Westminster Hall
Thursday 15th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 13 hours, 33 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Of his statement. I will call members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Alex Sobel to respond to these. In turn, questions should be brief and members may only ask one question each. I call for up to ten minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion, Alex Sobel, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
13:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, chair. As the newly elected chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am proud to be presenting the significant findings of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Human Rights and the Regulation of Artificial Artificial Intelligence. But I'd first like to thank Lord Alton for his exemplary leadership and service as the chair of our committee. Hear all the evidence suggests that the world is at the precipice of the outcomes of a reckless race towards superintelligent AI.
AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross economy, regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems being deployed, even if they pose significant risks. Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released, or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK.
Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power. The committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence, frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI.
We must regulate now. Not in a year, not in five years, but now. And with the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year. The committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe's Framework Convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights, equality and non-discrimination and privacy and personal data protection. The committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act.
AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised piece of software that can make decisions and operate cooperatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert.
The general purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems which nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. Let me be clear AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. Vital to effective defence and promoting vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK's prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights.
In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us potential impact on the treatment of the condition of workers, workers rights generally and on the environment. Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10 and 25%. In any other industry, this development would be ruled out with this level of risk. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves? On the first principle of the framework Convention equality and non-discrimination, we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritized groups.
Compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance Coalition told us. AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK. Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed because of these baked in biases, and also due to choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial bias and AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants.
AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes due to bias training data. This threatens human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. Next, we looked at the second principle of the Framework Convention that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. This threatens the article eight right to privacy of people in the UK, and is given particular expression data protection in relation to personal data.
However, between January and October 2025, around 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent. Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the government's policies and practices relating to AI systems, including its approach to the regulation of AI. The committee recommends the government should encourage the development of AI use cases, which can improve human rights. The AI action plan commissioned by the previous administration, while it brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI generated interference throughout the supply chain.
The UK's leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but also setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI in the new administration, and urges the government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way which puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards.
The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. This has been maintained across administrations from different sides of the chamber. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections, but also help to reinforce the UK's leadership position in AI safety. The committee recommends that the government should introduce a new AI bill, as promised in the 2024 King's speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the Framework Convention.
A risk based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face and other incidents illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm. As with the regulation of pharmaceuticals, low risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements to ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments. It is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles.
The AI bill we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding applications for higher risk AI systems and AI models. Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights, and I believe this would be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum.
So it matters where we draw the line. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement, the full automation of AI development with no humans in the loop. This is the point where we lose control as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control. Frontier developers are heeding standards rather than statute for their own AI models.
The same developers who deliberately train their models to hack and deceive. As we heard this week during the select committee inquiry, which I guested in as JCS chair. We heard from ex-employees of these frontier developers OpenAI, Google, DeepMind and anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety culture in an organisation. Some whistleblowers put a 50% chance of destroying humanity. A coin flip about whether we survive or not. This is not a human rights model we should ever be working with.
These frontier developers believe they will not get stopped by government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that. Let's regulate now. In the words of David Krüger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute, my dream is that in ten years people will look back and say, remember when there were all these people building AI that could kill everybody? That was crazy. What were we thinking? Thank you chair.
AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross economy, regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems being deployed, even if they pose significant risks. Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released, or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK.
Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power. The committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence, frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI.
We must regulate now. Not in a year, not in five years, but now. And with the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year. The committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe's Framework Convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights, equality and non-discrimination and privacy and personal data protection. The committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act.
AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised piece of software that can make decisions and operate cooperatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert.
The general purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems which nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. Let me be clear AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. Vital to effective defence and promoting vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK's prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights.
In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us potential impact on the treatment of the condition of workers, workers rights generally and on the environment. Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10 and 25%. In any other industry, this development would be ruled out with this level of risk. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves? On the first principle of the framework Convention equality and non-discrimination, we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritized groups.
Compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance Coalition told us. AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK. Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed because of these baked in biases, and also due to choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial bias and AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants.
AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes due to bias training data. This threatens human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. Next, we looked at the second principle of the Framework Convention that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. This threatens the article eight right to privacy of people in the UK, and is given particular expression data protection in relation to personal data.
However, between January and October 2025, around 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent. Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the government's policies and practices relating to AI systems, including its approach to the regulation of AI. The committee recommends the government should encourage the development of AI use cases, which can improve human rights. The AI action plan commissioned by the previous administration, while it brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI generated interference throughout the supply chain.
The UK's leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but also setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI in the new administration, and urges the government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way which puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards.
The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. This has been maintained across administrations from different sides of the chamber. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections, but also help to reinforce the UK's leadership position in AI safety. The committee recommends that the government should introduce a new AI bill, as promised in the 2024 King's speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the Framework Convention.
A risk based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face and other incidents illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm. As with the regulation of pharmaceuticals, low risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements to ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments. It is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles.
The AI bill we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding applications for higher risk AI systems and AI models. Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights, and I believe this would be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum.
So it matters where we draw the line. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement, the full automation of AI development with no humans in the loop. This is the point where we lose control as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control. Frontier developers are heeding standards rather than statute for their own AI models.
The same developers who deliberately train their models to hack and deceive. As we heard this week during the select committee inquiry, which I guested in as JCS chair. We heard from ex-employees of these frontier developers OpenAI, Google, DeepMind and anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety culture in an organisation. Some whistleblowers put a 50% chance of destroying humanity. A coin flip about whether we survive or not. This is not a human rights model we should ever be working with.
These frontier developers believe they will not get stopped by government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that. Let's regulate now. In the words of David Krüger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute, my dream is that in ten years people will look back and say, remember when there were all these people building AI that could kill everybody? That was crazy. What were we thinking? Thank you chair.
13:39
13:39
13:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thanks for my fellow committee member for that question. From the report, we said that many AI systems developed for specific purpose can be deployed or adapted for use for different purposes and contexts from those intended by the developer, and those deploying the system may lack understanding of the risks arising from the way in which the AI system has been designed and developed. The AI bill. We recommend in in the report, should impose proportionate obligations on actors at all stages of the AI lifecycle and supply chain to ensure that risks are identified, evaluated and effectively addressed at the appropriate stage.
And yesterday at Dbis committee, we heard from Daniel Costello, who said, who's a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient, and AC where the UK or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development. So thank you.
And yesterday at Dbis committee, we heard from Daniel Costello, who said, who's a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient, and AC where the UK or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development. So thank you.
13:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to my right hon. My honourable friend the chair of the Joint Committee for this report. I should declare an interest as the chair of the Science and Technology Committee. I guested on the inquiry and I share the concerns regarding the the potential harms to human rights and support. The report's calls for effective principle based regulation. Now, but I want to ask my honourable friend if he agrees with me and with His Holiness the Pope, in his magnificent humanity encyclical that human rights are for humans, that the anthropomorphization of AI is ascribing human conscience.
Going as far as describing human consciousness to AI and ascribing human rights to AI is an attempt by the tech companies to limit their own liability, as well as boosting their potential share values.
Going as far as describing human consciousness to AI and ascribing human rights to AI is an attempt by the tech companies to limit their own liability, as well as boosting their potential share values.
13:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the chair of the De Select Committee. It's been my great privilege to hear Pope Leo address an audience in the Vatican twice, and the second time last year, in June, at the Jubilee of the governments, he addressed this exact issue. So this is not a recent development for, for for the Pope. And I read his encyclical. And I think that that every government should look at and study the encyclical.
And, and it's interesting that although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a state that a faith leader like the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue like this and brings it back to that sort of central principle that human rights are for humans. And we've already seen the Anthropocene effects. I think that's the right phrase on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI.
And I think that AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace governments and not be regulated by governments, and that is exactly that, because then they can limit their liabilities and maximize their profits and act without with without any scope from the state. And that should concern us all.
And, and it's interesting that although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a state that a faith leader like the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue like this and brings it back to that sort of central principle that human rights are for humans. And we've already seen the Anthropocene effects. I think that's the right phrase on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI.
And I think that AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace governments and not be regulated by governments, and that is exactly that, because then they can limit their liabilities and maximize their profits and act without with without any scope from the state. And that should concern us all.
13:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My honourable friend will not have failed to have clocked the comments from the president of the Microsoft this week that the UK is best placed to lead on AI governance, and that's something that we found in our report, not least because of the AI Security Institute, which our report recommends strengthening further. Does he agree that it's not about limiting the very real benefits AI may bring to the UK's economy, to our healthcare system? Even as we found in our report to Human Rights.
But it's about leading the world in realising those benefits safely , while recognising and mitigating the very real risks that also exist.
But it's about leading the world in realising those benefits safely , while recognising and mitigating the very real risks that also exist.
13:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I absolutely do, and we've we heard continually evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally about the excellent work that AC do. And I'm pleased that the AI ministers here has played another leading role in in developing AC as the world's leading AI safety institute. But he's absolutely right. It's really that the. What the. There are two things here, really. One is which the report found was about human utilisation of AI tools, for instance, through deepfakes, which affect people's human rights or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but needs government action.
But then there's also the frontier models and, and we need to have a very different level of regulation legislation for those than for individual assistive tools or early like, I'm not really worried about ChatGPT. Two it is not going to create an existential crisis, but, but future models that are being developed can and will without regulation.
But then there's also the frontier models and, and we need to have a very different level of regulation legislation for those than for individual assistive tools or early like, I'm not really worried about ChatGPT. Two it is not going to create an existential crisis, but, but future models that are being developed can and will without regulation.
13:45
13:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Can I first of all, thank the chair for the and Select committee for the report and for all that they've done. I can't pretend to understand all about AI and the old school. Probably the oldest of the old school when it comes to these things, but the one thing that I do agree with, what the select committee have said is that human rights should be first and AI should be second. And I think for that, that clear focus that there is.
I also welcome the recommendation, Madam Chair, that there should be a new AI bill, and I think that's the right way to do it, because if we look forward and move forward, I think we want to ensure that those things happen. But can I ask this question, Madam Chair? You're glad that that's the purpose of us here to ask the question. The regional assemblies across all of the and particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but across all of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales, that they will be notified and advised of the technology and what the Select Committee has said, because I think it's really important that individual human rights are, are, are protected, and indeed, I believe that they're sacrosanct.
Human rights should be first, and they should take precedence every time over what technology is coming through AI. Thank you.
I also welcome the recommendation, Madam Chair, that there should be a new AI bill, and I think that's the right way to do it, because if we look forward and move forward, I think we want to ensure that those things happen. But can I ask this question, Madam Chair? You're glad that that's the purpose of us here to ask the question. The regional assemblies across all of the and particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but across all of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales, that they will be notified and advised of the technology and what the Select Committee has said, because I think it's really important that individual human rights are, are, are protected, and indeed, I believe that they're sacrosanct.
Human rights should be first, and they should take precedence every time over what technology is coming through AI. Thank you.
13:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. First of all, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but they probably will never be able to replace the the honourable member's intervention at the German debate. So so we can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development, but I'm glad that we now seem to have cross-party support for a new AI bill with human rights at the centre from from the honourable gentleman and his party. But absolutely what he says about human rights is, is absolutely correct.
I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our committee's remit is for the UK, but I think this issue is an international issue, and I'm sure the Minister has heard all we've had to say. Thank you.
I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our committee's remit is for the UK, but I think this issue is an international issue, and I'm sure the Minister has heard all we've had to say. Thank you.
13:46
13:49
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I beg to move that the House has considered support for unpaid carers. Carers. It's really important that we have this debate this afternoon on support for unpaid carers, and I am very grateful to colleagues to come from across the House and taking time to be here today. I want to thank carers, UK Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space.
I'd also like to thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of this debate. Your words, wisdom and experience from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid-sussex, are gold dust. If we in this place are going to make the right changes, even in the short window that the survey was open. Hundreds of you shared stories and ideas for change. I'm sorry that I can't read them all out today.
Plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for. This is having horrendous consequences. Last night, a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, which I will share now as it brings to bear what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would never would look after her at home.
Despite this, neither of the boys were ever identified as young carers. Eventually, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home. He had to call emergency services. She died in February 2025. I'd like the minister to share with us today what steps their department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services. Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey also talked about carers allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy, and some saying they'd never heard of it.
One short extract I would like to share is from a contributor who was formerly a human rights lawyer, but who had given that up for her caring responsibilities, and who wrote into the petition survey with a poem. The poem ends as follows. And I quote, you have the privilege of debating important things every year, but when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heartbreaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life. That's when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck and say, mum, why are you sad? I love you.
It's going to be all right. Carers Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers. So we ask our employers and maybe it's fair to say this is the state in the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties. Why is up to 16.2% of the population getting just 19% of the national minimum wage? And how is this still even up for debate? Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone.
They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK, 1.7 million of them provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year. These people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope.
Carer carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 in deep poverty. It's 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials. No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available.
This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House. We are right to keep saying these things. The unpaid carers do extraordinary work that without them our entire health system would collapse. That too often they go unsupported. But we have to keep saying to them, while also making tangible changes that moves us on from a status status quo that isn't good enough.
Words and actions, not words and inaction. There have been some welcome developments in recent months the government's Carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers employment rights and the work to reform Carers Allowance all offer opportunities to make meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in carers lives and those of the people they care for. We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey Commission and the development of a national care service.
A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have genuine say in what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help shape both the design of services and the decisions made about them, and the people they support. When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices take place like the Carer's allowance overpayments, scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the DWP has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months.
That is a woefully slow pace. I'd like to hear from the minister today about the department's plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress as we approach Carers Rights Day next month. This debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope today's debate will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.
I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament will be able to hold the government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole.
I look forward to hearing colleagues contributions and to the Minister's response. Thank you.
I'd also like to thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of this debate. Your words, wisdom and experience from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid-sussex, are gold dust. If we in this place are going to make the right changes, even in the short window that the survey was open. Hundreds of you shared stories and ideas for change. I'm sorry that I can't read them all out today.
Plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for. This is having horrendous consequences. Last night, a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, which I will share now as it brings to bear what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would never would look after her at home.
Despite this, neither of the boys were ever identified as young carers. Eventually, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home. He had to call emergency services. She died in February 2025. I'd like the minister to share with us today what steps their department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services. Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey also talked about carers allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy, and some saying they'd never heard of it.
One short extract I would like to share is from a contributor who was formerly a human rights lawyer, but who had given that up for her caring responsibilities, and who wrote into the petition survey with a poem. The poem ends as follows. And I quote, you have the privilege of debating important things every year, but when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heartbreaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life. That's when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck and say, mum, why are you sad? I love you.
It's going to be all right. Carers Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers. So we ask our employers and maybe it's fair to say this is the state in the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties. Why is up to 16.2% of the population getting just 19% of the national minimum wage? And how is this still even up for debate? Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone.
They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK, 1.7 million of them provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year. These people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope.
Carer carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 in deep poverty. It's 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials. No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available.
This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House. We are right to keep saying these things. The unpaid carers do extraordinary work that without them our entire health system would collapse. That too often they go unsupported. But we have to keep saying to them, while also making tangible changes that moves us on from a status status quo that isn't good enough.
Words and actions, not words and inaction. There have been some welcome developments in recent months the government's Carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers employment rights and the work to reform Carers Allowance all offer opportunities to make meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in carers lives and those of the people they care for. We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey Commission and the development of a national care service.
A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have genuine say in what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help shape both the design of services and the decisions made about them, and the people they support. When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices take place like the Carer's allowance overpayments, scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the DWP has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months.
That is a woefully slow pace. I'd like to hear from the minister today about the department's plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress as we approach Carers Rights Day next month. This debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope today's debate will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.
I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament will be able to hold the government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole.
I look forward to hearing colleagues contributions and to the Minister's response. Thank you.
13:58
13:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
December last year I met with one of my constituents, Julian, whose wife, has cared for their daughter since birth. She was born with spina bifida, walking until the age of seven, but has been confined to a wheelchair since then. She was later diagnosed with hydrocephalus, which requires a shunt to drain excess fluid from the brain. His wife has devoted her life to making sure that their daughter is looked after, putting her needs first and sacrificing the opportunity to build a career and her own pension provision.
So I know that she will very much recognise the picture set out by the honourable member for Mid Sussex in her brilliant opening speech. Her caring responsibilities have not come to an end because she has reached state pension age, but the financial support available to her very much does change. Julian put a question to me that I thought was worth sharing today. He compared it to an employer paying someone for 35 hours of work, only to expect them to carry on paying carry on working once they reach retirement age, but without pay, and then arguing.
That's fine because they're being paid their pension. Now, I know that caring for a family member is not the same as employment, and that there are all sorts of things that need to be considered when it comes to this. I can appreciate the rules around overlapping benefits and the system not paying both in full for the same period. I know that the state pension age can be topped up by Pension Credit if it's lower than Carer's allowance, so I'm not here to say that the answer is simply to pay both state pension , age or state pension and carer's allowance to everybody caring for a loved one.
But speaking to Julian did leave me with the feeling that we should take a closer look at the circumstances of older carers, and whether the support available to them properly reflects the realities of their lives. Whilst preparing for today's debate, I spoke with carers UK. Their research has shown that around 1 in 5 carers have state pension age are living in poverty, compared with 13% of non carers in the same group. It also reports that more than 600,000 older carers provide at least 50 hours of care every week.
These figures really stood out to me as a reminder that caring in older age is a lot more than a few hours here and there. It's an enormous and lifelong commitment. There might be some practical steps worth considering to carers UK has highlighted that some carers are entitled to Pension Credit, aren't receiving it, and has called for a simpler process and checks when carers reach state pension age. I'm very encouraged by the government's ambition on social care and by Baroness Casey's review, as I think these will help us to finally realise a system that better supports people who draw on care, their families and the people who care for them.
I hope that the experiences of older, unpaid carers, including the particular challenges they face when they reach state pension age, are being considered as part of all of that work. As Julian said to me, carers are the nation's unsung heroes. I think that that is a sentiment that many of us would recognise, and I hope that we can agree that respecting carers means much more than just acknowledging how much they do. It also means asking ourselves always whether the support around them is enough, particularly where the alternative is social care, which costs the state much, much more.
So I would be grateful if the minister could take this issue up and consider whether there is a scope to review the support available to older carers, whether through simpler access to existing entitlements. A closer look at the additional financial pressures that they're facing, or further work on how their contribution can be recognised. I'm not asking for a simple answer to a very complicated policy question today, just asking whether we can keep looking at this, listen to people like Julian and his wife, and make sure that carers who continue to give so much as they grow older are not overlooked because the need for care doesn't stop at retirement age.
And the people providing that care shouldn't feel that their contribution has stopped counting either.
So I know that she will very much recognise the picture set out by the honourable member for Mid Sussex in her brilliant opening speech. Her caring responsibilities have not come to an end because she has reached state pension age, but the financial support available to her very much does change. Julian put a question to me that I thought was worth sharing today. He compared it to an employer paying someone for 35 hours of work, only to expect them to carry on paying carry on working once they reach retirement age, but without pay, and then arguing.
That's fine because they're being paid their pension. Now, I know that caring for a family member is not the same as employment, and that there are all sorts of things that need to be considered when it comes to this. I can appreciate the rules around overlapping benefits and the system not paying both in full for the same period. I know that the state pension age can be topped up by Pension Credit if it's lower than Carer's allowance, so I'm not here to say that the answer is simply to pay both state pension , age or state pension and carer's allowance to everybody caring for a loved one.
But speaking to Julian did leave me with the feeling that we should take a closer look at the circumstances of older carers, and whether the support available to them properly reflects the realities of their lives. Whilst preparing for today's debate, I spoke with carers UK. Their research has shown that around 1 in 5 carers have state pension age are living in poverty, compared with 13% of non carers in the same group. It also reports that more than 600,000 older carers provide at least 50 hours of care every week.
These figures really stood out to me as a reminder that caring in older age is a lot more than a few hours here and there. It's an enormous and lifelong commitment. There might be some practical steps worth considering to carers UK has highlighted that some carers are entitled to Pension Credit, aren't receiving it, and has called for a simpler process and checks when carers reach state pension age. I'm very encouraged by the government's ambition on social care and by Baroness Casey's review, as I think these will help us to finally realise a system that better supports people who draw on care, their families and the people who care for them.
I hope that the experiences of older, unpaid carers, including the particular challenges they face when they reach state pension age, are being considered as part of all of that work. As Julian said to me, carers are the nation's unsung heroes. I think that that is a sentiment that many of us would recognise, and I hope that we can agree that respecting carers means much more than just acknowledging how much they do. It also means asking ourselves always whether the support around them is enough, particularly where the alternative is social care, which costs the state much, much more.
So I would be grateful if the minister could take this issue up and consider whether there is a scope to review the support available to older carers, whether through simpler access to existing entitlements. A closer look at the additional financial pressures that they're facing, or further work on how their contribution can be recognised. I'm not asking for a simple answer to a very complicated policy question today, just asking whether we can keep looking at this, listen to people like Julian and his wife, and make sure that carers who continue to give so much as they grow older are not overlooked because the need for care doesn't stop at retirement age.
And the people providing that care shouldn't feel that their contribution has stopped counting either.
14:02
14:02
14:02
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
We've been in this debate on a regular basis now. I think on average, about every six months that we've been coming back again. I think we have had a breakthrough with the action plan. I welcome that for the first time. We have a number of departments working together coherently, I think, and I actually do think it will improve lives overall. But I do think there's a sense of urgency now. I chair an unpaid carers group, and I have done for, I think about three years now.
I'm losing track of time. But they're a representative group of young and old are mainly parents looking after their children, some siblings looking after one another and some young as well. Exactly. As the survey has said, every one of them is reflecting the condition they're living in. It's poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it very difficult to work. They want to work.
Often they've given up their jobs as a result, their caring responsibilities, some of them giving up professional careers as well. They lack respite. And the common theme that comes through is that just that lack of a break altogether. And then the other issue is where the respite is offered, isn't it doesn't have the staff with the skills that can cope with the individual that they're caring for. Non-Verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and needs specialist training and staff, etc.
it's almost non-existent in many areas. And I point also to the report that we produced for the house from Siobhan O'Dwyer at Birmingham University. We used it in the debate about a year ago, I think it was which of all and it's shocking survey. You don't even like to raise it, but we have to. 40% of carers have thought about suicide as a result, the stress that they're under. So I just think I really welcome the action plan.
But there's a sense of urgency. And I have to say, we just can't get away from the fact that carer's allowance is so low. Many of the carers that I'm working with are saying, we want a wage, we're doing a job and we're doing more than no one is doing 35 hours. They're all doing 40 and 50, if not longer in some instances, and they want the wage to lift them out of poverty, but also as a reflection of the respect that we give them for the work that that they're undertaking.
I don't expect, as my friend said, we don't expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to some form of living wage for those carers and a system in which it can be properly evaluated on a lengthier period. Final point from me is I'm really pleased about the Prime Minister's commitment to social care. We've known that for over a decade when he was here before. It's a pity there wasn't cross-party support to pull it off at that point.
At that time, I also involved in a campaign which is about it's in honour of one of our colleagues, Ian Coleman, who was the member of Parliament in Hammersmith, who actually introduced when he was leader of Hammersmith and Hammersmith and Fulham Council. He introduced as the leader of the council free personal care, free home care at the local level and it's been proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with cuts in local government over the last 14 years, it's been proved to be very, very difficult.
I think the first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care, not waiting until after the next election or not waiting until 2029, but actually working towards it over this next year. And we have the agency that can undertake that, which are local authorities. It just needs the resourcing of it now and again. I'm hoping what the social Care Action Plan Group can bring forward is. A proposal will take into account what Casey says next year, and I'm glad that's been brought forward as well.
But I'm hoping that social care, the Caring Action Plan group, can bring forward the proposals as well of a step by step approach to introduction of home care as well. I have to say, most of the people on our group, when we met last week hadn't heard of the care plan they have now, and we're going to take people through it. And what came back from those very practical , really, which is what we want to do in the care plan. See, the objectives which we now have been set out very clearly in July, but now also see the steps to implement those objectives, costed and timetabled.
And we'd like included in that the debate around Carer's Allowance and also home care. Thank you.
I'm losing track of time. But they're a representative group of young and old are mainly parents looking after their children, some siblings looking after one another and some young as well. Exactly. As the survey has said, every one of them is reflecting the condition they're living in. It's poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it very difficult to work. They want to work.
Often they've given up their jobs as a result, their caring responsibilities, some of them giving up professional careers as well. They lack respite. And the common theme that comes through is that just that lack of a break altogether. And then the other issue is where the respite is offered, isn't it doesn't have the staff with the skills that can cope with the individual that they're caring for. Non-Verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and needs specialist training and staff, etc.
it's almost non-existent in many areas. And I point also to the report that we produced for the house from Siobhan O'Dwyer at Birmingham University. We used it in the debate about a year ago, I think it was which of all and it's shocking survey. You don't even like to raise it, but we have to. 40% of carers have thought about suicide as a result, the stress that they're under. So I just think I really welcome the action plan.
But there's a sense of urgency. And I have to say, we just can't get away from the fact that carer's allowance is so low. Many of the carers that I'm working with are saying, we want a wage, we're doing a job and we're doing more than no one is doing 35 hours. They're all doing 40 and 50, if not longer in some instances, and they want the wage to lift them out of poverty, but also as a reflection of the respect that we give them for the work that that they're undertaking.
I don't expect, as my friend said, we don't expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to some form of living wage for those carers and a system in which it can be properly evaluated on a lengthier period. Final point from me is I'm really pleased about the Prime Minister's commitment to social care. We've known that for over a decade when he was here before. It's a pity there wasn't cross-party support to pull it off at that point.
At that time, I also involved in a campaign which is about it's in honour of one of our colleagues, Ian Coleman, who was the member of Parliament in Hammersmith, who actually introduced when he was leader of Hammersmith and Hammersmith and Fulham Council. He introduced as the leader of the council free personal care, free home care at the local level and it's been proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with cuts in local government over the last 14 years, it's been proved to be very, very difficult.
I think the first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care, not waiting until after the next election or not waiting until 2029, but actually working towards it over this next year. And we have the agency that can undertake that, which are local authorities. It just needs the resourcing of it now and again. I'm hoping what the social Care Action Plan Group can bring forward is. A proposal will take into account what Casey says next year, and I'm glad that's been brought forward as well.
But I'm hoping that social care, the Caring Action Plan group, can bring forward the proposals as well of a step by step approach to introduction of home care as well. I have to say, most of the people on our group, when we met last week hadn't heard of the care plan they have now, and we're going to take people through it. And what came back from those very practical , really, which is what we want to do in the care plan. See, the objectives which we now have been set out very clearly in July, but now also see the steps to implement those objectives, costed and timetabled.
And we'd like included in that the debate around Carer's Allowance and also home care. Thank you.
14:06
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Mrs. Parker, and congratulations to the honourable member for securing this very important debate. Today, we're recognising the nearly 6 million parents, partners, siblings, friends and neighbours in the UK who day in, day out provide support, love, care and safety to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The quiet and diligent contributions of these unpaid carers is immeasurable and too often goes overlooked, because the reality is that this care comes at a significant personal cost.
The point of diagnosis is often a life changing is often as life changing for the carer as for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. And my worry is that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society, providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver alongside full time jobs and other commitments. But today I want to focus specifically on the role of unpaid carers in dementia care, an area of the system that I have personal experience.
Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide around half of the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there's too little support for them providing this service. Chair. My mum, brother and mother in law are all part of this statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father in law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis.
Too often, families are handed a leaflet and left to navigate the system, expected to become experts in dementia overnight, my family have become experts in spotting the signs of UTIs, of understanding the risk of delirium and how every time delirium hits, my father's dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen, and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We've learnt the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital because, as the commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness but who don't have dementia.
Chair every person's dementia journey is different. My father in law, for example, is awake much of the night while my whilst my dad is fast asleep throughout the day, throughout the night and some of the day as well. So every person's care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals are working with the ICB to deliver the Dementia Derbyshire Dementia Strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers.
And we know that dementia UK install Admiral nurses across the country country that are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them. Local commitment and initiatives such as the Admiral Nurse Scheme must be matched by national resource and as my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. 1 in 7 are unaware of any sources of support, whilst 46% do not know who to contact to access social care.
Given this bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? And it's often at this point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital A and E or have emergency GP appointments. Now, this debate is very timely as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures which can right these wrongs and establish a care pathway, both for those with dementia and their carers.
So I urge the minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers and ensure that it's implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of this involves intervening to facilitate better awareness of support that is already available, including carers assessments and ensuring that the results are followed up on. And finally, I ask the Minister if he can set out how his department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia.
Thank you.
The point of diagnosis is often a life changing is often as life changing for the carer as for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. And my worry is that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society, providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver alongside full time jobs and other commitments. But today I want to focus specifically on the role of unpaid carers in dementia care, an area of the system that I have personal experience.
Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide around half of the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there's too little support for them providing this service. Chair. My mum, brother and mother in law are all part of this statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father in law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis.
Too often, families are handed a leaflet and left to navigate the system, expected to become experts in dementia overnight, my family have become experts in spotting the signs of UTIs, of understanding the risk of delirium and how every time delirium hits, my father's dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen, and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We've learnt the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital because, as the commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness but who don't have dementia.
Chair every person's dementia journey is different. My father in law, for example, is awake much of the night while my whilst my dad is fast asleep throughout the day, throughout the night and some of the day as well. So every person's care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals are working with the ICB to deliver the Dementia Derbyshire Dementia Strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers.
And we know that dementia UK install Admiral nurses across the country country that are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them. Local commitment and initiatives such as the Admiral Nurse Scheme must be matched by national resource and as my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. 1 in 7 are unaware of any sources of support, whilst 46% do not know who to contact to access social care.
Given this bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? And it's often at this point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital A and E or have emergency GP appointments. Now, this debate is very timely as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures which can right these wrongs and establish a care pathway, both for those with dementia and their carers.
So I urge the minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers and ensure that it's implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of this involves intervening to facilitate better awareness of support that is already available, including carers assessments and ensuring that the results are followed up on. And finally, I ask the Minister if he can set out how his department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia.
Thank you.
14:11
14:11
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It's always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You always have a wonderful smile and you give us encouragement when we come along. So that helps us when we talk about subjects which I believe are quite difficult sometimes to talk about. And this is one of them, can also say what a pleasure it is to see the minister in his place. I look forward, as I always as we all, all of us do, to the gentleman's responses to us.
I want to pay. Of course, over my years as an elected representative, I've been a long time. I've met some of the young carers and unpaid carers, and I think I have to start my contribution by paying tribute to them. Those who quietly, tirelessly and selflessly dedicate their lives to looking after their loved ones. What have I seen, Madam Chair? I've seen the profound exhaustion. I've seen the absolute devotion. We've seen the immense financial and emotional toll.
It's a fundamental truth that unpaid carers are filling a massive breach that the state simply can't afford to fill, and without them, our health and social care system would collapse overnight. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective. I wish I could say it wouldn't be replicated by what others will say, but it's a very same. We have some 220,000 carers providing vital support to sick, elderly or disabled family members and friends.
That's roughly 1 in 8 adults. It breaks my heart to note. Also, we have roughly 17,500 children and young adult care's in Northern Ireland carrying a physical and emotional burden that no young child should ever have to bear, but they're bearing it. The latest research from carers and I reveals that unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive an astronomical £5.8 billion every single year. That's because if the staff were doing it, it would be £16 million every single day, or over £660,000 every single hour, 80% of the entire day to day department, health budget and my constituency of Strangford in the Ards and North Down area, the local reality hits even closer to home.
We have we have some 18,000 unpaid carers right here and our own local communities from the streets of Newtownards and Cumber, right down to the most isolated parts of the Ards Peninsula. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They're the partners. They're the parents, the children who have stepped into the breach because their love for their family overrides everything else. But how do we reward I say we, not us personally, but how does government reward this immense contribution? We reward them with poverty.
We reward them with isolation and institutional neglect. I . The poverty rate amongst young carers in Northern Ireland stands at a shocking, a shocking 28%. Those trying to survive in carer's allowance. The situation is dire. Cost of living crisis has pushed them to the absolute brink, with more than half struggling to pay their basic utility bills, over a third being forced to skip meals just so they can look after the loved one that they have to do.
Over 52% of Kurds in Northern Ireland report that their physical health has suffered due to their responsibilities. Their days have a sense of fear and of dread in Northern Ireland are carers do not even have the statutory baseline of protection. They are forced to reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely, with nearly 30% of local carers having to give up their jobs to care. So. So the impact upon the carers is massive poverty for for 20% of the population of Kurds in Northern Ireland is really extreme and it's not the minister's responsibility for DWP.
I probably my staff every week in my office and probably maybe more than once, have to take on the case for someone who has had an overpayment. Sometimes this occurs and we have to intervene and help to get a repayment system that reflect that they're able to cope with because of a mistake that was made. I'm not talking about the ones who blatantly take advantage of DWP system. I'm talking about the ones who come to me and probably to you, Madam Chair, on a regular basis, who have to repay a statutory payment.
I believe it's a disgrace that we penalize those who want to work a few extra hours while managing their care duties. So my question is to the minister, please. Does the Minister agree that it is high time we stopped cheating on parent carers as a free resource to prop up a failing social care system? I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says he's going to address it, but my goodness me, not just in England and Northern Ireland as well.
Will the government commit to a comprehensive cross-departmental review of Carer's Allowance thresholds and work closely with the Stormont Executive to deliver a ring fence, financial packages and proper respite care, and ensuring that those who care for our society are finally cared for themselves. That's a that's what I want. I think that's what everybody wants. I conclude with this burnout is a real thing, and without support we risk not simply care's not being able to care for the loved ones, but needing care themselves because the ones that I meet, that's what they tell me.
You look at them and we're not better than anybody else. I'm not better than anybody else. But you can understand quite correctly when you engage with people how things are. So this unpaid carers, this precarious house of cards must be sheltered from the wind. And the government must do do that or pay an ultimate unfathomable cost. Thank you.
I want to pay. Of course, over my years as an elected representative, I've been a long time. I've met some of the young carers and unpaid carers, and I think I have to start my contribution by paying tribute to them. Those who quietly, tirelessly and selflessly dedicate their lives to looking after their loved ones. What have I seen, Madam Chair? I've seen the profound exhaustion. I've seen the absolute devotion. We've seen the immense financial and emotional toll.
It's a fundamental truth that unpaid carers are filling a massive breach that the state simply can't afford to fill, and without them, our health and social care system would collapse overnight. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective. I wish I could say it wouldn't be replicated by what others will say, but it's a very same. We have some 220,000 carers providing vital support to sick, elderly or disabled family members and friends.
That's roughly 1 in 8 adults. It breaks my heart to note. Also, we have roughly 17,500 children and young adult care's in Northern Ireland carrying a physical and emotional burden that no young child should ever have to bear, but they're bearing it. The latest research from carers and I reveals that unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive an astronomical £5.8 billion every single year. That's because if the staff were doing it, it would be £16 million every single day, or over £660,000 every single hour, 80% of the entire day to day department, health budget and my constituency of Strangford in the Ards and North Down area, the local reality hits even closer to home.
We have we have some 18,000 unpaid carers right here and our own local communities from the streets of Newtownards and Cumber, right down to the most isolated parts of the Ards Peninsula. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They're the partners. They're the parents, the children who have stepped into the breach because their love for their family overrides everything else. But how do we reward I say we, not us personally, but how does government reward this immense contribution? We reward them with poverty.
We reward them with isolation and institutional neglect. I . The poverty rate amongst young carers in Northern Ireland stands at a shocking, a shocking 28%. Those trying to survive in carer's allowance. The situation is dire. Cost of living crisis has pushed them to the absolute brink, with more than half struggling to pay their basic utility bills, over a third being forced to skip meals just so they can look after the loved one that they have to do.
Over 52% of Kurds in Northern Ireland report that their physical health has suffered due to their responsibilities. Their days have a sense of fear and of dread in Northern Ireland are carers do not even have the statutory baseline of protection. They are forced to reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely, with nearly 30% of local carers having to give up their jobs to care. So. So the impact upon the carers is massive poverty for for 20% of the population of Kurds in Northern Ireland is really extreme and it's not the minister's responsibility for DWP.
I probably my staff every week in my office and probably maybe more than once, have to take on the case for someone who has had an overpayment. Sometimes this occurs and we have to intervene and help to get a repayment system that reflect that they're able to cope with because of a mistake that was made. I'm not talking about the ones who blatantly take advantage of DWP system. I'm talking about the ones who come to me and probably to you, Madam Chair, on a regular basis, who have to repay a statutory payment.
I believe it's a disgrace that we penalize those who want to work a few extra hours while managing their care duties. So my question is to the minister, please. Does the Minister agree that it is high time we stopped cheating on parent carers as a free resource to prop up a failing social care system? I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says he's going to address it, but my goodness me, not just in England and Northern Ireland as well.
Will the government commit to a comprehensive cross-departmental review of Carer's Allowance thresholds and work closely with the Stormont Executive to deliver a ring fence, financial packages and proper respite care, and ensuring that those who care for our society are finally cared for themselves. That's a that's what I want. I think that's what everybody wants. I conclude with this burnout is a real thing, and without support we risk not simply care's not being able to care for the loved ones, but needing care themselves because the ones that I meet, that's what they tell me.
You look at them and we're not better than anybody else. I'm not better than anybody else. But you can understand quite correctly when you engage with people how things are. So this unpaid carers, this precarious house of cards must be sheltered from the wind. And the government must do do that or pay an ultimate unfathomable cost. Thank you.
14:16
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
To see the minister and my constituency neighbour in this place, and I'd like to thank the member for Mid Sussex for securing this crucial debate. The debt we owe to our country is unpaid. Carers is immense, and I would like to begin by thanking those across Heywood and Middleton North who often, while balancing their caring commitments, often balance their caring commitments with a career, family and other responsibilities. And they somehow managed to ensure that those that are caring for can live in comfort and dignity to the difference these people make to those they can support.
Their support can never be fully conveyed. But the onus is on us as parliamentarians to stand beside them as they day in, day out, make someone else their priority. There are millions of people across the country who are doing so right now, and this number is obviously growing as our population ages. Undoubtedly, every member present today will know a constituent friend or family member with those responsibilities. Being an unpaid carer, though commendable, can be deeply isolating and lonely.
It is therefore crucial that when it gets too much that there is a community, a safety net that can provide comfort and support to our constituents. Earlier in the year, during Carers Week, I met with local carers, staff and volunteers from the Rochdale Carers Hub at Queen's Park in Heywood. They were coming together to meet and support each other and they just really are a lovely group of people. I'd like to personally thank Dena, Victoria, Grace, Karen and Sarah and others for their unwavering commitment to the hub and those who rely on it.
At one of their regular coffee and chat sessions, they traded stories that could make you laugh and cry, speaking candidly about their struggles, hopes and fears, the truth behind their lives, and the loved ones they care for. There were so many similarities to those experiences that bound them together. A community of local heroes who just need a place to come together and take a breath, and the hubs support for our carers goes even further. They offer personalized 1 to 1 support, wellbeing assessments and support plans, community connections with local services and friendly community groups for the carer and for those being cared for.
This is alongside respite services, providing the opportunity for a short break for a night or two social events with opportunities to learn new skills as well as online services, a helpline and a pen pal community. The carers I met back in the summer had some clear priorities for me to raise today, and I hope that the Minister can touch on these when. When concluding the debate, they felt that the earnings threshold is too rigid. Creating cliff edges for working carers and in many ways does not reflect my nuanced arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities and their day jobs.
Yes, of course.
Their support can never be fully conveyed. But the onus is on us as parliamentarians to stand beside them as they day in, day out, make someone else their priority. There are millions of people across the country who are doing so right now, and this number is obviously growing as our population ages. Undoubtedly, every member present today will know a constituent friend or family member with those responsibilities. Being an unpaid carer, though commendable, can be deeply isolating and lonely.
It is therefore crucial that when it gets too much that there is a community, a safety net that can provide comfort and support to our constituents. Earlier in the year, during Carers Week, I met with local carers, staff and volunteers from the Rochdale Carers Hub at Queen's Park in Heywood. They were coming together to meet and support each other and they just really are a lovely group of people. I'd like to personally thank Dena, Victoria, Grace, Karen and Sarah and others for their unwavering commitment to the hub and those who rely on it.
At one of their regular coffee and chat sessions, they traded stories that could make you laugh and cry, speaking candidly about their struggles, hopes and fears, the truth behind their lives, and the loved ones they care for. There were so many similarities to those experiences that bound them together. A community of local heroes who just need a place to come together and take a breath, and the hubs support for our carers goes even further. They offer personalized 1 to 1 support, wellbeing assessments and support plans, community connections with local services and friendly community groups for the carer and for those being cared for.
This is alongside respite services, providing the opportunity for a short break for a night or two social events with opportunities to learn new skills as well as online services, a helpline and a pen pal community. The carers I met back in the summer had some clear priorities for me to raise today, and I hope that the Minister can touch on these when. When concluding the debate, they felt that the earnings threshold is too rigid. Creating cliff edges for working carers and in many ways does not reflect my nuanced arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities and their day jobs.
Yes, of course.
14:19
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I'm very grateful to her for giving way. She's making a powerful speech, as have every member who has spoken today. I represent about 8000 unpaid carers in Leeds, southwestern Morley, about 9% of my constituency, and it's clear that I need to come and speak for them. But something that's been missing, I think, from this debate is those that criticise the offer of extra help to unpaid carers as having a cost to the Treasury and a cost to businesses. So wouldn't she agree that actually the greater cost to those two things would be the 1.1 million unpaid carers have left work in the last two years, because many of them had no choice but to do so.
14:19
14:19
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you. I absolutely do agree with my honourable friend, and I think that's such a crucial point to make. I know that many carers are turning down opportunities for advancement and promotion, and this is having a bad effect on the economy as well as themselves. And I do believe, as you know, as do those I met with recently, that carers should be in a carer should not restrict one's advancement elsewhere. I wondered if the minister could speak to how he is working to ensure that our fantastic carers are being encouraged to seize opportunities, rather than being dissuaded from doing so.
Another area of focus of my conversation with the group was how we can and must work toward a more proactive system to identify and recognise carers. This means NHS trusts having robust and systematic processes for identifying carers, with GP records being properly maintained, so that these individuals can be identified early, connected to support and have their own wellbeing needs properly addressed. I am pleased to see that young carers are going to be identified quicker and better supported, so that they can stay in education without falling behind at school, and that schools are to be held accountable by data on young carers attendance, alongside secure information sharing across different services.
And this is obviously critical in ensuring that these youngsters don't fall through the cracks or buckle under the weight of their responsibilities at such a pivotal moment, and I'm pleased to see that the government is so receptive to this. Finally, I'd like to touch on how we secure high quality, supportive and respite services in every postcode. When our carers reach a point where they feel like the walls are closing in and in truth, long before they reach this point, flexible respite and replacement care should be available and this should be both reliable and high quality.
At the moment, some organisations feel that they are expected to do more with less with each year that passes, and I hope that the minister can speak to this too. In closing, I'd like to express my sincere thanks to unpaid carers of Heywood and Middleton North and beyond, without whom there would be so many across our communities whose lives will be much more difficult. The contribution that these individuals make cannot easily be qualified or quantified, but it can and must be recognised, and it is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard and that we in turn, give them a fraction of the of the support that they provide to those most in need.
Thank you.
Another area of focus of my conversation with the group was how we can and must work toward a more proactive system to identify and recognise carers. This means NHS trusts having robust and systematic processes for identifying carers, with GP records being properly maintained, so that these individuals can be identified early, connected to support and have their own wellbeing needs properly addressed. I am pleased to see that young carers are going to be identified quicker and better supported, so that they can stay in education without falling behind at school, and that schools are to be held accountable by data on young carers attendance, alongside secure information sharing across different services.
And this is obviously critical in ensuring that these youngsters don't fall through the cracks or buckle under the weight of their responsibilities at such a pivotal moment, and I'm pleased to see that the government is so receptive to this. Finally, I'd like to touch on how we secure high quality, supportive and respite services in every postcode. When our carers reach a point where they feel like the walls are closing in and in truth, long before they reach this point, flexible respite and replacement care should be available and this should be both reliable and high quality.
At the moment, some organisations feel that they are expected to do more with less with each year that passes, and I hope that the minister can speak to this too. In closing, I'd like to express my sincere thanks to unpaid carers of Heywood and Middleton North and beyond, without whom there would be so many across our communities whose lives will be much more difficult. The contribution that these individuals make cannot easily be qualified or quantified, but it can and must be recognised, and it is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard and that we in turn, give them a fraction of the of the support that they provide to those most in need.
Thank you.
14:22
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. I'd just like to draw the house's attention to my register of interests. I'm chair of the Appg carers and also add my thanks to the honourable member for Mid Sussex, not only for securing this debate, but I'd like to commend her for her work on this issue on behalf of her party. For nearly 6 million unpaid family carers across the UK and over 8000 across Shipley constituency, caring is an act of love.
Whether caring for a severely disabled child, a partner who has dementia or a parent who is at the end of their life that every day help to wash, to dress, to eat, to get off to school or work, as well as the emotional support through periods of pain, loneliness, fear, frustrations. It demonstrates a deep love. And that is when we see human relationships at their best. And yet, for too many, that act of love can quickly turn to an act of sacrifice.
Giving up work, putting your own life on hold, ignoring your own health and wellbeing, experiencing stress and financial hardship. And these are just some of the ways in which carers are impacted. Unpaid carers give so much, and yet often they get too little. I've personally seen firsthand the difference unpaid carers make to the lives of those they care for. Growing up with my disabled grandma Frieda, who'd suffered life changing injuries in a road collision, the decades of support that my mum gave to her enabled her to live semi-independently to go out to church, to connect with her friends and live a full life.
But I also saw the impact on my mum, so she gave up her own career as a doctor. I saw the additional worry and responsibility she carried and the need to make sure that every time we were trying to go away on a family holiday, that all the care was in place for my grandma. So I've dedicated my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers, and I'm pleased to have carried that on in Parliament through the Appg.
And I'm grateful to carers UK for all the support they give and the powerful stories of carers that they enable us to hear here in Parliament. And I would also like to commend colleagues, including my honourable friend, for Amber Valley, for sharing their personal stories of juggling care and this job, which is not easy. Around two thirds of people will provide unpaid care during their adult lives. It's a huge issue and I'm really delighted to see it's finally getting the attention it deserves from this Labour government.
So what support do carers need? What are they getting? What more do they need? Well, they need support financially to stay in work, as others have said, to find work. And when they do take on a substantive amount of care, they do need direct financial support. And as the member for Hayes and Harlington said, unfortunately, Carers Allowance is just not high enough. And we see, according to carers UK, 1500 people leaving employment every day to take up caring responsibilities.
So I was very pleased to meet with the Minister for the Future of Work, my neighbouring MP, the member for Halifax, just earlier this week to discuss the recently closed consultation. In that meeting, I underlined the importance of introducing statutory paid carer's leave, extending unpaid carers leave to enable people to take longer breaks and return to their job, strengthened flexible working and improve employer practices. And I really hope that the Minister will urge his colleagues in dbus to go far on the response to that consultation.
There's also been much done on the reform of carer's allowance, and I really hope that the government there will bring in a taper system to replace the current cliff edge. But I would also add my request to the Minister to that of the member for Mid Sussex, to call in officials from DWP to ask exactly what is going on in the progress they're making on assessing cases. At the rate they're going, it's going to take 40 years to complete this process.
That is simply not good enough. When carers are facing worry from the debts and civil penalties. The second area is briefly just the need for their own health and wellbeing. About a quarter of unpaid carers in my constituency describe their health as not good. They have no time for themselves, no time to attend routine checkups, no time to take a break. That's why short breaks, respite and sitting services are so vital, like those provided by the excellent charity in Bradford Carers Resource, as well as the innovative model of shared lives respite that Bradford Council provide.
So I too with others, welcome the Carers Action Plan and hope the Minister will outline what the NHS is doing and I must finally, before I close, just commend the government for bringing in a National Care service and I will do everything I can to make sure that carers voices are heard in shaping that for the future.
Whether caring for a severely disabled child, a partner who has dementia or a parent who is at the end of their life that every day help to wash, to dress, to eat, to get off to school or work, as well as the emotional support through periods of pain, loneliness, fear, frustrations. It demonstrates a deep love. And that is when we see human relationships at their best. And yet, for too many, that act of love can quickly turn to an act of sacrifice.
Giving up work, putting your own life on hold, ignoring your own health and wellbeing, experiencing stress and financial hardship. And these are just some of the ways in which carers are impacted. Unpaid carers give so much, and yet often they get too little. I've personally seen firsthand the difference unpaid carers make to the lives of those they care for. Growing up with my disabled grandma Frieda, who'd suffered life changing injuries in a road collision, the decades of support that my mum gave to her enabled her to live semi-independently to go out to church, to connect with her friends and live a full life.
But I also saw the impact on my mum, so she gave up her own career as a doctor. I saw the additional worry and responsibility she carried and the need to make sure that every time we were trying to go away on a family holiday, that all the care was in place for my grandma. So I've dedicated my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers, and I'm pleased to have carried that on in Parliament through the Appg.
And I'm grateful to carers UK for all the support they give and the powerful stories of carers that they enable us to hear here in Parliament. And I would also like to commend colleagues, including my honourable friend, for Amber Valley, for sharing their personal stories of juggling care and this job, which is not easy. Around two thirds of people will provide unpaid care during their adult lives. It's a huge issue and I'm really delighted to see it's finally getting the attention it deserves from this Labour government.
So what support do carers need? What are they getting? What more do they need? Well, they need support financially to stay in work, as others have said, to find work. And when they do take on a substantive amount of care, they do need direct financial support. And as the member for Hayes and Harlington said, unfortunately, Carers Allowance is just not high enough. And we see, according to carers UK, 1500 people leaving employment every day to take up caring responsibilities.
So I was very pleased to meet with the Minister for the Future of Work, my neighbouring MP, the member for Halifax, just earlier this week to discuss the recently closed consultation. In that meeting, I underlined the importance of introducing statutory paid carer's leave, extending unpaid carers leave to enable people to take longer breaks and return to their job, strengthened flexible working and improve employer practices. And I really hope that the Minister will urge his colleagues in dbus to go far on the response to that consultation.
There's also been much done on the reform of carer's allowance, and I really hope that the government there will bring in a taper system to replace the current cliff edge. But I would also add my request to the Minister to that of the member for Mid Sussex, to call in officials from DWP to ask exactly what is going on in the progress they're making on assessing cases. At the rate they're going, it's going to take 40 years to complete this process.
That is simply not good enough. When carers are facing worry from the debts and civil penalties. The second area is briefly just the need for their own health and wellbeing. About a quarter of unpaid carers in my constituency describe their health as not good. They have no time for themselves, no time to attend routine checkups, no time to take a break. That's why short breaks, respite and sitting services are so vital, like those provided by the excellent charity in Bradford Carers Resource, as well as the innovative model of shared lives respite that Bradford Council provide.
So I too with others, welcome the Carers Action Plan and hope the Minister will outline what the NHS is doing and I must finally, before I close, just commend the government for bringing in a National Care service and I will do everything I can to make sure that carers voices are heard in shaping that for the future.
14:27
14:27
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mrs. Barker, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I also thank the honourable member for Mid-sussex for securing this debate and for succeeding me as the chair of the Appg. For young carers and young adult carers. She will know that when we talk about unpaid carers, we must also talk about young carers and young adult carers. We know that the number of young people under the age of 18 who care for a loved one and family member has increased and in fact, the number of time those young carers and young adult carers care for a loved one has also increased significantly.
Carers trust are estimate over 50,000 children and young people and young adults in the UK provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week to their loved ones and three over 3000 children. Excuse me, over 3000 children between five to to nine take on caring responsibilities in my role as a PPG chair along with the the Honourable Lady from Mid-sussex, we called on the government to consider what a number of things. But. Three. I think significant things.
How we better recognise young carers. I speak to young carers across my constituency on a regular basis and many of them don't realise they're young carers until they are much older. In fact, I know of MPs who would say the same thing actually, and also how we provide teachers with training. And I won't reiterate the story I've told a number of times in this place, but as a teacher, I miss that one of my young students was was a young carer until it came to parents evening.
And that's always in my mind and also how we ensure all schools have a young carers lead. And I'm really pleased. From some of the comments I've heard from ministers and also MPs today, that the government are listening and taking action to support our young carers and young adult carers. I would also ask the government to think about how about the transition from being a young carer. Sometimes that may be that they've got older and they've become an adult carer and obviously tragically, sometimes they stop caring responsibilities for other reasons, sometimes bereavement and we need to think about how we support those young carers and young carers.
If that is the case, I will give way.
Carers trust are estimate over 50,000 children and young people and young adults in the UK provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week to their loved ones and three over 3000 children. Excuse me, over 3000 children between five to to nine take on caring responsibilities in my role as a PPG chair along with the the Honourable Lady from Mid-sussex, we called on the government to consider what a number of things. But. Three. I think significant things.
How we better recognise young carers. I speak to young carers across my constituency on a regular basis and many of them don't realise they're young carers until they are much older. In fact, I know of MPs who would say the same thing actually, and also how we provide teachers with training. And I won't reiterate the story I've told a number of times in this place, but as a teacher, I miss that one of my young students was was a young carer until it came to parents evening.
And that's always in my mind and also how we ensure all schools have a young carers lead. And I'm really pleased. From some of the comments I've heard from ministers and also MPs today, that the government are listening and taking action to support our young carers and young adult carers. I would also ask the government to think about how about the transition from being a young carer. Sometimes that may be that they've got older and they've become an adult carer and obviously tragically, sometimes they stop caring responsibilities for other reasons, sometimes bereavement and we need to think about how we support those young carers and young carers.
If that is the case, I will give way.
14:29
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The honourable member for giving way and his dedication and commitment to young carers, but I know it's not just young carers that he's supportive of. I know he's got Napa in his constituency because he knows one of my constituents, 11 year old Alf, utilizes the service and his mum, Emma is an incredible advocate for her son, desperately trying to get the support she needs. She gets ten hours support for him during term time, 20 during the holidays, but Derbyshire County Council have recently said no to any more support, including overnight care.
Just one day a week to help her not get to breaking point. So I wonder, whilst we're also talking so admirably about young carers when we talk about unpaid carers more broadly, and I wonder whether the Minister will also address this in his response to this, this brilliant debate, whether they they agree with me that actually the new National Care Service that's coming in to support older people should actually extend to elderly, from just elderly people to disabled children and unpaid carers, so that they can get timely, flexible support, including overnight care where needed, to help prevent parents and carers reaching breaking point.
Just one day a week to help her not get to breaking point. So I wonder, whilst we're also talking so admirably about young carers when we talk about unpaid carers more broadly, and I wonder whether the Minister will also address this in his response to this, this brilliant debate, whether they they agree with me that actually the new National Care Service that's coming in to support older people should actually extend to elderly, from just elderly people to disabled children and unpaid carers, so that they can get timely, flexible support, including overnight care where needed, to help prevent parents and carers reaching breaking point.
14:30
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I thank my honourable friend for her contribution and for her visit to Harlow to see first hand, and I would absolutely pay tribute to the work that Napa in my constituency of Harlow does. And I'm sorry to hear about the case of her constituent. I really hope that she is able to lobby the county Council to get that situation sorted. And I also hope that the minister, and obviously those that are bringing the National Care Service forward will consider what she said with regard to supporting disabled children.
The reality is Napa is a fantastic organisation, but not everyone can afford or has access to that support. And actually the difference they have made to young people with cerebral palsy is, is really significant. And you can see the huge difference in the quality of life those young people have because of the support they get from Napa. So I thank her for for that. And I pay tribute to to David and all those that work at Napa. I also want to take an opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to some of the schools in my constituency of Harlow, who do some fantastic work supporting young carers, particularly, I have to say, Mark Hall School, who I had the pleasure of inviting some of their young carers to Parliament, Saint Nick's School and also Perth Green Primary School.
But there are many others as well. And when the government considers the National Care Service, which I'm so pleased that the Prime Minister is so incredibly committed to, I would ask the. That the important role of young carers and young adult carers is is considered in the as part of the tapestry of, of, of carers, which obviously also includes adult carers and, and, and kinship carers. And I also I just hope that the as part of the National Care Service, it will provide support to all unpaid carers.
I did briefly madam Deputy Speaker, if I've got time. I just wanted to mention. Obviously, as you may be aware, I previously worked for a charity that supported young carers, which is why I'm part of the reason I'm so passionate about it and I feel that we have, to an extent, got a postcode lottery when it comes to support for young carers and young adult carers. Quite often that support is provided by charities like the one I
The reality is Napa is a fantastic organisation, but not everyone can afford or has access to that support. And actually the difference they have made to young people with cerebral palsy is, is really significant. And you can see the huge difference in the quality of life those young people have because of the support they get from Napa. So I thank her for for that. And I pay tribute to to David and all those that work at Napa. I also want to take an opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to some of the schools in my constituency of Harlow, who do some fantastic work supporting young carers, particularly, I have to say, Mark Hall School, who I had the pleasure of inviting some of their young carers to Parliament, Saint Nick's School and also Perth Green Primary School.
But there are many others as well. And when the government considers the National Care Service, which I'm so pleased that the Prime Minister is so incredibly committed to, I would ask the. That the important role of young carers and young adult carers is is considered in the as part of the tapestry of, of, of carers, which obviously also includes adult carers and, and, and kinship carers. And I also I just hope that the as part of the National Care Service, it will provide support to all unpaid carers.
I did briefly madam Deputy Speaker, if I've got time. I just wanted to mention. Obviously, as you may be aware, I previously worked for a charity that supported young carers, which is why I'm part of the reason I'm so passionate about it and I feel that we have, to an extent, got a postcode lottery when it comes to support for young carers and young adult carers. Quite often that support is provided by charities like the one I
14:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I feel that we have to an extent got a postcode lottery when it comes to support for young carers and young adult carers. Quite often that support is provided by charities like the one I worked for. And I think if we're really honest with ourselves, successive governments have relied more heavily on on the charity sector because they've seen it as a cheaper option. Obviously that means funding for is short term and again, not always consistent across the country. I think if the National Care Service is really to get to the heart of the problem, it will it will look at addressing that issue.
There was a previous Labour prime minister who described the charity as a grey, loveless thing. I think we're in a very different place there now. I think we we should be, but we shouldn't be using charities because they're cheaper. We should be working with charities because actually have they have the expertise. And we've mentioned some of those charities in this debate already. Finally, Madam Chair, of course, caring for someone that we love can be a real honor. And often, as I say, when I talk to carers and young carers, they don't even think about being carers.
They do it because they love that person and that they believe that to be the right thing to do, but we must recognise it can also be extremely challenging. I do want to pay tribute to all unpaid carers in my constituency and beyond, who absolutely deserve our thanks. Absolutely deserve our admiration, but they also deserve our support. And I think the theme going through this debate is action and not just words. After all, who cares for the carers?
There was a previous Labour prime minister who described the charity as a grey, loveless thing. I think we're in a very different place there now. I think we we should be, but we shouldn't be using charities because they're cheaper. We should be working with charities because actually have they have the expertise. And we've mentioned some of those charities in this debate already. Finally, Madam Chair, of course, caring for someone that we love can be a real honor. And often, as I say, when I talk to carers and young carers, they don't even think about being carers.
They do it because they love that person and that they believe that to be the right thing to do, but we must recognise it can also be extremely challenging. I do want to pay tribute to all unpaid carers in my constituency and beyond, who absolutely deserve our thanks. Absolutely deserve our admiration, but they also deserve our support. And I think the theme going through this debate is action and not just words. After all, who cares for the carers?
14:34
14:34
14:34
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Barker. And can I thank the honourable member for Mid-sussex on securing this important debate? It's a debate that matters to millions of people across the country, not least because so many unpaid carers, shoulder responsibilities that are health and social care systems could not do without. Around 4.7 million people in England provide unpaid care for a family member or friend, and I am one of them. Like many mothers, I did not think of myself as an unpaid carer at first because when you are a parent of a disabled child, you just assume that caring is part of the package.
Yet too often that commitment comes at significant financial cost. For many people, caring is a full time job and the hours required make it impossible to stay in paid employment, forcing families into impossible choices. I myself changed careers to accommodate my son's needs, but I was one of the lucky ones. Every day, around 1500 people are forced to leave the workforce because of caring responsibilities. Over the last two years, more than 1 million people have done so.
One of my constituents recently had to leave her job to care for her eight year old autistic son, because his needs could not be met through existing educational provision. And she told me, we are under immense emotional, financial and practical pressure, yet we feel we've been left to cope alone. Another constituent, Steve and his partner Cindy, care for their 26 year old son, who has severe learning difficulties. They recently brought him back to the family home due to safety concerns and when exploring other services, encountered a shortage of suitable supported living placements in Scarborough.
Like countless other families, they stepped in because there was simply nowhere else for their son to go. These families do not complain. They do not ask for special treatment. They simply want the right support at the right time. Yet too often they find themselves battling systems that are fragmented, overstretched and difficult to navigate. I was honored recently to welcome Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, Princess Anne to Scarborough to meet staff and volunteers that carers plus Yorkshire, many of whom are unpaid carers themselves and.
And it was wonderful to see the joy that the royal visit brought to these people and I'm really grateful for the work that carers plus Yorkshire do. And, Madam Chair, at a time when more people are living longer and more children and adults are living with disabilities or long term conditions, the number of these wonderful unpaid carers is only going to grow. That means supporting carers isn't simply an act of compassion, but an economic necessity. So I greatly welcome the government's commitment to reforming social care by creating a national care service.
For far too long, reforming social care has been labelled as too difficult. Care is deserved better than warm words. They deserve a system that works. Unpaid carers save this country billions of pounds every year. They care for our children, our parents, our partners and our neighbours. And so I'm really pleased that we're going to have an unpaid carers champion, but I'd be very grateful if the minister could outline in his closing remarks what further steps the government will take to provide financial support for unpaid carers to ensure that social care reform delivers real and lasting change for unpaid carers and our families?
Yet too often that commitment comes at significant financial cost. For many people, caring is a full time job and the hours required make it impossible to stay in paid employment, forcing families into impossible choices. I myself changed careers to accommodate my son's needs, but I was one of the lucky ones. Every day, around 1500 people are forced to leave the workforce because of caring responsibilities. Over the last two years, more than 1 million people have done so.
One of my constituents recently had to leave her job to care for her eight year old autistic son, because his needs could not be met through existing educational provision. And she told me, we are under immense emotional, financial and practical pressure, yet we feel we've been left to cope alone. Another constituent, Steve and his partner Cindy, care for their 26 year old son, who has severe learning difficulties. They recently brought him back to the family home due to safety concerns and when exploring other services, encountered a shortage of suitable supported living placements in Scarborough.
Like countless other families, they stepped in because there was simply nowhere else for their son to go. These families do not complain. They do not ask for special treatment. They simply want the right support at the right time. Yet too often they find themselves battling systems that are fragmented, overstretched and difficult to navigate. I was honored recently to welcome Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, Princess Anne to Scarborough to meet staff and volunteers that carers plus Yorkshire, many of whom are unpaid carers themselves and.
And it was wonderful to see the joy that the royal visit brought to these people and I'm really grateful for the work that carers plus Yorkshire do. And, Madam Chair, at a time when more people are living longer and more children and adults are living with disabilities or long term conditions, the number of these wonderful unpaid carers is only going to grow. That means supporting carers isn't simply an act of compassion, but an economic necessity. So I greatly welcome the government's commitment to reforming social care by creating a national care service.
For far too long, reforming social care has been labelled as too difficult. Care is deserved better than warm words. They deserve a system that works. Unpaid carers save this country billions of pounds every year. They care for our children, our parents, our partners and our neighbours. And so I'm really pleased that we're going to have an unpaid carers champion, but I'd be very grateful if the minister could outline in his closing remarks what further steps the government will take to provide financial support for unpaid carers to ensure that social care reform delivers real and lasting change for unpaid carers and our families?
14:38
14:38
14:38
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you and it's an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Barker, and I thank my hon. Friend the member for Mid-sussex for securing this important and timely debate. Unpaid carers are the unsung, unsung heroes of England's health and social care system. Without their dedication and sacrifice, the whole health and social care system would have collapsed by now. There are so many different types of unpaid carers. Unpaid carers are young or old, working full time, part time in school or further education, unemployed or retired.
However, all unpaid carers are bound by their dedication to looking after a parent, a child, a sibling or a partner or a loved one. They are also tragically united by money worries how long they, their health and bank accounts can keep going, how they will overcome all the barriers, unnecessary hurdles and lack of government support. So let's talk about the Williams family made up of Sarah, David and their two young children. They are no exception.
David, through no fault of his own, develops a serious health condition that leaves him needing substantial daily care. Sarah becomes David's unpaid carer as the family, like so many, cannot afford expensive professional care. To do this, Sarah reduces her working hours to manage David's personal care, appointments, medication and domestic tasks. She helps him get out of bed, change his clothes, helps him shower, administer medication, drive to appointments, and does the school run, cooks dinner, cleans the house, pays the bills, and looks after the children.
As a result, the household income falls while expenses just continue to rise. Over time, the situation begins to affect the whole family. Sarah is exhausted and stressed and her own health is beginning to suffer. She's increasingly isolated, with little opportunity for respite or socialisation due to the all encompassing scale of her responsibilities. She struggles to spend quality time with her children and misses important events of their school and extracurricular activities.
The children also take on additional responsibilities at home, including helping their mother care for her father. They are forced to grow up quickly with less time for their homework, activities and friends, and financial pressures create further problems. The family falls behind on bills and they have to use their savings to cover everyday expenses, but eventually their savings run out. The family are then moved, forced to move to cheaper accommodation that's cramped and not fit for their care needs.
As time passes, Sarah's employment prospects deteriorate because of the time she's spent outside of the workforce caring. She's lost opportunities for promotion, built up less pension entitlement and now has very limited financial means. David feels guilty that his illness is placing such a burden on his family, whilst Sarah is exhausted, stressed and feeling trapped between needing to work for income, caring for David and supporting their children. The Williams family might be hypothetical, but their experiences are far from uncommon.
There are 5.8 million Sarah's in the UK providing unpaid care, according to the 2021 census. Yeah.
However, all unpaid carers are bound by their dedication to looking after a parent, a child, a sibling or a partner or a loved one. They are also tragically united by money worries how long they, their health and bank accounts can keep going, how they will overcome all the barriers, unnecessary hurdles and lack of government support. So let's talk about the Williams family made up of Sarah, David and their two young children. They are no exception.
David, through no fault of his own, develops a serious health condition that leaves him needing substantial daily care. Sarah becomes David's unpaid carer as the family, like so many, cannot afford expensive professional care. To do this, Sarah reduces her working hours to manage David's personal care, appointments, medication and domestic tasks. She helps him get out of bed, change his clothes, helps him shower, administer medication, drive to appointments, and does the school run, cooks dinner, cleans the house, pays the bills, and looks after the children.
As a result, the household income falls while expenses just continue to rise. Over time, the situation begins to affect the whole family. Sarah is exhausted and stressed and her own health is beginning to suffer. She's increasingly isolated, with little opportunity for respite or socialisation due to the all encompassing scale of her responsibilities. She struggles to spend quality time with her children and misses important events of their school and extracurricular activities.
The children also take on additional responsibilities at home, including helping their mother care for her father. They are forced to grow up quickly with less time for their homework, activities and friends, and financial pressures create further problems. The family falls behind on bills and they have to use their savings to cover everyday expenses, but eventually their savings run out. The family are then moved, forced to move to cheaper accommodation that's cramped and not fit for their care needs.
As time passes, Sarah's employment prospects deteriorate because of the time she's spent outside of the workforce caring. She's lost opportunities for promotion, built up less pension entitlement and now has very limited financial means. David feels guilty that his illness is placing such a burden on his family, whilst Sarah is exhausted, stressed and feeling trapped between needing to work for income, caring for David and supporting their children. The Williams family might be hypothetical, but their experiences are far from uncommon.
There are 5.8 million Sarah's in the UK providing unpaid care, according to the 2021 census. Yeah.
14:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The honourable friend. But she is. I just wonder if she would agree that obviously most unpaid carers are women and that the sacrifice that they make, not only in the short term, but it also feeds into their own poverty in later life with a pension, gender pension gap. And does she recognise that as well?
14:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Yeah, absolutely. And I absolutely refer to that in here, that it also also deteriorates their ongoing career prospects as well. So thank you for that intervention. And the young care provided unpaid care that they provide is worth an estimated £152 billion annually. This is the equivalent to the annual NHS budget. The census also found that in England and Wales, women are more likely to provide unpaid care than men, with women accounting for 59% of unpaid carers.
The number of unpaid carers has risen by 70% in the past two decades, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, 1.7 million of the 5.8 million unpaid carers are providing 50 or more hours of care every single week. And in England and Wales, women aged between 75 and 79 are most likely to provide 50 hours or more of care, whilst for men it's those aged between 85 to 89. This sacrifice to step up and work as an unpaid carer is not without significant impact.
Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes and non carers. The 2021 census in England and Wales found that around 1 in 4 carers reported not good health, compared with fewer than 1 in 5 carers. And the GP Patient Survey in 2025 found that 72% of carers said they had a physical or mental health condition or illness. An academic study, which analyzed GP patient survey data, found that for those caring for 50 or more hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health each year.
The economic and employment prospects of unpaid carers are also heavily impacted. Census data shows that there are nearly 3 million people in the UK who are balancing unpaid care with paid employment and carers. UK polling indicates that this number could be much higher, with 1 in 5 workers or 6.7 million people providing unpaid care. 69% of carers who are employees also report not having focused on their career as much as they'd like, and 61% said caring has impacted the type of employment they've taken on, whilst 21% said that they've taken on a lower paid or more junior role that better fitted with their caring responsibilities.
This polling also found that 1.1 million people have left employment to provide care in the past two years. This is equivalent to around 1500 people leaving the workforce every single day, an increase of 150% from the comparable polling in 2019, when it was just 600 a day. I will give way.
The number of unpaid carers has risen by 70% in the past two decades, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, 1.7 million of the 5.8 million unpaid carers are providing 50 or more hours of care every single week. And in England and Wales, women aged between 75 and 79 are most likely to provide 50 hours or more of care, whilst for men it's those aged between 85 to 89. This sacrifice to step up and work as an unpaid carer is not without significant impact.
Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes and non carers. The 2021 census in England and Wales found that around 1 in 4 carers reported not good health, compared with fewer than 1 in 5 carers. And the GP Patient Survey in 2025 found that 72% of carers said they had a physical or mental health condition or illness. An academic study, which analyzed GP patient survey data, found that for those caring for 50 or more hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health each year.
The economic and employment prospects of unpaid carers are also heavily impacted. Census data shows that there are nearly 3 million people in the UK who are balancing unpaid care with paid employment and carers. UK polling indicates that this number could be much higher, with 1 in 5 workers or 6.7 million people providing unpaid care. 69% of carers who are employees also report not having focused on their career as much as they'd like, and 61% said caring has impacted the type of employment they've taken on, whilst 21% said that they've taken on a lower paid or more junior role that better fitted with their caring responsibilities.
This polling also found that 1.1 million people have left employment to provide care in the past two years. This is equivalent to around 1500 people leaving the workforce every single day, an increase of 150% from the comparable polling in 2019, when it was just 600 a day. I will give way.
14:44
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you for for what you're saying. And the honourable lady is focusing very clearly upon those in work. I was sitting there thinking about the young people that I first met, and they were the young carers, the ones that were 11 to 16, probably 17, and the impact upon them. Madam chair and Honourable Lady is very clear and very graphic, because their work and their education suffers when they when they go home from school, they have to do their homework.
They have to look after their mom or their dad or their siblings, and the impact upon them is even greater than normal. So does the honourable lady agree? For those in education, there's a big impact as well.
They have to look after their mom or their dad or their siblings, and the impact upon them is even greater than normal. So does the honourable lady agree? For those in education, there's a big impact as well.
14:44
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I absolutely agree and concur and thank you for that intervention. WPI economics research found that being out of work is the single strongest quantitative predictor of poverty for unpaid carers. These negative impacts of caring are particularly felt among underrepresented groups. Ethnic minority carers are more likely to be struggling financially and more likely to have concerns around services not meeting their needs in comparison with white British carers. Similarly, Lgbt+ carers are more likely to be struggling financially and more likely to say that caring has impacted on their mental health in comparison with their heterosexual counterparts.
The Liberal Democrats have always been the party of carers. We've campaigned to ensure that they have the financial resources, training, support rights, respite and access to services that they need to live their own lives to the fullest and look after their loved ones. We are proud of the successes we've had so far in helping unpaid carers, including introducing the Carer's Leave Bill and securing increasing Carer's Allowance in 2024. But so much more must be done.
We are happy to see that social care has moved up the agenda under the new Labour leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with Prime Minister on this topic. But the failure in social care is devastating family finances, forcing thousands to sell their homes, crippling the NHS with delayed discharges and unnecessary admissions, and bankrupting local authorities. We will make sure that unpaid and family carers are not overlooked as the whole system is reformed. They can't continue to be seen as a never ending source of labour that will always be there to cover the shortcomings of state support.
So our first test of the Labour social care reforms will be whether family carers are front and centre with guaranteed rights. These must include respite care and a full replacement of the broken Carer's allowance so that families can afford the care. Also, I wondered if the minister could clarify whether working age adults will also be in scope for the National Care Service. The Liberal Democrats will ensure unpaid carers have a fair deal by increasing the carer's allowance by £20 a week and expanding the eligibility for it, introducing a statutory guarantee of of regular respite breaks for unpaid carers.
Establishing paid carer's leave building on the entitlement to unpaid leave previously secured by the Liberal Democrats. Creating a carer support service in every hospital to support carers before, during and after a loved one leaves hospital and involve them in their discharge planning. Making caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and requiring employers to make reasonable adjustments to enable employees with caring responsibilities to provide that care. Launching a Young Carers Pupil Premium as part of an education guarantee for young carers.
We also want to see the NHS do more to identify and support unpaid carers, including promoting the health and wellbeing of carers as part of ICB plans. We're also calling on the government to establish a new £7,075 million a year national scheme that would fund guaranteed respite care in every part of the country. This would alleviate the burden on carers and prevent hospital admissions due to carers becoming too exhausted to look after their loved ones. Unpaid carers deserve the right to a break.
Many are overwhelmed and at breaking point because of their caring role. Being able to take a break is often described by carers as the number one way to prevent burnout and in turn reduce pressure on our health services. This is particularly important as 1 in 3 NHS workers are unpaid carers themselves, and 65% of us will become unpaid carers at some point in our lives. I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and other colleagues here today.
We can't let this crucial opportunity pass by to strengthen the support for those who provide essential care to others and reduce the risk of burnout. Among the millions of unpaid carers on whom our health and care system depend. We must ensure that unpaid carers and the people they care for receive the long overdue support that they truly deserve. Thank you president.
The Liberal Democrats have always been the party of carers. We've campaigned to ensure that they have the financial resources, training, support rights, respite and access to services that they need to live their own lives to the fullest and look after their loved ones. We are proud of the successes we've had so far in helping unpaid carers, including introducing the Carer's Leave Bill and securing increasing Carer's Allowance in 2024. But so much more must be done.
We are happy to see that social care has moved up the agenda under the new Labour leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with Prime Minister on this topic. But the failure in social care is devastating family finances, forcing thousands to sell their homes, crippling the NHS with delayed discharges and unnecessary admissions, and bankrupting local authorities. We will make sure that unpaid and family carers are not overlooked as the whole system is reformed. They can't continue to be seen as a never ending source of labour that will always be there to cover the shortcomings of state support.
So our first test of the Labour social care reforms will be whether family carers are front and centre with guaranteed rights. These must include respite care and a full replacement of the broken Carer's allowance so that families can afford the care. Also, I wondered if the minister could clarify whether working age adults will also be in scope for the National Care Service. The Liberal Democrats will ensure unpaid carers have a fair deal by increasing the carer's allowance by £20 a week and expanding the eligibility for it, introducing a statutory guarantee of of regular respite breaks for unpaid carers.
Establishing paid carer's leave building on the entitlement to unpaid leave previously secured by the Liberal Democrats. Creating a carer support service in every hospital to support carers before, during and after a loved one leaves hospital and involve them in their discharge planning. Making caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and requiring employers to make reasonable adjustments to enable employees with caring responsibilities to provide that care. Launching a Young Carers Pupil Premium as part of an education guarantee for young carers.
We also want to see the NHS do more to identify and support unpaid carers, including promoting the health and wellbeing of carers as part of ICB plans. We're also calling on the government to establish a new £7,075 million a year national scheme that would fund guaranteed respite care in every part of the country. This would alleviate the burden on carers and prevent hospital admissions due to carers becoming too exhausted to look after their loved ones. Unpaid carers deserve the right to a break.
Many are overwhelmed and at breaking point because of their caring role. Being able to take a break is often described by carers as the number one way to prevent burnout and in turn reduce pressure on our health services. This is particularly important as 1 in 3 NHS workers are unpaid carers themselves, and 65% of us will become unpaid carers at some point in our lives. I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and other colleagues here today.
We can't let this crucial opportunity pass by to strengthen the support for those who provide essential care to others and reduce the risk of burnout. Among the millions of unpaid carers on whom our health and care system depend. We must ensure that unpaid carers and the people they care for receive the long overdue support that they truly deserve. Thank you president.
14:48
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you very much, Mrs. Barker, and it's always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And may I start by congratulating the honourable member for Mid-sussex on securing this debate. And to all the honourable and right honourable members for their very thoughtful and, at times, moving contributions to it. As we heard during the course of today's debate across the United Kingdom, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care. Those carers collect prescriptions, they organise appointments and help with all aspects of personal care.
And many do this either before or after they've done a full working day. For millions of families up and down the country, this has become part and parcel of ordinary life. But we should never underestimate the toll it takes over a period of time. Of those 5.8 million carers, 1.7 million provide, as we've heard, at least 50 hours of care each week. That is more than a full time working week.
Often, as I say, alongside either their own employment, raising a family or managing their own personal health needs. And of course, caring responsibilities rarely fit neatly within the timetable that defines our normal week. Likewise, healthcare and the need for it presents itself is often both varied and complex. For some, it can come with little forewarning. It may be after a sudden accident, such as catastrophic spinal injury. For others, it's much more incremental over a period of time.
Whether that starts with some help with shopping and that becomes help with medication, an occasional visit becomes a daily necessity, and eventually it can feel as though it's becoming all consuming. Clearly, individuals must adapt because someone they love needs that help. However, our services must also adapt with it. And too often we assume, rather than ask whether the person who is undertaking that care is able to manage, whether they've been shown what to do, whether they've been shown how to use the necessary equipment, and so forth.
And it is worth remembering a relative's present isn't of itself a care plan, and nor should their willingness to help be taken as proof that they don't need any help or support themselves. We have heard during the course of this debate, Mrs. Barker, the plethora of examples that show what happens when those questions are ignored. One can only imagine the frustration that is encountered by so many carers who are forced to describe their circumstances, often repeatedly, and then nothing happens thereafter.
And that risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that asking in the future will make an iota of difference. And as a consequence, carers are potentially left with declining wellbeing, both physical and mental. Others are forced to cut back on essentials just to make ends meet. These individuals deserve a clear plan from government. A carer frequently finds themselves putting their needs above, or the needs of those they care for above those of their own.
Employment, as we've heard, can become more challenging. This often leads to reducing hours in order to make caring manageable, and that, of course, has a knock on impact upon income. Some are ultimately forced to leave work, which brings further financial pressures as a consequence, and it often makes returning to the workplace much harder. As a society, we should be helping people preserve their working life wherever possible. Work provides, of course, not only financial freedom, but an environment where there recognised for their achievements that go beyond their incredibly commendable work and responsibilities as a carer.
We must also remember that many older carers are managing their own fragility, and that younger carers are often in education, or their childhood itself can be affected. Support must therefore reflect different circumstances, rather than assuming every family can manage in entirely the same way. Alan Milburn's interim review identified around 300,000 informal carers aged between 16 and 24. It described young carers as one of the least visible groups in the Neet conversation, and the most systemically miscounted.
A young person missing college, declining an apprenticeship interview or struggling to attend a job or university opportunity may also be managing, as we have heard, responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about. It cannot be right in those circumstances that their commitment to a loved one should also cost them their future opportunities. The previous conservative government took action through the 2018 Carers Action Plan, the Carers Innovation Fund and support for Statutory Carers Leave, and I therefore welcome this government's publication of the Unpaid Carers Action Plan in July.
The task now, however, is to ensure that those commitments actually reach the people it's intended to help. And with that in mind, I have three specific questions for the minister following today's debate. Firstly, with NHS England to be abolished by April 2027, who will have ownership of the actions contained within the unpaid carers plan? Thereafter. Secondly, NHS England currently has powers to support service integration between local authorities and the NHS and for the functions of better of the better care fund.
That is a major source of funding and resourcing for unpaid carers . In the current form of the BCF, the NHS and local authorities are required to pool budgets for the purposes of service integration, as there is a mandatory requirement to use section 75 agreements. This means to pool budgets. The BCF must involve local authorities, as set out in the impact assessment to the health Bill following the abolition of NHS England. That function will in the future be conferred to the Secretary of State.
In addition, what is currently a mandatory requirement on the use of section 75 will change to a discretionary power. In short, the Secretary of State will still retain the power to require pooled budgets should they wish, but it will not be the default position as it currently is the case. So does the Minister, therefore share the concerns of carers charities that a consequence of this change is that it will potentially lead to significant cuts for schemes that support unpaid carers.
Thirdly, at his conference speech, the Prime Minister set out the bare bones of a plan for a national care service. The government have, of course, proposed to fund this through reforms to the triple lock. However, these reforms will self-evidently not be sufficient in order to fund and deliver such a service. And notwithstanding the statement in the the main chamber earlier on today, the details of of this funding still appear to be somewhat lacking. Much more detail of what the government is proposing is needed, and therefore, will the Minister confirm whether the government intends to set out further details as to how the National Care Service will be funded, and specifically, will the Minister rule out any increased borrowing or tax rises in order to fund it? The conservatives look forward to working constructively on this issue.
It is an important issue that we all face in our inbox every day, and we know that for too long we have kicked it down the track across the political spectrum and not got a grip with it. And in that spirit, we look forward to the ongoing cross-party talks on this particular issue. I think ultimately, the marker of success must be whether our carers can obtain the help that they need. They're able to access respite breaks when needed, and that they can look after their own health and wellbeing at the same time.
That, of course, requires proper policy considerations, not just headline announcements, and I hope the minister is able to provide some greater clarity on that front today.
And many do this either before or after they've done a full working day. For millions of families up and down the country, this has become part and parcel of ordinary life. But we should never underestimate the toll it takes over a period of time. Of those 5.8 million carers, 1.7 million provide, as we've heard, at least 50 hours of care each week. That is more than a full time working week.
Often, as I say, alongside either their own employment, raising a family or managing their own personal health needs. And of course, caring responsibilities rarely fit neatly within the timetable that defines our normal week. Likewise, healthcare and the need for it presents itself is often both varied and complex. For some, it can come with little forewarning. It may be after a sudden accident, such as catastrophic spinal injury. For others, it's much more incremental over a period of time.
Whether that starts with some help with shopping and that becomes help with medication, an occasional visit becomes a daily necessity, and eventually it can feel as though it's becoming all consuming. Clearly, individuals must adapt because someone they love needs that help. However, our services must also adapt with it. And too often we assume, rather than ask whether the person who is undertaking that care is able to manage, whether they've been shown what to do, whether they've been shown how to use the necessary equipment, and so forth.
And it is worth remembering a relative's present isn't of itself a care plan, and nor should their willingness to help be taken as proof that they don't need any help or support themselves. We have heard during the course of this debate, Mrs. Barker, the plethora of examples that show what happens when those questions are ignored. One can only imagine the frustration that is encountered by so many carers who are forced to describe their circumstances, often repeatedly, and then nothing happens thereafter.
And that risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that asking in the future will make an iota of difference. And as a consequence, carers are potentially left with declining wellbeing, both physical and mental. Others are forced to cut back on essentials just to make ends meet. These individuals deserve a clear plan from government. A carer frequently finds themselves putting their needs above, or the needs of those they care for above those of their own.
Employment, as we've heard, can become more challenging. This often leads to reducing hours in order to make caring manageable, and that, of course, has a knock on impact upon income. Some are ultimately forced to leave work, which brings further financial pressures as a consequence, and it often makes returning to the workplace much harder. As a society, we should be helping people preserve their working life wherever possible. Work provides, of course, not only financial freedom, but an environment where there recognised for their achievements that go beyond their incredibly commendable work and responsibilities as a carer.
We must also remember that many older carers are managing their own fragility, and that younger carers are often in education, or their childhood itself can be affected. Support must therefore reflect different circumstances, rather than assuming every family can manage in entirely the same way. Alan Milburn's interim review identified around 300,000 informal carers aged between 16 and 24. It described young carers as one of the least visible groups in the Neet conversation, and the most systemically miscounted.
A young person missing college, declining an apprenticeship interview or struggling to attend a job or university opportunity may also be managing, as we have heard, responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about. It cannot be right in those circumstances that their commitment to a loved one should also cost them their future opportunities. The previous conservative government took action through the 2018 Carers Action Plan, the Carers Innovation Fund and support for Statutory Carers Leave, and I therefore welcome this government's publication of the Unpaid Carers Action Plan in July.
The task now, however, is to ensure that those commitments actually reach the people it's intended to help. And with that in mind, I have three specific questions for the minister following today's debate. Firstly, with NHS England to be abolished by April 2027, who will have ownership of the actions contained within the unpaid carers plan? Thereafter. Secondly, NHS England currently has powers to support service integration between local authorities and the NHS and for the functions of better of the better care fund.
That is a major source of funding and resourcing for unpaid carers . In the current form of the BCF, the NHS and local authorities are required to pool budgets for the purposes of service integration, as there is a mandatory requirement to use section 75 agreements. This means to pool budgets. The BCF must involve local authorities, as set out in the impact assessment to the health Bill following the abolition of NHS England. That function will in the future be conferred to the Secretary of State.
In addition, what is currently a mandatory requirement on the use of section 75 will change to a discretionary power. In short, the Secretary of State will still retain the power to require pooled budgets should they wish, but it will not be the default position as it currently is the case. So does the Minister, therefore share the concerns of carers charities that a consequence of this change is that it will potentially lead to significant cuts for schemes that support unpaid carers.
Thirdly, at his conference speech, the Prime Minister set out the bare bones of a plan for a national care service. The government have, of course, proposed to fund this through reforms to the triple lock. However, these reforms will self-evidently not be sufficient in order to fund and deliver such a service. And notwithstanding the statement in the the main chamber earlier on today, the details of of this funding still appear to be somewhat lacking. Much more detail of what the government is proposing is needed, and therefore, will the Minister confirm whether the government intends to set out further details as to how the National Care Service will be funded, and specifically, will the Minister rule out any increased borrowing or tax rises in order to fund it? The conservatives look forward to working constructively on this issue.
It is an important issue that we all face in our inbox every day, and we know that for too long we have kicked it down the track across the political spectrum and not got a grip with it. And in that spirit, we look forward to the ongoing cross-party talks on this particular issue. I think ultimately, the marker of success must be whether our carers can obtain the help that they need. They're able to access respite breaks when needed, and that they can look after their own health and wellbeing at the same time.
That, of course, requires proper policy considerations, not just headline announcements, and I hope the minister is able to provide some greater clarity on that front today.
14:57
14:57
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Barker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Can I begin by congratulating the honourable member for Mid-sussex on securing this important debate, and I thank members across the House for their thoughtful contribution, which the Minister, the member for Mid-sussex, in addressing me. Gave a roll call of some of the welcome policy announcements we've seen already, and I know the appetite is maintained for more, and we will get into that.
But it was great to hear recognition of our action plan, of the announcement of a champion for unpaid carers, the Prime Minister's relentless historic current and future focus on social care and National Care Service. The minimum wage linked to earnings here and the increase in allowances. And my honourable friend, the member for Hayes and Harlington, joined also by the member for Strangford and my friend and neighbour in Middleton North, who rightly raised among, I think, consistently every single member in the House made the point, but I.
I distil it as such that the absolute fundamental need for respite. Because we understand that too often this is a relentless duty as well. It is unending love, and that love is real, but so is the toil, and so is the demand on the unpaid carers that we are here to speak to and appeal for today, because unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution. Families, communities and our country, they are often the person keeping everything together, holding everything together, providing unwavering support to the person that they care for or people they care for while often balancing employment, education, parenting and their own health needs.
This government is acting now to ensure that unpaid carers receive the right support at the right time. The cross-government unpaid Carers action plan that we have spoken to today brings together work across health, social care, education, employment and the benefits system. It is an improved recognition of unpaid carers, strengthening the way support is offered to help carers reach their full potential and live their own fulfilling lives. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to those of us in the audience welcoming it with great cheer, has announced her intention this summer to appoint an unpaid carers champion who will bring the commitments in this action plan to life and our responsibility to bear our carers champion will work across government, the health and social care sector.
Carers organisations provide advice on challenge on where we can go further. This government is making carers more visible, empowering their voices in care, planning, joining up services and reducing the practical burdens they face. A new My Carer section in the NHS app will give carers a clearer route, clearer information, relevant support and help streamline the tasks that they undertake on behalf of the people that they are caring for. Because our task is simple, carers have to be recognised as partners in care, with their own needs and ambitions for themselves.
We understand that caring can affect household finances and a person's ability to remain in work. The government has raised the Carer's Allowance weekly earnings limit by a record amount in April 2025 and again 2627. A public to those. The questions on the matter of employment rights. A public consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children closed on 1st September. We expect to conclude this review this winter with a consultation in full, responded to with findings and a roadmap for all potential reforms.
Members have rightly raised the availability of practical support, including short breaks and respite. As I say, every member referred to this need as well as the postcode lottery that is too frequent, I'm sorry to say, from the legacy of the last government, it will take some time, but we are making that progress to redress the patchiness of public services left by the last lot. This government has brought in the Better Care Fund, providing a framework of more than £9 billion for integrated care boards.
A bid to patch up the patchiness under the last government. But yes, we are aware and we are frequently in these chambers talking about the need to ensure a universal service and it is for us as MPs as well as government, to ensure that there is better joined up care that funding can be used for carer support, respite, including short breaks and the peer support we know is needed, and an idea raised by a fellow champion.
The champion of Harlow, the heavyweight champion of Harlow, who he himself raises a very interesting point of a young carers lead in all schools. Look, I've been a governor of a school Wi the best schools, the best school leadership, know the circumstances of our children. And we have a government that understands not just the need for breakfast clubs. It's not just the breakfast, it's the club, remember, and it's really important. I hope that his idea will grow and go out into the the governor world as a as a suitable idea.
I don't think it's for government necessarily to mandate that, but it's a terrific idea. But in developing these plans, perhaps he and friends will make these representations to the champion that we have announced to a point, and that young carers particularly get the support that they need. It is a sad moment to think of undiscovered young carers, isn't it? It is a very, very poignant consideration and the respite is very real. But so is the the childhood that they're missing out on and that that cost.
We must also recognise the effect that sustained care responsibilities has on mental health and mental health support through the Talking Therapy Service, the Self-referral system, the NHS app and increasing evidence based talking therapies and digital interventions, as well as earlier support in school as well. On the issue of dementia. Raised by my friend honourable friend for Amber Valley who this is the second day consecutively. We have spoken on this issue and I give my. I repeat, my commitment to her for her to be involved in the first ever MSF on multi-year framework for for dementia and frailty to to come.
And I look forward to working with her on that, on my honourable friend from Scarborough and Whitby, who always has a nice thing to say to colleagues and friends across the House. Support for unpaid carers. Caring is inseparable from the future of adult social care and across all ages. As my honourable friend from Cannock Chase rightly talks about the need for distinct older care service as they themselves get older and in need of care for themselves because social care at its best is transformational and our long term ambition is a national care service that is person centred, sees the person and their circumstances, integrates with health services, preventative in character, giving people greater choice, control, dignity and independence.
We are committed to building that service, but it must be informed by the exemplary work we will see, undoubtedly by Baroness Casey, and we will build on the consensus that she is seeking from the public as to what they want from this, what they need from this, what they expect from this. And I look forward to that work. It will address the difficult questions about who should get this support, what families can reasonably expect and who is responsible.
The honourable member, the opposition spokesperson, seeks to understand who is responsible. This is a good question and on the changes to the NHS England and the plans forthcoming, I will ensure that these are in the purview of the work that Baroness Casey is undertaking. As to a commitment on tax and borrowing. He mistakes the level at which I currently sit in government, but I will. I will gladly ask these questions if they ever, if they ever dare give me responsibility for such thing.
But he's a good. It's a good question. In the meantime, greater investment is already coming. Better workforce support, digitisation, a stronger voice for people receiving care, and closer integration across services through the unpaid Carers Action plan, the appointment of an unpaid carers champion, improvements on carer ID through the NHS app, stronger financial employment support, better education support for young carers, more access to mental health services, more effective local planning. We are taking the practical steps now.
It is a Labour government doing this. Mid Sussex member asks of the ID of Young Carers and as I recently referred to this, this poignant thought of of of undiscovered young carers. And this is a collaborative job. It does fall to local authority. It should fall to school leadership, it must fall to icbs to work with their colleagues in local government and local education to ensure that all child's all children's contexts are understood and known.
In conclusion. In conclusion. Chair. Sorry. Sorry. We are, we are. We are listening to carers who want to challenge, who must challenge services where support falls short. Unpaid carers enable millions of people to live with dignity, independence, love and connection. Their contribution must not be taken for granted. They get and deserve our recognition, our respect, the reliable support and it is this government determined to turn that commitment into lasting change.
But it was great to hear recognition of our action plan, of the announcement of a champion for unpaid carers, the Prime Minister's relentless historic current and future focus on social care and National Care Service. The minimum wage linked to earnings here and the increase in allowances. And my honourable friend, the member for Hayes and Harlington, joined also by the member for Strangford and my friend and neighbour in Middleton North, who rightly raised among, I think, consistently every single member in the House made the point, but I.
I distil it as such that the absolute fundamental need for respite. Because we understand that too often this is a relentless duty as well. It is unending love, and that love is real, but so is the toil, and so is the demand on the unpaid carers that we are here to speak to and appeal for today, because unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution. Families, communities and our country, they are often the person keeping everything together, holding everything together, providing unwavering support to the person that they care for or people they care for while often balancing employment, education, parenting and their own health needs.
This government is acting now to ensure that unpaid carers receive the right support at the right time. The cross-government unpaid Carers action plan that we have spoken to today brings together work across health, social care, education, employment and the benefits system. It is an improved recognition of unpaid carers, strengthening the way support is offered to help carers reach their full potential and live their own fulfilling lives. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to those of us in the audience welcoming it with great cheer, has announced her intention this summer to appoint an unpaid carers champion who will bring the commitments in this action plan to life and our responsibility to bear our carers champion will work across government, the health and social care sector.
Carers organisations provide advice on challenge on where we can go further. This government is making carers more visible, empowering their voices in care, planning, joining up services and reducing the practical burdens they face. A new My Carer section in the NHS app will give carers a clearer route, clearer information, relevant support and help streamline the tasks that they undertake on behalf of the people that they are caring for. Because our task is simple, carers have to be recognised as partners in care, with their own needs and ambitions for themselves.
We understand that caring can affect household finances and a person's ability to remain in work. The government has raised the Carer's Allowance weekly earnings limit by a record amount in April 2025 and again 2627. A public to those. The questions on the matter of employment rights. A public consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children closed on 1st September. We expect to conclude this review this winter with a consultation in full, responded to with findings and a roadmap for all potential reforms.
Members have rightly raised the availability of practical support, including short breaks and respite. As I say, every member referred to this need as well as the postcode lottery that is too frequent, I'm sorry to say, from the legacy of the last government, it will take some time, but we are making that progress to redress the patchiness of public services left by the last lot. This government has brought in the Better Care Fund, providing a framework of more than £9 billion for integrated care boards.
A bid to patch up the patchiness under the last government. But yes, we are aware and we are frequently in these chambers talking about the need to ensure a universal service and it is for us as MPs as well as government, to ensure that there is better joined up care that funding can be used for carer support, respite, including short breaks and the peer support we know is needed, and an idea raised by a fellow champion.
The champion of Harlow, the heavyweight champion of Harlow, who he himself raises a very interesting point of a young carers lead in all schools. Look, I've been a governor of a school Wi the best schools, the best school leadership, know the circumstances of our children. And we have a government that understands not just the need for breakfast clubs. It's not just the breakfast, it's the club, remember, and it's really important. I hope that his idea will grow and go out into the the governor world as a as a suitable idea.
I don't think it's for government necessarily to mandate that, but it's a terrific idea. But in developing these plans, perhaps he and friends will make these representations to the champion that we have announced to a point, and that young carers particularly get the support that they need. It is a sad moment to think of undiscovered young carers, isn't it? It is a very, very poignant consideration and the respite is very real. But so is the the childhood that they're missing out on and that that cost.
We must also recognise the effect that sustained care responsibilities has on mental health and mental health support through the Talking Therapy Service, the Self-referral system, the NHS app and increasing evidence based talking therapies and digital interventions, as well as earlier support in school as well. On the issue of dementia. Raised by my friend honourable friend for Amber Valley who this is the second day consecutively. We have spoken on this issue and I give my. I repeat, my commitment to her for her to be involved in the first ever MSF on multi-year framework for for dementia and frailty to to come.
And I look forward to working with her on that, on my honourable friend from Scarborough and Whitby, who always has a nice thing to say to colleagues and friends across the House. Support for unpaid carers. Caring is inseparable from the future of adult social care and across all ages. As my honourable friend from Cannock Chase rightly talks about the need for distinct older care service as they themselves get older and in need of care for themselves because social care at its best is transformational and our long term ambition is a national care service that is person centred, sees the person and their circumstances, integrates with health services, preventative in character, giving people greater choice, control, dignity and independence.
We are committed to building that service, but it must be informed by the exemplary work we will see, undoubtedly by Baroness Casey, and we will build on the consensus that she is seeking from the public as to what they want from this, what they need from this, what they expect from this. And I look forward to that work. It will address the difficult questions about who should get this support, what families can reasonably expect and who is responsible.
The honourable member, the opposition spokesperson, seeks to understand who is responsible. This is a good question and on the changes to the NHS England and the plans forthcoming, I will ensure that these are in the purview of the work that Baroness Casey is undertaking. As to a commitment on tax and borrowing. He mistakes the level at which I currently sit in government, but I will. I will gladly ask these questions if they ever, if they ever dare give me responsibility for such thing.
But he's a good. It's a good question. In the meantime, greater investment is already coming. Better workforce support, digitisation, a stronger voice for people receiving care, and closer integration across services through the unpaid Carers Action plan, the appointment of an unpaid carers champion, improvements on carer ID through the NHS app, stronger financial employment support, better education support for young carers, more access to mental health services, more effective local planning. We are taking the practical steps now.
It is a Labour government doing this. Mid Sussex member asks of the ID of Young Carers and as I recently referred to this, this poignant thought of of of undiscovered young carers. And this is a collaborative job. It does fall to local authority. It should fall to school leadership, it must fall to icbs to work with their colleagues in local government and local education to ensure that all child's all children's contexts are understood and known.
In conclusion. In conclusion. Chair. Sorry. Sorry. We are, we are. We are listening to carers who want to challenge, who must challenge services where support falls short. Unpaid carers enable millions of people to live with dignity, independence, love and connection. Their contribution must not be taken for granted. They get and deserve our recognition, our respect, the reliable support and it is this government determined to turn that commitment into lasting change.
15:08
15:08
15:08
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair, I appreciate the opportunity. I realize I was remiss in not declaring an interest at the start. I am, as the honourable member for Harlow pointed out, the new chair of the Appg for Young Carers. So new. In fact, I forgot to declare it and I would like to thank all honourable members for their speeches and their interventions. To the honourable member for Cannock Chase. I've had a similar surgery with somebody asking about carer's allowance and state pension.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I was very pleased that he mentioned the work of Siobhan O'Dwyer at the University of Birmingham, the honourable member for Amber Valley, talking about her own family's experience of dementia, the honourable member for Strangford, for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective. To the honourable member for Heywood and Middleton North talking about Carers Week in Rochdale for the Rochdale Carers Hub, I did a similar event for carers Support, West Sussex myself, the honourable member for Shipley, talking about Frieda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers.
The honourable member for Harlow, my friend, I think, and for his work as fighting for young carers, as both a teacher and now in this place. Thank you to the honourable member for Scarborough and Whitby sharing stories of her own caring responsibilities. My hon. Friend the member for Epsom and Ewell clearly setting out the Williams family story that gets repeated everywhere to the honourable member for Solihull West and Shirley, thank you for putting those clear questions to the Minister and finally to the Minister.
Much appreciate you recognising that there's lots of consensus in this room, but still much more work to be done.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I was very pleased that he mentioned the work of Siobhan O'Dwyer at the University of Birmingham, the honourable member for Amber Valley, talking about her own family's experience of dementia, the honourable member for Strangford, for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective. To the honourable member for Heywood and Middleton North talking about Carers Week in Rochdale for the Rochdale Carers Hub, I did a similar event for carers Support, West Sussex myself, the honourable member for Shipley, talking about Frieda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers.
The honourable member for Harlow, my friend, I think, and for his work as fighting for young carers, as both a teacher and now in this place. Thank you to the honourable member for Scarborough and Whitby sharing stories of her own caring responsibilities. My hon. Friend the member for Epsom and Ewell clearly setting out the Williams family story that gets repeated everywhere to the honourable member for Solihull West and Shirley, thank you for putting those clear questions to the Minister and finally to the Minister.
Much appreciate you recognising that there's lots of consensus in this room, but still much more work to be done.
15:10
15:10
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. Mr.. And a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Again, this is the wrong microphone on, but never mind. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again. And it's a pleasure to open this debate on this vitally important topic, and one that I'm proud that I've campaigned on for many years, probably more years than I care to remember. And I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all party parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.
And over the period of time I've been elected, it's been tremendous to see the progress that we've made on combating smoking and indeed, increasing the health of of the population generally. Last week, new smoking prevalence data showed that for the first time, less than 10% of the UK population actually smoke. And we are worlds away from the 1970s where almost half the population smoked. And we certainly don't want to go back to that position. However, there's still some way to go, and this debate is an important reminder that the job is not yet done.
And although we're making excellent progress and including the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act earlier this year, we should not say that the job is done. Smoking remains one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in the UK. It's responsible for around 80,000 deaths every year, and Cancer Research UK limited UK put smoking as a responsible for around 160 cancer cases every day, or 57 57,700 cases each year. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product.
It can kill up to two thirds of lifelong users and responsible for at least 16 different types of cancer. But the impact goes beyond health. Around 1 in 9 working age adults in England who smoke are out of work because of ill health or disability. That's around 700,000 people, and the NHS continues to feel the pressure, with around 100 GP appointments every hour linked to smoking related illness. In fact, the total cost of smoking to society and the economy in England alone is estimated at £44.8 billion a year.
So smoking is still a huge problem, but it is one that is within the government's power to fix cessation services, mass media campaigns, cessation and changes to the age of sale are all tools that can be used to achieve a smoke free country. Now this country has shown admirable, admirable. This government has shown admirable ambition in bringing back the smoke free generation policy, which was originally proposed by the Right Honourable Member for Richmond, which I and many others had worked so hard behind the scenes to get on the radar.
In fact, I'm still waiting for his. Thanks for the speech. I made it before party conference before he announced the policy which was made in this particular chamber. This is transformative when it comes to stopping young people from starting the habit, saving them from a lifetime of addiction and ill health. However, it doesn't do much for the current 4.9 million smokers that still continue to smoke. The previous government had a clear plan to end smoking that expired in 2022, and also a national level target of smoking prevalence of 5% by 2030.
Even with recent progress, it's unlikely that that target will be met and concerningly, we are seeing more and more young people taking up smoking and in particular vaping. The Teachers Union Behaviour in Schools survey found that 16% of pupils vaped during class. I find that hard to believe 62% of pupils repeatedly left lessons to vape, and 39% had encountered pupils unable to concentrate because they were distracted or affected by nicotine. And however, I suspect this figure actually is even higher.
32% had observed peer pressure on non vapers to vape. Now , schools have an important role in educating children and young people about the risks of smoking and nicotine use, preventing use on school premises and supporting children who need help. However, schools can't be expected to solve a wider public health and regulatory problem. So when I when asked if smoke free 2030 is still the government's target, various ministers have responded saying the government is going even further by creating the smoke free generation .
With respect, the previous government also legislated for a smoke free generation, whilst having a target for current smokers to quit. Cancer research UK have already found that England is not on track to become smoke free by 2030, and smoking rates remain much higher in more deprived communities, so the government must go further and faster, or set a new target and publish a clear roadmap for reaching it. So can the minister tell us when she responds to the debate, what her ambitions are for reducing smoking, and if she'll look at introducing a target for reducing smoking not just to 5%, but below 1% in all communities across the UK.
We need to have an ambition for current smokers, which matches the ambition of the smoke free generation for stopping the start. Targets can be a helpful tool for focusing attention on a particular area of importance. We've seen this through the truly remarkable success in reducing smoking rates amongst pregnant women, something I've campaigned for for a long time. And the last government came very just about achieved the objective. But smoking pregnancy rates are now at their lowest rate ever, at just 4.2%, down from 9.6% in 2020.
That means that over 70 babies lives have been saved through preventing stillbirth caused by smoking during pregnancy, and we are obviously during Baby Loss Awareness Week, and that demonstrates the importance of this. Once again. The previous government set a clear national target designed targeted policies, including financial incentives and integrating them into existing pathways. And it worked. So I'm so pleased that the government has committed to continue funding financial incentives for pregnant women.
However, I want to see learning lessons from this success. What we've achieved on women in pregnancy can be a blueprint for other at risk populations. So I hope that the minister will meet the all party group on smoking and health, along with action on Smoking and health, to discuss how this approach can be applied to other at risk groups as a roadmap to a smoke free country. So I was really pleased to see that £5 million for financial incentives for pregnant women have been maintained for the next three years.
The investment, alongside the £153 million for local authorities through the public health grant and funding from Icbs, means that there is a more more money being invested in cessation support than ever before. However, ICB budgets are no longer being ring fenced, which means that there is a risk that services are either decommissioned. We've seen that in certain parts of the country or see their funding reduced in in NHS settings. So with the Labour manifesto pledged to introduce opt out cessation support in all inpatient settings, could the Minister clarify what progress has been made on that manifesto? Pledge in this Parliament? Is the current level of funding going to the NHS enough to deliver on that pledge, and has her department monitoring potential reductions in services due to ICB reductions? Will she ensure that cessation funds within the Public Health grant continue to be protected by a ring fence? And of course, there are broader activities that reduce smoking rates beyond cessation support.
Mass media campaigns are one important part of the puzzle. It would be good to hear how much is being spent on these. I would also welcome to hear from the minister what plans she has to communicate the smoke free generation to the public via a media campaign. Those are clear ways of reaching all sorts of people. Of course, the good news is that we can be ambitious, and we have at our fingertips a source of funding that is yet untapped.
That is a levy on the tobacco manufacturers. That would raise an estimated £5 billion over five years. The model, which the Appg put forward, would not allow this to be passed on to consumers. This is something of a unicorn policy. It raises revenue and is hugely popular with the public. 7,076% of adults in England support a levy, including the majority support from voters of all political parties, with only 7% opposed.
The Prime Minister has indicated he wants to review business rates to raise revenue from businesses. That, and I quote, don't make a positive contribution to communities. If that's the case, then Big Tobacco should be first in line. And it's right that those responsible for the huge costs of smoking in our society, our NHS, our population health are the ones picking up the bill, not the taxpayer. And I do hope the minister will seriously consider this proposal and propose it to the Chancellor for his budget in a couple of weeks time.
Yet we must all be careful and call out the continuing interference by the tobacco industry in today's world, particularly in politics. We've seen reforms. Party conference was sponsored by British American Tobacco, where their inconvenience store was plastered with a series of shocking mock health warnings. Reformed party leadership have made it very clear that they support Big Tobacco being able to continue to sell their lethal products to the next generation of children. They are completely out of touch with the public, but also with their own voters, who are overwhelmingly supportive of ending the devastating harms of tobacco in this country.
So, to be clear, as the leader of the opposition's conference speech showed on issues like tobacco control and reducing smoking rates, there's always been a strong level of cross-party support and that should continue both for health and economic costs. So it's disappointing that some parties in particular reject this and are all too willing to listen when money gets thrown around. So because we have to remember at the heart of this, there are still 4.9 million smokers.
There are friends, family, colleagues, many of whom are absolutely desperate to quit but stuck in a steady cycle of addiction. The all party group was delighted to recently host a round table with the all party Group on Poverty and Inequality to discuss the links between smoking and deprivation. I know that my honourable friend and co-chair will have will share some of that discussion in her remarks later, but I wanted to reflect on how impactful this was to hear from those with lived experience.
We heard from an ex-smoker who was a mother, who was a mother, that the addiction to tobacco was so strong that she would buy cigarettes before buying food for her children. Tobacco came before everything and that cannot be acceptable in today's society. We heard from doctor Liam Loftus, who is delivering smoke free cessation support within Cambridge City Foodbank, not waiting for smokers to find him, but going to where they already are, seeking support and being proactive. A roadmap, a clear plan could help us learn from the pockets of best practice and scale up interventions that truly turn the dial on smoking rates in this country.
I look forward to contributions from other colleagues and indeed from the front benches, and I trust we can continue to work forward on eliminating smoking in this country.
And over the period of time I've been elected, it's been tremendous to see the progress that we've made on combating smoking and indeed, increasing the health of of the population generally. Last week, new smoking prevalence data showed that for the first time, less than 10% of the UK population actually smoke. And we are worlds away from the 1970s where almost half the population smoked. And we certainly don't want to go back to that position. However, there's still some way to go, and this debate is an important reminder that the job is not yet done.
And although we're making excellent progress and including the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act earlier this year, we should not say that the job is done. Smoking remains one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in the UK. It's responsible for around 80,000 deaths every year, and Cancer Research UK limited UK put smoking as a responsible for around 160 cancer cases every day, or 57 57,700 cases each year. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product.
It can kill up to two thirds of lifelong users and responsible for at least 16 different types of cancer. But the impact goes beyond health. Around 1 in 9 working age adults in England who smoke are out of work because of ill health or disability. That's around 700,000 people, and the NHS continues to feel the pressure, with around 100 GP appointments every hour linked to smoking related illness. In fact, the total cost of smoking to society and the economy in England alone is estimated at £44.8 billion a year.
So smoking is still a huge problem, but it is one that is within the government's power to fix cessation services, mass media campaigns, cessation and changes to the age of sale are all tools that can be used to achieve a smoke free country. Now this country has shown admirable, admirable. This government has shown admirable ambition in bringing back the smoke free generation policy, which was originally proposed by the Right Honourable Member for Richmond, which I and many others had worked so hard behind the scenes to get on the radar.
In fact, I'm still waiting for his. Thanks for the speech. I made it before party conference before he announced the policy which was made in this particular chamber. This is transformative when it comes to stopping young people from starting the habit, saving them from a lifetime of addiction and ill health. However, it doesn't do much for the current 4.9 million smokers that still continue to smoke. The previous government had a clear plan to end smoking that expired in 2022, and also a national level target of smoking prevalence of 5% by 2030.
Even with recent progress, it's unlikely that that target will be met and concerningly, we are seeing more and more young people taking up smoking and in particular vaping. The Teachers Union Behaviour in Schools survey found that 16% of pupils vaped during class. I find that hard to believe 62% of pupils repeatedly left lessons to vape, and 39% had encountered pupils unable to concentrate because they were distracted or affected by nicotine. And however, I suspect this figure actually is even higher.
32% had observed peer pressure on non vapers to vape. Now , schools have an important role in educating children and young people about the risks of smoking and nicotine use, preventing use on school premises and supporting children who need help. However, schools can't be expected to solve a wider public health and regulatory problem. So when I when asked if smoke free 2030 is still the government's target, various ministers have responded saying the government is going even further by creating the smoke free generation .
With respect, the previous government also legislated for a smoke free generation, whilst having a target for current smokers to quit. Cancer research UK have already found that England is not on track to become smoke free by 2030, and smoking rates remain much higher in more deprived communities, so the government must go further and faster, or set a new target and publish a clear roadmap for reaching it. So can the minister tell us when she responds to the debate, what her ambitions are for reducing smoking, and if she'll look at introducing a target for reducing smoking not just to 5%, but below 1% in all communities across the UK.
We need to have an ambition for current smokers, which matches the ambition of the smoke free generation for stopping the start. Targets can be a helpful tool for focusing attention on a particular area of importance. We've seen this through the truly remarkable success in reducing smoking rates amongst pregnant women, something I've campaigned for for a long time. And the last government came very just about achieved the objective. But smoking pregnancy rates are now at their lowest rate ever, at just 4.2%, down from 9.6% in 2020.
That means that over 70 babies lives have been saved through preventing stillbirth caused by smoking during pregnancy, and we are obviously during Baby Loss Awareness Week, and that demonstrates the importance of this. Once again. The previous government set a clear national target designed targeted policies, including financial incentives and integrating them into existing pathways. And it worked. So I'm so pleased that the government has committed to continue funding financial incentives for pregnant women.
However, I want to see learning lessons from this success. What we've achieved on women in pregnancy can be a blueprint for other at risk populations. So I hope that the minister will meet the all party group on smoking and health, along with action on Smoking and health, to discuss how this approach can be applied to other at risk groups as a roadmap to a smoke free country. So I was really pleased to see that £5 million for financial incentives for pregnant women have been maintained for the next three years.
The investment, alongside the £153 million for local authorities through the public health grant and funding from Icbs, means that there is a more more money being invested in cessation support than ever before. However, ICB budgets are no longer being ring fenced, which means that there is a risk that services are either decommissioned. We've seen that in certain parts of the country or see their funding reduced in in NHS settings. So with the Labour manifesto pledged to introduce opt out cessation support in all inpatient settings, could the Minister clarify what progress has been made on that manifesto? Pledge in this Parliament? Is the current level of funding going to the NHS enough to deliver on that pledge, and has her department monitoring potential reductions in services due to ICB reductions? Will she ensure that cessation funds within the Public Health grant continue to be protected by a ring fence? And of course, there are broader activities that reduce smoking rates beyond cessation support.
Mass media campaigns are one important part of the puzzle. It would be good to hear how much is being spent on these. I would also welcome to hear from the minister what plans she has to communicate the smoke free generation to the public via a media campaign. Those are clear ways of reaching all sorts of people. Of course, the good news is that we can be ambitious, and we have at our fingertips a source of funding that is yet untapped.
That is a levy on the tobacco manufacturers. That would raise an estimated £5 billion over five years. The model, which the Appg put forward, would not allow this to be passed on to consumers. This is something of a unicorn policy. It raises revenue and is hugely popular with the public. 7,076% of adults in England support a levy, including the majority support from voters of all political parties, with only 7% opposed.
The Prime Minister has indicated he wants to review business rates to raise revenue from businesses. That, and I quote, don't make a positive contribution to communities. If that's the case, then Big Tobacco should be first in line. And it's right that those responsible for the huge costs of smoking in our society, our NHS, our population health are the ones picking up the bill, not the taxpayer. And I do hope the minister will seriously consider this proposal and propose it to the Chancellor for his budget in a couple of weeks time.
Yet we must all be careful and call out the continuing interference by the tobacco industry in today's world, particularly in politics. We've seen reforms. Party conference was sponsored by British American Tobacco, where their inconvenience store was plastered with a series of shocking mock health warnings. Reformed party leadership have made it very clear that they support Big Tobacco being able to continue to sell their lethal products to the next generation of children. They are completely out of touch with the public, but also with their own voters, who are overwhelmingly supportive of ending the devastating harms of tobacco in this country.
So, to be clear, as the leader of the opposition's conference speech showed on issues like tobacco control and reducing smoking rates, there's always been a strong level of cross-party support and that should continue both for health and economic costs. So it's disappointing that some parties in particular reject this and are all too willing to listen when money gets thrown around. So because we have to remember at the heart of this, there are still 4.9 million smokers.
There are friends, family, colleagues, many of whom are absolutely desperate to quit but stuck in a steady cycle of addiction. The all party group was delighted to recently host a round table with the all party Group on Poverty and Inequality to discuss the links between smoking and deprivation. I know that my honourable friend and co-chair will have will share some of that discussion in her remarks later, but I wanted to reflect on how impactful this was to hear from those with lived experience.
We heard from an ex-smoker who was a mother, who was a mother, that the addiction to tobacco was so strong that she would buy cigarettes before buying food for her children. Tobacco came before everything and that cannot be acceptable in today's society. We heard from doctor Liam Loftus, who is delivering smoke free cessation support within Cambridge City Foodbank, not waiting for smokers to find him, but going to where they already are, seeking support and being proactive. A roadmap, a clear plan could help us learn from the pockets of best practice and scale up interventions that truly turn the dial on smoking rates in this country.
I look forward to contributions from other colleagues and indeed from the front benches, and I trust we can continue to work forward on eliminating smoking in this country.
15:22
15:22
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship, and I'm so pleased to speak in this debate and to have secured it alongside my co-chair of the Appg on Smoking and Health, and Bob Blackman MP as co-chairs of the Appg. We will always champion cross-party support for ending this epidemic in the UK, and this debate is about what progress has been made towards a smoke free country and what more we could do. And I want to start by recognising just how much we have achieved in the last five years alone, thanks to the actions by both the government and the current one, the Tobacco and Vapes Act became law.
We've seen smoking rates fall to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest amongst the 18 to 24 year olds. Smoking and pregnancy rates are at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop smoking services. Coordinated action between agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market.
And one achievement that I'm particularly proud of is that smoking rates in the north east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005, the largest drop in England. And that's great to see, not just for my constituents in the city of Durham, but for communities right across the North East, an area with some of the the worst health inequalities in the UK. And so much of this success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support afresh.
The North East experience clearly shows the huge benefits of taking expert led regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas like we've done in the North East over the last 22 years, and I'm sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. Now, there was a time where smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable. A pipe dream. Well, our mission to end smoking. We have achieved many unthinkable things and never stop pushing for progress.
However, we've not called this debate just to pat ourselves on the back and think it's job done. Far from it. As we've heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequalities, and this inequality is stark. If current trends continue, people with a degree will reach the smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later.
And that gap should concern all of us, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society. And I was really pleased recently to bring together stakeholders to host a round table on behalf of the Appg on smoking and health, alongside the Appg on poverty and inequality. And as we've heard, that's on the link between smoking and poverty and smoking is a well known health issue, of course, but it's also a direct driver of poverty. It's a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction.
Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, 1 in 4 people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks now. The Round Table included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings, reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support and opt out support must be the way we work moving forward, and it would be great to hear from the Minister about what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment, on opt out support in routine care, and also at the event.
I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. And as my Right Honourable friend has just alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that only they've only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, really shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too. And the good news is that there is something we can do about it.
Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support, and that's why it's so important for the government to publish a roadmap to a smoke free country, which sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice. And we also need a new target. Smoke free 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking.
This Labour government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society, and we can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programs to support smokers and still have cash to spare. And we can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated, and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. And we need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, like medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey.
The recent Cochrane Review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we mustn't forget that it takes, on average 30 times to quit. Now. Regulation of these products is necessary to reduce the youth appeal, and the government is right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim. And that includes a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme and the vaping products duty,
We've seen smoking rates fall to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest amongst the 18 to 24 year olds. Smoking and pregnancy rates are at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop smoking services. Coordinated action between agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market.
And one achievement that I'm particularly proud of is that smoking rates in the north east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005, the largest drop in England. And that's great to see, not just for my constituents in the city of Durham, but for communities right across the North East, an area with some of the the worst health inequalities in the UK. And so much of this success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support afresh.
The North East experience clearly shows the huge benefits of taking expert led regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas like we've done in the North East over the last 22 years, and I'm sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. Now, there was a time where smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable. A pipe dream. Well, our mission to end smoking. We have achieved many unthinkable things and never stop pushing for progress.
However, we've not called this debate just to pat ourselves on the back and think it's job done. Far from it. As we've heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequalities, and this inequality is stark. If current trends continue, people with a degree will reach the smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later.
And that gap should concern all of us, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society. And I was really pleased recently to bring together stakeholders to host a round table on behalf of the Appg on smoking and health, alongside the Appg on poverty and inequality. And as we've heard, that's on the link between smoking and poverty and smoking is a well known health issue, of course, but it's also a direct driver of poverty. It's a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction.
Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, 1 in 4 people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks now. The Round Table included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings, reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support and opt out support must be the way we work moving forward, and it would be great to hear from the Minister about what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment, on opt out support in routine care, and also at the event.
I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. And as my Right Honourable friend has just alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that only they've only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, really shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too. And the good news is that there is something we can do about it.
Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support, and that's why it's so important for the government to publish a roadmap to a smoke free country, which sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice. And we also need a new target. Smoke free 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking.
This Labour government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society, and we can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programs to support smokers and still have cash to spare. And we can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated, and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. And we need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, like medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey.
The recent Cochrane Review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we mustn't forget that it takes, on average 30 times to quit. Now. Regulation of these products is necessary to reduce the youth appeal, and the government is right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim. And that includes a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme and the vaping products duty,
15:29
15:29
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Situates vaping policy as part of a wider strategy on smoking and public health. Would help enhance this long overdue regulatory agenda. However, this is a complex area and I wonder if the minister has considered convening an expert group of some kind. The government. This government will be remembered as the government that signalled the beginning of the end for smoking with a smoke free generation. But we could also be the ones to end smoking for good.
And I look forward to hearing from the minister and working with her to ensure that we do just that. Thank you chair.
And I look forward to hearing from the minister and working with her to ensure that we do just that. Thank you chair.
15:29
15:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Always a pleasure to serve on your chair. And a big thank you to the honourable member for Harrow and Harrow East for introducing it, and also to the honourable lady for the City of Durham. The contributions of both of. Set the scene incredibly well for an issue that concerns the health of people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I in the library information we get beforehand, it reminded us. The Conservative Party set a green paper in 2019, and the Labour Party have committed themselves to a smoke free by 2030.
So the the opinion of of the major political parties, and not all of us who are in this chamber are to the same thing I smoke free UK is what we want to achieve. Introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is just what what I hope will be a smoke free generation prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after the 1st of January 20 or 2009. This will undoubtedly contribute to the continuing declining of adult smokers.
I only ever had a cigarette once I tell a story because I was only about six years old. You know the way when you're when you're small and you look at your granddad, it wasn't a big man, but he was my hero because he. He was my granddad and granddad smoked cigarettes. They were gallaher's. I don't think there was any filter on them. And you look at your ground and you say, granddad, I you're always smoking cigarettes.
Can I have one? And my granddad says, yes, you can. And he says, take that there and then take a really deep breath. And I did with no filter. And it's long enough for those of a certain generation will remember whenever the polls were under the bed, but I went green and I was violently sick into the pool. And I always remember that introduction from my granddad was a cigarette. Never, ever.
Madam chair, how I wish to smoke a cigarette all my life so government doesn't have to worry about me. It'll never happen. And nor, I'm glad to say. Does it happen to any of my children as well? Again, a story with perhaps a poignancy and perhaps a reminder of what it was like years ago in 2020, for those aged 45 to 54, had the highest proportion of current smokers standing at some 12.4% UK wide. Many of this age group are addicted beyond their control, and deterrence measures alone are likely not likely to be a bigger challenge and potentially less successful.
So for those who are addicted and another gentleman referred to the the mother who would buy us a tonic, a condemnation as a as a factual contribution of a mother who would have bought a cigarette before, perhaps , maybe getting the food on the table. We must recognise smoking is a serious addiction, and acknowledge that many of this age group began smoking without fully understanding the long term health consequences. Our focus must extend beyond prevention and we must advocate for those accessible addiction treatment and practical support for those who want to quit smoking but are struggling to do so.
The consultation one request to the minister, the Consultation on Tobacco Regulation. I understand all the consultations were in by the 2nd of October. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of the timescale for the release of what the responses to and then what the what the timescale will be to to take action on those as well. I should have welcomed the minister to her place, and it's always a pleasure to see the minister there, and I wish her well.
And in the role she plays in Northern Ireland was estimated in 2024, 15% of all deaths were contributed to by smoking, whilst the cost of treating smoking related illnesses was estimated at £218 annually. Those figures are worrying. I think it indicates that if we address and try to achieve the smoke free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then it will reduce quite, quite clearly the. The financial impacts upon upon the NHS. The same report also reflected UK wide signs regarding young people vaping, as it estimated that 9% of 11 to 16 year olds use e-cigarettes.
Although e-cigarettes may help some adult smokers move away from tobacco, it's increasingly the case that young people who have never smoked are becoming addicted to vaping, so I think there's a real need within the government's consultation on vaping to to address that issue. I come to this conclusion, Madam Chair. I call on this government to take further action to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to children by introducing controls on flavouring and advertising of e-cigarettes. The long a. This.
Alongside the stronger enforcement against the illegal sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18, will contribute, I believe, to a smoke free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This will ease pressure on our already burdened health service and ensure that the next generation. They want to come after us, grow up to be free from the harms that we have seen smoking caused. Thanks so much.
So the the opinion of of the major political parties, and not all of us who are in this chamber are to the same thing I smoke free UK is what we want to achieve. Introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is just what what I hope will be a smoke free generation prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after the 1st of January 20 or 2009. This will undoubtedly contribute to the continuing declining of adult smokers.
I only ever had a cigarette once I tell a story because I was only about six years old. You know the way when you're when you're small and you look at your granddad, it wasn't a big man, but he was my hero because he. He was my granddad and granddad smoked cigarettes. They were gallaher's. I don't think there was any filter on them. And you look at your ground and you say, granddad, I you're always smoking cigarettes.
Can I have one? And my granddad says, yes, you can. And he says, take that there and then take a really deep breath. And I did with no filter. And it's long enough for those of a certain generation will remember whenever the polls were under the bed, but I went green and I was violently sick into the pool. And I always remember that introduction from my granddad was a cigarette. Never, ever.
Madam chair, how I wish to smoke a cigarette all my life so government doesn't have to worry about me. It'll never happen. And nor, I'm glad to say. Does it happen to any of my children as well? Again, a story with perhaps a poignancy and perhaps a reminder of what it was like years ago in 2020, for those aged 45 to 54, had the highest proportion of current smokers standing at some 12.4% UK wide. Many of this age group are addicted beyond their control, and deterrence measures alone are likely not likely to be a bigger challenge and potentially less successful.
So for those who are addicted and another gentleman referred to the the mother who would buy us a tonic, a condemnation as a as a factual contribution of a mother who would have bought a cigarette before, perhaps , maybe getting the food on the table. We must recognise smoking is a serious addiction, and acknowledge that many of this age group began smoking without fully understanding the long term health consequences. Our focus must extend beyond prevention and we must advocate for those accessible addiction treatment and practical support for those who want to quit smoking but are struggling to do so.
The consultation one request to the minister, the Consultation on Tobacco Regulation. I understand all the consultations were in by the 2nd of October. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of the timescale for the release of what the responses to and then what the what the timescale will be to to take action on those as well. I should have welcomed the minister to her place, and it's always a pleasure to see the minister there, and I wish her well.
And in the role she plays in Northern Ireland was estimated in 2024, 15% of all deaths were contributed to by smoking, whilst the cost of treating smoking related illnesses was estimated at £218 annually. Those figures are worrying. I think it indicates that if we address and try to achieve the smoke free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then it will reduce quite, quite clearly the. The financial impacts upon upon the NHS. The same report also reflected UK wide signs regarding young people vaping, as it estimated that 9% of 11 to 16 year olds use e-cigarettes.
Although e-cigarettes may help some adult smokers move away from tobacco, it's increasingly the case that young people who have never smoked are becoming addicted to vaping, so I think there's a real need within the government's consultation on vaping to to address that issue. I come to this conclusion, Madam Chair. I call on this government to take further action to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to children by introducing controls on flavouring and advertising of e-cigarettes. The long a. This.
Alongside the stronger enforcement against the illegal sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18, will contribute, I believe, to a smoke free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This will ease pressure on our already burdened health service and ensure that the next generation. They want to come after us, grow up to be free from the harms that we have seen smoking caused. Thanks so much.
15:35
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mary Glindon. Madam Chair, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I withdraw my. That draw the attention of the room to my entry in the Register of Members Financial Interest and to my previous role chairing the all party parliamentary Group for Responsible Vaping. And I congratulate my hon. Friend the members for the City of Durham and Harlow East on securing this debate and their hard work and commitment to to ensure that we move towards a smoke free UK throughout the.
The passage of the tobacco and vape sector have been a strong advocate for vaping because giving smokers choice in how to stop smoking is far more successful than telling them, telling them they should stop altogether. Giving smokers a safer way to stop is a choice worth protecting. A smoke free UK goal is worth backing. The Act ensures young people will avoid ever falling into the trap of addiction, and the Act is now on the statute book, and the test for its success is its delivery rules only work if they are enforced on our high streets, not just on written paper.
The biggest threat is that to this is the illicit market. Illicit tobacco and vapes are untested and untracked, with no age checks and no control on what's in them. The adult who wants the ability to choose to have an alternative to cigarettes cannot know what they are buying. And even worse, children can get hold of these products. Responsible retailers, including specialist shops, are undercut by rogue traders who face no meaningful consequences, and the stakes could not be higher.
Only last Tuesday, Lord Bishop, chair of the National Trading Standards, told the housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the illegal tobacco trade is directly funding child abuse. That shocks us and should shock every member of this House. We can no longer treat this as a sideline issue. It should be the focus of government attention so the sequencing and government priorities matters. We must protect our good retailers before we come for their products. The alternative will only tighten the group that organized crime has on our high streets.
The NHS says that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking, and is one of the most effective tools for quitting smokers using nicotine. Vapes are roughly twice as likely to quit as those using traditional non nicotine replacement products, such as patches or gum. Around 5.5 million adults vape in this country, including around 3.3 million former smokers. 52% of adult smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is harmful or more harmful than smoking. Vaping is not harmless, but smoking and vaping are not equivalent.
The government must ensure communication and regulation must maintain that distinction and protect the right for vapes to be sold and be more appealing to adult smokers than cigarettes. Specialist shops are fundamentally different from corner shops, petrol stations and rogue retailers that simply sell vapes alongside other goods. Just as petrol stations selling alcohol is not a specialist alcohol retailer, these businesses should not should not be regulated, regulated as if they were the same. Doing so is pointless and harmful to the responsible industry.
While rogue retailers continue to sell illegal products to our children, no retail, no retailer should sell vape products. No retailers should vape products to a child. There should be rigorous age verification in shops and online, supported by challenge 25 train staff, refusal registers, reliable digital checks and regular test purchasing rather than sweeping restrictions for responsible retailers. Parliament has already legislated for a retail licensing scheme, a scheme that separates good retailers from bad is the most effective way to take dangerous illicit products off our streets.
It gives councils the ability to identify who is selling these products, and acts act against repeat offenders. But the government has said that the consultation on licensing scheme will be considered in due course. Our high streets cannot afford for that to be kicked down the road on in on this issue. My constituents want to know when the consultation will be open and when, and want that to be as soon as possible. That's my message to our minister.
A comprehensive retail and distributor licensing scheme is essential, for which the UK V have produced a framework for. Called the UK VI Licensing Framework. A licence would identify who was selling vaping products, set minimum standards and make repeat offenders lose the right to trade. The UK via has proposed penalties of up to £10,000 for retailers selling to children, or supplying illicit and non-compliant products, with the proceeds used to strengthen trading standards.
Enforcement. Nearly 390,000 illicit or non-compliant products were identified through research covering 17 councils, but the reported fines for vape offences totalled only £10,700. Small penalties risks becoming a cost of doing business rather than the genuine deterrent. The message should be simple comply with age, verification, product and licensing rules or face penalties of up to £10,000 licence suspension and for persistent offenders, removal from the market. Only once we have got to grips with the illicit trade should we turn to to packaging, appearance and display.
If rogue traders ignore rules, the rules we have to offer new ones will be ignored too. And it's honest retailers and adults who simply want a legal, safe alternative to cigarettes who will suffer. We all want fewer people smoking, but the fastest way to get there is by backing the legal market, backing adults who are trying to quit, and going after the criminals who promise promise profit from the illicit trade. We must not make cigarettes comparatively more attractive.
The new vaping products duty is charged at £2.20 per ten millilitres of vaping liquid, while the government says vaping remains less harmful than smoking and help adult smokers quit. This new duty risks undermining that objective. A new c e BR report estimates that the duty could increase average vape prices by 44%, compared with an estimated 4% increase in cigarette prices. Its central model suggests that 946,000 vapers and dual users could move exclusively to smoking, resulting in 1.5 billion additional cigarettes being consumed each year.
The same modelling estimates an additional 3.3 300.300 £300 million a year in healthcare and productivity costs, comprising 94 million in healthcare costs and £211 million costs in lost productivity. These are modelled outcomes rather than certain forecasts, but they present a serious warning about unintended consequences. The government should monitor smoking, relapse, quitting rates and illicit market activity closely and be prepared to revisit the duty if it's pushing adults back towards cigarettes. We cannot protect children and non-smokers without pushing, without punishing adults who have quit.
We can't protect our children and non-smokers without punishing adults who have quit smoking. Make age verification non-negotiable, introduce effective lighting, and impose penalties of up to 10,000 on rogue retailers while preserving vape as a vital quitting tool for adult smokers. And help us move towards a smoke free UK.
The passage of the tobacco and vape sector have been a strong advocate for vaping because giving smokers choice in how to stop smoking is far more successful than telling them, telling them they should stop altogether. Giving smokers a safer way to stop is a choice worth protecting. A smoke free UK goal is worth backing. The Act ensures young people will avoid ever falling into the trap of addiction, and the Act is now on the statute book, and the test for its success is its delivery rules only work if they are enforced on our high streets, not just on written paper.
The biggest threat is that to this is the illicit market. Illicit tobacco and vapes are untested and untracked, with no age checks and no control on what's in them. The adult who wants the ability to choose to have an alternative to cigarettes cannot know what they are buying. And even worse, children can get hold of these products. Responsible retailers, including specialist shops, are undercut by rogue traders who face no meaningful consequences, and the stakes could not be higher.
Only last Tuesday, Lord Bishop, chair of the National Trading Standards, told the housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the illegal tobacco trade is directly funding child abuse. That shocks us and should shock every member of this House. We can no longer treat this as a sideline issue. It should be the focus of government attention so the sequencing and government priorities matters. We must protect our good retailers before we come for their products. The alternative will only tighten the group that organized crime has on our high streets.
The NHS says that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking, and is one of the most effective tools for quitting smokers using nicotine. Vapes are roughly twice as likely to quit as those using traditional non nicotine replacement products, such as patches or gum. Around 5.5 million adults vape in this country, including around 3.3 million former smokers. 52% of adult smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is harmful or more harmful than smoking. Vaping is not harmless, but smoking and vaping are not equivalent.
The government must ensure communication and regulation must maintain that distinction and protect the right for vapes to be sold and be more appealing to adult smokers than cigarettes. Specialist shops are fundamentally different from corner shops, petrol stations and rogue retailers that simply sell vapes alongside other goods. Just as petrol stations selling alcohol is not a specialist alcohol retailer, these businesses should not should not be regulated, regulated as if they were the same. Doing so is pointless and harmful to the responsible industry.
While rogue retailers continue to sell illegal products to our children, no retail, no retailer should sell vape products. No retailers should vape products to a child. There should be rigorous age verification in shops and online, supported by challenge 25 train staff, refusal registers, reliable digital checks and regular test purchasing rather than sweeping restrictions for responsible retailers. Parliament has already legislated for a retail licensing scheme, a scheme that separates good retailers from bad is the most effective way to take dangerous illicit products off our streets.
It gives councils the ability to identify who is selling these products, and acts act against repeat offenders. But the government has said that the consultation on licensing scheme will be considered in due course. Our high streets cannot afford for that to be kicked down the road on in on this issue. My constituents want to know when the consultation will be open and when, and want that to be as soon as possible. That's my message to our minister.
A comprehensive retail and distributor licensing scheme is essential, for which the UK V have produced a framework for. Called the UK VI Licensing Framework. A licence would identify who was selling vaping products, set minimum standards and make repeat offenders lose the right to trade. The UK via has proposed penalties of up to £10,000 for retailers selling to children, or supplying illicit and non-compliant products, with the proceeds used to strengthen trading standards.
Enforcement. Nearly 390,000 illicit or non-compliant products were identified through research covering 17 councils, but the reported fines for vape offences totalled only £10,700. Small penalties risks becoming a cost of doing business rather than the genuine deterrent. The message should be simple comply with age, verification, product and licensing rules or face penalties of up to £10,000 licence suspension and for persistent offenders, removal from the market. Only once we have got to grips with the illicit trade should we turn to to packaging, appearance and display.
If rogue traders ignore rules, the rules we have to offer new ones will be ignored too. And it's honest retailers and adults who simply want a legal, safe alternative to cigarettes who will suffer. We all want fewer people smoking, but the fastest way to get there is by backing the legal market, backing adults who are trying to quit, and going after the criminals who promise promise profit from the illicit trade. We must not make cigarettes comparatively more attractive.
The new vaping products duty is charged at £2.20 per ten millilitres of vaping liquid, while the government says vaping remains less harmful than smoking and help adult smokers quit. This new duty risks undermining that objective. A new c e BR report estimates that the duty could increase average vape prices by 44%, compared with an estimated 4% increase in cigarette prices. Its central model suggests that 946,000 vapers and dual users could move exclusively to smoking, resulting in 1.5 billion additional cigarettes being consumed each year.
The same modelling estimates an additional 3.3 300.300 £300 million a year in healthcare and productivity costs, comprising 94 million in healthcare costs and £211 million costs in lost productivity. These are modelled outcomes rather than certain forecasts, but they present a serious warning about unintended consequences. The government should monitor smoking, relapse, quitting rates and illicit market activity closely and be prepared to revisit the duty if it's pushing adults back towards cigarettes. We cannot protect children and non-smokers without pushing, without punishing adults who have quit.
We can't protect our children and non-smokers without punishing adults who have quit smoking. Make age verification non-negotiable, introduce effective lighting, and impose penalties of up to 10,000 on rogue retailers while preserving vape as a vital quitting tool for adult smokers. And help us move towards a smoke free UK.
15:43
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. And I do want to thank the honourable members for Harrow East and the City of Durham for bringing forward this important debate and. But I must start by declaring a lifelong professional interest in this vital issue, because obviously, as a former physiotherapist of over 30 years, I have seen first hand. I've seen firsthand the effects of smoking in in initiating and exacerbating things like asthma, chronic obstructive airways disease, and things like passive smoking, which is a thing which hopefully will be decelerating now.
But you know, people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result of this. So I still am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions. Now, as we've already heard from the honourable members who opened the debate today, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year. And almost 4000 of those people are in Wales, one in every ten deaths in Wales over those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking.
I know that's profound for the families of these people who who have died. It's also a major impact on our NHS. And Public Health Wales estimates that more than 17,000 hospital admissions each year in Wales were attributable to smoking, and that smoking related costs. The Welsh NHS and social care system is estimated at over £650 million a year, and this is for a population of a country of around about 3 million. So you can see just how expensive this is.
So but the full estimated costs are so much greater because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment. But as we've already heard today, these these costs are not borne equally. There is a problem in that individuals from deprived backgrounds are worst affected. And this is a persistent driver of health inequalities. So smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in Wales most deprived communities smoke, and this is four times higher than those from the least deprived areas.
And we've heard very clearly today that this is not fair and it is a social justice issue. So no government, whether it's in Cardiff Bay or in Westminster, and they are committed to social justice, they can't ignore this. So I'm so pleased this UK Labour government is leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act. So this landmark generation landmark legislation will see the UK deliver the world's first smoke free generation, ensuring that today's children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades.
Another major achievement of the act was to take major steps towards combating the challenges of youth vaping and protecting future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. So I want to concentrate mainly on that from now on, because whilst vaping has already been announced as a rightfully an important means of smoking cessation, I still remain very concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been a smoker. Now, earlier this year, the ONS confirmed this figure at over a million across England, Scotland and Wales, and this has doubled since 2021.
Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number smoking and is continuing to rise whilst smoking rates decline, especially amongst the young. So we found public health analysis from last year found that 5% of 7 to 11 year learners reported vaping at least weekly, without rising to 13% amongst just year 11 . Similar field work undertaken by Ash Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school age vapers were using products containing nicotine, and almost half could not go through the whole school day without vaping.
55% of these products were used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal. These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry who are preying on our young people. So last month, I was pleased to be able to host a round table here in Parliament, looking at how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act can be further strengthened. To bear down on these trends and attendees notice there's a wide spectrum of vape shops, which we've already heard about, ranging from the corner shops all the way to the specialist retailers, and there's a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum.
We know that currently, customers should be able to expect clear, consistent retail standards with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. So I would therefore ask the minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so customers know what to expect. We also discussed the the product, the imported vape products, particularly the high capacity big puff devices. They should be held to the same standard as those manufactured in the UK.
So consequently, I would like to ask the Minister what what conversation she's had with Treasury to ensure our UK Border Force and Local Trading Standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot checks at the borders and within retailers. The MHRA also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect. If unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes.
Madam chair, Madam Deputy, Madam Chair, even Miss Vaz. I could go on and on and on. But I dare not because I'm conscious of time. So I really, really am very clear. We need to get a grip on this. And I look forward to the minister answering these questions. Thank you. Yeah.
But you know, people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result of this. So I still am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions. Now, as we've already heard from the honourable members who opened the debate today, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year. And almost 4000 of those people are in Wales, one in every ten deaths in Wales over those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking.
I know that's profound for the families of these people who who have died. It's also a major impact on our NHS. And Public Health Wales estimates that more than 17,000 hospital admissions each year in Wales were attributable to smoking, and that smoking related costs. The Welsh NHS and social care system is estimated at over £650 million a year, and this is for a population of a country of around about 3 million. So you can see just how expensive this is.
So but the full estimated costs are so much greater because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment. But as we've already heard today, these these costs are not borne equally. There is a problem in that individuals from deprived backgrounds are worst affected. And this is a persistent driver of health inequalities. So smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in Wales most deprived communities smoke, and this is four times higher than those from the least deprived areas.
And we've heard very clearly today that this is not fair and it is a social justice issue. So no government, whether it's in Cardiff Bay or in Westminster, and they are committed to social justice, they can't ignore this. So I'm so pleased this UK Labour government is leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act. So this landmark generation landmark legislation will see the UK deliver the world's first smoke free generation, ensuring that today's children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades.
Another major achievement of the act was to take major steps towards combating the challenges of youth vaping and protecting future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. So I want to concentrate mainly on that from now on, because whilst vaping has already been announced as a rightfully an important means of smoking cessation, I still remain very concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been a smoker. Now, earlier this year, the ONS confirmed this figure at over a million across England, Scotland and Wales, and this has doubled since 2021.
Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number smoking and is continuing to rise whilst smoking rates decline, especially amongst the young. So we found public health analysis from last year found that 5% of 7 to 11 year learners reported vaping at least weekly, without rising to 13% amongst just year 11 . Similar field work undertaken by Ash Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school age vapers were using products containing nicotine, and almost half could not go through the whole school day without vaping.
55% of these products were used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal. These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry who are preying on our young people. So last month, I was pleased to be able to host a round table here in Parliament, looking at how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act can be further strengthened. To bear down on these trends and attendees notice there's a wide spectrum of vape shops, which we've already heard about, ranging from the corner shops all the way to the specialist retailers, and there's a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum.
We know that currently, customers should be able to expect clear, consistent retail standards with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. So I would therefore ask the minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so customers know what to expect. We also discussed the the product, the imported vape products, particularly the high capacity big puff devices. They should be held to the same standard as those manufactured in the UK.
So consequently, I would like to ask the Minister what what conversation she's had with Treasury to ensure our UK Border Force and Local Trading Standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot checks at the borders and within retailers. The MHRA also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect. If unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes.
Madam chair, Madam Deputy, Madam Chair, even Miss Vaz. I could go on and on and on. But I dare not because I'm conscious of time. So I really, really am very clear. We need to get a grip on this. And I look forward to the minister answering these questions. Thank you. Yeah.
15:49
15:49
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
To serve under your chairmanship and equally, as colleagues have said, to thank the co-chairs for their excellent introductions to debate. The honourable member for Harrow Eastern, the honourable member for the City of Durham, I think, have excellently put the points across about the impact of smoking, the importance of our ambition to become a smoke free generation and a smoke free country. Like many other members, I kind of approach this debate with my own personal perspective about smoking, my own personal experience.
Having grown up in a smoking household, most of my family smoking at various points, and some for quite a long time, my mother for more than 40 years. Smoking was always kind of present in my childhood and adolescence, I think, as my rebellious side was not to smoke, and it's probably a good rebellious side to have compared to other options available. But I was kind of an anti-smoker from day one based on that experience, based on what I saw around me of, of the power of addiction, how difficult it was for so many of my family members, my mother, to quit smoking despite their best efforts, despite knowing it was the right thing to do, despite knowing it was harming them, harming those around them, and even harming their children.
The power of smoking is incredible in terms of its ability to keep people addicted. My grandfather passed away from lung cancer, a smoker for much of his life. My mum, fortunately still with us, suffered various forms of cancer throughout her life, potentially caused by smoking amongst other issues. So I'm very passionate that we do all we can and continue to be a leader in smoking cessation. But as I think we know the evidence, the evidence is clear.
We've had clear marketing, marketing campaigns, the images on the front of cigarette packages have been there for some time. The horrific images which now I think almost people become numb to and turn away from that power alone is not enough to get to where we want to be. Personal responsibility arguments, which are often used by people, and the libertarian or far right perspective. The Reform Party's been mentioned today. We know personal responsibility is not enough. And throughout the history of of the crusade to end smoking, public health measures have proved the doubters wrong time and time again.
And we've achieved this historic milestone. As the ONS data outlines, that we've now fallen below 10% prevalence to fewer than 1 in 10 people in the UK smoking for the first time. And I think we do have to recognise that this has largely been a cross-party mission for for some time now. Positively, we had the Right Honourable member for Richmond and Northallerton leading the campaign when he was Prime Minister and proposing ambitious legislation, but I would say I think there is a risk that we are seeing that cross-party consensus evaporate.
As has been mentioned, the Reform Party and their relationship with Big Tobacco, and it is unfortunate that more recently the same party in the opposition party has had three votes on these issues, has not found it possible to get a consensus on the legislation coming before us, and I hope that will change as we move forward, because we all know the difference that this makes. After stopping smoking within 20 minutes, blood pressure resumes to normal levels within 20 minutes.
Within eight hours, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the blood reduce by half and oxygen returns to normal 2 to 12 weeks. Your circulation improves in 3 to 9 months. Coughing and wheezing problems fade away, and lung function increases by 10% in 12 weeks. In five years, the risk of heart attack falls to about half compared to a person who still smoking. And in ten years, the risk of lung cancer falls to half of that of a smoker, and the risk of heart attack falls to the same as someone who's never smoked.
I think those are powerful figures that show that it is never too late to stop smoking. It is never too late to see the health benefits, and we have to sustain the progress we've made. And the last 10%, it is harder, and it is fundamentally more expensive than the first 10%. And as has been said, there is also a social justice and element to this campaign. It goes beyond just finance and it goes beyond just public health.
As as ash data has shown, smoking pushes just under half a million households into poverty, including 137,000 children. And we know that last 10%, and I've seen it in my work in my constituency, will often have complex lives. Experiencing deprivation, will have mental health issues. We'll often have drug and alcohol issues alongside smoking. And so we need targeted and specific outreach to support these people to quit smoking. I've met the fantastic women who run the Hillingdon Stop Smoking service, and they've talked passionately about the work they do providing incentives, support, nicotine products, vapes, alternatives which are now on the market.
But that outreach is ever more expensive. The closer we get to eliminating smoking in this country. So with the limited time we've got available, I'd just like to make a pitch to the minister that we do look to reinvest tobacco, tobacco duty, revenue directly into stop smoking services. And we do I do support calls has been raised already for a specific levy on the profits of tobacco companies that is targeted and reinvested into stop smoking services.
The public health case is clear. The economic case is clear. I make the moral case is clear. We have to do more, and we have to become the first country in the world to become smoke free. Thank you.
Having grown up in a smoking household, most of my family smoking at various points, and some for quite a long time, my mother for more than 40 years. Smoking was always kind of present in my childhood and adolescence, I think, as my rebellious side was not to smoke, and it's probably a good rebellious side to have compared to other options available. But I was kind of an anti-smoker from day one based on that experience, based on what I saw around me of, of the power of addiction, how difficult it was for so many of my family members, my mother, to quit smoking despite their best efforts, despite knowing it was the right thing to do, despite knowing it was harming them, harming those around them, and even harming their children.
The power of smoking is incredible in terms of its ability to keep people addicted. My grandfather passed away from lung cancer, a smoker for much of his life. My mum, fortunately still with us, suffered various forms of cancer throughout her life, potentially caused by smoking amongst other issues. So I'm very passionate that we do all we can and continue to be a leader in smoking cessation. But as I think we know the evidence, the evidence is clear.
We've had clear marketing, marketing campaigns, the images on the front of cigarette packages have been there for some time. The horrific images which now I think almost people become numb to and turn away from that power alone is not enough to get to where we want to be. Personal responsibility arguments, which are often used by people, and the libertarian or far right perspective. The Reform Party's been mentioned today. We know personal responsibility is not enough. And throughout the history of of the crusade to end smoking, public health measures have proved the doubters wrong time and time again.
And we've achieved this historic milestone. As the ONS data outlines, that we've now fallen below 10% prevalence to fewer than 1 in 10 people in the UK smoking for the first time. And I think we do have to recognise that this has largely been a cross-party mission for for some time now. Positively, we had the Right Honourable member for Richmond and Northallerton leading the campaign when he was Prime Minister and proposing ambitious legislation, but I would say I think there is a risk that we are seeing that cross-party consensus evaporate.
As has been mentioned, the Reform Party and their relationship with Big Tobacco, and it is unfortunate that more recently the same party in the opposition party has had three votes on these issues, has not found it possible to get a consensus on the legislation coming before us, and I hope that will change as we move forward, because we all know the difference that this makes. After stopping smoking within 20 minutes, blood pressure resumes to normal levels within 20 minutes.
Within eight hours, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the blood reduce by half and oxygen returns to normal 2 to 12 weeks. Your circulation improves in 3 to 9 months. Coughing and wheezing problems fade away, and lung function increases by 10% in 12 weeks. In five years, the risk of heart attack falls to about half compared to a person who still smoking. And in ten years, the risk of lung cancer falls to half of that of a smoker, and the risk of heart attack falls to the same as someone who's never smoked.
I think those are powerful figures that show that it is never too late to stop smoking. It is never too late to see the health benefits, and we have to sustain the progress we've made. And the last 10%, it is harder, and it is fundamentally more expensive than the first 10%. And as has been said, there is also a social justice and element to this campaign. It goes beyond just finance and it goes beyond just public health.
As as ash data has shown, smoking pushes just under half a million households into poverty, including 137,000 children. And we know that last 10%, and I've seen it in my work in my constituency, will often have complex lives. Experiencing deprivation, will have mental health issues. We'll often have drug and alcohol issues alongside smoking. And so we need targeted and specific outreach to support these people to quit smoking. I've met the fantastic women who run the Hillingdon Stop Smoking service, and they've talked passionately about the work they do providing incentives, support, nicotine products, vapes, alternatives which are now on the market.
But that outreach is ever more expensive. The closer we get to eliminating smoking in this country. So with the limited time we've got available, I'd just like to make a pitch to the minister that we do look to reinvest tobacco, tobacco duty, revenue directly into stop smoking services. And we do I do support calls has been raised already for a specific levy on the profits of tobacco companies that is targeted and reinvested into stop smoking services.
The public health case is clear. The economic case is clear. I make the moral case is clear. We have to do more, and we have to become the first country in the world to become smoke free. Thank you.
15:55
15:55
15:55
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Are honored to serve on your Chairship. And I commend the honourable members for Harrow East and the City of Durham for bringing this very timely and important debate forward about progress for a smoke free Britain. And I also welcome the Minister to our place and declare an interest as the chair of the Responsible Vaping Appg. I made the draft decision slightly older than the unique exposure the honourable member for Strangford had at 16 to pick up a cigarette at a party.
I managed to progress the point relatively early in life where I am no longer a smoker, but that was due to the availability of alternatives, not because of willpower, overcoming the strong addiction to nicotine that quickly took hold after that juvenile mistake. So when we talk about ending smoking and addiction, we need to talk about how to enable effective off ramps for those who are addicted to nicotine. It was actually great. When I visited one of the specialist retailers in Falkirk High Street, that they had a carbon monoxide test, which checks how much carbon monoxide is in your lungs and mine has returned to relatively normal.
But for many of my constituents who face preventable smoking, illness face substantially worse outcomes because they have not been given that effective off ramp in their quit journey. Those who are suffering from COPD, lung cancer, heart failure and all other types of preventable illness are those who I'm thinking about in this debate, diminishing that harm must continue to be our focus as we seek to sustain the progress that we have seen that has enabled a significant fall in smoking rates.
There is no other legal product that is sold that does the same amount of damage as tobacco, and I wholly support the government's Tobacco and Vapes bill generational ban, which will cut those off who are going to turn 18 just in January from ever being able to be added to the 4.9 million smokers that we have in our country. My contribution in the short term I have in this debate will be focused on the simple argument that if we seek to achieve a smoke free Britain, we should not seek to prematurely regulate out of existence any of the tools that are helping to combat tobacco smoking.
Occasionally, rhetoric on this topic has made an equivalence between vaping and smoking, because we are rightly concerned in this country about youth uptake of any nicotine products. Will I agree with the instinct I must warn against the march towards an arbitrary equivalence of regulation between tobacco and vapes. We know from the data that the vast majority of vape use is amongst either ex-smokers or current smokers, with 33.8% of current smokers vaping daily or occasionally in 20.7% of ex-smokers, compared to only 2.9% of those who have never smoked.
We also know from established public health data that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, yet in no small part, I believe, due to the subsequent emerging moralistic tone of the debate that we have had around vaping, around 90% of smokers still do not know that vaping is substantially less harmful for them. The current government consultation that closed on vaping flavours, if we were to fully ban flavour or significantly restrict its availability, may inadvertently limit the effectiveness of our most effective smoking cessation tool.
Ash data indicates that 14% of Ex-smoking adult vapers will return to smoking if flavours were restricted in. Over 70% of vapers say that flavour variety helps them quit and most crucially, sustain their efforts to quit. I would appreciate an update from the Minister in summing up about how the government's response to the consultation will retain the right balance in flavours, enabling flavours to be included. As vaping is a quit aid. I welcome that this is a distinct consultation from packaging, display and appearance, because far too much of the debate as the Bill was progressing, I believe, made an equivalence between the appearance and names of vapes rather than the value of flavours to smokers who are seeking to quit.
We have tacitly acknowledged that vapes are important in ensuring a smoke free Britain, because we can see the very successful swap to stop scheme being overzealous in curtailing the variety of products that are available to those seeking to access those services may undercut the sustainable viability of the effort. I sponsored an amendment which I think could be helpful in the Minister using our tools, with my honourable friend from Newcastle upon East and Wallsend during the progression of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which would introduce age gating technology into vapes.
This would have practically addressed the concerns about youth vaping members have while retaining the benefits of smoking cessation, as this technology, especially in the United States, is achieving more mass adoption. I would be very interested to see how the minister thinks that that could be utilised under the powers available to her in the act. I do think that when we talk about shops, especially in this debate as well, these are the worst practices we are seeing amongst shops who would not think twice about selling to underage people.
Similar age related products, whether it be alcohol, fireworks or any other age grade products on the display ban, I do believe that restrictions on what can be displayed at the shop front could inadvertently harm specialist and bespoke retailers more than the shops that I believe we are attempting to tackle here. I think that we need a full, full list of available specialist retailers to ensure that we can support smoking cessation efforts and, as the Minister's predecessor put in the debate, I think very well.
If you do not smoke, do not vape. But if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far more preferable choice, and that regulation that is currently going through should follow that principle. Thank you. Mr..
I managed to progress the point relatively early in life where I am no longer a smoker, but that was due to the availability of alternatives, not because of willpower, overcoming the strong addiction to nicotine that quickly took hold after that juvenile mistake. So when we talk about ending smoking and addiction, we need to talk about how to enable effective off ramps for those who are addicted to nicotine. It was actually great. When I visited one of the specialist retailers in Falkirk High Street, that they had a carbon monoxide test, which checks how much carbon monoxide is in your lungs and mine has returned to relatively normal.
But for many of my constituents who face preventable smoking, illness face substantially worse outcomes because they have not been given that effective off ramp in their quit journey. Those who are suffering from COPD, lung cancer, heart failure and all other types of preventable illness are those who I'm thinking about in this debate, diminishing that harm must continue to be our focus as we seek to sustain the progress that we have seen that has enabled a significant fall in smoking rates.
There is no other legal product that is sold that does the same amount of damage as tobacco, and I wholly support the government's Tobacco and Vapes bill generational ban, which will cut those off who are going to turn 18 just in January from ever being able to be added to the 4.9 million smokers that we have in our country. My contribution in the short term I have in this debate will be focused on the simple argument that if we seek to achieve a smoke free Britain, we should not seek to prematurely regulate out of existence any of the tools that are helping to combat tobacco smoking.
Occasionally, rhetoric on this topic has made an equivalence between vaping and smoking, because we are rightly concerned in this country about youth uptake of any nicotine products. Will I agree with the instinct I must warn against the march towards an arbitrary equivalence of regulation between tobacco and vapes. We know from the data that the vast majority of vape use is amongst either ex-smokers or current smokers, with 33.8% of current smokers vaping daily or occasionally in 20.7% of ex-smokers, compared to only 2.9% of those who have never smoked.
We also know from established public health data that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, yet in no small part, I believe, due to the subsequent emerging moralistic tone of the debate that we have had around vaping, around 90% of smokers still do not know that vaping is substantially less harmful for them. The current government consultation that closed on vaping flavours, if we were to fully ban flavour or significantly restrict its availability, may inadvertently limit the effectiveness of our most effective smoking cessation tool.
Ash data indicates that 14% of Ex-smoking adult vapers will return to smoking if flavours were restricted in. Over 70% of vapers say that flavour variety helps them quit and most crucially, sustain their efforts to quit. I would appreciate an update from the Minister in summing up about how the government's response to the consultation will retain the right balance in flavours, enabling flavours to be included. As vaping is a quit aid. I welcome that this is a distinct consultation from packaging, display and appearance, because far too much of the debate as the Bill was progressing, I believe, made an equivalence between the appearance and names of vapes rather than the value of flavours to smokers who are seeking to quit.
We have tacitly acknowledged that vapes are important in ensuring a smoke free Britain, because we can see the very successful swap to stop scheme being overzealous in curtailing the variety of products that are available to those seeking to access those services may undercut the sustainable viability of the effort. I sponsored an amendment which I think could be helpful in the Minister using our tools, with my honourable friend from Newcastle upon East and Wallsend during the progression of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which would introduce age gating technology into vapes.
This would have practically addressed the concerns about youth vaping members have while retaining the benefits of smoking cessation, as this technology, especially in the United States, is achieving more mass adoption. I would be very interested to see how the minister thinks that that could be utilised under the powers available to her in the act. I do think that when we talk about shops, especially in this debate as well, these are the worst practices we are seeing amongst shops who would not think twice about selling to underage people.
Similar age related products, whether it be alcohol, fireworks or any other age grade products on the display ban, I do believe that restrictions on what can be displayed at the shop front could inadvertently harm specialist and bespoke retailers more than the shops that I believe we are attempting to tackle here. I think that we need a full, full list of available specialist retailers to ensure that we can support smoking cessation efforts and, as the Minister's predecessor put in the debate, I think very well.
If you do not smoke, do not vape. But if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far more preferable choice, and that regulation that is currently going through should follow that principle. Thank you. Mr..
16:00
16:00
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Vaz, and I thank the honourable member for Harrow East and City of Durham for securing this debate. Tackling cancer must be a national priority. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer, often caused by smoking and accounting for around 35,000 deaths every year. Approximately 1 in 5 cancer fatalities, causing suffering and heartbreaking communities across the country. I know firsthand the impact that smoking can have.
My father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking around the age of 14. It was fashionable. Everybody did it. And serving in the Second World War, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He couldn't give them up. He continued smoking for the rest of his life, often 60 plus a day, and it eventually killed him at the very early age of 63.
That is why, for me, the ambition of a smoke free Britain is so important. For that reason, I welcome the Tobacco and Vapes Act when it passed earlier this year. The act introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the 1st of January. 2009. It says there. I'm not sure that's right, meaning future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. This is particularly important because while overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14 to 18% since 2023.
The Act is an important step forward to try to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking. However, legislation alone is not enough. Experts have quite rightly raised concerns about enforcement , and the decade of cuts to public health under the last government have impeded smoking cessation services, the 2022 Khan Review warned that without further action, England would miss its smokefree target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas in the country not becoming smoke free until 2024.
That is why Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country, claiming around 85 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer, heart and cardiovascular disease. Smoking is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and kills up to two thirds of its long term users.
Smoking is also the leading cause of lung cancer, and too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests also revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. These delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four weeks, delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates for lung cancer patients.
Early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can be the difference between life and death. Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the government's National Cancer Plan, the ambition to meet all cancer waiting times standards by 2029 is positive, including all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, which is a target my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been calling for for some time, and I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but this is a massive ask due to the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses, the Liberal Democrats would recruit 3000 additional cancer nurses, effectively doubling the current workforce.
Will the government commit to doing this? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced. These measures would help tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking related diseases. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce smoking rates and the harm they cause.
This is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society an estimated £44.8 billion annually through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking related fires. These costs far outweigh the revenue generated through tobacco taxation of 7.5 billion a year. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds. Finally, a smoke free Britain should be an ambition shared across the house reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high quality treatment.
Our goals that should transcend party politics. To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the minister. Could she provide an update on progress towards offering opt out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care, and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers quit? And can the Minister also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament, and that the ring fence around the public health grant will remain in place? Thank you very much.
My father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking around the age of 14. It was fashionable. Everybody did it. And serving in the Second World War, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He couldn't give them up. He continued smoking for the rest of his life, often 60 plus a day, and it eventually killed him at the very early age of 63.
That is why, for me, the ambition of a smoke free Britain is so important. For that reason, I welcome the Tobacco and Vapes Act when it passed earlier this year. The act introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the 1st of January. 2009. It says there. I'm not sure that's right, meaning future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. This is particularly important because while overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14 to 18% since 2023.
The Act is an important step forward to try to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking. However, legislation alone is not enough. Experts have quite rightly raised concerns about enforcement , and the decade of cuts to public health under the last government have impeded smoking cessation services, the 2022 Khan Review warned that without further action, England would miss its smokefree target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas in the country not becoming smoke free until 2024.
That is why Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country, claiming around 85 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer, heart and cardiovascular disease. Smoking is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and kills up to two thirds of its long term users.
Smoking is also the leading cause of lung cancer, and too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests also revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. These delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four weeks, delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates for lung cancer patients.
Early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can be the difference between life and death. Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the government's National Cancer Plan, the ambition to meet all cancer waiting times standards by 2029 is positive, including all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, which is a target my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been calling for for some time, and I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but this is a massive ask due to the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses, the Liberal Democrats would recruit 3000 additional cancer nurses, effectively doubling the current workforce.
Will the government commit to doing this? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced. These measures would help tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking related diseases. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce smoking rates and the harm they cause.
This is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society an estimated £44.8 billion annually through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking related fires. These costs far outweigh the revenue generated through tobacco taxation of 7.5 billion a year. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds. Finally, a smoke free Britain should be an ambition shared across the house reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high quality treatment.
Our goals that should transcend party politics. To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the minister. Could she provide an update on progress towards offering opt out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care, and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers quit? And can the Minister also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament, and that the ring fence around the public health grant will remain in place? Thank you very much.
16:07
16:07
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, Miss Vaz. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for Harrow East and the honourable member for the City of Durham for securing this debate. And I want to thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this issue. For many, many years now, smoking remains the single largest preventable cause of cancer, and the prize for tackling it is enormous fewer deaths, shorter waiting lists and, of course, a healthier country.
We on these benches will support action that works, and we will hold the government to account on delivering it. As has been mentioned, this is a subject that has found common ground throughout the House, and I'm glad to put on record my thanks and my party's appreciation to the government for carrying a conservative bill over the line, when, for what was most of us was a rather unexpected general election interrupted progress. So let me start on that record.
The ambition for England to be smoke free, smoke free by 2030 was set under a conservative government in 2019. The Khan Review, commissioned by a conservative health secretary, called for investment in a smoke free 2030 programme, a rising age of sale, vaping as a substitute for smoking and a stop smoking support at the heart of the NHS. In 2023 we committed an extra £70 million a year to local stop smoking services, more than doubling annual spend to £138 million.
Swap to stop gave almost 1 in 5 smokers in England a vape starter kit. Alongside behavioural support, we put stop Smoking advisors in maternity units and introduced incentives for pregnant smokers, and smoking at time of delivery is now at an all time low. We began targeted lung cancer screening and before the election, as I said, we published the tobacco and vape spell. I sat on that bill committee alongside the honourable member for Falkirk and the honourable member for the City of Durham.
And so we remember the cross-party consensus that we had for most of that Bill, and the outcome was that anyone born on or after the 1st of January 2009 will never be legally allowed to continue to buy tobacco. We are proud of that and we want it to work. But a law on the statute book does not cut smoking rates by itself. What happens next is what counts. And I want to raise five points with the minister.
First of all, the target now, the office for National Statistics tells us that 9.8% of adults smoked in 2025, around 4.9 million people, down from 10.6 the year before. Of course, that's welcome, but smoke free in definition means means below 5%. And on this trajectory, unfortunately, the 2030 target will be missed. Now, I don't say that to point score, but candour matters. Canada has set an under 5% by 2035 and Belgium and the Netherlands, and under 5% by 2040, with interim targets and goals for young people.
Now, if the government accepts the office for National Statistics figures and that the 2030 target will be missed, I think it should say so. Set a new date and publish an outline plan. Cancer research UK and Ash both want a new roadmap and tobacco control plan. So will the Minister commit to one and when? Secondly, around support to quit? Ash has warned that hospitals stop smoking, services are being squeezed as budgets are reduced.
The government promised opt out cessation support in routine hospital care. So where is it? The National Cancer Plan lists implementing the act as a key action and promises to fund stop smoking services, but it says very little on the delivery. A target without a funded service is an aspiration, not a policy, and it must reach the people who need it most. In committee, I noted that manual and routine workers are 2.6 times more likely to smoke than managers.
Ash now points to social housing, the economically inactive people with no qualifications and those with poor mental health. So how will the government ensure these gains are shared? Thirdly, around enforcement and proportionality, ministers are bringing in a ban on free samples from the 29th of October, a marketing and sponsorship ban from June of next year. Why did wider standardised packaging flavour and design rules, licensing, planning permission for vape shops and extended smoke free places? All of that regulation lands on trading standards and councils now in committee.
My hon. Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked Trading Standards witnesses whether they would have the resources. I warned that online and cross-border sales are the hardest to police. A rule that is not enforced isn't really a rule. So what extra resources will trading standards receive and when? Rules also must be proportionate? The government has taken wide powers to extend smoke free places. My hon.
Friend's amendment from Sleaford and North Hykeham amendment to limit them to places with a provable significant risk to public health was unfortunately rejected in committee. I asked the then minister for a firm commitment on outdoor hospitality, and unfortunately, the response that essentially said it might not be the right time is not a decent response. Pubs and restaurants are under all sorts of real pressure. So will the minister confirm that they are not in scope in terms of their outside seating? Fourth, around vaping, we have always backed vaping as a route out of smoking for adults, as has been said by the honourable member for Newcastle upon Tyne East in committee, I said that what worries me most for our children is vapes.
But the government can hold both positions at once, and the disposable vape ban in force since June of last year was a step towards that. Now, ash suggests disposable use has fallen significantly, which is of course, encouraging. Yet ministers have said very little about what they found from this, as the government reviews planning rules and business rates for vape shops, it must be about protecting children. That is at the former foremost. So, for example, on flavours, I would urge the minister to look hard at restricting the names that appeal to children.
We talked about unicorn milk endlessly in committee and the like before removing options that help adults quit. So I would ask her to revisit the case made by my hon. Friend for South Northamptonshire for exempting mental health settings from the vape vending machines ban. Finally, on lung health, respiratory disease is the third most common cause of death in the UK, yet there is no modern service framework for it. My hon.
Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tabled an amendment to the health Bill requiring one within 18 months. Unfortunately, government ministers rejected it. Asthma and lung UK have called for exactly this kind of mission for lung health. The government have also committed to a full rollout of lung cancer screening by 2030, a programme that our party started. So I ask, is it on track and is it funded? Miss Vaz, I want to close by paying tribute to a constituent, Yolanda, a volunteer for Cancer research in my community, who has given her time to raise awareness of these issues.
She lost her husband and I put on my record on record. My condolences and my thanks is people like her are working across our constituencies who remind us why the delivery of this is so important and why it matters. So finally, I ask the minister, will she publish a new target and plan? Will she fund hospital smoking services, stop smoking services and deliver opt out support? Will she resource trading standards rule out the hospitality element, report on the disposable vapes, ban and reconsider a framework for respiratory disease.
We all want this act to succeed, and I will support her in any way I can to deliver it.
We on these benches will support action that works, and we will hold the government to account on delivering it. As has been mentioned, this is a subject that has found common ground throughout the House, and I'm glad to put on record my thanks and my party's appreciation to the government for carrying a conservative bill over the line, when, for what was most of us was a rather unexpected general election interrupted progress. So let me start on that record.
The ambition for England to be smoke free, smoke free by 2030 was set under a conservative government in 2019. The Khan Review, commissioned by a conservative health secretary, called for investment in a smoke free 2030 programme, a rising age of sale, vaping as a substitute for smoking and a stop smoking support at the heart of the NHS. In 2023 we committed an extra £70 million a year to local stop smoking services, more than doubling annual spend to £138 million.
Swap to stop gave almost 1 in 5 smokers in England a vape starter kit. Alongside behavioural support, we put stop Smoking advisors in maternity units and introduced incentives for pregnant smokers, and smoking at time of delivery is now at an all time low. We began targeted lung cancer screening and before the election, as I said, we published the tobacco and vape spell. I sat on that bill committee alongside the honourable member for Falkirk and the honourable member for the City of Durham.
And so we remember the cross-party consensus that we had for most of that Bill, and the outcome was that anyone born on or after the 1st of January 2009 will never be legally allowed to continue to buy tobacco. We are proud of that and we want it to work. But a law on the statute book does not cut smoking rates by itself. What happens next is what counts. And I want to raise five points with the minister.
First of all, the target now, the office for National Statistics tells us that 9.8% of adults smoked in 2025, around 4.9 million people, down from 10.6 the year before. Of course, that's welcome, but smoke free in definition means means below 5%. And on this trajectory, unfortunately, the 2030 target will be missed. Now, I don't say that to point score, but candour matters. Canada has set an under 5% by 2035 and Belgium and the Netherlands, and under 5% by 2040, with interim targets and goals for young people.
Now, if the government accepts the office for National Statistics figures and that the 2030 target will be missed, I think it should say so. Set a new date and publish an outline plan. Cancer research UK and Ash both want a new roadmap and tobacco control plan. So will the Minister commit to one and when? Secondly, around support to quit? Ash has warned that hospitals stop smoking, services are being squeezed as budgets are reduced.
The government promised opt out cessation support in routine hospital care. So where is it? The National Cancer Plan lists implementing the act as a key action and promises to fund stop smoking services, but it says very little on the delivery. A target without a funded service is an aspiration, not a policy, and it must reach the people who need it most. In committee, I noted that manual and routine workers are 2.6 times more likely to smoke than managers.
Ash now points to social housing, the economically inactive people with no qualifications and those with poor mental health. So how will the government ensure these gains are shared? Thirdly, around enforcement and proportionality, ministers are bringing in a ban on free samples from the 29th of October, a marketing and sponsorship ban from June of next year. Why did wider standardised packaging flavour and design rules, licensing, planning permission for vape shops and extended smoke free places? All of that regulation lands on trading standards and councils now in committee.
My hon. Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked Trading Standards witnesses whether they would have the resources. I warned that online and cross-border sales are the hardest to police. A rule that is not enforced isn't really a rule. So what extra resources will trading standards receive and when? Rules also must be proportionate? The government has taken wide powers to extend smoke free places. My hon.
Friend's amendment from Sleaford and North Hykeham amendment to limit them to places with a provable significant risk to public health was unfortunately rejected in committee. I asked the then minister for a firm commitment on outdoor hospitality, and unfortunately, the response that essentially said it might not be the right time is not a decent response. Pubs and restaurants are under all sorts of real pressure. So will the minister confirm that they are not in scope in terms of their outside seating? Fourth, around vaping, we have always backed vaping as a route out of smoking for adults, as has been said by the honourable member for Newcastle upon Tyne East in committee, I said that what worries me most for our children is vapes.
But the government can hold both positions at once, and the disposable vape ban in force since June of last year was a step towards that. Now, ash suggests disposable use has fallen significantly, which is of course, encouraging. Yet ministers have said very little about what they found from this, as the government reviews planning rules and business rates for vape shops, it must be about protecting children. That is at the former foremost. So, for example, on flavours, I would urge the minister to look hard at restricting the names that appeal to children.
We talked about unicorn milk endlessly in committee and the like before removing options that help adults quit. So I would ask her to revisit the case made by my hon. Friend for South Northamptonshire for exempting mental health settings from the vape vending machines ban. Finally, on lung health, respiratory disease is the third most common cause of death in the UK, yet there is no modern service framework for it. My hon.
Friend the member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tabled an amendment to the health Bill requiring one within 18 months. Unfortunately, government ministers rejected it. Asthma and lung UK have called for exactly this kind of mission for lung health. The government have also committed to a full rollout of lung cancer screening by 2030, a programme that our party started. So I ask, is it on track and is it funded? Miss Vaz, I want to close by paying tribute to a constituent, Yolanda, a volunteer for Cancer research in my community, who has given her time to raise awareness of these issues.
She lost her husband and I put on my record on record. My condolences and my thanks is people like her are working across our constituencies who remind us why the delivery of this is so important and why it matters. So finally, I ask the minister, will she publish a new target and plan? Will she fund hospital smoking services, stop smoking services and deliver opt out support? Will she resource trading standards rule out the hospitality element, report on the disposable vapes, ban and reconsider a framework for respiratory disease.
We all want this act to succeed, and I will support her in any way I can to deliver it.
16:14
16:14
16:14
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Afternoon, Mrs. Vaz. And I want to start by congratulating the honourable members for Harrow East and my hon. Friend the member for the City of Durham on securing this important debate, and also for their steadfast advocacy in support of creating a smoke free generation. And I am grateful to all honourable and right honourable members who have contributed today. I also note that the two honourable members co-chaired the Appg on smoking and health, and are obviously a formidable duo, and I am not surprised that they were able to secure this debate, which I understand was granted by the chair and the members of the backbench backbench committee obviously making a very powerful case.
The honourable member for Harrow East and the City of Durham and other honourable members raised a number of questions this afternoon, which I will try and address in my remarks, but I would also be very pleased to attend a session of the Appg to discuss these issues further, and I think it's really important the cross-party nature of this debate and the work that has gone on by previous governments. It's really important that we we carry on with that, and I do want to pay tribute to the work of the previous government and the previous Prime Minister in the work he did in this particular area, ably assisted by the honourable member.
We heard from the honourable member for Strangford, who told us about the rather drastic action of his grandfather to stop him and to ensure that the honourable member remains smoke free throughout his life. My honourable friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend spoke about the role of vapes in helping people quit smoking, but also very importantly, she talked about the illicit products and traders and the role of organised crime that is funded, is funded through those those products. My honourable friend for Newport West and ES Lewin again talked about her professional experience as a physiotherapist and the challenges that are faced, particularly in Wales.
My hon. Friend for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about having grown up in a family of smokers, that he was very anti-smoking and set out. I thought really clearly, the health benefits of giving up smoking and how quickly those health benefits can materialise. My hon. Friend for Falkirk talked about vapes and chairs the Appg and again made the case for vapes in helping people smoke, cease smoking and I again very happy to attend and talk to the Appg if that would be helpful.
The honourable member who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, I think, made a very personal statement at the beginning about the role that smoking had played in his family and with his dad, and dying at such a relatively young age. And of course, the opposition spokesperson set out the work of previous governments and asked a series of questions which I will try and address. So I think we are all agreed that tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking is the single most entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death in the UK.
It is responsible for around 75,000 deaths each year. Smoking reduces life expectancy by an average of ten years, and almost every minute of every day somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking related harm. Smoking contributes to a range of serious long term conditions, including stroke, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, asthma and complications during pregnancy. The cost of smoking, though, is not just measured in lost lives and poor health, there are significant economic costs.
Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS and social care system £3 billion annually, resources that could otherwise be used to fund millions more appointments, scans and operations. Now I know in terms of health disparities, smoking also remains one of the greatest drivers of health inequalities in this country, with the burden falling disproportionately on our most disadvantaged communities and the the disparities are stark. For example, the number of women who smoke at the time of delivery varies drastically according to deprivation, from 12% in Havering, 8% in Kingston upon Hull, where my constituency is compared with less than 1% in Richmond upon Thames.
These are not merely statistics. They represent real families, real communities and real children whose health and life chances are being diminished by tobacco addiction. So turning to the smoke free generation, it is a real privilege to have responsibility for implementing the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act. As many members will be aware, the act will create a smoke free generation by ending the sale of tobacco products to future generations across the UK. In practical terms, that means that anyone who has turned or is turning 17 this year will never legally be sold tobacco, and over the next 50 years, it will save tens of thousands of lives and could boost the economy by up to £48 billion.
Since Royal Assent, the department has made significant progress towards implementation of the act. We have laid enabling legislation in Parliament, engaged extensively with stakeholders across public health and the retail sector, published detailed guidance and we are in the process of developing a nationwide awareness campaign to inform the public, and we are expecting it to be rolled out in November, with a particular focus on areas of high smoking rates. The honourable gentleman for Harrow East asked about what progress has been made on the manifesto pledge around an opt out, smoking in opt out, smoking cessation in all routine care.
So I do want to address that, but I just want to say this first, protecting future generations through our smoke free, sorry, protecting future generations through our smoke free generation must go hand in hand with helping current smokers to quit. So through the Public health grant, we have ring fenced a record investment of £153 million each year, specifically for local stop smoking services, with funding targeted towards towards those areas with the highest smoking rates. And as I said, the honourable member for Harrow East and my honourable friend for the City of Durham raised this question about services and opt out.
So these services are currently available in 99% of maternity services and 92% of inpatient services. On top of this, Icbs have access to funding for tobacco dependence treatment services. In these particular settings. Turning to youth vaping because a lot of comment was made about this this afternoon. So we know that vapes can play an effective role in helping adults adult smokers quit. And as my honourable friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend and my honourable friend for Falkirk stated in their remarks.
But young people and adults who do not smoke should never vape and that's because we know they're not harm free and the longer term harms are still unknown. So we are taking firm action to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. This is important given 1,000,011 to 17 year olds have tried vaping this year. We have also banned single use vapes, and a vaping product duty is now in force. From the 29th of October, we are introducing a ban on vape vending machines, banning free distribution and extending the age of sale to 18 to all nicotine and vaping products, including nicotine free vapes.
The act also introduces a comprehensive ban on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. We intend to bring this into force across the UK from the 1st of June 2027. My honourable friend for Falkirk asked how we will make sure how we will make sure striving for a smoke free generation means we don't ban key smoking cessation tools like vapes, and the measures consulted on have been carefully assessed to ensure the right balance between protecting children, whilst ensuring adult smokers can still access vapes in to quit smoking.
In terms of upcoming policy changes. In May, we concluded our consultation on extending smoke free places to certain outdoor settings and introducing vape free places. Our consultation on proposals to reduce the appeal of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products closed on the 2nd of October. We are now carefully considering the responses as we develop effective and proportionate policies that continue to protect public health. Turning to enforcement to ensure measures in this act are effective, we are providing up to £30 million a year for enforcement agencies until 2829.
This will support legitimate businesses and enable stronger enforcement against those who break the law. The Tobacco and Vapes Act also provides new powers for enforcers. New fixed penalty notices come into force on 29th October, supporting trading standards to crack down on retailers who break the rules. The act also provides powers to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco vapes and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and expand the retail registration scheme in Scotland to help my hon.
Friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend, who asked the question. We intend to consult on these issues next year. Several honourable members have asked about what comes next beyond the implementation of the smoke free generation measures on the 1st of January, and for a longer term roadmap for tobacco control and the introduction of a polluter pays levy, we share the ambition to drive down smoking rates. Indeed, new figures, as has already been said, published just last week, show that smoking prevalence across the UK has fallen below 10% for the first time to 9.8%.
That is a significant milestone and demonstrates the progress we are making, but we must not mistake progress for completion. Around 4.9 million adults across the UK still smoke and we remain determined to go further. Our immediate priority is delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Act successfully and ensuring that these landmark reforms achieve their full potential. This legislation represents the most significant advance in tobacco control in a generation, and getting implementation right will deliver benefits for decades to come.
But I am very happy to look at all the issues and suggestions that have been made by honourable and right honourable members today, and perhaps we can discuss those at the Appg. So from supporting smokers to quit protecting children from nicotine addiction, strengthening enforcement and creating a smoke free generation, the Tobacco and Vapes Act represents one of the most significant public health reforms of our time. Future generations will look back on this moment as a defining milestone in public health.
It is legislation that will save lives, reduce inequalities, improve health outcomes and create a fairer, healthier future for communities across the United Kingdom.
The honourable member for Harrow East and the City of Durham and other honourable members raised a number of questions this afternoon, which I will try and address in my remarks, but I would also be very pleased to attend a session of the Appg to discuss these issues further, and I think it's really important the cross-party nature of this debate and the work that has gone on by previous governments. It's really important that we we carry on with that, and I do want to pay tribute to the work of the previous government and the previous Prime Minister in the work he did in this particular area, ably assisted by the honourable member.
We heard from the honourable member for Strangford, who told us about the rather drastic action of his grandfather to stop him and to ensure that the honourable member remains smoke free throughout his life. My honourable friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend spoke about the role of vapes in helping people quit smoking, but also very importantly, she talked about the illicit products and traders and the role of organised crime that is funded, is funded through those those products. My honourable friend for Newport West and ES Lewin again talked about her professional experience as a physiotherapist and the challenges that are faced, particularly in Wales.
My hon. Friend for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about having grown up in a family of smokers, that he was very anti-smoking and set out. I thought really clearly, the health benefits of giving up smoking and how quickly those health benefits can materialise. My hon. Friend for Falkirk talked about vapes and chairs the Appg and again made the case for vapes in helping people smoke, cease smoking and I again very happy to attend and talk to the Appg if that would be helpful.
The honourable member who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, I think, made a very personal statement at the beginning about the role that smoking had played in his family and with his dad, and dying at such a relatively young age. And of course, the opposition spokesperson set out the work of previous governments and asked a series of questions which I will try and address. So I think we are all agreed that tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking is the single most entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death in the UK.
It is responsible for around 75,000 deaths each year. Smoking reduces life expectancy by an average of ten years, and almost every minute of every day somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking related harm. Smoking contributes to a range of serious long term conditions, including stroke, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, asthma and complications during pregnancy. The cost of smoking, though, is not just measured in lost lives and poor health, there are significant economic costs.
Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS and social care system £3 billion annually, resources that could otherwise be used to fund millions more appointments, scans and operations. Now I know in terms of health disparities, smoking also remains one of the greatest drivers of health inequalities in this country, with the burden falling disproportionately on our most disadvantaged communities and the the disparities are stark. For example, the number of women who smoke at the time of delivery varies drastically according to deprivation, from 12% in Havering, 8% in Kingston upon Hull, where my constituency is compared with less than 1% in Richmond upon Thames.
These are not merely statistics. They represent real families, real communities and real children whose health and life chances are being diminished by tobacco addiction. So turning to the smoke free generation, it is a real privilege to have responsibility for implementing the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act. As many members will be aware, the act will create a smoke free generation by ending the sale of tobacco products to future generations across the UK. In practical terms, that means that anyone who has turned or is turning 17 this year will never legally be sold tobacco, and over the next 50 years, it will save tens of thousands of lives and could boost the economy by up to £48 billion.
Since Royal Assent, the department has made significant progress towards implementation of the act. We have laid enabling legislation in Parliament, engaged extensively with stakeholders across public health and the retail sector, published detailed guidance and we are in the process of developing a nationwide awareness campaign to inform the public, and we are expecting it to be rolled out in November, with a particular focus on areas of high smoking rates. The honourable gentleman for Harrow East asked about what progress has been made on the manifesto pledge around an opt out, smoking in opt out, smoking cessation in all routine care.
So I do want to address that, but I just want to say this first, protecting future generations through our smoke free, sorry, protecting future generations through our smoke free generation must go hand in hand with helping current smokers to quit. So through the Public health grant, we have ring fenced a record investment of £153 million each year, specifically for local stop smoking services, with funding targeted towards towards those areas with the highest smoking rates. And as I said, the honourable member for Harrow East and my honourable friend for the City of Durham raised this question about services and opt out.
So these services are currently available in 99% of maternity services and 92% of inpatient services. On top of this, Icbs have access to funding for tobacco dependence treatment services. In these particular settings. Turning to youth vaping because a lot of comment was made about this this afternoon. So we know that vapes can play an effective role in helping adults adult smokers quit. And as my honourable friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend and my honourable friend for Falkirk stated in their remarks.
But young people and adults who do not smoke should never vape and that's because we know they're not harm free and the longer term harms are still unknown. So we are taking firm action to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. This is important given 1,000,011 to 17 year olds have tried vaping this year. We have also banned single use vapes, and a vaping product duty is now in force. From the 29th of October, we are introducing a ban on vape vending machines, banning free distribution and extending the age of sale to 18 to all nicotine and vaping products, including nicotine free vapes.
The act also introduces a comprehensive ban on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. We intend to bring this into force across the UK from the 1st of June 2027. My honourable friend for Falkirk asked how we will make sure how we will make sure striving for a smoke free generation means we don't ban key smoking cessation tools like vapes, and the measures consulted on have been carefully assessed to ensure the right balance between protecting children, whilst ensuring adult smokers can still access vapes in to quit smoking.
In terms of upcoming policy changes. In May, we concluded our consultation on extending smoke free places to certain outdoor settings and introducing vape free places. Our consultation on proposals to reduce the appeal of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products closed on the 2nd of October. We are now carefully considering the responses as we develop effective and proportionate policies that continue to protect public health. Turning to enforcement to ensure measures in this act are effective, we are providing up to £30 million a year for enforcement agencies until 2829.
This will support legitimate businesses and enable stronger enforcement against those who break the law. The Tobacco and Vapes Act also provides new powers for enforcers. New fixed penalty notices come into force on 29th October, supporting trading standards to crack down on retailers who break the rules. The act also provides powers to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco vapes and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and expand the retail registration scheme in Scotland to help my hon.
Friend for Newcastle East and Wallsend, who asked the question. We intend to consult on these issues next year. Several honourable members have asked about what comes next beyond the implementation of the smoke free generation measures on the 1st of January, and for a longer term roadmap for tobacco control and the introduction of a polluter pays levy, we share the ambition to drive down smoking rates. Indeed, new figures, as has already been said, published just last week, show that smoking prevalence across the UK has fallen below 10% for the first time to 9.8%.
That is a significant milestone and demonstrates the progress we are making, but we must not mistake progress for completion. Around 4.9 million adults across the UK still smoke and we remain determined to go further. Our immediate priority is delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Act successfully and ensuring that these landmark reforms achieve their full potential. This legislation represents the most significant advance in tobacco control in a generation, and getting implementation right will deliver benefits for decades to come.
But I am very happy to look at all the issues and suggestions that have been made by honourable and right honourable members today, and perhaps we can discuss those at the Appg. So from supporting smokers to quit protecting children from nicotine addiction, strengthening enforcement and creating a smoke free generation, the Tobacco and Vapes Act represents one of the most significant public health reforms of our time. Future generations will look back on this moment as a defining milestone in public health.
It is legislation that will save lives, reduce inequalities, improve health outcomes and create a fairer, healthier future for communities across the United Kingdom.
16:26
16:26
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. President. A pleasure to follow the minister and thank her for the reply to the debate, and thank colleagues from across the House in their contributions to this vitally important debate. I just say a couple of things, if I may, in answer to to some of the things that the minister said and colleagues have said, we have to be cautious about the position of vaping. We don't yet know about the long term impacts on health of vaping, but the first evidence is coming through that vaping does harm lungs.
It's the delivery mechanism that is used to deliver the vape that is the key, and we should be very cautious about that process. And I agree with the principle of if you smoke, then vaping is a means to give up. You should not. If you don't smoke, you shouldn't start vaping. And that message has to go across to our young people in particular, who I think are really harmed by this. The other thing I would just say is to colleagues, both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking in back in 1979.
The advice that they were given as young people was that smoking was healthy. And I think we have to remember that we have a duty to our next generation, that they don't go down the route of believing that vaping is healthy. And I agree completely that what we've done in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is to give as many hooks as possible for the public health Minister to utilise things to bring into measures as they can.
Can I suggest licensing is complex. It's going to take some time to introduce licensing, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't move forward on advertising and other measures so we can decouple those as we go. But Mrs. Voorhees, could I just say in finally, these debates have always been led from the back benches, and we've forced
It's the delivery mechanism that is used to deliver the vape that is the key, and we should be very cautious about that process. And I agree with the principle of if you smoke, then vaping is a means to give up. You should not. If you don't smoke, you shouldn't start vaping. And that message has to go across to our young people in particular, who I think are really harmed by this. The other thing I would just say is to colleagues, both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking in back in 1979.
The advice that they were given as young people was that smoking was healthy. And I think we have to remember that we have a duty to our next generation, that they don't go down the route of believing that vaping is healthy. And I agree completely that what we've done in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is to give as many hooks as possible for the public health Minister to utilise things to bring into measures as they can.
Can I suggest licensing is complex. It's going to take some time to introduce licensing, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't move forward on advertising and other measures so we can decouple those as we go. But Mrs. Voorhees, could I just say in finally, these debates have always been led from the back benches, and we've forced
16:28
16:28
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Members. We've got everyone in and the front bench. And we didn't have to suspend for the vote. So let me put the question that this House has considered progress towards a smoke free UK, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The sitting is suspended, adjourned even.