Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 21, page 24, line 16, leave out ‘requested’.

The Committee will realise that we have reached a clause that, to be frank, is controversial. There are many different views across the House about how a product that is legal in this country can be sold while, at the same time—and I say this from a personal perspective—we cut the number of people, especially the young, who take up smoking and continue to smoke.

I was a member of the Health Committee when we looked carefully at evidence relating to the legislation to ban smoking in public places. I began that evidence session feeling very sceptical about banning smoking selectively. By the end of it, on the basis of the evidence, I was a signatory, with other hon. Members of the Committee, to the idea of a total ban on smoking in public places. It is probably obvious that I have no side with the tobacco industry. I would be happy if everybody ceased smoking tomorrow morning. It would be great for their health and great for the NHS, but probably not so great for the Treasury.

With that in mind, I emphasise the term “evidence based”. I have said to the organisations lobbying brilliantly on behalf of this legislation that my concern is not that I want fewer people to smoke—particularly children—and to have access to tobacco. That is a no-brainer for everybody, I am sure. It is that I wonder whether the legislation will work and whether it is too onerous on legal organisations that sell tobacco as part of their income stream.

I also wonder whether the legislation would provide more of a driver for the black market. Currently, at least one in five cigarettes is either counterfeit or sold on the black market with no duty paid and no one taking the slightest bit of interest in the age of the person buying that product. Age is something that I believe newsagents, tobacconists and clubs should take notice of, and in most cases they do.

That said, I will not press any of the matters related to tobacco to a vote in Committee. That is a matter for the whole House to decide on. Her Majesty’s Opposition will have a free vote, so they can express their personal views. I hope that the Government take a similar view, as, to be fair, they did on the legislation to ban smoking in public, when we had a free vote.

This is a probing amendment, which deals with the prohibition of tobacco displays. I said earlier that I doubt not the Government’s intentions, which I think are honourable, but the evidence base behind the provision. It is, perhaps, a bit early to use some of the evidence that the Minister has sent out in her letters—today, for instance. That, sadly, has left no option for her to be open-minded, as we all were about the previous legislation. Instead, it is dismissive of evidence counter to that being used by the Government.

Amendment 89 seeks to provoke the debate on the statutory definition of a requested display. For people who sell tobacco on their premises, what that means is of great concern; they want to know when and if they are breaking the law. “Requested display” relates to retailers and staff as set out in the Bill, but it is very vague. It needs to be defined, I am sure the Minister will agree. It needs a bit more tweaking, even if the legislation is passed, so that people have confidence that their display is not breaking the law under new section 7B.

An individual who wants to see the legal product that they are going to buy may have a child with them in the shop. Under the clause, is it going to be illegal for them to see the product? I hate to think that we will have a situation where mums and dads who, sadly, still smoke leave Johnny or Mary outside the door unaccompanied while they go in and purchase their cigarettes. It will not always be possible for people to accompany the children while their parents are in the shop purchasing their cigarettes, which are a legal product. My point is that the parents—and the tobacconists—will be concerned about whether they are breaking the law if an under-18 is with them during that purchase. That needs to be set out and defined carefully, because, if we are not careful, people may unintentionally break the law or put their children at risk.

Someone may, for instance, ask to see a new brand at a tobacco kiosk in the middle of a large supermarket with significant footfall. If the new brand is presented to them before they purchase and a minor walks past, will that be an offence under the Bill? Under the wording at present, it appears that it will. People will commit an  offence unintentionally, and the effect on the proprietor will be onerous, whether it be a large supermarket or a smaller corner shop.

There is a whole debate to be had as to whether it is physically possible for someone who is the only person working in a shop at a particular moment to know what is happening out of their eyeshot when someone asks to see a product. Shoplifting is a real problem for small businesses, and the Association of Convenience Stores asked me to look into that.

The arguments about the content of the amendment are for the Floor of the House. What I am trying to probe with my comments now is what is actually an offence in respect of a requested display. It is difficult to see from the wording of the Bill exactly what is an offence.

See this speech in context