Clause 6 - Specialist tobacconists
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
10:45 am
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden, Conservative)
I hope, Mr. Malins, that you will be sympathetic to our taking a little time over the way in which specialist tobacconists are to be regulated. We are talking about a lot of small businesses, many of them family businesses built up over a long period. What they have been doing will change, all of a sudden, from being legal to being illegal—potentially, if they get it wrong. Therefore, it is important that we help them by drawing from the Government as much detail as possible about how they will be affected by the Bill. Although the amendments have been grouped together, they are different. I cannot promise to deal with them as swiftly as we dealt with the previous group.
There are at least 350 cigar suppliers in this country. Many of those businesses are small and their owners will be listening attentively to the debate on this clause. Government and Opposition have a responsibility to speak up for the smaller players, as it is not easy for them to change rapidly how they do things—they do not always have the flexibility of large corporate players.
Amendment No. 9 would remove subsection (1)(c). It is a probing amendment, relating to our worry that small businesses may have to go to court for a ruling about what qualifies as a tobacco advertisement on their specialist premises. Hitherto, owners of such businesses have had to advertise to pursue their livelihood, so what they are permitted must be crystal clear. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred to the failure to define ``advertisement'', which is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. That will hamper specialist tobacconists in knowing what they may do on their premises and in their business.
It would not be easy for a small business to go to court for clarification on this matter; it would cost a lot of money, and many would be deterred by the hurdle of going to court. Some business owners accused of the offence might feel that they would rather give up than go through the rigmarole, cost and indignity of having to go to court.
The amendment is designed to impress upon the Government that hiving off clarification into regulations by an ``appropriate Minister'' is not satisfactory for the specialist tobacconists, as they remain unclear about what qualifies as an advertisement. The Minister may help us over the guidance. She said that she would consult before it was issued, and I urge her to do so with those small specialists. They should not simply be lumped in one camp, as some have shops and some do not, so we need to ensure that the Government catch in their consultations all those likely to be affected. At the preliminary stage of debate on the Bill, the Government may not have realised that some of those 350 cigar manufacturers do not have a shop per se, and that that is why they depend so heavily on mailings. Those businesses need clarification about what is allowed.
Amendment No. 32 is not a probing amendment. I hope that it offers a constructive and sensible suggestion. Not all specialist tobacconists have shops—I hope that that message has got across loud and clear. If the Government want the Bill to work well, they should pay attention to the word ``shop'', which is too constraining and will not catch all the businesses that they hope to catch with the tobacco advertising ban. The amendment is self-explanatory and I hope that the Minister will agree to the change. If she leaves the word ``shop'', there will be consequences, because some specialist tobacconist shops are part of a chain. What would happen if shops within such a chain were treated differently? It is not impossible that that might happen. The word ``shop'' may trip the Government up in their intentions.
A chain may also have one shop that means that it qualifies, in the aggregate as a specialist tobacconist, although the other shops in the chain do not qualify separately. That does not sit well with the clause. The chain may be both a specialist and non-specialist supplier and we must decide how such a business would be affected by the Bill. Using the word ``business'' would clarify the matter. The clause as it stands will simply not work in practice, so I hope that the Government will reconsider the wording. Left as it is, it will weaken the Bill.
Amendment No. 33 relates to where the trading of tobacco products is carried out and would catch the specialist tobacco businesses that deal mainly, if not wholly, through mail order and web sites. Such businesses may not have a retail outlet on a high street, but trade their specialist products, which are often of high value, in a different way. As the clause pertains to specialist tobacconists, it should deal with the diverse way in which they retail. We need guidance from the Minister as to how those sales will be regarded for sales threshold qualification purposes, if they take place away from the principal shop premises. That brings us back to the previous amendment. The clause is constrained and weakened by the use of the word ``shop''.
Amendment No. 34 is different again. It is designed to provide a reasonable degree of protection for small businesses starting out. Specialist tobacco businesses come and go in different locations; because of business rates and fluctuations in trade, it is not easy to hold one's place on the high street. The clause may place an excessive burden on a new business. All hon. Members would accept that a fledgling business in its first 12 months of trading—regardless of the product in which it deals—cannot operate to full strength, and will find it difficult properly to assess how things are going. Inevitably, such businesses have to face high capital costs up front when they start up.
The amendment would change the clause, so the period could be
``recalculated to an equivalent twelve month period on a pro rata basis''.
It is a probing amendment that would protect start-up businesses.