10 onwards, on nicotine products. In evidence on 7 January, Dr Laura Squire, from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told the Committee that one vape product received an MHRA medicines licence in 2015, but was never marketed. Theoretically, others could be marketed in the future. They would be exempt under the definition provided in clause 48, which I have just explained.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I am confused about what the Opposition wish to achieve— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, the Government. It was the Government’s programme motion, which the Government produced and in which the Government suggested that we had a certain number of days and sittings. The Government had the numbers to decide how many sittings were allocated. Having allocated all those sittings, why have the Government suddenly decided that they want to complete the Bill in Committee three days early?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  May I clarify, Mr Dowd, that you wish amendments 6 to 9 and clauses 96 to 98 stand part to be debated together?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Clause 96(1) grants the Secretary of State the authority to make regulations requiring producers or importers of products including tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products to provide information about these products to specified persons. The regulations may also govern the publication of this information. Subsection (2) outlines specific types of information that may be required, including details about the ingredients, the risks posed by the product, the emissions or substances released by the product, the producer’s operations and any individual nominated by the producer to be responsible for the product. Subsection (2) also specifies that the regulations may also require sales data or market research relevant to the product. If subsection (3) already requires this, I do not think that providing that data to the general public is necessarily something there is precedent for, but I may be corrected on that. Subsection (4) affirms that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that they will go to a vote of a Committee of the House. The provisions in subsection (2)(b) on sales data go back to the point by the hon. Member for Dartford and raise questions about how the data will be used. Could the information be used to unfairly favour certain companies or enable them to gain an advantage over competitors? There are privacy concerns to consider. How will sensitive business information such as sales strategies, pricing models or consumer preferences be protected? While the Government want to limit the number of people who smoke and deter smokers from smoking, by not banning cigarettes outright they have given their indication that cigarettes are a lawful product to be bought by those who smoke already and who are over the age of 18 and anyone who chooses to smoke who was born on or before 1 January 2009. Having allowed businesses lawfully to exist, they should be allowed lawfully to get on with their job. Subsection (3) suggests that the regulations will detail when and how information must be provided. That raises questions about the practicalities of the process. How frequently will the information need to be submitted? Will it be annually—in which case, how useful will it be? Or will it be quarterly, or more often—in which case, how burdensome will it be? Will there be specific deadlines? What penalties might businesses face if they fail to comply? Moreover, the process by which businesses submit their data and the verification of the information provided will need to be transparent to ensure that businesses are adhering to the rules consistently. Will there be regular audits or checks to ensure that the data is accurate and truthful? The information required under this clause could provide valuable data for public health officials, researchers and policymakers to monitor trends in product composition, usage pattern and health impacts. However, a critical question is how effectively this information will be used to achieve tangible health outcomes. In other words, is it collecting information for the sake of collecting information, or is it collecting information that will actually be beneficial and useful? Will it help regulators to identify new risks or trends in the market? Will it support more targeted interventions to reduce smoking and vaping-related harm? It is worth considering how information related to new products such as novel vaping devices or alternative nicotine delivery systems will be evaluated and whether the data will be used to inform better regulations in future. I suppose there is an argument that if particular flavours, for example, are prevalent in a particular area and there is an immediate harm in that area that correlates with a particular flavouring, that is a sign that there is a problem with that flavouring. But in practice, since we have been given medical evidence that suggests that any changes are usually over a period of time and fashions change over time, it will be very difficult to weed that out of a huge amount of information. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how the information will be used. I am sure the Minister will be able to provide further information in that regard. Clause 97 looks at studies that might be required. Subsection (1) authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations that require a producer of a relevant product to conduct a study on a product or an ingredient within it. The producer may be required to submit a report on the study’s findings to a specific person. That may be helpful, but if a company is asked to provide information on a product that it sells and the information is detrimental to the prospect of further sales, how impartial can that be considered, how much will the consumer trust that information and how much point is there in doing it? Will the Minister consider whether the study should be done independently rather than by the producer? If so, how does he envisage that working? If the producer of the product commissions the report, the way in which the question is phrased, the way in which the study is designed and other things can influence the result that is achieved. That may lead to a bias in the study so that the Government will not get the information they really want. Subsection (2) defines a relevant product as a tobacco product, a tobacco-related device, a herbal smoking product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product. Subsection (3) outlines the specific provisions that may be included in the regulations. They include determining when and how the study should be conducted and the report submitted, specifying the questions that the study must address and defining the content and structure of the report. Subsection (4) specifies that the regulations made under this clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, meaning that they must be approved by Parliament. The impact of the studies is assessed in paragraphs 1418 to 1426 of the Government’s impact assessment. The background to that is that the TRPR currently requires nicotine vape manufacturers to submit toxicological data regarding the product’s ingredients, including its ingredients in printed form, when the chemical composition may change, and emissions, referring to the effects on the health of customers when inhaled and considering things such as the addictive nature of the product. Currently, producers of non-nicotine containing vapes and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches are not required to test their products or the ingredients contained within. Those products fall under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, under which the only obligation is that a producer must supply a generally safe product. Therefore, manufacturers of vaping products should carry out tests on their products to determine how the device works, how it delivers nicotine and how the ingredients react with each other to produce certain emissions—that is important to protect consumers. In some instances, we will see the use of new chemicals and ingredients that are not well researched or well tested. If a manufacturer wishes to put such an ingredient in its products, it could be required to perform studies on its safety. As I said before, it may be that the industry does that itself initially, but there must be a provision to allow the Government to commission independent research to avoid biases in that information. Manufactured cigarettes are the most thoroughly researched tobacco product and also the most uniform. We know much less about other products, such as novel tobacco products, non-nicotine products and smokeless tobacco. They are a hugely diverse range of products and much less well studied. We currently depend entirely on manufacturers and lack the capacity to verify industry claims. Smokeless products are of particular concern; they are often produced by small and medium-sized enterprises in low and middle-income states and then imported. There will be an impact to industry from the cost of carrying out a study of their products and ingredients and submit the study to the relevant body. If the test for menthol was added to the standard routine testing for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide—TNCO—currently conducted on all cigarette brands, it would be expected to impose only a small additional cost. However, any additional tests that regulations require manufacturers to conduct would also have additional costs. If manufacturers have that product safety information for all the chemicals in their products, including for vapes, which have lots of different flavours—the long-term effects of vaping those chemicals are in many cases unknown, but suspected in some cases to be harmful—how will the Minister decide which chemicals to test? Will he require independent testing of all chemicals that are used in the vapes? That would take time: it is very difficult to work out what something will do over 20 years without waiting 20 years to find out. I remember that when mobile phones were new there was a rumour that they might cause types of brain cancer. Around 20 years ago, I entered the cohort study of mobile phone use and health, or COSMOS, in which data was—and may still be—collected on my telephone usage and provided to university researchers in London. They measure my usage and periodically ask where I keep my telephone—whether in my front or back pocket, in a bag, or wherever—and whether I hold my phone to my ear when I am talking or hold it in front of me, on speaker. They also look at my medical records to see whether that usage has had any effect on my brain, and how many people who are in the study have subsequently got cancer. Does the Minister envisage encouraging the setting up of such long-term studies to check on the outcomes from vaping, for example? There would also be a cost to developing the body that is required to review the studies that the producers of these products submit. For context, the extra cost of testing 12 tobacco products for menthol was around £50,000 per year. The cost to the relevant body of additional tests required by the regulations may be in a similar region. Those regulations would be subject to consultation, but has the Minister considered that the fewer flavours there are, the fewer chemicals that he needs to pay to have tested, or that he needs to encourage business to pay to have tested? The range of flavours means that there are more chemicals out there potentially needing investigation. Clause 97 does not refer to conflicts of interest and does not require independent, objective experts—perhaps the Minister intends to include those in regulation. In instances in the past when tobacco companies conducted studies through their own research groups, they provided—perhaps unsurprisingly—remarkably optimistic conclusions about the hazards of smoking. I hope the Minister is not expecting such companies to mark their own homework again. The regulations should specify the qualifications of those conducting the studies and the methodologies that they should follow to help ensure that studies are scientifically valid and unbiased. Subsection (3)(c) allows regulations to define the content and structure of reports that producers must submit. Although that provides flexibility to the regulators, it could also lead to confusion if the requirements for report structure and content were not clearly defined. Will there be a standardised format for reports, and how detailed will they need to be? Should the reports be publicly accessible? Will they remain confidential to the producers and regulatory bodies, or will they be more widely published, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggested other data should be? These questions are important and the Minister’s intentions are important, as unclear guidance could result in inconsistent reporting across producers or even incomplete or misleading reports. The primary goal of requiring studies and reports is to provide regulators with information that could be used to improve public health outcomes, such as understanding the health risks associated with smoking, vaping or nicotine products. It is essential to question how this information will be used once submitted. Will it be analysed promptly and used to update product regulations to inform public health campaigns? If studies highlight emerging risks or issues, how quickly will regulators be able to act on the findings? The impact of those studies will largely depend on how efficiently the regulatory system uses that data to protect public health and respond to new threats. Are we collecting data for the sake of collecting data, so that the information is there, or are the resources going to be provided to look at the data, analyse it and act upon it? Otherwise, we may end up in a situation where we knew the answer but we did not see the wood for the trees. Finally, clause 98 talks about the responsible person. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that require producers of tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products to nominate an individual who will be responsible for the information that must be provided under the regulations we have discussed under clauses 95 and 97. Subsection (2) provides that the regulations may include provisions on who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. That could include requirements for the nominee to be a resident of the United Kingdom, or to have another connection to the country. Subsection (3) mandates that the regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without first obtaining consent, which seems to me very clear and straightforward. Subsection (4) clarifies that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring Parliamentary approval before becoming law. The clause allows the Secretary of State to define who is eligible to be nominated as a responsible person. It is essential to ask whether there are any clear criteria for that eligibility. For instance, must the individual be a senior company representative, public health expert or legal representative? The definition of eligibility could significantly impact the effectiveness and accountability of the regulation. Subsection (2) of the clause mentions that the regulations may require the nominated responsible person to be “resident in, or to have another connection to, the United Kingdom.” What exactly constitutes a connection to the UK? One of my aunts moved to the States when she got married and she lived there and had her family there. Although she has sadly passed on, I have cousins in the States. Is that enough of a connection? What counts as a connection? Is it enough for the person to have a business address in the UK, or do they need to be a UK citizen or a UK taxpayer? Do they need to live in the UK for a certain period? This is particularly important when considering that many of the largest players in the vape industry, such as Elfbar and Lost Mary, are Chinese companies and are headquartered abroad. To my understanding, Elfbar has used its geographical distance from the UK to stay at arm’s length from a range of controversies caused by their products, not least the selling of vapes with illegally high levels of nicotine and the use of TikTok influencers with large followings among children to promote their products, which I am pleased to hear the Minister will be countering with his own adverts. The clause specifies that the regulations prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without their consent. What process will be put in place to ensure that consent is genuinely obtained and documented? Will there be a formal registration or reporting system for nominees, and how will we ensure that the nominee knows—and that we know that the nominee knows—that they have been nominated? Will the person responsible be held personally liable for product safety or compliance failure if the product manufacturer fails to meet certain standards? Will it be the responsible person facing the fine, penalty or other consequences, the company, or both? That is an important consideration given both the nature of the penalties and also the person’s willingness to be nominated. The clause covers a broad range of products, including tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, vaping products, herbal smoking products and nicotine products. Will the nominated responsible person be expected to oversee compliance with specific regulations for each product category, or will there be a single standard compliance regulation for all? I think primarily of cases where large companies have major stakes in both the tobacco and vaping industries.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I believe before we were interrupted we were discussing clause 92, which relates to flavouring provisions. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations currently restrict certain ingredients, including colourings, caffeine and taurine, but do not restrict any combinations of flavour or flavour types. Multiple systematic reviews have found that a majority of young people are more likely to initiate vaping through flavoured vapes. The use of vapes with flavours traditionally not found in tobacco products, such as fruit and coffee, is higher among youths and young adults than older adults, highlighting that restricting flavours in vapes may reduce vaping prevalence among youths by preventing initiation. The Government’s impact assessment for clause 92 estimates that restricting the flavour of e-liquids to tobacco only would affect a large proportion of people who vape. Among children, just 4.5% of those who vape most frequently choose tobacco or menthol-flavoured liquids. A further 0.5% reported not using flavour at all. That means that around 95% of children who vape could be affected in some way by the option of regulating the flavours of vapes. The impact assessment goes on to note the relation- ship between a restriction on flavours and littering. Paragraph 1023 states that “research commissioned by Material Focus found that almost 5 million disposable vapes are either littered or thrown away in general waste every week, equivalent to around 260 million a year. If the estimated reduction in demand for vaping products from Nova Scotia in Canada from restricting flavours of 12.15% is also seen in the UK, we could expect a similar reduction in the amount of vapes that are littered or thrown away in general waste. This would be equivalent to around 600,000 fewer vapes disposed of each week and around 30 million fewer each year.” I understand that the Government have moved to ban single-use vapes. Nevertheless, the principle stands that having fewer flavours leads to fewer changes of product, and therefore to less litter. There is also an impact assessment of enforcement of flavour restrictions. Paragraphs 1070 and 1071 of the impact assessment state: “Any restriction of vape flavours could require additional enforcement activity to ensure that non-compliant vapes do not remain on the market… There is also evidence from the US that enforcement of any flavour restrictions is important to ensure that it has an impact on the flavours that are used by people that vape. For example, a study based on the impact restricting flavours had on vape use in three US states found that most respondents to the survey continued to use vapes with flavours that had been banned, and out of them, over 45% had purchased them in-state stores.” That leaves us with a difficulty. If flavours are banned but illicit products are made to look like they have different flavours in them, it will be quite difficult for enforcement officers to work out the contents of any given vape. However, as the Minister has said, the Bill only provides a regulation-making power; there are no enforcement costs arising from this particular measure, and it would be the responsibility of each local authority in England to enforce the regulations made using the powers conferred by the Bill. This matter must therefore be considered further. When writing regulations, the Minister must ensure that they are enforceable and that the necessary resources are made available to local authorities. In its written evidence, Cancer Research UK highlights the importance of considering the motivations of smokers wanting to quit alongside the clear requirement to steer non-smokers away from beginning to vape. It states: “It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes (through other powers in the Bill), this will go a long way to reduce the appeal of vapes. Therefore, the Government may not need to go as far when restricting flavours. We believe that restricting the way flavours are described, rather than banning actual flavours could help reduce the appeal to young people with limited negative impact on adults who smoke. At the very least, CRUK believes that mint, menthol and fruit should remain available as there is evidence that these help adults quit smoking.” One of the challenges the Minister will face if he is to restrict flavours rather than banning them is which he chooses to retain. The evidence that we have heard so far is that different chemicals are used to create different flavours, which seems somewhat obvious, but it is not clear that all companies use the same chemicals to make the same flavour, or the same apparent flavour, and it is not clear which chemicals may be harmful when inhaled over a long period of time. Strawberries are eaten quite safely by most people but inhaling one is very dangerous. We know from the chief medical officer that inhalation, as a vector of bringing a substance into the body, can be more damaging than eating it. How will the Minister choose which flavours to keep, if he is going to do so? The other reason why I disagree to an extent with Cancer Research UK is that, when I asked people in the industry directly why they need flavours, they said, “Because it helps people to continue using vapes.” I asked them what their purpose is and they said, “If somebody is smoking, their taste buds are affected by the smoking. Therefore, their ability to taste and smell things is not as great as a non-smoker.” That means that when they stop smoking and start vaping, which we want them to do, they realise after a couple of weeks that tobacco vapes taste awful and, as such, they stop using them—and that is a good thing. They decide that they do not like the taste of tobacco and so stop using the product. That is the intention of nicotine replacement therapy: the smoker starts the therapy, they continue for a short period and then they stop, after which point they are not addicted to nicotine or using anything. It was clear from speaking to the industry representatives that individuals will begin using vapes for the flavour. If they do not like one flavour, they will go on to a different one, but they will then continue to use the product as it is more pleasant than a tobacco-flavoured one. Instead of moving them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper, to a non-user of nicotine, flavoured vapes will move them from being a cigarette smoker, to a vaper—and there they will stay. For the industry, they have not swapped to stop; they have swapped to continue paying the money and making the profit. I can see why that is the industry’s intention, but it is clearly not the Government’s intention or the right thing for the individual’s health. I think that is an important consideration and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it. In its evidence, Action on Smoking and Health talks about flavour descriptors, and it is certainly true that, where flavours are retained, the descriptors will be important. ASH says that gummy bears and unicorn shake are not acceptable, and it goes on: “In New Zealand they have set out in regulations which words can be used to describe flavours, removing descriptions such as Cotton-Candy and Bubble-Gum and replacing them with more generic flavour descriptions.” Again, it comes back to the problem of what is in each individual flavour, which ones should be kept—if any at all—and why. The evidence from ASH continues: “Manufacturers must choose a maximum of two flavour descriptor words from an approved flavour list. The approved flavour list should limit the descriptors which are most popular among young people. An alternative to the New Zealand approach would be to replace product names with alpha numeric codes…For example, caramel tobacco flavour e-liquid refills can be bought garishly branded with a cartoon character on the front called Momo Salt Caramel Tobacco. Alternatively a very similar tobacco caramel vanilla salt e-liquid can be bought in plain packaging with an alphanumeric code of RY6, with the flavour components in the detail rather than the product name. Such an approach could be mandated.” Has the Minister considered people who have allergies to all these different flavours? Has he considered whether the details of what each vape liquid contains should be put very clearly on the packaging, so that if anyone has an allergy, which can in some cases be life-threatening, they are aware of what chemicals they are using?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand and support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. He seeks to ensure that individuals who smoke can be encouraged to quit, and to look at where products are sold more frequently as a way of trying to do that, but I wonder whether this data is, in effect, already collected by survey, and whether it would be a burden on businesses to require them to provide sales data. Does he envisage that the tobacco and vape companies themselves would provide data on which retailers they have supplied? Depending on how much stock a retailer is holding, that will not necessarily tell him how much has been sold. Or does he envisage that every corner shop would submit data to the Government? How much would it cost to process that data, and would it really tell us things we do not already know?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not right that in the past, when increased tobacco regulations have been made, the black market has shrunk with the overall market?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The aim of the regulations that were introduced to remove sweets from immediately adjacent to tills was to discourage children from taking sweets and pestering their parents at the till. That was part of a drive to reduce obesity levels, but the sad thing is that in many places those products have been replaced by vapes, which are more harmful to youngsters than sweets were. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we have seen that putting tobacco displays out of sight of children can help to reduce products’ attractiveness. Clauses 13 and 14 provide for display regulations in England and Wales—I cannot remember the clause numbers for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but those clauses also exist in the Bill. The clauses provide for displays to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman says: to ensure that children are not enticed through the display of these brightly coloured products. To return to packaging, research has shown that graphic health warnings—particularly some of the graphic pictures—on cigarette packs can increase smokers’ awareness of the health risks and motivate some to quit. The larger and more vivid the warning, the more likely it is to have an impact, with some studies suggesting that plain packaging, combined with graphic warnings, can lead to higher levels of cessation. That is the effect of tobacco packaging, but we now need to look at vapes. Now that vapes are so commonly used by children, the question is, what effect will vape packaging have? In recent years, research and public opinion surveys have shed light on the potential harm caused by the packaging of e-cigarettes and related products. The Government call for evidence on youth vaping published in 2023 found that many children were drawn to vaping products due to the bright colours, eye-catching designs and child-friendly images on the packaging. Those designs, which included cartoon characters and fun and vibrant logos, have led to concerns about vaping becoming mainstream and appealing to younger audiences who have never smoked. We need to remember that, in theory, vaping is a stop-smoking device. The industry also tells us that it is—at least in theory—not trying to market vapes to non-smokers and children. However, that appears to be the effect of the marketing that it has done, and the use of packaging to target, or seemingly target, young people has become a concern for many health professionals and lawmakers and for the public and parents alike. Research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association Network has reinforced those concerns. It showed that standardised packaging for vaping products, which reduces or eliminates brand imagery, could significantly decrease their appeal to young people. Interestingly, it did not seem to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to adult smokers. That suggests that although branding might attract young non-smokers, it does not play a critical role in attracting those who are already smokers or who are trying to quit—I did wonder whether that is because a plain packet is more enticing for those who are used to a packet with pictures of diseased lungs on it. It would also seem that colours are not necessary for adult smokers. Therefore, according to that research, we can bring in clause 90, without any concern that it will deter smokers from quitting, and in the knowledge that it may prevent children from starting to vape. One study, which was particularly revealing, was designed to explore the association between different types of e-cigarette packaging—fully branded versus standardised—and the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes among youth and adults in Great Britain. Specifically, the researchers sought to determine whether standard packaging that removes brand imagery and uses a plain colour scheme could reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to young people without diminishing the appeal to adults who may be using them as a smoking cessation aid. That research is particularly relevant in the context of public health policy, because the Government have been considering measures to reduce the attractiveness of e-cigarettes to young people, while encouraging their use as a cessation tool among adult smokers. The study focused on young people aged 11 to 18 and on adults aged 18 or over. It was conducted in 2021 and involved 2,469 young people and 12,046 adults. They were randomly assigned to view one of three kinds of packaging: fully branded e-cigarette packaging, for control; white standardised packaging with brand names; or green standard packaging with brand names. The experimental design allowed the researchers to compare the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes under those different conditions. The colour of the packets, and the fact that the researchers chose a white one and a green one, are interesting. The Committee was given evidence about which colour should be chosen. Some people suggested that black or a very drab colour, as is used for cigarettes, might give the message that vapes are as dangerous as cigarettes, which may not be the case for current smokers.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have talked a bit this evening about social media companies and the production on social media by influencers of what are in essence adverts, together with the difficulties in imposing any regulations on that. Does that not mean that, if all this data were published as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests—with great intentions—we could end up in a situation in which we are informing the industry exactly where they should target next with their social media posts? We all know that those can be directed to certain geographies.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can my hon. Friend illustrate whether there is any evidence suggesting that, as the result of plain packaging, consumers are less able to identify whether they have the right product in their hand as they leave the shop?