Mike
Penning: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. New
clause 1 seeks to bring the law protecting young people from tobacco
into line with the law protecting young people from alcohol. The
Government, supported by myself and the Opposition, have amended
legislation to make it illegal for people under the age of 18 to
purchase tobacco products. That was a sensible thing to do and will
help to discourage young people from smoking. I am sure the Minister
will say that that was in the thoughts of the Government when they
introduced the relevant provisions in the
Bill. The
problem is that, unlike the proxy purchase of alcohol—it is a
criminal offence to buy alcohol knowingly to pass it on to a minor, or
an individual under the age
of 18, as the legislation states—it is not a criminal offence at
all to purchase tobacco knowingly and willingly to pass it on to a
person under the age of 18. I assumed that this was just a slip of
thought, or a missed opportunity, when the Government introduced the
legislation, so I looked for such a provision when the Bill was
introduced in the other place, but it was not there. I decided,
therefore, that it would be sensible to table an amendment with my hon.
Friend the Member for Eddisbury, to change the law in order to protect
young children. The Committee
has heard me speak about evidence several times during the past few
weeks. The evidence is there: “Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use
among Young People 2006” showed that 89 per cent. of young
people either being bought tobacco products or being given tobacco
products by an older person. Interestingly, that was before the
legislative changes, so it related to young people aged 16 or younger
being given tobacco products by adults.
On the
assumption that if 89 per cent. of young people are having tobacco
products purchased on their behalf, or sold to them by someone, the
tobacco products are not necessarily all coming through tobacconists, I
would have liked to discuss the whole issue of black-market products,
counterfeit products and “cheap whites”—products
imported into this country and sold very cheaply, mainly from the
eastern bloc. Those amendments and new clauses were not selected, but
perhaps we will be able to come back to that area.
New clause 1
is a very simple new clause. It will bring our legislation up to date.
It will make it a criminal offence for a person who owns a shop to
knowingly sell tobacco to a minor, and it will make it a criminal
offence to proxy purchase, which is the key to the new clause. That
would make it much easier for the authorities to pick up on those who
are preying on young people—either people selling from an
ice-cream van, which used to happen when I was a young fellow outside
the school, or people selling black-market products or any other
tobacco products, whether legal or illegal. To knowingly do that would
be a criminal offence, and that would make it a recordable crime so
that we could stamp down on this. I hope the Government and the
Minister will support new clause 1.
Sandra
Gidley: I very much support the sentiments behind this new
clause, because it seems odd to me as well that the proxy purchase of
alcohol is a criminal offence, whereas the proxy purchase of tobacco
does not seem to be one. I have not had a chance to check whether the
hon. Gentleman has copied exactly the legislation that covers alcohol,
but I have a slight concern that this new clause may not be tight
enough. Subsection (2B) of the new clause states that a defence is
that,
“he had taken
all reasonable steps to establish the individual’s age, or that
from the individual’s appearance nobody could have reasonably
suspected that the individual was aged under
18”. I
do not know about the hon. Gentleman—he may be better at these
things than I am—but I find it incredibly difficult to work out
people’s ages, particularly when young girls glam themselves up.
So a defence on appearance seems to be quite an easy
get-out.
Mike
Penning: Of course I am more than happy for amendments to
be made by the Government, if they were willing to accept this new
clause on Report and
tidy it up, but it is framed around the alcohol legislation. To touch on
the point that the hon. Lady has raised: if someone is fraudulently
going out of their way as an under-18-year-old with fake ID, or
whatever, to actually break the law—whether to purchase alcohol
or cigarettes—it is very difficult for the individual who is
running the business to know that that is a piece of fake ID. Siblings
often exchange ID.
The new
clause was designed not only with people who run legitimate businesses
in mind, but also to make sure that anybody—whether they run a
legitimate business or are in a black-market situation—realises
that not only are they breaking the law to do with duty and the sale of
tobacco products, but they are committing a criminal offence if they
sell to a
minor. 1.55
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 2.10
pm On
resuming—
Sandra
Gidley: I had almost concluded my comments. To sum up, we
have great sympathy for the spirit of these amendments. We have to take
action on this if we are serious about tackling the problem of
under-age smokers because most under-age smokers receive their
cigarettes from black-market, under-the-counter sources. I have some
concerns, however, that in some ways the amendments do not go far
enough.
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Gillian Merron):
As we have heard, the new clause would create an offence for a proxy
purchase of tobacco. I welcome the sentiments that have been expressed
by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. I share these sentiments and
welcome the concern. The hon. Member for Romsey asked whether the
amendment was the same as the provision in the Bill in respect of
alcohol. I can confirm that it is not and I refer the hon. Lady to the
Licensing Act 2003, section 149, which provides clarification as to
what the purchase of alcohol by or on behalf of children would do, as
opposed to the amendment before us. This might be helpful to the
Committee. It
is already illegal to sell tobacco to young people under the age of 18.
Last year 200,000 children smoked regularly in England and we have to
ask ourselves where they are getting their cigarettes from. I welcome
the support of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for the change in
the law that we have already seen. We have the largest survey of the
smoking habits of children from 2006, before the age of sale was raised
to 18. The survey found that, of children aged 11 to 15, 34 per cent.
usually bought their cigarettes from a shop, and that was the single
largest source of tobacco for people under age. It did not, however,
tell the whole story and the Committee may find it helpful if I set out
other aspects. Over a fifth were given cigarettes by friends and just
over one in 10 by family members; and 18 per cent. said they often
bought cigarettes from other people. That gives us some idea of the
scale and extent of the problem that we are all committed to
tackling.
In total,
other people were the most usual source of cigarettes for just over
half of children. That is completely unacceptable. The proposed
amendment, however, would
not address this particular problem. It would apply only when an
individual specifically purchased tobacco on behalf of a child. What
would not be taken into account—I am concerned about
this—are cases where, for example, friends share a pack of
cigarettes. That would not count. Parents giving a cigarette from their
own pack would not count either. Unless it was possible under this
amendment to prove at the time that the person who had bought the pack
intended to sell it on to a child, it would not count as a proxy
purchase offence. While that was not the intention of the amendment,
that is where it takes us. I would like
to place it on the record that I know that the majority of shopkeepers
take seriously their responsibilities to stop under-age sale and I
would like to thank them for their efforts in this regard. We need to
ensure, however, that children cannot get hold of tobacco. Although the
intent behind it is understandable, this amendment in respect of proxy
purchasing would be both difficult to enforce and ineffective. Perhaps
I could explain therefore what I think we should be
doing.
Mike
Penning: I cannot understand the logic; perhaps the
Minister could elaborate. If the Government use the logic that the
Minister has just used that such a provision would be difficult to
enforce, my reply is that this part of the legislation is exactly the
same as other parts. If an adult purchases alcohol in an off-licence or
a licensed premises, takes it outside and either sells or gives it to a
person under the age of 18, that is a criminal offence. If that is not
enforceable, why is it on the statute book? All we are asking for is
for that to be duplicated for
tobacco. 2.15
pm
Gillian
Merron: Perhaps I could refer the hon. Gentleman to the
full section 149 of the 2003 Act. I would like to say why the two areas
are different. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I completely understand
his intent. Perhaps he will allow me to elaborate on where we want to
go with this
issue. We
can deal only with the amendment that is before the Committee, and it
does not replicate the defence in the 2003 Act of proxy purchasing
provision. Instead, the amendment replicates the defence used in the
Bill’s tobacco display provisions, which are more prescriptive
on what a person must do to qualify for a defence. As I said, we can
only deal with what we have before
us. Supply
of tobacco to children is a much bigger problem, which is one that, I
assure the Committee, I intend to examine in our new tobacco control
strategy, which will be published later this year. We had some 100,000
responses to our consultation, which will set us up very well to be
able to move forward on the issue. I want to be able to assess how we
can help people to understand how dangerous and addictive tobacco is,
and how important it is to stop children from accessing
it. I
also want to look—the hon. Gentleman made reference to
this—at what other countries have done to tackle under-age
access to tobacco. For example, we are not aware of any countries that
have proxy purchasing for children as an offence, as we have before us
today. But we know laws against the supply of tobacco to children exist
in Latvia, Italy and Ontario. That means—it is
important for me—that anyone giving or providing tobacco to a
minor is committing an offence. I am keen that we find the right way
forward through legislation, information, education and whatever other
means necessary to tackle the
problem. What
we are doing is important because supply of tobacco to children is a
very much bigger problem. It does not matter who is providing it or for
whatever reason, whether it is retailers, friends or family—it
is wrong to supply those under the age of 18 with cigarettes, and we
should act to protect children from that. I hope that with the
reassurances that I have given, and with the expression of
understanding of what we are seeking to do, the hon. Gentleman will be
able to withdraw his
amendment.
Mike
Penning: It is new clause 1, rather than an
amendment.
Gillian
Merron: I beg your
pardon.
Mike
Penning: What has been missing from the Minister’s
comments is how we got into the position in the first place. The
legislation was changed and it became a criminal offence for the
under-18s. But she seems to have forgotten the proxy purchase issue,
which was addressed— [Interruption.] The
Minister, from a sedentary position, is saying no. The matter has been
missed, because it is missing—it is not on the statute book.
What we are trying to do—I freely admit that it may not be
perfect—is to bring us from a position of nothing to a position
of protecting young people, in a Bill which the Government say is
evidence-based to protect children from starting to
smoke. I
had hoped that the Minister would say in her comments, “It is
not perfect, so we will draft an amendment on Report. We will come back
with that, and we will ban it in the Bill. We will send a message out
there to shopkeepers.” The Minister is right in saying that the
vast majority of them are doing a fantastic job of enforcing the law
and vetting who purchases tobacco. But with one in five in the nation
buying black-market products, and two in five in some parts of the
country—I understand that in some inner-city areas, the most
deprived areas, it is even higher than that—where no one is
taking a blind bit of notice about their age because they are just
trying to make a fast buck, we need to have another criminal offence
similar to that in the alcohol legislation. That is where the Bill
should be.
The Minister
says, “We are going to have a review, we will look at the matter
and we will come back in the autumn with a strategy,” but the
Bill could have contained a lot of other things that would have helped,
not least nicotine replacement therapy or the whole issue of the black
market or of cheap whites—loads and loads of pieces of
legislation. The truth, I believe, is that because the new clause is
coming from the Opposition Benches, whether those of the Liberal
Democrats or Her Majesty’s official Opposition, the Government
have closed ranks: “No, we’ll sort this out in good
time.” I would be more than happy to withdraw new clause 1 if
the Minister said to me that, on Report, she would bring back
provisions that tighten up the minor areas—although I do not
completely agree with the way that the Minister referred to
them.
For instance,
supplying alcohol to one’s children is completely different in
legislation. One can supply wine to them at 14—it is not illegal
to supply alcohol to one’s children. That is completely
different, which is why it was not in the new clause. The comparisons
do not work. I am really very sad for the young people of this country
who are having their lives blighted by people proxy purchasing for
them. Proxy purchasers can make an awful lot of money by selling to
young people and encouraging young people to start smoking, getting
them addicted. New clause 1 would take a huge leap forward into
protecting the public health of young
people. I
am hugely disappointed that the Minister has not come before the
Committee today, knocked my new clause down but said, “We will
address this on Report—there is plenty of time to address
it—and we will protect young children.” I cannot press
the new clause to a Division in the Committee, because I am advised by
the Clerks that if I do, the House will be restricted from voting on it
on a free vote, which would also be important. I hope that in the
meantime, before Report, both Ministers, the Secretary of State and
their advisers see sense and table an amendment to the Bill that
protects young people from proxy purchase. If not, I shall move a
similar amendment on
Report. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
clause.
The
Chairman: Is it your pleasure that the clause be
withdrawn?
The
Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
speak?
| 
