Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of this important Bill. Smoking is entirely harmful and there are no benefits. Cancer Research UK is clear that tobacco remains the single biggest cause of cancer in the UK, causing an estimated 125,000 deaths per year—one person every five minutes. On average, smokers lose 10 years of their life expectancy and face lifelong health complications.

Despite the protestations of tobacco companies, smoking also has a detrimental effect on our economy. Action on Smoking and Health estimates that the overall cost of productivity losses and health and care needs caused by smoking costs the UK a staggering £17.3 billion every year.

We have come a long way in recent decades in reducing smoking rates. The last Labour Government led the way on smoking harms, raising the legal smoking age to 18, banning cigarette advertising in shops and introducing the transformative ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces. It is now hard to recall just how society ever thought that smoke-filled restaurants, pubs and tube carriages were remotely acceptable.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not give way at this stage, I am afraid.

It is still the case that more than one in 10 adults—around 6.4 million people—are smokers. I wish to pay tribute to my constituent, Gower Tan. Gower began to smoke at the age of 13. His father was also a lifelong smoker and died early at the age of just 66 from lung cancer. This was devastating for Gower and his family and led him to give up smoking at the age of 40. Gower has since become a tireless campaigner for Cancer Research UK—first as an ambassador and more recently as part of the staff team. Gower and his family know as well as anyone the pain and heartache that smoking can cause and the deep sorrow that comes from knowing that the death of a loved one was preventable.

Like my hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State, I fully support the Bill’s measures to ban smoking for anyone born after 2009, freeing future generations from the health impacts of tobacco. I also welcome the Bill’s urgently needed measures to regulate advertising and restrict the availability of vapes to children and teenagers. We on the Labour Benches have been calling for action on this for a long time. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the advertising of vapes to children. One in five 11 to 15-year-olds in England used vapes in 2021, and under-age vaping has dramatically increased by 50% in the past three years. Five years ago, vaping was not a significant concern, but now it is raised with me in every school that I visit. Teachers are routinely having to manage the disruption in the classroom that addiction causes.

Vaping has a really important role in smoking cessation and that role should not be undermined by this legislation, but although vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it is not a harmless activity. Last year, 40 children were admitted to hospital with vaping-related issues. There is evidence of respiratory harm and impacts on mental health and concentration levels.

We can see the strategy of the vaping companies. They are seeking to secure future demand for their products by getting children addicted today. It is frankly absurd for e-cigarette manufacturers to claim that they are not targeting children. In displays across the country, brightly coloured advertising for vapes mimic popular brands and characters. Flavours such as gummy bears, skittles, tutti-frutti and cherry cola are clearly designed to appeal to children and vapes are being openly promoted to children on social media.

Although I support the Bill today, it would be remiss of me not to ask what has taken the Government so long. They have had repeated opportunities to introduce new regulations on the marketing of vapes. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) put forward an amendment in November 2021 to the Health and Care Bill to ban the branding of vapes that appeal to children, while the Electronic Cigarettes (Branding, Promotion and Advertising) Bill introduced last year would have banned e-cigarettes and vaping products from being advertised to appeal directly to children. These delays will have led to more children experimenting with e-cigarettes and becoming addicted to recreational vaping.

Today, we have a genuine opportunity to stops the harm of nicotine addiction and free future generations from the health impacts of smoking. We on the Labour Benches are clear that we will put the health of children and young people first. A Government who cannot command the support of their own MPs for a flagship piece of legislation should surely step aside, call a general election and allow someone else to do the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I believe it is a noble cause to encourage people to give up smoking or not to take it up in the first place, because we know that smoking is a very unhealthy habit and it is very costly, so I do appreciate the good intentions behind the Bill. There are some things in the Bill that I do agree with, but unfortunately I cannot support it, and I am going to outline why. It is basically about trusting adults to make their own decisions in life and to choose their own approach. I believe that should be our approach, and there have been some very good contributions so far on why that should be the case. Of course, all societies have rules and we have to live by them, but I believe that these rules are unnecessary.

This legislation will not stop children from smoking per se. It is aimed at them once they reach adult life. That takes me back to when I was a teenager, and I remember an elderly lady on one of the tills at a local supermarket used to accept seeing a set of car keys as an acceptable form of ID. Unsurprisingly, a lot of my friends started to own a set of car keys many years before they owned cars. However, I think we all appreciate the importance of preventing under-age sales. We need the robust enforcement of that, and of course prevention of the illegal tobacco trade, which not only deprives the Treasury of funds but can put people at risk of some very dangerous products. The same applies to vapes, and I have been working with the authorities locally to clamp down on places that sell them. I remember that once upon a time it was the pupils who hid behind the bike sheds to smoke, and then I remember as a teacher that, after the ban came in, which included staffrooms, it would normally be the teachers hiding there and trying to cadge a cigarette.

Labour Members have mentioned some of the previous bans that have come in and some of the actions the Labour Government took. I am old enough to remember when the ban on tobacco advertising came in, and there was of course an exemption for Formula 1. We have spoken a lot about vested interests. The boss of Formula 1 was of course a major Labour donor at the time, and it did secure that exemption. I would ask them whether they believe it was right to take its cash, and whether it was right to give that exemption. I would be very interested to hear the shadow Health Minister’s view on that later.

To take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), would a cut-off date for all cigarettes or smoking be easier to enforce than the current proposal, and why should some adults have fewer rights than others? We must also appreciate the role of vaping. As has been pointed out, Sweden is a world leader in this. It is down to 5.6%, and when a country gets down to the 5% target it is classed as smoke free. Yes, it used things such as snus, which was outlawed throughout the rest of the European Union. It had special exemptions, and I believe an opportunity has been missed over the years to use that to cut down on the number of smokers, but vaping has of course provided a highly effective alternative.

However, a principle is at stake today, and what I really want to speak about is the principle of one group of adults having rights that are different from those of other sets of adults. We can compare this to the right to vote over the years, whether under the Representation of the People Act 1918 or the further Act in 1928. Going back to 1884, 40% of men, mainly the poorest in society, did not have the right to vote. Later, when the vote was extended to all men over 21, women could vote only if they were over the age of 30, or if they or their husband had land with a rateable value of £5 or more. It was not until 1969 that the voting age was lowered to 18. I remember being elected as a councillor in Nottingham at the young age of 22, and it was not until 2006 that the age limit for that was changed to 18. Again, there were adults at that time who had different rights.

People have been treated differently on the basis of their religion over the years, such as whether they were a Catholic or a Protestant in the 1600s. We have had the Race Relations Act 1965, where we outlawed people being treated differently on the grounds of their colour, race or national origin. Then we had equal marriage, of which we have just celebrated 10 years, another example of where adults are equal before the law, to love who they wish and marry who they wish. I believe we are moving towards freedom, and that is a good thing: it is about giving more rights and more equality, not restricting it. The point is that the direction of travel has been about giving adults, whatever their background, the right to live their lives within the law as they wish so long as they are not impinging on the rights of others. That is the right direction, and the right thing to do. As Margaret Thatcher once said,

“when people are free to choose they choose freedom”.

But what next? A ban on alcohol, or a ban on takeaways? I declare an interest in both of those, but both of them are bad for us when not done responsibly. But we are adults, and these are our choices; these are not the state’s choices. We need to get back to trusting adults to make their own decisions in life. I do not like banning things as a rule—yes, there are always cases that we can make, but I do not believe the case has been made here yet.

We have already witnessed other nations dumping this idea, including New Zealand, and I do not believe the legislation in its current form will pass the test of time. I believe it is unenforceable. I absolutely support the intention to move towards a smoke-free generation, but I believe there is a better way, and that is why I will be voting against the Bill.

Down Syndrome Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Gideon]

My right hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. The integrated care boards will have a huge amount of responsibility for care across the board, and the understanding of the specific needs of those with Down syndrome requires a named lead. It is essential, because otherwise, sadly, the detail may get lost in the breadth of what the boards have to cover.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions education and ensuring that those with Down syndrome have access that is adequate for their needs, whether in a special school or a mainstream school. Does she agree that it is vital that these choices are offered and that parents and people are fully informed of what is available for them? It is important that we provide a choice that is the best for their needs and that we make sure it is available to them?

[Jo Gideon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the statutory authorities need to understand that the statutory duty in this Bill will require them to provide guidance and a level playing field for people with Down syndrome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lia Nici]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his passion about education. We have many conversations about it, although I was worried at one point that he was going to say that I was teaching in further education before he was born, which, worryingly, might actually be true. We will brush over that.

I urge employers to think about taking on people who have Down syndrome. As the Bill is so specifically about Down syndrome, it will allow the message to be communicated much more widely to employers.

There is another reason I feel that this is a landmark Bill. Let me use a metaphor. One of my first jobs when I was 18 was as a barmaid in a country pub not far from Grimsby called the King’s Head, in a little village called Keelby. In the 1980s, pubs were part of their communities. They still are now, although perhaps not as much, sadly. One resident of the village—I will not use his proper name, as I have not asked his family’s permission, but we will call him Bob—lived across the road from the pub. He came into the pub every night and was welcomed by everybody. He had his own special tankard hanging up. When Bob came in there was a particular orange juice that he liked to drink at a particular strength—I had to learn how he liked his drink—and he had a pint with everybody. How England is embracing people with Down syndrome with the Bill is very much like how Bob was embraced in the pub. He was greeted as an equal, and joined in conversations and played pub games. It was very much part of his life. He was working at the time. Is it not lovely to think about how the country and, we hope, the wider United Kingdom can embrace the Bill?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset says, it is important to have a named person in the ICS and care sectors.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about disabilities, and particularly that we all have different needs and should be looking to embrace that. I found out when I was 18 that I was dyspraxic, and it helped explain a lot of things for me. I still have a bit of a challenge with my positioning in the Chamber sometimes.

The way that we view special educational needs and other needs has changed a lot in this country over the years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a great opportunity to showcase the talents and contributions of people with Down syndrome in this country, and that we can take that attitude forward so that the United Kingdom is a world leader in this regard?

[Lia Nici]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill will help to take away some people’s fear. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I feel blessed because I have been able to learn about people with learning disabilities and people with Down syndrome since I was a young teenager, and I have also worked with people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Realising that they have the same or similar goals to everyone else—to find somewhere nice to live, to be independent, to find somebody they love and to have a good job—is the crux of all this. I hope that the specific mention of Down syndrome will take away the fear about what it means to have it, and that we will be able to have an open conversation in the village pub that is England and the wider pubs of the UK. That will mean that we can start to talk about it and not be scared of it. A lot of people are scared. They do not understand and they might not have ever met anybody who has Down syndrome. We in this place, with the fantastic guidance of my eminent right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, will enable that to happen.

Covid-19 Update and Hospitality Curfew

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

The Government have already made more than £190 billion of support available to protect lives and livelihoods. Last week I spoke to Tom and Lindsey, the landlords of the Clumber Inn in Ordsall, to discuss the impact that these lockdown measures are having on the hospitality industry, which I know my right hon. Friend understands. Can he confirm that Ministers will continue to work closely with the sector, to look at what further support can be provided?

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely. I think, if I have spotted it correctly, that my hon. Friend is wearing the parliamentary beer association tie, so he obviously knows that of which he speaks. He is right, and he makes a very important and serious point. Of course we will keep working with the hospitality industry and do everything we can to support it through these times. It is so difficult, but because of the way that the virus spreads, these measures are necessary. We have not gone for a full-blown lockdown as we did in March because we know far more about the virus owing to the test and trace system, the massive amount of testing we are doing and the contact tracing. That means we can be more targeted, and my heart goes out to everybody in the hospitality industry, who are doing so much.

Covid-19

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is important to bring together the leadership on test and trace, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the leadership from Public Health England into one place to make sure that our response is as effective as it possibly can be and that we are constantly searching to have the best possible response to the virus.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I know my right hon. Friend will share my excitement over the two new groundbreaking tests that can detect coronavirus in as little as 90 minutes. Does he agree that we should get that tech rolled out as quickly as possible, but particularly in care settings?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes I do, and I put everything I possibly have into driving it as fast as possible, subject to it working effectively.

Coronavirus

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The decisions that we have taken are based on clinical advice on the risk, because we know that being face to face, when in close contact, is more high-risk than not being face to face. That has been the basis on which the decisions have been taken. Of course I understand the impact on the beauty industry. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is leading on this issue and we will make progress when we safely can.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Last week, I visited St Giles School in Retford, where people very kindly gave me one of their excellent cloth face coverings to wear when travelling to Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend join me in reiterating that while cloth face coverings can help to reduce the risk of transmission in some circumstances, face masks worn as part of PPE for healthcare and other workers should be reserved for those who need it?

[Matt Hancock]

The use of face coverings that are not formal face masks is valuable, especially in some circumstances, and therefore it is mandated on public transport and has long been recommended in some shops. The use of masks, especially the high-end masks, should be reserved for those who need them in clinical settings. However, I am glad to say that the supply of PPE is now much, much more secure than it was a couple of months ago, which means that face masks are more readily and widely available and are increasingly used in non-clinical settings. The low-end surgical masks are the ones that would typically be used in a non-clinical setting. Nevertheless, face coverings are an incredibly important part of our armoury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support children and young people to continue learning at home while nurseries, schools and colleges are partially closed as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support children and young people to continue learning at home while nurseries, schools and colleges are partially closed as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support children and young people to continue learning at home while nurseries, schools and colleges are partially closed as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

I would very much like to join my hon. Friend in thanking the teachers and all the support staff who have done so much to support home learning and ensure that schools remain open for the children of critical workers and the most vulnerable children. We have seen the launch of the Oak National Academy, which is providing educational resources for children of all ages to support them in their learning, and we are looking at putting more and more resources online, to help schools and, most importantly, to help children continue to learn.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith [V]]

I very much welcome the funding for IT equipment, because there is nothing worse than when computer says no. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the laptops and tablets provided to disadvantaged and vulnerable young people will not just benefit them while schools are closed, but will continue to be used by their schools to aid learning in the future?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend is right in his analysis. It is not just about helping children during this crisis; it is about helping and supporting children for many months and years to come, ensuring that schools continue to have that resource and helping many children through that resource over a long period. We recognise that a lot of work needs to be done to support children as they catch up on what they have missed, because there is no substitute for a child being in a classroom, learning directly from a teacher.