Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 23 May 2023

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 23 May 2023.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Nigel Mills; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-27

Representations

I: Dame Maria Miller

II: Dr Caroline Johnson and Kirsten Oswald

III: Giles Watling

VI: Bob Blackman

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

Dame Maria Miller made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have four applications in front of us this afternoon. We will begin with Dame Maria Miller, and the debate is on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Dame Maria, over to you, and welcome.

Dame Maria Miller: Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity to put my bid to the Backbench Business Committee; I am incredibly grateful. The debate that I have put before the Committee is indeed on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I would like to ask the Committee’s advice as to whether I should tighten the nature of that debate, because it is about one particular element, which is the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

As it says on the reverse of the form, we are currently facing a wrinkle in where the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is housed. We are currently a UK charity, which doesn’t really accurately reflect the work of the association. It is an inter-parliamentary association, but at the moment it is not recognised in that way, and the CPA wishes to make sure that it is recognised correctly. To do that in the UK requires a change in primary legislation, and at the moment I have a ten-minute rule Bill before Parliament to secure that, but it requires the support of the Government. The objective of the debate is very simple: it is to try to surface the level of support for the CPA to change its status and, in changing its status, to remain in the UK. If it doesn’t change its status, we are at risk of the CPA secretariat and membership deciding to move the CPA to another country that is willing to host it on those terms. It is a very important debate, not just for Parliament or the CPA, but for the Commonwealth. I believe that with the recent change in the head of the Commonwealth to His Majesty the King, it is incumbent on Parliament to make sure that we continue to send very strong messages of support about the Commonwealth, and the debate will give Members the opportunity to do that.

Apologies, because I didn’t quite know whether to have this broader title for the debate or whether I should make it a little tighter and refer to the roles and status of the CPA.

Q2                Chair: Thank you very much. We might need to think about how we would tighten the wording; otherwise, it could generalise the debate away from the focus that you particularly want for it. The only other thing I will say is that you have very few Members signed up to supporting the application.

Dame Maria Miller: Mr Mearns, you are absolutely right, and I apologise; I think it is because there has been a problem within my office in terms of workload. Apologies for that. These names are actually all members of the executive—well, many members of the executive.

Bob Blackman: Could I just draw attention to the fact that I am a member of the executive of the CPA and therefore won’t take any part in the decision making on this bid?

Chair: Thank you very much, Bob.

Q3                Nigel Mills: Wouldn’t one way to focus the debate be to have a motion calling on the House to endorse the change in status of the association?

Dame Maria Miller: Mr Mills, that is an excellent idea. It is slightly more provocative than I was intending to be at this stage, only inasmuch as this is still an issue before the Government and we, as ever in the CPA, are trying to move forward in a consensual manner. But it might be that your—

Q4                Nigel Mills: You could find a consensual form of wording: “the House notes the proposal and urges the Government to consider it”, or something like that.

Dame Maria Miller: What a good idea. I will absolutely seek that advice.

Q5                Chair: From that perspective, it is a live application; you have submitted it. If you want to put down a substantive motion, please feed that in to the Clerk, but along with some additional sponsor names.

Dame Maria Miller: Wonderful. Thank you so much. That’s very kind, and I thank the Committee for its time.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. That is very much appreciated.

Dr Caroline Johnson and Kirsten Oswald made representations.

Q6                Chair: Next up is Dr Caroline Johnson. Caroline, welcome; it is nice to see you here. Your debate application is on the subject of electronic cigarette use. Over to you, please.

Dr Johnson: Thank you. That is correct. There is huge interest in the use of electronic cigarettes, or what is commonly called vaping. Indeed, having thought about it over the last few days, I think it may be better to have an even longer debate than I initially applied for, Chairman. It is an important issue with significant consequences. It is an issue for health, children, advertising regulation and the environment, so there is much to talk about. In health, there are some controversies about whether vaping is helpful to people who wish to stop smoking, or whether it is simply an alternative addiction. The long-term health effects are not known, and the short-term health effects may not be good. The nicotine is highly addictive, with vapes containing more nicotine than cigarettes.

We know that there are concerns about second-hand vaping smoke, and that the contents of vapes are not always what they should be. My local police force provided me with data this week on antifreeze, Indian snakeroot, trichloroethylene and other products being in vapes when they are sold illicitly, so there is a safety issue as well. Eight children in my constituency, and there will be many more in others, have collapsed as a result of vaping. Often, vapes that have not been bought from shops but from friends may not contain what they should. It is not just interest in vapes that is growing exponentially, but the use of vapes among children. A few years ago, we saw very few children vaping, whereas now around a quarter of children vape. In their teenage years it is very dangerous.

We talked about the environment. I have a live ten-minute rule Bill on disposable vapes, which we know are bad for the environment. They are covered in plastic, which is not recyclable because of the nicotine salts. We have issues around them being thrown away, with lithium batteries, and fires in recycling centres and bins. They pose dangers to people in that respect.

The topic has received a lot of coverage; there is a lot of interest in it. We have seen it being discussed on “Politics Live” today. Virtually every local and national media outlet, from every side of the political spectrum, has been involved in discussing this topic recently. It has been raised in Parliament a number of times, including by Bob Blackman, a member of this Committee. The APPG on the environment has had a specific meeting to discuss vapes. In addition to that, a number of environmental and health groups such as the RSPCA, the Green Alliance and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—of which I am a member, as a children’s doctor—have also called for a ban on single-use vapes.

This is an international issue as well. Throughout the world, people are tackling the issue of how we manage vapes for stopping smoking, and how we prevent children from becoming addicted. Different countries have taken different approaches, which is again something that can be debated. In summary, there is a lot of support. Kirsten, the Member for East Renfrewshire, is with me today to support the bid. We have a lot of other support from people who have said they would speak in the debate, which you have listed in front of you. Other people are very supportive of the principle of the debate, and have said they will speak if they are able to on the given occasion.

Kirsten Oswald: I am really keen to add my support to this bid. I have quite recently had a debate on the use of disposable vapes, but even in that short time, things have moved on so much. I think it is important that we have this debate to take account of that.

I initially came at this from an environmental standpoint. The waste issues are very significant. Disposable vapes are not disposable at all in any practical sense. It is a huge environmental issue, both inland and in coastal areas where there is significant pollution in the sea. Even this week when I travelled here by plane, the person at the check-in desk really wanted to know whether I had any disposable vapes that contained lithium batteries in my luggage. These things are dangerous, and of significant concern.

In addition to that, there is an increasing and fast-growing body of evidence that causes me significant concern for younger people particularly, but for anyone using disposable vapes. There was a concerning report on BBC Scotland this week about polluting elements within some disposable vapes, which are very much marketed at children and young people. We have heard about the young people who are taking up vaping who have never smoked. These are not smoking cessation devices, and it would be wrong to think of them that way. Those young people are taking toxic elements into their bodies unknowingly because these things are so heavily marketed towards them, and then they are throwing away the end product. Whether we look at this from a health perspective or an environmental perspective, the increase in the volume of these products in our marketplace means that we need to look at it sharpish. I think that a significant number of Members will want to come in behind this and call for very serious changes to regulation.

Q7                Bob Blackman: I notice that you have ticked the box for a potential Tuesday morning slot, and I think it is likely to be Health and Social Care answering on 27 June. I presume Health and Social Care would be the answering Department.

Dr Johnson: Health and Social Care is certainly a strong player in this, but actually it is a cross-Government thing. It is about the education of children, and it involves DEFRA and the environment. There are issues around health and around advertising regulations and trading standards, so this is a cross-Government issue, but Health would be an entirely suitable Department to answer the questions.

Kirsten Oswald: It is unfortunate that we have to pin it down in one way or another, because it is cross-cutting, but I am sure Health would work.

Q8                Bob Blackman: Well, there has to be a Minister answering.

Kirsten Oswald: I appreciate that. Health is as good a way of doing it as any.

Q9                Bob Blackman: That would fit with 27 June, if that would be a convenient date.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Bob Blackman: That is for the Committee to decide later, but we are just checking your availability.

Chair: As I was saying to Bob before we started the meeting, I remember raising concerns about vaping as an alternative to smoking in the all-party group on smoking and health five or six years ago, because at the time I was concerned that it would be another way that people could become addicted to tobacco. What I was concerned about seems to have become a reality, given the way this market has developed. It is quite clear that the marketing is being targeted at young people in particular, so that is a concern. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Much appreciated.

Giles Watling made representations.

Q10            Chair: Next up is Giles Watling. Good afternoon, Giles, and welcome.

Giles Watling: Good afternoon, Mr Mearns. Thank you so much for listening to me today.

Q11            Chair: You are very welcome. Your application is on the import and sale of fur in Great Britain.

Giles Watling: It is.

Q12            Chair: But not Northern Ireland?

Giles Watling: Not Northern Ireland. We could include it if you like.

Q13            Chair: Why don’t we just call it the United Kingdom in that case?

Giles Watling: We’ll call it the United Kingdom, okay. I will make a note with my staff. Thank you so much.

Q14            Chair: Okay, thank you. Over to you, please.

Giles Watling: This is what I would consider a “low-hanging fruit” obstacle that we have to overcome. We don’t need to import fur; 100 million animals every year are slaughtered, and we know that they live in appalling conditions. We don’t create fur in this country anymore, so we can be a fur-free Britain.

I think we need to call for this debate for many reasons. We can create artificial furs, and they do not have to be plastic. I have seen examples—[Interruption.]

Chair: Giles, I am sorry, but I am going to have to interrupt you. The Division bell is going, so I will have to adjourn the Committee. We will reconvene immediately after the Division. I am terribly sorry.

              Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Q15            Chair: Okay, we have reconvened following the Division. It is still going on, but we are all back, I believe. Giles, you were just beginning to tell us about the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom.

Giles Watling: Yes. The fur trade is responsible for the suffering and deaths of around 100 million animals each year. Most of that fur—an estimated 95%—is produced by intensively farming foxes, racoons, minks, rabbits, and so on in battery-cage systems. I am sure that we have all seen some of the appalling conditions in which those animals are forced to live.

Sometimes, the form of death is brutal to say the least. As I was saying earlier, this is a really low-hanging fruit for Parliament and it should be debated. Fur can be created in so many other ways; it does not have to be plastic. I understand that we can make very good and biodegradable furs out of vegetable matter. I have seen examples, and it is very hard to tell the difference. There is really no reason to have that sort of fur farming. We import fur to this day, and, actually, I do not think that we should.

I think that we should at least have a debate about this. It is a very simple debate, and I am not asking for much. I am asking for a debate in the main Chamber because, of course, that brings public attention to it, but I think I am asking for a debate of only 90 minutes, so I am not asking for a huge amount of parliamentary time. However, it is very important and it will have a lot of support from the public in general. I have not quite got the figures at the moment, but a huge percentage of the general public backs a potential ban on the fur trade in Britain and on imports.

As things stand, I have some 14 Members of Parliament, from all sorts of different parties, who are prepared to speak in the debate, and I am sure that it would take me very little time to find more. Fundamentally, that is my case. I will not take up the Committee’s time any further, but I think that it is a fairly simple low-hanging fruit, and I suggest that we hold this debate.

Q16            Chair: Okay, thank you very much indeed. You don’t have a draft motion asking the Government to do something in particular, so it is a general debate from that perspective. However, we have had Divisions in Backbench debates—I think that one on circus animals had a Division some time ago—so you may want a dividable motion. Divisions do not regularly happen in Backbench debates, but it just shows the will of the House, as it were, rather than noting a position on something.

Giles Watling: Absolutely.

Chair: So, that is a thought—if you would wish to think about that and subsequently add a dividable motion to the application.

Giles Watling: Thank you, Mr Mearns. I will consider that and come back to you.

Chair: Okay. Any further questions? Chris?

Q17            Chris Green: Just to clarify one point, is this for the current farming of fur—new stuff, so to speak? There is a question over ivory and other things over antiques that are really old.

Giles Watling: Absolutely—I understand that there could be a blurred area there, but it is not anything to do with that. That is another issue entirely. This is to do with the fact that there is no current farming of fur in this country, but fur is farmed elsewhere and imported here. Addressing that issue is fundamentally what this debate is all about.

Q18            Chair: In terms of timing, is there any particular urgency from your perspective? Is there an anniversary or anything of that nature?

Giles Watling: Ah, yes. I am very glad that you mentioned that. There is an anniversary; this month marks the second anniversary of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare. It committed to revolutionise the treatment of animals in the UK and produced more than 35 game-changing welfare measures to protect companion animals, farmed animals and wildlife, both at home and overseas. It is the “and overseas” bit that concerns me here. It also includes the consideration of action on the UK fur trade. However, very few of those plans have been delivered so far, so this could be a wide-ranging debate that encompasses all of that.

Q19            Chair: I am afraid to say that all of our Chamber debating slots for June have already been allocated. If we can fit you in in July, we will certainly try, okay?

Giles Watling: That would be superb. Thank you so much.

Q20            Bob Blackman: Alternatively, I know you said that you want a debate in the Chamber, but if a Westminster Hall debate became available on a Thursday or even a Tuesday morning, would that be acceptable to you?

Giles Watling: A Westminster Hall debate would be very fine—I appreciate that—but I want to get this to the wider public, and the wider public pay much more attention to the Chamber than they do to a Westminster Hall debate in general.

Bob Blackman: That is a matter of opinion.

Q21            Chair: I would point out that you have asked for a 90-minute slot, and we tend to allocate those in Westminster Hall, because that is the timing there. On paper—not that it ever happens—the Chamber debates are meant to be two three-hour slots on a Thursday afternoon; sometimes we get them allocated at other times. Invariably, because of statements, urgent questions and the business question, that timing gets concertinaed.

Giles Watling: Of course, but I would like to make the point that I am not entirely averse to Mr Blackman’s suggestion of a Westminster Hall debate.

Q22            Bob Blackman: The possibility would be Tuesday 20 June at 9.30 in the morning.

Giles Watling: I think we could do that.

Q23            Bob Blackman: That is assuming DEFRA would be answering.

Giles Watling: It would be good to get the debate, in any case.

Bob Blackman: I think that is right.

Q24            Chair: No, DEFRA is on 27 June. It is a possibility. We will see what we can come up with, but we will certainly try to get you something before the summer recess.

Giles Watling: That is really good of you. I thank the Committee and look forward to hearing from you.

Chair: It was a pleasure. Thank you very much.

Bob Blackman made representations.

Q25            Chair: Lastly today, we have Mr Bob Blackman. Welcome to the Committee. It is nice to see you again, and thank you for coming. Your application is on the subject of achieving a Smokefree 2030.

Bob Blackman: The reason for this application is that almost a year ago—it will be a year next month—the Government’s long-awaited review on achieving a Smokefree 2030 was published. The Khan review was published on 9 June, and it contained a whole series of measures that were required to achieve a Smokefree 2030 in England. Last month, the public health Minister finally announced the response to this review—it took the Government nearly a year to respond—and, unfortunately, only a limited number of measures have been taken.

I declare my interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. The Government have announced some welcome measures, but they will not achieve a Smokefree 2030 in their own right. Only one of the measures that were critical in the Khan review has been taken on board. The others include introducing a levy on the profits of the big tobacco companies and licensing premises where tobacco is sold.

The one measure that has been endorsed by the Government is on vaping as a substitute for cigarettes, which you heard about earlier. There is an argument about this, but certainly as a means of stopping people smoking, encouraging them to vape instead of smoke is a positive step forward for their health. The other measure that is vitally important is requiring the Treasury to invest each year in the advertising and support for smoking cessation moves. Without those, we believe that we will not achieve a Smokefree 2030.

We did have a debate in Westminster Hall some time ago to put the Government and the public health Minister on the spot. Now that we have heard from the Government what they propose to do, we want to once again put the Minister on the spot to get answers on why the Government have not adopted the Khan review in its entirety.

The other measure that was controversial but is important in the Khan review was raising the age of sale of tobacco. As colleagues might know, New Zealand has chosen to increase the age of sale by one year every year so that eventually people will not be able to buy cigarettes at all. Other measures have been taken across the globe to try to counter Big Tobacco. That is the reason for the request for a debate. I am supported by a substantial contingent on both sides. We will accept a debate in Westminster Hall if that is required. Alternatively, if Chamber time were available, we would be delighted with that. 

Chair: Questions, please, colleagues.

Q26            Nigel Mills: I am not a big fan of “kids” in a parliamentary debate title. Should it be “Stopping children vaping”? On a more substantive point, we had a debate on under-18s vaping less than a month ago. We have had another application today on vaping. Do we need a third vaping debate in quick succession?

Bob Blackman: Vaping is one issue. It is about achieving a Smokefree 2030. It could be an all-encompassing debate. I am happy to leave it to other colleagues to combat the problems of young people vaping, particularly the young people who do not smoke but take up vaping directly. That is our principal concern. Our secretariat, Action on Smoking and Health, has reported on young people vaping and the damage to their health. We know that vapes are highly addictive. They also contain serious chemicals that damage young people’s lungs, throats and other parts of their bodies. From that perspective, we want to remind the Government that they need to take action and not give the message that vaping is a safe thing to do, because it is not.

Q27            Chair: And of course we still have not eradicated people smoking proper tabs, like. I’m afraid to say that one of the side effects of covid is that in certain parts of the country the incidence of smoking traditional tobacco products has increased. That is a real health issue that has not gone away.

Bob Blackman: And as you will know, in deprived communities the incidence of smoking is far greater than in more prosperous communities. That is another area of health inequalities that we want to deal with as well.

Chair: Within that there is a whole range of things such as the sale and distribution of counterfeit cigarettes, and imported, smuggled cigarettes as well.

Patricia Gibson: I understand what my colleague said about a number of people now securing debates on vaping, but given that it is a huge challenge—increasingly so—colleagues are bound to want to debate it from various perspectives, whether it is health, environmental, or counterfeit. There are lots of aspects to it. When we talk about Smokefree 2030, it is almost impossible to have that debate without mentioning vaping.

Chair: Any further questions, colleagues? No? Okay. Thank you, Mr Blackman.