Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has
considered the matter of a smokefree future. It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, for at least the second
time. No doubt you would prefer to be participating in rather than
chairing this debate on the evidence and recommendations submitted
to the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health’s
manifesto for a smoke-free future. It is a pleasure to see the
new...Request free trial
(Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of a smokefree
future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, for
at least the second time. No doubt you would prefer to be
participating in rather than chairing this debate on the evidence
and recommendations submitted to the all-party parliamentary
group on smoking and health’s manifesto for a smoke-free
future.
It is a pleasure to see the new Minister in her place; I thank
her for attending a function that we held soon after she was
appointed. I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Edgbaston (), and look forward to what
she has to say. I declare an interest as chair of the APPG, which
wants to ensure that Parliament has the chance to debate our
recommendations, along with the smoke-free generation proposals
set out in the King’s Speech, and consider what more needs to be
done to achieve the Government’s Smokefree 2030 target.
I welcome the Government’s historic commitment to create a
smoke-free generation by raising the age of sale for tobacco by
one year every year from 2027. This measure, along with other
commitments set out by the Government, will help to close the
door on the tobacco epidemic once and for all. With their Command
Paper, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to
achieving the smoke-free ambition and to ending the harms caused
by tobacco. It was a great pleasure to hear my words in this
place echoed almost word for word by the Prime Minister at the
Conservative party conference. I congratulate his speechwriter on
having observed what we had to say in last year’s debate.
The smoke-free generation policy was due to be implemented first
by New Zealand, but it was abandoned by the incoming Government
in November under pressure from their coalition partners. That
presents us with the opportunity to be the first to implement the
policy, thereby cementing the UK’s position as a global leader in
tobacco control. In response to New Zealand’s decision, we have
seen the tobacco industry going into overdrive on its lobbying
machine, arguing that the UK should follow New Zealand in rowing
back on our commitments and even promising that it would not
vociferously oppose the smoking age rising from 18 to 21. That
demonstrates how big a threat it is to have the smoke-free
generation policy.
Quite rightly, the Prime Minister has rejected the industry’s
arguments and reiterated the importance of creating a smoke-free
generation. I commend the Minister for her robust response to the
industry when she called out its attempts to undermine and block
this measure. As she wrote in the i newspaper:
“The tobacco industry will talk about free adult choice, but we
all know there is no freedom of choice once deadly addiction sets
in. The industry has a long history of trying to obstruct and
delay tobacco reforms. But we have absolutely no intention of
going back on our word.”
I welcome those words, and I trust that the Minister will echo
them when she responds to the debate.
Government action to end smoking is what the public want. Polling
carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health shows that
three quarters of the public, including the majority of smokers,
support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition and that two
thirds of people in England back the Prime Minister’s age-of-sale
proposal, with equivalent levels of political support among
voters for all the main political parties at the last general
election. This should not be a surprise, because no one wants to
see their children smoking.
Just like the public, the majority of independent retailers
selling tobacco support the key measures needed to tackle
smoking, including raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21,
with just over half of retailers in favour and a quarter opposed.
Although that happened before the Government announced the
smoke-free generation policy, it shows that retailers support the
principle of raising the age of sale. That should not be a
surprise, either. Tobacco sales now account for a very small
fraction of the profits from those shops—less than 10% in
2016—and are dwindling year on year. Most small retailer
transactions do not involve the purchase of tobacco at all.
From the 2007 ban on smoking in public places to standardised
packaging in 2015, progress on tobacco control has consistently
been driven from the Back Benches. Indeed, I am delighted that
most of the 2021 recommendations from by the APPG on smoking and
health were included in the recent Khan review and are now in the
process of being implemented by the Government and the Department
of Health and Social Care. They include progress towards much
tougher regulation of vaping to protect children, additional
funding for stop smoking services and anti-smoking campaigns, the
swap to stop campaign, and financial incentives for pregnant
women to stop smoking. In particular, I welcome the Minister’s
decision to expand the offer of financial incentives so that it
includes not only pregnant women but, critically, their partners.
Dads and partners have a key role to play in determining whether
women smoke or are exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy.
That announcement is to be commended.
However, the Government need to go further. The Government’s
proposals to create a smoke-free generation and curb youth vaping
are welcome, but they will not be enough to achieve the Smokefree
2030 ambition. It is imperative that that ambition is realised
for everyone, not just for the next generation. According to
Cancer Research UK, the Government are nearly a decade behind
achieving their target for England to be smoke free by 2030. The
most deprived areas are not on track to hit the smoke-free target
of 5% smoking prevalence until after 2050. That would leave the
most vulnerable people in our society bearing the brunt of the
harms from smoking for decades to come.
In our recently published tobacco manifesto, the APPG set out the
action needed to accelerate the decline in smoking rates, in
order to get us within spitting distance of a smoke-free 2030.
The long wait for Government action on smoking means that
achieving 5% smoking prevalence by 2030 will be even more
challenging than when the ambition was first announced in 2019.
However, that target is still within reach. The closer we get,
the more lives we can save.
Modelling carried out for the APPG by academics at University
College London shows that if our recommendations are implemented
in full throughout the next Parliament, smoking prevalence in
England, which is currently at 12.7%, will be reduced to 7.3% by
2029. That would deliver immediate benefits to health and
wellbeing, as well as saving countless lives in the longer term,
and would lead to a 5% rate by 2030.
Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death, ill
health and inequalities in the UK. Some 6.4 million adults in the
UK currently smoke, approximately an eighth of the population.
Most adult smokers want to stop smoking, but on average it takes
30 attempts to succeed; many never do so. It is one of the
resolutions that smokers make, and it is sad when they break them
very quickly in the new year.
Two out of three long-term smokers die prematurely, often after
years of disability from the cancers and the respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases caused directly by smoking. NHS data
shows that in 2022-23 there were more than 400,000
smoking-related hospital admissions in England alone, an increase
of 5% on the previous year.
Despite Harrow having a below-average smoking rate, tobacco still
takes a heavy toll, causing over 1,300 hospital admissions in
2019-20 alone. People in Harrow suffer many of the same health
inequalities as the rest of the country, with those from the
poorest backgrounds and those with mental health conditions much
more likely to smoke than the general population.
Smoking places a major financial burden on individuals, families
and the taxpayer. The average smoker spends just over £3,000 a
year on cigarettes, which is significantly more than the annual
energy cost for a typical household. That is money that could be
better spent on products and services to improve people’s quality
of life, but instead it literally goes up in smoke to maintain
their deadly addiction. In the APPG’s latest report we estimate
that the cost of smoking to public services and the wider UK
economy is £89.3 billion a year, the equivalent of 3.9% of
GDP.
What about the direct costs of smoking to the public finances?
One of the arguments made by the tobacco industry and its allies
is that higher smoking rates benefit public finances because
smokers pay extra tax in the form of tobacco duties and then die
younger, meaning they use less of their pensions. Those arguments
are callous, cold-blooded and not even true. Detailed analysis of
the evidence carried out for the APPG shows that, rather than
saving the Government money, smoking had a direct cost to the
public finances of £21 billion last year: more than double the
excise tax revenues. That cost is made up of extra social
security payments, lost taxation from smokers who are too sick to
work and, of course, significant costs to the NHS and social care
services. Implementing the recommendations in our manifesto would
reduce the public finance costs of smoking by an average of £628
million a year, which would total £3.1 billion by 2029. The case
is clear: ending smoking once and for all will transform the
nation’s health and wealth. The only losers would be the tobacco
industry.
Local stop smoking services have a key role to play in delivering
a smoke-free future, so I am pleased that the Government have
committed to a five-year funding plan for smoking cessation
services. That new funding will definitely help to drive down
smoking rates, generating a return on investment literally from
year one. However, we are significantly behind where we hoped to
be when the smoke-free ambition was announced in 2019.
As we all know, the public finances are under significant strain,
so why should taxpayers foot the bill for measures to end smoking
when the tobacco industry could be made to do so? Tobacco
manufacturers make an estimated £900 million profit a year in the
UK alone, with an average net operating profit margin of about
50%. That far exceeds the average for UK manufacturing, which
stands at less than 10%. In the UK, four companies are
responsible for 95% of tobacco sales and are therefore
responsible for an overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands
of deaths a year caused by smoking. Despite their staggering
profitability, the companies pay very little corporation tax in
the UK. Through the exploitation of their global footprints and
tax loopholes, they have been able to successfully avoid a fair
tax bill overall. Imperial Brands, the largest tobacco
manufacturer by market share in the UK, lowered its tax bill by
an estimated £1.8 billion over the last 10 years.
The “polluter pays” principle has been accepted and successfully
implemented in other industries, such as environmental health,
the soft drinks industry and, most recently, the gambling
industry. It could easily be extended to the tobacco industry. It
could be implemented by capping tobacco wholesale prices, and
hence profits, to bring the profit margins in line with the 10%
average for other manufacturers. A “polluter pays” health
promotion levy could ensure that the excess profits were turned
into Government revenues, raising an estimated £700 million a
year. That could fund the Government’s smoke-free generation
commitments several times over, with money left over for other
public health measures.
It is hard to think of a policy that has broader public support.
The 2023 smoke-free Great Britain survey conducted by YouGov for
Action on Smoking and Health revealed that 76% of adults in Great
Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, while only
6% were opposed. That includes majority support from voters for
all the main political parties. I stress that a levy would not
mean an increase in the cost price of tobacco bought over the
counter. The Department of Health and Social Care already has the
expertise and resource needed to administer a levy in the team
that oversees the pharmaceutical pricing scheme.
The primary legislation needed for a consultation on our
proposals was part of the Health and Care Bill and was passed by
the House of Lords. Unfortunately, due to Treasury opposition, it
was voted down by the Government in the Commons. Will the
Minister commit to discussing the APPG’s proposal of a “polluter
pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers with Ministers in the
Treasury and with us?
In the short time that I have left, I want to discuss how we can
combat youth vaping. For years, we in the APPG have been calling
for the Government to toughen legislation on vaping, so I am
delighted that the Government have finally committed to taking
action. My views on youth vaping are summed up by the chief
medical officer:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t
vape; marketing vapes to children is utterly unacceptable.”
In our manifesto, the APPG urges the Government to prevent
e-cigarettes from being sold at pocket-money prices and to
curtail advertising and promotion of vaping, particularly in
shops, where most under-age vapers access e-cigarettes. We know
that the rise in youth vaping since 2021 has been driven largely
by the availability and marketing of cheap single-use vapes, and
anecdotal evidence points to the fact that many young people
believe that vaping is perfectly safe because the Government are
encouraging people to give up smoking and take up vaping. Of
course, that is a false conclusion, because it gets people
addicted to nicotine and possibly leads on to cigarette use later
in life.
There is clearly a need to address the affordability of vapes for
young people while ensuring that they continue to be a cheaper
option than smoking for adults who want to quit. Given the
effectiveness of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, it is
essential that any regulation takes a measured approach and
ensures that vapes are still accessible to adult smokers. Can the
Minister confirm when the consultation response will be published
and when we will see the legislation laid before Parliament?
The case is very strong for a “polluter pays” levy and for all
the recommendations that the APPG has put forward. I look forward
to the contributions from colleagues around the Chamber, to the
response from the Opposition and from our excellent Minister, and
to achieving what we all want: a smoke-free England by 2030.
1.47pm
(City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I
thank the hon. Member for Harrow East () for securing the debate, and I declare my interest
as a vice-chair of the APPG on smoking and health.
The Government’s announcement of their smoke-free generation
policy was welcome after several years of inaction on tobacco
from successive Conservative Governments, which have left us
playing catch-up to achieve the Smokefree 2030 ambition. Indeed,
regulations to protect children from taking up vaping and smoking
in the first place would already be in the law today if the
Government had accepted my amendments to the Health and Care Bill
three years ago. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment to curb
youth vaping with tighter rules around packaging and promotion.
The right balance needs to be struck to ensure that vapes are
used only by adults who want to quit smoking.
In the north-east, the most disadvantaged place in England, we
know better than most that smoking is not only the greatest cause
of preventable deaths, but responsible for half the difference in
life expectancy between the most and least advantaged in society.
Smoking rates are a clear expression of the health inequalities
that divide our country. That is why my colleagues and I show up
time and again to demand that real and bold action be taken to
make smoking history. Children of parents who smoke are three
times more likely to take up smoking themselves, more likely to
suffer significant income loss and more likely to live a shorter
life.
It is high time to break the mould. The Government now need to
make the best use of the additional funding that they have
attached to the smoke-free generation policy. The Fresh tobacco
control programme in my own region is a long-standing example of
how budgets can be pooled and partners can work together to bring
about positive results. I would be delighted to welcome the
Minister to Durham and the north-east to learn more about the
work of Fresh, which has been so crucial in reducing smoking
rates far more rapidly than the national average.
Preventing the next generation from starting to smoke is not
enough. There are 6.4 million adult smokers who need support to
quit. The additional funding being provided to stop smoking
services is vital, but we cannot ignore the threat to NHS
provision of tobacco dependence treatments for in-patients,
mental health patients and pregnant smokers. In November, the
Health Service Journal revealed that NHS trusts were being told
that they could raid these budgets to fund urgent and emergency
care. At a time when the roll-out of those programmes has already
been cut and is well behind schedule in many areas, the
Government pay lip service to the need for prevention if we are
to reduce pressure on our NHS. It is yet again a Cinderella
service, trumped by the need to do more to treat those who are
already sick.
What is more, funding for financial incentives to support
pregnant smokers to quit and for the Swap to Stop vape campaign
is only guaranteed for two years. We need a long-term and
sustained commitment to protect our most vulnerable from the
harms of tobacco smoke, including unborn babies. I hope the
Minister can ensure that those schemes will be funded for at
least the full five years needed.
While the measures announced by the Government, which the APPG
and Action on Smoking and Health have long called for, will have
an important impact, they are not enough to achieve the Smokefree
2030 target of a maximum 5% smoking rate. We need further action.
Of course, more action means more funding, which is where the
APPG’s recommendation of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco
manufacturers comes in.
As always, more money is needed if we are serious about a
smoke-free future. Why, then, are we not seriously considering
making the polluter, the tobacco industry, pay to address the
damage that its products are inflicting on our communities? The
industry makes vast profits in Britain every year. Why is it not
being made to pay, instead of the taxpayer? As the APPG report
makes clear, a levy on the industry would raise the funding
necessary to achieve a smoke-free future for all, not just the
most advantaged.
Ahead of the spring Budget, will the Minister commit to
discussing the APPG’s proposal of a “polluter pays” levy on
tobacco manufacturers? Would she discuss this with Ministers
responsible for tobacco policy in His Majesty’s Treasury? As
health inequalities worsen and lives remain at risk, the
Government must make up for their lost time with bolder action.
They must make the polluter pay.
1.53pm
(North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Sharma, for chairing this debate and for
calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow
East () on moving the debate. He regularly secures debates
on this subject, and has done so very well again today. I
intended to speak on the issue of vaping, which he mentioned at
the end of his comments. I agree with his point about children
seeing vaping as a gateway into something, and that is very
serious and needs to be addressed. It will probably be the real
battleground for this issue in the future.
However, I want to turn to something else. With all policies,
there are unintended consequences. I have no doubt that the
Government’s intention is correct, but there are undoubtedly
areas that raise unintended consequences.
I first want to turn the Minister’s attention to Northern
Ireland. The impact on Northern Ireland will be significant,
because under the Brexit arrangements—the protocol and the
Windsor framework—the sale of tobacco products in Northern
Ireland is regulated not by the UK Government but by EU law. It
is therefore unclear how the Government would implement a
generational ban in Northern Ireland under the current
regulations and laws.
As recently as April 2022, the Danish Government tried to
implement a generational ban, and the European authorities
blocked them on the basis that it would impact Denmark’s European
neighbours. Given the situation that Northern Ireland has
unfortunately been placed in by the Government under the Windsor
framework, this generational ban would not be implementable in a
part of the United Kingdom, so 3% of the population of the UK do
not matter when it comes to this policy. That is the impact that
people will see. It one of the Prime Minister’s flagship
policies, but its application would be prohibited in one part of
the United Kingdom. The Government need to look at that issue if
they are serious about this policy, and they must comment on how
they intend to fix it.
If the UK Government were to find a means of introducing a
generational ban in Northern Ireland while still adhering to the
Windsor framework, they would therefore show that they are able
to breach the final concluded Windsor framework agreement. If
they are able to breach it on this issue, all the comments we
have heard in this House over the past year—“It is finished,” “It
is done,” “It cannot be changed”—are therefore set aside, as that
would show that it can be done.
A generational ban in Northern Ireland would create an absurd
situation whereby people living in County Armagh, County
Fermanagh and County Londonderry could simply drive a few miles
over the border to the local convenience shop or filling station
in the Republic of Ireland and purchase cigarettes there, so I do
not think the Government have thought through the implications
for Northern Ireland. I would be very interested to hear how they
intend to pursue these issues and address these matters.
I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for retail
crime, safe and sustainable high streets, and I think the ban
will have another unintended consequence on criminality in the
whole United Kingdom, not exclusively in Northern Ireland. Every
single day, there are 867 violent or abusive incidents affecting
retailers across the United Kingdom. Most people working in
retail shops—average corner shops—get abused at some point. I got
that statistic from the British Retail Consortium, so it is an
accurate figure. Asian Trader carried out a survey on the
generational tobacco ban in November 2023, and it found that 86%
of retailers believe that a generational prohibition on the sale
of tobacco will have a negative effect on their business, and 55%
say that it will complicate age checks in store and will lead to
violent attacks on their staff. The majority of retailers say
that the only way they can enforce a generational prohibition in
the long term is through mandatory ID checks. Those are not my
views; they are the views of retailers.
Of course, ID checks are an enforcement nightmare. Andrew Chevis,
the founder of CitizenCard, the UK’s largest provider of
proof-of-age cards, said in The House magazine in November
2023,
“I have deep concerns from both a retail and enforcement
perspective”
about a generation ban. His concern is, of course, for the safety
of retailers. I get that. Any of us who have retail or
convenience stores in our constituencies—as we all do—will be
concerned about these matters.
UK retailers already suffer sky-high levels of violence and
abuse, and a generational prohibition could make that worse, as
retailers will have to identify young-looking customers before
they are able to sell them tobacco, and they will have to be
convinced. I will be very interested to see the legislation when
it is printed, and I would like the Minister to confirm whether,
if a retailer decides, “Oh, that person is over the age, and I
can legally sell it to them,” but it turns out that that person
is not over the age—they were within a generational ban
threshold—it is the retailer that has committed the criminal
offence and not the purchaser. That goes right the way
through.
In a few years, under this generational retail ban, a person who
is in their 30s and should not be buying cigarettes in the first
place—but they are in their 30s and are buying them—would not
actually be committing a criminal offence as an adult, but the
retailer would be committing an offence for selling them. That
needs to be clear: who is ultimately responsible here when adults
are making adult choices? I think that that needs to be cleared
up.
As I said, a survey conducted by the British Retail Consortium
identified that checking for proof of age is one of the biggest
triggers for violence and abuse against UK retailers. I already
quoted the figure of there being 867 violent or abusive incidents
occurring every day.
The Prime Minister very kindly acknowledged some of these issues,
just before the recess, when I had an event in Dining Room B with
the retail crime, safe and sustainable high streets APPG. He
kindly indicated, from his experience of when he was a kid
working in a retail shop, how these things impact detrimentally
on members of staff. If the Prime Minister can see that, then I
think this issue needs to be properly looked at.
The Association of Convenience Store’s crime report is published
every year. Its 2023 report says that there were 759,000
incidents of verbal abuse and that 34% of verbal abuse incidents
are hate-motivated. It also says that, according to retailers,
87% of convenience store colleagues reported that they had faced
verbal abuse in the past year. Therefore, although I think it is
an unintended consequence, creating or increasing the opportunity
for that sort of abuse to take place is a consequence that the
Government have to deal with. Is there a better way of doing
this? Is it better, for example, for the Government to say, “You
are 21 or 22. You can only buy after you become an adult, at that
higher age threshold”?
The hon. Member is giving a very thoughtful speech about some of
the consequences. Does he accept the fact that, when individuals
go into a public house, they will now routinely be challenged and
asked for proof of identity if they look young? The challenge is
often whether they are over 21, although they could, of course,
legally buy alcohol at the age of 18. Many public houses will not
serve anyone under the age of 21. Does the hon. Member accept the
fact that, because this is already in operation, the retailer
should have the right to challenge people who look young so that
they can make sure that they are only selling to people who are
over the legal age to buy?
That is a very good point when it comes to that threshold between
17 and 21 or 22. The problem is that this generational
legislation creates a conveyor belt—from 18 to 19 to 20.
Eventually you will be 37 and not be allowed to buy a cigarette
under the law. But, if the retailer sells it to you, whether you
are a young-looking, handsome 37-year-old or an old-looking boy,
you will still end up not having committed a criminal offence,
even though you have, but the retailer has committed an offence
for selling it to you. At that point, where do the ID checks come
in?
Perhaps the intention is that there will be a time in the next
five, six, seven or eight years when no one will smoke. I want to
turn to that. The one issue that I have pushed hard and heavy on
since becoming a Member of Parliament is the criminalisation of
illicit sales of tobacco that furnish criminals’ pockets. It is
that illegal crime that really worries me.
The hon. Member for Harrow East, who moved the motion today,
quite rightly commented on where he thinks the level of public
consumption of cigarettes is. I think that the real figure is
startlingly higher, because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
estimates that 11% of cigarette consumption and 35% of
hand-rolling tobacco consumption in the UK comes from the illegal
trade. People are buying it illicitly, either as stolen products
or black market products that have been brought into the United
Kingdom. This is happening in a huge number of areas, and it is
fuelling criminal gangs.
That is the higher level. There are more people consuming tobacco
than some people want to admit but, unfortunately, they are
buying it illegally. The Government are not benefiting in terms
of tax and legitimate manufacturers are not benefiting. In fact,
the companies are disadvantaged because the product is sometimes
stolen from their companies, or is a copy—a counterfeit—of their
products.
The Government must decide whether they want tobacco to be
supplied to UK consumers by a taxed and regulated private sector,
as it currently is, or by the public sector as a medicine, which
may be one way of doing it, or by the criminal sector, in the
same way that cannabis is sold. Those are the choices that the
Government ultimately face.
In my view, a generational prohibition will gradually hand even
more of the UK tobacco market to organised criminal gangs, who
use the money from tobacco smuggling to fund activities including
terrorism, people smuggling, prostitution and all sorts of other
things. That view is lifted from the US State Department’s 2015
report, “The Global Illicit Trade in Tobacco: A Threat to
National Security”. That is why the gangs deploy such resources.
When the South African Government banned the sale of tobacco
during covid, illegal traders quickly stepped in. Today, 93% of
tobacco sold in South Africa is illicit trade and counterfeit
trade. We need to get this absolutely right or else we create a
bonanza for the criminal. The sooner we do that, the better, and
I am sure the Minister will consider those issues.
I do not want to criminalise shopkeepers, and I know the hon.
Member for Harrow East does not want that, but that will be an
unintended consequence. As people get older, it will be very
difficult to judge whether they can be sold a cigarette.
Shopkeepers will have to ask for ID, and we do not have ID in
Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, we have a form of ID in our
electoral cards, but they do not carry a date of birth, although
they do show that a person is over the age of 18. That would have
to be changed if they were to be used in Northern Ireland.
What are the alternatives? Many retailers and others have
suggested that raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21
would be much simpler to implement and would avoid this potential
negative consequence, and the nightmare of regulation. It would
be far easier to implement and enforce, and would avoid the
complete takeover of the UK tobacco market by criminals. I urge
the Government to consider those alternatives in pursuing this
incredibly important flagship policy. For the record, I do not
promote smoking, but I believe in adults making choices. We have
to try to solve the real problem, not create another one.
2.08pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member
for Harrow East () for securing it. As with most subjects he chooses
to discuss in Westminster Hall, I can echo most of what he
says—not on all occasions, but on most. I am very pleased to be
here to support him.
I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Edgbaston () in her place and I look
forward to her contribution —we have been friends for a long
time. I am especially pleased to see the Minister—the
Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right
hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame )—in her place. She came to
speak at an association dinner in my constituency, and she was
greatly and well received. In fact, not only was she well
received, she left a lasting impression on my constituents. I
would fear it if the right hon. Lady came to Strangford to run as
a candidate—I say that in jest; I very much appreciate the right
hon. Lady.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory
health, I have spoken many times about my strong support for the
UK Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition and my desire for
Northern Ireland to follow the other UK nations in setting our
own smoke-free target. Smoking is a terrible addiction that
devastates communities across the United Kingdom and will
continue to do so unless we take action. I welcome the action
that the Government have taken, and my hon. Friend the Member for
North Antrim () eloquently and forcefully outlined the position for
Northern Ireland and the issues that we need to address.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s world-leading commitment to create
a smoke-free generation. I was also pleased to see that the
Government’s recent consultation on creating a smoke-free
generation and tackling youth vaping was held in conjunction with
the devolved Administrations. The Government recognised that it
was important to bring the four regions together. The Government
understand the issues and I hope that the Minister will address
some of the issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for North
Antrim referred. Northern Ireland and the devolved nations have
responsibility for their own public health policies, but we will
be successful in achieving a smoke-free future across the UK only
if we work together. It is no secret that I always refer to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as “better
together”. None of my Scottish colleagues is here today, which is
a pity; if they were, I would be saying the same thing to
them.
I commend the Minister for her vocal support for tobacco controls
since being appointed. She was very clear in calling out attempts
by tobacco companies to undermine the smoke-free generation
policy. That was a clear direction, straight from our Minister
and our Government. As the Minister knows, healthcare services
are under severe pressure across the United Kingdom. Smoking is
the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Northern
Ireland; it killed some 2,200 people and was responsible for
35,000 hospital admissions in 2022. Smoking is responsible for
more than seven in 10 cases of lung cancer and a similar
proportion of cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The
estimated hospital costs for treating smoke-related diseases in
Northern Ireland are £172 million. It has a big impact on the
Northern Ireland health sector.
There remain significant inequalities in smoking prevalence:
those living in the most deprived areas are two or three times
more likely to smoke than those living in the least deprived
areas. The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to that, and
perhaps the Minister could give us her thoughts on it.
Inequalities in smoking prevalence also persist among other
groups, particularly those with mental ill health: probable
clinical depression is four times more common among current
smokers than among those who have never smoked. If we do not take
urgent action to reduce smoking rates, our already overburdened
health service will continue to be put under huge pressure from
smoking-related diseases for years to come.
As the analysis for the APPG on smoking and health demonstrates,
smoking not only impacts healthcare services but severely
undermines economic productivity. The hon. Member for Blaydon
() and I have shared many
platforms where I have made that point. The economic impact is
clear: smoking places a burden on public finances that far
outweighs the income from tobacco taxes, because it reduces
direct tax income and increases social security costs.
I also commend “A Vision for a Smokefree Northern Ireland”, which
was published by ASH NI and Cancer Focus NI. The vision calls for
Northern Ireland to have a smoke-free target of 5% smoking
prevalence by 2035. If only that was achievable. It is good to
have a goal—we always need a target to aim for—and I hope that we
can rectify that soon. Northern Ireland has the highest rates of
smoking in the UK. We are nowhere near to being on track. Indeed,
we are on track to achieving 5% smoking prevalence by 2042, so it
is a brave while away. Therefore we must step up all our efforts,
both at the devolved level and at the UK level, if we want to
achieve a smoke-free future, which will mean redoubling our
efforts to prevent children and young people from starting
smoking and supporting existing smokers to quit and stay smoke
free.
“A Vision for a Smokefree Northern Ireland” also highlights the
importance of strong enforcement to tackle the scourge of illicit
tobacco and vaping products, to which my hon. Friend the Member
for North Antrim referred. It is one of the big issues for us in
Northern Ireland. The sale of illicit tobacco undermines efforts
to reduce smoking rates. It is concentrated among poorer smokers
and disadvantaged communities, and contributes to higher rates of
smoking. Retailers that sell illicit tobacco are much more likely
to be happy to sell to children, so the illicit market also poses
a particular risk to children’s health, which needs to be
addressed. That requires us to tackle not just the supply but the
demand for illicit tobacco in communities where smoking is
endemic.
The UK has made massive strides in reducing the trade in illicit
tobacco over the last few decades. It has reduced the market
share of illicit cigarettes from 22% to 11% in some 21 years.
However, there is still more to be done. HMRC and Border Force
are due to publish an updated strategy to tackle illicit tobacco.
Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility directly, but I
am really keen to get some ideas. Northern Ireland, with its land
border with the EU, is particularly geographically vulnerable to
illicit trade run by criminal gangs. Border Force and HMRC have a
key role to play in tackling smuggled tobacco, especially in our
most disadvantaged communities where smoking rates are highest. I
look forward to seeing the new strategy published in the near
future. Maybe the Minister will give us some thoughts on the
timescale and when we can aim towards that.
I will ask three or four questions if I may, Mr Sharma. Can the
Minister confirm that the new illicit trade strategy will cover
illicit vapes, which have become a significant challenge over the
last few years and have helped to drive increases in youth vaping
across the UK? I look forward to seeing the Government’s response
to last year’s consultation on mandating inserts with information
on stopping smoking inside tobacco packs. I hope that the measure
will be introduced on a UK footprint, benefiting my constituents
in Strangford. It is another way of tackling the disease and the
problem. It has been required in Canada since the year 2000,
where there is substantial evidence showing that inserts are
effective in encouraging smokers to quit. The evidential base in
Canada shows that the measure has been effective. I think we
should be taking every effort to ensure that it happens here.
The Government’s guidance states that responses should be
published within 12 weeks or an explanation should be provided as
to why it has not happened. Again, if the Minister does not mind,
I will ask about that. The 12 weeks was up on Tuesday past. I do
not know whether the Minister is able to deliver the news and
information we are looking for in the debate today, but I would
like to have some update if at all possible. When the
consultation closed on 6 December, the Government said that the
next steps would be published in the “coming weeks”. That is
where we are; we are in the coming weeks, and it would make sense
to publish both responses at the same time. To delay the
speculation, I would appreciate some clarity.
My second question is: can the Minister confirm when the response
to the consultation on pack inserts will take place, and whether
legislation to take that important measure forward will be
included in the forthcoming tobacco and vapes Bill? I hope that
it will be, because deterring children and young people from
taking up smoking is vital if we are to create a smoke-free
generation. I endorse the Prime Minister’s request, as does the
House; we see it as a positive way forward, and the introduction
of the warnings would be very positive. The APPG on smoking and
health recommended that in both its 2021 and 2023 reports. It
seems that the inserts would require only small amendments to the
existing regulations—I am not a legislative person, but I have
been told that that is the case—not new primary legislation, so
we could probably do it easily.
There is a growing body of international evidence supporting the
effectiveness of what are known as “dissuasive cigarettes”,
particularly in making cigarettes less attractive to younger
adolescents and those who have never smoked. Again, the Canadian
Government recently announced that Canada would be the first
country to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. It is quite
interesting. I gave the example of what Canada did in the year
2000, 23 years ago, which is what we are looking towards today.
Canada is doing it now on dissuasive cigarettes. May I suggest,
Minister, with respect, that it may be time for us to do the same
thing now, rather than waiting 20 years to do it?
I recognise that the Government already have a substantial
legislative programme to enact before the next election. I
understand that they are pushed for time and it is difficult
sometimes to get everything in on both smoking and vaping.
However, I ask the Minister to at least commit to consulting on
warnings on cigarettes, to start the clock ticking on that simple
and sensible measure. The UK waited for over 20 years after
implementation by Canada to consult on cigarette pack inserts. We
should not wait another 20 years after Canada implements warnings
on cigarettes before we consult on this important measure.
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for giving me the chance to speak, and so
early as well. I look forward positively to the Minister
clarifying the issues that I have raised as everyone seeks to
work together to find a healthier, stronger and smoke-free United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2.19pm
(Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East () on securing this debate on the APPG on smoking and
health’s tobacco control manifesto for a smoke-free future.
I welcome the Government’s bold smoke-free generation
announcement, which has my full support and that of my party. The
more we can do to prevent future generations from ever taking up
this lethal and addictive product, the better. Parliament will
stand firm with the Government against attempts to prevent
crucial legislation from passing into law. On that note, I was
pleased to see the guidance recently published by the Minister’s
Department on how all parts of government should act to prevent
the tobacco industry’s interference in public policy, in line
with our international obligations.
My constituency of Blaydon is in the north-east, a region that
has traditionally had a higher prevalence of smoking than the
rest of the country, although we have made significant progress
in narrowing the gap and lots of action is still being taken.
That is thanks to the tireless efforts of local councils and NHS
trusts in our region working together to continue the work on
smoking cessation, and to the huge efforts of Fresh, our
brilliant regional tobacco control programme. I thank Ailsa
Rutter and her team for all the work they do locally.
Smoking costs my local authority, Gateshead Council, almost £170
million a year in lost economic productivity and NHS and social
care costs. That does not include spending on tobacco, which
costs the average smoker over £3,000 a year—a total of £54
million in Gateshead. That spending literally goes up in smoke,
providing no tangible benefit to the local economy—not to mention
the devastating impact it has on the health and wellbeing of my
local community.
One of the groups hit hardest by the health consequences of
smoking is people with mental health conditions. People with
diagnosed and long-term mental health conditions are more than
twice as likely to smoke than the general population. For those
with serious mental illness, smoking rates are as high as 40%.
That leads to people with mental health conditions dying up to 25
years earlier than the general population, depending on their
condition, and smoking is a leading cause of this disparity. As
we know, smoking can indirectly contribute to poor mental health
through illness, unemployment, poverty and addiction. Helping
people to break that vicious cycle is vital if we are to improve
the physical and mental health of people with mental health
conditions and the population more widely.
At the current rate of decline, people with mental health
conditions will not achieve the smoke-free target until the
mid-2050s, around 20 years later than the population at large.
Although it is positive to see “stop smoking” support being
rolled out in mental health in-patient settings, I understand
that the roll-out of support in community mental health services
has been paused. We need to think about how we support people
with mental health conditions right across the board, regardless
of whether that is in the community or in in-patient settings.
That includes tackling the myth that smoking is an effective form
of stress relief, which could not be further from the truth.
There is also far too little awareness about the mental health
benefits of quitting. It is vital that we get the message out,
but we are still awaiting the response to the Government’s
consultation on pack inserts, which was due early this week, as
the hon. Member for Strangford () has already mentioned. I, too, ask the Minister when
the response to the consultation on pack inserts will be
available. When will the statutory instrument to take that
measure forward be laid before Parliament?
I will finish by sharing an anecdote. Other Members have talked
about the impact of vaping on young people and the approach that
we should be taking, and I had a salutary reminder about that
when I attended a Christmas fair in my constituency last year. I
was buying bits and pieces to support traders and to make up
Christmas eve boxes for some of the children I know. I bought
some very pretty knitted bags from a craft store and was
absolutely shocked when I got home to find a packet of Barbie
candy sticks inside each one. I thought we had gone well past
that sort of thing. Needless to say, I did not use them and they
were thrown away. It is important that we are not complacent
about how far we have come and how far we have to go, so that
really struck me.
It is good to see the bold action that has been set out to tackle
such a deadly addiction, but the Government need to do more to
ensure that smokers in the most deprived groups are not left
behind as we move towards a smoke-free future.
2.25pm
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and
to speak in this important debate. It has been great to hear the
large degree of consensus across the House on our ambition to
secure a smoke-free future. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow
East () for securing this debate and for his work with the
all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I also
welcome the new Minister to her place.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham () and for Blaydon () and the hon. Members for North
Antrim () and for Strangford () for their powerful contributions on why we need a
smoke-free future. They talked about the health impacts that we
currently see, but also offered practical solutions.
As we have heard today, smoking is an absolute blight on the
health of our society. The “Global Burden of Disease” study found
that despite the fall in smoking rates in recent decades, it
remains the No. 1 risk factor that causes premature deaths in
England. In 2019, tobacco caused an estimated 125,000 deaths in
the UK. That is one person every five minutes—a staggering
statistic. On average, smokers lose 10 years of life. Not only is
smoking an expensive habit, as we have heard, but it is three or
four times more common in some of our most deprived
communities.
If everyone quit tomorrow, it is estimated that that could lift 1
million children out of poverty. That is to say nothing of the
impact on the economy. Not only is it another cost to our NHS,
but Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that smoking costs
the United Kingdom £32 billion in lost productivity through lost
earnings, unemployment and early deaths, and another £15 billion
in social care costs. The evidence is overwhelming that for the
future of the NHS, the economy and the health and wellbeing of
the country, smoking is bad for Britain.
As Primary Care and Public Health Minister, I will drive a
prevention agenda forward. The agenda has received many warm
words from Conservative MPs and Ministers in the abstract, but
very little by way of action over the past 14 years. We in Labour
have set ourselves a clear mission to reduce the number of lives
lost to the biggest killers. Realising a smoke-free future will
be integral to that.
Smoking, of course, is the leading cause of cancer in the United
Kingdom. It is strongly linked to cardiovascular disease, which
is highly preventable, yet causes one in four deaths in the
United Kingdom. Some 15,000 deaths from heart and circulatory
diseases can be attributed to smoking every single year, so
Labour has set clear targets on both cancer and cardiovascular
disease. We will improve cancer survival rates by hitting NHS
cancer waiting time and early diagnosis targets within five years
so that no patient waits longer than they should, and we will
reduce deaths from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within
10 years. Building a smoke-free future will be key to that to
help more people make that journey.
We welcomed the Khan review when it was published in 2022, and we
were pleased to see some of the recommendations taken forward. I
will not use this debate to discuss the Government’s smoke-free
generation legislation. We shall await their response to the
consultation when it is published—perhaps the Minister can today
share the timeline for that. To be clear, the Opposition support
phasing out smoking over time, and we encourage the Government to
get on with it.
When we proposed phasing out smoking, some Conservatives attacked
us. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (), who cannot take part in the
debate today, called it “health fascism’’ and
“an attack on ordinary people and their culture”.
I ask those Members what freedom they think there is in
addiction. Is it in the average 10 years of life lost by smokers
compared with non-smokers? Or the millions of children growing up
with parents who smoke? It is a shame that the Prime Minister has
failed to convince his MPs of the argument for the reforms and is
calling a free vote. But he can rest assured that Labour will
vote to see this through.
As Members have highlighted today, the legislation cannot be a
substitute for smoking cessation services and other public health
measures. Two thirds of adult smokers started before the age of
18; the legislation will come too late for them. Adults who have
smoked for years and have not managed to kick the habit need
help, too. Does the Minister share my concern that local
government funding for “stop smoking” services and tobacco
control has fallen by 45% since 2015? Has she assessed the impact
of that against the 2030 ambition? Can she provide an update on
when the major conditions strategy will be published?
One of the clearest cases to do more on smoking is the impact on
children. There has been good progress in recent decades to bring
down maternal smoking, but there is more to do. Last year, 9% of
mothers were smokers at the time of delivery—still some 50% above
the Government’s 6% target. At the current rate of progress, we
will not hit that goal until 2032. That is why, as part of
Labour’s child health action plan, which was launched today, we
would make sure that all hospital trusts integrated opt-out
smoking cessation interventions into routine care, with a named
lead on smoking cessation, meaning that parents would have all
the support they needed to quit and every interaction with the
NHS actually encouraged quitting.
Children born to households that smoke are more likely to be born
with heart defects, born underweight, or grow up to be smokers
themselves—if they grow up at all. Smoking in pregnancy doubles
the likelihood of stillbirth. It increases the risk of pre-term
birth and miscarriage, and trebles the risk of sudden infant
death syndrome. The health of Britain’s children should be
non-negotiable. For my part, I want to ensure that children born
in Britain today are part of the healthiest generation to have
ever lived. But to do that, children deserve a smoke-free start.
Can the Minister tell us what she is doing to ensure that every
expecting mother is offered the smoking cessation support they
need, and that partners, as we heard from the hon. Member for
Harrow East, are also encouraged to quit?
For far too long, public health has been either an afterthought
or a battleground on which to have ideological arguments.
Strategies have been announced and binned in short order, health
inequalities have widened, and the long-term crisis in the NHS
has deepened. But, just as the last Labour Government delivered
one of the most significant public health interventions in
history in the smoking ban, the next Labour Government will grasp
the smoke-free challenge. We will get serious about prevention,
deliver equitable access to smoking cessation services, and take
on tobacco companies that profit at the expense of public health.
As part of our child health action plan, Labour will make sure
that Britain’s children get the happy and healthy start in life
that they deserve.
Recently, a school in my constituency had to apologise after
handing out a leaflet to a child suggesting smoking as a
self-help measure—absolutely shocking and bizarre. That is why
Labour has decided to legislate to make tobacco companies include
information in tobacco products that dispels the myth that
smoking reduces stress and anxiety, and to crack down on
businesses marketing vapes to children. We will ensure that the
incremental ban on smoking comes into force so that the next
generation are not addicted to tobacco. The last Labour
Government led the way in tackling smoking, and the next one will
do so again.
2.32pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social
Care (Dame )
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today, Mr
Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
() on securing a debate on such an important issue,
and pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party
parliamentary group on smoking and health. He really has been
tireless in holding not only Health Ministers’ feet, but the
Prime Minister’s feet, to the fire and making sure that we keep
tobacco control a top priority. I am also grateful to the hon.
Members for City of Durham (), for North Antrim (), for Strangford () and for Blaydon () for their participation today.
I welcome the chance to update the House on our progress towards
a smoke-free future. I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Edgbaston () to her place, and look
forward to working constructively with her on the tobacco and
vapes Bill and other things. I hope there will be much that we
can agree and collaborate on.
I want my legacy as Public Health Minister to be weighed and
measured by everything we have done to protect the vulnerable in
society. Critical to that, of course, is keeping our children
safe. We already know that in the United Kingdom, smoking kills
around 80,000 people every year, causing one in four cancer
deaths; costing £17 billion a year in ill health, lost
productivity and demands on the NHS and social care; and putting
a huge burden on our health service. Like many others, I have
been appalled in recent years to see the number of children
vaping treble. It is estimated that no fewer than one in five
children have now used a vape.
That is why, in October, the Prime Minister announced action
across four areas: first, creating a smoke-free generation by
ensuring that children turning 15 this year, or younger, will
never legally be sold tobacco products; secondly, supporting
existing smokers to quit through significant new funding and
support; thirdly, protecting our children from vaping by reducing
the appeal and availability of vapes; and fourthly, introducing
new action to enforce these rules.
I will address each priority area in turn. First, let us be
crystal clear: the tobacco and vapes Bill will save many lives.
Unlike other consumer products, there is no safe level of
nicotine consumption; it is a product that kills up to two thirds
of its long-term users and causes 70% of lung cancer deaths. We
are not doing this blind. We already know that action to increase
the age of sale works. When the age of sale was raised from 16 to
18 years old, smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds in England
fell by almost a third. This is a tried and tested policy, and
while we have seen some progress, I know there is a lot more to
be done—almost 13% in that age bracket are still smoking.
Our modelling suggests that this measure to increase the age of
sale will reduce smoking rates in England among 14 to
30-year-olds to close to zero as early as 2040. I am sure that is
not early enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East,
and colleagues across this Chamber, who would like to see that
happen sooner—as would I. Nevertheless, that is what the
modelling suggests. It is progress in the right direction and
will save many lives. I am committed to publishing an impact
assessment very soon that will set out for colleagues a more
complete picture of the costs and benefits of the Government’s
smoke-free generation policy.
No one doubts that smoking massively increases the risk of
stillbirth; a number of colleagues have raised that today.
Smoking also causes asthma in children, and is strongly linked to
dementia, stroke and heart failure in old age, as well as to
disability and death throughout the life course. Non-smokers,
including children, pregnant mums-to-be and their babies are
exposed to second-hand smoke, putting them at serious risk
through absolutely no choice of their own. This is not about
freedom of choice; it is about protecting the vulnerable. Almost
every minute of every day someone is admitted to hospital because
of smoking, and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to
smoking each month—that is over 100 GP appointments every hour.
Reducing that burden will therefore save the NHS money that we
can reinvest into research, frontline care and cutting waiting
lists.
This measure is not just the right thing for our children’s
health; there is a very strong economic case for it too. Analysis
by Action on Smoking and Health has estimated the cost of tobacco
to society to be £17 billion a year. That figure is out of date,
and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has just
updated it—the Department is very swiftly trying to verify
that—but the last published data showed that the directly
attributable cost of smoking to society was around £17 billion a
year. That dwarfs the £10 billion a year the Treasury receives
from taxes on tobacco products.
That cost of £17 billion includes £14 billion lost to
productivity through smoking-related lost earnings, unemployment
and early death, as well a direct cost to the NHS and to social
care of £1.9 billion and £1.1 billion a year, respectively. The
cost of smoking to the economy and wider society is equivalent to
the annual salaries of over half a million nurses, almost 400,000
GPs, 400,000 police officers, or 400 million GP appointments.
Reducing smoking rates will bring down those costs and help our
economy to become more productive. The smoke-free generation
policy could provide cumulative productivity benefits of a
staggering £85 billion within the next 50 years. That is why the
Government are taking such bold and historic action through the
tobacco and vapes Bill.
As well as stopping children starting, our second aim is to do
more to help current smokers to quit. Quitting smoking is the
best thing a smoker can do for their health: someone who quits
before turning 30 could add 10 years to their life. That is very
reassuring to me; I started smoking at the age of 14 and gave up
as my 21st birthday present to myself, by which time I was
smoking 40 a day. I was a student—how did I afford it? I have no
idea! I am so glad I stopped. For anyone who doubts how addictive
it is, I turned 60 last year and still—
Surely not!
Dame
Yes, I know. You can’t believe that, can you?
Even to this day, talking about smoking all the time, I sometimes
think, “Ooh a cigarette.” That is how addictive it is—40 years on
and I still think, “Ooh!” It is that addictive, and that is
absolutely appalling.
We have announced that we will more than double the funding to
local stop smoking services across England to a total of £138
million a year, which will help around 360,000 people to quit
every year. We are backing these efforts with substantial new
money to support marketing campaigns. These measures are easy,
common-sense and cost-effective ways to help people to kick the
habit.
As colleagues will know, I am passionate about helping new mums,
mums-to-be, new parents, new families and their babies, which is
why I have asked officials to redouble our efforts to tackle
smoking in pregnancy. Women who smoke during pregnancy are two
and a half times more likely to give birth prematurely, and
smoking is a significant driver of stillbirth. I want to do
everything I can to spare parents the awful and heartbreaking
tragedy of losing a baby, which we have heard so much about in
this place only recently.
On average, just over one in 10 mums smoke at the time of
delivery, but that number is as high as one in five in certain
parts of the country, as some colleagues have spoken about
already. We know that pregnant women who receive financial
incentives are twice as likely to successfully quit throughout
pregnancy compared to those who do not, so we are working to roll
out a national financial incentive scheme by the end of 2024 to
help all pregnant smokers and their partners to quit. This will
build on our work over recent years to develop high-quality stop
smoking support for pregnant women and their partners, with
programmes such as the NHS long-term plan commitments on maternal
smoking and the saving babies’ lives care bundle.
Thirdly, as I said at the start of my remarks, youth vaping has
tripled in recent years. One in five children have now used a
vape. I am especially worried about the damage being done to
children’s bodies by illegal vapes, which is a growing concern
for mums and dads across the country. The health advice is clear:
young people and those who have never smoked should not vape. We
have a duty to protect our children from underage vaping while
their lungs and brains are still developing. There is not yet
enough evidence on the long-term impact of vaping on young brains
and lungs. I will not stand by while businesses knowingly and
deliberately encourage children to use a product that is designed
to help adults quit smoking. Those business do so with full
knowledge that our children will become addicted to
nicotine—well, not on my watch.
We have announced that we will take tough new action to reduce
the appeal and availability of vapes through the tobacco and
vapes Bill. In our recent public consultation, we sought views on
restricting flavours, point-of-sale displays and packaging. On a
visit to retail outlets in Hackney, I saw sweet counters and vape
counters side by side, with the vapes in pretty packaging with
cartoon characters and in little things that look like Coke cans.
These vapes are not designed for 60-year-old smokers; they are
designed for children, to get them addicted to nicotine.
The consultation has revealed something we already know: there
are serious and justifiable environmental concerns over
disposable vapes. It is a simple truth that more than 5 million
disposable vapes are either littered or thrown away in general
waste every week. That number has quadrupled in just the last
year. Being sold at pocket-money prices, easy to use and widely
available, disposable vapes are, of course, the product of choice
for children. More than two thirds of current youth vapers use
disposable products. We must and will take action.
Fourthly, a strong approach to enforcement is vital to ensure
that our policy actually takes effect. The underage and illicit
sale of tobacco, and more recently vapes, is undermining the work
the Government are doing to regulate the industry and protect
public health. We are cracking down on this evil and illicit
trade by backing enforcement agencies including Border Force,
HMRC and trading standards with £30 million extra per year. We
will introduce powers in the tobacco and vapes Bill to give
on-the-spot fines to tackle underage sales. I am pleased we can
count on the strong support of trading standards officers right
across the country.
Our public consultation closed on 6 December and we received
nearly 28,000 valid responses. I am happy to assure all
colleagues that we will publish our response in the coming weeks,
ahead of the introduction of the tobacco and vapes Bill. I
believe that our actions in this space show that the Government
are willing to take tough, long-term decisions to protect our
children and safeguard the health of future generations.
I will now answer some of the questions raised by hon. Members
today; I thank them again for their contributions. In response to
my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, our public
consultation closed on 6 December and within the next few weeks
we will publish the consultation. Of course we will then bring
forward the Bill, which is, as everybody knows, a top priority
for the Prime Minister.
As for the point about a polluter pays levy, the Treasury has
looked at that in detail, but so far it has decided against it. I
absolutely assure colleagues that I will take that point away and
consider it again.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her invitation to
visit her constituency, which I would be delighted to accept. She
highlighted the fact that the discrepancy in life expectancy
between different parts of her constituency is 50% attributable
to smoking, which is a shocking figure. That is not uncommon
around the country, so we need to tackle that issue.
I say gently to the hon. Member for North Antrim that when the
legal age for smoking was raised, it reduced illicit tobacco
sales by 25%; the evidence suggests that far from increasing
criminality, raising the legal age for smoking decreases it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about Northern Ireland
specifically. I am pleased to tell him that in the Bill we
propose to give Northern Ireland the powers to regulate in the
same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been a lot
of consultation with the devolved Administrations and once the
Stormont Assembly—which I urge him to get back up and running —is
back up and running, Northern Ireland will be able to legislate
to have exactly the same regime as the rest of the United
Kingdom.
I do not know whether it is relevant, Mr Sharma, but for the
completeness of the record I ought to have referred to my
registered interests. I chair a charitable trust on employment
and skills development that is named after Tom Gallaher, a
leading industrialist of his age who was a tobacconist. I should
just declare that on the record.
On the point that the Minister has just raised, may I ask her to
go back to the Department and get advice for us? If Northern
Ireland is restricted from regulating on this issue, because of
our EU connection through the Windsor framework, even the
Assembly would not be able to legislate on it, in the same way
that the Danes were unable to do it. I really seek advice on that
from the Minister.
Dame
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point to
give him absolute clarity.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his contribution
today. I very much enjoyed the visit that I made to his
constituency, which was a long time ago—indeed, many years ago.
He spoke about the importance of the four nations working
together. I completely agree with him; the UK is much stronger
together. I hope that in my remarks I have answered his other
questions.
I also thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for her support for the
Bill and for pointing out that it is vital, particularly in the
north-east where smoking prevalence is higher than average in
many other parts, that we really take steps to tackle the issue.
I echo her expression of gratitude to local councillors, the NHS
and to Fresh, the charity in her constituency, for the work that
they have done to try to tackle smoking.
As I have said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, I
hope we can work together constructively to ensure that we
introduce these changes as soon as we can.
In closing, I will quickly address the New Zealand Government’s
announcement that they will no longer introduce the smoking
measures that had been planned there. There have been many calls,
not least from the tobacco industry—I wonder why!—for us to row
back on our plans following that decision. In response to those
calls, I stress that the New Zealand plans included a licensing
scheme to limit quite significantly the number of retailers able
to sell tobacco and plans to limit the amount of nicotine in
consumer products. Our Government are introducing a smoke-free
generation, by protecting future generations from the harms of
smoking while leaving current adult smokers the freedom to
continue smoking if they choose to do so.
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate. In my
contribution, I gave a couple of examples from Canada that we had
followed here, and I urged the Government here to follow the new
ideas in Canada to dissuade people from smoking. Has she had an
opportunity to look at some of the Canadian legislation? I am
very simple: if I see something good, I think, “Let’s do it”. If
it works there, it should work here as well.
Dame
I absolutely agree. We should always keep an eye on what other
nations are doing.
I reiterate that our position remains unchanged. This will be
world-leading, and we want to be a trailblazer in the absolutely
crucial area of protecting future generations; protecting the
health of our nation; protecting our future children and babies;
and, at the same time, protecting our NHS. Let other nations
follow our example. I look forward to working with colleagues
right across the House as we bring that to fruition, and I thank
them for their contributions.
2.50pm
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow
Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (), for their responses. I
will politely and gently point out that every single measure on
smoking has always been led from the Back Benches. I well
remember that some 11 years ago I was sitting where I am sitting
today, leading a debate on the standardised packaging of tobacco
products, and both the Opposition Front Bencher and the
Government Front Bencher said, “We have no plans for and do not
support standardised packaging of tobacco products.” Two years
later, it was introduced. Indeed, the smoking ban, originally put
forward under a Labour Government, came from Back-Bench pressure,
and the Minister at the time was trying to prevent it. We must be
clear that Back Benchers lead the way on tobacco legislation.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is important
that we ramp up and keep the pressure on Government to take
action. It is good that we have seen actions over the last few
months on introducing the Khan review, but we must remember that
the proposed legislation does not introduce every single measure
recommended in it. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to
have another look at the Khan review to see what else can be
done, possibly without the need for legislation, and to have
discussions again with the Treasury on the “polluter pays” levy.
After all, we would all like to see more money invested in the
health service: let us get it from the tobacco industry, rather
than the hard-pressed taxpayer.
I urge the Government to ensure that we take action on vaping and
on youth vaping in particular. I am really concerned, as the
Minister quite rightly said in her speech, that there is not yet
evidence on the damage done by vaping. It must be safer than
smoking, so giving up is a good thing to do, but damage is being
done and addiction is being heaped on people. In many ways, what
we see in vaping is what used to happen with the packaging of
tobacco products: they were made to look sexy and cool for young
people. We barred that and, as a result, youth smoking dropped.
That is vital.
I also welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the
legislation, so we can ensure that we get it through quickly and
on to the statute book. However, let us be clear: we need to go
further in order to achieve a smoke-free England. It is for not
just the next generation, but every future generation to come.
Our all-party parliamentary group’s manifesto sets out the
measures that we need to take that will just about get us to a
smoke-free England in 2030. However, we need action on those
measures soon if we are to achieve that, so I commend the
manifesto to the House and look forward to the full
implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of a smokefree future.
|
