I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 62 stand part. Clause 80 stand part.

I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products.

I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation.

I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!

”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.

I thank the Minister very much for his birthday felicitations. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.

I only hope that is not open to challenge.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Schedule 1. Clauses 17 and 18 stand part. Schedule 2. Clause 19 stand part. Schedule 3. Clauses 20 and 21 stand part. Schedule 4. Clause 22 stand part. Clause 85 stand part. Schedules 11 to 13.

For clarity, does that notice give notice of the amount of the penalty or just that a penalty will be imposed? Can the retailer appeal to the weights and measures authority about whether they will get a fine, or are they simply told the amount of the fine that they are likely to get? If my hon.

Friend does not know, perhaps the Minister might.

I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.

Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty.

To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so. The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed.

If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid.

Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales.

As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products.

In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2).

Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.

I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.

I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.

When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon.

Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.

I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon.

Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.

That is very helpful.

In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle.

We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.

I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing.

We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply.

The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.

On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way.

I invite the Minister to consider those points.

I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor. The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions.

I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations.

It mentions in written evidence that “The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws.

A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.

” I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.

It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others.

In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard. Evapo also says that “the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.

” That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.

I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals.

That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. What does she think about the idea of having a single licence?

If a shop—for example, a small convenience store—is selling alcohol, tobacco, where it is still permitted under the regulation, and vapes for those over 18, would a single regulatory process and licensing scheme be more efficient and more beneficial both to the customer and the retailer?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business.

We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.

Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?

I will come to Scotland in due course. Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority.

In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.

The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance.

It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date.

That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations.

For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.

Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?

Where we know an area is moving from a two-tier to a unitary authority, the clue is in the name: the unitary authority will be the licensing authority because there will be only one local authority covering that area.

I am sure the Minister has much greater understanding of his own Government’s policy, but my understanding is that there will be some devolution of powers to parish and town councils. Will they potentially become the licensing authority when there is a downward devolution of power?

The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent.

Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?

As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation.

That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 24 to 27 stand part. Question put and agreed to. Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

No, it is too late; I am sorry. Members have to understand that if they wish to make a contribution, they must make that clear by standing up; otherwise, I push forward. It is too late. The clause is debated.

Sorry, Sir Roger. We had wanted to adjourn at clause 22.

But we have just agreed clause 23. It is done. Whether you like it or not, the Committee has said yes to clause 23, so it stands part of the Bill. We cannot go back; there is no retrospective route in Committee.

If Members wish to debate clauses 24 to 27, which technically have not been moved, they may do so, but they cannot debate clause 23.

Hang on, not now! This is like trying to herd kittens. When you come back this afternoon, you may, if the Chairman chooses to allow you—you will be pleased to know it will not be me—speak to clauses 24 to 27, before you vote on those. But you cannot go back over clause 23.

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