I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 18, clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 22, clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 23, clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 24, clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 44, Schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out,

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 48, schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 45, schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 46, schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi”, to “a” in line 39 and insert

“yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 47, schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 39, schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 40, schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 41, schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 42, schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 43, schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 25, clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 26, clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert

“under the age of 25 (“the customer”) to be aged 25 or over”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 27, clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 28, clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 29, clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert

“under the age of 25”;.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 30, clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 31, clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 32, clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 33, clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 38, clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 49, title, line 2, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

The stated aims of the Bill are really quite clear: as the previous Government and the new Government decided, it is a generational smoking ban, such that anybody who turns 18 after 1 January 2009 is prevented from ever purchasing tobacco in many different shapes and forms; I think that means people who have just turned 16, as we have just had a change of year, will be prevented from ever doing it.

The batch of amendments that have been grouped together effectively undermine the fundamental nature of what the Bill is trying to achieve. Instead of moving to an incremental generational ban, it moves to a different system that alters the age at which tobacco products can be sold to someone, and does so on an indefinite basis. The generational ban does not remove any individual’s rights to buy cigarettes, because at the moment the people who would be prevented from buying cigarettes and other tobacco products cannot do so; their rights are not changed, but rather prevented from ever kicking in. These amendments move instead to a system whereby the legal age is changed such that it is 25 rather than 18.

That will remove the right to smoke from seven years’ worth of people. Smoking has become a lot less prevalent among younger people, but there are seven years’ worth of people, aged 18 to 25, who can smoke at the moment, so if you passed this batch of amendments as they are, you would have seven years’ worth of people who effectively do have rights individually removed from them. However, that must be set against what you do to the collective.

My concern with the principle of clause 1—I know we are not talking about the principle at the moment—is that it creates two tiers of adults, but the generational ban will work its way through and, by the time that generation passes, you will have created one tier of adults again, so my principal objection works its way through. This batch of amendments would keep that static. Yes, you would have two tiers of adults, because you would have people under 25 and people over 25, but you would not be infringing the right of the majority of people to go about smoking tobacco products throughout their lives.

My general view of the Bill is that the generational smoking ban is the state overstepping the mark from public health into infringing personal liberty. However, I recognise the argument of both the previous Government and the new Government that smoking is fundamentally incredibly bad for somebody, so stopping people taking it up in the first place is in the realm of public health. In particular, even though the legal age is 18, we have people aged 15, 16 and 17 taking up smoking. One thing that the Bill setting the age at 25 might do is to stop those people at those ages from picking up a very bad habit indeed.

On this batch of amendments in particular, I am trying to weigh up the removal of those rights of that seven years, set against whether we need such a draconian ban that we stop all adults smoking in the future. I have come to the conclusion, listening to the earlier debate under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Gale, that on balance I would support these amendments.

Before I call the next speaker, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant, we do not use the second person in debates—that is, “you”—because when you talk about “you”, you are talking about me. I respectfully ask people to bear that in mind and use another person—maybe the third person.

Speaking specifically about amendments 17 and 18 and the age restriction of 25, I understand the arguments that have been made: Government policies often offer entitlement to one age, but not to another. For example, people have cited the state pension, which you will not get at 55, but you will after you hit 66. I would argue that those are one-off burdens of proof, because once you are 66, you will automatically—

Order. Sorry, I do not want to have to push this, but when you talk about “you”, you are addressing the Chair. This is not about me, so please, for the purposes of our protocols, will people remember that? Thank you.

Once one has turned 66, that person does not have to confirm their age each and every couple of days or necessarily carry ID to claim their state pension—it is noted on the record, and that is that. Here, potentially, however, if we have an outright ban from 1 January 2009, whenever someone tries to buy a cigarette, after 2034 retailers will have to ask on every single occasion how old they are, for fear of a fine.

I agree that we already have the age 25 verification, but it is safe to assume that people reach an age when they do not have to prove it. I find it incredibly flattering when I do get IDed, but we all reach a point when we do not need it. In the Bill, however, we do. It might seem to be a quick check—one simply looks at the date of 1 January 2009—but we can foresee that being troublesome for retailers. Also, we very much have to bear in mind the issue of the abuse of staff and, as British retailers have mentioned, the increased financial and administrative burden, in particular for smaller shops, which is often where vapes and tobacco are sold. That will have a big impact on their businesses.

Indirectly, a potential effect is the introduction of legal inequalities and giving sanction to age discrimination by creating a create a class of under-aged adults. Furthermore, a point I would like to stress is that, as a lawyer, one of my main concerns is enforceability. I do not disagree with the principle of the next generation being smoke-free—I think that is admirable and important—but I want to ensure that we pass a piece of legislation that will work in practice. We have to think about how this will work in due course, even if in 10 years’ time. That is something I wanted to put on the record.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today.

These Liberal Democrat-tabled amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. The amendments also seek to change the age-of-sale notices to align with the change in the age of sale, which is why there are so many consequential amendments.

This group of amendments also includes amendments 29 and 30, which cover proxy sale of tobacco products in Scotland. To save time, I assure the Committee that, instead of now, I will discuss those particular issues during the clause 2 debate, which I hope will begin shortly, as that relates directly to the points in that group on proxy sales, rather than to age of sale.

As we heard from our expert witnesses during oral evidence, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, of disability and of ill health: it claims about 80,000 deaths a year across the United Kingdom; it causes one in four of all cancer deaths and it kills, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, two thirds of its long-term users. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that there is no liberty whatever in addiction. We seek to ensure that the next generation is never addicted to tobacco products in the way that the current generation and previous generations have been. That is the real freedom here: the freedom not to be addicted to a product that, frankly, would not be allowed were it invented today.

I take the Minister’s point, but there is the potential throughout the Bill for double standards. He talks about addiction—I disagree with him, but it is a perfectly reasonable point to make—but the same could be true of gambling or alcohol. We allow, for example, gamblers to advertise on football shirts. So if the Minister takes the logic of his argument all the way through to its necessary end conclusion, then this Government must be legislating for all those addictive social things that are incredibly damaging as well.

I understand the hon. Member’s argument, but it does not hold water. There is no safe level of smoking. That is the fundamental issue. People can drink or gamble responsibly. We have laws in place to protect against the harms of those things; we can argue—although this Bill is not the place for it—about whether those measures go far enough or go too far at present, but there are protections in place for alcohol and gambling harms. Tobacco is a product that kills two thirds of its users, and as a state, we have a duty to save lives.

I take the Minister’s point somewhat, but I think that there is a conflation of argument here about cigarettes and tobacco. If I may say so, the Minister alternated somewhat between the two. That may be the case with cigarettes; I have never been a smoker of cigarettes, but on new year’s eve I had a big cigar with my dad and brother, and the last one I had with them before that was at my brother’s 30th. I think that was a safe and pleasurable thing to do, and something that the state should not be infringing on. It is not just cigarettes that the Government are going after—it is all tobacco products.

The fact is that the primary consumption of tobacco in this country is through cigarettes. Tobacco is not a safe product. There is no safe level of tobacco use. The hon. Member might enjoy a cigar every now and then; that is a risk that he is prepared to take and that the law allows him to him to take, but I would argue that is still a risky behaviour. Tobacco, in whatever form it is consumed, causes health defects for him. The Bill seeks to ensure that we that we have a future generation that is weaned off tobacco, nicotine, and the toxins and the pollutants that come from a range of products, and that we give the tobacco industry no room for manoeuvre to shift from one product to another. It is about ensuring we have a generation that is freed from the addiction and the dirt and the death that tobacco brings.

Tobacco puts a huge pressure on our NHS. It costs taxpayers billions of pounds on our health and care services—a cost of £3.1 billion a year from smoke-related illnesses. The cost of smoking to our economy is also huge: £18.3 billion of productivity lost every year, with smokers being a third more likely to be off sick.

The Bill will deliver on this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment to create the world’s first smoke-free generation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, who supported the Bill on Second Reading and supported the previous iteration of the Bill that her Government introduced, it is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) that his Government brought in the original iteration of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I pay credit to him for showing leadership on public health, and to the shadow Minister for always being a vocal supporter of tobacco control and opponent of the scourge of youth vaping. I only wish that some of her colleagues understood the sense of what we are seeking to do.

I agree with everything that has been said; the Minister has given a powerful summary. We have discussed freedom of choice and the lack of it, and I remind hon. Members of the extreme examples provided by some of the expert witnesses yesterday: they talked about someone who had their leg amputated purely because of complications as a result of smoking, and who, the same day, felt the need to light up another cigarette. There is no freedom of choice when someone is addicted to this substance.

This might sound comical, but it shows that there is no safe level of passive smoking: as vets, we struggle to manage asthma in pets—in dogs and cats—that come from houses where the owners smoke. That is how dangerous it is. This Bill is obviously about public health—I am not trying to conflate human and animal health—but the perception that there is a safe level of smoking is utterly wrong.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who heard the evidence on Tuesday cannot but have been shocked at what medical professionals see with their own eyes—not just the procedures they have to use, such as amputations, but the people who are so addicted to that product that they have to light up, even having lost both legs. That was a powerful contribution, and he is right to labour the point that there is no freedom in addiction. We are seeking to free the next generation from ever being in the situation that, as he reminds us, was outlined in detail by professionals in the evidence session.

That leads me to the amendments. Simply raising the age of sale to 25 will only raise the age at which people start smoking; it will not meet this Government’s, or indeed the previous Government’s, ambition to make the United Kingdom smoke-free. We also know—and we heard this from the four chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in unison—that whenever there has been a change in tobacco control legislation, the tobacco industry is clever; it is smart; it sees that one road has been blocked, so it finds another. The industry has been swift to refocus its tactics. For example, when flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, were banned in the UK, the industry used product innovation to exploit loopholes in the ban. It created new products, such as menthol filter tips and cigarette-like menthol cigarillos.

Those examples demonstrate how the tobacco industry will always regroup and refocus its efforts to respond to whatever regulations are in place. If we raised the age of sale to 25, the industry would likely change its business model to target older age groups.

Let us be clear here about what we are seeking to do. We are not criminalising current smokers; people who are legally able to purchase tobacco products and consume them will always be able to do that. However, we are having a cut-off point. We are saying to the tobacco industry, “This is your customer base now. That’s it. Game over. What you have got is all you have got. You can’t kill two thirds of your customer base and expect other people to come along the conveyor belt. We’re stopping the conveyor belt. What you have got is it.” We will do all we can to make that customer base even smaller through smoking cessation services and effective targeting of existing smokers to help them to quit. But this is it—this is the customer base, and it will shrink rapidly over the next few years, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 can ever legally be sold tobacco products.

That means that the examples we have heard from Members in this debate about a 45-year-old being asked to show ID are an irrelevance. They miss the point. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill says really clearly that in 25 years’ time—in 2050, which is not that far away—we expect smoking prevalence among people aged 30 and below to be near zero. The logical consequence of that is that there will be very few people of middle adult age going into shops to purchase tobacco. The reality is that there probably will not be a market for tobacco products by then. Retailers will have diversified into selling something else, because there will not be a market of sufficient scale for tobacco to be sold.

All the arguments that we have heard—they have actually been pursued by the tobacco industry—as to why these things are not workable are for the birds. They are for the clouds. They are for another world that does not exist, because the measures in the Bill will ensure that we are smoke-free, and I find that really exciting.

The Minister is making an extremely eloquent case. He referred to the impact assessment for the Bill. I wonder whether he has spotted that on page 61, the likely societal benefits of having a smoke-free generation are estimated at something like £73 billion by the end of the century. I wonder whether he believes, as I do, that the amendment that we are considering puts that societal benefit hugely at risk.

It does, for the reasons that I have set out. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing to the impact assessment, because it sets out a very clear reversal of the current situation, in which the costs of tobacco to society, the individual, the economy and our health and care services are massive. In the future, that situation will be reversed—it will become a positive, not a negative—because people will be healthier and living longer. They will not be living with the comorbidities that are a direct consequence of tobacco use. They will be free from addiction. They will actively participate in the economy. That is why we are moving to smoke-free, rather than just shifting the age of sale to a fixed point and continuing to give tobacco companies that conveyor belt. If we did so, people would eventually reach 25 and the tobacco companies would be able to target them again—maybe not in as great a number, but we would have switched the conveyor belt back on.

I want that conveyor belt stopped for the next generation. That is what the last Bill did, to be fair, and it is what this one does. It is about protecting future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine and carrying the horrible burden of disease that is a direct consequence of all tobacco products. Breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage and allowing people to live healthier lives—that is true freedom. Let us be clear: there is no freedom in addiction. There is freedom in never being able to be sold tobacco and having a genuinely smoke-free UK. For that reason, I ask the shadow Minister not to press these Liberal Democrat amendments.

I certainly do not want to press the amendments to a vote, but it may be that other members of the Committee do.

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not sure whether this is a point of order, and I am not sure how the other parties voted on this, but this was a non-whipped vote for the Liberal Democrats. It is not a Liberal Democrat amendment; it is an amendment from an individual MP. The entire Liberal Democrat health team certainly do not support the amendment to change the minimum age of sale to 25, and the majority of the Liberal Democrat party voted in favour of the Bill as a whole. I want to put it on the record that the Lib Dems are not in favour of the amendment.

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Does Mr Rankin wish to push amendment 18 to a Division?

Yes.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.—(Jack Rankin.)

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

We now move to amendment 56. I remind hon. Members that I know Sir Roger today indicated a more lateral approach to debate, but I will only take that so far.

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.

Amendment 67, in clause 50, page 25, line 34, at end insert—

“(ba) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(bb) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence of selling tobacco products to person under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.

Amendment 73, in clause 68, page 36, line 12, at end insert—

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 74, in clause 68, page 36, line 12, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert—

“, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 76, Clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.

Amendment 56 proposes a change to clause 1 and specifically targets the penalty provision for offenses under the sale of tobacco section on page 2, line 9. It suggests adding the phrase

“, save if it is a first offence.”

at the end of the current penalty clause, effectively modifying the penalties described for violations of the tobacco sale law. Under the legislation, as it is currently proposed, clause 1 specifies:

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

However, this penalty applies without any distinction to all offenders, regardless of whether it is their first offence or a repeat violation. Amendment 56 introduces an exception for first-time offenders, suggesting that they may receive a reduced or different penalty instead of the full fine that is typically prescribed.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but could my hon. Friend illustrate what levels 3 and 4 mean in practice and how they might read across to similar products, such as alcohol, so we can have some context for what she proposes?

My intention was to set out what these amendments seek to do and then to discuss the reasons why that might, or might not, be a good idea, and I will come to my hon. Friend’s very important point when I do so. The principle of amendment 56 is to bring in reduced or different penalties for those committing their first offence compared with those committing subsequent or repeated offences. This change acknowledges that businesses or individuals who commit an offence for the first time may not require the full penalty, but may require education or a form of leniency or mitigation. It separates first-time offenders from repeat offenders, offering an opportunity for compliance without the harshest penalties on the first offence. It could incentivise more careful compliance with the law, especially by businesses that are new or small, or are unfamiliar with or unintentionally violating the regulations on selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers.

Amendment 57, also within this group, proposes to amend clause 1, page 2, line 9 by adding a new subsection (4A), which specifically addresses the penalties for first-time offenders who admit guilt under the sale of tobacco section. This amendment introduces a more lenient penalty, stipulating that first-time offenders would be

“liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

Under clause 1(4), as it reads without the amendment, a person who commits an offence under that section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, regardless of whether it is their first offence. The addition of proposed subsection (4A), however, distinguishes and separates first-time offenders by offering a potentially reduced fine—level 3 instead of level 4—or alternatively a caution, which is a formal warning and a less severe still form of penalty.

The next amendment within this group, amendment 67, proposes an amendment to clause 50, page 25, line 34, adding two new paragraphs to subsection (5) and inserting new subsection (5A). Clause 50 is essentially a read- across of clause 1. There is understandable desire within Government to see the four nations of the United Kingdom having the same policy. That is simpler, it means that we can protect the health of people across the country, and it also makes it easier to enforce and manage the law. In Scottish law, the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 essentially provides Scottish tobacco regulations; clause 50 of the Bill thus alters sections 4, 4B, 6 and 8 of that legislation, so that the legislation in Scotland can essentially follow clause 1 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Amendment 67 is therefore designed to do to clause 50 what amendment 56 does to clause 1, introducing the phrase,

“, save if it is a first offence.”

to section 4(5) of the 2010 Act.

In doing so, it effectively exempts first-time offenders from the usual penalties set out in that section, which typically involve higher fines or penalties.

Secondly, amendment 67 introduces proposed new subsection (5A) to section 4 of the 2010 Act, specifying:

“A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1)”,

related to selling tobacco products to minors,

“is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”—

consistent with amendment 57—

“or a recorded police warning”,

which I understand is the equivalent of a police caution in the rest of England and Wales. This change allows a more lenient treatment of first-time offenders, in line with the approach seen in other amendments aimed at reducing penalties for first offences.

The level 3 fine is less severe than the typical penalty under the current system, which could be level 4, and the recorded police warning offers an alternative that serves as an official notice without a financial burden. The amendment applies specifically to Scotland rather than to the rest of the United Kingdom, and its discretionary penalty for first-time offenders is intended to focus on correction, compliance and education rather than simply punishment of offenders. It promotes a more rehabilitative approach for those committing what is, relatively speaking, a minor offence for the first time.

Amendment 73 to clause 68, by adding the words

“, save if it is a first offence.”

is designed to introduce a more lenient approach to individuals committing an offence under the clause for the first time. Again, clause 68 is essentially a read-across of clause 1 into Northern Irish legislation. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on tobacco control, which the clause will amend. It substitutes clauses such that we have the same rules for tobacco purchasing in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making them harmonious across our country. The amendment would provide in clause 68, and therefore in Northern Ireland, what the Government seek to provide for the rest of the country, which is the rolling smoke-free generation legislation. The exemption would mean that those who commit an offence under the clause would not be subject to the usual penalties if it was their first offence.

Amendment 74 would add a new paragraph (4A) to article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, to specify that a person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause is

“is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

My understanding is that a conditional caution in Northern Ireland is similar to a police warning in Scotland and to a caution in England and Wales.

The intent behind the amendments is to provide a more lenient penalty for first-time offenders than for those who have committed the offence previously, in particular by allowing a fine capped at level 3 on the standard scale, which is obviously lower than level 4. Alternatively, there would be the option of a conditional caution, which means the opportunity for the offender to avoid a formal criminal conviction by complying with certain conditions, such as attending educational courses or engaging in community service. The original briefing suggested that we would discuss amendments 75 and 76 at this stage, but I understand that we are going to postpone those to the debate on clause 2, so I shall leave them for now.

I will talk about the effects of the amendments, but first I will answer the question my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about what the standard scale is and what it means. On the standard scale, a level 3 fine has a maximum of £1,000 and a level 4 fine has a maximum of £2,500. Cautions are given to people over the age of 10 years who admit an offence and agree to be cautioned by the police; they do not amount to a criminal conviction, but they may appear on a Disclosure and Barring Service check, which is required for some forms of employment. The amendments speak to the proportionality and purpose of the penalties, which ought to be set at a level that is both a reasonable punishment and an effective deterrent. It is important to prevent crimes and to maintain the confidence of the public.

When we debate clause 1 later today, we will discuss further the challenges faced by shop workers implementing the provisions in the Bill; no doubt, we will also discuss who is liable for the fines. I invite the Minister to consider who he wishes to be responsible for them. Does he wish it to be the shop worker—the chap or lady working in the shop? Does he expect it to be the shop manager, the shift supervisor, the owner of the business or the chief executive of a major company? That is a relevant consideration when thinking about the proportionality of the fine. A fine of £1,000 may not deter a large supermarket chain, but it may well deter and be a substantial penalty for someone who works part time in a shop while working as a student. The size of the fine is a relevant consideration.

My hon. Friend might best be able to provide clarification. Perhaps I have misunderstood, perhaps this is a mistake or perhaps it is deliberate. I understand why each jurisdiction of the United Kingdom has to be taken separately, but do I understand correctly that in clause 68, which covers Northern Ireland, the suggestion is that it should be a level 5 offence, whereas in clause 1, which covers England, the suggestion is it should be a level 4 offence, and my hon. Friend is seeking an amendment to make it a level 3 offence in the first instance? Why would that offence be a different level in different parts of the United Kingdom? The Minister is frowning.

Which page is it?

It is the top of page 36. As I understand it, clause 68 makes the sale of tobacco a level 5 offence in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend is seeking to make the first offence a level 3 offence, but on page 1, clause 1(4) makes the sale of tobacco a level 4 offence. It seems that there is a an inequity there, which perhaps is deliberate or perhaps I have misunderstood. I support her opinion, but it seems that there is a difference between the different nations of the United Kingdom and I do not understand why that is the case.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It brings us to the heart of the next part of my speech, which is the inconsistency between different parts of the United Kingdom. We will come on to other inconsistencies in further amendments to clause 1 relating to age verification processes. As for why there are differences in the legislation as drafted, I am afraid I did not draft it; the Minister did. Perhaps he will say whether that was intentional or whether he wishes to amend it later.

I just want to clarify the intention of my hon. Friend’s amendments, not to resile in any way from her clear point that she supports the Bill, but to clarify her feeling that the current level of fines and punishments within it are disproportionate, especially if they are going to be levied on a part-time junior shop worker, or perhaps even a Saturday person who is a minor themselves. I want to clarify for the record that she does not in any way feel that the offence should carry a lesser punishment, but believes that first-time offenders should be educated rather than castigated.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Those who know me or who have listened to my speeches on tobacco and vaping will be in no doubt of my support for the Bill, and I believe that the criminal justice system has its part to play in ensuring compliance, particularly where people recklessly or even deliberately sell products to children. If one talks to children at local schools, one will repeatedly be told which shops they know they can get particular products from.

You were not here this morning, Mr Dowd, but I talked about the last time I was carded when purchasing alcohol. A junior shopkeeper was selling it under the supervision of an adult, and when the adult had walked away, the young chap actually said to me, “Now if you go to the corner shop round there, they will sell you it.” That shop might not have sold me what I was trying to buy, but a different form of alcohol. It is certainly the case that some shopkeepers sell age-restricted products to children with some impunity, and it is important that we catch them and ensure that they are punished appropriately.

The Bill says that an individual may be liable for a fine, which means that other penalties up to £2,500 may be put in place. The Bill allows flexibility around the fines that might be issued, so I am struggling to understand, now I have made that point, why we are continuing to debate this. Is it the upper figure of £2,500 that the hon. Lady is objecting to, or is it the principle that we are introducing a fine at all? I am struggling to see the overall point of this debate.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I shall try to be clearer. I strongly believe that these products should not be sold to children—I believe that personally; we have a free vote on this in my party. I strongly agree with the vast majority of the Bill, and certainly with the rolling age for tobacco. However, I think we have to be proportional in how we manage fines for individuals who break the law. I will come on to how the measures compare with those for other age-restricted products in a moment. Consistency is important.

When we debated this issue in the last Parliament in relation to the previous iteration of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, there was published Government guidance on who would be fined. It may be that this Government have published similar guidance already, but I have not been able to find it; perhaps the Minister can say whether it is available yet. When we debate clause 1 stand part, we will talk about what the clause means by “a person”. The effect of a deterrent or punishment depends on who we are trying to deter or punish: if we are trying to deter or punish a major corporation or a business, the fines may need to be larger than if we are trying to deter a 19-year-old who works in a shop on a Saturday afternoon while attending college. That is the point that I am trying to get to with the amendments.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, on which the shadow Minister is expanding, for which I am grateful, we heard evidence on the question of proportionality from National Trading Standards on Tuesday. The witnesses said that they would not necessarily levy the highest fines in the case of first-time offenders. Building on what my hon. Friend said, I am struggling to see the purpose of the amendment, given that the people who will engage with this measure, National Trading Standards, are very clear that they will employ exactly what the shadow Minister is concerned about—proportionality—in the case of, for example, a first-time offender.

The hon. Gentleman is right to go back to the evidence. One of the things we were told in the evidence provided by National Trading Standards and the Local Government Association, particularly on Tuesday, was that they want discretion, but also that they want first-time offenders to be treated more leniently. That was a clear ask from our witness, who explained that educating or warning first-time offenders was a better option than fining them.

Each of the amendments that I have tabled seeks to make available a police caution that will not count on a criminal record and so means the person will not be criminalised, unlike someone’s being taken to court and given a fine. The amendments would add in a lower level, as well as reduce the overall top fine. What I am trying to get from the Minister before Report is an understanding of whom he is trying to fine and proportionality in the amount of the fine. We need guidance on that issue, so that we can fully understand how a Saturday shop worker will be treated if they inadvertently sold some tobacco to somebody in a first offence versus how a shopkeeper and licence holder will be treated if they repeatedly commit such offences. I want some guidance from the Minister on that.

To build on that point, it is also important that we have clarity from a legal and enforcement perspective. The person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine “not exceeding” a certain level. I take the point about what trading standards may do in practice, but if the practice changes and they decide to always go for the upper level, there is nothing in the law that allows for a cautionary approach and another level. The amendment provides a benchmark and a safety catch, so that there is slightly different treatment. It would ensure that those who the Bill intends to punish are punished. From an enforcement perspective, it is a sensible amendment.

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to get some indication in legislation that there are different groups of people: those who commit this offence inadvertently on a one-off basis and those who do so repeatedly and deliberately. Different individuals or corporations need different treatment. I hope that the Minister, when wrapping up this set of amendments, will let the Committee know whether the guidance on this sort of sentencing has been produced yet, as it was before the previous Bill Committee debated the subject. If it has not, can he give some indication of when it will be produced and, in particular, whether it will be produced before Report? That will be really helpful.

In relation to the fines, I also want to discuss the principle of proportionality. Tobacco is a harmful, age-restricted product, but it is far from the only product subject to restrictions. When I looked into this, I found there are many more age-restricted products than I thought, and it was difficult to find out what the penalties were for selling them, inadvertently or deliberately, to someone below the age threshold. Selling a lottery product, including scratch cards, to someone under 18 is against the law. The penalty for doing that is more severe than for selling tobacco. I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of these wrong. I looked at various council, trading standards and Government websites to find this information, but some of those websites, despite being official or council-based, are out of date. I have done my best, and I will be grateful for any correction the Minister can provide.

The penalties I was able to find were an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison. It is also illegal to pay out the prize to someone under 18, so one could argue that buying a ticket in the first place is somewhat futile. This is generally enforced by the lottery operator itself. Underage sales can also lead to termination of contract and removal of the lottery terminal. Not included in the penalties, which the Minister may want to speak about on amendment 57, is a penalty to the licence holder in terms of his or her licence, but we might come to that later.

Butane or lighter fluid are also age-restricted, and selling them to an under-18 carries an unlimited fine or six months in prison. These are more severe penalties than for the tobacco offence. Fireworks have different age restrictions based on their category: for some the threshold is 18, but crackers, which have a small spark in them, have an age restriction of 12, which I did not know. I could have inadvertently breached that had I worked in a shop that sold such things.

Films in the cinema have age restrictions. When I was younger, I used to think that the higher restrictions meant that the film was cool, and therefore movie producers wanted to get the highest rating possible to make the film seem as cool as possible. Fortunately, I have gained a little bit more understanding since then. There is an unlimited fine for the cinema offence but, again, this is not a fine on the individual who sells the cinema ticket; it is a fine on the cinema itself as a business. That is why who pays these fines is important. There can also be six months’ imprisonment for the person running the cinema.

Alcohol is another example of an age-restricted product where there are fines and penalties. Selling alcohol to someone under 18 can lead to an on-the-spot fine of £90, a criminal caution, or formal prosecution with an unlimited fine. With alcohol, there is a different approach for offending persistently. If someone persistently sells alcohol to under-18s, they can be given an immediate closure order for their shop of up to 14 days or an unlimited fine. Also, shops need a licence to sell alcohol. Petrol or diesel from a petrol station cannot be sold to anyone under 16. That risk is mitigated using the licencing process, and again, there is a penalty of an unlimited fine and up to 12 months in prison. Selling a blade or a knife to someone under the age of 18 is illegal and carries an unlimited fine and up to six months in prison, as is the case for solvents too.

A challenge with the fines for the different age-restricted products is that they vary from product to product without a clear explanation necessarily being given. It is also worth considering the age of the customer, because this is not a law that applies to children. Most of these other examples I described are there to protect children. As a society, we have a job to protect children.

I support my hon. Friend on the principle, which we see in other legislation, but the point about children is important. Shopkeepers are used to the concept of Challenge 25 for people over 18, and this starts in that way, but given how the legislation is designed, we will soon get to the cut-off for smokers being in their early 30s. Shopkeepers will not be used to challenging someone who is 32 in the same way, as part of a Challenge 37 policy or whatever. There needs to be an acceptance. In 10 years’ time, we will not see selling cigarettes to a 32-year-old—I have not got my sums right, but I just want to illustrate the point—in the same way as we see selling cigarettes to a 17-year-old today. There should be a recognition of that when it comes—

Order. Please can you ask questions or make a short intervention? If you wish to speak on these clauses or to this amendment, feel free to do so, but I do not want an intervention to become a mini-speech. Please bear that in mind, because we have several days of this, and I want people to get into the routine and the discipline of making an intervention, asking a question or making a speech. It is fairly straightforward and simple. As we progress, that will become more apparent.

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for the guidance, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his intervention.

The age of the customer is important. The principle of existing tobacco legislation is that it protects children under the age of 18 from tobacco. This legislation will protect some adults from tobacco as well.

I have a question for the Minister about the offence. If we get 10 years down the line and we cannot sell tobacco to people under the age of 28 or 26, depending on when legislation takes effect—people in their 20s—we will have one group made up of children, who are not allowed to buy tobacco, and another group made up of adults who are not allowed to buy tobacco. I care deeply about the protection of children, but I believe that adults have a right to choose risk to an extent, where it does not harm others within society. Does the Minister think that, when we get to that point, selling tobacco to a child is a more serious and aggravating factor than selling it, perhaps inadvertently, to a 25-year-old when the age limit is 26? It is being sold to an adult who has the capacity to make a choice—although an illegal choice—about risk, but for the shopkeeper, at that point, selling to a 15-year-old would be a more serious offence.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that question, because proportionality is key here to how trading standards will approach the fines regime. The reality, however, is that the law will be clear as to what the age of sale will be. If a retailer has knowingly sold tobacco products—against the law—to someone who it is clear should not have been sold to, trading standards may take a different view than they would were the retailer’s defence that they had every reason to believe that the person was the age they claimed to be.

That is not quite what I meant. I guess the question is this: if someone has sold tobacco products to a person of 45 who should not have them because they are now illegal, that is an offence—it is breaking the law as set out in the clause—and would see a penalty applied—[Interruption.] Well, it may see them liable for a penalty—let us put it that way. If the retailer sold that same tobacco to a 14-year-old, would the Minister not agree about the difference? Selling it to a 45-year-old and a 14-year-old might be illegal—the same crime on the face of the Bill—but the penalties for selling tobacco to a minor should be greater than those for selling it to an adult.

We have heard very clearly from trading standards. The current practice is that trading standards officers across the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, which have different penalty regimes in place, apply a degree of proportionality. There is nothing in the Bill that changes that situation. Trading standards will always approach this in a proportionate and responsible way. However, as legislators setting out a clear desire to have a smoke-free generation across the UK, we must be clear that there is a borderline where one side is legal and the other is illegal, and that there are maximum penalties for breaking the law, as there are for a whole range of things. I do not want to differentiate within the smoke-free generation by saying, “Well, you can be a little bit smoke-free because you’re an adult now, but you should be absolutely smoke-free because you are kids.” From 1 January 2009, smoke-free is smoke-free.

I understand the Minister’s point. However, my point was that even in a world where things are illegal, we do have aggravating and mitigating circumstances in law. I suggest that, particularly as the rolling generations get older, selling to a child becomes an aggravating offence. I ask the Government to consider that.

Obviously, if someone is liable for a conviction or a fine, the defence is that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission. Given that in this instance we are talking about perhaps a fleeting look at a passport or something, will companies or shops now actually have to take scans or register that they have seen it?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suggest, so that I do not try the patience of the Chair, that we discuss that when we get to clause 1 stand part, because it speaks to the substance of the clause rather than the substance of these amendments.

To be very clear, the answer is no. But I will explain why later.

As the Minister is in the mood for answering questions, would he like to intervene to say whether the guidance on who specifically will be liable for the fines has been written and published?

I will happily get back to the shadow Minister on that. On tobacco fines for under-age sales, it is up to trading standards to make a sensible decision—I emphasise the word “sensible”—about whom it seeks to fine. It depends on the circumstances behind the offence. When it is proxy sales, it is the person who buys the product on behalf of the minor who will be fined, rather than the shopkeeper or the business.

Order. For the smooth running of the Committee, it would be helpful—rather than having the table tennis that is going on—if Members could ask questions and the Minister answered them when he winds up, and not on this individual level, if possible.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing these amendments before the Committee. That allows us to have a genuine debate on the nitty-gritty of the Bill and on the enforcement and implementation of the measures that the Government are bringing forward.

As the shadow Minister outlined, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone who is under age in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They would create an exception to the maximum penalty a person can face for committing one of these offences—if it is the person’s first offence, that is. They would also establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is £1,000—or it would instead provide for a discretionary caution in England and Wales, a recorded police warning in Scotland and a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the level of fine that someone who commits this offence is liable to under current legislation in England and Wales and Scotland, which is level 4—£2,500 pounds. It is two levels lower than is currently the case in Northern Ireland, which is level 5—£5,000.

I appreciate that the intention of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders, but the amendment is not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West rightly pointed out that National Trading Standards told the Committee only two days ago, on 7 January, that when enforcing tobacco and vape legislation as it currently stands in England and Wales, it takes an entirely proportionate approach, taking the appropriate action to achieve compliance. Typically, that starts with the issuing of warning letters, which is entirely proportionate for first-time offences. As we heard only two days ago, sending warning letters is often incredibly effective in ensuring future compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties such as prosecution and the associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. That proportionate approach is also taken by trading standards officers in Scotland and by district councils in Northern Ireland when enforcing tobacco and vape legislation.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bill or in what we heard from trading standards officers to suggest that anything will change. Trading standards will continue to do the job it is currently doing. It will use the proportionality it is currently using—nothing will change. The approach it takes to decide who to fine will continue. That will be entirely dependent on the case and the evidence in front of trading standards officers, as well as the circumstances. If, as is currently the case for most retailers, it is their first offence, they will get a warning letter. Only if the issue continues will that not be the case. The measures in the Bill do not change one iota how trading standards enforces tobacco control in the four nations of the United Kingdom. That is why it is right that we debate this issue and clarify it not just for the Committee but for the House and those following these proceedings. However, the amendments are not needed, because nothing will change.

As a Government, we have a smoke-free ambition. We take the view that tobacco is uniquely harmful. We want to ensure that the message gets out there loudly and clearly that we are serious about this smoke-free generation policy, so we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for tobacco and vape offences. What message would it send out if we watered down the measures as they are today? That would say that we are not taking smoke-free seriously.

I want to make sure that we carry on with the measures in the Bill. Offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that existing consequences are not weakened for first-time offenders or anyone else who commits these offences. We trust trading standards officers—the professionals—to do their job, as they do it day in, day out, week in, week out, and year in, year out, and to apply common sense, proportionality and, ultimately, the law of the land. Therefore, we do not want to remove the ability of the court to issue higher-level fines, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty. The courts may well view fining certain rogue traders as a proportionate penalty in a particular case. For that reason, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister’s response was very interesting. However, could he respond further to a couple of the questions that were asked? First, is it intentional that there is a difference in the level of the fines?

There are differences across the four nations of the United Kingdom, and those differences are a consequence of the devolution settlement that this Parliament agreed a quarter of a century ago. Of course there are divergences across the jurisdictions, because the four jurisdictions are able to legislate their own penalty regimes and have done so. The measures in the Bill do not change that situation.

We have crafted the Bill after full consultation, and with full agreement and full consent, across the three devolved jurisdictions and the UK Government, which legislates for England in this matter. That is why we do not seek to have a common penalty regime across the UK; we allow the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish to develop their own penalty regimes. However, the law is common across the United Kingdom, and it will be for the trading standards authorities in those jurisdictions to apply the law. It will be for the courts in those jurisdictions to apply the penalty regime that appertains to those jurisdictions.

The Minister has somewhat contradicted himself. On the one hand he says that he does not agree with the amendments because he wants to leave the courts free to issue a bigger fine to a rogue trader, and I have sympathy with that argument. But why, in Northern Ireland, should a rogue trader be subject to a higher fine?

Because that is what Northern Ireland has decided.

If Northern Ireland has decided that it wants higher fines and if, as the Minister has said, he wants to take the idea of a smoke-free generation seriously, why, given that the law as it stands in England and Wales is for him to decide—certainly in England, as he is the Minister with responsibility for public health—does he not want the fines in England to be as high as they are in Northern Ireland?

We are in the bizarre situation where the shadow Minister has gone from wanting to water down the penalties to now wanting to make them higher, in line with Northern Ireland. We have been very clear that we are continuing the existing fine regime for tobacco control in England. We want trading standards officers to continue the proportionality they currently display when they enforce breaches of tobacco control. The Bill changes nothing in the current situation, beyond the fact that there will be a different age of sale that determines whether the law has been broken.

The measures in the Bill have been crafted in a way that suits the desires and the ambitions of the four nations of the United Kingdom, recognising that, in some parts of it, measures are already in place and that, in some parts, the penalties will be different from those in other parts. However, the underlying aim is the same: we expect law enforcement to continue in the way it does, and we expect the situation regarding fines to be as it is set out in current legislation.

If I understand the Minister correctly—he can correct me if I am wrong—he is saying that the reason why the fines are different between England, Wales and Northern Ireland is that that is the way they are at the moment.

indicated assent.

Would he like to see the fines in England rise to the same level as those in Northern Ireland, or is he content with them where they are?

This is becoming a question and answer session—it is all slightly like an evidence session. That is a decision for future Governments; it is not what we intend in this Bill, which is clear on what the penalty regime will be. I cannot guarantee that some future Government will not decide to alter the penalty regime. That may be a Liberal Democrat Government, a future Labour Government or even a future Conservative Government, when the Conservatives get their act in order, although the differences in the Committee suggest that may be way after the next generation are affected by the Bill to a considerable extent. They will be free to do that, because nothing done by this Parliament can bind future Governments. The Bill sets out the penalty regimes as they are for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and yes, there are differences, because that is devolution.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clear answers. The purpose of the amendments is to provoke debate on the proportionality of the punishments in place and to encourage the Minister to provide further guidance on who he expects to be punished—the shopkeeper or the shop—and to consider the levels of penalty across the UK. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Age verification policy—

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business, and

(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on the tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises (“the business premises”) from which—

(a) tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products are, in pursuance of a sale, despatched for delivery to different premises, and

(b) no other tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business is carried on from the business premises.

(3) Before the specified date, an “age verification policy” is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, vaping product or nicotine product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(4) After the specified date, an “age verification policy”—

(a) in relation to a tobacco business or herbal smoking product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers that the customer may have been born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy);

(b) in relation to a vaping product business or nicotine product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product, or a nicotine product, on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(5) In relation to times before the end of 2033, the reference in subsection (4)(a) to the customer being born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy) has effect as a reference to the customer being under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (3) or (4)(b).

(7) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—

(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer's age,

(b) documents that may be shown to the person selling a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product as evidence of a customer’s age,

(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product,

(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed in the premises,

(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.

(8) A person who carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business must have regard to guidance published under subsection (7) when operating an age verification policy.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(11) In this section— “the appropriate national authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,

“herbal smoking product business” means a business involving the sale of herbal smoking products by retail,

“nicotine product business” means a business involving the sale of nicotine products by retail,

“the specified date” is 1 January 2027,

“tobacco business” means a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail,

“tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business” means a business which involves any one or more of the following—

(a) a tobacco business,

(b) a herbal smoking product business, or

(c) a vaping product business,

“vaping product business” means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail.”

This new clause introduces a requirement on businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping/ nicotine products, or cigarette papers. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland to be amended by the Bill.

Amendment 68, in clause 50, page 25, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 4A (Sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18) insert—

(a) in subsection (5), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a recorded police warning.””

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.

Amendment 69, in clause 50, page 26, line 26, at end insert—

“(ba) in subsection (7), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”

(bb) after subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.””

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to a failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 2 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.

Clause 50 stand part.

Clause 68 stand part.

Amendment 68 would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling vaping or nicotine products to someone under age in Scotland. It would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000. That is one level lower than the level of the fine to which someone who commits the offence under the current legislation is liable, which is level 4 and £2,500. They could also be given a recorded police warning. However, the effect is slightly unclear, as the police are not responsible for the enforcement of these offences.

Amendment 69 provides for a recorded police warning as an alternative to a fine up to level 2 for the offence of failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland. While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s intention to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders, the amendment is not necessary. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to achieve compliance. As I said in the previous debate, that typically starts with the issuing of warning letters, which is often entirely effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties such as prosecution and the associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction.

Furthermore, the introduction of a recorded police warning in amendment 69 would add an extra layer of complexity and burden. It is not the responsibility of the police currently, and indeed it will not be under any measure in this Bill, to enforce tobacco and vape sales legislation. That is the responsibility of trading standards. The Government believe that trading standards is best placed to enforce the legislation, as it currently does.

As I said before, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for either tobacco or vape offences by creating exceptions for first-time offenders. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that the existing consequences are not weakened for first-time offenders or anyone else who commits those offences. We do not want to remove the court’s ability to issue a higher-level fine where that is viewed as an entirely proportionate penalty in the case that is before it, or for anyone who has been convicted of those offences.

New clause 3 would introduce a requirement for businesses selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products in England and Wales to operate an age verification policy. That policy would require steps to be taken to establish a customer’s age if they look under the age specified by the clause. The new clause seeks to replicate the existing requirements in Scotland. For the purchase of tobacco, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, from 1 January 2034, when anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 turns 25, the age verification policy would be updated to reflect the new age of sale for those products. That means that a person selling those products from 2034 onwards would be required to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they looked like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. A person selling vaping and nicotine products would be required to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they looked under 25. That would not change in 2034, as the age of sale for those products will remain 18.

While I welcome the intention to ensure that retailers do not sell potentially harmful products to anyone under age, there are trade-offs to be made. We do not want to place undue burden on or limit the flexibility of retailers. They understand their business and their customers. We do not want to force customers to carry ID by introducing mandatory age verification policies. It is already an offence to sell tobacco and vaping products to anyone under age. The majority of retailers sell tobacco and vapes responsibly—it is important to put that on the record. They follow recommended practice and regularly ask for customers’ ID anyway.

Trading standards will continue to take an intelligence-led, proportionate approach to enforce the law through age-of-sale test purchases. New £200 fixed penalty notices introduced by the Bill will allow trading standards to take quicker enforcement action against rogue retailers. The Bill also provides powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of these products to strengthen enforcement and provide trading standards with further opportunities to clamp down on rogue traders.

It is a pleasure to discuss the substantive portion of the Bill, starting with clause 1. This Bill is vital health legislation. It takes a much-needed regulatory approach to vaping, as well as phasing out the sale of tobacco for the next generation. I am proud that, as the Minister has said, it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the legislation. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for championing this issue, and to Dr Javed Khan for his comprehensive 2022 review, “Making smoking obsolete”, which is where I first saw the suggestion of a rolling ban. I am pleased that this iteration of the Bill continues to have strong cross-party and cross-national support. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his long-standing and tireless campaigning on nicotine and tobacco, and to Dame Andrea Leadsom, the Minister in the previous Bill Committee, whose proceedings began in April 2024.

It is now a truth universally acknowledged that smoking is bad for health. It is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. It is responsible for about 80,000 deaths a year. When we say that number, it is easy for us to let it trip off the tongue without realising just how many people it represents. For each of them, there is a personal story.

My own Nana Burton, my dad’s mother, smoked all her life—she smoked Woodbines—and she died of lung cancer. When she was diagnosed, her response was to buy herself some filters and start smoking filter cigarettes because they might be better for her, but it did not do any good. She used to smoke in the living room, and the ceiling had to be repainted annually for Christmas because there used to be an orange-yellow stain above her chair where the smoke had gone up. Perhaps not surprisingly, two of her children also smoked. My Uncle Alan died of emphysema following a lifetime of smoking, and my Aunty Chrissie died of oesophageal cancer following a lifetime of smoking. We do see—it has been discussed already—the pattern of generations. One benefit of the clause is that by breaking that cycle, we can stop generational smoking. We know that people are more likely to smoke if their parents do. My dad does not and never has, and perhaps that is why I do not, either.

As we come to what I hope will be the end of tobacco in many ways, it is worth casting our mind back to its history. Tobacco is actually not that old a product. It was first brought to England on 27 July 1586 by Sir Walter Raleigh, as the story goes. He brought it to England from Virginia, along with potatoes and maize—perhaps he should have stuck with potatoes and maize. It is said that his servants, seeing him smoking a pipe, threw water on him because they thought he was on fire. It was held at the time to be excellent for your health, whereas potatoes were viewed with great suspicion. Tobacco was touted as a relief for toothache, worms, halitosis—well, it certainly changes the smell of people’s breath—falling fingernails and even cancer. It is also said that in 1600 he tempted Queen Elizabeth to try smoking, and it was then copied by the rest of the population.

By the turn of the 17th century, tobacco was very commonplace and starting to cause concern. Sir Francis Bacon noted:

“The use of tobacco has immensely increased in our time”,

and that it gave men

“a kind of secret pleasure, so that persons once accustomed to it can scarce leave it off”—

an early description of the addiction that the chief medical officer described in evidence earlier in the week. If that period was when smoking first became popular, it is also when we find the very first anti-tobacco campaigning and regulation in this country. King James I, who was perhaps before his time in some respects, in 1604 produced a pamphlet called “A Counterblaste to Tobacco”, one of the earliest anti-smoking and anti-tobacco publications known. He reckoned that tobacco caused serious social problems and serious health issues; he described it as

“hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.”

Although that pamphlet was published 400 years ago, James I was not far off, and his words ring true today. He also, recognising the dangers, put an import tax on tobacco to try to reduce its use, and he noticed what the doctors in this Committee will have seen in their anatomy classes—I think there are pictures now on cigarette packets too—of black scarring in the lungs of people who smoked. Of course, that was not enough to put people off; during the great plague of 1665-66, at Eton College it was made compulsory for all the boys to smoke tobacco to protect them, which I thought was interesting.

Fast forward, though, to the 20th century and we begin to see tobacco being mass produced rather than sold as a luxury item. There had been some strides in regulation, such as the Children Act 1908, which forbade the sale of tobacco for those under the age of 16. It is interesting that it took from 1908 to almost modern times for that age limit to change.

After the conclusion of the war, tobacco companies had a captive audience, with lots of male soldiers wanting more, so they turned their attention to women. Recognising the strides that women had made during the suffrage movement, they cleverly used the equality angle as a basis for their mass marketing campaign to “light up for freedom”. They were also sold light or “Mild as May” cigarettes, which were supposed to be a more feminine version but were no doubt just as harmful.

As the chief medical officer said in evidence on Tuesday, big tobacco is very clever. As reports began to emerge suggesting a link between smoking, cancer and a whole host of other issues, tobacco advertising began to change tack. Cigarettes were no longer sold as being “Mild as May”, but focused on a male audience once again, promoting rugged individualism and stoicism. The Marlboro Man became a regular feature of motorsport events such as Formula 1 and featured on ski jackets and other clothing.

At that stage, to be pro-smoking was to be pro-choice, a rationale that amounted to “Die like a man, die free”. It is interesting that it was promoted as a form of choice—the argument being used against clause 1 today—when actually, as has been described to us in evidence, the only choice people make is that first cigarette. Once they have taken their first cigarette, they can become addicted to it, so the next cigarette is not the choice it is set out to be.

I take the point my hon. Friend is quite eloquently making, but might I suggest to her that times have very much changed: the advertising that she has talked about has long since been restricted, the idea that smoking is seen in that same way and is prevalent throughout society is no longer true, and perhaps the arguments she is making are not as relevant today as they might have been in the past?

My hon. Friend is right that the advertising restrictions have changed, because the Governments of different colours over the period have changed them. That has reduced tobacco smoking, which for people’s health is a good thing, as I am sure he agrees.

I am advised that the five men who appeared as the Marlboro Man all died of smoking-related illnesses, which is very sad to hear. In the 1950s, we started to see reports in the British Medical Journal that suggested a link between smoking and lung cancer, and by 1962 the Royal College of Physicians had enough evidence to push for a ban on advertising. Tobacco advertising has been banned on television since 1965, and a national warning sign saying, “SMOKING CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH” was imposed in 1971.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is not speculation; we have seen it in action. In the period immediately after the indoor smoking ban, for example, the levels of cardiovascular disease in this country plummeted, so we know that tobacco control has almost immediate beneficial health outcomes for those who are at risk from smoking related illness.

I thank the Minister for supporting the view that clause 1 will reduce the number of people who smoke. We can argue about how it will reduce the number of smokers and how many people will stop, but either way we know that there will be a significant reduction in the number of smokers. That will significantly benefit people’s health—particularly young people, thanks to the rolling age process. As I have mentioned, it will benefit the health of children—even those as yet not conceived, never mind born—which is important.

The Minister talked about the effect on the NHS and social care. Smokers are likely to need social care 10 years earlier than their non-smoking counterparts. He gave figures in the billions of pounds for the cost to the NHS. Nearly half a million appointments a year are caused by smoking. If we were able to stop that, not only would we have a healthier and happier population who are not miserably addicted and unwell, but we would be able to concentrate NHS resources on other conditions and perhaps reduce waiting lists and waiting times.

The other key benefit of clause 1 relates the economy. Smokers are more likely to die early, which has an economic effect. They are more likely to take time off work as they experience chronic illness. It is estimated that smoking-related absenteeism costs the economy £5 billion annually. When smokers are hospitalised or have illness, they tend to have longer recovery times and more prolonged periods off work than their non-smoking counterparts.

Nicotine is an addictive substance. Nicotine cravings can be experienced by smokers and, as we heard in our discussion with teachers about children and vaping earlier this week, it can disrupt their work day and lead to lack of concentration and reduced focus.

Turning to the environmental impact, smoking is bad for the environment in several ways. Everywhere outside, we can see cigarette butts lying on the floor; that is pollution. The tobacco industry has an effect on the environment right from the get-go, including through deforestation, use of fossil fuels, and pollution caused by waste disposal. Tobacco cultivation requires large amounts of land and water, and the waste of cigarette butts contributes to hazardous litter that harms the ecosystem. Clause 1 will reduce the amount of tobacco consumed, which will reduce the number of cigarette butts and the amount of deforestation, and will therefore reduce waste.

The cultivation process is of particular concern. Tobacco is cultivated in around 125 countries, particularly in low-income regions and places such as Brazil, India and China. It is resource intensive and requires chemicals and pesticides that endanger the environment and public health. It is often grown through monoculture farming, which reduces biodiversity and increases the need for chemicals. It also uses up vast quantities of water, with some estimates suggesting that one smoker’s habit for 50 years could deplete almost 1,400 cubic metres of water, the equivalent of—

Order. I am trying to give as much latitude as I can, but we do need to stick to the issues in this grouping as best we can. I have tried to give Members the opportunity to talk about the inadequacies and the unhealthy nature of tobacco, but we need to move on to talk about the particular issues in the grouping. I just want to bring that to your attention.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. My intention was merely to illustrate to the Committee the benefits of clause 1, rather than the risks, and the effect that reducing tobacco consumption will have on the environment and the public.

Early on in this Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester raised the issue of pets. We have a much-loved cocker spaniel. We do not smoke in our house, or at all, but it had not occurred to me that animals would be affected by smoking, too—it is obvious, when I think about it. Every day is a school day.

The number of smokers is falling, with only 12.9% of the English population smoking—I say “only”, but that is still 6.4 million people—which is a significant drop. However, there is still more to do, and this legislation is an effort, in part, to do that.

So what does clause 1 do? Essentially, it changes the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers so that those born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold these products in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, replacing the existing legislation, which sets the age of sale at 18. I appreciate that 1 January 2009 was the date set by the previous Government, but I wonder whether that was the reason the Minister chose it, or whether there was a more special reason. Given that we want to get children and adults not smoking as quickly as possible, why did he not choose to bring it forward a year? Why that date, specifically? Does he think it needs time to bed in, or does he think that leaves enough time to bed in?

I want to talk about subsection (1)(a) on tobacco products. There is a huge variety of tobacco products. We have talked mostly today about cigarettes, because they are the most common tobacco products, although they come in various different forms. There are also cigars, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor talked about earlier.

I will just expand the point a little bit. My understanding of heated tobacco, for example—my hon. Friend is a medical professional, so she may take a different view—is that where it has been introduced en masse, such as in Japan, there has been a 70% fall in cigarette sales. If we are talking about a smoke-free generation, and the health benefits that she and Government Members are talking about, is banning all tobacco products necessarily the right way to go about that?

Some people talk about celebrating special events with a cigar. My hon. Friend talked about new year’s eve, birthdays, the birth of a child or weddings—people might celebrate those sort of events with a cigar, although it is not as popular as it once was. It is possibly most famously associated with Winston Churchill. I think the expression “close, but no cigar” comes from the practice of giving away cigars as prizes at fairground games, which is thankfully not something we encourage today. Intriguingly, cigars have often evaded smoking bans, as a special exemption remains in place that allows customers of cigar shops to smoke on the premises, the idea being that smokers sample a product before committing to buying an entire box. Just a few hundred metres from where we stand, Members can stroll down St James’s Street and then smoke a cigar indoors, entirely legally, at the establishments that sell them. I think cigars have been given special treatment in the in the past for that reason. The Minister may consider that people who find themselves banned from tobacco, but addicted to it, may decide that they are going to smoke lots of cigars, but I would be interested to understand his thought processes on that.

indicated dissent.

The Minister is shaking his head. So what is a reasonable step? Unless one is to ask everyone for ID, the first step will be to decide whether to ask the customer in front of them for ID. That step will be, in essence, that shopkeeper or shop worker assess the person’s age.

Research shows that people are usually off by about eight years in their estimates of people’s ages by face alone. In fact, some research shows that if groups of people are shown a face, and the face that they are shown immediately before was a younger face, they will pick a younger age for that second person. If they are first shown an older face, they will pick an older age for that same person. That suggests that who the customer came in with, or who the previous customer was, may have an effect.

At the moment, we are asked to conduct a Challenge 25 check on a customer, but is it as easy to check the age of a 40 or 41-year-old as it is to check the age of someone under 25, or to tell whether someone is young or relatively young? The evidence seems to suggest that people who are close to 25 are quite good at telling whether people are under or over 25, and people who are close to 41 are apparently better at telling whether people are 40 or 41. It depends on age, and there is also an effect of sex and ethnicity.

Given that the Minister rejects new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham on a policy on checking ID, he does not want people to have a policy on when to check, he does not want people to check everybody and he just indicated that he does not want people to rely on what they think based on looking at people, what reasonable steps would he expect to take place? The Government need to provide further guidance on that.

In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment for a nicotine-free generation. She made the point that we have a rolling age of tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, so why not have one for all nicotine products? We know that nicotine is addictive and that the industry will evolve to try to get people hooked to a different form of nicotine product—that may be less or more harmful than tobacco, but it will still be addictive. Their choices will still be taken away, and they will still be having something that they do not want, which costs them money and potentially makes them poorer as a result. If it were to become apparent later that these items were particularly harmful, and one wished to do another rolling ban, one could end up in a situation where there is an age for sale of alcohol, fireworks and all sorts of other things, and two rolling ages with two different dates—one for tobacco, herbal products and cigarette papers, and another for vaping and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches.

Many of the amendments to the Conservative Government’s very similar Bill were included by this Government in their Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister could comment on why that particular amendment from a Government Member was not included.

To take a step back, I am still not satisfied that I understand, in practice, what the defence for someone to prove that they were shown ID means in practice? Perhaps that will form part of the guidance. If one is to suggest that CCTV is required, is that in the GDPR? In some circumstances, it would be quite difficult to prove. Given the seriousness of the offence and the repercussions, I just want some reassurance.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention. I, too, am not entirely clear what the Bill means by reasonable steps. We seem to have established what some reasonable steps might not be, but I am still not clear what they might be. It would be helpful if the Government elucidated that point further.

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point that I personally had not considered before. We need to know more from the Minister, and the point will potentially come up again when we consider smoking in the grounds of a hospital. The Minister has quite rightly pointed out that smoking is a terrible addiction, but if we have people coming to this country—tourists or migrants—who are addicted to smoking, but who are also under the age of sale here in this country, how will we be dealing with them?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which builds on the point I was trying to make.

The issue of managing individuals addicted to smoking who come to the UK is an important one. On my last foray through Heathrow, I met a gentleman who was unhappy to find himself there; I think he had been supposed to land in Paris but weather had intervened, and he was not happy at Heathrow because there was nowhere for him to smoke. I think he was travelling back to South Africa, having watched the rugby.

How we manage smokers who come here to visit as tourists or as migrants is an important economic question. If people come here permanently, what investment will the Minister make to promote awareness among such individuals of the various nicotine replacement therapies that might be available to them, in order to help them to quit smoking and improve their own health, which is obviously very important?

I will just expand on that point a little. The United Kingdom is something like the third biggest tourist destination in the world. Forgive my ignorance—there is a lot of paperwork here—but obviously we are trying to make the sale of tobacco and the distribution to others of tobacco illegal in the UK, and I have not seen a clause in the Bill that would make bringing cigarettes into the country for one’s own use illegal. Maybe the Minister will correct me on that.

We obviously have a tourism issue in that regard, but I was also thinking about when G7 leaders come to the UK. President Obama was famously a smoker. Will the United Kingdom not be able to host a G7 event, which is obviously of massive significance, if there is a leader of the free world who smokes? Their attendance might be vetoed. There are lots of things that have just not been thought about.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have not seen a clause in the Bill that prevents tobacco from being imported. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong about that; however, it does not look as if he is going to. If the leader of another G7 nation is coming to a conference in the UK, he will be bound by the same laws as everybody else. If that means he cannot buy cigarettes, then he cannot buy cigarettes, although I suspect that the current leader of the Bahamas was probably born before 1 January 2009, so we are safe for a little while.

However, it is right that my hon. Friend raised the point. After all, the purpose of this Committee is to ensure that someone has gone through the Bill line by line and thought about all the various different esoteric concerns that might be raised, and to ensure that they are brought to the fore. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the volume of tobacco that can be brought into the UK for personal use will exceed the amount that the average president might wish to use while they were here attending a conference. Who knows? The final point was about employers. Will they be required to train people in age estimation? Given that the evidence for that does not exist—we were told in evidence to the Committee earlier in the week that such training does not exist—would that form part of the reasonable steps? It would be reassuring to me if it does not, in particular for small businesses, which already bear a number of burdens in tax at the moment.

Amendment 68 is an Opposition amendment, in my name. It would prevent the imposition of penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vape products to individuals under 18. It would modify section 4A of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which regulates the sale of nicotine vapour products to a person under 18, by introducing lenient penalties for first-time offenders. The amendment stipulates that the penalties typically applied for selling such products to minors will not apply for the first offence. The new provision would allow first-time offenders who admit guilt either to receive a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to be issued a discretionary recorded police warning—similar to a caution—instead of facing more severe penalties.

The change aims to provide a less punitive approach for first-time violations, offering flexibility in enforcement while still holding offenders accountable. It comes back to the point that we made about proportionality in relation to the group of amendments that included amendment 56, and to the Minister’s comments on who exactly will be responsible for the fine—whether that is the shopkeeper or shop worker, or indeed whether it can be both.

Amendment 69 would add to section 4B(7) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 the phrase

“save if it is a first offence”,

and insert a new subsection (7A) after subsection (7). The provisions would ensure that individuals who commit a first offence under the age verification policy in relation to the sale of tobacco, and herbal smoking, vaping and nicotine products, are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. That goes back to the difference between a rogue trader and a young Saturday worker who mistakes the age of an older person.

The first change made by amendment 69 would limit the application of harsher penalties to those who have already been convicted, meaning that first-time offenders will not face the same level of penalty as those who have a history of non-compliance. The second change—the addition of the new subsection (7A)—would establish a graduated response for first-time offenders. It specifies that anyone who admits guilt for the first time, for their first offence, would be subject to a much lower fine of no more than level 2 on the standard scale, or a recorded police warning.

That is a significant reduction, compared with the penalties that may apply to repeat offenders, so it would offer more lenient consequences for a first offence. The recorded police warning would serve as an official notice, preventing the individual from avoiding further legal consequences if they do not comply with the conditions of the warning. That is similar to our earlier discussions about proportionality, and the Minister may want to comment further on that in relation to these amendments.

Finally, new clause 3 seeks to amend clause 1 to introduce a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to individuals born on or after 1 January 2009. The new clause would require businesses to offer an age verification policy to establish the age of persons who attempt to buy tobacco products. The policy must include the steps that are needed to verify the age of a person who attempts to purchase any of those products, if it appears that they may be under the age of 25 or any other age specified in the policy—in this case, the age of a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

New clause 3 outlines certain exemptions, specifying that businesses from which tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products or nicotine products are dispatched for delivery to other premises do not need to operate an age verification policy, to help with trade and providing them to retailers. It would avoid problems with businesses and delivery services that do not interact directly with the customer or end user in person. The new clause would allow the appropriate national authority in England or Wales to regulate the details of those policies, including by providing guidance on the steps that businesses need to take to verify age, the type of identification that can be accepted and the training requirements for staff.

I note that the Minister suggested that he would reject new clause 3. I am interested to understand which of the steps taken to verify age, to train people in identification and to set out training requirements for staff he does not want. The implementation of this age verification policy would reflect similar measures that are already in place in Scotland, which are included specifically in this Bill and are designed to ensure that individuals who are under the legal age are not sold these products. The Scottish legislation provides legal underpinning to the Challenge 25 scheme, which operates voluntarily in the rest of the UK.

There is an argument that customers in the rest of the UK are uncertain whether they will need to provide ID, whereas customers in Scotland under the age of 25 are certain that they will need to provide their ID. I am not sure that that holds water in some respects, because if one is close to the age of 18 or fortunate enough to look it, one is expecting it—although, as I said before, I was 38 the last time I was carded, and I did not expect it. I did not have my ID with me, and I was not able to buy the product, though I was amply old enough.

I note that in new clause 3, the fine is set at level 2, which is obviously lower than the level 3 fine. When she speaks to her new clause, can the hon. Member for City of Durham explain why she has chosen a level 2 fine? For the purpose of the new clause, the fine is applied to a business for not adequately training its staff to assess people’s age and putting them at risk of non-compliance with the law. Does she think that a level 2 fine, for which a young Saturday worker could be liable if they were to sell those products, is proportionate, or set at the right price point? We are trying to get businesses to comply, and a rogue business may be unlikely to be deterred by such a low amount.

Subsection (7) of new clause 3 stipulates that individuals selling tobacco products, cigarette papers, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products must undergo training. However, the practical implementation of age verification policies poses significant challenges, and businesses, especially small retailers, may lack the resources and training to effectively enforce them.

One thing that will be particularly operationally difficult is the period of time during which those on the shop floor may not be able to use cigarettes themselves, but they will not be prohibited from selling cigarettes. An 18-year-old shop worker might be asked to adjudicate whether someone is 33 or 34. In such instances, training might be really quite important.

My hon. Friend raises two points there, one of which is that the age at which someone can sell a product may not correlate with the age at which they can buy it. That is true for some products already, and I will go back to my story. When I could not get my bottle of champagne, because I looked too young, the young man at the cash desk had to be supervised by an older person in order to sell such products, so he was selling them with permission. Other age-restricted products can be sold—without supervision, in some cases—by people aged 16 to 18 with a specific form of training and when a particular form of paperwork is completed, so this is not unprecedented.

I also agree with my hon. Friend’s second point that this is a bit odd and clunky. If one were to make tobacco illegal, however, one would be criminalising people, and if one were to bring in an age limit of 25, suddenly there would be a cohort of criminalised addicts. The rolling pattern helps with that.

Drawing on the point that my hon. Friend is making, one issue with the drafting of subsection (7) of new clause 3 is that businesses will need to have this age verification policy, but the national authority may—and it is only a “may”—publish guidance, so there is not clarity. Some form of template would be needed to make the provision effective. The intention is obviously to have a full policy in place, but the guidance could be just a piece of paper with three bullet points, and that would not meet the intention. Also, do we really need two fines in place when there is already a fine, as the Minister said, for selling? I do not think there needs to be a fine for not having a piece of paper with a policy.

If one is expected to have a policy, guidance on what that policy should contain is certainly important. If one is going to be held accountable for not having such a policy in law, it is clearly not sufficient to say, “You must have a policy but we are not going to tell you what it must say or do.” It comes back to the point that I have been making throughout the day. Who will face this fine? How will it be decided who the fine applies to? Will it be applied to the retailer as well as to shop workers, shop supervisors, shift supervisors or CEOs, and under what circumstances? I think there needs to be guidance on that so we have a clear pathway.

Clause 1 states that it is a defence if someone has taken “all reasonable steps”. If having a policy is not to be a reasonable step—there are arguments for why we might not want it to be, because it is an extra regulatory burden on business, and some very small businesses could struggle with that—and neither is looking at someone and making one’s own mind up, it is important to understand what is. I do not think we have got to the bottom of that yet.

My final question for the hon. Member for City of Durham, who tabled new clause 3, is: why not Northern Ireland? I think one reason why she has chosen to introduce this is because there is such a policy for Scotland, but not for England and Wales. I do not believe there is such a policy for Northern Ireland either, and I wonder why she did not seek to correct that in her new clause. It may be something that she wants to consider in refining such a new clause before Report.

I wish to speak to new clause 3, which is in my name. I do not intend to press it to a vote, and I will be very brief because there has been a lot of discussion—about three and a half hours—on this part of the Bill already, and I hope it will answer some of those points. I am introducing it because I think it would enhance the Bill’s consistency with the Government’s four-nations approach. New clause 3 would apply to all the nations of the United Kingdom mandatory age verification for purchasing tobacco, vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products, in line with the provisions set out for Scotland in the Bill.

Scotland has had mandatory age verification for anyone who looks under 20 as a legal requirement for purchasing tobacco and vapes since 2017. In lay terms, there is a legal underpinning for Challenge 25, which is voluntary in the rest of the UK. The Bill amends the Scottish system so that from 2033, it will be a legal requirement to verify the age of anyone trying to purchase tobacco who looks like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. My new clause would simply extend that beyond Scotland to ensure consistency for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies.

Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady doing this simply to make it equitable across the United Kingdom, or is there something specific in the policy that she thinks will strengthen the Bill or add to it parts that are not covered currently?

The new clause will make the policy consistent across the nations and simplify the process. If I can carry on, I will expand on those points. The new clause will extend the policy further than Scotland and simplify the process for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies. There has already been a lot of discussion about the implementation of a smoke-free generation, and about trying to make it simple and easy to understand. We heard in oral evidence concerns about the difficulty, when the policy has been in place for some decades, in telling the difference between two individuals in their forties who fall on either side of the policy. While that is likely to be a marginal issue in practice, the new clause will further help to resolve it.

Mandatory age verification currently exists in Scotland and is supported by retailers here. In response to the Minister’s point about it possibly being a burden on businesses, a survey of independent UK tobacco retailers by Action on Smoking and Health in 2024 found that more than seven out of 10 retailers—71%—in England and Wales supported this.

We have heard dreadful stories of retailers who have experienced nasty abuse and, in some cases, violence when they have asked for someone’s age. If somebody knew for certain that they would have their ID checked, it would no longer be an evaluation by the shopkeeper of their age, but merely a simple, expected transaction.

I agree. We heard concerns on Tuesday in evidence about the aggression towards retailers, and the impact that the Bill might have on that. I would argue that providing consistency about identification is a potential mitigation of those risks. It takes away the guesswork.

May I ask the hon. Lady if there is any evidence that in Scotland, it has reduced aggression towards retailers?

I cannot point to any evidence in statistics, but retailers welcome it. I think 90% of retailers in Scotland are in favour of it. In England, 83% of small retailers agree with it, and I am sure that is because it takes away those cloudy grey areas. It means that once someone shows their ID, that is the end of it.

On the point about this being a slippery slope towards mandatory ID cards, young people now are used to carrying ID. In fact, the Bill provides a list of different forms of ID that people can provide, including passports and driving licences. I believe the Government are talking about introducing digital ID checks for the purchase of alcohol. If this were applied to tobacco, individuals would not need to carry a physical ID with them. The measure is supported by retailers and by seven out of 10 members of the public, as well as by the Local Government Association and trading standards, which both believe it would help with enforcing the legislation and aid prosecution.

I have tabled the new clause to simplify things. This has already happened in Scotland, and it would make the Bill consistent with the Government's four-nation approach. Given the issues that we have been discussing today, having mandatory ID would make things so much easier and simpler. Just to be clear, I will not be pushing it to a vote.

I want to take a step back and look again at clause 1 itself. Enforceability has to be considered as an important element of achieving the smoke-free generation. As I keep stating, as a former lawyer, I want to be absolutely sure before I can give further support.

I seek assurances from the Minister on the implementation of the policy with regard to Northern Ireland, if it is truly to be a smoke-free nation. One of the provisions of EU law in the Windsor framework is the EU’s second tobacco products directive—TPD2—which applies to Northern Ireland. It lays down various requirements that must be satisfied for tobacco products and vapes to be marketed in the EU—for example, on ingredients, emission levels and packaging. Most crucially, it also states that member states, which include Northern Ireland for these purposes,

“may not...prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products which comply with this Directive.”

So a generational smoking ban may be incompatible with TPD2.

Similar plans for generational bans in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland were ditched in 2022 and 2024, respectively, because of TPD2. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Health and Social Care has any plans for this issue, and whether the Attorney General has formed a view that can be shared with us. I think we have learned over the years that it is imperative that we do not jeopardise our Northern Irish friends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the shadow Minister for her comprehensive look at the clause, and the amendments and new clauses that go with it. I look forward to similar in-depth discussion on the rest of the Bill over the coming sittings.

I will state at the outset that I have never smoked a cigarette or tobacco-based product, or indeed any other product—legal or illegal—and I come with a background of being vehemently anti-smoking, so it may surprise some Members that I abstained on Second Reading. I did so for two reasons, really.

I support entirely the vapes element of the Bill, and had the Bill contained just that, I would have supported it wholeheartedly. I will not talk about vapes now, because that is a separate part of the Bill. My concern is with the enforceability of the tobacco element of the Bill, and indeed about some of the civil liberties that I outlined earlier. That said, I hope that hon. Members take my comments as helpful, supportive and inquisitorial rather than critical of the principle of the Bill. I entirely support the idea that we must have a smoke-free generation, as outlined in clause 1.

I abstained for two reasons. The first was personal. My paternal grandparents were both chain smokers. I do not have medical evidence of this, but I would say that both died because of that chain smoking. My grandfather died when I was three months old, so I do not have any recollection of meeting him. Having heard from people in Haslemere who did know him since becoming the Member of Parliament for the area where he lived, I feel that I am definitely the poorer for having not had the chance to meet him. My grandmother lived a lot longer; I knew her very well and loved her very much. But I have to say that the smell of tobacco and smoke in her house was not something I looked forward to as a child; in fact, I dreaded it. When I went back to visit that property, which is now in the hands of a lovely woman in Haslemere, it was refreshing that it did not have the pervasive smell of smoke and, to be frank, decay that went with it.

As I pointed out, surveys of retailers in Scotland show that 83% of them do not think it is a burden. As things are, there are fewer tobacco sales year on year, and as we progress, the sale of tobacco will phase out anyway; it will not be a thing of the future for businesses. In the meantime, they have pointed out that this measure aids them.

I am interested to hear those facts. I know the hon. Lady will not press her new clause to a vote, and given that the Government do not support it, as far as I can tell, it is probably not going to be part of the law, but perhaps we can have a further discussion on Report.

On that point, the concept of having an age verification policy so that all retailers know what to do in these situations is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the difficulty perhaps lies in making it an offence not to have one, because it will be in-built as part of that process.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We in this Committee want to ensure that nobody who does not have to dies of smoking or tobacco-related issues, but we do not want to make the regulations so tight that they make things more complicated than necessary for business.

I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for City of Durham, but I think she is trying to fill a gap with her new clause. The Government have said that businesses need to take reasonable steps and people need to take reasonable steps, but they have not defined those reasonable steps. Even today, it does not seem clear what they might be, although we know what they are not.

I thank the shadow Minister for her intervention. She made that point powerfully during her speech. It is vital that we in this Committee, people listening to at home and those who will have to implement or abide by this legislation are really clear what those steps are. I hope the Minister is able to give us some surety on that.

We must ensure that we expand the acceptable forms of identification as much as possible, especially in clause 1, as the shadow Minister said. We have seen this in all sorts of walks of life, and she made the reasonable comparison with voter ID laws. Even if it is not something that the Minister can guarantee today, I hope that further forms of ID, such as veterans’ cards, will be inserted on Report, because as the age of people who are still allowed to smoke increases, they will have different forms of ID from younger people.

I will finish with a personal comment, if you will indulge me, Mr Dowd. I have two daughters, one of whom is nearly seven and one who is eight, and I find it fascinating that they find the idea of people smoking both bizarre and abhorrent. When we drive along in the car or walk along the street and they spot someone who is smoking, they rather loudly, and perhaps slightly to my embarrassment, point it out and say, “Daddy, that man”—or woman—“is smoking. Isn’t it awful?” Although the steps in the Bill are necessary and useful, I think that we as a nation, and Governments of all different colours, have done a good job in dealing with this. What worries me more for our young children is vapes, which we will discuss in future sittings. I will be happy to support clause 1 if it comes to a vote.

Judging from the tone of debate so far, I might be the most sceptical about the principle of clauses 1, 50 and 68, and I appreciate that perhaps I am in the minority. I will talk to what I see as the principle of those clauses and put on the record where I agree with the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will also give international examples that we should bear in mind, particularly in relation to the scope of “tobacco products”, which I think is wrong in these clauses.

We talk about a smoke-free generation. If we were to tweak that slightly and call it a “cigarette-free generation”, I would share the aim of the Government and the previous Government; that is laudable pretty much every which way. The Minister, the shadow Minister and Members from across the Committee have made eloquent contributions about the damage that smoking cigarettes does to people over many years. It clearly should be a priority of a Government of any colour to reduce cigarette smoking significantly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon eloquently said, we have made significant progress on that. Yes, there has been legislation, but the change has also been cultural. The legislation has been important. Government Members made the point to me earlier that some of the arguments I have used I might have used against previous legislation that sought to put barriers between people and smoking. But the cultural element that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about is deeply embedded in most young people today.

That is why, despite sharing with the Government the aim of moving to a cigarette-free generation, I do not think I can quite get over the principle of what they are doing to civil liberties in this Bill. We are on the journey to a cigarette-free generation anyway, so why would they need to use—I do not mean this in an incendiary way, although they might take it that way—quite draconian powers? I would say that that is what this is.

A simple question: whose civil liberties are we refusing?

Very simply, in the future, we will create two tiers of adults. Those people are children today, and it is right that in law we prohibit them from smoking, because they cannot make these responsible decisions, but once someone passes the age of 18, we as a society, generally speaking, accept that if they want to make bad choices, they are their bad choices.

With rights come responsibilities. People have the responsibility both to look after themselves and to not be overly burdensome on the state. We know that the cost of tobacco is borne hugely by the taxpayer. Does the hon. Member therefore not agree that the Bill seeks a very reasonable balance? The draconian measure would be to ban tobacco full stop. The Bill says that those for whom tobacco is not legal today will never be able to purchase it, but everybody else—those who have the civil liberty to purchase and consume tobacco—can do it till the day they die.

I take the Minister’s point that in a society in which we are looked after by our NHS, to which we all contribute, which is free at the point of use and which I am sure all of us across the House support, when someone smokes and creates a burden on society through health or social care, that is the responsibility of us all.

Where I think the difference lies is where we make a moral choice. I have heard different figures for the cost from cigarettes. There are different studies. I have heard numbers as low as £20 billion, but I think that today the Minister used £80 billion when talking about productivity. I think that should be calculated properly and appropriately with evidence, but if that is the cost, that is what we should levy in excise duty, at which point the people who impose that burden are the people paying it. That is where I would go, in principle. I think that if we go beyond that point, we are starting to make a moral decision on behalf of others.

I understand the “polluter pays” concept that my hon. Friend is raising, but he is also talking about the morality of the situation. What does he think of the morality of producing a product that we know, more than on the balance of probabilities, will kill the person who uses it and will make them an addict and remove their choice of whether to purchase any more?

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, but there is not a single adult in this country who does not know how bad cigarettes are for them. It is an important function of Government to make that educational point. Governments of all colours have made it systematically, and it has massively changed the way people, including the new generation, perceive cigarettes. That education battle has been won. Once we have won that game, which I think we have, and once we have no longer socialised the healthcare cost to others, which is what I suggest cigarette duty should be doing, we are starting to make moral choices on behalf of others.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sure I am winning some hearts and minds here.

We could rephrase the way we talk about civil liberties. We currently have a generation among whom some are addicted and have no choice, and we will be allowing a future generation to be free from having their choice taken away by addiction.

I take the hon. Member’s point. I understand that cigarettes are obviously incredibly addictive, but I think we can exercise that point too far. People who smoke have agency to stop; it might be difficult, but they can, should they choose to.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Having spent decades helping people quit smoking, I would like the hon. Member to think carefully about saying that quitting is easy. He should give some thought to the words he is using, for the sake of all those who have struggled to give up smoking. This is a choice we are giving back to millions of people.

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Forgive me if I did say it was easy, but I try to pick my words carefully, and I do not think I did say that. I said they had agency, and that is a different point.

Linked to that is the fact that too often—not just on this issue—we talk about waving our magic wand with legislation to make things illegal. But that is not the way that the world works. I am concerned that there is the potential, with draconian legislation such as this, to exacerbate the illicit trade in tobacco, which will reduce the effectiveness of the regulations and the public health messages.

At this rate, I am going to start referring to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for the Institute of Economic Affairs—I am sure he has got the briefing. He probably sees that as a compliment, but believe me, it really is not. He talks about illicit trade, but let us talk facts. The last time there was a major piece of tobacco control in this country those same arguments were made, but the illicit trade fell by 25%. There is absolutely no evidence that, with the appropriate enforcement—through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, border control and trading standards—there will be any increase in illicit trade as a consequence of the Bill.

Does the Minister perhaps not see the difficulty with the fact that we will be out of international lockstep with everybody? My understanding is that both New Zealand and Malaysia introduced a generational ban policy, and both have been repealed.

My understanding—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—is that New Zealand introduced the ban, but it had not come into force, at which point the Government changed. When the Government changed, the political views of the Government changed—as we have seen happen in our country. Sadly, as a result, the law was rescinded before it came into force in New Zealand.

I am well aware that that is the case. Part of the reason for that change in Government—although I do not want to overplay the significance of this singular issue—was that the incoming Government made an argument about the practicalities of enforcing such a law. Frankly, that is a significant concern of mine.

Before the hon. Member moves off his point about the international picture, I think it is a point of pride that the United Kingdom—all four nations —will be the world leader. We thought we were going to be in second place behind New Zealand. I pity New Zealand, given the predicament it finds itself in, because it was leading the way. However, this Government—building on the actions of the last Government—will be the world leader. I reassure the hon. Member that, as I saw when I was representing the United Kingdom at the G20 Health Ministers summit in Rio de Janeiro late last year, the world is queuing up to look at what we do here. They all want to implement these measures. They wished us the best of luck and want this to work. We are going to make it work and lead the way in the world.

I sympathise with what the Minister says about the world wanting us to make it work. I will make an analogy that I think is directly relevant. My expertise before joining this House was in renewables development. The United Kingdom, particularly under this Government, has been quite aggressive on renewables; the Conservative party was quite aggressive on them too, and the new Government have come in, continued those policies and been more aggressive. The Government are clear that they want to be world leaders, but in the past week the United Kingdom was incredibly close to blackouts.

If you are a leader and you do something successfully, whether on renewables or cigarettes, you may well lead the world forward, and the Minister is right to say that other countries would want to follow us on this issue. However, there is an under-spoken truth about being a leader, and perhaps being first. Clearly, the Minister is passionate about the issue, as is clear in not just what he says, but how he says it; he wants the United Kingdom to lead on this, and I am sure he will be as forceful as possible. But a leader is also a warning if they do not succeed. If we make moves that are too draconian, too quick or over-eager on energy, and we get it wrong, that could mean blackouts. If that happens because we have taken an aggressive approach, no one will follow us. We will be a warning. For leaders, it goes both ways.

I am sorry to prolong the debate, Mr Dowd, but the hon. Gentleman should believe in his country with a bit more passion. The patriotic case for leading the way on tobacco control is clear, and the world has been looking for some time at the United Kingdom and the measures that we have brought in over the past two decades. They have been incremental steps to get us to the point where we are absolutely determined, and where it is a viable proposition, that this country will be smoke-free. The hon. Gentleman should believe in this country a bit more, back the Bill and show the world that the real freedom is freedom from addiction to tobacco.

I thank the Minister for his passionate remarks, which I am obviously not going to take lying down. I agree wholeheartedly that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the greatest country in the world, but before I try to make some progress, I might humbly suggest to him that a lot of that greatness may be based on the primacy of the individual and our rights to get on with our lives.

The hon. Gentleman talks about civil liberties, agency and this great country. One purpose of the Bill is to tackle inequalities in our country—stark inequalities between the rich and the poor. We know that tobacco is mainly prevalent in deprived areas, and that it kills one out of two of its users. What agency does a young person have, in terms of their health and life expectancy, once the tobacco industry has them hooked? That is not agency. Tobacco is a product that kills people, and the tobacco industry will continue to find loopholes to replace the people who have died because of its product. If the hon. Gentleman believes in this great country, he should believe that tackling inequalities and making a smoke-free future for our young people are paramount.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s passionate belief in equality, but I find that somewhat paternalistic and somewhat—I do not mean this dismissively—condescending. Poorer people have the same agency as anybody else. That is the point.

I thank the hon. Member for the points he is making, which add to the interest of the debate, and I have listened with interest. I declare an interest as a public health consultant, and if the hon. Member is not interested in the greater moral argument, I would encourage him to look at my discipline and the 50 years of evidence and data we have collected since Sir Richard Doll first identified the fact that lung cancer had a causality with smoking. Data and evidence build this great Government and this great country. I ask the hon. Gentleman to please not accept the moralistic or paternalistic arguments: this is a solid Bill, built on 50 years of evidence.

I might make some headway, because I think that was more of a slap-down than a question for me.

It might be good to get on record some of the figures that appear in the Government’s impact assessment regarding the association between smoking and poverty. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people who are poor or rich have the same agency and intellectual capacity to make decisions, but the figures show that the number of people in poorer areas who smoke is greater.

Figures produced in the Government’s impact assessment show that, in 2023, 20.2% of those in routine and manual work smoked, compared with 7.9% in managerial and professional populations. For those who owned their home outright, smoking rates were only 7%, but for those who rented local authority or housing association properties, smoking prevalence was 25.7%, which shows there is a marked inequality in smoking rates between rich and poor. The health inequalities we see across the population in other forms of ill health will be improved by clause 1, because smoking rates will fall in all populations. The change will be seen most in the poor.

Order. The principle was already agreed on Second Reading, so we do not need to rehearse all the arguments. I am sorry to have to say that, but that is my job as the Chair. Some may accuse me of being lax in this regard, but I am not—I want the debate to go on, but I want it to be about the clauses we are supposed to be debating.

I will move, then, to tobacco products, the definition of which is in clauses 1, 50 and 68—forgive me that digression, Mr Dowd, but I got blown off course a little by some Labour Members. I made a differentiation between smoke-free and cigarette-free. All the arguments I have heard about the hugely detrimental nature and health challenges of a life of smoking pertain, in the majority, to cigarettes. I find the widest possible definition of tobacco products to be unnecessary.

I have made the point about recreational cigars. The Minister said that there was no safe level of consuming tobacco, but I would suggest that an adult can make a perfectly reasonable choice to, once a year, have a couple of cigars. Yes, there will be detrimental health effects, but an adult in a reasonable country should be able to make that choice. The definition should not include recreational products that do not have the same hook as cigarettes. I do not feel the need to have a cigar on January 8 because I had one on 31 December.

There is also a degree of puritanism to having the widest possible scope of tobacco product. I mentioned heated tobacco earlier. Although I know it has negative health effects, I understand that the data shows that to be significantly less than for cigarettes. Heated tobacco could be used as a cessation device, so the heavy-handed approach here might be overdoing it. In the same way, I would be interested in how the Minister thinks about nicotine patches.

To achieve the smoke-free future we all want, the UK must move in an evidence-based way that differentiates clearly between various smoke-free products and traditional cigarettes, because I do not think the current approach has necessarily been justified. We need to exclude reduced-risk products from the generational ban, which will help minimise confusion and encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives.

I want to put on record that I concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, particularly about vapes. My hesitation so far has always related to my concern about tobacco in clause 1.

I can reassure the Minister that I firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We have one of the finest legal systems in the world, and it is that basis that I have concerns: the greatest frustration in practice is that, while the principles are well intentioned, the drafting does not follow suit, which leads to litigation and sometimes to unintended consequences.

I firmly believe that health is wealth. As a type 1 diabetic, I do not want anyone else to experience any form of chronic suffering. I do not smoke and I never will, but I want to have strong law, which is what we are here to achieve. I therefore ask the Minister to give me some reassurances on Northern Ireland and TPD2, because that is fundamental to the roll-out of this smoke-free generation. I also have a question on what we will do about imports of cigarettes to ensure that we do not have the illicit trade we were talking of.

I think we all need to take a deep breath before I call the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. At least, in taking your deep breath, you will not be passive smoking—it is a healthier deep breath than it might otherwise be. I thank all hon. Members for their input into the debate on these amendments and new clauses, as well as clause stand part. I will try to address the points that have been made.

First, I will clarify my previous contribution. The police do of course enforce the law on smoking in cars with children; we were talking about the retail side of things, and the police do not have a role in enforcement in retail—I just wanted to make that clarification.

Will the Minister therefore clarify something for the record or for anyone listening to proceedings? If one is suspicious that a particular retailer is selling tobacco products to children or, in the fullness of time, to those who should not be receiving it, to whom do they report it?

These are matters for trading standards. Trading standards is the enforcement authority. If people have a concern today about a retailer in their area that is potentially selling tobacco or alcohol products to people who are under age, they should report it to trading standards. Trading standards will investigate, and may even do test purchasing as one of the tools at its disposal. As we discussed previously, should that test purchase unfortunately show that someone was sold a particular product under the legal age, appropriate action can be taken within the framework of law, and that will continue to be the case under the Bill. For a first offence, that might be a written letter, or it might be amplified through the court process, depending on the severity and the particular situation.

I want to dwell briefly on the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. He is right that many young people now do not smoke; certainly, they do not smoke in the numbers they did when I was a young lad, when my peers took up smoking. That is a good thing, and as a consequence of the past two decades of tobacco control measures, we have got to the place we are in, but let us not be complacent. The hon. Member for Windsor is keen on international comparisons, and we have seen increases in youth smoking in the USA and Australia because there has not necessarily been the concerted tobacco control that we want to see. I do not want to see smoking prevalence increase in the United Kingdom as an unintended consequence of saying, “Well, we have sorted it with the kids. It’s all right.”

I had the privilege of being interviewed by LADbible. I did not even know what LADbible was, but now I am aware, because I ended up with not one story, but a set of four stories off the back of this Bill. It is incredibly keen on reporting on this Bill—no doubt it is listening in to the proceedings. One of the questions I was asked was whether I was concerned that young people are again being bombarded with images on social media of film stars and influencers—whatever the trendy term is for the great and the good these days—smoking. As in the images that we used to see in magazines and newspapers, it looks sexy again, and I am concerned about that. My answer was that it is often best for politicians not to give advice to kids, because they think, “Yeah, whatever—you would say that,” but, as a father and a grandfather, my advice to the next generation is that there is nothing sexy about having yellow fingertips. There is nothing sexy about having a cough. There is nothing sexy about clothes stinking. There is nothing sexy about bad breath.

Cigarettes and tobacco are not sexy, but we cannot be complacent that we have fixed the problem. That is why we need to stop that conveyor belt so that the tobacco industry of today knows that the customer base of today is it. We are coming after the industry, because I want to beat the addiction that the hon. Member for Windsor talks about. I want to ensure that those millions of smokers in the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, have every opportunity to give up, to break that addiction and to be free. That is real liberty.

In the impact assessment, it says that 95% of people cannot give up through willpower alone. Will the Minister congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who told me that over Christmas he has managed to give up smoking using willpower alone? This is the first time that he has not been smoking.

I do not want to tempt fate or for the right hon. Gentleman to end up smoking again, but that is great. Anybody who manages to break free of that addiction and to do so on their own—through willpower alone—is incredibly tough. That is why the previous Government committed to funding for smoking cessation services and introduced things such as swap to stop. This Government are continuing that investment into stop smoking services, and we are determined that anybody who wants to give up will have everything that we can throw at them to help them off their addiction. However, for the next generation, that is it—we have stopped that conveyor belt, because we know that the tobacco industry will target them wherever we put the borders. The measures in clause 1 are so important.

The shadow Minister asked why 2009. I will let the cat out of the bag: not everything that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did was bad. The previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill showed real leadership by him. Announcing it at the Conservative party conference did not just take Conservatives such as the hon. Member for Windsor by surprise; it took a lot of us by surprise, because we had been calling for precisely the New Zealand model after Javed Khan had reported back. We think that 2009 is appropriate.

I get the urgency of this issue, and I share the urgency outlined by the shadow Minister to bring the date forward, but we have to be real here. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, we want these measures to be workable and we want this Bill to be a success. The lead-in time is slightly shortened, because the Bill was parked due to the general election and had to be reintroduced, but it gives us an appropriate lead-in time for these big changes, particularly in our engagement with the retail sector and in getting some of these measures right for the retail sector. We are working with the sector on guidance and on how we allay some of the concerns that have rightly been raised in the course of this debate. Subject to Royal Assent, the measures in the Bill will come into force on 1 January 2027. That is an appropriate, proportionate and measured way of reaching our ambition of getting to smoke-free and working with industry to get us there. That is why we have gone for 2009.

The shadow Minister mentioned bongs and other paraphernalia. This is an issue that really gets on my nerves, because it is possible to walk down Strutton Ground, the street just at the side of the Department of Health and Social Care, and see vape shops there that not only have all the colourful packages of vapes, but what I consider to be drug paraphernalia, in their windows. That is the result of a loophole. Under drugs legislation, which of course is the remit of the Home Office, such paraphernalia can be displayed by shops so long as it is not sold for the use of drugs consumption.

We all know what bongs are for, and I have raised this issue with the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, who shares my view that we need to crack down on it. I asked my officials whether we could end up with a perverse situation, whereby the measures in the Bill mean that, subject to consultation, the display of vapes—all those colourful packages—would be replaced by vapes in plain packages and in cabinets locked away, not to be seen and with the shop window bare of them, but instead the shop window could be full of bongs. That would be a real perversity, where it would not be possible—rightly—to see tobacco or vape products in the windows of these establishments, but it would be possible to see drugs paraphernalia in them instead.

My officials assure me that the only reason that such shops can sell bongs, rather than display them, is because bongs can also be used to smoke tobacco products. That is the loophole. Given that we are bringing within the scope of the Bill a number of things that can be used to smoke tobacco and banning their display, that means—thank God—that the measures in the Bill will get rid of that awful loophole. That will mean that shops around the country, including shops just around the corner from the Department of Health and Social Care, will no longer be able to show drugs paraphernalia in their windows.

The Minister is making a very powerful and impassioned speech; I get the impression that he finds this situation frustrating. I wonder whether he will put a clause in the Bill that specifies bongs and other such paraphernalia, because, although a bong may be a product for using tobacco with, it is not a tobacco product, is it? So which clause will ban them?

We believe that a bong is a tobacco product, because the only reason shops are able to treat bongs as not being drugs paraphernalia and therefore to sell them is for the consumption of tobacco. There are all the other things that are addressed in the Bill, such as pipes and so on, and bongs are no different. Therefore, we will make sure that the loophole that currently exists when it comes to drugs paraphernalia is closed.

Bongs are not explicitly dealt with in the Bill, but the hon. Lady raised them as an issue and they are a real bugbear of mine. As I am sure she can tell, dealing with them is something that I have been championing, both with officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and with my colleague the police Minister. I am assured—indeed, I am reassured—that a consequence of the measures in the Bill will be that bongs will no longer be able to be displayed for sale in shops.

The Minister is making a very impassioned point and I am grateful to him for doing so. Given his great passion for this area and the fact that, as the Minister for Public Health, he has his hands on the levers of power, so it is up to him—to govern is to choose—why has he not chosen to put in a specific mention of these products? It is up to him to do so if he wishes.

Because we do not need to. The measures in the Bill cover these bongs. For example, although it is not a direct tobacco product, clause 45 gives Ministers the power to cover devices used to consume tobacco, which is the power to say, “Well, you’re selling these bongs. We know it’s for drugs, but you’re selling these bongs on the basis that it is to consume tobacco.” Therefore, they are no longer covered because clause 45 gives Ministers the power to do that.

I will try to rattle through because I know Members are very keen to get to other parts of the United Kingdom for which transport is not easily available. Apologies if I miss anything. I will try not to take interventions as a consequence—I hope Members will forgive me for that. On whether the rules apply to snuff in Parliament, I do not know the answer off the top of my head; perhaps I should. I have been around here for such a long time that I remember the implementation of the indoor smoking ban. My recollection is that Parliament was not covered because it is a royal palace, and we got a bit of flak for that. Rightly, the parliamentary authorities decided that they would apply the law within the Palace of Westminster, even though the law did not apply to it, and that is why the Smoking Room is smoke-free. It may well be that snuff goes the same way, but I imagine those will be matters for the House authorities.

On reasonable steps and what they are, retailers may check other forms of ID, not just the forms outlined in the Bill—for example, that may include veterans ID cards. We are very clear that other forms of ID can be shown, as long as the retailer can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid selling to a person under age, and that is the important thing.

On tourists and the potential for the President of the United States not to be able to attend a G7 if he wants to have a cigarette, the duty-free rules are not changing. Those coming into Great Britain from outside the UK are allowed to bring an amount of tobacco for personal use, which is 200 cigarettes or 250 g of tobacco, although there is no personal allowance for those under 17. The President of the USA can bring 200 cigarettes with him to a future G7—that is not an issue.

On enforceability, as I have said, trading standards is responsible for enforcing tobacco and vape sales, and district councils are responsible for regulations at a local level in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, Border Force and HMRC also have an important role to stamp out opportunities for criminals in the illicit tobacco trade. We are working closely with retail associations and will develop guidance with them to support the successful implementation of the enforcement measures in the Bill. That is a really important point, and it leads into the point made by the shadow Minister on why we are not bringing the measures of the Bill further forward. We want that lead-in time to get these measures right so that retailers are clear on both what those measures are and how we can work with them to get it right.

The Bill introduces a new defence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for retailers accused of selling to someone under age, if the retailer can prove that they were shown an identity document that shows the customer was above the age of sale. The Bill sets that out, but as I have said, other forms of ID are not unreasonable.

On protecting retail staff from abuse, we are working really closely with retailers and will use the long lead-in time to support them in preparing for and implementing these changes. We will not stand for violence and abuse against any shop workers. Everybody has the right to feel safe on the job and this Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in the stores.

Order. Given the time, if the Whip wants to move the adjournment, I have decided to permit returning to this debate at 9.25 am on Tuesday, if the Minister wishes.

Mr Dowd, I think that is very sensible. Certainly, in other Bill Committees that I have been on in the near two decades that I have been here, I have seen Ministers be cut off at the time of interruption, to continue their oration when the Committee next meets. That is partly why I wanted to sit down at the time agreed by the usual channels.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)