🚬 Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Ninth sitting)

• Crown Application and Accountability: The Tobacco and Vapes Bill aims to ensure that the Crown, including Crown properties and entities, adheres to the same tobacco and vape regulations as private citizens and businesses. Discussions were held on how the Crown is bound by the Bill’s provisions but is exempt from criminal prosecution, highlighting issues of fairness and transparency.

• Parliamentary Tradition and Compliance: Concerns were raised about whether traditional practices within Parliament, such as the use of a snuffbox, would be affected by the new regulations. While the Bill technically applies to the royal palaces, Parliament conventionally adopts legal restrictions like the smoking ban.

• Enforcement Across Different Jurisdictions: The Bill’s applicability across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland raised questions on enforcement mechanisms, especially in Crown properties. Different legislative frameworks in each jurisdiction complicate uniform application, necessitating close intergovernmental collaboration.

• Judicial Oversight: The ability of the High Court to declare Crown actions unlawful was discussed as a mechanism for legal oversight, preserving the rule of law. However, concerns were raised about potential overburdening of the courts.

• Regulation of New Nicotine Products: New definitions and restrictions were proposed for products like herbal smoking and nicotine products to prevent their sale to minors and regulate their marketing, similar to tobacco and vaping products.

• Impact on Retailers: The Bill extends the existing retailer register schemes in Scotland and Northern Ireland to include businesses selling vaping and nicotine products, aiming for a stronger enforcement regime.

• Legislative Details and Amendments: Several amendments were proposed to adjust penalties for first offences and to define terms more clearly, but most were rejected. The Bill’s clauses were ordered to stand part, moving forward in the legislative process.

• Public Health and Legal Fairness: The discussions emphasized the Bill’s goal of promoting public health by regulating tobacco and vaping while ensuring legal fairness and addressing potential loopholes and enforcement challenges.

The disagreement displayed during the session was relatively low, primarily centered around a few key issues rather than a pervasive clash of opinions across the entire debate. Most of the session focused on technical clarifications and questions about the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with members generally agreeing on the overall objectives but seeking more details on specific provisions.

1. Disagreements on Crown Application (Clause 47): There was some disagreement regarding the application of the Bill to Crown properties and entities. Dr. Caroline Johnson and other members raised concerns about how the Crown’s immunity from criminal liability and the continuation of certain traditions, like the snuffbox in the House of Commons, would be affected by the Bill. These were not strong oppositions but rather requests for clarification and concerns about fairness and enforcement.
   • Example: Dr. Johnson’s query about the snuffbox and whether it could still be allowed in the House of Commons, which sparked further discussion but was not a point of significant contention.
2. Disagreement on Penalties for First Offenses: There were multiple divisions on amendments proposed by Dr. Johnson, specifically amendments 67 to 83, which aimed to prevent penalties for first offenses being beyond a certain level and provided for cautionary warnings instead of fines. These amendments were consistently voted down, but the disagreement was narrow, focusing solely on the level of penalties rather than the objectives of the Bill itself.
   • Example: Amendment 67 sought to prevent penalties for a first offense of selling tobacco products to a person under 18 in Scotland exceeding level 3 and to provide for police warnings. This amendment was rejected in a division (3 to 13).
3. Cross-Party Collaboration on Technical Clauses: Despite minor disagreements, there was a clear effort to collaborate across party lines in understanding and improving the technical clauses of the Bill. Discussions on clauses such as 47, 66, and 134 did not reveal fundamental disagreements but rather a collective effort to ensure proper implementation and enforcement.
   • Example: The discussion on clause 47, where members from both sides sought clarifications on Crown application, was mostly a collaborative effort to understand the implications better.
4. General Agreement on Objectives: The key takeaway from the session was that members broadly supported the Bill’s objectives, with disagreements confined to specific details and the need for clarifications rather than opposition to the overall purpose.
   • Example: Gregory Stafford’s statement emphasizing that including the Crown in the Bill’s provisions demonstrated a commitment to transparency and fairness, which was broadly supported despite some concerns about enforcement.

In conclusion, while there were instances of disagreement, particularly around penalties and clarifications on Crown application, these were not indicative of strong opposition to the Bill. The disagreements were focused and dealt with specific provisions rather than the Bill’s overarching goals, warranting a rating of 2 for disagreement displayed.