PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting) - 16 January 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place

“whether made—

(a) by the offender or any other person, or

(b) by means of any machine”,

and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of

“any one or more of the following—

(a) tobacco products;

(b) herbal smoking products;

(c) cigarette papers;

(d) vaping products;

(e) nicotine products.”

They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.

Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:

“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”

Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:

“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—

(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—

(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);

(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);

(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);

(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—

(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);

(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);

(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”

For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?

I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?

Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine

“(a) the occupier of the premises, and

(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”

Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?

Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?

Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?

Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence

“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”

If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?

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.

My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?

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.

When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?

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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches the age of sale and vending machine restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. The clauses are based on and replace existing legislation.

A restricted premises order is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling from a vending machine, at least twice within the previous two years. The person who brought the proceedings for the sales offence makes a complaint to a magistrates court to apply for a restricted premises order in respect of the premises where the offence was committed.

Clause 24 requires notice to be given to people who might have an interest in a restricted premises order being made in England and Wales, and sets out situations where an interested person might challenge a restricted premises order. An interested person is the occupier of the premises or someone who has an interest in it, such as the manager or owner. The clause sets out the circumstances in which notice should be given to an interested person where a restricted premises order is being applied for. Interested persons are allowed to make representations to the court to try to prevent a restricted premises order from being issued, or at least to try to vary it. This is a safeguard so that suitable steps are taken before a restricted premises order is made, and to maintain fairness so that a relevant person is informed of an impending restricted premises order.

Clause 25 provides those in receipt of a restricted premises order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. This is important to the function of enforcement in the Bill as it enables businesses to appeal against a restricted premises order, such as where they feel they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. This provision maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.

Clause 26 makes it an offence to breach a restricted premises order in England and Wales. The offence is committed when a tobacco, herbal smoking product, cigarette paper, vaping or nicotine product whose sale is prohibited under a restricted premises order is sold on the premises. The offence occurs if a person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the sale was in breach of the order. It also provides a defence for the person charged, where they prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid a committing the offence. Making it an offence to breach a restricted premises order gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.

Finally, Clause 27 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to add to the offences for which restricted premises orders can be issued, in addition to what is already prescribed in the Bill. Offences added must be in relation to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products only. This re-enacts an existing power for Welsh Ministers, who must consult before making regulations under this power. The clause is therefore important as it maintains existing powers that enable legislation in Wales to be kept up to date to ensure that restricted premises orders can continue to be used as an effective enforcement tool.

I beg to move.

In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.

Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.

Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.

Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.

I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.

As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.

If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?

With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?

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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.

The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.

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.

I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.

First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.

That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.

On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.

I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.

On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.

The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.

On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.

I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.

Yes.

I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?

It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.

In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in part 1 of the Bill and any display regulations in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities. It provides local weights and measures authorities—meaning local authority trading standards in England and Wales—with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity.

Those investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises. Trading standards officers are experts in enforcement, and it is vital that we provide them with the appropriate powers to perform their duty. The clause ensures that local authority trading standards can use the same investigatory powers that are used now, and known to be effective, to enable successful enforcement of the new legislation.

Clause 33 provides a requirement for local weights and measures authorities in England, meaning local authority trading standards, to consider a programme of enforcement action and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement for offences under part 1 of the Bill and display regulations, on a yearly basis. The clause is important to the Bill as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider appropriate action to enforce tobacco, vapes and nicotine product regulations in their local area.

The Minister is outlining clause 33. Under subsection (2), it is clear what the programme of enforcement action might involve, but what is not clear is what the consideration means in this case. In the local authority, is that decision made by a certain department, by the cabinet or, if a combined authority, by the mayor? What is due consideration under the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because that very much depends on the constitutional make-up of the local authority. The governance of that local authority will determine the way in which that is considered. As licensing functions tend to be quasi-judicial in their nature, enforcement required to ensure that those licensing conditions are met means that, in effect, elected members across the authority have some role in and responsibility for giving consideration to those points. I hope that clarifies the matter for him.

It does in the most general sense, but I am trying to get to the specifics of this, if the Minister does not mind. The clause is very clear. It says in subsection (1) of clause 33,

“Each local weights and measures authority in England must, at least once a year, consider”

and so on. Presumably, the Department has some idea of what that consideration would look like, and it is presumably the Department’s job to enforce that the local authority has made some consideration. It must have some benchmark as to what that consideration would be, otherwise how on earth will it enforce that part of the Act once passed?

Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.

The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?

Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?

The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.

If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—

Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?

All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.

With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.

I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.

Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?

Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.

This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.

The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.

I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?

I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”

This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.

Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.

I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.

However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.

The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.

The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.

The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.

Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.

The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.

The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.

I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.

Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.

A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.

Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.

The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.

On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?

My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.

I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?

That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.

I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?

The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Fixed penalties: use of proceeds

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—

“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.

This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments.

The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health. We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.

As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health? Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?

That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs. We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations. Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.

Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges. Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.

Would the hon. Lady’s amendments affect the financing of the actions of trading standards, and would more money need to go in to offset that?

I do not know the answer to that, so I will refer that question to the Minister.

They are your amendments.

I am sorry; I do not know about that.

Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have one sentence left.

The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.

My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.

I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.

I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with

“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,

so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.

I do not want to repeat too many points that other people have made. This a well-meaning, but ill thought-through amendment, as has been highlighted by the two hon. Members who spoke before me.

I was a local government councillor for 17 years, and served on many health and wellbeing boards. I do not recall them ever having a separate fund, so this would be a new innovation. It would not necessarily be an innovation without good intention, but using central Government legislation to enforce a completely new set of financial arrangements on local authorities could have a wider impact than those who have tabled these amendments have anticipated. The Minister, either in his summary or on Report, might find a way of achieving what those hon. Members want via other means, because clearly we would all want the moneys from continued enforcement to be used for things as close to health and public health improvements as possible. Will the Minister address that in his response?

I will first discuss the clause and then move on to the amendments. Clause 38 sets out how proceeds from the new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales must be used. I will also discuss the amendments that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

The clause states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issues in relation to the licensing offences in the Bill must be returned to the relevant Consolidated Fund once the costs of investigating the offences and issuing the notice have been deducted. That will ensure that these fixed penalty notices remain cost-neutral and will not cause local authorities to incur additional cost burdens for enforcing a future licensing scheme. For all other offences, which carry a fixed penalty notice of £200, proceeds will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under this Bill, part 1 of the Health Act 2006, part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016. That means that if local authority trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice—for example, to a retailer selling to someone under age—the local authority may retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That will allow local authorities to cover the enforcement costs for issuing fixed penalty notices and to reinvest any remaining funds into their enforcement regimes.

The amendments to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh seek to ringfence the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences for public health projects. They would achieve that by making it mandatory for any proceeds received by local authority trading standards from these fixed penalty notices to be allocated by local health and wellbeing boards to public health projects. Although I admire the hon. Lady’s ambition to further support public health—and who would not?—it would not be appropriate to enable local authorities to retain the fixed penalty notice proceeds in that way.

Councils already have a ringfenced budget for public health in England. The proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices for licensing offences were never intended as a revenue-generation mechanism. The fixed penalty notice is introduced to support the enforcement of the future licensing scheme and tobacco and vape sales regulations. It should continue to be the choice of trading standards officers to determine the appropriate enforcement action to take in a given case to achieve compliance. Enabling retention of fixed penalty notice proceeds for a different purpose risks distorting the operational priorities of the licensing scheme.

The £200 fixed penalty notice introduced by the Bill for offences such as under age sales are an exception. We worked carefully with His Majesty’s Treasury during the development of the Bill to enable trading standards to retain that relatively small value in order to support their procedures. To ensure that the future licensing scheme can be sustainably implemented, we have established that local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee to support them in covering the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing scheme, and that trading standards can deduct the costs of investigation and issuing fines from the FPN proceeds before returning the remainder to the Consolidated Fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the fact that the provision is not compliant with the reality of seeking to apply to both England and Wales, in that it makes specific reference to bodies that do not exist in Wales, namely the health and wellbeing boards, which only appertain to local authorities in England. I want to be clear that local authorities are receiving not just their public health grant but, in the financial year 2025-26, an additional £70 million from central Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England. We expect that investment will support our aim to help around 360,000 people to make quit attempts, and up to 198,000 successful quits a year.

Decisions for future years are subject to the spending review process, but that money, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, in part comes from the Consolidated Fund. So there is a virtuous circle of the kind that the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly wants to see, in that there are direct correlations between money that my Department gets from His Majesty’s Treasury and money that the Treasury will get from not just those fixed penalty notices in the future, but other sources of income generation, including fines and penalties.

That money, in one form or another, almost certainly will be recycled into public health measures determined by Ministers and by Parliament and given to local authorities to determine how to spend at their local level. That could be through the public health grants, or through direct grants such as the smoking cessation or the drugs and alcohol grants that we make available to local authorities. But rest assured, there will be investment in public health, and that will come from money that my Department receives from His Majesty’s Treasury through the usual routes. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw her amendment.

I will not be withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment 2 negatived.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Power to change amount of fixed penalties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.

I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.

We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 42

Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Power to extend Part 1 to other products

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.

These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?

I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.

The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.

My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?

I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.

I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.

The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.

I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible. In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?

Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary. Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one. That is why this is a landmark Bill.

The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf. That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon. Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Power to amend lists of identity documents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.

I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.

I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:

“(a) a passport,

(b) a UK driving licence,

(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,

(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or

(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.

I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.

Shame!

My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?

One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?

We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.

Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.

I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.

Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?

That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.

So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?

If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.

On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.

I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)