With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 25 to 27 stand part.

The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender. Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975.

Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice.

That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year.

It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender. That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware.

For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security.

When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.

My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck.

We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon.

Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?

Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon.

Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order.

As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.

I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter.

It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 29 and 30 stand part.

I beg to move.

I remind the Committee that if you want to talk about the clauses, this is the point at which you should do so.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28. The first question has already been asked by the hon.

Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12?

Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender.

In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response.

Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information?

What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.

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

I heartily agree.

I will call the Minister. He may well wish to respond on the points related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 rather than the other points that have been raised, which can be taken up at another place and another time.

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

On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23.

Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.

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

Yes.

I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear.

If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?

It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case.

We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point. In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate.

These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions.

Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions.

How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point. Question put and agreed to. Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 33 and 34 stand part. Clause 81 stand part.

The clause places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in part 1 of the Bill and any display regulations in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities.

It provides local weights and measures authorities—meaning local authority trading standards in England and Wales—with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity.

Those investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises.

Trading standards officers are experts in enforcement, and it is vital that we provide them with the appropriate powers to perform their duty.

The clause ensures that local authority trading standards can use the same investigatory powers that are used now, and known to be effective, to enable successful enforcement of the new legislation.

Clause 33 provides a requirement for local weights and measures authorities in England, meaning local authority trading standards, to consider a programme of enforcement action and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement for offences under part 1 of the Bill and display regulations, on a yearly basis.

The clause is important to the Bill as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider appropriate action to enforce tobacco, vapes and nicotine product regulations in their local area.

The Minister is outlining clause 33. Under subsection (2), it is clear what the programme of enforcement action might involve, but what is not clear is what the consideration means in this case.

In the local authority, is that decision made by a certain department, by the cabinet or, if a combined authority, by the mayor? What is due consideration under the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because that very much depends on the constitutional make-up of the local authority. The governance of that local authority will determine the way in which that is considered.

As licensing functions tend to be quasi-judicial in their nature, enforcement required to ensure that those licensing conditions are met means that, in effect, elected members across the authority have some role in and responsibility for giving consideration to those points.

I hope that clarifies the matter for him.

Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon.

Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give.

It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority.

Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.

The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis.

It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right.

Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

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

Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 36 stand part.

The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales.

Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so.

We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity.

We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances. If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point.

Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description.

That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be.

Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop.

I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?

All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen.

Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.

With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties.

However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.

I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is.

We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill.

If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene.

That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.

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

Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom.

I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.

This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard.

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

The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department.

The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion.

The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings.

Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales.

These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to.

It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert— “(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.

This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland. Clause stand part.

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

On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question.

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

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

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

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

But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.

I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on.

By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence.

Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people.

Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?

The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures.

I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances.

The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert— “be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert— “such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”. This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.

Clause stand part.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments. The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research.

However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives.

The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health.

We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.

As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health?

Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?

Order. I ask that we stick to the amendment.

That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs.

We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations.

Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.

Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges.

Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.

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

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

They are your amendments.

I am sorry; I do not know about that. Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area.

They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.

Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case. I understand the hon.

Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health.

There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent.

In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern. I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position.

I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with “the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”, so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales.

I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.

I do not want to repeat too many points that other people have made. This a well-meaning, but ill thought-through amendment, as has been highlighted by the two hon. Members who spoke before me. I was a local government councillor for 17 years, and served on many health and wellbeing boards.

I do not recall them ever having a separate fund, so this would be a new innovation.

It would not necessarily be an innovation without good intention, but using central Government legislation to enforce a completely new set of financial arrangements on local authorities could have a wider impact than those who have tabled these amendments have anticipated.

The Minister, either in his summary or on Report, might find a way of achieving what those hon. Members want via other means, because clearly we would all want the moneys from continued enforcement to be used for things as close to health and public health improvements as possible.

Will the Minister address that in his response?

I will not be withdrawing the amendment. Amendment 2 negatived. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 Power to change amount of fixed penalties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200.

The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit.

The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time. Question put and agreed to. Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 5.

Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales.

It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales.

Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.

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

Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 43 stand part.

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

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Power to extend Part 1 to other products Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 67 and 86 stand part.

Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed.

Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.

These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco.

Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult.

For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available.

I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale.

Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?

I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon.

Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window.

That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.

The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold.

That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.

My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18.

Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally?

How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?

I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible.

In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?

Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary.

Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one.

That is why this is a landmark Bill. The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf.

That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon.

Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales. Question put and agreed to. Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 Power to amend lists of identity documents Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 82 stand part.

I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”.

The Bill lists the following ID cards: “(a) a passport, (b) a UK driving licence, (c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, (d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or (e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.

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

Shame!

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

One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence.

Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?

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

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

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