Sarah Bool MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Our churches are listed places of worship; they are treasured assets that really must be preserved. During my degree, I loved studying the role of our church; I even read Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History”, which dates back to 731 AD. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has noted, our medieval parish churches contain the vast majority of surviving medieval artwork in this country, so they really must be preserved. For example, St Peter’s church in Brackley, which is in my constituency, is grade I listed. It is believed that the site the church is built on has been a place of worship since the 7th century AD. The oldest parts of the church itself are Norman, from around 1100 AD, and they play an important role in the charitable organisation—for example, hosting the Mother’s Union, which meets monthly on a Thursday afternoon in the church hall. Talking about charity and voluntary activity, I am very proud of the support that the Tove Benefice in Towcester, which can be accessed via the grade I listed St Lawrence’s church, has provided to Ukraine. That charitable work has been led by Steve, the husband of the Reverend Paula Challen. They have collected in the church literally tonnes of aid and transported it to Ukraine on numerous journeys. I have so much respect for their support and continued dedication. Finally, another example of a treasured asset, which is rather closer to home, is St Peter & St Paul church in Easton Maudit. It is home to the exquisite memorial to Sir Christopher Yelverton, who died in 1612. Sir Christopher was returned as the MP for Brackley in 1563, was then the MP for Northampton and, on 24 October 1597, he was elected as Speaker of the House of Commons. The church is also home to captivating architecture, glorious furnishings, other magnificent memorials and stained glass. We would be at a loss if we did not offer all the support needed to allow such buildings, and all the succour that they provide, to continue.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and valid point. I would like the Minister to address how we are going to tackle the issue online. If someone cannot go into a physical shop, going online is the next alternative, and we want to ensure that we protect our young ones as much as possible. I want to highlight one other point from Cancer Research. It said that it is also important that the legislation future-proofs against the use of bright coloured lights or similar displays that could appeal to young people. Again, we need to be careful of that. As has been said, manufacturers are often very good at finding their way around these regulations, so we do not want to make the products attractive in another vein. My second point focuses on clause 90(3)(b), which says that provisions may be made about “the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”. We had some evidence submitted from the North East Public Protection Partnership, which is a regional partner-ship that brings together chief officers of 12 local authorities in the north-east, representing environmental health, trading standards and licensing services. The partner- ship is in support of the measure, but believes that certain requirements should be put on packaging itself—it thinks that inserts in the packaging should be regulated. I have learnt, as I have not come across them often before, that inserts are used internationally, in Canada and Israel. They are proven to encourage people to give up smoking when they are placed inside the packaging. They usually contain positive messages to encourage people to quit—for example, by going into detail about improved breathing within a matter of days of quitting or the 50% reduction in the risk of heart attacks within a year, or by detailing how much money a smoker is likely to save. The North East Public Protection Partnership believes that there should be specific regulations around the inserts and the packaging, setting out the type and size of font, the colour, the layout, and dimensions. It thinks that the specific information to use on packaging should be defined and that the information provided on where to seek more help to quit should also be included. It also says it is essential to set a date for suppliers for when packaging must appear on the UK market and that the penalties on manufacturers for non-compliance should be set out. The partnership also said: “The Government will need to liaise with Trading Standards in order to ensure that the appropriate offence, or offences, are included in regulations on pack inserts. We would recommend an offence is included which relates to the sale or supply of a tobacco product without the correct insert, so that Trading Standards can take enforcement action against the person selling. An example of this includes the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 where there is an offence to produce as well as supply product in breach of regulations.” Finally, it adds: “Health messaging should be on the outside of all tobacco, nicotine and vape products.” My final question to the Minister is: have he and his Department turned their mind to inserts, what they might contain, and the role they could play in future?

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

  More

  Etsy is a very good company; it enables small businesses to sell their products, which is admirable and laudable, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely inappropriate for images of Disney characters to be changed. Sometimes the changes involve putting glasses on them, which is good as that makes young children feel that they are not isolated if they look slightly different. However, it is outrageous to make the characters appear to be using smoking products. I hope that the powers under this regulation will prevent that from happening further.

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

  More

  To build on that point, it is interesting that, often, one of the biggest difficulties for those who smoke and want to stop is missing the physical act of holding a cigarette. It would be interesting to see whether these regulations can take that into account and, while not being aimed at children, aim them in a way that would help people who want to move away from smoking, in terms of the physical side of it. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?

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

  More

  I agree. I think the hon. Member makes a valid point. It is part of the bigger discussion that we have to have, with the ability to be a bit more agile in how we actually decide, because I do not want us to take the wrong approach and have unintended consequences. Again, that goes to another point that the shadow Minister raised, about what flavours are potentially harmful in themselves. The hon. Member for Cardiff West is right and I take his point about flavours such as bubble gum entirely, but apparently even cinnamon, vanilla and butter are toxic. They are fine for us to eat —butter in moderation, of course—but inhaling them is a different matter. I think it will be very interesting to see what combinations are used and what the impact is, because, apparently, if certain flavours and chemicals are combined, that can actually be even more toxic than before. That is something that the regulations, and some of the research, will have to look into for us. Interestingly, the Royal College of Physicians also gave its view on this topic in the written evidence. That was along similar lines but slightly different. It says: “While we know flavours can attract young people to vaping, the use of flavours by adults trying to quit smoking is an integral part of the effectiveness of vaping as a quit aid. We know that many adult smokers report wanting to move away from the taste of tobacco. Other nicotine replacement therapy…products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours. The RCP supports limiting the number of flavours available and recommends restricting flavour descriptors. Bland descriptors, alongside limiting the number of flavours and removing those most popular with young people non-smokers from vaping without the unintended consequences of perpetuating smoking for adults.” I agree with the points that have been made, but I think that we have to be careful about how we decide which flavours are used and their range. I take the point that we often want to move people away from tobacco, because a tobacco-flavoured vape is not pleasant, or so I am told, but my concern is that, if someone do not necessarily have a tobacco-flavoured vape, then with something as nice as peach and mango—which a vaper I know really likes—people will actually vape more than they ever smoked because it is tastier for them. I think we will really have to look into that as well. I would also like some further clarity from the Minister on clause 92(3) and the clause what regulations the Department is currently thinking about, particularly when it comes to the imports of any of these vaping products. Finally, subsection (4) that that there will be “provision for a determination to be made by a person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State” to make the decision on the flavours. Who is in mind to be given those powers? A bit more clarity on that would be much appreciated.

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

  More

  I want to build on the points my hon. Friends have made. As we have said, clause 92 relates to the flavouring of vapes. In the future, we will have to be incredibly agile in regulating in this area. It clearly needs further investigation, because different bodies are all disagreeing on whether we should limit the number of vapes, the flavours or the range and on what is going on. In the written evidence provided to Members, Cancer Research UK, which the shadow Minister mentioned, made some interesting observations, which I will put on record. It says that: “Current evidence seems to suggest that e-cigarette flavours influence vaping initiation in both young people and adults who smoke. We know that the range of flavours of e-cigarettes are a large part of the appeal for both young people and adults. When taking action on e-cigarette flavours, a balance needs to be struck between dissuading uptake in young people and maintaining an appeal to those who use vapes to quit smoking, so they are not deterred from transitioning away from tobacco”. I think we all agree with that. It further goes on to say: “Although we believe there is currently insufficient evidence to justify banning specific e-liquid flavours, as the evidence base related to the role of flavours in youth and adult vaping increases, powers to regulate flavours will be an important lever for Government to use to reduce youth vaping.” It then says: “It is important that there is a holistic approach to flavours. If the UK Government is changing the packaging and display of vapes…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”— which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made— “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.” If we go on the basis that, actually, we should limit the way the flavours are described, perhaps one day we will know what unicorn milk actually tastes like.

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

  More

  The Minister is making a powerful point. I was concerned about the idea that an influencer might be able to publish an image of a retail packet that is not compliant. At the moment, there are no restrictions, especially if they are abroad. Obviously, some of the influencers with the biggest followings are outside the UK, and I am therefore not sure how we ensure compliance, other than by doing what X does with community notes that pop up. I think there will have to be a discussion with Instagram and some of the other companies, because they are making money out of it. Indirectly, I think the Bill does catch this issue, but I thank the Minister for his clarity.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will focus on two main points from two different organisations. The first point, which builds on the points made by my hon. Friends, was made by Cancer Research UK when discussing packaging for vapes. The organisation is obviously in support of placing some restrictions on packaging to reduce youth vaping, but it believes that the right balance must be struck between dissuasive and neutral packaging. Interestingly, it said that it does not believe that vape packaging should be made to resemble tobacco packaging in order to reduce worsening harm misperceptions, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. Cancer Research UK said that more evidence is needed to determine which colours would reduce the appeal for young people, but it is important that in doing so, we do not reduce access to vapes for adults who use them to quit smoking. It said that it wants to avoid worsening misperceptions that vapes are as harmful as, or more harmful than, tobacco, so it would make sense to choose a neutral colour for vaping packs rather than the same drab green colour of tobacco packs. The organisation went on to talk about displays, which was a point raised earlier, but it is also interesting in this wider piece. Cancer Research UK said that, to make vapes less appealing to young people, they could be behind the counter but still on display. In its view, if the UK Government change the packaging of vapes through the powers in the Bill, that will go a long way to reducing the appeal of vapes overall, and therefore they might not need to go as far when restricting the display itself. It argued that the balance would help to ensure that vapes are still visible and accessible to adults who wish to use them to quit. It would also create a differential from tobacco, so that vapes would be behind the counter with less appealing packaging, but still visible to adults who smoke and want to quit.

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

  More

  I was going to ask that as well, because around the concept of publishing there is a big debate about social media—is X a publishing platform or a form of conversation? There is no definition that I can see of what publish means, nor a specific definition of what image means. I am trying to work it through and find out whether there are loopholes, and how they will play out in the modern age. I want to make sure the provisions are at their most effective. I can understand that if an influencer posts a picture, they have to make sure it complies with the rules, but how does that apply in the wider context? Perhaps I am over-examining, but I can imagine where this could go, and some clarity around from the Minister that would be interesting.

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

  More

  Thinking about the more modern age, I want to explore how the clause would apply to social media and television. The clause states: “The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person from…publishing an image of the retail packaging” and from “publishing an image of a relevant product”. There is not really a definition of image. My first question is this: does the clause apply to moving images, such as those on television? I almost cannot believe that I am saying this in the House of Commons, but the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special was very popular and contained a scene where a main character, Nessa, was smoking and vaping simultaneously. I wondered about the wider implication for the arts. How will it work in practice when we are trying to prohibit things? How will the BBC deal with it—perhaps it will come under licensing—and how will other media outlets deal with it? I have a further point about younger children and young adults, given that we are in the social media age. The clause will “prohibit a person from doing” certain things “in the course of business”. On Instagram, there are influencers. Obviously, their work is monetised; they will be paid for promoting products, or just for general clicks and likes. I wonder how the provisions will work in practice for social media, if they apply to videos as well. A very popular trend is videos in which people unwrap products with the sound up, for the ASMR—autonomous sensory meridian response—qualities. Basically, the sounds of unwrapping can be very relaxing for followers to listen to. Such videos are incredibly popular, and there are thousands of them. I wonder how the measures will impact them. If influencers are making videos for that purpose, will they be caught by the clause? If so, how will we prohibit such activity, especially on social media?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business. We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard. Evapo also says that “the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.” That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice. I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor. The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions. I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations. It mentions in written evidence that “The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws. A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.” I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender. Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender. That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to confine my remarks to two specific amendments—amendments 3 and 10, on private schools and special educational needs and disabilities—that would delay the introduction of this tax hike so schools have more time to plan financially. Schools in my constituency have been punished by a series of tax rises since this Labour Government took office in July. By adding VAT to private school fees, and now by ending their charitable business rate relief status, Labour is attacking aspiration. These tax hikes will not hurt the wealthiest. It is the people who have scrimped and saved to send their children to a school of their choice who will be hit the worst. Labour seems to believe people should not have a choice over where they send their child to school, as is evident in their similarly misguided Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through this place. Schools will close because of this tax hike, and I know this because it is happening in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Carrdus school, founded in 1957, survived the cold war, the winter of discontent, the global financial crisis and three Labour Governments, yet it could not withstand the tax onslaught from this Chancellor and it will close its doors at the end of the summer term. That will mean 120 pupils flooding back into the state system, which is already struggling with capacity issues, at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That may be the evidence that you have received in this instance, but I am giving the real-life proof. When I spoke to the headteacher about this, she said that the increase in national insurance on teacher costs, which are about 80% of outgoings, in combination with all the other things, has had a huge impact and the school will have to shut. It will be closing its doors at the end of July, which is a travesty.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will keep going if the hon. Member does not mind. I do not want to see any other schools close or any other children suffer as a result of this plan. I hope that colleagues across the House will join Conservative Members in supporting our amendments.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who made the point powerfully. The impact goes beyond the 120 individual students to their parents’ arrangements and how they work. The headteacher of the school has a husband who was also a teacher, and they face a huge impact in respect of what they will do with their children and whether they can manage to make new school place arrangements. This policy is terribly misguided. We really need to think about what we are doing. It is a travesty that we will lose a school.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that private schools could absorb the cost. The headteacher of my Carrdus school told me that they could not absorb the cost. The school has tried everything possible to stay open, but it cannot. One just cannot make this claim that these schools can absorb the cost; they cannot.