Commons Chamber

Wednesday 26th March 2025

(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Science, Innovation and Technology
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order. Order. Order. We Order. Order. We start Order. Order. We start with
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps he is taking to shift care from major hospitals into community hospitals. (903374)
-

questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
None Portrait Q2. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dental services. (903375)
-

Question number two.
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
None Portrait Q5. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that smaller platforms are adequately regulated to protect children from online harms. (903448)
-

UK. Most of that is down to industry and I want to make sure we remove some of the barriers to investment there are in industry so we improve mobile connectivity for every member of the House. of the House.
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

is rubbish other telecoms Minister. We move to Prime Minister's
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
None Portrait None
-

12:33
None Portrait Financial Statement: Spring Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to that We now come to that Spring Statement. Chancellor of the
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
globe, and a hub for global in the. These strengths and the progress that we have made so far means that that we have made so far means that we can act quickly and decisively in a more uncertain world. To secure Britain's future and to deliver prosperity for working people. Mr prosperity for working people. Mr Speaker, as I've set out at the budget last year, I am today budget last year, I am today returning to the house to provide an update on our public finances.

Supported by a new forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Head of the full Spending Review in June, I will then return to the house in the autumn to deliver a budget. In line with our commitment to deliver just one major fiscal event each year. Let me now turn to the OBR's forecasts. I want to thank Richard Hughes and his team for their dedicated work. The increased global uncertainty has had two consequences. First on our public finances and second on our economy.

I will take each in turn. In the autumn I set out our new fiscal rules that will guide this government. These fiscal rules are nonnegotiable. They are the embodiment of this government unwavering commitment to bring stability to our economy, and to ensure security for working people. Because the British people have seen what happens when a government borrows beyond their means. The min-Budget delivered by the party opposite resulted in higher bills, with higher rents and higher mortgages.

Mr Speaker, it was not the wealthy who suffered most when they crash the economy, it was ordinary working people. And they continue to feel the effects will stop 2 1/2 years later, of the damage that the party opposite did. Let me be clear. There is nothing progressive, there is nothing Labour about working people paying the price for economic irresponsibility. The British people put their trust in this Labour government because they knew that I would never take risks with the public finances.

We would never do anything to put household finances in danger. And we must earn that trust every single day. The two rules that I set out at that budget were, first, our stability role. It ensures public spending is under control. Balancing the current budget by 2029/30. So that day-to-day spending is met by tax receipts. Second, our investment rule, to drive growth in the economy. Ensuring the net financial debt falls by the end of the forecast period.

While enabling us to invest alongside business. Turning first to the stability role, the OBR's forecast shows that before the steps I will take in this
12:39
12:39
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:44
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
If we do nothing, we are writing off an entire generation. That cannot be an entire generation. That cannot be right and we will not stand for it. It is a waste of their potential and It is a waste of their potential and it is a waste of their futures, and we will change it. As my right honourable friend said in her statement last week, the final costings will be subject to the OBR's assessment. Today the OBR have said that they estimate that the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget.

Reflecting their judgement of behavioural effects and wider factors. This also reflects final adjustments to the overall package, consistent with the Secretary of State statement last week, and the government pathway to work Green Paper. Universal Credit standard allowance will increase from £92 each week in 2025/26 in 2025/£26-£106 each week by 2029/34 top of the Universal Credit health element will be cut for new claimants by around 50% then frozen. On top of this, we are investing £1 billion to provide guaranteed personalised employment support to help people back into work.

And £400 million to support the partner for work and pensions and I jobcentres to deliver these changes effectively and fairly. Taking total savings after that to the package to £3.4 billion. While spending on disability and sickness benefits will continue to rise, these plans mean that welfare spending as a share of GDP will fall between 2026 and the end of the forecast period. We are reforming the system, making it more sustainable, protecting the most vulnerable and supporting more people back into secure work, lifting them out of poverty.

At the
12:46
12:46
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
promise of change. That work has already begun. 2 million extra appointments in our NHS. Waiting appointments in our NHS. Waiting list down. New breakfast clubs opening across England. The largest settlements in real terms for settlements in real terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the history of devolution. Asylum in the history of devolution. Asylum costs falling, promises made, promises kept. And every single one of them opposed by the parties of them opposed by the parties opposite. At the Budget, alongside providing an increase in funding for this year and next, I set the envelope for the spending review, which we will deliver in June, led by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

To set departmental budgets until 2028/29 for day-to-day spending and until 2029/30 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. To set departmental budgets until 2028/29 for day-to-day spending and until 2029/34 capital spending. Today I am reflecting two steps we have taken on our spending plans. Because we are living in an uncertain world, as the Prime Minister has set out, we will increase defence spending to 2.5 percent of GDP, reducing overseas aid to 0.3 percent of Gross National Income. This means we save £2.6 billion in day-to-day spending in 2029/32 fund more capital intensive defence commitments.

In recent months, we have begun to fundamentally reform the British state, driving efficiency and productivity across government, to deliver tangible savings and improve services across our country. Earlier, the Prime Minister set out plans to abolish the Arms Length Body, NHS England, and ensure that money goes directly to improving the service for patients. The Health Secretary is driving forward vital reforms to increase NHS productivity. Bearing down on costly agencies spend, to save money so we can improve patient care.

And the can improve patient care. And the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
our fiscal rules. Today, I build on that work. By bringing forward £3.25 billion of investment to deliver the billion of investment to deliver the reforms that our public services need through a new transformation fund. Money brought forward now to bring down the cost of running bring down the cost of running government by the end of the forecast. By making public services more efficient, more productive and more focused on the user. I can confirm today the first allocations from this month, including funding for voluntary exit schemes to reduce the size of the Civil Service, pioneering a tools to modernise the state -- AI tools.

Ministry of Justice delivering probation services more effectively. And upfront investment so we can support more children into foster care to give them the best possible start in life and reduce cost pressures in the future. Our work to make government leaner, more productive and more efficient will help deliver a further £3.5 billion of day-to-day spending is by -- savings by 2030. Day-to-day spending will be reduced by £1.6 billion by 2029/30. And grow by an average of 1.2 percent a year above inflation compared to 1.3 percent in the autumn.

I confirm to the House that day-to-day spending will increase in real terms above inflation in every single year of the forecast. In the spending review, apart from the reduction overseas aid, day-to-day spending across government has been fully protected. I can also confirm our approach to capital investment. In the Autumn Budget, I announced £100 billion of additional capital spending to crowd investment from the private sector, to fix crumbling infrastructure and create jobs in every corner of our country. Today, I'm not cutting capital spending as the party opposite did time and time again.

Because that choked off growth and left our school roofs literally crumbling. That was the wrong choice, it was the irresponsible choice, it was the Tory choice. I am today increasing capital spending by an average of £2 billion per year compared with autumn, to drive growth in our economy and deliver in full our vital commitments on defence. This government will ensure that we deliver for the British people by increasing productivity, driving growth in the economy and improving frontline services.

Let me turn to the impact of increased uncertainty on our economy. To deliver economic stability we must work closely with the Bank of England, supporting the independent Monetary Policy Committee to meet their inflation target. There have been three interest rate cuts since the general election and today's data shows that inflation fell in February. Having peaked at 11 percent under the previous government, the OBR forecast that CPI inflation will average 3.2 percent this year, before falling rapidly to 2.1 percent in 2026 and meeting the two percent target from 2027 onwards.

Giving families and businesses the security they need and providing our economy with the stable platform it needs to grow. Earlier this month, the OECD downgraded this year's growth forecast for every G-7 economy, including the UK. The OBR today revised our growth forecast for 2025 from two percent in the autumn to one percent today. I am not satisfied with these numbers. That is why we, on the side of the House, are serious about taking the action needed to grow our economy.

Backing the bill does not the blockers, with 1/3 runway at Heathrow Airport and the planning and infrastructure bill, increasing investment with reforms to the pension system and a new National Wealth Fund. And tearing down regulatory barriers in every sector of our economy, that is a serious Plan for Growth, a serious plan to improve living standards and a serious plan to renew our country. The changing world presents challenges, but it also presents new opportunities, for new jobs and new contracts, in our world-class defence industrial centres, from defence industrial centres, from Belfast to Deeside and Plymouth to elsewhere.

In February we set our Spending on defence to 2.5 percent of GDP from April 2027. The biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. An ambition to spend three percent of GDP on defence in the next Parliament. That was the right decision in a more insecure world, putting an extra £6.4 billion into defence spending by 2027. But we have to move quickly in this changing world and that starts with investment. Today, I confirm that I will provide an additional £2.2 billion for the Ministry of Defence in the next financial year.

A further downpayment on our plans to deliver 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. This additional investment is not just about increasing our national security, but increasing economic security also. As defence spending rises, I want the whole country to feel its benefits. I will set out the immediate steps to taking to boost Britain's defence industry and make the UK a defence superpower. We will spend a minimum of 10 percent of the history of defence's equipment budget are novel technologies, including drones and AI technology.

Driving forward advanced manufacturing production in Glasgow, Derby and Newport. Creating demand for highly skilled engineers and scientists. And delivering new business opportunities for UK tech firms and start-ups. We will establish a protected budget of £400 million within the Ministry of Defence, a budget that will rise over time with UK defence in, with a mandate to bring innovative technology to the front line at speed. We will reform our broken defence procurement system, making it quicker, more agile and more streamlined and giving small businesses across the UK better access to Ministry of Defence contracts, something welcomed by the Federation of Small Business.

We will take forward our plan for Barrow, a town at the heart of our nuclear security, working with the Member for Byron Furnace and , supporting jobs there. We will support Portsmouth's naval base, securing its future. We will secure better homes for thousands of military families, the homes they deserve denied to them by the previous government. Homes for military families in constituencies of my honourable friends for Plymouth, York and Aldershot. That is the difference this government is making.

We will provide £2 billion of increased capacity for UK Export Finance. To provide loans for overseas buyers of UK defence goods and services, because I want to do more with our defence budget so we can buy and make and sell things here in Britain. Giving further opportunities for our world leading defence companies and those who work in them to grow and create jobs here in Britain as military spending rightly increases all across Europe. To oversee all of this vital work, my right honourable friend, the Defence Secretary and ICOM will establish a new defence growth board to maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers money we spend.

We will put defence at the heart of our modern industrial strategy to drive innovation that can deliver huge benefits back into the British economy. That is how we make our country a defence industrial superpower, so the skills of the future, the jobs of the future and the opportunities of the future can be found right here in the United Kingdom. As the previous government learned, to their detriment, there are shortcuts to economic growth. -- There are no shortcuts to economic growth.

It takes long-term decisions, it will take time for the reforms we are introducing to be felt in the everyday economy. It is right that the office for the budget responsibility consider evidence and think carefully before a great impact in their forecast. The OBR have considered and have scored one of the central planks of our Plan for Growth. In my first week as Chancellor, I announced we were pursuing the most ambitious set of planning reforms in decades. To get Britain building again.

In December, we published changes to the national plan policy framework. Driven by the Deputy Prime Minister, reintroducing mandatory housing targets and bringing grey belt land into scope. The OBR have concluded that these reforms will permanently increase the level of real GDP. By 0.2 percent in 2029/30 and an additional £6.8 billion for our economy. And by 0.4 percent of GDP within 10 years, an additional £15.1 billion in our British economy. That is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR have ever reflected in their forecast for a policy with no fiscal cost.

Taken together with our plans to increase capital spending that we set out in the budget last year, this government's policies will increase the level of real GDP by 0.6 percent in the next 10 years. That is the difference that this Labour government is making. Policies to grow our economy, promises by a Labour government, delivered by a Labour government, opposed by the parties opposite. The planning system that we inherited was far too slow. The OBR have concluded that the reforms will lead to housebuilding reaching a 40 year high.

305,000 homes a year by the end of the forecast period. Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the Taking us within touching distance of delivering our manifesto promise to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. Homes promised by this Labour government, homes built by this Labour government, homes posed by the party opposite. The impact on our economy goes further impact on our economy goes further still.

I said that the election we could not simply tax and spend our way to prosperity. We need economic growth. So I can today confirm that the effect of our growth policies including our planning reforms means an additional £3.4 billion to support our public finances and our public services by 2029/30. The proceeds of growth promised by this Labour government delivered by this Labour government, opposed by the parties opposite. Earlier this week we provided an additional £2 billion of investment in social and affordable homes next year.

Delivery up to 18,000 new homes. And allowing local areas to bid for new development across our country. Including sites in Thanet, in Including sites in Thanet, in Sunderland, and in Swindon. More security for families across our country, promised by this Labour government, delivered by this Labour government and opposed by the party opposite. To build these new homes we need people with the right skills. Earlier this week my right honourable friend Education Secretary announced more than £600 million to train up 60,000 more construction workers, including with 10 new technical excellence colleges across every region of our country.

Giving working people the chance to fulfil their potential. New opportunities for our young people. Promised by this Labour government, delivered by this Labour government, opposed by the parties opposite. Mr Speaker all this is just the start. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill passed its second reading on Monday. No thanks to the parties opposite. Once this Bill completes its passage, it will help deliver the homes and infrastructure our country badly needs. And I say to the parties opposite, the British people will be watching.

Because if the parties opposite don't support these reforms, let us be clear about what that means. They are opposing economic growth. They are opposing more homes for families. They are opposing good jobs across our country. We on this side are clear about whose side we are on, the parties opposite must decide too. This Labour government is taking the right decisions now to secure Britain's future. And today I can confirm to the house that the OBR have upgraded their growth forecast next year and every single year thereafter.

With GDP growth, with GDP growth of 1.9% in 2026, of 1.8% in 2027, 1.7% in 2028, and 1.8% in 2029. Mr Speaker by the end of the forecast, our economy is larger compared to the OBR's forecast at the time of the budget. That is the difference that this Labour government is making. Mr Speaker this isn't just about lines on a graph. It is about improving people's lives. Working people are still feeling the pinch after a cost-of-living crisis caused by the party opposite that cause interest rates and inflation to go through the roof.

I am pleased that the OBR confirmed today that real household disposable income will now grow this year at almost twice the rate expected in the autumn. Compared to the forecast in the final budget delivered by the party opposite, and after taking into account inflation, the OBR say today that people will be on average over £500 a year better off under this Labour government. That will mean more money in the pockets of working people. Higher living standards, promised by this Labour government, delivered by this Labour government and opposed by the parties opposite.

Mr Speaker, the world is changing. We can see that and we can feel it. A changing world demand a government that is on the side of working people. Acting in their interests, acting in the national interest. Not retreating from challenges. Not stepping back. But a government with the courage to step up. To secure Britain's future and to seize the opportunities that are out there before us. I am impatient for change. The British people are impatient for change, after 14 years of failure.

We are beginning to see change happen. Our Plan for Change is working. Defence spending is rising. Waiting list are falling. Wages are up, interest rates are cut, that is the difference at this Labour government is making. And today the OBR confirm our plan to get Britain building will drive growth in our economy and put more money in people's pockets. There are no quick fixes but we have taken the right choices. Returning stability to our economy after years of mismanagement by the party opposite.

Delivering security for our country and security for working people. That is what drives this government. That is what drives me as Chancellor. That is what drives the choices that I have set out today. I commend this statement to the house.
13:07
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker at the last budget,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker at the last budget, the right honourable lady said that she would bring stability to the public finances. Stability to the public finances. Stability to the public finances. This statement more appropriately referred to as an appropriately referred to as an appropriately referred to as an emergency budget, has brought her to a Coltart...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a Coltart... Can I just say quite rightly I wanted to hear the Chancellor and I want to hit the Shadow Chancellor. I don't need help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This emergency budget has brought the right honourable lady to a cold the right honourable lady to a cold hard reckoning. She has become very fond recently to talk about the world having changed. Indeed it has world having changed. Indeed it has Mr Speaker. This country was growing at the fastest rate in the G7. One at the fastest rate in the G7. One year ago. And just as the OECD and the Bank of England and other forecasters and now we learn today the OBR have stated, growth has been the OBR have stated, growth has been halved in this year.

Cut into Mac as a consequence of the decisions and the choices of the right honourable lady. Inflation, which was down to 2%, bang on target on the very day of the last general election under a Conservative government, we are now told this year it will be running at twice the level of the forecast under ourselves in 2024. This is going to mean prices bearing down on households and on businesses right across the country because of her choices. The OBR also says that unemployment will be rising this year and next year and the year after.

And in fact across the forecast period it will not decline at all. So much for the right honourable ladies back to work plans. We have already seen what it means when it comes to controlling borrowing under this Chancellor. She has come forward now with a plan to squeeze spending later on in the forecast period. And she has of course told the OBR that these are the elements of spending restraint which she will stick. But what do the markets think? Could I ask the right honourable lady, given her track record, given the fact that she has failed to control spending and borrowing today, what does she think the markets are going to make of her latest promises? The right honourable lady says of course that none of this is her fault.

But that is the war in Ukraine, it is President Trump, it is tariffs, it is President Putin, it is the Conservatives, it is the legacy, it is anyone but her. The British people know that this is a consequence of her choices. She is the architect of her own misfortune. It was the right honourable lady who talked down the economy. Who talked down the economy so that business surveys and confidence crashed through the floor. It was the right honourable lady who confected the £22 billion black hole.

A smokescreen that was only ever there in order to cover up the fact that she and the prime minister renege on their promises to the British people during the last general election. And a black hole that the OBR themselves ironically at the government's behest have said they will not legitimise. She chose to be reckless with a sliver of headroom reckless with a sliver of headroom That That will That will be That will be cold That will be cold comfort That will be cold comfort to That will be cold comfort to the That will be cold comfort to the millions up and down the country waiting in fear for the start of the tax year.

Buckling under the burden of tax, rising to the highest tax burden on her watch in the history of our country. Can I ask the right honourable lady if, when she replies in a moment, she will give much needed reassurance to businesses that she will not be ramping up taxes still further in the autumn. Even a basic economist knows that if you tack something, you get less of it. You do not need to have worked She has destroyed livelihoods, businesses, probably big and small companies.

The backbone of our economy. Enterprise crossed on the altar of her ineptitude. The CIPD telling us one third of those businesses affected will shed labour. Morrison is losing 200 jobs, Tesco 400, Sainsburys 3000 jobs lost. No wonder Federation of Small Businesses say that outside of the pandemic, business confidence has been left at its lowest level on record. But it is not just businesses Mr Speaker. It is charities. It is GPs. It is pharmacists, it is those who transport children who have special educational needs, and it is hospices caring for the sick and the dying.

In this house, the Labour Party had the opportunity yesterday and last week to stop that. But they voted our amendments down. And we will never let their constituents forget it. Mr Speaker, if you ramp up taxes, if you ramp up borrowing and spending without any commensurate improvement in productivity, it leads to growing inflation. Inflation has been increasing on this government's watch. It means that interest rates stay higher for longer. The Chancellor just now trumpeted the fact that they had been three interest rate cuts since the Labour Party came to office.

She knows full well there should have been more than that had she managed. She knows full well... She knows full well. She knows full well that interest rates are higher for longer because of the choices that she took. This has led to servicing costs for our national debt which is running at twice the defence budget. Today we have learnt from the OBR that debt interest is to increase still further. None of this money will be spent on public services.

It will be going down the drain. Mr Speaker, the real black hole is not the one the Chancellor invented. It is the the Chancellor invented. It is the The central problem, The central problem, the The central problem, the Chancellor is a gambler. Even with her fiscal targets, she left weighty little headroom. It is not the truth that whilst the right honourable lady said at the last budget that that was a once in a parliament read, she rolled the dice on a wafer thin margin and she lost.

Reckless with her fingers crossed, she fled the her fingers crossed, she fled the targets and she missed them.
13:16
13:16
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Can I point out that all of her fiscal headroom disappeared, not just some of it. To the tune of £4.1 billion. Reeling from one fiscal event to the next is not a way to run the public finances. Breaking your fiscal rules to the extent the right honourable lady has in just six months is a public humiliation. Can I briefly focus on defence spending? We welcome the fact that as we press the government to do, they will reach 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027.

And we note the steppingstone along the way that the right honourable lady has just announced. But we should go further than that. The three percent target should be brought forward to this Parliament. Can I ask the right honourable lady, given the geopolitical tensions she has raised, what provision has she made in her head room, her fiscal plans, for increasing defence spending more quickly in this Parliament if that proves necessary? Would she scrap proves necessary? Would she scrap the absurd Chagos deal and put it in our Armed Forces? The economy is in a perilous state but there was a different way, there were different choices on taxing, spending, borrowing and productivity and welfare.

Let me just say if you words on welfare. It was the privilege of my life to have served as a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. When it came to welfare reform, with that privilege came a deep responsibility. They responsibility for welfare reform to be properly thought through with a welfare plan. I know they do not like it because it is an alien idea to the party opposite, so we can be there to the taxpayer but equally fair to the many people up and down our country, some of whom are highly vulnerable.

This was an approach on our watch that led to 5 billion of savings across the forecast period, fewer people going onto long-term sickness and disability benefits as a direct consequence. We would have gone further, much further. We set out a clear plan in our manifesto to do exactly that. But the party opposite rushed their changes, they have no plan, there was not a single mention of PIP payments in their manifesto. When they got into office they did it, because it is divisive in their rank and file.

And suddenly, when the Chancellor decided she had run out of money, out the word went to find some savings in welfare, to young every lever possible. And the spectacle of what the OBR has said about the changes that were only announced last week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is shambolic. We have gone from incompetence to chaos. There have been more changes in this policy than there were at the last minute to the profile of the honourable lady on LinkedIn.

The result is the worst of all worlds, inadequate level of savings on welfare, with welfare costs still spiralling ever higher. And changes that were likely to harm many that were likely to harm many vulnerable people. Can I ask the honourable lady, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House with these changes, she did not provide an impact assessment. Was this because the OBR had not signed off? Was it because the department did not have enough time to produce one? Or was it only provided today, as many of us suspect, because this was thought to be a good time to bury bad news? The forecast for growth is down, for borrowing costs is up, inflation is up, business confidence has been smashed in a million pieces.

This chancer constantly trying to blame forces beyond her control. The right response is not to duck responsibility, but to build a resilient economy. The right honourable lady would have us believe that that is what she is doing. But how can we believe this Chancellor? How can we trust this Chancellor? She said she would not increase borrowing, but she did. She said she would not change fiscal rules, but she did. She said she would not put up national insurance, but she did.

She said she would not cut Winter Fuel Payment, but she did. She said she would not tax farmers, but she did. She said she would not move to more than one fiscal event a year and she just has. Now we are all paying the price of her broken promises. Today's numbers confirm it. We are poorer and we are weaker. To govern is to choose. This Chancellor has made all the wrong choices.
13:22
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
I know the Chancellor has not been in this role, the shadow Chancellor, for long. At least he is not misquoting Shakespeare today. If this was a budget, it will be the Leader of the Opposition responding. I'm glad she is in her place, I know she will get back to her office for her lunchtime steak soon. At the right honourable gentleman, talks about budgets, let me remind the party opposite that the only emergency budget we have seen in recent years was in response to the party's disastrous mini-budget.

A mini-budget that crashed the economy, sent mortgage bills spiralling and left a £22 billion black hole in the nation's finances. They may have forgotten about the damage they did to our country, but the British people never will. The shadow Chancellor talked a lot but did not offer an alternative. He says he opposes our tax rises but cannot tell us if you would cut the NHS to reverse them. He says he wants economic growth but they have stalled on the OBR reforms to kickstart growth.

You do not change the country by sitting on the fence, you change the country by leading and taking action and that is what this country is doing. He says he wants to talk about businesses to trade, but does not want us to talk trade, but does not want us to talk to the second largest economy in the world and trading partners, in the European Union. He has got no clue, he wants to talk about growth but does not see -- say anything about the fact the OBR has upgraded growth next year and every year afterwards.

He talks about pensioners but his party scrapped the triple lock which we are protecting and the State Pension rising next month by over £400 million. He talks about wages but we are boosting wages by boosting the national living wage. The shadow Chancellor says nothing about living standards. This morning's fall in inflation because the last Parliament was the worst on record and the OBR today revised their forecasts for family finances. Working people are always better off with Labour. He is learning something because this time he has answered a couple of questions.

Let me respond. He asked what the markets made, what the markets see is we have restored their headroom in full. The choices I made. He says it is liver of their headroom, it is 50 percent more than I inherited from the party opposite. When I was left with a sliver of headroom, I rebuilt it after the last government eroded it. While they left the public finances and public services Amess, we wiped the slate clean, which means that we have the flexibility to increase defence spending, as the leader of the Leda party -- Labour Party has done.

The party opposite had 14 years to increase defence spending. The shadow Chancellor mentions welfare reform and his time at the DWP, one in eight young people not in education, employment or training. 1,000 people a day going on to Personal Independence Payments and the OBR say today that welfare spending as a share of GDP will now start falling. A far cry from what we had under the party opposite. The shadow Chancellor speaks about employment. The OBR say employment will increase.

Wages will increase and living standards will increase. What a change after 14 years of the Conservative party. The world is changing. No one can be in any doubt about it. But the Conservative Party are stuck in the past, divided, out of touch and carping from the sidelines. They have no plan to kickstart growth, no plan to fix our public services, no plan to keep our country safe. The only plan for change they are working on is to change their party leader and we cannot blame them for that.

If they have no plan, let me remind them about hours. The minimum wage up, real wages up, housebuilding up, NHS real wages up, housebuilding up, NHS investment up, investment in schools up, investment in roads up, defence spending up. Every single one of those policies opposed by the party opposite. Opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by reform, opposed by the SNP, opposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Greens. It is the antigrowth coalition in action.

They are the blockers, we are the builders, securing Britain plus my future, protecting working people and
13:28
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
protecting working people and My right honourable friend inherited a very difficult challenge when she became Chancellor of the Exchequer became Chancellor of the Exchequer last July. She is absolutely right that the books need to balance. This that the books need to balance. This is not other people's money you're spending but taxpayers money, hard earned by constituents and she is right to be tough as Chancellor on this. We look forward to quizzing her at the Treasury Select Comittee next week.

I am sure she is looking forward to it as much as we are. The Chancellor announced an extra 2 billion a year in capital spending and she talked about extra defence spending. Can she give more detail about where she hopes that extra money will go?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that question. I look forward to attending the Treasury Select attending the Treasury Select Comittee next week. I was pleased to have served on the Treasury Select have served on the Treasury Select Comittee in the past and it is a pleasure to give evidence to you. We pleasure to give evidence to you. We set out in the spending review, the Chief Secretary will set out in the spending review the allocation of spending review the allocation of additional capital money, I was able additional capital money, I was able to announce £2.2 billion into defence from next year and £2 billion as a down payment to build the affordable and social housing we need.

Two priorities of this government to get Britain building and secure national security.
13:30
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The people of this country are crying out for change but they feel they are getting more of the same. It was the Conservative Party that wrecked the public finances but we are eight months into the new government and people are left wondering, where is the change that was promised? The Chancellor says the world is changing, so why won't she change course with it? The Chancellor said she wanted -- for growth, but with her national insurance jobs tax, she shot herself in the foot before she crossed the start line.

After the government disastrous budget, the government had a chance today to change direction, kickstart growth and deliver small business budget. The deliver small business budget. The government could have scrapped the jobs tax and instead asked big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies to pay their share instead. The government could have changed his approach to change, launching talks to boost growth with a new trading deal with European neighbours. Instead, the government made the wrong decision to cut public services, hit disabled people and inflict more pain on our small businesses and high streets.

In doing so, they delivered no change and almost no growth at all. After years of conservative mismanagement, people can see how broken our public services are. They cannot see a GP, a dentist, they are fighting for an education plan and they are picking up pieces of broken social care system. Everything is broken. Nothing works. That is why people are impatient for the change people are impatient for the change We have to bring the welfare bill down and bring more people into work.

It's right for people and our economy, but cutting support for someone who needs help getting dressed and washed in the morning is not just wrong. It does absolutely nothing to support that person into work. And if anything, it does the exact opposite. It will also have knock-on impacts for the entitlements of their family carers too. So will the Chancellor come clean about this? If the government is serious about cutting welfare spending, it must get serious about fixing health and social care.

So will the Chancellor speed up the social care review and ensure that it concludes no later than the end of this year? And in her quest to slim down the Civil Service, I wonder why the Chancellor has not looked at the mountain of red tape created by the last government's terrible trade deal with zero? A whopping 2 billion extra pieces of paper have had to be completed by businesses since Brexit. Enough to wrap around the world 15 times. If we managed to cut the red tape, we can give British businesses a tailwind, deliver far more growth than currently predicted.

We can increase the fiscal headroom to deal with headwinds and free up precious time and money in our Civil Service. That would be real change. Business was promised change too, and today's statement should have been a small business budget. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised the alarm about the impending damage from the national insurance jobs tax, the bigger business rates bills and changes to family farms and family businesses. These changes will be a hammer blow to small and family businesses leaving communities facing the prospect of an epidemic of boarded-up shopfronts.

And there will be a hammer blow to community healthcare providers who stop our NHS from falling over. This isn't the change that was promised. So instead, I say again, the Chancellor should look again at much fairer way is to raise the tax revenue our public services desperately need. By reforming capital gains tax more fairly and asking the big banks, social media giants and the online gambling companies to pay their fair share. I know the Chancellor must contend with President Trump's trade for which is causing global economic turmoil, but our response to trans- bullying can be to cower in the corner and hope that he is nice to us.

We cannot sit on our hands whilst British Steel is hit with trams tariffs. We Liberal Democrats warmly welcomed the Chancellor's move to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. But instead of cutting the aid budget which abandons the world's poor and damages our soft power, she should instead be covering the cost by raising the digital services tax, handing the tap to Elon Musk and trumps other billionaire backers. At the very least, can the Chancellor categorically rule out any reduction in the tech tax in an attempt to appease the White House? Especially when disabled people in Britain face eye watering cuts.

To conclude, I have a series of questions. Will the Chancellor recognise that cutting public services that are already stretched as a false economy? Will she accept that trying to bring down the welfare bill without fixing Health and Social Care is a road to nowhere? Will she listen to the warnings for small and family businesses for her job tax doing more harm good -- more harm than good? And look at fairways of raising revenue we have looked at and take the bold action we need to grow our economy by rebutting our broken trading relationship with Europe? -- Rebuilding.

The public were promised change. Where on earth
13:36
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
She says where is the change? Let me She says where is the change? Let me tell her. More money into our NHS with 2 million additional appointments and waiting lists falling five months in a row. Rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools from April this year, increasing defence spending to protect us in a more uncertain world, additional support for carers, a living wage and the carers, a living wage and the Employment Rights Bill so much more. That's the difference we've made in That's the difference we've made in nine months and we've only just got started.

Now the honourable lady talks about trade. We believe in free trade. We are a small open trading economy and we benefit with trade links around the world. Including the single biggest trading partner, United States of America. And it's right that we work with our allies in the United States to ensure that that free and open trade continues. That is in our national interest and this government will always act in our national interest. At the same time, there's going to be a summit as the honourable Eddie knows between the UK and EU in May when we look to reset our relationship so we can see more free trade and the better flow of trade, especially for our small businesses to be able to export around Europe.

She talks about welfare. She has not admitted that there is a single problem in the welfare system as it exists today. I'm not willing, this party is not willing to write off one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training. It's why for example we have just announced this week with my right honourable friend the Education Secretary an additional 60,000 training places to train people up in the construction industries of the future and a £1 billion package of personalised targeted support because there are many disabled people and the honourable lady knows this were desperate to work but aren't getting the support, but neither support by the last government.

And that's why we've said that there will be additional support for the most sick and disabled and that personal support for getting people back into work, and that's the right approach so we have protections for those who need it, work for those who can and a sustainable system that is here for generations into the future. I want to take on the main point the honourable lady makes because the honourable lady once all the money for public services but she doesn't want to raise the taxes to pay for them.

The tax at the moment, we spent £105 billion a year on interest on government debt, and it seems the honourable lady would just like more of that debt. She says you can't see a GP, can't see a dentist. While how does the honourable lady, how the parties opposite think you pay for those things? You can't object to the tax increases and support the money we've invested in our public services, and to say otherwise I'm afraid is fairytales and the magic money tree.

It does just not add up. The difference in the side of the houses we will put money into our public services, explain comes from and ensure public finances are on a fair fitting, and that's the difference between our party and the parties opposite. party and the parties opposite.
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
Anna Gelderd Portrait Anna Gelderd MP (South East Cornwall, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you, Thank you, Madam Thank you, Madam Deputy Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to make provision about the teaching and promotion of the Cornish language in educational institutions language in educational institutions and to make provision about the recognition of the Cornish language and heritage and for collective and heritage and for collective property. It's not just about preserving the Cornish language but preserving the Cornish language but about cultural identity being protected that is woven into the past, present, and future of past, present, and future of Cornwall.

Cornish can be traced back thousands of years and speaking has been driven further west due to conflicts and a vision from Europe. Our fishermen kept the language alive until it fitted in the 18th century but despite this Cornish was officially recognised as a regional language by the UK government in 2002 and part two of the UN Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. This from that Cornish, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Gaelic, is to be promoted and protected. The UK government is committed to the despite Cornish is a lower status while four of the other five have a higher level of protection which has stronger commitments on education, public life, and media.

In November 2004, the UN Charter for Regional and Minority Languages urged the UK government to take stronger measures to support minority languages including enhancing educational provision and promoting language awareness. This will be to work in lockstep with the recommendations and strengthen the UK's commitment to linguistic adversity. Recognising Cornish is growing but it needs support. The council and the National Minority Working Group has championed initiatives such as Go Cornish which is in many schools, yet Cornish is still not formally embedded in secondary education.

GCSE Cornish once existed but was discontinued in 1996 the option to learn should be available and minority language education should be strengthened and we must ensure learning Cornish as a viable and accessible option. It is there for those who wish to engage with cultural heritage. It should not be a burden for overstretched schools but an exciting opportunity to learn and it proves it can be done without increasing the workload as it provides resources and learning models and it aligns with the capital framework which encourages schools to celebrate cultural traditions and history.

Beyond skills, there must be provision to provide lifelong learning opportunities. At present, hundreds of people sign up for classes each year and universities have previously offered courses in Cornish. Why not Cornish if Welsh and Gaelic? Cornish does not have official status in Cornwall, nor if the legislative requirement for its promotion but the council has worked hard since 2013 to implement a strategy and I want to see this work and the local efforts strengthened by saying Cornish more in road signs and place names because Kernewek is a beautiful language, reflected in towns and businesses.

(SPEAKS Understanding these meanings not only improves knowledge of the only improves knowledge of the language but also depends the sense of connection to history, landscape, identity. The Media Act that the 24 insurers there must be content for languages including Cornish. We must normalise everyday use of the language in media. Cornwall's distinct culture is living and evolving. Supporting Cornish is not about excluding English and embracing bilingualism is a strength. It has worked successfully in Wales and Scotland.

Supporting Cornish language and heritage is not just a cultural necessity but makes economic sense. Research commissioned by Glasgow City Council in 2022 friend Gaelic contributed £21.6 million to the economy with tourism, cultural events, branding. Cornwall has its own recognised identity and we have the same potential. It is a cornerstone of the economy but must be sustainable and beneficial for local communities and research published in 2021 has showed technological advancements fitting to liberalisation has resulted in a rent of an increase in people looking for unique experiences and cultural tourism is a growing market.

Events in Kernewek, and bilingual signage can enhance the experience of visitors. This is not about selling our identity but strengthening it and the commercialisation must be done responsibly to ensure that it benefits Cornish People First and foremost. The language and culture are deeply connected to the natural environment and it is not just aesthetic but part of our identity. Cornwall and its people have always lived in partnership with nature. We are of the sea and the land, working in harmony in the environment to grow and thrive.

It is demonstrated in the corner that you see today. The landscape and coastlines are beautiful and draw tourists from across the UK and internationally, serving as a backdrop for television shows 'Beyond Paradise'. It is said in Devon but filmed in Cornwall in many beautiful locations. Devon recognises the beauty of Cornwall, clearly. Even our wildlife has Cornish identity, none more so than the iconic red-built black-feathered cruel. It was once lost but successfully reintroduced in 2001 which was a symbol of resilience and survival and just how the crawl has returned, so can be language.

There are also species like compact wheels, basking sharks, basking wheels, basking sharks, basking sharks. There is a vibrant purple flower brooches on the cliffs and we are proudly unique and distinct. The revival of Cornish has come from grassroots efforts such as golden tree productions, the Cornish Language Board, the Institute for Cornish Studies. Cornish is more than just words. It is a link to history, stories, identity, future. The promotion of language and heritage is about ensuring the culture and language of Cornwall get the recognition they deserve the support to flourish for generations to come.

(SPEAKS CORNISH) I encourage everyone to learn some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cornish. (SPEAKS CORNISH) Thank you. The question is that the honourable member have leave to honourable member have leave to promote the bill. As many as of that promote the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill? Jayne Kirkham, Andrew George, Ben Maguire, and myself, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cornish Cornish Language Cornish Language and Cornish Language and Heritage (Education and Recognition) Bill. (Education and Recognition) Bill. Second reading, Friday, June 20. The clerk will proceed to read the orders of the day.
14:58
14:59
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
read a second time. I start by thanking all honourable and right honourable members for invaluable contributions during the passage of the bill to date and in particular members of the Bill committee for providing insight, security, scrutiny. I am honoured to have taken responsibility for the bill. It is a watershed piece of legislation at the most significant public health intervention since the ban on smoking in public places in 2007. It would establish a smoke- free generation by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the UK saw that a child turning 16 this year will never be able to be illegally sold tobacco, saving countless lives in the process.

It will strengthen existing powers to reduce the impact of second-hand smoke in public spaces and in keeping with the manifesto commitment to the British people, it will outlaw manipulative promotion of vapes to children, to prevent the next generation from being hooked on nicotine. Finally, there will be robust measures to strengthen enforcement activity. I do not have to tell anyone in this chamber that tobacco kills. We all know this. What honourable members might not know is how much it kills and the rate at which it kills.

And the devastation that it causes for individuals, families, communities across the country. Let me remind us, tobacco kills more people than any other preventable cause of any other preventable cause of death, any. Around 80,000 people in the UK lose their lives to tobacco every year. It robs smokers of an average of 10 years of life It substantially increases the risk of stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, dementia and asthma. This daily tragedy continues unabated with someone being admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute.

Day in, day out, and with no end in sight. The harms of tobacco are not felt equally either. It's our most disadvantaged communities who suffer most. 230,000 households live in smoking induced poverty. In Blackpool, 17.5% of pregnant women still smoke at the time of delivery. In comparison to 2.8% in Kensington and Chelsea. Over 1/4 of people with a long-term mental health condition smoke. Beyond this immeasurable cost lives in the UK, the staggering economic impact of tobacco on our NHS cannot be ignored.

The treatment of smoking-related diseases consumes approximately £3 billion a year, vital NHS and social care resources. The cost is making to our economy is even greater. 18 billion loss in productivity every year. A figure which far outweighs the tax receipts it brings in of around 9 billion. This bill is a vital step to break the devastating cycle of tobacco addiction, safeguarding future generations from a lifetime of ill- health. But the world moves forward, and we cannot ignore the alarming rise of youth vaping.

Whilst vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, children should never vape. However, in the past five years, youth vaping has more than doubled. One in four One in 411 to 15-year- olds tried vaping in 2023. And it's no accident. This is in part due to the deliberate branding and advertisement of vapes to our children with brightly coloured packaging and enticing sweet flavours. A calculated strategy to hook young people on nicotine.

We cannot afford to wait to act. I will turn out the amendments laid by the government, which seek to strengthen the bill and ensure greater clarity. As we create the first smoke-free generation and strengthen age restrictions on vapes and nicotine products, we want to support retailers in taking appropriate steps to ensure they do not sell to customers under the age of sale. Government amendments and see 11, 47 to 49, 51 to 53, 61, 63, 65 to 67 6971, 75, 77, 79 and 81 are a package of amendments and consequential amendments to the bill.

They seek to remove potential ambiguity for retailers, regarding the use of digital identity for verifying the age of prospective customers when selling tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. During committee, members raised concerns that the list of identity documents dissatisfied -- to satisfy a person charged with selling products to a person under the age of sale and identity. So these amendments remove the list of physical ID from the face of the bill and instead provide powers for the Secretary of State for Defence Department of Health in Northern Ireland to specify in regulation the steps that may be taken to verify a customer's age in order to meet the requirements for the defence.

This revised approach better future proves the developers in identification processes and provides the potential to recognise digital ID in the context of the defence. As well as physical ID. But in the widespread use of digital ID. These amendments will provide the opportunity for effective interaction with the provisions in part two of the data you send access bill currently in Parliament. It includes provisions relating to digital verification services. Digital verification services provide an opportunity to securely verify age for both in person and online sales, and we will continue to work closely with the Department for science, innovation and technology and other departments when developing the regulations.

New clause 11 provides a similar powerful Scottish ministers to prescribe regulations steps that should be taken to establish a customer's age as a defence to an age of sale offence. This will enable Scottish ministers to respond to changes in technology and consumer behaviours which may move away from the presentation of a physical document. The last Labour government take bold action to prohibit displays of tobacco products, to protect children and young people from being enticed into addiction and create a more supportive environment for adults seeking to quit.

This bill goes further and gives powers to limit the display of a wider range of products, including herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. Government amendments 56, 57, 6062, 74, 76, 78 and 80 have been tabled to alter the powers in the bill for England, Wales and Northern Ireland which regulate the displays of products and their prices so that they will also cover tobacco -related devices. As discussed in committee, pipes, heated tobacco devices and bonds are currently displayed in shops and can have the effect of promoting tobacco usage.

This can make sure we can prevent products that facilitate the consumption of tobacco openly displayed by retailers for top bill bans the sale of vapes, knitting products and cigarette papers from vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And restates the existing ban on tobacco vending machines. We know that vending machines are used to buy -- bypass age verification and undertake proxy verification services for people under the age of sale. Governments amendments 56, 72 and 73 are clarifying amendments to make the scope of the prohibition on vending machines absolutely clear.

This was discussed at committee. Government's position is that the tobacco sales from vending machines England regulations 2010 already apply where a customer has a coupon receipt or token purchased elsewhere, which can be redeemed at a machine. We are amending these clauses so that all machines which dispense products in connection with sale are clearly captured by the ban. Bill strengthens the enforcement regime to support law-abiding retailers while also taking action against those who break the rules. Along with introducing new fixed penalty notices, the bill re-enacts provisions on the Street premises orders and restricted sales orders.

These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches restrictions. This ensures that there are a range of tools and the enforcement armoury so the trading standards officers can act quickly and effectively against rogue retailers. Government amendments 50 and 59 clarify a point raised during committee by removing the duplicative and necessary provision that would prevent a business or individual from operating a vending machine for the sale of tobacco, vaping or nicotine product following the restricted premises order or restricted sales order.

Given the bill already prohibits the use of vending machines for tobacco, vaping on nicotine products, there is no need for restricted premises orders and restricted sailors orders to prohibit the use of vending machines first given these government amendments would improve the imputation and enforceability of measures in the bill to ensure the most effective protection for the public, and I commend them to the House. Turning now to the wider amendments in the group, I thank honourable members for their scrutiny of the bill so far and before winding up later I will try to cover some of the key themes touched upon.

On the amendment seeking to undermine the smoke-free generation, I'm sure we will hear arguments from some honourable members who have been listening to the tobacco industry's arguments and myths about how people should be free to make their own choices. Smoking I would say to them kills two thirds of its users. Three quarters of people which they never started smoking and the majority want to quit. That's not freedom of choice. The tobacco industry took away their choice with addiction, usually at a young age.

In relation to smoke-free places, we've been clear in England we intend to consult on extending smoke-free outdoor places outside schools, children's playgrounds and hospitals but not outdoor hospitality settings at this time. No smoker wants to harm people. The second-hand smoke they do. If you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This particular import of the children, pregnant women or people with pre- existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease. The only way to stop this Hamas to stop people smoking around others.

While I understand honourable members proposals to list specific places on the face of the bill, or to add additional limits to the use of the powers, it's right that we consult on the detail before making regulations and have the necessary powers to protect children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoking. I'm grateful to the coaches of the APPG on smoking and health. My honourable friend the Minister for the city of Durham and the honourable member Harrow East for their long-standing support for this bill.

Through the amendments they highlight the importance of retaining a focus on support for current smokers. This is why we are investing an extra 70 million for the local stop smoking services this year and working to ensure all NHS hospitals offer opt out smoking cessation services into routine care. I hope that they will be pleased we've been able to confirm the extension of the swap desktop -- swapped us -- swap to stop scheme and we are providing vapes as quit AIDS.

We realise that the products being deliberately marketed at children is unacceptable. And this is why we've included HMM to stop fetes being branded and advertised to children. The government is also investing 10 million of new funding for the coming year for Trading Standards to tackle underage illicit tobacco vapes to boost the trending start my Trading Standards with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

additional boots on the ground. Trading Standards is a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Trading Standards is a really important thing for the therefore also are fixed penalty notices, so we should therefore be supporting we should therefore be supporting today the amendment which will mean any fixed penalty notices will be retained by the local authorities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retained by the local authorities to spend on public health, thus saving the NHS money as she mentioned earlier? As he will know, there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he will know, there are measures already in the bill where measures already in the bill where some of the fines can be retained and certainly can be retained in order to make it cost neutral for local authorities, but I'm sure we will explore the latest through the bill. The bill contains regulation making powers on a range of aspects of product requirements. Already allow us to do many things that honourable members seek to achieve, but to look forward to listening to contributions to today's debate on the wider list of amendments and responding to the points made.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 11 to read a second time. I call opposition spokesperson Dr Caroline Johnson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Johnson. Thank you. It's now a truth
15:13
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It's now a truth universally acknowledged that smoking is bad for one's health. It is the leading cause of preventable is the leading cause of preventable death in this country responsible for over 80,000 deaths every year. When we say that number, it is easy to allow it to trip off the tongue as another statistic without really realising just how many people it represents. Each of them, such as my nana Burton it was a smoke and died of lung cancer, there was a personal story of damaged health and often an early and preventable death.

The Conservative Party introduced a bill based on a similar premise to this one in the last Parliament, although the government has made significant changes since to the legislation, including taking a power which can be used to ban smoking in vaping and pub gardens as well as a licensing scheme for tobacco products. We move onto an amendment 85. What we've received repeated assurances that the sector of state intends to use the measures in this bill only to improve public health, it must examine whether the legislation is proportionate and reasonable.

As far as they can see, gives the sector stay enormous powers to extend the smoke -related legislation to any place with minimal oversight and without needing to provide a reason. There were whispers last summer that the government was considering banning smoking in pub gardens before they hastily withdrew this provision in the face of public backlash. If only they would withdraw more of their policies on the face of public backlash perhaps they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. The bill as it stands empowers this active state to extend smoke-free and very free regulations to more places, essential to any place the aim of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and promoting public health.

However the government did not accept our amendment at second reading that it should only apply to places that have approvable significant risk to public health to justify such a ban. For this reason I commend amendment 85 once again which restrict the sector of state only be able to designate open or enclosed spaces outside a hospital, children's playground, nursery school, college or high education premise as a smoke-free area. These are the areas the sector stay has said he wants to target, prevent any sort of targeting of any other area such as pub gardens by the back door.

Ollie claims is not his intention now, that may not remain the case for the rest of this government nor indeed any future government and that's a risk in allowing these measures to stand first and for those reasons I encourage the House to sport amendment 85. New clause 18 and amendment 89, the new bill also gives powers to this active state to introduce new licensing scheme for retailers selling tobacco, vaping or nicotine products. However we know that licensing schemes will come at a cost.

To businesses, local authorities, to administer them, and enforcement. That does not make it the wrong thing to do. But we would need to make sure that any licensing scheme is not excessively burdensome nor expensive. New clause 18 and amendment 89 therefore require the government to consult on the new licensing scheme tobacco sales licensing scheme tobacco sales This would mean that the views on the impact of businesses including small businesses would be hard and we would ensure there is capacity to deliver such a scheme.

There is a balance between the requirements of business and public health and appropriate consultation would ensure the government is more likely to get that right. New clause 19, another concern is the impact the legislation would have on the illicit drug market with HMRC estimating this was and impact of £2.8 billion in 2021-22 with the tax gap broadly unchanged and in 2023 the Chartered Savings Standards Institute issued a statement on products that were non-compliant. There are warnings that the instrument adjustment could extend the market further and so it is sensible to take precautions to tackle this issue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Specifically on clause 19, does my honourable friend it is my honourable friend it is inevitable the generational smoking inevitable the generational smoking ban will lead to an increase in the illegal tobacco market and that is regrettable part of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regrettable part of this bill. It is a significant possibility and that is the reason for moving and that is the reason for moving the amendment and my honourable friend will understand that. These can include smuggled and counterfeit can include smuggled and counterfeit cigarettes, vapes nicotine levels above the legal limit and other issues to do with the health warnings required by genuine products. Regardless of whether colleagues support or oppose this on the whole, we can all agree the black market is unacceptable and we have met the requirement for the government to produce reports on the availability of the illegal products and the impact on public health and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safety. I am extremely grateful to my honourable friend because I know honourable friend because I know they have taken a fierce lane on illegal tobacco sales in Lincolnshire and will she agree these are often linked to organised crime with the shops that sell them crime with the shops that sell them linked to money laundering and are usually foreign-owned. Will she join me in urging supporting trading standards and police who are doing a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fine job on trying to clamp down on this industrial scale crime. As is usually the case, I find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As is usually the case, I find myself agreeing with the right honourable gentleman and this will honourable gentleman and this will give us the evidence we require to make sure the black market is make sure the black market is reduced and I will also give way to reduced and I will also give way to my honourable friend behind me. Will she accept it is not a risk that the she accept it is not a risk that the black market is going to open but that it already exist because in 2021, 23.6 billion cigarettes were sold under duty and that had fallen to 30.2 billion.

The black market is already here. It is not that the new single recruited and so this is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

greater risk. My honourable friend makes a fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend makes a fair point and we know the black market point and we know the black market does exist and we have to look at the scale of changes and enable authorities to make more robust authorities to make more robust enforcements. Let's move on to 90. Legislation in its current form Legislation in its current form would ban all forms of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes and adverts will non-nicotine vapes and adverts will no longer be allowed on boards on the side of buses and sports teams will be unable to be sponsored by a vaping company.

I'm concerned about the sharp increase in children addicted to vaping and other nicotine products like pro she is flooding the market. Children have been reported as unable to concentrate or complete the whole lesson without visiting the bathroom to vet. Action is welcome and there are steps suggested to reduce appeal to young people with flavours and packaging. The Minister noted that vaping can be useful smoking cessation tool for adult smokers who are trying to quit and in my view that should be the only purpose.

This amendment would ensure vapes that are being targeted solely as an aid to help in quitting would continue to help bring down smoking rates. Clause 20 introduced a requirement on products and we are looking at what is currently the case in Scotland. Whether someone is buying vaping products online or in-store, there must be robust provisions to ensure the purchaser is of the legal age and be seen issues with these measures not always being effective and this would be an important step to prevent children from accessing products online this should not be able to buy.

In closing, the Conservative Party has a strong record of action on tobacco control. Under a Conservative government plain packaging was introduced for tobacco products, minimum pack sizes were introduced, and these policies have been demonstrably effective in reducing smoking rates. I personally campaigned passionately on this issue for two years and I'm pleased to see some of my original amendments have made it beyond committee stage and are with us today and I was pleased to see some government amendments that have strengthened the bill.

Our amendments are designed to highlight difficulties in the bill and we oppose the power grab or the government taking powers to ban smoking and vaping by regulation without consultation. We have concerns about how the bill will operate in practice in terms of the and small businesses. We ask the government to seriously consider our amendments today. amendments today.
15:23
Preet Kaur Gill Portrait Preet Kaur Gill MP (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )
-
-
Can I welcome the Minister to her role? It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate to support this generally while consigning smoking to the history books with this legislation. Unless we act to help people stay healthy, the rising tide of health threatens to overwhelm the NHS and empowering public health at the us government was penny wise but pound-foolish and so we have to save the taxpayer money and most importantly save lives. We know that prevention is better than cure and smoking remains the biggest preventable case of ill health in the country with 80,000 deaths a year and one in four cancer deaths and a factor in most lung cancer cases.

More than 12,000 people smoke in my constituency and are more likely to leave the workforce and many will suffer from issues like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and will lose 10 years of life expectancy on average. The real tragedy is how many thousands of these will have started as children, when they did not know better and then they have never been able to quit and most smokers report wishing they had never started. It is incumbent on us all to support this legislation to help stop the start.

The cost of smoking exceeds £90 million every year in my constituency including lost productivity, money drain from the NHS and £30.7 million in social care and the cost is enormous to society and that is why it is time to stop it out. In 2045, hundreds of young people take the first drag of a habit they will carry for the rest of their lives and I was proud of the response in the committee in the last Parliament and there is no freedom in addiction, as I said then.

It is a shame the Conservative Party leader allowed her ideological pointer from this fact when she voted against this in the last Parliament and this one and when the last government failed, this government will get the job done and I am proud the government has improved on the legislation drawn up by the last moment and the introduction of a new agreement to reduce new products including vapes is hugely welcome and this was a huge recommendation of the review in 2022 which was largely ignored by the last government but retailers and the public overwhelmingly support according to the survey.

There was no requirement to have a licence to sell these products and that was a major gap in enforcement, particularly when you consider alcohol sales are licensed and nicotine is not. I'm pleased to government is taking forward an amendment tabled in the last Parliament for the introduction of the on the spot £200 fines for those selling to those under age. Of the councils that undertook test purchasing, 15% reported it was sold to children under 18 in at least one instance.

The introducing of the fines, double the amount of those proposed by the previous government, will be much better. Does the Minister agree that double the fine is double the deterrent. I want to commend ministers for these actions and under the last government use and under the last government use vaping travelled and an estimated one in three in the market for illicit and products with harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and even drugs were found with gaping loopholes putting children at risk for years and dangerous and illicit vapes in shops and schools is evident.

In Birmingham, trading standards and the police led raids on retailers in an operation where £6 million of illicit vapes, tobacco and drugs was seized. One raid was the biggest ever in Birmingham and Claude £1 million of goods. It shows the extent of the problem and it was an incredible job by the council trading standards team to keep the public safe. I thank the government for getting behind the trading standards with a burst of £10 million to support work next year and I welcome the new introduction of clauses to the bill to set up a testing regime for vapes.

I championed this proposal in the last Parliament and it is shocking that under current rules there is no testing regime for vaping products, meaning dodgy products can be rubberstamped by the regulator and end up on shelves, undermining the valuable enforcement work done by trading standards to identify and seize unmodified products and this testing of vapes has shown a significant proportion of products, vapes, are not what they say that they are. Some are advertised as 0% nicotine but are not to accidental addictions and some contain heavy metals and even antifreeze, research by a scientific journal.

During the last Parliament I tabled amendments that would establish a new testing regime but unfortunately they were voted down by the Conservatives and I want to commend the government for introducing measures. People have quit smoking using vapes so they clearly have a role in the transition to a small crack in the future but did you there. I can smoking it, we need confidence the products that are bought are safe and testing with you that. I commend the government on the amendments that have strengthened the bill include including the loopholes on vending machines, banning promotion and sponsorships and these qualities ensure this will be keeping the products away from the impressionable eyes of young people so we do not substitute one nicotine problem for another.

There were significant holes in the plans of the last government. I'm pleased these are better. This is not just for hospital boards, doctors surgeries and dentist. We are a sick nation and the public health challenge must be dealt with. Life expectancy was extended by 3.5 years under the last government but it grew by just four months under the Tories. We see the epitome of the future-facing approach that only our Labour Government can deliver, ensuring generation never becomes addicted to nicotine and we can protect the health and well being and the NHS for many years to come.

and the NHS for many years to come.
15:30
Helen Morgan Portrait Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I thank the Minister for her remarks as well and add my broad support for the amendments made to the bill. I will restrict my comments to amendments one and two in my name and by my honourable friend the members for Winchester, Chichester, East Sussex, and I comment on clause 1 tabled by the Member for Bath, under my name, too. This is to do with the money from fixed penalty initiatives coming to public health initiatives can be determined by the relevant public authority.

Global Democrats agree with the Secretary of State and government the prevention is better than sickness and cure and public health initiatives are crucial to make key shifts in healthcare that While the Secretary of State is hoping to create a smoke-free generation, there will be existing smokers who may well wish to stop and may need help from a public health initiative in order to do so. Public health budgets have been cut by 1/4 by the Conservatives since 2015, many fewer people had helped to quit and that is not what anybody is hoping to achieve with this legislation or more broadly across the NHS.

Research by University College London shows that parts of England, smoking rates have begun to rise again and have been flatlining as a whole since 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, they rose by 10% in southern England and fell by 9.7% over the same period in the North, and that means that overall, an estimated 7 1/2 million adults in England are smokers. They concluded that this disparity between North and South reflects the concentration of tobacco control programs in northern regions, and the positive impact that those have had and their relative absence in the south.

There is also evidence as the honourable lady has just mentioned that there is significant black market activity happening in the UK and cessation activities have become even more important to deprive those coming gangs of funds and ensure that people are free of them, so given the impact of public health initiatives, I would sincerely urge the government to accept the amendment and its consequential amendment number two in this area which are in line with their objectives and would improve health and safety taxpayers money in the long run.

Moving on to amendment 84, this is very similar to the opposition amendment of 85. It restricts the ability of a smoke- free area which the current legislation really does allow. The Conservatives have been a bit sloppy in their amendment because they have managed to remove protections in existing law for areas where there is significant risk of second-hand smoke to be concluded in the smoke- free areas. The LibDem amendment has that added safeguard so the chief scientific adviser advises that there is a risk of second-hand smoke, can be designated as site free, and it also retains the area designated, including NHS premises, schools and establishments and children's playgrounds.

The secretary of state has indicated that he will not designate other areas of smoke-free, especially when they have a detrimental impact on hospitality industries and much loved village pubs, and we take him at his word on that. But I hope the Minister can imagine a future in which a different Secretary of State is less inclined to honour a promise, and I think it is right in that scenario, Parliament should get a vote on the change of heart. So I urge the government to consider this amendment carefully and ensure that the legislation matches promises made at the despatch boxes moving on made at the despatch boxes moving on to clause 1.

This requires the Secretary of State to review and report back on the presence of contaminated vapes and find ways to reduce problems. My honourable friend has been campaigning on this issue following findings by the University of Bath which found that one in six vapes in schools contained the drug space. Space can cause serious side effects in children including cardiac arrest, so it seems reasonable to me that the Department of Health and the Secretary of State tried to find a way of addressing this issue.

So, in conclusion, I would like to highlight that I do intend to put amendments one and 2 to a vote to ensure that there are some additional funding is from council measures, and I very much hope that honourable members will support me health.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by declaring an interest as the co-chair on smoking
15:35
Mary Kelly Foy Portrait Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
-
interest as the co-chair on smoking and health. And I want to use my time today to speak to my amendments and one or two others. To be clear, the tobacco and vapes bill is a world leading piece of health legislation which will create the first smoke-free generation, protecting children and young people from the harms of smoking. And the city of Durham alone, around 5 1/2 thousand children start smoking each year, and most of them will want to wish that they never started.

This bill will end that. It will stop the start and ensure that every child has a smoke-free future, and recent data from UCL has shown that the rates of smoking are falling fastest in the north-east, and this can partly be contributed to the hard work and amazing regional programme like fresh which works so hard to tackle inequalities in our region, but the same data also shows that progress is not guaranteed with some areas showing smoking rates increasing, so the case for action is very clear.

I wish to turn to new clause 13 in my name which seeks to duty on the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap to a smoke-free country every five years. It was a Labour government to introduced the first ever smoking strategy in 1998, smoking kills. Well, it's 2025 now, and smoking still kills. This world leading bill is to be celebrated for many, many reasons. However, the rising age of Sail will not impact the 6 million people who are currently smoking in the UK.

Smoking is not spread equally across our society with the most affluent 10% set to become smoke-free this year, but the most deprived will not achieve that at the current rate until 2050. So it's vitally important that the government ensures that no one is left behind as we create a smoke-free future. Having a clear plan in place as to how to achieve that with targets for reducing smoking for the whole population but also for pregnant women, though struggling with mental-health, and those in occupations with high rates of smoking will save lives, so will the smoking will save lives, so will the Minister meet with the APPG following the publication of our report to discuss how we can turbocharge reductions in smoking, alongside creating the smoke-free generation.

Returning to new clause 19 from the Conservatives that would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on the illicit market, let's be clear, HMRC already published annual data with a very detailed analysis on the illicit market, so it is difficult to see what the Department of Kakadu in addition to that. There is actually no additional data sources available that would yield any different results. Finally, on the amendments, I want to address amendments 82 and 83 which would remove the exemption that currently exists for performers.

Since 2007, the indoor smoking ban, it has been against the law to smoke inside, however, this doesn't apply to actors who are smoking in performances for artistic reasons. And there is a play currently on at the West End which tells the story of the American oil lobbyist and master strategist, John Hellman, every smoker who died from convocation to lung cancer and the actor playing the lead role smokes on stage. I believe this exemption should be removed because actors deserve to have their health protected at work as much as everyone else.

Audiences, other actors, they also need to be protected from second-hand smoke. And performances at the National Theatre are already required to substitute smoking in performances for vaping or other alternatives so there is no reason why this shouldn't follow suit. I would like to attend to amendments 85 and 86 which talk about smoke-free extensions, and I know there will be consultation and debate on the regulations for new extensions to smoke three places. And the creation of great places.

Can the Minister say today that there will be exemptions where it is assured that the use of vapes as an aid to cessation efforts are examples where mental health and smoking partnership flagged that vapes are a valuable tool in mental health settings to help patients quit. So will the Minister commit to visiting a mental health trust to hear first-hand about their experience. It is vital that we all work with them to provide clear guidance on how we navigate these changes, and particular attention must be paid to how policies in this bill and those coming into effect beyond them, like the disposable vapes act in June will interact with each other.

Finally, today's funding announcement is very welcome. However, we have come down to the wire a bit as funding was due to end at the end of this month. Can we get reassurances that move it forward after the spending review. Services can expect consistent long-term funding that allows them to plan their activities and hire staff on longer contracts. This bill is a historic opportunity to transform public health in this country, and after working tirelessly for over a decade on it, I am so proud to support it.

However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that no one is left behind. All aspects of this bill, whether the smoking cessation measures or protection for workers in the arts must be fully realised in order to create a truly smoke-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

free generation. I think you may agree with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think you may agree with me when I say that the longer you spend in this job, the more you realise that almost nothing is ever that almost nothing is ever straightforward. There are always unintended consequences of those with even the best intentions, and with even the best intentions, and there is absolutely no doubt that smoking and smoking related tobacco smoking and smoking related tobacco has done damage to my constituents and continues to do so. The health of my constituents has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of smoking, and it is a driver of social and economic inequality.

Smokers on average earn 7% less than non-smokers. I couldn't believe that when I first read it as a statistic, but it does make total sense because if you take more time off work because of inevitable ill- health effects, if you spend more of your disposable income on tobacco, and develop a dependency on a drug like nicotine, that will impact your earnings over time. Smoking is like an extra tax on the most disadvantaged communities so I can see where the government has kept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the previous government ambition to phase smoking out. I agree with every thing she says

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with every thing she says about smoking, the elephant in this room is the incline in illegal room is the incline in illegal tobacco sales. 44% since 21, while tobacco sales. 44% since 21, while the number of smokers has only declined by half a percent, so reaching the stage where we are reaching the stage where we are taxing cigarettes so much that we are fuelling the black market and criminality and we have to be aware of these unintended consequences.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is almost as if my friend had read what I have written next on my piece of paper because I was going piece of paper because I was going to go on and say that we don't live in a perfect world and there are unintended consequences, and even unintended consequences, and even our most noble of ambitions, and this bill is not a silver bullet. There is already a thriving black There is already a thriving black market for tobacco in Gosport and I am extremely concerned that am extremely concerned that prohibition may exacerbate that problem, so I am keen to know from problem, so I am keen to know from the Minister what she plans to do alongside the phase prohibition to properly resource the police forces in Hampshire and around the rest of the country to ensure that the law is upheld, and what plant she have to take on the criminals who are already fitting and will only profit more as the age at which a person can legally buy tobacco rises.

Even without this bill, we know that smoking rates are already falling across the UK through a number of interventions including education and smoking support and awareness campaigns. I recently visited a company that was providing smoking cessation support. They are in partnership with NHS Essex who signpost smokers to their stores and they get ongoing support to further help their shift away from tobacco, and Hampshire has a similar scheme which contributes to 500 quits per year. Interventions like these have been successful so I want to know from the Minister whether she has weighed up the merits against the But mainly today what I want to talk
15:46
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
about his new clause two which has been tabled in my name which I believe to be one of those rare occasions when things genuinely are as simple as they seem. My amendment very simply seek to ban the use of very simply seek to ban the use of plastic filters and cigarettes. The debate today will largely focus on the public health benefits of the public health benefits of banning smoking and focusing on improving cancer rates for example, and rightly so. I have to be very clear, banning plastic filters will do absolutely nothing for public do absolutely nothing for public health.

It will make a great deal of difference note to the thousands of my constituents who will be able to swim in the sea, or for the marine life that live there. Over 2 million cigarette butts are little dropped in the Gosport constituency that is the figure that will be replicated in every constituency around the country. It is little that we are all paying to clean up. The costs of a local council average around £40 million each year. Many of them inevitably being flushed into our waterways, rivers, and our seas.

Cigarette butts account for 66% of knitted items in the UK. It goes without saying this is pretty grim. But bearing in mind that cigarette stubs can take around 14 years to degrade, swimming around at the end of my road amongst pieces of discoloured plastic is unpleasant but the bigger threat to the environment. One cigarette but left to soak in water for 96 hours will release enough toxins to kill half of the salt or freshwater fish that are exposed to it.

40% of chemicals contained in cigarette butts have been found to be either toxic or very toxic to marine life. There is the chance that the slow degradation of the plastic parts is contributed to the rise in microplastics that is being increasingly found in the human body. Marine ecosystems like the seascape which covers 52,000 ha of coastal and marine habitats including in my constituency are precious. We have spoken at length over many years about the impact of sewage in our waterways. But we now need to talk about the impact of plastic.

That project aims to reverse the loss of biodiversity in the Solent which will have all kinds of benefits including tourism and providing nature -based solutions to flooding. Seagrass installation relies on the delicate ecosystem would involve thriving fish populations, and putting populations at risk. Other large companies have demonstrated it is easy to make a switching production that would be required to accommodate this change in the law. Biodegradable filters already exist. It has been six years since McDonald's made a decision to switch to paper straws but unlike this, these biodegradable filters will work and make no discernible difference to the user experience.

It explains why polling suggests this measure supports, is supported by 86% of UK adults. Present a huge step forward to removing 3.9 billion cigarette butts ecosystem, combating problems in our beaches and streets, and the rubbish on our roads. So it really is an environmental no- brainer. It is a Parliamentary no- brainer with massive public support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the government can see the merit in supporting this amendment today. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest as officer of vaping. I was asked by teenage vaping. I was asked by teenage member of my family and back in 2016 when I first took a draw the
15:49
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
when I first took a draw the cigarette. I know all too well the addictive power of nicotine. And I will do anything I can to prevent it. I must say some of the amendment jeopardise that ambition. There is jeopardise that ambition. There is no safe way to consume nicotine but essentially smoking tobacco is damaging to the health of a person. Our communities will slowly and surely cut off tobacco from new customers who will see less cancer, less heart attacks and less illness.

Points raised by the honourable colleagues about the black market are important to look forward to hearing the ministers answers stop it does not undermine my support for generational ban in this bill. With regards to some of the amendments proposed, they have my support for the reasons articulated. Sitting on the Bill Committee I saw some wanted the bill altered for sale at 25. I see others wanting to scrap the generational smoking ban altogether. I doubt it will come as a surprise to my constituent but people being eventually able to smoke something that may eventually cover does not follow a philosophical steer.

For all but the last three days of the Bill Committee I was 24 years old. The shift in age proposed at the Bill Committee would deprive me of the liberty I already have. And regrettably exercised extensively in my young years. Depriving adults of their liberty in the name of liberty does strike me as an odd argument for opponents of the generational smoking ban. This band does not deprive anyone of the liberty they currently hold but shifts the ban for those that never had or will have it to begin with.

The liberty for those who will eventually be able to stop smoking will have short shrift from parents or from those who have seen people die

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prematurely. I thank him honourable Friend. There is growing concern about the use of vapes as a tool to entice use of vapes as a tool to entice children into exploitation. By probing amendment new clause 5 was planted by a police officer in Derby concerned about this national issue. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss this. Would my meeting me to discuss this. Would my honourable friend agree that we must acknowledge use of vapes, and ensure that licensing authorities in the police were together to crackdown on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any retailers connected to this. Identifies the point about the protection of young people. I would protection of young people. I would be interested if the list address this. Non-smokers should never vape but we should acknowledge vaping can but we should acknowledge vaping can help other smokers quit. And it is far less harmful than tobacco smoking. Consolidation of vaping into a device solely used for the into a device solely used for the cessation of smoking is something I believe we should pursue in future.

And it. The worrying rise of young And it. The worrying rise of young people getting their hands on vapes in the first days. In the early stages, Bill Committee said online age gating was something that made it far too easy for people to get their hands on. There is still work to be done to put the onus on the vaping industry to safeguard. That is why I put my name to these new clauses. This would permit the Secretary of State for regulations mandating vape retails that would approve age technology.

Allowing vapes aligns and strengthens the bill's objectives by seeking to extend protection away from the point of sale to the point of use. I will ask ministers if they will commit to meet with myself the APPG to discuss age-related technology and wider measures will be supported in the UK to share the aim we all have two stop vaping. The bill grants a secular state similar powers to change display of packaging. This bill should not deter smokers from switching today.

It is a huge reason why smokers quit and stick by quitting we should not regulate in any way the message that we must stick with that, that. This bill should be supported. It is time to take a step that will do a substantial amount to deter smoking and prevent nicotine addiction and secure a generation against smoking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Whilst I hesitate to break up the consensus ever so slightly, I do disagree with this bill fundamentally. Because the generational smoking ban misrepresent the proper relationship between the state of the individual
15:54
Jack Rankin Portrait Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)
-
-
between the state of the individual and creates two tiers of adults. I don't intend to plough on with the argument too far. I recognise the will of the house at second reading, and what I tried to do the amendment I have tabled is to genuinely improve the main aim of the bill in a way that gets people off smoking in the interests of public health which, regardless of whether you are in favour or against generational ban on smoking, I believe it is something that we should all support.

That is why I am grateful to members right across the house both from the government benches, from the Liberal Democrats, from the DUP and from others for supporting my amendment that I make today in my name. New clause 8, new clause 9, new clause 10. As amendment 46. The message of my amendment is simply this. Let's ensure less harmful vapes and nicotine products gets to the smokers, the adult smokers who would benefit from them so smoking rates continue to fall.

In that regard I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks that the honourable Member on the other side from the city of Durham I believe have already made. I feel the risk of this bill is that ministers may inadvertently weaken somewhat the decline in smoking in Britain. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, and the Shadow Minister, vaping is a legitimate undesirable smoking cessation tool for adults.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. I associate myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. I associate myself with what he has said already. When plain packaging was introduced, just plain packaging was introduced, just the kind of inadvertent effect was felt. As those who wished to counter feed tobacco products were able to do so at will. Using plain packages do so at will. Using plain packages that were no different to legal wrappers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrappers. I thank him voice remarks. I would associate myself with the same remarks that my honourable friend from Gosport made. We have to be a bit careful about the inadvertent effects of what might be the goodwill of others in this house. Regardless of what we see as the role of the state in this, we still welcome smoking this country has come down from the highs of almost 30% in the early 2002 the highs of almost 30% in the early 2000 211.6% today.

We have to recognise that is partly due to education, partly social stigma, partly it is legislation this house has brought forward. We should also acknowledge the essential role that the free market has played to clearly with vapes and other non-tobacco products. In terms of getting adults to stop smoking. However we should also recognise that there are still 6 million smokers none of whom will come under the generational ban umbrella. So we need to ensure that the safe alternatives out there available for them.

My view is this bill as it is currently drafted risks hanging them out to dry. By treating vapes and nicotine products in the same weight cigarette are today, with an outright generational ban. That is a false equivalence not backed by the science. From sitting on the Public Bill Committee, I realised how prevalent the view is amongst the public that vapes and other smoking cessation tools were there. Vapes are 95% safer than cigarettes and that is according to Public Health England and an independent review.

You can look at any smoking cessation website and you will find similar message. Any smoker will tell you how difficult it is to go cold turkey. And less dangerous options like vaping will be a lifeline for those who want to quit cigarettes. In the NHS, they have found that almost 2/3 of people who vape alongside a stop smoking service quit smoking. My primary concern in this blanket ban approach to marketing, when it comes to vapes and nicotine products.

That is what my new clause 8 and nine intends to address. As I say, I know there are many across this house who share those concerns. Whilst I totally support the need to stop disposable rainbow candy floss style vapes been given to children, that is totally unacceptable, adult smokers do need-to-know that there is a safer alternative than cigarettes. In terms of that worry, many smokers now believe vaping to be as dangerous as cigarettes. Cancer Research UK found that 57% of adult smokers think that vaping is just as harmful if not more harmful than smoking cigarettes.

The risk of a Draconian approach to vaping will only reinforce that incorrect messaging which is damaging to public health. So by permitting marketing in limited circumstances, and under strict restrictions as my amendment aims to do, we can get the message to the 6 million adult smokers that there is a safer alternative out there. Indeed the government's own impact assessment recognises the risk of health impacts and fewer people using vapes than nicotine products to quit smoking.

This should set off alarm bells in government. That is what new clause 8 does. It simply asks government to have a proper consultation on the potential impacts of marketing ban. Digging deeper than the sparse bullet points currently given to impact assessment. This will allow us to listen to consumers who actively use these products and find out how these changes will impact them. In the Public Bill Committee, the consumer voice is largely absent. Restrictions on flavours, packaging, and vape-free areas are already subject to consultation, and this amendment would simply bring marketing in line with this.

The deeper consideration of the impact of the marketing ban would help us maintain our progress towards a smoke-free 2030. Allow the Government the opportunity to prevent the unintended consequences of this bill. Education through marketing is one of the best tools Government has at its disposal. So why not wield the free market to effect, real social change let If new clause 9 was to be included, every nicotine product would have to have a printed warning at the Secretary of State's discretion.

This could be something like strict leaf adult smokers. We could even use the Chief Medical Officers own words, if you don't smoke, don't vape. This will send a clear message about the purpose of vapes without them getting into the hands of smokers. In the Bill committee, many raise the issue that any advertisers would be inevitably seen by children, and that is why I have tabled amendment 46 which would avoid this problem by permitting advertising in adult only environments like pubs, bars and clubs.

To me, that is just common sense. If everyone is 18, there is no reason why advertising should not be permitted. These night-time venues are often hotspots from smoking. These people could benefit the most. If a nicotine pouch is advertised in this region, they may think twice about going to a newsagents. This would work especially well at the same pubs were licensed to sell these products on the premises. So I'm urging the government through these amendments to reconsider their approach to advertising when it comes to these legitimate smoking cessation tools.

My written question to the Department says that no reassessment has been done in this area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 46, who would be responsible for enforcing the responsible for enforcing the advertisement and making sure it was only those over 18 seeing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advertisements? I am assuming that that would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am assuming that that would be the same people responsible for the same people responsible for licensing alcohol, for example. So all of those amendments, they speak all of those amendments, they speak to the amendments which speak to the aims of the bill. I hope everyone will recognise the value in this and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will take this seriously. Is part of the group for responsible vaping, I have followed responsible vaping, I have followed the process of the bill and speak to
16:03
Mary Glindon Portrait Mary Glindon MP (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, Labour)
-
-
the process of the bill and speak to clauses 4, six, seven and 15, as well as an immense 36, 37, and 88, all of which are in my name. I would like to congratulate the Minister on her appointment and for stepping up so wonderfully to bring the bill forward today. I want to begin with the topic of an enormous public health challenge which has formed one of the government's central messages within the bill. All of us in this place will have heard concerns from teachers and parents about the prevalence of vaping and the challenges that schools are facing to tackle it.

The bill sets out to reduce the appeal of vaping to children, however, there is a delicate and calculated approach that must be taken when addressing youth vaping. When addressing one problem, it is incumbent on all of problem, it is incumbent on all of us to another, and we still have more than 6 million smokers to reach, and vaping is 95% safer than smoking according to King College Hospital and the former public health England. According to data from Ash, 3 million adult vapours are ex-smokers.

There are hard yards we still have to take to reach smokers and I fear that the bill at present is losing sight of what the evidence-based is about the relative harms. Rape flavours can play a significant role in power sporting adults towards alternatives. In response to a written question I tabled, I was pleased to hear that the government recognises that flavours are a consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit. The previous minister said it is important we strike the balance between restricting bait flavours to reduce their appeal to young people whilst ensuring vapes remain available for adult smokers in a smoking cessation tool.

A study led by the University of Bristol last year found that flavour restrictions could discourage adults from using E cigarettes to help them quit smoking. A moment 37 in my name seeks to try to balance banning flavour descriptors with more flavours like gummy bear and bubblegum that deliberately appeal to children whilst allowing adults to use their smoking cessation product of choice. To stick on the topic of product requirements, a moment 36 would empower ministers to regulate the design of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high counts of they pin devices.

These products are typically cheaper her path, contain more vapour liquid and plastic content than other devices and have a specific youth appeal. In January, Jefferies new guidance outlined what could be considered a reusable product aiming to prevent superficial charging and refilling features. However, I believe it should be put on a statutory footing to ensure that it is consistent. The bill should be is consistent. The bill should be amended to stipulate one device, one tank.

New clauses 6 and seven in my name introduce a requirement of retailers in England and to include age verification at the point of use. While the bill seeks to tackle this, a fundamental issue is left unaddressed. Once a vaping product leaves the shop, there is no barrier towards children. This technology already exists. I met with a company that has developed low-cost Bluetooth enabled chips that pay with a mobile app for verification. This technology also includes geo- fencing which disables devices in certain areas such as schools.

These new clauses would harness the potential that innovation has to offer to address youth accessibility head on. Turning to advertising, new clause 15 adds an exemption from the new advertising restrictions from promotional materials in specialist vape shops, riding these are not visible and meet any conditions around health warnings as set by ministers. I am fearful that the situation is given exemptions to the restrictions set out across clauses 114, with vapes shops not. These provide adult smokers with important advice and product consultations in their journey away from tobacco, and their journey away from tobacco, and I have seen that happen in action.

Pouches are only regulated through the product regulations in 2005, meaning there is little regulation around these products, particularly around nicotine strength. Nicotine pouches led from 17 aground to 150 mg which are now easily obtainable. There is a need to limit strength to lower levels. New clause 4 in my name places a ban on the manufacture and sales of pouches with more than 20 mg of pouches. This would eliminate the dangerous high strengths of these products.

Whilst maintaining a threshold that minimises adverse consequences arising from the restriction like smoking and illicit pouches. Before we can regulate part five of the bill, amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to consult any person or bodies as appear to him or her, representative of the interest concerns with the more limited wording. The bill provides ministers wording. The bill provides ministers with broad powers to make further regulations. It is vital that these powers are exercised in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including public health exports, enforcement bodies and specialists and the industry.

In conclusion, as chair of the APPG correspondent, I hope that ministers will be willing to engage in the coming months as regulations are brought forward. If you do not smoke, you shouldn't vape. For those who do use tobacco, we have a duty to ensure that legislation effectively harnesses the power of vapes as a smoking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cessation tool. I congratulate her work that she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate her work that she has done on vaping and combating the illegal sales. I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party group for actions. I have held that group for actions. I have held that post for 9 1/2 years, and seen the work that the Conservative government has done to combat smoking which has led to a drop in smoking. But we are not where we smoking. But we are not where we need to be. I commend the Minister of the government for bringing forward this bill, and indeed, for absorbing almost all of the amendments that my colleagues propose in the bill committee to
16:12
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
strengthen the bill and make it a better likelihood that we can achieve smoke-free England by 2030. achieve smoke-free England by 2030. This bill will make us a world leader in tobacco control. We have always been at the forefront, and always been at the forefront, and this consolidates regulation and limits the reach of the tobacco industry. We should be clear that industry. We should be clear that tobacco is a unique product, but tobacco is a unique product, but when it is used as intended, it feels to thirds of users, and above all else, it is highly addictive and very hard to quit once you are addicted.

Most smokers will say that they wish they didn't smoke and I wish they had never started. They have had agency removed from them by their addiction. By passing this legislation, we are giving choices back to young people in the future who will avoid ever falling into that trap and avoid the addiction that trap and avoid the addiction that it brings. I noticed the Minister is unlikely to accept my amendments, but I would commend them to have further consideration.

First, the calls from the government to consult on the introduction of a polluter pays levy on the profits of the big tobacco industry. This is a campaign that the all-party group has championed for many years. It is supported by the Khan review which came out of the former member setting up the review to enable a position to be reached. Almost all the recommendations of the review are absorbed within this bill and work with the previous bill, but there are still some outstanding.

It is supported by charities, health organisations, academics and think tanks. So, tobacco consumption costs our society greatly. The latest data estimates that smoking in England alone, 43.7, £43.7 a year, far more than the 6.8 million raised through taxes. That includes 27.6 million in lost economic productivity. The Secretary of State for work and pensions, trying to reduce the state, if we can stop people vaping, they don't get unhealthy and are unable to work, they have to get back into the workforce and pay taxes rather than being of receipt of welfare.

So, this would be an opportunity to reduce the impact for the system and improve productivity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the UK. I commend his speech so far which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend his speech so far which I think is excellent, and the work is done over many years looking to is done over many years looking to reduce smoking prevalence in this country. Would he agree with me at the subject of the amendment that the subject of the amendment that the tobacco companies still make a huge margin on tobacco sold and huge margin on tobacco sold and therefore, they can easily afford the polluter pays levy that he is proposing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome that from the all-party group. Indeed, we have said that smoking is not a free choice. It is actually an addiction peddled by regressive industry. First, it would raise approximately £700 million a year. That is made with going to the Treasury and could be used for smoking cessation services, supporting people to quit, and other health related matters. All the government programs on tobacco including mass-market media campaigns, the incentives for pregnant women, for workers with mental health problems, could be funded with cash to spare for other services.

They could go into other initiatives. To achieve the aim of halving the gap in halving life expectancy between richest and Secondly it would allow the government to have greater control of the market. The combination of tobacco being highly addictive and four companies having almost a monopoly in the UK leads to severe market failures. We tax tobacco quite likely to incentivise quitting. The industry gets round this because they just increase the price. So the cost and comes onto the consumer rather than the profits that these companies are making.

That means that luxury brands go up more, and keeps prices lower on the budget ones when there is a tax hike. That undermines public health objectives of tobacco taxation. As has been said, the reality is that people on a lower income often smoke more. And they smoke the worst brands. So it was put in place minimise taxes to address the problem was not greater controls are needed. The levy model put forward will give us the tools we need to end the practices and narrow the price gap between the most and least expensive products.

That in itself would be expected to bring rates of smoking down even before the revenue raised was invested in further programs. Finally, a levy of this kind would correct a moral problem it is right and fair that the tobacco industry should pay for the damage they've caused to our society, the UK taxpayer. I admit this model would directly come from the profits of the industry which far exceed the normal products as mentioned. The public of course supports this measure. 79% of adults in Great Britain would support the levy on the tobacco industry, with only 5% opposed.

The current fiscal environment which we discussed earlier today, when government is prepared to look more controversially to raise revenue, it is clear that the government should consult on this proposal. If the Minister is not minded to accept the excellent idea today, she take it to the Treasury and encourage the Treasury to participate in this? I move on to the second when I proposed which is new clause 16. It would introduce a ban on online sales, which is not covered under the current bill.

I understand that for the UK this policy would be rather unique and there is not currently a product available for sale in shops that you can't purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to do this. Brazil, Mexico, Finland, our neighbours in France, and Greece to name a few have banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet. So banning online sales was recommended in a review and led by the World Health Organisation who argued that internet sales constituted a point of sale display.

An inherently involve advertising and promotion. Indeed you can look up today tobacco products on any of the market website and see reviews such as "Quite nice relaxing on a summer day" or " at a test match. " This is not aligns with the message we want to give to smokers. And I'm pleased that test match grounds will not allow you to light up in any case. So it is important we look to the implementation of the smoke-free generation. With the right support and guidance, retailers will work to implement the policy.

However, delivery drivers for supermarket shops, and delivery drivers, will they be given the same level of training information? And the same rules for enforcing the age of sale as shop workers and others? So currently online sales are not supported by individuals attempting to circumvent the law. But we met demand for this may happen in the future. From a country that is moving ever closer to becoming smoke-free, should tobacco continue to be available at the click of a button delivered to your door? I think not.

While I'm fully supportive of a smoke-free generation, I believe it needs to go further, creating a future which is nicotine free as well. Coutinho is the drug that people become addicted to. The long-term effects of other nicotine products are just as damaging and addictive. If we forbade their sale to anyone born after 2009, they will hopefully never know what it is like to experience this and never be stuck in that vicious cycle of nicotine addiction. I fear that legislating only for a smoke-free society would top the opportunity for tobacco companies to innovate new products was the they will target their marketing on vulnerable people which they have done previously, and there's nothing to stop them from doing it again.

Monopolising a new market that harms people's health. That is why the legislation must be active and the ability to be amended. So to reopen the bill in future years we might as well try and kill two birds with one stone and ensure there is no opportunity for nicotine to continue ruining people's lives. I would suggest that as the build progresses to the Lords we may need to look at that as well. To avoid getting what my colleagues have and no doubt will say, I will, and I won't go into debt for these amendments, I have added my name to new clause 13, 14, amendment six and 86 and amendment 87.

I also support the government amendments. I would like to thank the government for adopting this bill from the previous Conservative government. A bill that I have been advocating since I entered this house in 2010. It is great that we are finally on the cusp of protecting our future generations, our children's children. I urge ministers to accept my amendments in the spirit in which they have been put, to ensure we cover all bases leaving no room for misinterpretation or tobacco to circumvent the measures we are trying to produce was not I commend these amendments and the bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the It is a pleasure to follow the speeches we have heard so far. I stand to support the new clause 11 and the packaging related amendments that the government has laid for that the government has laid for this landmark bill. I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation. A privilege
16:22
Alex Barros-Curtis Portrait Mr Alex Barros-Curtis MP (Cardiff West, Labour)
-
-
this legislation. A privilege primarily for two reasons, and to have the pleasure of colleagues, the company of colleagues across this house. But second and perhaps more importantly, because this legislation will undoubtedly save lives. The Bill's second reading I talked about how this bill will deliver on its commitment to ensure the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes and to create that first smoke-free generation. As has been said, smoking is still the biggest cause of cancer and death stop tobacco is responsible for 160 cancer cases each day in the UK.

And 3100 cancer cases annually in Wales. So new clause 11 and the associated package is welcome, and as has been said by ministers, the purpose of this package and related amendments pertaining to new clause 11 is to ensure that identity documents will keep up with innovation and accommodate the costs of digital ID. This, as the Minister said, is to future proof the bill. We have heard it mentioned in a couple of contributions today. During the Bill Committee, the point of future proofing did come up.

Some concern was expressed by the party opposite, and powers would be delegated to ministers through this legislation in order to bring to effect certain provisions within the bill. My view is that these powers are needed because we need the government of the day to be able to respond with agility and quickly to the innovation, and I use that term carefully, of the tobacco industry to innovate and find ways around the rules we are imposing on them. A great deal of debate has focused on vaping and I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on vaping.

Whilst of course recognising the value to some about vaping acting as a smoking cessation tool, as I said at second reading and of the Bill Committee, vaping is not harmless. I know colleagues have said this as well. It is not a panacea. In this bill there is much to welcome on vaping the ban on advertising of apes and other measures to curb youth vaping and regular use are examples that we welcome. The reality is that, as has been said, vaping use has more than doubled, and an organisation estimated that 25% of children between 12 and 17 had tried vaping.

This is an example of a powerful industry profiting not just from cessation but from addiction. Marketing, vaping at children, by switching the conveyor belt of customers to a new source. Indeed there is alarming evidence that some vapours are swapping one addiction for another. So whilst I welcome some of the contributions colleagues have made I think we need to rely on these stages will stop the passage of this bill and consistent with this government's work in the realm of public health since it took office, vaping is regularly referred to as a smoking cessation tool.

As has been welcomed, if you smoke, vaping is much safer. Last I of course accept that this is a helpful tool in the fight for better public health, there is not the decades of evidence that underpin that and that deadly consequences of smoking. We do not have that when it comes to the same respect to vaping. What we must be clear on is this, if you don't smoke dope vapour. Because vaping is not harmless. It is just less harmful than smoking tobacco.

And public health policy must be based on evidence not spin from the industry, as has been expanded on by colleagues about the power of big Tobacco.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Our honourable Friend is making an excellent speech and I like the way he summed up the risks inherent in he summed up the risks inherent in vaping and the way he explained it in the context of being helpful for someone wishing to give up and at someone wishing to give up and at the same time there is a real threat. Does he agree with me that this needs to be seen in the wider this needs to be seen in the wider context of issues at secondary and primary school? And in the context primary school? And in the context of differences in public health outcomes across communities, and the need to focus resources to help children, and communities as well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree, and I trust the Mr Mittal expand on this and she the Mr Mittal expand on this and she comes to wind up the debate. As I comes to wind up the debate. As I said, public health policy must reflect evidence and not just been or perceptions was not moving forward I would urge the government forward I would urge the government that shows part of its work to implement this legislation as well as as a smoking cessation tool, it must also undertake work to research the consequences of vaping on both the consequences of vaping on both physical and mental health of the individual, the financial impact of it, and as has been said by my colleague, any regional or national inequalities that have become entrenched by vaping.

And when she comes back to this, I would be grateful if she could assure me that in so doing she will work with the nations to ensure the data is as thorough as possible. If that research shows, as I have no doubt it will, that vaping is significantly damaging to patients, perhaps less than smoking but nonetheless still significantly damaging, then we must act to curb it. We cannot afford to wait decades and decades for the truth to come out in the way it took decades for big Tobacco to be found out.

I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on this point. In conclusion, I am proud to support this legislation. As has been said, there is no limiting in addiction, there is no freedom in being victim to a craving that kills. This bill takes on a precedented step forward to curb

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that damage and I urge colleagues throughout the house to support this bill tonight. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I must declare an interest, I am a co-founder of Action on World co-founder of Action on World Health. I find the tone of moral superiority in the chamber this superiority in the chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. You clearly believe you are better human beings than those outside of here beings than those outside of here who choose to pursue activities that you perhaps would not. It is a bit you perhaps would not. It is a bit of a shock to some of you there are some of us that like a smoke.

We even go for if you pints in the pub,
16:30
Nigel Farage Portrait Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)
-
-
we have a punt on the horses, I even we have a punt on the horses, I even have the odd doughnut which is properly the naughtiest of all. properly the naughtiest of all. Because we want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. You can educate us, you can tell us, you can educate us, you can tell us, you can give us the facts, but the idea that this place should make those decisions for other people, it shows me that the spirit of Oliver me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well.

And some of the nonsense I have heard, yes of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, Does he agree that a responsible government should seek to improve public health, particularly public health of the younger generation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is quite possible that sugar should be banned, yes I do agree with you. It is possible. But I with you. It is possible. But I don't think it is what government is here to do. Government can educate, individuals should make their own individuals should make their own individuals should make their own A smoke-free generation. We had the member suggest we might be smoke- member suggest we might be smoke- free by 2030. To begin, the idea that from 2009, nobody would buy that from 2009, nobody would buy tobacco but those in 2010 could is just another aspect to 2 tier Britain.

And you know, I have not had a single member, not one, despite the fact we are addressing tobacco and products, not one member has mentioned drugs. No, let's forget about that because that is illegal already and we can't do anything about it. I have been hearing for decades that there will be a war on drugs, where is it getting us? Drug use is rocketing, class a drugs particular, proliferating everywhere, and here is the danger. An ounce of tobacco is now more expensive in a shop if purchased legally than an ounce of silver.

And so already, we have a rocketing trade in illegal cigarettes and loose tobacco. You carry on down this route with age bands et cetera, you find yourselves in a position that Australia stupidly has put itself in by overtaxing tobacco, by making it very difficult to smoke, there have been 40 fire bombings of premises in Melbourne alone in the last two Melbourne alone in the last two years. Do not drive tobacco into the hands of criminals. Do not create a new black market.

I totally agree with the Minister that this is not an activity we should encourage, we are not keen for our kids to do it, but please treat us like grown-ups. Educate us, let us make our choices, don't let the criminals when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you very much. Firstly, I should say thank you to the Minister for scenting this afternoon, and thank you for afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to be on the committee. It was an incredibly interesting It was an incredibly interesting bill committee. There were some different views, there were some different views, there were some robust conversations. We listen to different views, but overall, this
16:33
Beccy Cooper Portrait Dr Beccy Cooper MP (Worthing West, Labour)
-
-
different views, but overall, this bill had generally cross-party support. As the benches opposite have pointed out, it is many of their members that have been campaigning for this bill for a long time. I am a public health consultant. I trained for 10, 15 years, and the premise of public health is data and evidence. So opinions are interesting. Opinions can have great colour to a conversation. Opinions can have great characters, but data and evidence in public health will ultimately deliver population health outcomes.

And this public health bell is a public health bell that. People dying and will take away the addictive nature of the substance that is not a choice. Public health has been subject to conversations around should we or shouldn't we impose things for many years. This conversation is not for you. Seatbelts. I wonder how many of us feel strongly about wearing seat belts or not. It is a moot point these days, but you don't have to go to far back to find people who really objected to wearing seat belts.

Tobacco is undoubtedly still the leading cause of premature death and disability in the United Kingdom. As has been said by my honourable friends here, every day, around 160 people are diagnosed with cancer caused by smoking and cancer causes different types of cancer. I would like to talk primarily around the amendment proposed by my honourable friend from Durham, clause 13. Alongside the outstanding work that this bill will do in enabling a smoke-free generation, we do need to continue to tackle health inequalities for existing smokers.

Smoking is harmful and differences in smoking prevalence across the population translate into major differences in death rates and illness. One of the roles of this place is that in coming together from all across the country, we represent different constituencies, and in doing so, we want to make sure that we achieve the best health comes among many other things for our residents, and therefore, it is incumbent on us to look at inequalities and where they reside, and in this place, to legislate against those where it is possible.

Smoking is the single largest driver of health inequalities in England. Common among people with lower incomes and we can discuss why that is, I'm happy to discuss that with any members who would like to. The more disadvantaged someone is, the more likely they are to smoke and to suffer from smoking relating disease and premature death. An smoking- related health inequalities are not restricted to socio-economics status. We all represent different parts of the UK. The poorer health of people in the north of thinking compared the south is in part due to higher rates of smoking in the north.

In smoking rates are also higher among people with a mental- health condition. People in contact with the criminal justice system looked after children and LGBT people. We all have different types of people in our constituencies and we should be mindful of those inequalities and addressing them. Health inequalities will be reduced to measure to have greater effects of those in higher prevalence groups and in practice, this means prioritising population level interventions which disadvantaged smokers are more sensitive to, and targeting interventions on the smokers.

As someone who has run smoking cessation services during my time as a public health consultant, I can absolutely say that it is an incredibly difficult thing for anybody to give up smoking. I actually think that we do have members who have succeeded or perhaps are still trying to do so. To give up smoking, you need to be a place where you have mental resilience, you are able to put time and energy into quitting smoking. If you are fighting all the other issues that come with the burdens of being poorer, fighting for employment, looking to feed your children, it is so much harder.

My honourable friend, the member for the city of Durham has proposed a roadmap to a smoke-free country which would report to this place every five years. I am not particularly wedded to whether that is the case or isn't the case, but I do think that we should ensure that we are laser focused on reducing health inequalities across all populations, and I hope that our government will consider on reporting processes similar to this one, as part of the National Health Service changes that we all know are going on at the moment in the health Select Committee, we were talking about where the disparities will go, the dissolution of a Chessie blend, and this is a conversation that we need to be mindful of, so we need to ensure that the ongoing importance of addressing these health disparities are not lost and I think they are front and for most of the Secretary of State's agenda in the 10 year plan, and I commend this bill to the house on behalf of public health consultants, the professionals, I am so proud to be part of the government, to be part of the Parliament that will bring this life changing legislation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country. Thank you very much. I want to speak to amendment for and the subsequent amendments in my and the subsequent amendments in my name and also youth clause 3. I name and also youth clause 3. I think it is right that where a public health issue is identified, that this body should then look and see if there is anything that can be see if there is anything that can be done by law, by fiscal policy or the other leavers which are available to other leavers which are available to us to deal with that.

But we should equally ask ourselves when we introduce laws, what are the consequences of those laws? Are there any unintended consequences? How practical are those laws? How enforceable are the measures that we take? If they are not enforceable, all we do is bring the law into disrepute and bring this place into disrepute. And my concern about this particular bill, while some have described it as well-meaning, as
16:40
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
essential, as a flagship and want to essential, as a flagship and want to take leadership, my concern is that we have given little thought and we have given little thought and little debate to the consequences which are hitting us on the face, which are hitting us on the face, and if we were being honest with ourselves, that will be quite good ourselves, that will be quite good at this session to walk away and say we have done a wonderful thing for future generations.

We have future generations. We have introduced laws which will do away with smoking and will improve the health of the nation. Improve the health of the nation and ignore the fact that we have introduced legislation which is not workable and which I believe there is an alternative to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he recall the 2007 smoking ban that many people warned before that van that it would be that van that it would be unenforceable and there would be unenforceable and there would be barely any compliance. That law has barely any compliance. That law has helped to drivers from secondary smoking and a massive number of people giving up as a result of no people giving up as a result of no longer being able to smoke in the pub.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pub. I think the member has the answer if you looked at what we are debating here today. We introduce this legislation, and here we are revisiting the issue, why? Because people are still smoking. Health outcomes are still bad, and on top of that, we have additional problems which I will come to in a moment or two, namely the illegal purchases and supply of tobacco, so let's not think that this legislation, because we have tried it in the past, tried bands and all kinds of other measures, we still have the problem with it.

The first consequences this. We are being asked to introduce legislation. The burden of which will fall upon retailers. It is at the point-of-purchase that the scrutiny and the implementation of this legislation is going to have to take place. I haven't heard anybody mention this today. What happens when a retailer is faced with two
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page