Jack Rankin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure there is a question there, but the hon. Member has put a smile on my face. My final point is about the visibility of vaping, because I think the Minister should consider the wisdom of this clause by his own logic. Public Health England guidance says: “while smokefree law protects people from the harm of secondhand smoke, forcing smokers outdoors has increased public visibility of smoking, including to children and young people. Having a more enabling approach to vaping can mitigate this and help make smoking less of a social norm”. Ensuring a differentiation between where people can vape or smoke might assist in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping, which would undoubtedly have a net positive public health benefit. In addition, allowing people to continue vaping indoors in places such as pubs, bars and nightclubs, which are age-gated anyway, would reduce the visibility of vaping in public and keep it away from people who are under age. When it comes to protecting people who are under age from picking up vaping in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government and the shadow Minister. Those are the five points I wanted to make. First, are we sure that we want to push vapers to vape in the same place as smokers when they might be trying to give up smoking? Secondly, do we really want to conflate vapes with cigarettes, which might undermine the Government’s goal to help smokers to switch? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to consulting on any expansion of vape-free spaces, as he has for tobacco? Fourthly, the evidence is weak that second-hand vaping is a problem, but that is effectively the rationale for smoke-free places. Fifthly, is the Minister not concerned that he could be inadvertently putting vapes on show, particularly to young people, by forcing people out of age-controlled spaces such as pubs?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is effectively the argument I am advancing. In terms of the quantum of harm as a percentage of a cigarette, I do not know. As I understand it, even though we do not fully know yet the dangers of heated tobacco, it is similar to vaping in that we do not want anybody to take it up, but if someone smokes we would prefer them to use it as a cessation device. I understand that that is the way they are marketed.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is nice to have a fellow freedom fighter on the Committee— [ Interruption. ] I am trying to get the Minister to intervene. My third point is one to which I think the Minister alluded earlier, but I ask him to repeat it in summing up. This part of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make decisions without really having the full approval of Parliament. The Minister has said that the Government will consult on the expansion of smoke-free areas, but as I understand it from the drafting, it is not necessary for the Government to consult on expanding vape-free and heated tobacco-free spaces in the same way. I think he might have touched on that point in his remarks, but I would welcome his confirmation. My fourth point relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on second-hand smoke. My understanding is that the rationale for smoke-free places, as initially envisaged, was that the smoker is affected as a result of them having made an informed decision, but people nearby are affected who have not. That is the point of the smoke-free place. Cancer Research UK, however, states that there is “no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”. Public Health England has also found: “Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds.” In my view, therefore, the point about second-hand smoke does not make anywhere near the same kind of sense for heated tobacco products as it does with cigarettes. Even the Bill’s impact assessment states: “There are currently no legal restrictions in the UK on where a person may vape. However, many businesses, venues, educational institutions, health service providers and public transport providers have voluntarily introduced their own rules preventing vape usage in these locations.” We all recognise that that is the case. Given that the impact assessment also notes that “There is currently limited evidence of health harm from ‘passive vaping’.” should it not continue to be for the proprietors of such venues to make their own decisions, based on the needs and desires of their customers? That is my position.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Government Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to repeat my points from the previous clause. Like the shadow Minister, I am less familiar with heated tobacco products, but I suspect the arguments I made regarding clause 139 apply to clause 140. I want to make two or three points specific to heated tobacco. As with vaping, designating smoke-free areas as also being heated tobacco-free is dangerous, as it forces consumers to use their less harmful products alongside smokers. The risk is to increase the chance of their moving back to cigarettes. I will quote Public Health England: “Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potential harmful compounds.” It is not clear to me that there is an effect on a bystander of someone using these devices. The Cochrane review cited an earlier review on heated tobacco products that concluded that users and bystanders were exposed to toxicants, “although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the relative harms, but I am not convinced.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a step too far. Does he also agree that this would be an enormous waste of police time? The police often get their priorities wrong as it stands, but the idea that they should spend time prosecuting smoking in a private vehicle is clearly a waste of police time.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I encourage my hon. Friend not to criticise the Minister for doing something quite sensible in pursuing this evidence-based approach. I have said before that people who have a cigar on new year’s eve and who use specialist tobacconists—that is where I get mine—are the kind of people we should be letting off a little. The Minister is right.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In my home office, I have a wonderful watercolour painting of the Lord’s pavilion that celebrates Lancashire winning the Benson & Hedges cup final sometime in the mid-1990s. I know the Minister is a proud Lancashire man, like me, and I agree with him that although we want to see again the days of Lancashire winning cricket tournaments, none of us would want to go back to the days of Benson & Hedges sponsoring sports competitions, so I will support the Minister and the Government on clause 124. On clause 125, however, I will have to disagree with the Government. As we have already discussed, vaping and nicotine pouches are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. In my view, this clause opens us up to inconsistency across the board. I say that because sponsorship is currently permitted for alcohol and gambling. To me, it makes no sense for vapes to be treated differently. In response to my earlier comments, the point was made that tobacco is uniquely harmful; it is different, in its public health damage, from alcohol and gambling. But I do not fully buy that. I see these things as a spectrum. If people want to say to me that cigarettes are uniquely harmful versus alcohol and gambling, I am prepared to believe that, but I am afraid that when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products and to gambling, these things are a spectrum. I represent Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses. Ascot racecourse is in effect the Wembley of racing worldwide, and Royal Windsor is very much in the top tier. I find myself having to defend them quite often when people want to legislate on gambling, because having a cash bet at a racecourse event is a healthy thing to do as part of a day out. That should be treated very differently from somebody in an online casino in the early hours of the morning or on a fixed odds betting terminal. Gambling is a spectrum, and I suggest to the Committee that tobacco and nicotine products are also a spectrum. I say this with sincerity. The Labour party’s seats may spread much further than they used to, but certainly Labour’s core seats, which perhaps the Minister and the Chair represent—

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will bring my remarks to a close, Mr Dowd, but I will make the point that some of these sponsors are online crypto casinos. I would argue that they are worse than vapes, so I think some inconsistency is being introduced in the law. Let me suggest one way in which we could un-work that inconsistency, which I have seen in the Six Nations. Guinness Zero now sponsors the competition, rather than Guinness. It seems to me that we should allow low or no-alcohol beers to engage in these activities, and I see vaping as analogous. I believe that there is an analogy there, but an inconsistency is being applied by this clause. I will also make a point about the technicality of some of the clauses—I hope that the Minister can point to some of this later. Clause 125(1)(c) mentions sponsorship of “a herbal smoking product…cigarette papers…a vaping product…a nicotine product,” but annex B of the explanatory notes on page 102 mentions “any device which is intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products or herbal smoking products”. Will the Minister provide clarity on what other devices we are seeking to capture? For instance, will tobacco filters fall under the sponsorship ban? Will his Department propose a Government amendment to update the text of the Bill to provide clarity and remove that potential loophole?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to hear that—it sounds like positive news, but I will finish my point and go down the list. Crystal Palace FC is sponsored by Net88, a Vietnamese betting company; Everton FC by Stake, an Australian online casino; Fulham FC by SBOBET, a Philippine gambling company; Leicester FC by BC.Game; Nottingham Forest FC is—

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly support the Government on tobacco, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that there might be an inconsistency being applied here? For example, vaping and nicotine products are being outlawed, but sport is awash with gambling and alcohol brand sharing. Does he not think that that is an inconsistent application of the message?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here. Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences. I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said: “In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”— I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said: “Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.” As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them. One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation. The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes. On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have? ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that “Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”? To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.

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

  More

  Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point. As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for providing that clarity. That is good to hear, but it is important to put on the record that we in this House should apply the same rules to ourselves as we apply to our constituents. Again, as a non-lawyer, I ask the Minister for some clarification on the implications of the non-criminal liability of the Crown in clause 47(2) and how that sits alongside the reference to “persons in the service of the Crown” in subsection (4). What I am seeking is consistency between what applies in the real world and what applies to the Crown. Perhaps the Minister could say what that provision means in laymen’s terms, so that I can say to my constituents that what we are applying to them also applies to us. I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will be a bit parochial to illustrate the point. I said earlier that the Crown is quite a nebulous concept for a legislator, and where it begins and ends is difficult to understand. It is often taken to mean the state more broadly, but I have another example, from my constituency. Windsor Great Park is Crown Estate—the arm’s length Government body that the House has been legislating on in the past weeks—but the castle itself is owned and managed by the royal household. In my casework and when dealing with stakeholders, I often find that different rules apply to the Crown Estate and the royal household. The royal household seems to have much more personal control from the monarch, whereas the Crown Estate is very much run by the trustees, effectively on behalf of the Treasury. It would be good to understand what we mean when we talk about the Crown. It is clear from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s remarks that we are talking about the palaces, but it would be good to know whether the clause applies to all these different arms of the British state in some way, shape or form, or whether other provisions apply to them.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The point I was trying to make is that although, as Members have heard, I do not necessarily agree with all the impositions on civil liberties in the Bill, any that we choose to apply must apply equally to ourselves. To reiterate my hon. Friend’s point, they also have to apply to our friends and anybody else associated with us. All of us in this House have a responsibility to rebuild the relationship and the trust between ourselves and the public.

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

  More

  May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.

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

  More

  Is my hon. Friend also concerned that there might be a power imbalance in that set of circumstances? Windsor castle is in my constituency, and lots of deference is given to it. A lot of that is understandable, but I cannot imagine someone from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead trying to enforce on Windsor castle; it would not be in their culture to do so.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.