How Parliament works (or doesn’t)

Watching witnesses give ‘evidence’ to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee yesterday, I was struck by several things.

First, the extraordinary anomaly whereby public health minister Andrew Gwynne, who - as a member of the committee - had spent much of the day asking questions of the witnesses, then ended the day as a witness himself, thereby giving ‘evidence’ to the very same committee he was a member of.

Weird as that seemed, I don’t think it was unprecedented because Andrea Leadsom, public health minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, was on the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, although I can’t recall whether she gave evidence.

Either way, it strikes me as odd that there should be a place on a public bill committee for a minister who is effectively responsible for driving the legislation through Parliament, and who then gives evidence, as an 'expert' witness, to that same committee.

Poacher? Gamekeeper? Or both? I’m confused.

(It’s not entirely analogous, but would a member of the jury in a court of law be allowed to give evidence, as a witness, to that same jury? Ditto would a KC who has been cross-examining witnesses also be allowed to sit on the jury? I think we know the answer to both questions.)

At the very least, it has to be a conflict of interest, surely, and it’s a difficult situation for other members of the committee who might be reluctant to grill another committee member with whom they have to work.

(To be clear, I don’t have an issue with relevant ministers giving evidence. I do have a problem with them sitting on a committee that ought to be balanced and impartial and at least one arm’s length from government.)

Second, the response of the Conservatives on the committee was interesting, and equally curious.

I didn’t watch every minute of the morning and afternoon sessions, but from what I saw the Conservative response was led exclusively by shadow public health minister Dr Caroline Johnson, who voted for the Bill at second reading in November even though her party leader, Kemi Badenoch, voted against.

Neither Sarah Bool, who also voted against the Bill, nor Jack Rankin (who didn’t vote but is thought to be opposed) said a word or directed a single question to the witnesses - unlike their Labour counterparts who all chipped in with questions.

My question therefore is: what is current Conservative policy with regard to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill?

As far as I can see, while Tory MPs have been given a free vote (just as they were under Rishi Sunak), the party - even under Kemi Badenoch - still effectively supports the Bill.

I appreciate this is not a hill (or even a bill) Badenoch will want to die on, especially when there appears to be little prospect of affecting the outcome (Reform's Nigel Farage seems to be of the same mind), but it would be nice to see the Tories put up a bit of a fight in the name of choice and personal responsibility.

Those, after all, are the type of Tory values I had hoped Kemi would lead the party back to.

Instead, what we got from the mild-mannered Caroline Johnson was a series of questions that seemed designed merely to bolster the Bill.

Searching questions were noticeable by their absence, even when Labour minister Andrew Gwynne was giving 'evidence’. At one point, she even asked him why the Bill didn’t go further and include a generational ban on the sale of vapes as well as tobacco!

Third, I wondered at first about the brevity of most of the sessions. For example, after the four chief medical officers were given a full hour to give their evidence, the CEOs of ASH, ASH Scotland, ASH Wales, and someone from Northern Ireland, were allocated just 20 minutes.

Other panels were similarly truncated. Several were shorter than scheduled because committee members struggled to find questions to ask the witnesses. Their silence suggested two things: ignorance of the subject or, just as bad, a lack of interest in the detail.

In hindsight however I realised that this suited all parties because it could be argued that the principal purpose of the day was not to grill the likes of Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of ASH, but to give her and her colleagues the opportunity to make statements that might generate a soundbite that could be posted and circulated on social media.

Cynical? Perhaps, but the less said about some of the ‘evidence’ the better. That said, I was particularly struck by the assertion by one witness that secondhand smoke costs the country £46 billion. News to me but naturally it went unchallenged.

I should add that, when we made a fuss about the composition of the original Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, I was disappointed when one Conservative MP (who was opposed to the Bill) brushed away our complaint, saying it was quite normal for public bill committees to be stacked like this.

Personally, I found his attitude rather complacent. If public bill committees are going to be manipulated to such a degree, what’s the point of them? (Or perhaps that is the point. It's a means to an end.)

Anyway, there is one further sitting scheduled for ‘expert’ witnesses, but don’t expect the Tobacco and Vapes Committee to invite anyone opposed to the Bill.

As for the tobacco and vaping industries, or representatives of the consumer (all of whom are valid and legitimate stakeholders), I would rate the chances of an invitation at somewhere between zero and nil.

Update: I have just been told that, while the Committee is scheduled to meet on January 9, 14, and 16, no more witnesses will be invited to give oral evidence. Incredible.