Blue on blue differences on tobacco and vapes highlight Tory divisions

The ninth sitting of the Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee took place yesterday.

I’ve just read the transcript on Hansard and, as ever, I’m beginning to lose the will to live - and I’m not alone. Here is Andrew Gwynne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is also on the Committee:

Andrew Gwynne (Labour)
I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions on these clauses, which are entirely technical and appertain to the treatment of the Crown in relation to the measures in the Bill. They follow a general Crown application, being broadly similar to, and mirroring pretty closely, the way other Acts of Parliament deal with the Crown. I am not sure whether the fact we have spent more than half an hour debating them shows Parliament at its best or at its niggliest, but we are having the debate none the less.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative)
I take the Minister’s point that the clauses are technical, but if we are not here to ensure that legislation is drafted correctly and appropriately, what are we here for?

Andrew Gwynne
We are here to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book. I was under the impression—perhaps the misapprehension—that at least the two Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, were supportive of the measures in the Bill. If so, we seem to have spent an extraordinary amount of time discussing matters that do not really affect the Bill, except in relation to the Crown.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Conservative)
Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.

Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.

Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

Aside from that, an interesting aspect of the committee stage has been the obvious divergence of opinion within Conservative ranks.

Last week, for example, I noticed that an amendment to raise the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 25 had been defeated by 14 votes to two. The only MPs who voted for the amendment - which would have replaced the generational ban - were Jack Rankin and Sarah Bool, two of the four Conservative MPs on the Committee.

To be clear, the amendment was proposed by a Lib Dem MP who was not on the Committee and I am guessing the reason Rankin and Bool voted for it was because it was the only alternative to a generational ban. It did however indicate their opposition to the latter.

Numerous amendments have gone to a vote and each time (as far as I can tell) Dr Johnson, the shadow public health minister, has voted with the Labour and Lib Dem members of the Committee.

Sometimes she has been joined by fellow Tory, Gregory Stafford, but generally the two other Conservatives on the Committee, Sarah Bool and Jack Rankin, have voted the other way (ie against her).

Here's one of many exchanges between Johnson and Rankin:

Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case that we should not be advertising vapes, or their pricing and products, to children. What she is not doing is making a case for banning the display of products or prices of vapes to adults. Does she think it is incongruous to treat tobacco products and vaping products in the same way in this clause?

Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Part of me wants to say, “Well, what do you do when the child goes into the newsagent? Put a blindfold on them?” If the displays are visible to adults, they will be visible to the children who are walking beside them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we can ensure that, when walking into an average newsagent, children cannot see something that grown-ups can.

In contrast to those Tory divisions, Labour MPs on the Committee have been united on every vote. Similarly the two Lib Dem MPs on the Committee.

It therefore begs the question: what is the Conservative position on the Bill, especially the generational ban? And the answer is: I don’t know. Literally, not a clue.

In opposition, and with only 121 MPs, you might think that every Tory MP would be singing from the same hymn sheet. Instead, the divisions are all too obvious, to the extent that Labour’s Andrew Gwynne couldn’t resist having a pop:

That is a decision for future Governments; it is not what we intend in this Bill, which is clear on what the penalty regime will be. I cannot guarantee that some future Government will not decide to alter the penalty regime. That may be a Liberal Democrat Government, a future Labour Government or even a future Conservative Government, when the Conservatives get their act in order, although the differences in the Committee [my italics] suggest that may be way after the next generation are affected by the Bill to a considerable extent.

Given that Kemi Badenoch voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill at second reading it’s clear where the leader of the party stands, but her shadow public health minister appears to be pursuing her own agenda.

I know Conservative MPs have been given a free vote on the Bill, and it probably doesn’t make sense, politically, to invite rebellion by imposing the whip on MPs when – given Labour’s massive majority – the Bill is almost certain to become law, but the bigger issue (for the Conservatives) is this:

What does the party stand for and what do they believe in?

Listening to Caroline Johnson it’s that clear she, like many of her colleagues (including Bob Blackman, co-chair of the APPG on Smoking and Health and recently elected chairman of the influential 1922 Committee), supports the type of nanny state policies that are anathema to Jack Rankin, Sarah Bool and others.

How, then, are they in the same party because this is a fundamental difference, not just in policy but political philosophy.

I’m a big supporter of Kemi Badenoch and I have no time for the impatient naysayers and critics (she’s only been in the job for a few months, give her time!), but I do hope that what emerges from the current period of reflection is a Conservative Party that reaffirms its neglected commitment to individual freedom and personal responsibility, and reins in MPs who don’t share those values.

Furthermore, the party needs a new generation of candidates who are prepared to fight for and defend a less intrusive style of government that doesn’t try to control our behaviour to the nth degree.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

On this issue the Tories have let us down time and again so once bitten twice shy.

Do I trust Reform to end the persecution of smokers? Not really as smoker bashing and pushing smokers around is quite fashionable these days, despite the fact that Farage smokes, and I am sure that some of the defectors from the Tory party to Reform will want the party to keep bullying smokers.

Apart from the threat of an outdoor ban - which will come in time - Farage is far too silent on this issue which shows he really doesn't give a damn and doesn't see the bigger threat to personal freedom that the smoking issue is laying the template for.

There is literally no party that wants my vote so no party will get it.

No party has ideological positions any more. They literally have members in the same parties who are poles apart in political views because politics is no longer about serving the country, or party, or doing what's right for everyone, but rather about pandering to the individual beliefs of career politicians, and influential activists who have infiltrated the civil service, who are mostly in it for themselves and what they can get out of it.

As a voter, I see them all as nothing more than a bunch of bullies in the playground stealing the pocket money off the little kids because they know they can get away with it.