Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made
towards the ambition of creating a “smokefree” generation by
2030.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
Smoking is responsible for around 80,000 deaths a year in the UK,
costs our country £17 billion a year and puts a huge burden on
the National Health Service. That is why we will shortly
introduce the tobacco and vapes Bill to Parliament in the coming
weeks, to create the first smoke-free generation and further
crack down on youth vaping. The Bill will be informed by our
recent consultation, which we will publish soon.
(LD)
My Lords, all parties have agreed on the need to reduce the
prevalence of smoking in this country to below 5% by 2030, so the
Bill to prevent young people ever becoming smokers is vital. Does
the Minister accept that we need to do more to help the over 6
million people in this country who are addicted smokers, most of
whom are struggling to give up smoking and want to? They are
damaging their health and that of others affected by smoking.
Does he agree that allowing integrated care boards to make
further cuts to tobacco dependence treatment budgets will not
help us to achieve this target?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Actually, Khan recommended four major
things to achieve that in his report Smokefree 2030. The first
was to increase the anti-smoking spend that the noble Lord refers
to. As part of this, we propose to increase that spend from £70
million to £140 million—so we are doing absolutely what the noble
Lord suggests. The second was to increase the age of sale, which
of course this legislation is all about. The third was to promote
vaping to help quit smoking. Again, the legislation will do that.
The fourth was to increase NHS prevention methods which, again,
we will do from here. So it is very much a range of measures to
stop people ever smoking but also to stop many who are currently
smoking by helping them to quit.
(Con)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Young!
(Con)
My Lords, I think the House would like to hear from my noble
friend Lord Young.
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
Further to the Question from the noble Lord, , the Government commissioned
the independent Khan review, which concluded that the Government
would miss their smoke-free target for England by several years
unless an additional £125 million a year was spent on prevention.
Given the pressure on public expenditure, the Khan review instead
suggested a levy on the profits of the tobacco industry, based on
the polluter pays principle. Does that proposal not commend
itself to my noble friend?
(Con)
As I say, we have tried to answer the four major points that Khan
put forward, including doubling the spend from £70 million a year
to £140 million. The levy was the one thing that was not so much
favoured; there was a lot of modelling done on it and the thought
was that the net increase would be only about £25 million or so.
That is why it was thought better to look at taxes on tobacco
itself as a way of raising revenue, and generally introducing the
four major methods that Khan recommended.
(CB)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register.
Would the Minister agree that smoking in pregnancy has enormously
damaging effects, leading to much poorer birth outcomes than for
mothers who do not smoke? Would he also agree that incentives to
pregnant women not to smoke have been very effective? In the
light of this, could he give a guarantee that the existing
scheme, which comes to an end this year, will be continued with
adequate resources, so that it is not in any way disrupted?
(Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of
stopping smoking—always, but especially during pregnancy. In
fact, we have a maternity debate coming straight after this,
where this will be one of the things that we discuss. I hope,
from showing that we are putting all this spend in place, that we
are backing everything that works. As long as the anti-smoking in
pregnancy measure continues to work, that will be one of the
major features to make sure that we are continuing to stop all
activity, but especially in pregnant ladies.
(CB)
My Lords, in the light of the last question, I will change my
question. What assessment have the Government made of the
long-term harm that vaping will cause, particularly to young
people?
(Con)
The honest answer is that we do not know yet, and that is a
problem. As we know, a number of these things take time to play
through. That is why we want to make sure we take a precautionary
approach. In this legislation, we aim to really stop anything
that is targeted at young people in terms of vaping. We see
vaping as an important tool to help people quit smoking, but we
are equally sure that we never want anyone to start vaping. That
is why we will also look at banning anything that targets young
people, such as flavouring and packaging. We want to stop
anything targeted at youth vaping.
(Con)
My Lords, why are His Majesty’s Government ignoring the
experience of New Zealand? That country has found the idea behind
this Bill—it had a similar one—to be totally unworkable.
Secondly, why are we undermining the existing scheme that has
done so well, with under 2% of young people even bothering to
take a taste of smoking? Does my noble friend not recognise that
there are other, far more important health dimensions that need
the resources that are to be wasted on this useless Bill?
(Con)
First, my understanding about New Zealand is that one of the
biggest bones of contention was that it was looking to reduce the
number of smoking retailers from 6,000 to 600; that is where
their Bill came into difficulty. I am afraid I must disagree with
my noble friend on the importance of this. It costs the economy
about £17 billion a year and causes about 80,000 deaths, and 80%
of people who have taken up smoking wish that they had never
started. I think those are very strong reasons which I know the
majority of this House is behind, and that is why I am delighted
to be introducing that legislation shortly.
(Lab)
My Lords, it has been reported that the decline in smoking has
nearly ground to a halt since the pandemic, with many former
smokers lapsing and many more young people now taking up smoking.
Now that the smoking cessation drug cytisine is available, what
is the Government’s assessment of how its availability will
contribute or otherwise to the progress towards the smoke-free
ambition by 2030? What plans are there to ensure its availability
across the country, particularly among hard-to-reach groups of
smokers?
(Con)
Hopefully, my previous answer shows that we are investing major
money in cessation services. I must admit to not being that
familiar with the drug the noble Baroness mentions, so I will
follow up in writing to give her the details.
(LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that reducing the number of
outlets that sell tobacco products does in fact have a positive
effect on the prevalence of smoking? In this respect, can he
indicate whether the Government are having any conversations with
large supermarket chains, either individually or collectively,
about voluntary reductions in the number of tobacco counters in
their outlets? If that is not already happening, would he agree
that it would be a good use of government time to do so?
(Con)
Again, we are mindful of trying to get the balance right.
Inevitably, by taking away a major market, which the over-18s
will become as we go into it, smoking sales through retail units
will go down more and more. We expect them to reduce as a result
of that. We think that is probably getting the balance right,
rather than trying to be overburdensome by saying, “No, you shall
not be licensed to do that any more”. We think that will happen
naturally through the market, because we are of course taking out
a whole segment of future customers.
(Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report published this
week by University College London, in association with Cancer
Research UK, which suggests that banning disposable vapes would
lead to fewer adults giving up smoking? Will he give an assurance
that any proposals brought forward by the Government will be
based on clear evidence and common sense, and not unevidenced
enthusiasm?
(Con)
I hope I could give my categorical agreement that everything is
based on evidence and common sense; I will let people draw their
own conclusions as to whether that is always the case. But,
seriously, clearly anything we look at must be evidence-based. We
will shortly be announcing the results of the consultation, which
has a 28,000-strong evidence base, to show that we are really
doing rigorous analysis.
(Lab)
My Lords, many Members of your Lordships’ House have received
lobbying from tobacco companies over the years. Is the Minister
aware that the Daily Telegraph reported last week that Philip
Morris had threatened legal action against the Government over
the consultation to which he referred in his first Answer. Can
the Minister give an assurance that, if this lobbying is
undertaken by tobacco companies, the Government will ignore it
and go ahead with their very sensible and welcome plans?
(Con)
Yes, I am aware of the moves, and I am sure there will be many
more. I was advised that it was a fairly unusual legal challenge
on consultation, which I believe was withdrawn quite quickly.
Yes, there will be opposition, but we are determined, because of
the importance of what we are trying to do.
