Westminster Hall

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 15 October 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Human Rights and the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Joint committee on Human Rights

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Select Committee statement.

11:49

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

We begin with the Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Human Rights and the Regulation of AI”, HC 160, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Alex Sobel to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Alex Sobel, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mrs Barker. As the newly elected Chair, I am proud to be presenting the significant findings of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on human rights and the regulation of artificial intelligence. I thank Lord Alton for his exemplary leadership and service as the Chair of our Committee.

All the evidence suggests that the world is at the precipice of the outcomes of a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross-economy regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems from being deployed, even if they pose significant risks.

Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK. Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power.

The Committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the Government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence that frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI, we must regulate now—not in a year, not in five years, but now. With the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year.

The Committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe’s framework convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights— equality and non-discrimination, and privacy and personal data protection. The Committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act.

AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised pieces of software that can make decisions and operate co-operatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert.

The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict.

Let me be clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. It is vital to effective defence and promotes vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights. In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us of the potential impact on the treatment and condition of workers, workers’ rights generally and on the environment.

Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10% and 25%. In any other industry, with that level of risk, this development would be ruled out. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves?

On the first principle of the framework convention—equality and non-discrimination—we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritised groups, compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims’ personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance coalition told us:

“AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK.”

Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed, because of these baked-in biases and choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial basis and of AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants. AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes because of biased training data. That threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere.

Next, we looked at the second principle of the framework convention, which is that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The Committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. That threatens the article 8 right to privacy of people in the UK and is given particular expression in data protection law in relation to personal data. Between January and October 2025, about 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent.

Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the Government’s policies and practices relating to AI systems, including their approach to the regulation of AI. The Committee recommends that the Government encourage the development of AI use cases that can demonstrably improve human rights.

Although the AI action plan commissioned by the previous Administration brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, it fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI-generated interference throughout the supply chain.

The UK’s leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but for setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The Committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI by the new Administration and urges the Government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way that puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, Governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards. The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. That has been maintained across Administrations from different sides of the debate. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections but help to reinforce the UK’s leadership position in AI safety.

The Committee recommends that the Government introduce a new AI Bill, as promised in the 2024 King’s Speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the framework convention. A risk-based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face incident and others illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm, as with the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Low-risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements. To ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments, it is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles. The AI Bill that we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding obligations for higher-risk AI systems and models.

Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights. I believe that to be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so where we draw the line matters. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development, with no humans in the loop. That is the point at which we lose control, as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control.

Frontier developers are heeding standards, rather than statute, for their own AI models. These are the same developers who are deliberately training their models to hack and deceive, as we heard this week during the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee inquiry session, which I guested at as JCHR Chair. We heard from ex-employees of frontier developers OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety cultures in these organisations. Some whistleblowers put the chance of AI destroying humanity at 50%—a coin flip as to whether we survive. This is not a human rights model that we should ever be working with. These frontier developers believe that they will not get stopped by Government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that and regulate now.

In the words of David Krueger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute,

“My dream is that in 10 years people will look back and say: ‘Remember when there were all these people building AI that could’ve killed everybody? That was CRAZY! What were we thinking!?’”

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

This is a fast-moving topic that has continued to be of deep concern to my constituents since the publication of the report. Subsequent to its publication, has my hon. Friend seen any further evidence of the need for mandatory testing of AI frontier models?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank my fellow Committee member for that question. In the report, we said:

“Many AI systems developed for a specific purpose can be deployed or adapted for use for different purposes and contexts from those intended by the AI developer. Those deploying the system may lack understanding of the risks arising from the way in which the AI system has been designed and developed”.

We also recommend that the AI Bill should

“impose proportionate obligations on actors at all stages of the AI lifecycle and supply chain to ensure that risks are identified, evaluated and effectively addressed at the appropriate stage.”

On Tuesday, at the BIST Committee, we heard from Daniel Kokotajlo, a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient and AISI or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Joint Committee for this report. I should declare an interest as the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. I guested on the inquiry, and I share the concerns regarding the potential harms to human rights and support the report’s call for effective principle-based regulation now.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me, and with His Holiness the Pope in his “Magnificent Humanity” encyclical, that human rights are for humans, that the anthropomorphising of AI—going as far as ascribing human consciousness and human rights to AI—is an attempt by tech companies to limit their own liability as well as boosting the potential value of their shares?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. It has been my great privilege to twice hear Pope Leo address an audience in the Vatican. The second time, at the Jubilee of Governments, last year in June, he addressed this exact issue. This is not a recent development for the Pope. I read his encyclical and think that every Government should study it. It is interesting that—although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a state—a faith leader such as the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue such as this and brings it back to the central principle that human rights are for humans. We have already seen the anthropocentric effects on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI. These AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace Governments and not be regulated by Governments. That is, exactly as my hon Friend says, because they can then limit their liabilities, maximise their profits and act without any scope from the state. That should concern us all.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will not have failed to clock the comments from the president of Microsoft this week that the UK is best placed to lead on AI governance. That is something that we found in our report, not least because of the AI Security Institute, which our report recommends strengthening further. Does he agree that it is not about limiting the very real benefits that AI may bring to the UK’s economy, our healthcare system or even, as we found in our report, to human rights, but about leading the world in realising those benefits safely while recognising and mitigating the very real risks that exist?

[Alex Sobel]

I absolutely agree. We continually heard evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally, about the excellent work that the AISI does. I am pleased that the AI Minister, who is here in the Chamber, has played another leading role in developing AISI as the world’s leading AI safety institute.

However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two things. The first, as the report found, is about human utilisation of AI tools through, for instance, deepfakes, which affect people’s human rights, or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but that need Government action.

Then, secondly, there are the frontier models. We need a very different level of regulation and legislation for those than we have for individual assistive tools. I am not really worried about ChatGPT 2.0. It is not going to create an existential crisis but, without regulation, future models that are being developed can and will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Committee Chair and the rest of the Committee for their report and all of the work that they have done. I cannot pretend to understand all about AI. I am probably the oldest of the old school when it comes to those things. I agree with what the Committee has said about how human rights should be first and AI second. I thank the Committee for its clear focus on that.

I also welcome the recommendation that there should be a new AI Bill. That is the right way to do it, because as we look forward, and move forward, we want to ensure that those things happen. Will the regional Assemblies across the United Kingdom, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also those in Scotland and Wales, be notified and advised of the technology and what the Committee has said? It is really important that individual human rights are protected. Indeed, I believe that they are sacrosanct. Human rights should be first. They should take precedent every time over the technology that is coming through AI.

[Alex Sobel]

First, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but it will probably never be able to replace the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the Adjournment debate. We can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development.

I am glad that we now seem to have cross-party support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for a new AI Bill with human rights at the centre. What he says about human rights is absolutely correct. I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our Committee’s remit is for the UK, but this is an international issue. I am sure that the Minister has heard all that we have said.

13:47

Sitting suspended.

Unpaid Carers

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

13:50

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for unpaid carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for taking time to attend it. I thank Carers UK, Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space. I also thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of the debate: the words, wisdom and experience of those contributors, from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid Sussex, are gold dust if we in this place are going to make the right changes. Even in the short window the survey was open, hundreds of people shared stories and ideas for change. I am sorry I cannot read them all out, but plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for.

That is having horrendous consequences. Last night a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, and I will share it as it brings to light what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum, who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would look after her at home. Despite this, neither boy was ever identified as a young carer. Eventually, in February 2025, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home and had to call emergency services. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services.

Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey talked about carer’s allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy. Some said they had never heard of it. I would like to share a short extract from the contribution of a former human rights lawyer who gave that up for her caring responsibilities. She wrote in to the Petitions Committee survey with a poem that ends:

“You have the privilege of debating important things every year,

But when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heart breaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life.

That’s when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck,

And say ‘Mum, why are you sad, I love you, it’s going to be all right.’

Carer’s Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers,

So, we ask our employers—and it’s maybe fair to say this is the state

In the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties,

Why do up to 16.2% of the population get just 19% of the national minimum wage—and how is this still even up for debate?”

Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone. They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK. Some 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year.

Those people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope. Carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 who are in deep poverty. Its 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials.

No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available. This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House.

We are right to keep saying these things: that unpaid carers do extraordinary work, that without them our entire health system would collapse and that, too often, they go unsupported. However, we also have to make tangible changes that move us on from a status quo that is not good enough—words and actions, not words and inaction.

There have been some welcome developments in recent months. The Government’s carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated Government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers’ employment rights and the work to reform carer’s allowance all offer opportunities for meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in the lives of carers and those they care for.

We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey commission and the development of a national care service. A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have a genuine say about what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help to shape the design of services and the decisions made about them and the people they support.

When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices, such as the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months, which is a woefully slow pace. I would like to hear from the Minister about the Department’s plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress.

As we approach Carers Rights Day next month, this debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the Government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope it will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree: carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.

I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament can hold the Government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

There will be a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

13:58

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

In December last year, I met one of my constituents, Julian, whose wife has cared for their daughter since birth. Their daughter was born with spina bifida and walked until the age of seven, but has been confined to a wheelchair since then. She was later diagnosed with hydrocephalus, which requires a shunt to drain excess fluid from the brain. Julian’s wife has devoted her life to making sure that their daughter is looked after, putting her needs first and sacrificing the opportunity to build a career and her own pension provision, so she will very much recognise the picture set out by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) in her brilliant opening speech.

The caring responsibilities of Julian’s wife have not come to an end because she has reached state pension age, but the financial support available to her has very much changed. Julian put something to me that I thought was worth sharing today. He compared his wife’s situation with an employer paying someone for 35 hours of work a week but expecting them to carry on working, without pay, once they reach retirement age, arguing that that is fine because they are being paid their pension.

Now, caring for a family member is not the same as employment, and all sorts of things need to be considered. I appreciate the rules about overlapping benefits and the system not paying both in full for the same period, and I know that the state pension can be topped up by pension credit if it is lower than the carer’s allowance. I am not here to say that the answer is simply to pay both the state pension and carer’s allowance to everybody caring for a loved one, but speaking to Julian left me feeling that we should take a closer look at the circumstances of older carers and whether the support available to them properly reflects the realities of their lives.

While preparing for today’s debate I spoke with Carers UK. Its research shows that around one in five carers of state pension age are living in poverty, compared with 13% of non-carers in the same group. It also reports that more than 600,000 older carers provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Those figures stood out as a reminder that caring in older age is a lot more than a few hours here and there; it is an enormous and lifelong commitment. There might be some practical steps worth considering too. Carers UK has highlighted that some carers entitled to pension credit are not receiving it and has called for simpler processes and checks when carers reach state pension age.

I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition on social care and by Baroness Casey’s review, as that will help us finally realise a system that better supports people who draw on care, their families and the people who care for them. I hope that the experiences of older, unpaid carers and the particular challenges they face when they reach state pension age are being considered as part of that work. As Julian said to me,

“Carers are the nation’s unsung heroes.”

Many of us will recognise that sentiment, and I hope we can agree that respecting carers means much more than just acknowledging how much they do. It also means asking ourselves whether the support around them is enough, particularly when the alternative is social care, which costs the state much more.

I would be grateful if the Minister could take this issue up and consider if there is scope to review the support available for older carers, whether through simpler access to existing entitlements, a closer look at the additional financial pressures they are facing or further work on how their contribution can be recognised. I am not asking for a simple answer to a very complicated policy question today; I am just asking whether we can keep looking at this matter, listen to people like Julian and his wife, and make sure that carers who continue to give so much as they grow older are not overlooked. The need for care does not stop at retirement age, and the people providing that care should not feel that their contribution has stopped counting either.

14:02

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We have this debate on a regular basis; on average we come back to it every six months. We have had a breakthrough with the action plan—I welcome that. For the first time we have a number of Departments working together coherently, and I think it will improve lives overall.

There is a sense of urgency now. I have chaired an unpaid carers group for about three years—I am losing track of time. They are a representative group of young and old. They are mainly parents looking after their children, but some are siblings looking after one another and some of them are young as well. Exactly as the survey said, every one of them reflects the condition they are living in; it is poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it difficult to work. They want to work; often they have given up their jobs as a result of their caring responsibilities and some of them have given up professional careers.

Those carers also lack respite, and the common theme that comes through is the lack of a break. Another issue is that, where respite is offered, there are not the staff with the skills to cope with the individual they are caring for. Non-verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and staff need specialist training, but that is almost non-existent in many areas. I point to the report produced for the House by Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, which we used in the debate about a year ago. That shocking survey—I do not like to raise this, but I have to—found that 40% of carers had thought about suicide as a result of the stress they are under.

I welcome the action plan, but there is a sense of urgency. We cannot get away from the fact that the carer’s allowance is so low. Many of the carers I work with say, “We want a wage. We’re doing a job.” No one is doing 35 hours; they are all doing 40 or 50 hours, if not longer in some instances. They want a wage to lift them out of poverty, but also to reflect our respect for the work that they are undertaking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said, we do not expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to a form of living wage for carers. We also need a system through which the issue can be properly evaluated over a longer period.

I am really pleased by the Prime Minister’s commitment to social care. We have known about it for over a decade, from when he was in Parliament previously. It is a pity that there was not cross-party support to implement it at that time.

I am also involved in a campaign in honour of one of our colleagues, Iain Coleman, who was the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham. When he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, he introduced free personal care—free home care—at the local level, and it has proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with the cuts to local government over the past 14 years, it has proved very difficult.

The first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care. We should not wait until after the next general election in 2029; we should work towards it over the next year. Local authorities can undertake that work; it just needs to be resourced. I hope the social care action plan group brings forward a proposal that takes into account what Casey says next year—I am glad that has been brought forward—and sets out a step-by-step approach to introducing home care.

When my group met last week, most of the people on it had not heard of the care plan. They have now, and we are going to take people through it. What came back from them was very practical. The objectives of the care plan were set out clearly in July; we now want to see steps towards implementing the objectives, which must be costed and timetabled. Within that, we want a debate about carer’s allowance and home care.

14:06

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this very important debate.

Today, we are recognising the nearly 6 million parents, partners, siblings, friends and neighbours in the UK who, day in, day out, provide support, love, care and safety to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The quiet and diligent contributions of unpaid carers is immeasurable and too often goes overlooked. The reality is that such care comes at a significant personal cost. The point of diagnosis is often as life-changing for the carer as it is for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. I worry that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver, alongside full-time jobs and other commitments.

I want to focus on the role of unpaid cares in dementia care—an area of the system of which I have personal experience. Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide about half the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there is too little support for those who provide those services.

My mum, brother and mother-in-law are all part of that statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father-in-law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis. Too often, families are handed a leaflet and are left to navigate the system. They are expected to become experts in dementia overnight. My family have become experts in spotting the signs of urinary tract infections and in understanding the risk of delirium. Every time delirium hits, my father’s dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We have learned the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital. As the Geller Commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness who do not have dementia.

Every person’s dementia journey is different. My father-in-law is awake much of the night, whereas my dad is fast asleep throughout the night, and some of the day as well. Every person’s care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals is working with the ICB to deliver the Derbyshire dementia strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers. Dementia UK installs Admiral nurses across the country, who are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them.

Local commitments and initiatives such as the Admiral nurse scheme must be matched by national resources. As my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. One in seven are unaware of any sources of support, while 46% do not know who to contact to access social care. Given that bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? It is often at that point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital or A&E, or to have emergency GP appointments.

This debate is timely, as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures that can right the wrongs and establish a care pathway for both those with dementia and their carers. I urge the Minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers, and to ensure that it is implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of that work will involve intervening to facilitate better awareness of the support that is already available, including carers’ assessments, and ensuring that the results are followed up on.

Finally, will the Minister set out how his Department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia?

14:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. You always have a wonderful smile and you give us encouragement when we come along. That helps us to talk about subjects that are sometimes quite difficult to talk about—this is one of them. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I look forward, as we all do, to his response to the debate.

Over my years as an elected representative—it has been a long time—I have met some young carers and unpaid carers. I have to start my contribution by paying tribute to them—those who quietly, tirelessly and selflessly dedicate their lives to looking after loved ones. What have I seen? I have seen the profound exhaustion. I have seen the absolute devotion. I have seen the immense financial and emotional toll. It is a fundamental truth that unpaid carers are filling a massive breach that the state simply cannot afford to fill. Without them, our health and social care system would collapse overnight.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective. I wish I could say that it would not be replicated in what others will say today, but on this it is the very same. We have some 220,000 carers providing vital support to sick, elderly or disabled family members and friends. That is roughly one in eight adults. It breaks my heart to note that we also have roughly 17,500 children and young adult carers in Northern Ireland carrying a physical and emotional burden that no young shoulder should ever have to bear, but they are bearing it.

The latest research from Carers NI reveals that unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive an astronomical £5.8 billion every single year. That is because if staff were doing that work, it would cost £16 million every single day, or more than £660,000 every single hour. That is equivalent to 80% of the entire day-to-day Department of Health budget.

In my Strangford constituency, in the Ards and North Down area, the local reality hits even closer to home. We have some 18,000 unpaid carers in our local communities, from the streets of Newtownards and Comber right down to the most isolated parts of the Ards peninsula. They are ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They are the partners, the parents and the children who have stepped into the breach because their love for their family overrides everything else.

How do we reward—I say “we”, but it is not us personally; it is government—that immense contribution? We reward them with poverty. We reward them with isolation and institutional neglect. The poverty rate among young carers in Northern Ireland stands at a shocking 28%. For those trying to survive on carer’s allowance, the situation is dire. The cost of living crisis has pushed them to the absolute brink, with more than half struggling to pay basic utility bills and over a third being forced to skip meals just so that they can look after their loved ones.

More than 52% of carers in Northern Ireland report that their physical health has suffered due to their responsibilities. Their days have a sense of fear and dread. Our carers in Northern Ireland do not even have the statutory baseline of protection. They are forced to reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely, with nearly 30% of local carers having to give up their jobs to care. The impact on the carers is massive; poverty, for 28% of carers in Northern Ireland, is extreme.

This is the responsibility of the DWP, not the Minister, but every week in my office, sometimes more than once, my staff and I have to take on the case of someone who has had an overpayment. Sometimes they are a carer, and we have to intervene and help to get a repayment system that they can cope with, and it is all because of a mistake that was made. I am not talking about those who blatantly take advantage of the DWP system; I am talking about the ones who come to me—and probably to you, too, Mrs Barker—on a regular basis, who have to repay a statutory payment. It is a disgrace that we penalise those who want to work a few extra hours while managing their care duties. Does the Minister agree that it is high time that we stop treating unpaid carers as a free resource to prop up a failing social care system?

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says he will address this, but my goodness me, do it not just in England but in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit to a comprehensive cross-departmental review of carer’s allowance thresholds and work closely with the Stormont Executive to deliver a ringfenced financial package and proper respite care, to ensure that those who care for our society are finally cared for themselves? That is what I want; I think it is what everybody wants.

Burnout is a real thing. Without support, we risk carers not only being unable to care for their loved ones but needing care themselves. That is what the ones I meet tell me. All we need to do is look at them. I am not better than anybody else, but when I engage with them, I can quickly understand how things are. This precarious house of cards around carers must be sheltered from the wind, and the Government must do that or pay an ultimate, unfathomable cost.

14:17

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and to see the Minister, my constituency neighbour, in his place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this crucial debate.

The debt we owe to our country’s unpaid carers is immense. I thank those across Heywood and Middleton North who often balance their caring commitments with a career, family and other responsibilities and somehow manage to ensure that those they care for can live in comfort and dignity. The difference these people make to those they support can never be fully conveyed, but the onus is on us as parliamentarians to stand beside them as, day in, day out, they make someone else their priority.

There are millions of people across the country who are doing so right now, and the number is growing as our population ages. Undoubtedly, every Member present will know a constituent, friend or family member with caring responsibilities. Being an unpaid carer, though commendable, can be deeply isolating and lonely. It is therefore crucial that when it gets too much, there is a community and a safety net that can provide comfort and support to our constituents.

Earlier in the year, during Carers Week, I met with local carers, staff and volunteers from the Carers’ Hub Rochdale at Queen’s Park in Heywood. They were coming together to meet and support each other—they really are a lovely group of people. I thank Deana, Victoria, Grace, Karen, Sarah and others for their unwavering commitment to the hub and those who rely on it.

At one of the group’s regular coffee and chat sessions, they traded stories that could make you laugh and cry, speaking candidly about their struggles, hopes and fears, the truth behind their lives and the loved ones they care for. There were so many similarities in their experiences that bound them together—a community of local heroes who just need a place to come together and take a breath.

The hub’s support for carers goes even further, offering personalised one-to-one support, wellbeing assessments, support plans, community connections with local services and friendly community groups for the carer and those being cared for. That is alongside respite services, which provide the opportunity for a short break for a night or two, and social events with opportunities to make new skills, as well as online services, a helpline and a pen pal community.

The carers I met back in the summer had some clear priorities for me to raise today, and I hope the Minister will touch on them when he responds to the debate. They felt that the earnings threshold is too rigid, creating cliff edges for working carers, and in many ways does not reflect more nuanced arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities and their day jobs.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as has every Member who has spoken today. I represent about 8,000 unpaid carers in Leeds South West and Morley—that is about 9% of my constituents—and it is clear that I need to speak for them. Something that has been missing from the debate is those who criticise the offer of extra help to unpaid carers as a cost to the Treasury and to businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greater cost is the fact that 1.1 million unpaid carers have left work in the last two years because many of them had no choice but to do so?

[Mrs Blundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a crucial point to make. Many carers are turning down opportunities for advancement and promotion, and that is having a bad effect on the economy as well as themselves. I believe, as do the carers I met recently, that being a carer should not restrict one’s advancement elsewhere. How is the Minister working to ensure that our fantastic carers are encouraged to seize opportunities rather than being dissuaded from doing so?

Another area of focus of my conversation with the group was how we can, and must, work towards a more proactive system to identify and recognise carers. This means NHS trusts having robust and systematic processes for identifying carers, with GP records being properly maintained so that individuals can be identified early, connected to support, and have their own wellbeing needs properly addressed.

I am pleased that young carers are going to be identified quicker and better supported so that they can stay in education without falling behind at school. I am also pleased that schools are to be held accountable in respect of data on young carers’ attendance, alongside secure information sharing across different services. That is critical to ensure that these youngsters do not fall through the cracks or buckle under the weight of their responsibilities at such a pivotal moment. I am pleased that the Government are so receptive to that idea.

Finally, I would like to touch on how we secure high-quality supportive and respite services in every postcode. When carers reach a point where they feel like the walls are closing in—and, in truth, long before they reach that point—flexible respite and replacement care should be available, and should be both reliable and of high quality. Some organisations currently feel they are expected to do more with less with each year that passes. I hope the Minister can speak to that, too.

In closing, I express my sincere thanks to the unpaid carers of Heywood and Middleton North and beyond, without whom the lives of so many people across our communities would be much more difficult. The contribution that these individuals make cannot easily be qualified or quantified, but it can and must be recognised. It is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard and that we in turn give them a fraction of the support that they provide to those most in need.

14:22

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of all-party parliamentary groups as chair of the APPG on carers. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I commend her for securing this debate and for her work on this issue on behalf of her party.

For nearly 6 million unpaid family carers across the UK, and over 8,000 across my constituency, caring is an act of love. Whether they are caring for a severely disabled child, a partner who has dementia or a parent who is at the end of their life, their everyday help demonstrates a deep love, whether by helping them to wash, dress, eat, get off to school or work, or providing emotional support through periods of pain, loneliness, fear and frustration. That is when we see human relationships at their best, yet for too many, that act of love can quickly turn into an act of sacrifice that involves giving up work, putting their own life on hold, ignoring their own health and well-being, or experiencing stress and financial hardship. Those are just some of the ways in which carers are impacted.

Unpaid carers give so much, but often get too little. I have seen at first hand the difference that unpaid carers make to the lives of the people they care for. I grew up with my disabled grandma Frieda, who suffered life-changing injuries in a road collision. The decades of support that my mum gave her enabled her to live semi-independently—to go out to church, connect with her friends and live a full life—but I saw the impact on my mum. She gave up her own career as a doctor and carried additional worry and responsibilities, including having to make sure that care was in place for my grandma every time we went on a family holiday.

I have dedicated my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers, and I am pleased to have carried that on in Parliament through the APPG. I am grateful to Carers UK for all the support the organisation gives and for enabling us in Parliament to hear carers’ powerful stories. I also commend colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for sharing their personal stories of juggling care and this job, which is not easy. Around two thirds of people will provide unpaid care during their adult life. It is a huge issue, and I am delighted to see that it is finally getting the attention it deserves from this Labour Government.

What support do carers need, what are they getting, and what more do they need? As others have said, they need support financially to stay in work and to find work, and when they take on a substantial amount of care, they need direct financial support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, unfortunately, carers’ allowance is just not high enough. According to Carers UK, 1,500 people leave employment every day to take up caring responsibilities.

I was pleased to meet the Minister for the Future of Work, my neighbouring MP, earlier this week to discuss the recently closed consultation. In that meeting, I underlined the importance of introducing statutory paid carers leave, extending unpaid carers leave to enable people to take longer breaks and return to their job, strengthening flexible working and improving employer practices. I hope that the Minister present will urge his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to go far on the response to that consultation.

Much has been done to reform carers’ allowance. I am hopeful that the Government will bring in a taper system to replace the current cliff edge. I add my request to the one made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex that Ministers call in DWP officials to ask exactly what progress they are making on assessing cases. At the rate they are going, it will take 40 years to complete the process. That is simply not good enough when carers are being worried by debts and civil penalties.

Secondly, we need to support carers’ own health and wellbeing. About a quarter of unpaid carers in my constituency describe their health as not good. They have no time for themselves, no time to attend routine check-ups and no time to take a break. Short breaks, respite care and sitting services are vital, such as those provided by the excellent charity Carers’ Resource in Bradford and the innovative Shared Lives respite model provided by Bradford council. I also welcome the Government carers action plan, and I hope the Minister will outline what the NHS is doing.

Finally, I commend the Government for bringing in a national care service. I will do everything I can to make sure that carers’ voices are heard in shaping it for the future.

14:27

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate and for succeeding me as the chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers. She knows that when we talk about unpaid carers, we must include young carers and young adult carers. We know that the number of young people under the age of 18 who care for a loved one or family member has increased; in fact, the amount of time for which those young carers care for a loved one has also increased significantly. The Carers Trust estimates that more than 50,000 children, young people and young adults in the UK provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week to their loved ones, and more than 3,000 children between five and nine take on heavy caring responsibilities.

In my role as APPG chair, along with the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, we are calling on the Government to consider three significant things. First, we must find ways to better recognise young carers. I speak regularly to young carers across my Harlow constituency, and many of them do not realise that they are young carers until they are much older; other MPs would say the same. Secondly, we have to look at how we train teachers. I will not reiterate the story I have told a number of times in this place, but as a teacher I missed that one of my students was a young carer until it came to parents evening, and that is always in my mind. Thirdly, we must ensure that all schools have a young carers lead.

I am pleased to hear from comments made by Ministers and MPs that the Government are listening and taking action to support our young carers and young adult carers. I ask the Government to think also about the transition from being a young carer. Sometimes, the person has got older and become an adult carer; sometimes, tragically, they stop having caring responsibilities for other reasons, such as bereavement. We need to think about how we support those young carers and adult carers if that is the case.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his dedication and commitment to young carers, though I know he does not support just young carers. He has the Neurological and Physical Abilitation centre in his constituency, and knows that one of my constituents, 11-year-old Alf, utilises that service. Alf’s mum, Emma, is an incredible advocate for her son and is desperately trying to get the support she needs. She gets 10 hours support for him during term time and 20 hours during the holidays, but Derbyshire county council has recently said no to any more support, including overnight care for just one day a week to help Emma to not reach breaking point. Although my hon. Friend is talking admirably about young carers, does he agree—perhaps the Minister will address this in responding to this brilliant debate—that the new national care service, which is coming in to support older people, should extend to support disabled children and unpaid carers so that they can get timely, flexible support, including overnight care where needed, to prevent parents and carers from reaching breaking point?

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her visit to Harlow to see NAPA at first hand. I pay tribute to the work that NAPA does in my constituency. I am sorry to hear about the case of her constituent. I hope that she is able to lobby the county council and get the situation sorted. I hope also that the Minister and those who are introducing the national care service will consider what she said regarding support for disabled children. NAPA is a fantastic organisation but not everyone can afford or have access to that support. The difference NAPA has made to young people with cerebral palsy is significant. We can see the huge difference in their quality of life because of the support they get from NAPA. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and pay tribute to David and all those who work at NAPA.

I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the schools in my constituency, which do fantastic work to support young carers, particularly the Mark Hall school—I had the pleasure of inviting some of their young carers to Parliament—and Saint Nicholas school, as well as Purford Green primary school and many others. I ask that when the Government consider the national care service—I am so pleased the Prime Minister is incredibly committed to it—the important role of young carers and young adult carers is considered as part of the tapestry of carers, which obviously also includes adult carers and kinship carers. I hope that the national care service will provide support to all unpaid carers.

As hon. Members may be aware, I previously worked for a charity that supports young carers. That is part of the reason I am so passionate about this subject. To some extent, we have a postcode lottery when it comes to support for young carers and young adult carers. Often that support is provided by charities such as the one I worked for. If we are honest with ourselves, successive Governments have relied heavily on the charity sector because they have seen it as a cheaper option, but funding for charities is short term and not always consistent across the country. If the national care service is to get to the heart of the problem, it will address that issue. A previous Labour Prime Minister described charity as a “grey loveless thing”. I think we are in a very different place now, but we should not use charities because they are cheaper. We should work with charities because they have the expertise. We have mentioned some of those charities in this debate already.

Of course, caring for someone who we love can be a real honour. Often when I talk to carers and young carers they do not even think about being carers; they do it because they love that person and believe it to be the right thing to do. However, we must recognise that it can also be extremely challenging. I pay tribute to all unpaid carers in my constituency and beyond who absolutely deserve our thanks and admiration but also our support. The theme going through this debate is the need for action and not just words. After all, who cares for the carers?

14:34

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. This is a debate that matters to millions of people across the country, not least because so many unpaid carers shoulder responsibilities that our health and social care systems could not do without.

Around 4.7 million people in England provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. I am one of them. Like many mothers, I did not think of myself as an unpaid carer at first, because when you are a parent of a disabled child, you just assume that caring is part of the package. Yet too often that commitment comes at significant financial cost.

For many people, caring is a full-time job and the hours required make it impossible to stay in paid employment, forcing families into impossible choices. I myself changed careers to accommodate my son’s needs, but I was one of the lucky ones. Every day, about 1,500 people are forced to leave the workforce because of caring responsibilities. Over the last two years, more than 1 million people have done so.

One of my constituents recently had to leave her job to care for her eight-year-old autistic son, because his needs could not be met through existing educational provision. She told me:

“We are under immense emotional, financial and practical pressure, yet we feel we have been left to cope alone.”

Another constituent, Steve, and his partner, Sindy, care for their 26-year-old son, who has severe learning difficulties. They recently brought him back to the family home due to safety concerns and, when exploring other services, they encountered a shortage of suitable supported living placements in Scarborough. Like countless other families, they stepped in because there was simply nowhere else for their son to go. These families do not complain. They do not ask for special treatment. They simply want the right support at the right time. Yet too often they find themselves battling systems that are fragmented, overstretched and difficult to navigate.

I was honoured recently to welcome HRH the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, to Scarborough to meet staff and volunteers at Carers Plus Yorkshire, many of whom are unpaid carers themselves. It was wonderful to see the joy that the royal visit brought to these people. I am really grateful for the work that Carers Plus Yorkshire does. At a time when more people are living longer and more children and adults are living with disabilities or long-term conditions, the number of these wonderful unpaid carers is only going to grow. That means supporting carers is not simply an act of compassion, but an economic necessity.

I greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming social care by creating a national care service. For far too long, reforming social care has been labelled as too difficult. Carers deserve better than warm words. They deserve a system that works. Unpaid carers save this country billions of pounds every year. They care for our children, our parents, our partners and our neighbours.

I am really pleased that we are going to have an unpaid carers’ champion. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in his closing remarks what further steps the Government will take to provide financial support for unpaid carers and to ensure that social care reform delivers real and lasting change for unpaid carers and our families.

14:38

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important and timely debate.

Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of England’s health and social care system. Without their dedication and sacrifice, the whole health and social care system would have collapsed by now.

There are so many different types of unpaid carers. Unpaid carers are young or old, working full time or part time, in school or further education, unemployed or retired. However, all unpaid carers are bound by their dedication to looking after a parent, a child, a sibling or a partner or loved one. They are also tragically united by many worries: how long they, their health and bank accounts can keep going, and how they will overcome all the barriers, unnecessary hurdles and lack of Government support.

Let us talk about the Williams family. It is made up of Sarah, David and their two young children. They are no exception to all of this. David, through no fault of his own, develops a serious health condition that leaves him needing substantial daily care. Sarah becomes his unpaid carer, because the family, like so many, cannot afford expensive professional care. To do so, Sarah reduces her working hours to manage David’s personal care, appointments, medication and domestic needs. She helps him to get out of bed, changes his clothes, helps him to shower, administers his medication, drives him to appointments, does the school run, cooks dinner, cleans the house, pays the bills, and looks after their children.

As a result, the household income falls while expenses continue to rise. Over time, the situation begins to affect the whole family. Sarah is exhausted and stressed, and her own health begins to suffer. She is increasingly isolated, with little opportunity for respite or socialisation because of the all-encompassing nature of her responsibilities. She struggles to spend quality time with her children and misses important school and extracurricular events. The children also take on additional responsibilities at home, including helping their mother to care for their father. They are forced to grow up quickly, with less time for their homework, activities and friends.

Financial pressures create further problems. The family falls behind on bills and they have to use their savings to cover everyday expenses, but eventually their savings run out. The family are then forced to move to cheaper accommodation, which is cramped and not fit for David’s care needs. As time passes, Sarah’s employment prospects deteriorate because of the time she has spent outside of work caring for David. She has lost opportunities for promotion, built up less pension entitlement and now has very limited financial means. David feels guilty that his illness is placing such a burden on his family, while Sarah is exhausted, stressed and feeling trapped between needing to work to earn an income, caring for David and supporting their children.

The Williams family might be hypothetical, but their experiences are far from uncommon. According to the 2021 census, there are 5.8 million Sarahs in the UK, providing unpaid care.

[Anna Dixon]

Obviously, most unpaid carers are women and the sacrifice they make not only affects them in the short term but feeds into their poverty in later life through the gender pension gap. Does the hon. Member recognise that?

[Helen Maguire]

Absolutely. I referred to that, and the care also affects their career prospects.

The care that unpaid carers provide is worth an estimated £152 billion annually, which is equivalent to the annual NHS budget. The 2021 census also found that in England and Wales, women are more likely to provide unpaid care than men, with women accounting for 59% of unpaid carers.

The number of unpaid carers has risen by 70% in the past two decades, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, and 1.7 million of the 5.8 million unpaid carers provide 50 or more hours of care every single week. In England and Wales, women aged between 75 and 79 are most likely to provide 50 or more hours of care a week, while among men it is those aged between 85 and 89.

The sacrifice to step up and work as an unpaid carer is not without significant impact. Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The 2021 census in England and Wales found that around one in four carers reported “not good” health, compared with fewer than one in five non-carers. The GP patient survey in 2025 found that 72% of carers said they had a physical or mental health condition or illness. An academic study that analysed the GP patient survey data found that for those providing care for 50 or more hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to their losing 18 days of full health each year.

The economic and employment prospects of unpaid carers are also heavily impacted. Census data shows that nearly 3 million people in the UK balance unpaid care with paid employment. Polling by Carers UK suggests that the number could actually be much higher, with one in five workers, or 6.7 million people, providing unpaid care. In addition, 69% of carers who are employees report not having focused on their career as much as they would have liked to, 61% said that caring has impacted the type of employment they have taken on and 21% said that they had taken on a lower paid or more junior role that better fitted with their caring responsibilities.

This polling also found that in the past two years 1.1 million people have left employment to provide care. That is equivalent to around 1,500 people leaving the workforce every single day, which is an increase of 150% compared with polling in 2019 that showed the figure was 600 a day.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. She is focusing clearly on those in work. I was sitting there thinking about the young carers I first met, who were between 11 to 17 years old. The impact on them is clear and graphic. Their work and their education suffers. When they go home from school they have to do their homework and have to look after their mum, dad or siblings, so the impact on them is even greater than normal. Does the hon. Lady agree that for those in education, there is a big impact as well?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree.

WPI Economics research found that being out of work is the single strongest quantitative predictor of poverty for unpaid carers. Those negative impacts of caring are particularly felt among under-represented groups. Ethnic minority carers are more likely to be struggling financially and have concerns around services not meeting their needs in comparison with white British carers. Similarly, LGBT+ carers are more likely to be struggling financially and more likely to say that caring has impacted on their mental health in comparison with their heterosexual counterparts.

The Liberal Democrats have always been the party of carers. We have campaigned to ensure that they have the financial resources, training, support, rights, respite and access to services that they need to live their own lives to the fullest and look after their loved ones. We are proud of the successes that we have had so far in helping unpaid carers, including introducing the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and securing increasing carer’s allowance in 2024.

However, much more must be done. We are happy to see that social care has moved up the agenda under the new Labour leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with the Prime Minister on this topic. However, the failure in social care is devastating family finances, forcing thousands to sell their homes, crippling the NHS with delayed discharges and unnecessary admissions and bankrupting local authorities. We will make sure that unpaid family carers are not overlooked as the whole system is reformed. They cannot continue to be seen as a never-ending source of labour that will always be there to cover the shortcomings of state support.

Our first test of Labour’s social care reforms will be whether family carers are front and centre with guaranteed rights. Those must include respite care and a full replacement of the broken carer’s allowance so that families can afford the care. Could the Minister clarify whether working-age adults will also be in scope for the national care service?

The Liberal Democrats will ensure that unpaid carers have a fair deal by increasing the carer’s allowance by £20 a week and expanding the eligibility for it; introducing a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks for unpaid carers; establishing paid carers leave and building on the entitlement to unpaid leave previously secured by the Liberal Democrats; creating a carer support service in every hospital to support carers before, during and after a loved one leaves hospital and to involve them in their discharge planning; making caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; and requiring employers to make reasonable adjustments to enable employees with caring responsibilities to provide that care and launching a young carers pupil premium as part of an education guarantee for young carers. We also want to see the NHS do more to identify and support unpaid carers, including by promoting the health and wellbeing of carers as part of integrated care board plans.

We are also calling on the Government to establish a new £75 million a year national scheme that would fund guaranteed respite care in every part of the country. That would alleviate the burden on carers and prevent hospital admissions due to carers becoming too exhausted to look after their loved ones. Unpaid carers deserve the right to a break. Many are overwhelmed and at breaking point because of their caring role. Being able to take a break is often described by carers as the No. 1 way to prevent burnout and in turn reduce pressure on our health services. That is particularly important as one in three NHS workers are unpaid carers themselves, and 65% of us will become unpaid carers at some point in our lives.

I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and other Members here today. We cannot let this crucial opportunity to strengthen support for those who provide essential care to others and reduce the risk of burnout among the millions of unpaid carers on whom our health and care system depend pass by. We must ensure that unpaid carers and the people that they care for receive the long-overdue support that they truly deserve.

14:48

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and all hon. and right hon. Members on their very thoughtful and, at times, moving contributions.

As we heard during the debate, across the United Kingdom 5.8 million people provide unpaid care. Those carers collect prescriptions, organise appointments and help with all aspects of personal care, and many do so either before or after they have done a full working day. For millions of families up and down the country, this has become part and parcel of ordinary life, but we should never underestimate the toll it takes over time. Of those 5.8 million carers, 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care each week—more than a full-time working week—and they often do it alongside employment or while raising a family or managing their own personal health needs.

Of course, caring responsibilities rarely fit neatly within the timetable that defines our normal week. Likewise, the way that care, and the need for it, presents itself is often varied and complex. For some, it can come with little forewarning; they may need it after a sudden accident, such as a catastrophic spinal injury. For others, it comes much more incrementally, over a period of time: needing help with shopping becomes needing help with medication, or an occasional visit becomes a daily necessity. Eventually, it can feel as though it is becoming all consuming.

Clearly, individuals must adapt because someone they love needs that help. However, our services must adapt, too. Too often we assume rather than asking whether the person who is undertaking the care is able to manage, and whether they have been shown what to do or how to use the necessary equipment and so forth. It is worth remembering that a relative’s presence is not in itself a care plan, and nor should their willingness to help be taken as proof that they do not need any support themselves.

We have heard a plethora of examples of what happens when those questions are ignored. One can only imagine the frustration encountered by so many carers who are forced to describe their circumstances, often repeatedly, only for nothing to happen. That risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that if they ask in the future it will make an iota of difference, and consequently, potentially, with declining physical and mental wellbeing. Others are forced to cut back on essentials just to make ends meet.

These individuals deserve a clear plan from the Government. Carers frequently find themselves putting the needs of those they care for above their own. As we have heard, employment can become more challenging, which often leads people to reduce their hours in order to make caring manageable, which of course has a knock-on impact on their income. Some are ultimately forced to leave work, which brings further financial pressures and often makes returning to the workplace much harder. As a society, we should be helping people preserve their working life wherever possible. Work provides not only financial freedom, but an environment where carers are recognised for achievements beyond their incredibly commendable responsibilities as carers.

We must remember, too, that many older carers are managing their own fragility, and that younger carers are often in education and their own childhoods can be affected. Support must reflect people’s different circumstances rather than assuming that every family can manage in entirely the same way. Alan Milburn’s interim review identified around 300,000 informal carers aged between 16 and 24. It described young carers as

“one of the least visible groups in the NEET conversation and one of the most systematically miscounted.”

A young person who misses college, declines an apprenticeship interview or struggles to attend a job or university may be managing responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about. In those circumstances, it cannot be right that their commitment to a loved one should cost them opportunities.

The previous Conservative Government took action through the 2018 carers action plan, the carers innovation fund and support for statutory carer’s leave. I welcome this Government’s publication of the unpaid carers action plan in July. The task now is to ensure that those commitments actually reach the people the plan is intended to help. With that in mind, I have three specific questions for the Minister.

First, with NHS England to be abolished by April 2027, who will have ownership of the actions in the unpaid carers plan thereafter? Secondly, NHS England currently has powers to support service integration between local authorities and the NHS and for the functions of the better care fund, a major source of funding and resourcing for unpaid carers. The BCF in its current form requires the NHS and local authorities to pool budgets for the purpose of service integration, as there is a requirement to use section 75 agreements. That means that to pool budgets, the BCF must involve local authorities.

The impact assessment for the Health Bill sets out that, following the abolition of NHS England, that function will be conferred on the Secretary of State. In addition, what is currently a mandatory requirement on the use of section 75 will change to a discretionary power. In short, the Secretary of State will retain the power to require pooled budgets should they wish, but that will not be the default position, as is currently the case. Does the Minister share the concerns of carers’ charities that this change may lead to significant cuts for schemes that support unpaid carers?

Thirdly, the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech the bare bones of a plan for a national care service. The Government have of course proposed to fund that through reforms to the triple lock. However, those reforms will, self-evidently, not be sufficient to fund and deliver such a service. Notwithstanding the statement in the main Chamber earlier today, the details of the funding still appear to be somewhat lacking. Much more detail of what the Government are proposing is needed. Do the Government intend to set out further details of how the national care service will be funded, and will the Minister rule out increased borrowing or tax rises to fund it?

The Conservatives look forward to working constructively on this issue. It is an important issue that we all face in our inbox every day, but for too long, across the political spectrum, we have kicked it down the track and not got a grip of it. In that spirit, we look forward to the ongoing cross-party talks on the issue. Ultimately, the marker of success must be whether carers can obtain the help that they need, are able to access respite breaks when they need them, and can look after their own health and wellbeing at the same time. That of course requires proper policy consideration, not just headline announcements, and I hope the Minister is able to provide greater clarity on that front today.

14:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. I also thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions.

Addressing me, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex gave a roll call of some of the welcome policy announcements that we have seen already. I know that an appetite is maintained for more, and we will get into that, but it was great to hear recognition of our action plan, of the announcement of a champion for unpaid carers, of the Prime Minister’s relentless historical, current and future focus on social care and a national care service, of the minimum wage link to earnings in this sector and of the increase in allowances.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), joined by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), rightly raised a particular issue. Indeed, I think that, consistently, every single Member in the Chamber made the point that I will distil to the absolute, fundamental need for respite. We understand that too often caring is a relentless duty. It is unending love, and that love is real, but so is the toil and the demand on unpaid carers, whom we are here to speak to and appeal for today.

Unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution to families, communities and our country. They are often the person holding everything together. They provide unwavering support to the person or people they care for, often while balancing employment, education, parenting and their own health needs. This Government are acting now to ensure that unpaid carers receive the right support, at the right time. The cross-Government unpaid carers action plan brings together work from across health, social care, education, employment and the benefits system. It is an improved recognition of unpaid carers that strengthens the way support is offered to help carers reach their full potential and live their own fulfilling lives.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced this summer—to great cheer from those of us in the audience—her intention to appoint an unpaid carers champion who will bring the commitments in the action plan to life and bring our responsibility to bear. Our carers champion will work across Government, the health and social care sector and carers organisations to provide advice and challenge on where we can go further.

The Government are making carers more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and reducing the practical burdens they face. A new “my carer” section in the NHS app will give carers clearer routes, clearer information and relevant support, and will help to streamline the tasks that they undertake on behalf of the people they care for.

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

Our task is simple: carers have to be recognised as partners in care, with their own needs and ambitions. We understand that caring can affect household finances and a person’s ability to remain in work. The Government raised the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit by a record amount in April 2025 and again in 2026-27. A public consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children closed on 1 September. We expect to conclude the review this winter with a full consultation, and we will respond to it with findings and a road map for potential reforms.

Members rightly raised the availability of practical support, including short breaks and respite—every Member referred to the need for that. A postcode lottery occurs too frequently. I am sorry to say that, because of the legacy of the last Government, that will take some time to rectify, but we are making progress in redressing the patchiness of public services left by the last lot.

This Government have brought in the better care fund, which provides a framework of more than £9 billion for integrated care boards, in a bid to patch up the patchiness left by the last Government. We speak frequently in this Chamber and the main Chamber about the need to ensure a universal service. It is for us as MPs as well as for the Government to ensure that there is better joined-up care and that funding can be used for carer support and respite, including short breaks and the peer support that we know is needed.

A fellow champion of carers—the heavyweight champion of Harlow, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—made the interesting point that there should be a young carers lead in all schools. I have been a school governor. The best schools and school leadership teams know the circumstances of our children, and we have a Government who not only understand the need for breakfast clubs, but recognise the importance of both the breakfast and the club. I hope that my hon. Friend’s idea will grow and go out into the governor world as a suitable idea. I do not think it is necessarily for the Government to mandate that, but it is a terrific idea. In developing those plans, perhaps he and friends will make representations to the champion that we will appoint so that young carers in particular get the support that they need. It is sad to think that there are undiscovered young carers. That is very poignant. The need for respite is very real, and so is the cost in terms of the childhood they are missing out on.

We must also recognise the effect of sustained care responsibilities on mental health, and provide mental health support, such as through the talking therapy service, the self-referral system, the NHS app, increased evidence-based talking therapies and digital interventions, and earlier support in schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) raised the issue of dementia. Today is the second consecutive day that she and I have spoken about the issue. I repeat my commitment that she will be involved in the first-ever modern service framework on dementia and frailty, which is to come. I look forward to working with her on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) always has nice things to say to colleagues and friends across the House. Support for unpaid caring is inseparable from the future of adult social care across all ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly talked about the need for a distinct older care service, as carers will get older and need care themselves.

At its best, social care is transformational, and our long-term ambition is to have a national care service that is person-centred, sees the person and their circumstances, integrates with health services and is preventive, giving people greater choice, control, dignity and independence. We are committed to building that service, but it must be informed by the undoubtedly exemplary work we will see from Baroness Casey. We will build on the consensus she is seeking from the public as she asks what they want, need and expect from the system. I look forward to seeing that work, which will address difficult questions about who should get support, what families can reasonably expect and who is responsible.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) asked who is responsible; that is a good question. I will ensure that the changes to NHS England and the forthcoming plans are in the purview of the work that Baroness Casey is undertaking. As to a commitment on tax and borrowing, he mistakes the level at which I currently sit in Government—I will gladly answer his question if they ever dare to give me responsibility for such things—but it is a good question.

In the meantime, greater investment is already coming, alongside better workforce support, digitisation, a stronger voice for people receiving care, and closer integration across services through the unpaid carers action plan, the appointment of an unpaid carers champion, improvements on carer ID through the NHS app, stronger financial employment support, better education support for young carers, more access to mental health services and more effective local planning. We are taking practical steps now; it is a Labour Government doing this.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex asked about identifying young carers—I recently raised the poignant issue of undiscovered young carers. This is a collaborative job. It falls to the local authority and to school leadership, and it must fall to integrated care boards to work with their colleagues in local government and local education to ensure that all children’s contexts are understood and known.

We are listening to carers, who must challenge services where support falls short. Unpaid carers enable millions of people to live with dignity, independence, love and connection. Their contribution must not be taken for granted. They get and deserve our recognition, our respect and reliable support. This Government are determined to turn that commitment into lasting change.

15:08

[Alison Bennett]

I appreciate the opportunity to wind up. I realise that I was remiss in not declaring an interest at the start. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, I am the new chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers—so new, in fact, that I forgot to declare it.

I thank all hon. Members for their speeches and interventions. I can say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that I have had a similar surgery, in which somebody asked about carer’s allowance and the state pension. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the work of Siobhan O’Dwyer at the University of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about her family’s experience of dementia. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) talked about Carers Week and the Rochdale carers’ hub. I did a similar event for Carers Support West Sussex. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about Freda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his work fighting for young carers, both as a teacher and now in this place.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) shared stories of her own caring responsibilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out the Williams family story, which gets repeated everywhere. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for putting those clear questions to the Minister.

Finally, I appreciate the Minister recognising that, although there is consensus in this Chamber, there is still much more work to be done.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Smoke-free UK

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

15:10

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK.

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to open the debate. This is a vital topic, and one I am proud to have campaigned on for many years—probably more than I care to remember. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Since I was elected, it has been tremendous to see the progress we have made on combating smoking and, indeed, increasing the health of the population generally.

Last week, new smoking prevalence data showed that, for the first time, less than 10% of the UK population smoke. We are worlds away from the 1970s, when almost half the population smoked. We certainly do not want to go back to that position. However, there is still some way to go, and this debate is an important reminder that the job is not done. Although we are making excellent progress, including with the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 earlier this year, we should not say that the job is done.

Smoking remains one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in the UK. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths every year. Cancer Research UK says smoking is responsible for around 160 cancer cases every day, or 57,700 cases each year. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. It can kill up to two thirds of lifelong users and is responsible for at least 16 types of cancer.

The impact goes beyond health. Around one in nine working-age adults in England who smoke are out of work because of ill health or disability. That is around 700,000 people. The NHS continues to feel the pressure, with around 100 GP appointments every hour linked to smoking-related illness. In fact, the total cost of smoking to society and the economy in England alone is estimated at £44.8 billion a year.

Smoking is still a huge problem, but it is one that it is within the Government’s power to fix. Cessation services, mass media campaigns and changes to the age of sale are all tools that can be used to achieve a smoke-free country.

This Government have shown admirable ambition in bringing back the smoke-free generation policy originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I and many others worked so hard behind the scenes to get that policy on the radar—in fact, I am still waiting for his thanks for the speech I made in this Chamber before he announced the policy at party conference.

That policy is transformative when it comes to stopping young people starting the habit, saving them from a lifetime of addiction and ill health. However, it does not do much for the 4.9 million people who currently continue to smoke. The previous Government had a clear plan to end smoking, which expired in 2022, but also a national smoking prevalence target of 5% by 2030. Even with recent progress, it is unlikely that that target will be met.

Concerningly, we are seeing more young people take up smoking and particularly vaping. The Teachers’ Union Behaviour in Schools survey found that 16% of pupils vaped during class—I find that hard to believe. It found that 62% of pupils repeatedly left lessons to vape, and that 39% of teachers had encountered pupils unable to concentrate because they were distracted or affected by nicotine, although I suspect the figure is actually even higher. It also found that 32% of teachers had observed peer pressure on non-vapers to vape. Schools have an important role in educating children and young people about the risks of smoking and nicotine use, preventing use on school premises and supporting children who need help. However, schools cannot be expected to solve a wider public health and regulatory problem.

When asked if Smokefree 2030 is still the Government’s target, various Ministers have responded by saying that the Government are “going even further” by creating a smoke-free generation. With respect, the previous Government also legislated for a smoke-free generation while having a target for current smokers to quit. Cancer Research UK has already found that England is not on track to become smoke-free by 2030, and smoking rates remain much higher in more deprived communities.

The Government must go further and faster or set a new target and publish a clear road map for reaching it. Can the Minister tell us what her ambitions are for reducing smoking and whether she will look at introducing a target for reducing smoking to not just 5% but below 1% in all communities across the UK? We need an ambition for current smokers that matches the ambition for the smoke-free generation of “Stopping the start”.

Targets can be a helpful tool for focusing attention on a particular area of importance. We have seen that through the truly remarkable success in reducing smoking rates among pregnant women—something I have campaigned for a long time. The last Government just about achieved the objective, and smoking pregnancy rates are now at their lowest rate ever, at just 4.2%, down from 9.6% in 2020. That means that more than 70 babies’ lives have been saved through preventing stillbirths caused by smoking during pregnancy. We are currently in Baby Loss Awareness Week, which demonstrates the importance of this issue.

Once again, the previous Government set a clear national target, designed targeted policies, including financial incentives, and integrated them into existing pathways—and it worked. I am so pleased that this Government have committed to continue funding financial incentives for pregnant women, but I also want us to learn lessons from that success. What we have achieved with pregnant women can be a blueprint for other at-risk populations. I hope the Minister will meet the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, as well as Action on Smoking and Health, to discuss how this approach can be applied to other at-risk groups as a road map to a smoke-free country.

I was really pleased that £5 million in financial incentives for pregnant women have been maintained for the next three years. That investment, alongside the £153 million for local authorities through the public health grant and funding from ICBs, means that more money is being invested in cessation support than ever before. However, ICB budgets are no longer being ringfenced, which means there is a risk that services are decommissioned, as we have seen in parts of the country, or see their funding reduced in NHS settings.

The Labour manifesto pledged to introduce opt-out cessation support in all in-patient settings. Can the Minister clarify what progress has been made on that manifesto pledge in this Parliament? Is the funding going to the NHS enough to deliver on that pledge? Has her Department been monitoring potential reductions in services due to ICB reductions? Will she ensure that cessation funds within the public health grant continue to be protected by ringfence?

Of course, there are broader activities, beyond cessation support, that reduce smoking rates. Mass media campaigns are one important part of the puzzle, and it would be good to hear how much is being spent on them. I would also like to hear from the Minister what plans she has to communicate the smoke-free generation to the public via a media campaign. Those are clear ways of reaching all sorts of people.

The good news is that we can be ambitious. We have at our fingertips a source of funding that is as yet untapped: a levy on the tobacco manufacturers, which would raise an estimated £5 billion over five years. The model that the APPG put forward would not allow that to be passed on to consumers. It is something of a unicorn policy, in that it raises revenue and is hugely popular with the public. Around 76% of adults in England support a levy, and the proposal enjoys majority support from voters from all political parties, with only 7% opposed.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to review business rates to raise revenue from businesses that

“do not make a positive contribution to…communities.”

If that is the case, big tobacco should be first in line. It is right that those responsible for the huge costs of smoking to our society, our NHS and our population’s health are the ones picking up the bill, not the taxpayer. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and suggest it to the Chancellor for his Budget in a couple of weeks’ time.

We must all be careful to call out the continuing interference by the tobacco industry in today’s world, particularly in politics. British American Tobacco sponsored Reform’s party conference, where its “inconvenience store” was plastered with a series of “shocking” mock health warnings. Reform’s party leadership have made it very clear that they support big tobacco being able to continue to sell lethal products to the next generation of children. They are completely out of touch with the public, but also with their own voters, who overwhelmingly support ending the devastating harms of tobacco in this country.

To be clear, there has always been a strong level of cross-party support on issues such as tobacco control and reducing smoking rates, as the Leader of the Opposition’s conference speech showed, and that should continue, both for health and due to the economic costs. It is disappointing that some parties in particular reject that and are all too willing to listen when money gets thrown around.

We have to remember that at the heart of this issue there are still 4.9 million smokers. They are our friends, family and colleagues, and many are absolutely desperate to quit but stuck in a steady cycle of addiction. Our all-party group was recently delighted to host a roundtable with the APPG on poverty and inequality to discuss the links between smoking and deprivation. My friend and co-chair, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), will share some of the discussion in her speech, but I want to reflect on how impactful it was to hear from those with lived experience. We heard from an ex-smoker, a mother, that her addiction to tobacco was so strong that she would buy cigarettes before buying food for her children. Tobacco came before everything. That cannot be acceptable in today’s society. We also heard from Dr Liam Loftus, who is delivering smoking-cessation support at Cambridge city food bank. He is not waiting for smokers to find him but going to where they are already seeking support and being proactive.

A road map—a clear plan—could help us to learn from pockets of best practice and to scale up interventions that truly turn the dial on smoking rates in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions from colleagues and, indeed, from the Front Benchers, and I trust that we can continue to work towards eliminating smoking in this country.

15:22

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [R]]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am so pleased to speak in this debate and to have secured it alongside my APPG co-chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). As co-chairs of the APPG on smoking and health, we will always champion cross-party support for ending the epidemic in the UK.

This debate is about what progress has been made towards a smoke-free country and what more we could do. I want to start by recognising just how much we have achieved in the last five years alone, thanks to the actions of both the previous Government and the current one. The Tobacco and Vapes Act became law. Smoking rates have fallen to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest among 18 to 24-year-olds.

The rate of smoking in pregnancy is at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies’ lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop-smoking services. Co-ordinated action among agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market.

I am particularly proud that smoking rates in the north-east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005—the largest drop in England. That is great to see, not just for my constituents in the City of Durham but for communities right across the north-east, an area with some of the worst health inequalities in the UK. Much of that success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support of Fresh. The experience of the north-east clearly shows the huge benefits of establishing expert-led, regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas, as we have had in the north-east over the last 22 years. I am sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. There was a time when smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable—a pipe dream—but in our mission to end smoking we have achieved many unthinkable things, and we have never stopped pushing for progress.

However, we have not called this debate to pat ourselves on the back and think it is job done—far from it. As we have heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK, and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequality. The inequality is stark: if current trends continue, people with a degree will reach smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later. That gap should concern us all, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society.

I was pleased recently to bring together stakeholders, on behalf of the APPGs on smoking and health and on poverty and inequality, to host a roundtable on the link between smoking and poverty. Smoking is a well-known health issue, but it is also a direct driver of poverty. It is a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction. Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, one in four people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks.

The roundtable included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings— reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support. Moving forward, opt-out support must be the way we work. It would be great to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment on opt-out support in routine care.

At the event, I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. As the hon. Member for Harrow East alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that they only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too.

The good news is that there is something we can do about it. Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support. That is why it is so important for the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country that sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice.

We also need a new target. Smokefree 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and a less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking. This Labour Government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society. We can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programmes to support smokers and still have cash to spare.

We can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. We need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, such as medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey. The recent Cochrane review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we must not forget that, on average, it takes 30 attempts to quit.

The regulation of vaping products is necessary to reduce their youth appeal, and the Government are right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim, including a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme, and the vaping products duty, which came into effect at the start of this month. A road map that situates vaping policy as part of a wider strategy on smoking and public health would help to enhance this long-overdue regulatory agenda. However, it is a complex area; has the Minister considered convening an expert group of some kind?

This Government will be remembered as the Government who signalled the beginning of the end for smoking with the smoke-free generation, but we could be the ones to end smoking for good. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to working with her to ensure that we do just that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We can get everyone in if everyone sticks to about five to six minutes. There is possibly a vote or two at 4 o’clock.

15:30

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for introducing the debate. Both their contributions set the scene incredibly well on an issue that concerns the health of people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The information published by the Library ahead of the debate reminded us that the Conservative party published a Green Paper on this topic in 2019 and that the Labour party has committed to the smoke-free by 2030 ambition. The major political parties and all of us in this Chamber want the same thing: to achieve a smoke-free UK. The introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 has made possible what is hoped to be a smoke-free generation, by prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. That will undoubtedly contribute to the continuing decline in the number of adult smokers.

I only ever had a cigarette once. I tell the story because I was only about six years old. You know the way, when you are small, you look at your granda? He was not a big man, but he was my hero because he was my granda. Granda smoked the cigarettes. They were Gallaher’s, and I do not think there was any filter on them. I looked at my granda and said, “Granda, you’re always smoking cigarettes—can I have one?” My granda says, “Yes, you can. Take that there and then take a really deep breath.” And I did—with no filter. Those of a certain generation will remember whenever the po was under the bed; well, I went green and I was violently sick into the po. I always remember that introduction, from my granda—that was a cigarette. Never, ever have I wished to smoke a cigarette, all my life. The Government do not have to worry about me; it will never happen. Nor, I am glad to say, did it happen to any of my children. That is a story with, perhaps, a poignancy—a reminder of what it was like years ago.

In 2024, those aged 45 to 54 had the highest proportion of current smokers, at 12.4% UK-wide. Many of that age group are addicted beyond their control, and deterrence measures alone are likely to be a bigger challenge and potentially less successful. The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to the mother—it is not a condemnation; it is a fact—who would buy a cigarette before getting food on the table. We must recognise that smoking is a serious addiction and acknowledge that many in that age group began smoking without fully understanding the long-term health consequences. Our focus must extend beyond prevention. We must advocate for accessible addiction treatment and practical support for those who want to quit smoking but are struggling to do so.

I understand that the consultation on the tobacco and vapes regulations ended on 2 October. Will the Minister give us some indication of the timescale for the release of the responses to the consultation, and the timescale to take action on those responses? I should have welcomed the Minister to her place; it is always a pleasure to see her and we wish her well in her role.

It was estimated that in 2024 smoking contributed to 15% of all deaths in Northern Ireland, and the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses was estimated at £218 million annually. Those figures are worrying. They indicate that if we achieve a smoke-free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it will clearly reduce the financial impacts on the NHS. The same report reflected UK-wide concerns regarding young people vaping, estimating that in Northern Ireland alone 9% of 11 to 16-year-olds use e-cigarettes. Although e-cigarettes may help some adult smokers to move away from tobacco, it is increasingly the case that young people who have never smoked are becoming addicted to vaping. There is a real need to address that in the Government’s consultation on vaping.

I call on the Government to take further action to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to children by introducing controls on flavouring and advertising. Alongside stronger enforcement against the illegal sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18, that will contribute to a smoke-free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which will ease pressure on our already burdened health service and ensure that the next generation—the ones who come after us—will grow up free from the harms that we have seen smoking cause.

15:35

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my previous role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate, and on their hard work and commitment to ensure that we move towards a smoke-free UK.

Throughout the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, I have been a strong advocate for vaping, because giving smokers choice in how to stop smoking is far more successful than telling them they should stop altogether. Giving smokers a safer way to stop is a choice worth protecting.

The goal of a smoke-free UK is worth backing. The Act ensures young people will avoid ever falling into the trap of addiction. It is now on the statute book, and the test for its success is its delivery. Rules only work if they are enforced on our high streets, not just written on paper, and the biggest threat to this goal is the illicit market.

Illicit tobacco and vapes are untested and untracked, with no age checks and no control on what is in them. The adult who wants the ability to choose an alternative to cigarettes cannot know what they are buying and, even worse, children can get hold of these products. Responsible retailers, including specialist vape shops, are undercut by rogue traders who face no meaningful consequences. The stakes could not be higher. Only last Tuesday, Lord Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the illegal tobacco trade is directly funding child abuse. That shocks us, and should shock every Member of this House. We can no longer treat this as a sideline issue. It should be the focus of Government attention and the sequencing of Government priorities matters. We must protect our good retailers before we come for their products. The alternative will only tighten the grip that organised crime has on our high streets.

The NHS says that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking, and that it is one of the most effective tools for quitting. Smokers using nicotine vapes are roughly twice as likely to quit as those used in traditional non-nicotine replacement products such as patches or gum. Around 5.5 million adults vape in this country, including around 3.3 million former smokers. Some 52% of adult smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is harmful or more harmful than smoking. Vaping is not harmless, but smoking and vaping are not equivalent. The Government must ensure that communication and regulation maintain that distinction and protect the right for vapes to be sold and to be more appealing to adult smokers than cigarettes.

Specialist vape shops are fundamentally different from corner shops, petrol stations and rogue retailers that simply sell vapes alongside other goods. Just as a petrol station selling alcohol is not a specialist alcohol retailer, these businesses should not be regulated as if they were the same. Doing that is pointless and harmful to the responsible industry while rogue retailers continue to sell illegal products to our children.

No retailer should sell vape products to a child. There should be rigorous age verification in shops and online, supported by Challenge 25 trained staff, refusal registers, reliable digital checks and regular test purchasing, rather than sweeping restrictions for responsible retailers.

Parliament has already legislated for a retail licensing scheme. A scheme that separates good retailers from bad is the most effective way to take dangerous illicit products off our streets. It gives councils the ability to identify who is selling these products and act against repeat offenders. But the Government have said that the consultation on licensing scheme will be considered “in due course”. Our high streets cannot afford for the issue to be kicked down the road. My constituents want to know when the consultation will be open, and they want it to be as soon as possible. That is my message to our Minister.

A comprehensive retail and distributor licensing scheme is essential, and the UK Vaping Industry Association has produced a framework called the UKVIA licensing framework. A licence would identify who is selling vaping products, set minimum standards and make repeat offenders lose the right to trade. The UKVIA has proposed penalties of up to £10,000 for retailers selling to children or supplying illicit and non-compliant products, with the proceeds used to strengthen trading standards’ enforcement.

Nearly 390,000 illicit or non-compliant products were identified through research covering 17 councils, but the reported fines for vape offences totalled only £10,700. Small penalties risk becoming a cost of doing business rather than a genuine deterrent. The message should be simple: comply with age verification, product and licensing rules or face penalties of up to £10,000, licence suspension and, for persistent offenders, removal from the market. Only once we have got to grips with illicit trade should we turn to packaging, appearance and display. If rogue traders ignore the rules we have, tougher new ones will be ignored, too, and it is honest retailers and adults who simply want a legal, safe alternative to cigarettes who will suffer.

We all want fewer people smoking, but the fastest way to get there is by backing the legal market—backing adults who are trying to quit and going after the criminals who profit from the illicit trade. We must not make cigarettes comparatively more attractive. The new vaping products duty is charged at £2.20 per 10 ml of vaping liquid. The Government say that vaping remains less harmful than smoking and helps adult smokers to quit, but the new duty risks undermining that objective.

A new report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that the duty could increase average vape prices by 44% compared with an estimated 4% increase in cigarette prices. Its central model suggests that 946,000 vapers and dual users could move exclusively to smoking, resulting in 1.5 billion additional cigarettes being consumed each year. The same modelling estimates an additional £300 million a year in healthcare and productivity costs, comprising £94 million in healthcare costs and £211 million in lost productivity. Those are modelled outcomes rather than certain forecasts, but they present a serious warning about unintended consequences.

The Government should monitor smoking relapse and quitting rates and illicit market activity closely, and be prepared to revisit the duty if it is pushing adults back towards cigarettes. We can protect children and non-smokers without punishing adults who have quit smoking. Make age verification non-negotiable. Introduce effective licensing and impose penalties of up to £10,000 on rogue retailers while preserving vaping as a vital quitting tool for adult smokers, and help us move towards a smoke-free UK.

15:43

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate.

I will start by declaring a lifelong professional interest in this vital issue. As a physiotherapist for more than 30 years, I have seen at first hand the effect of smoking on initiating and exacerbating things such as asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease. Passive smoking will hopefully decelerate now, but people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result. I am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health, and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions.

As we have already heard from the hon. Members who opened the debate, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year, including almost 4,000 people in Wales. One in every 10 deaths in Wales among those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking. Although that is profound for the families of the people who have died, it also has a major impact on our NHS. Public Health Wales estimates that every year in Wales more than 17,000 hospital admissions are attributable to smoking, and smoking-related costs to the Welsh NHS and social care system are estimated at over £650 million a year. That is for a country with a population of about 3 million, so Members can see just how expensive the problem is. However, the full estimated costs are so much greater, because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment.

As we have also heard today already, the costs of smoking are not borne equally; individuals from deprived backgrounds are the worst affected and smoking is a persistent driver of health inequalities. Consequently, smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in the most deprived communities in Wales smoke, a figure that is four times higher than that for the least deprived areas. As we have already heard clearly today, that is not fair; it is a social justice issue.

No Government who are committed to social justice, whether they are in Cardiff Bay or Westminster, can ignore this problem. I am therefore very pleased that the UK Labour Government are leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. That landmark piece of legislation will see the UK deliver the world’s first smoke-free generation, ensuring that today’s children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades.

Another major achievement of the Act was to take major steps to combat the challenges of youth vaping and to protect future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. I will concentrate mainly on vaping from now on, because although vaping is an important means of smoking cessation, I remain concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been smokers. Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that over a million people across England, Scotland and Wales are in that category, and the figure has doubled since 2021. Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number of people who smoke, and the number continues to rise, especially among young people, even while smoking rates decline.

Public health analysis from last year found that 5% of children between year 7 and year 11 reported vaping at least weekly, with the proportion for year 11s rising to 13%. Similar fieldwork undertaken by ASH Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school-aged vapers were using products containing nicotine and that almost half of them could not go through the whole school day without vaping. Moreover, 55% of the vaping products being used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal.

These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry that is preying on our young people. Last month, I was pleased to be able to host a roundtable here in Parliament to consider how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can be further strengthened to bear down on those trends. Attendees noted that, as we have heard, there is a wide spectrum of vape shops, ranging from corner shops to specialist retailers. There is a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum. Currently, customers should be able to expect clear and consistent retail standards, with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. I ask the Minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so that customers know what to expect.

At that roundtable, we also discussed imported vape products, particularly the high-capacity “big puff” devices. They should be held to the same standard as vape products manufactured in the UK. Consequently, will the Minister say what conversations she has had with the Treasury to ensure that our UK Border Force and local trading standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot-checks at the borders and in retail establishments? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the Government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect if unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes.

I could go on and on, but I dare not, because I am conscious of time. We need to get a grip on this problem and I look forward to the Minister answering my questions.

15:49

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is an honour, Ms Vaz, to serve under your chairmanship.

Like colleagues, I thank the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for their excellent introductions to the debate. They superbly put across the points about the impact of smoking, and the importance of our ambition for a smoke-free generation and a smoke-free country.

Like many other Members, I approach this debate with my personal perspective of smoking and my experience of growing up in a smoking household. Most of my family have smoked at various points, some of them for quite a long time—my mother did for more than 40 years. Smoking was always present in my childhood and adolescence, so my rebellion was to not smoke. That was probably a good, rebellious side to have, compared with the other options available.

Based on my experience and what I saw around me, I was an anti-smoker from day one. I saw the power of addiction and how difficult it was for so many of my family members, including my mother, to quit smoking, despite their best efforts and despite knowing that it was the right thing to do and that it was harming them, those around them and even their children. Smoking is incredible in its power to keep people addicted.

My grandfather, who was a smoker for much of his life, passed away from lung cancer and my mum, who is fortunately still with us, has suffered from various forms of cancer throughout her life, potentially caused by smoking, among other issues. I am passionate that we must do all we can and continue to be a leader in smoking cessation.

We know the evidence; it is clear. We have had clear marketing campaigns. We have had the horrific images on the front of cigarette packets for some time, but people have almost become numb to them and turn away from them. The power of those things alone is not enough to get us to where we want to be. Personal responsibility arguments are often used by people with libertarian or far-right perspectives—Reform UK has been mentioned today—but we know that is not enough.

Throughout the historical crusade to end smoking, public health measures have proved the doubters wrong time and again. The ONS data shows that we have achieved the historic milestone of falling below 10% prevalence; for the first time, fewer than one in 10 people in the UK smokes. We have to recognise that, positively, for some time, this has largely been a cross-party mission. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), when he was Prime Minister, led the campaign and proposed ambitious legislation. But there is a risk we will see that cross-party consensus evaporate. Reform UK’s relationship with big tobacco has already been mentioned. Unfortunately, both that party and the Opposition have had free votes on this issue, and it has not been possible to get a consensus on the legislation.

I hope that changes, because we all know the difference it can make. Within 20 minutes of stopping smoking, blood pressure resumes to normal levels, and within eight hours, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the blood reduce by half and oxygen returns to normal. Within two to 12 weeks, circulation improves; in three to nine months, coughing and wheezing problems fade and lung function increases by 10%; in five years, the risk of having a heart attack falls to about half compared with a person who is still smoking; and in 10 years, the risk of lung cancer falls to half of that of a smoker and the risk of a heart attacks falls to the same level as someone who has never smoked. Those powerful figures show it is never too late to stop smoking and see the health benefits.

We have to sustain the progress we have made. The last 10% of people smoking are fundamentally harder and more expensive to reach than the first 10%. As has been said, there is also a social justice element to this campaign; it goes beyond finance and public health. ASH data shows that smoking has pushed just under half a million households into poverty, including 137,000 children. I have seen in my constituency that those in that last 10% often have complex lives; they may experience deprivation, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol issues alongside smoking. We need targeted and specific outreach to support those people to quit smoking.

I have met the fantastic women who run the Hillingdon stop smoking service. They have talked passionately about the work they do to provide incentives, support, nicotine products, vapes and other alternatives that are now on the market. However, that outreach is ever more expensive the closer we get to eliminating smoking in this country.

In the limited time I have left, let me make a pitch to the Minister. We should look to reinvest tobacco duty revenue directly into stop smoking services. I support the calls that have been made for a specific levy on the profits of tobacco companies that is targeted and reinvested into stop smoking services. The public health case and the economic case are clear, and I hope the moral case is clear. We have to do more. We have to become the first country in the world to become smoke-free.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 4 pm. It looks like the votes are coming at 4.30 pm, so we could well be finished before then.

15:55

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this timely and important debate about progress towards a smoke-free Britain. I also welcome the Minister to her place, and declare an interest as the chair of the responsible vaping APPG.

I made the daft decision at a slightly older age than the unique exposure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had to pick up a cigarette at a party when I was 16. I have managed to progress to a point relatively early in life where I am no longer a smoker, but that was due to the availability of alternatives, not because I had the willpower to overcome the strong addiction to nicotine that quickly took hold after that juvenile mistake.

When we talk about ending smoking and addiction, we need to talk about how to enable effective off-ramps for those who are addicted to nicotine. It was great when I visited one of the specialist retailers on Falkirk high street, VPZ, that they had a carbon monoxide test, which checks how much carbon monoxide is in someone’s lungs. The level in mine has returned to relatively normal, but many of my constituents with preventable smoking illnesses face substantially worse outcomes because they have not been given that effective off-ramp in their quit journey. In this debate, I am thinking about those who are suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, heart failure and all other types of preventable illness. Diminishing that harm must continue to be our focus as we seek to sustain the progress that has enabled a significant fall in smoking rates.

There is no other legal product sold that does the same amount of damage as tobacco. I wholly support the Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which introduced a generational ban that will cut off those who turn 18 from January from ever being added to the 4.9 million smokers in our country. In the short time I have, I want to focus on the simple argument that, in seeking to achieve a smoke-free Britain, we should not prematurely regulate out of existence any of the tools that help combat tobacco smoking.

Occasionally, rhetoric on this topic has drawn an equivalence between vaping and smoking, because we are rightly concerned in this country about youth uptake of any nicotine products. Although I agree with that instinct, I must warn against the march towards an arbitrary equivalence of regulation between tobacco and vapes. We know from the data that the vast majority of vape use is among ex-smokers and current smokers, with 33.8% of current smokers and 20.7% of ex-smokers vaping daily or occasionally, compared with only 2.9% of those who have never smoked.

We also know from established public health data that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, yet—in no small part, I believe, due to the moralistic tone of the debate that emerged around vaping—around 90% of smokers still do not know that vaping is substantially less harmful for them. If we were to fully ban flavour or significantly restrict its availability as a result of the Government consultation on vaping flavours, which has closed, we may inadvertently limit the effectiveness of our most effective smoking cessation tool. ASH data indicates that 14% of ex-smoking adult vapers would return to smoking if flavours were restricted, and over 70% of vapers say that flavour variety helps them quit and, most crucially, sustain their efforts to quit. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on how the Government’s response to the consultation will retain the right balance by permitting flavours, as vaping is a quit aid.

I welcome the fact that the consultation is distinct from the question of packaging, display and appearance; far too much of the debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill focused on the appearance and names of vapes rather than the value of flavours to smokers who are seeking to quit. We have tacitly acknowledged that vapes are important in ensuring a smoke-free Britain; we can see the success of the “swap to stop” scheme. Overzealousness in curtailing the variety of products that are available to those seeking to access those services may undercut the sustainability and viability of that effort.

With my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), I sponsored an amendment to the Bill that would have introduced age-gating technology into vapes, which I think could be a helpful tool for the Minister. It would have practically addressed Members’ concerns about youth vaping while retaining the benefits for smoking cessation. As the technology is achieving more mass adoption, especially in the United States, I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks it could be utilised under the powers available to her in the Act. We see the worst practices in shops that would not think twice about selling similarly age-gated products to under-age people, including alcohol and fireworks. On the display ban, I believe that restrictions on what can be displayed at the shop front could inadvertently harm specialist and bespoke retailers more than the shops we are attempting to tackle, so we need a full list of specialist retailers to make sure we support smoking cessation efforts.

The Minister’s predecessor put it very well: if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice. The regulation that is being considered should follow that principle.

16:00

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this debate.

Tackling cancer must be a national priority. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer and is often caused by smoking. It accounts for about 35,000 deaths every year—approximately one in five cancer fatalities—and causes suffering and heartbreak in communities across the country.

I know at first hand the impact that smoking can have, as my father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking at around the age of 14. It was fashionable; everybody did it. Serving in the second world war, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He could not give them up and continued smoking for the rest of his life—often 60-plus a day. It eventually killed him at the very early age of 63. That is why the ambition of a smoke-free Britain is so important to me.

For that reason, I welcomed that Tobacco and Vapes Act, which passed earlier this year. It introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, which means that future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. That is particularly important because, although overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14% to 18% since 2023.

The Act is an important step forward in trying to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking, but legislation alone is not enough. Experts have rightly raised concerns about enforcement, and the decade of cuts to public health under the previous Government impeded smoking cessation services. The 2022 Khan review warned that, without further action, England would miss its smoke-free target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas not becoming smoke-free until 2044. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and for renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits.

Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country. It claims about 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and it kills up to two thirds of its long-term users. It is also the leading cause of lung cancer.

Too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. Such delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four-week delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates. For lung cancer patients, early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can mean the difference between life and death.

Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the Government’s national cancer plan. The ambition to meet all cancer waiting time standards by 2029 is positive. That includes the target of all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time.

I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but that is a massive ask because of the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses. The Liberal Democrats would recruit 3,000 additional cancer nurses, doubling the current workforce. Will the Government commit to doing that? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, but particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced.

These measures would help to tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking-related disease. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce both smoking rates and the harm that smoking causes.

There is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society annually an estimated £44.8 billion through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking-related fires. Those costs far outweigh the £7.5 billion a year of revenue generated through tobacco taxation. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds.

A smoke-free Britain should be an ambition shared across the House. Reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high-quality treatment are goals that should transcend party politics.

To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. Can she provide an update on progress towards offering opt-out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers to quit? Can she also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament and that the ringfence around the public health grant will remain in place?

16:07

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this issue over many years.

Smoking remains the single largest preventable cause of cancer, and the prize for tackling it is enormous: fewer deaths, shorter waiting lists and a healthier country. We on the Opposition Benches will support action that works and will hold the Government to account on the delivery of it. As has been mentioned, common ground has been found on this subject throughout the House. I am glad to put on record my party’s appreciation and my thanks to the Government for carrying a Conservative Bill over the line when what was for most of us a rather unexpected general election interrupted progress.

Let me start with that record. The ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030 was set under a Conservative Government in 2019. The Khan review, commissioned by a Conservative Health Secretary, called for investment in a Smokefree 2030 programme, a rising age of sale, vaping as a substitute for smoking, and stop smoking support at the heart of the NHS. In 2023, we committed an extra £70 million a year to local stop smoking services, more than doubling annual spend to £138 million. Swap to Stop gave almost one in five smokers in England a vape starter kit alongside behavioural support. We put stop smoking advisers in maternity units and introduced incentives for pregnant smokers to stop, and smoking at time of delivery is now at an all-time low. We also began targeted lung cancer screening.

Before the election, as I said, we published the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I served on the Bill Committee alongside the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham, so we remember the cross-party consensus that there was for most of that Bill. The outcome was that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally allowed to buy tobacco. We are proud of that and want it to work, but a law on the statute book does not cut smoking rates by itself. What happens next is what counts, and I want to raise five points with the Minister.

The first is about the target. The Office for National Statistics tells us that 9.8% of adults, or about 4.9 million people, smoked in 2025. That was down from 10.6% the year before. Of course that is welcome, but smoke-free, in definition, means below 5%. On this trajectory, unfortunately, the 2030 target will be missed. I do not say that to point-score, but candour matters. Canada has set a target of under 5% by 2035, and Belgium and the Netherlands a target of under 5% by 2040, with interim targets and goals for young people. If the Government accept the Office for National Statistics figures and that the 2030 target will be missed, they should say so, set a new date and publish an outline plan. Cancer Research UK and ASH both want a new road map and tobacco control plan. Will the Minister commit to one, and when?

Secondly, on support to quit, ASH has warned that hospitals stop smoking services are being squeezed as ICB budgets are reduced. The Government promised opt-out cessation support in routine hospital care. So where is it? The national cancer plan lists implementing the Act as a key action and promises to fund stop smoking services, but it says very little on the delivery. A target without a funded service is an aspiration, not a policy.

That support must also reach the people who need it most. In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, I noted that manual and routine workers are 2.6 times more likely to smoke than managers. ASH now points to social housing, the economically inactive, people with no qualifications and those with poor mental health. How will the Government ensure that these gains are shared?

Thirdly, on enforcement and proportionality, Ministers are bringing in a ban on free samples from 29 October; a marketing and sponsorship ban from June of next year; wider standardised packaging, flavour and design rules; licensing; planning permission requirements for vape shops; and extended smoke-free places. All of that regulation lands on trading standards and councils. In the Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked trading standards witnesses whether they would have the resources. I warned that online and cross-border sales are the hardest to police. A rule that is not enforced is not really a rule. So what extra resources will trading standards receive, and when?

Rules must also be proportionate. The Government have taken wide powers to extend smoke-free places. The amendment my hon. Friend tabled to the Bill to limit them to places with a provable significant risk to public health was unfortunately rejected. In Committee, I asked the then Minister for a firm commitment on outdoor hospitality; unfortunately, essentially saying that it might not be the right time is not a decent response. Pubs and restaurants are under all sorts of pressures. Will the Minister therefore confirm that they are not in scope in terms of their outside seating?

Fourthly, on vaping, we have always backed vaping as a route out of smoking for adults, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said. In Committee, I said that what worries me most for our children is vapes. However, the Government can hold both positions at once, and the disposable vape ban, in force since June last year, was a step towards that. ASH suggests that disposable use has fallen significantly, which is encouraging. Yet, Ministers have said little about what they have found from that.

As the Government review planning rules and business rates for vape shops, protecting children must be foremost. For example, on flavours, I urge the Minister to look hard at restricting the names that appeal to children—we talked about unicorn milk and the like endlessly in Committee—before removing options that help adults quit. I would also ask the Minister to revisit the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) for exempting mental health settings from the vape vending machines ban.

Finally, on lung health, respiratory disease is the third most common cause of death in the UK, yet there is no modern service framework for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tabled an amendment to the Health Bill requiring one within 18 months. Unfortunately, Government Ministers rejected it. Asthma + Lung UK has called for exactly that kind of mission for lung health. The Government have also committed to a full roll-out of lung cancer screening by 2030—a programme that the Conservative party started. Is it on track and is it funded?

I want to close by paying tribute to a constituent, Yolanda, a volunteer for Cancer Research UK in my community, who has given her time to raise awareness of these issues. She lost her husband, and I put on record my condolences and my thanks. It is people like her working across our constituencies who remind us why the delivery of this is so important and why it matters.

Will the Minister publish a new target and plan? Will she fund hospital stop smoking services and deliver opt-out support? Will she resource trading standards, rule out the hospitality element, report on the disposal vapes ban and reconsider a framework for respiratory disease? We all want this Act to succeed and I will support her in any way I can to deliver it.

16:15

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this important debate, and on their steadfast advocacy in support of creating a smoke-free generation. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed today.

I note that the two hon. Members who secured this debate co-chair the APPG on smoking and health and are obviously a formidable duo. I am not surprised that they were able to secure this debate, which I understand was granted by the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee. They obviously made a very powerful case.

Hon. Members raised a number of questions this afternoon, which I will try to address in my remarks, but I would also be very pleased to attend a session of the APPG to discuss the issues further. It is really important that we carry on with the cross-party nature of this debate and the work that has gone on by previous Governments. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Government and previous Prime Minister in this particular area, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Harrow East.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told us about the rather drastic action his grandfather took to ensure that he remained smoke-free throughout his life. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) spoke about the role of vapes in helping people quit smoking. Importantly, she also talked about the illicit products and traders, and the fact that organised crime is funded by those products.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about her professional experience as a physiotherapist and the challenges that are faced particularly in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) talked about growing up in a family of smokers; he is very anti-smoking. He set out really clearly the health benefits of giving up smoking and how quickly those benefits can materialise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about vapes. He chairs the APPG for responsible vaping and also made the case for vapes in helping people cease smoking. Again, I would be very happy to attend and talk to the APPG if that would be helpful.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made a very personal statement at the beginning of his speech about the role that smoking had played in his family, with his dad dying at a relatively young age. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), set out the work of previous Governments and asked a series of questions, which I will try to address.

I think we are all agree that tobacco is a uniquely harmful product and smoking is the single most entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death in the UK. It is responsible for around 75,000 deaths each year. Smoking reduces life expectancy by an average of 10 years, and almost every minute of every day somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking-related harm.

Smoking contributes to a range of serious long-term conditions, including stroke, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, asthma and complications during pregnancy. The cost of smoking is not just measured in lives lost and poor health. There are significant economic costs. Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS and social care system £3 billion annually, resources that could otherwise be used to fund millions more appointments, scans and operations.

In terms of health disparities, smoking remains one of the greatest drivers of health inequalities in this country, with the burden falling disproportionately on our most disadvantaged communities. The disparities are stark. For example, the number of women who smoke at the time of delivery varies drastically according to deprivation—from 12% in Havering, 8% in Kingston upon Hull, where my constituency is, compared with less than 1% in Richmond upon Thames. Those are not merely statistics; they represent real families, communities and children whose health and life chances are being diminished by tobacco addiction.

Turning to the smoke-free generation, it is a real privilege to have responsibility for implementing the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act. As many Members will be aware, the Act will create a smoke-free generation by ending the sale of tobacco products to future generations across the UK. In practical terms, that means than anyone who has turned, or is turning, 17 this year will never legally be sold tobacco. Over the next 50 years, that will save tens of thousands of lives and could boost the economy by up to £48 billion pounds.

Since Royal Assent, the Department has made significant progress towards the implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. We have laid enabling legislation in Parliament, engaged extensively with stakeholders across public health and the retail sector, and published detailed guidance. We are also in the process of developing a nationwide awareness campaign to inform the public. We are expecting that to be rolled out in November with a particular focus on areas with high smoking rates.

The hon. Member for Harrow East asked about what progress has been made on the manifesto pledge for opt-out smoking cessation interventions in all routine care. I want to address that, but first I will say that protecting future generations through our smoke-free generation must go hand in hand with helping current smokers to quit. Through the public health grant, we have ringfenced a record investment of £153 million each year for local stop-smoking services specifically, with funding targeted towards those areas with the highest smoking rates. As I said, the hon. Member for Harrow East and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham raised the question about services and opt-out. Those services are currently available in 99% of maternity services and 92% of inpatient services. On top of that, ICBs have access to funding for tobacco dependence treatment services in those particular settings.

Many comments were made about youth vaping, and we know that vapes can play an effective role in helping adult smokers to quit, as my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and for Falkirk stated. However, young people, and adults who do not smoke, should never vape. That is because we know that they are not harm-free and the longer-term harms are still unknown.

We are taking firm action to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. That is important given that a million 11 to 17-year-olds have tried vaping this year. We have also banned single-use vapes, and a vaping product duty is now in force. From 29 October, we are introducing a ban on vape vending machines, banning free distribution and extending the age of sale to 18 for all nicotine and vaping products, including nicotine-free vapes.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act also introduces a comprehensive ban on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. We intend to bring that into force across the UK from 1 June 2027. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk asked how we will ensure that striving for a smoke-free generation does not mean banning key smoking cessation tools such as vapes. The measures consulted on have been carefully assessed to ensure the right balance between protecting children and ensuring that adult smokers can still access vapes to quit smoking.

In terms of upcoming policy changes, in May we concluded our consultation on extending smoke-free places to certain outdoor settings and introducing vape-free places. Our consultation on proposals to reduce the appeal of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products closed on 2 October. We are now carefully considering the responses as we develop effective and proportionate policies that continue to protect public health.

Turning to enforcement, to ensure that measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Act are effective, we are providing up to £30 million a year for enforcement agencies until 2028-29. That will support legitimate businesses and enable stronger enforcement against those who break the law. The Tobacco and Vapes Act also provides new powers for enforcers. New fixed penalty notices come into force on 29 October, supporting trading standards to crack down on retailers who break the rules. The Act also provides powers to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to expand the retailer registration scheme in Scotland. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, we intend to consult on those issues next year.

Several hon. Members asked what comes next after the implementation of the smoke-free generation measures on 1 January and for a longer-term road map for tobacco control and the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. We share the ambition to drive down smoking rates. Indeed, new figures published just last week show that smoking prevalence across the UK has fallen to 9.8%, which is the first time it has fallen below 10%. That is a significant milestone that demonstrates the progress we are making.

We must not mistake progress for completion, however. Around 4.9 million adults across the UK still smoke, and we remain determined to go further. Our immediate priority is delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Act successfully and ensuring that these landmark reforms achieve their full potential. The Act represents the most significant advance in tobacco control in a generation, and getting implementation right will deliver benefits for decades to come. I am very happy to look at all the issues and suggestions that have been made by hon. Members; perhaps we can discuss them at the APPG.

In supporting smokers to quit, protecting children from nicotine addiction, strengthening enforcement and creating a smoke-free generation, the Tobacco and Vapes Act represents one of the most significant public health reforms of our time. Future generations will look back on this moment as a defining milestone in public health. It is legislation that will save lives, reduce inequalities, improve health outcomes and create a healthier, fairer future for communities across the United Kingdom.

16:26

[Bob Blackman]

It is pleasure to follow the Minister, and I thank her for her comments. I also thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to this vital debate.

I want to say a couple of things in response to what the Minister and colleagues have said. We have to be cautious about our position on vaping. We do not yet know the long-term impacts on health of vaping, but the first evidence is coming through that vaping does harm lungs. The delivery mechanism of the vape is key. We should be very cautious about that process. I agree with the principle that vaping is a means for smokers to give up, but people who do not smoke should not start vaping. That message has to go to young people in particular, who I think are really harmed by vaping.

Both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking back in 1979. The advice that they were given as young people was that smoking was healthy. We have to remember that we have a duty to our next generation to ensure that they do not go down the route of believing that vaping is healthy. I agree completely that what we have done in the Tobacco and Vapes Act is give as many hooks as possible for the Public Health Minister to bring in measures.

Licensing is complex, and it is going to take some time to introduce it, but that does not mean that we should not move forward on advertising and other measures. We can decouple those as we go.

These debates have always been led from the Back Benches. We have forced Governments of all persuasions to make changes, and the Minister will know that we are a formidable force who will continue to hold her to account.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank Members: we got everyone in, and we did not have to suspend for the vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK.

16:26

Sitting adjourned.