Smoke-free UK

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin]

I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so.

As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill.

The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected.

Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.

Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that?

Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected.

Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group, in which I succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon).

As a member of the Bill Committee and part of the envious generation who will precede the smokefree generation this Bill promises, I welcome its return to the House and welcome the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), to her place. It cannot go without saying that we also welcome the immense contribution of her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and her mammoth work in guiding the Bill through Report and Third Reading. Finally, I welcome the contributions of Members from all parts of the House to the Bill.

It is critical that the powers enabled by the extensive secondary legislation that this Bill provides for are employed with our constituents’ health at the forefront of Ministers’ minds. My primary hope is that the Bill will drastically bring down smoking-related illness and early death, which are still far too prominent among smokers in this country. It has been proven by all currently available evidence that for smokers, switching to vaping is a substantially preferable and healthier choice than continuing to smoke. To put it simply, if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice for your health. That is a message we should never tire of repeating, especially considering that four in every 10 smokers still believe that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, if not more harmful, despite the scientific and medical consensus.

As we pursue a smokefree generation for those turning 18 at the turn of the year, the Government must recommit at every opportunity—including through this Bill—to rebutting this harmful misunderstanding of the relative harm of vaping through both words and actions. Lords amendment 72 acknowledges this by providing a defence for public authorities to the offences in clause 113 on advertising that would enable the ongoing use of vapes and nicotine products for the promotion or protection of public health. I note that that defence applies only to non-branded vaping and nicotine products. When she sums up, will the Minister clarify whether the amendment would permit the use of flavoured vapes or nicotine products in pursuit of the promotion or protection of public health? The written and verbal testimony of ex-smokers across the country who have made the switch to vaping is clear that they rely on flavours to quit, to stay quitting, and to quit for good.

When we consider the use of secondary powers as part of the powers available to Ministers under the Bill, we must fairly balance the crucial public health objective of getting adult smokers to quit for good against the rising concerns about youth vaping across the country. It is the sadly too common gaudy and immediately apparent displays in shops, the ridiculous flavour descriptors and the packaging associated with illicit manufacturing and retailing that are driving youth vaping far more than the flavours themselves. We talk about the proliferation of vape shops on high streets, but it is the illicit and unregulated market that we must pursue as a priority. We certainly should not group that market with specialist retailers that pursue strong age verification, muted displays, safe storage and the ability to support smokers to quit.

On enforcement, Lords amendments 9 to 13 make necessary clarifications on the definition of an enforcement authority in England and Wales. Lords amendments 14 to 20 subsequently clarify where the responsibility to issue fixed penalty notices sits. Enforcement of this Bill will be necessary if it is to achieve its aim to crack down on illegal and illicit vape products, but we must not forget that the proliferation of the illegal vaping business is still concentrated at points of entry to the UK market. We must pursue that important objective, because we cannot prejudice public and consumer opinion against the sale of legal vapes from the regulated industry by allowing them to be displayed alongside illicit and unregulated products that we all want to see off the shelves of our local corner shops. Those are the products that are driving youth vaping, not the regulated ones. We must therefore ensure the adequate resourcing of Border Force, trading standards and local enforcement authorities. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will seek to achieve that within the scope of this Bill?

Lords amendments 21 and 22 to clause 38 are a welcome step. They permit relevant local enforcement authorities to retain the sums and reinvest them in connection with their enforcement functions, rather than those sums going to the national Consolidated Fund. Can the Minister clarify the purposes for which those funds can be utilised? As I understand it, they can be used only in connection with the enforcement function and not to support swap-to-stop schemes or any broader activity. I would appreciate that clarity when she winds up.

The need for enforcement against illicit retail practices has rightly become an increasingly salient issue, especially in Scotland following the tragic fire earlier this month in Glasgow. While it is important for us to state that no cause of the fire has yet been definitively established—that is rightly for the relevant authorities to investigate— will the Minister expand on how secondary legislation and associated Government action around trading standards could better enable local authorities to enforce against the illicit practices that the Bill seeks to address? How will the Government encourage retailers to drag themselves up to the best practice of specialist retailers on display, storage and age verification?

To conclude, the Bill’s primary aim to create a smokefree generation is welcome. I welcome that it will directly make that generation healthier and happier, and enable them to live far longer than those who preceded them. We must do all that, however, while enabling the millions of adult smokers in Britain to quit quicker and to get healthier.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. I worked with her predecessors when I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland, when this Bill first came about. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), because this legislation started its iterations under the previous Government. Very little has changed between what was debated then and what is before us now, because it is the right thing to do. It is the common-sense thing to do for the health of the entirety of our nation.

I remember having those conversations with the then MP for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was passionate about what the Bill would bring about. She was receiving the same advice as I was from chief medical officers across the nation about how the cessation of smoking across generations would dramatically change not just health, but the income of many families. In respect of that four-nation approach, I seek reassurance again from the Government—I have received reassurance on this from the last Government and this Government—that the Bill will apply equally in Northern Ireland and all parts of the nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I apologise to the shadow Secretary of State for not having replied to his letter—let me make sure that I do that. There is no disagreement across the House on the substance of the issue. I am absolutely supportive of the project and I want to fund the research, but we have to make sure that the research proposal meets the standards and has the confidence of our funders. We are working with the team to try to get the proposal over the line, but that is the only obstacle here—it is certainly not a political decision.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

T4.   Many people in Falkirk face barriers to accessing treatment because they are juggling often contradictory bits of paper regarding appointments across different health boards. What assessment has the Minister made of this Government’s NHS digital transformation strategy for improving treatment, compared with the strategy being pursued by the Scottish Government for the healthcare that is available to my constituents?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

This UK Labour Government, at least, are spending billions of pounds upgrading the digital architecture of the NHS in England. That means that over 90% of GPs now offer appointments online, and by 2029 we will have a single patient record for patients and their clinicians to access all their information. That is in contrast with the digital desert that exists in Scotland, which is why it is time for Analogue John to move over and make way for Anas Sarwar as First Minster to save Scotland’s NHS.

World Stroke Day

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this timely debate and wish her mother well in her recovery. It is not easy to channel personal pain for the greater good, but the hon. Member has done so, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). They can be assured that their articulation in this place of their personal experience will prevent strokes and lead to their faster treatment. Often, debates such as this can increase awareness and reduce the threshold at which people contact the NHS and the ambulance service for help.

The hon. Member for Twickenham asked me to address a number of issues, and I will do so before I get into the bulk of my speech. One was about data capture. Although I am responding on behalf of the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), I am the Minister responsible for digital health and data, so I can assure the hon. Member that the interconnectivity of data among primary care, secondary care and social care is important to me, both for ease of access for the patient and for learnings and auditing. She can be assured of my personal commitment that that is the way forward in the new iteration of a modern health service.

The hon. Member also asked about physiotherapy and disability reduction. I can reassure her that, through the workforce plan and our upgrading of the digital architecture, we are working intensively to see how we can bring world-class physiotherapy to all and not just to some. Part of disability reduction is timely access to cutting-edge treatments, which no longer involves clot-busting; it now involves clot removal, in the form of thrombectomy. Thrombectomy services are planned to be totally universal in England by April 2026. I hope that answers some of the questions the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked about those services.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a plan in Scotland to install 24/7 emergency thrombectomy care across the country as soon as possible? I believe the objective is 2031, but we should be pushing the Scottish Government to go further and faster on that.

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind. As I was saying, our plan is only for England. Hon. Friends have already articulated the fact that in Scotland, despite the best efforts of clinicians in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, there has not been the ability—or the intent from the Scottish Government—to bring forward a proper 24/7 stroke thrombectomy service. That means that the time of day that Scottish patients have a stroke determines the outcome. They are literally being dealt a roulette wheel of care: 20th-century care out of hours and 21st-century care within office hours. It is simply unacceptable, and the UK Government stand ready to assist the Scottish Government in any way, shape or form they require to make sure that access to the highest quality of care is as available to patients in Scotland as it is to those in England.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Time is muscle, as she says. Sadly, because the drug is currently only available, in the areas where it is available, to lads who are ambulant, the waiting time has meant that some lads out there who would have qualified for the drug now no longer do so. That is, frankly, heartbreaking. Of course, the use of one’s legs is not the only thing people are concerned about. We need to be able to use our arms to be able to dress ourselves, feed ourselves and brush our teeth, and givinostat could help with that.

It is very disheartening that while coping with all of this, families, parents and carers and so on are having to fight for access to the drug on a trust by trust basis. They have done that with the support of all the Members in the Chamber tonight. I am very grateful for the fact that they have turned up, because I know families are watching.

I also want to mention some Members who have approached me who would have loved to have been here but cannot be due to other commitments in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) has campaigned on this subject for many years and chaired the all-party parliamentary group. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who has the disease, visited Parliament on Monday and was so pleased to see on the Annunciator that we were having this debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) worked together to ensure that Manchester university NHS foundation trust does now provide the drug to their constituents. William from Codicote, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), is living with Duchenne. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has been supporting Mr and Mrs Binns, whose son Jack has Duchenne. They do not yet have access to givinostat and are trying to get it. I have also had representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand).

We can see that there is broad support across all parties in the House, with Members working with their constituents to try to secure this drug which is free of charge—free of charge—to the NHS. We have heard that provision is very patchy across England. There is some central co-ordination in Scotland, but no lad in Northern Ireland can access the treatment.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is important to acknowledge quality of life with this drug, but we also have to acknowledge that many people with Duchenne are living with 24/7 care needs, including my constituent, Dylan Phillips, who lives at the excellent care home in Glenbervie. Does my hon. Friend agree that those living with Duchenne in Scotland should be protected as they would be in England under continuing healthcare schemes, rather than having to bear the cost of their social care and living on only £35.90 a week with universal credit and adult disability payment, as they do not qualify for continuing healthcare in Scotland?

[Chris McDonald]

The important thing for us to consider here is that with only 1,100 or 1,200 lads and young men in the country living with the disease, and only 500 boys eligible for the treatment, we could at least expect some consistency in approach across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Prevention of Drug Deaths

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I associate myself with the remarks from Scottish colleagues about Christina McKelvie.

Between 2010 and 2023, 333 people in Falkirk lost their lives to drug misuse. Our worst year was 2018, when 43 people died. Every one of those people was a family member—someone’s child or parent—tragically or prematurely taken. Part of the reason why that number is so high is that Scotland has the greatest number of drug deaths anywhere in Europe. I want to use my speech to talk about where we have gone wrong and what we have started to get right.

Although I acknowledge that it was only one tool in the arsenal of public health responses, medication-assisted treatment such as methadone has been shown to reduce overdose deaths significantly. The abandonment of Scotland’s 10-year drug strategy decades ago is a failure that should teach us the lesson of never returning to unscientific moralising drug policy. We should focus on real action and harm reduction. More recently, harm reduction policies such as naloxone distribution have saved lives by reversing opioid overdoses in Falkirk. The Falkirk Alcohol and Drug Partnership has taken incredible steps in encouraging the awareness and use of naloxone, and I pay tribute to its lead officer, Phil Heaton. We should go further on harm reduction.

Safer drug consumption facilities are proven to reduce overdose deaths in other countries. They have been piloted in Glasgow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) explained. The sites provide medical supervision, sterile equipment and a gateway to treatment for those ready to take the next step towards recovery, instead of wrongly expecting people to go cold turkey, which does not work. Harm reduction saves lives.

Drug addiction is not a spontaneous phenomenon: it is deeply intertwined with social and economic conditions. People in Scotland’s most deprived areas are more than 15 times more likely to die from drug misuse than those in the wealthiest areas. We need a holistic approach that looks at root causes: poverty and deprivation.

When looking at drug deaths, we must also think about demographics. Many of those dying today in Scotland first became addicted in the 1980s and 1990s, during the economic shock of deindustrialisation, and are maligned with stigma and a lack of support. The average age of drug-misuse death has increased from 32 in 2000 to 45 today. Now in middle age, the health of that generation is failing fast, making them more vulnerable to fatal overdoses. We need to look at the demographic changes and where we are failing.

Addiction treatment, chronic disease management, financial support for the disabled and mental health services are all essential factors. I acknowledge that this is not an easy issue for Governments to tackle. It is wrapped in dozens of policy points and often involves those Governments find it the hardest to reach. Most of all, it is an issue of injustice, of lack of opportunities and of general social failure. We need to listen to our communities and take real action.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

New clause 2 would represent a huge step towards removing 3.9 billion cigarette butts from our ecosystem, combating the blight on our beaches and streets, the stain in our streams and the rubbish on our roads. It is an environmental no-brainer. It is also a parliamentary no-brainer, as it has massive public support. I hope the Government can see the merit in supporting it today.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on responsible vaping.

I was asked by a teenage member of my family over the Christmas break what my biggest regret is, and I undoubtedly go back to the evening at an empty—a party, for anybody unaware of the Scottish parlance—back in 2016, when I first took a draw off a cigarette. I know all too well the addictive power of nicotine, and I promised when I was sent here by the people of Falkirk in July that I would do everything I could to prevent another generation from being so easily exposed to it. Sadly, I must say that some of the amendments proposed may jeopardise that near universally supported ambition in our communities.

There is no safe way to consume nicotine, and we have known for near a century that smoking tobacco will in the long term be incredibly damaging to the health of a person. If we pass this Bill and slowly but surely cut off the tobacco industry from new customers, we will see lower occurrences of cancer, fewer heart attacks, fewer strokes and less illness in our communities. Points raised by hon. Members about the black market are important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but they do not undermine my support for the generational ban in this Bill.

For all the reasons articulated, I do not support the various attempts in amendments to alter the generational smoking ban. In Committee, I saw an attempt to alter the scope of the Bill to set the age of sale at 25. I see similar attempts on the amendment paper to change the age of sale to 21, or to scrap the generational smoking ban altogether. I doubt it will come as a surprise to my constituents, who are well aware of my leanings, but for me the freedom for our bairns eventually to be allowed to smoke something that may ultimately kill them does not fall into the philosophical sphere of inalienable liberties.

Saying that, I will don the cloak of alternatively minded colleagues momentarily. For all but the last three days in Committee, I was 24 years old. The shift in the age of sale proposed in Committee would have deprived me of a liberty I already have and that regrettably I exercised extensively in my younger years. Depriving adults of their liberty in the name of liberty does strike me as an odd argument for opponents of a generational smoking ban. This generational smoking ban does not deprive anyone of a liberty they currently hold, but shifts tobacco into the category of inaccessible substances for those who never had, or will have, the right to begin with. The “liberty for our bairns to eventually be able to start smoking” campaign would get short shrift from parents at the school gates of Falkirk, or from those sitting at the bedside of loved ones dying decades prematurely. No smoker wants their bairns to start smoking.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

There is growing concern about the use of vapes as a tool to entice children into sexual exploitation. My probing amendment, new clause 5, was prompted by a police officer in Derby concerned about this national issue. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss it. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must acknowledge the use of vapes to groom children, and ensure that licensing authorities and the police work together to crack down on any retailers connected to such activities?

[Euan Stainbank]

My hon. Friend identifies an important point about the protection of young people, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister address it in her winding up.

Non-smokers should never vape, but we should acknowledge that vaping can help a hell of a lot of smokers to quit, and that the evidence base we have on relative harm shows that vaping is far less harmful than tobacco smoking. The consolidation of vaping into a more utilitarian device used solely for the cessation of smoking is something we should pursue. That necessitates measures that stop the worrying rise in young people getting their hands on vapes in the first place. During evidence in Committee, Trading Standards articulated that online age gating has a far lower failure rate than sales over the counter. We heard from various sources about how vapes are still far too easy for our bairns to get their hands on through proxy or underage counter purchases. There is still work to be done to put the onus on the vaping industry to safeguard our bairns.

That why I put my name to new clause 6 and new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon). They would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations mandating vape retailers to sell only vapes that include approved age-gating technology, allowing adults to lock their vapes and prevent bairns being able to use them. That would align with and strengthen the Bill’s objectives of deterring underage use by seeking to extend protection away from the point of sale to the point of use. I will ask Ministers to commit to meet me and the all-party parliamentary group to discuss how age-gating technology and wider measures can be supported in the United Kingdom to strengthen the shared aim we all have to stop bairns vaping.

The Bill grants the Secretary of State similar powers to bring in regulations relating to the display, packaging and flavours of vapes. On that, I will make a few brief points. The Bill should not deter smokers switching to vapes. Flavours are a huge reason why smokers quit and stick by quitting, and we should not regulate in any way that undermines the crucial message we must get to stick with adult smokers, which is that vaping has a far lower relative harm than continuing to smoke.

If we can, across this House, acknowledge the scientific consensus that there is no non-harmful consumption of tobacco, the Bill should be supported. It is time to take a step that will do a substantial amount to deter smoking, prevent nicotine addiction and secure a generation against smoking-related disease and premature death.

[Jack Rankin]

I hesitate to break up the consensus ever so slightly, but I do disagree fundamentally with the Bill. In my view, a generational smoking ban misrepresents the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and creates two tiers of adults. Members will be heartened to know that, recognising the will of the House on Second Reading, I do not intend to plough on with that argument too far. What I have tried to do with my amendments, however, is to genuinely improve the main aim of the Bill in a way that gets people off smoking in the interests of public health, which, whether we are for or against a generational ban on smoking, is something that we should all support. That is why I am grateful to Members from across this House—on the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Democratic Unionist Benches, as well as some independent Members—for supporting the measures in my name, new clauses 8, 9 and 10 and amendment 46.

The message behind those measures is simple: let us ensure less harmful vapes and nicotine products get to the adult smokers who could benefit from them so that smoking rates continue to fall. In that regard, I associate myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).

I feel the risk of the Bill is that Ministers may inadvertently weaken the decline in smoking in Britain somewhat. As the Minister and shadow Minister both said in their opening remarks, vaping is a legitimate and desirable smoking cessation tool for adults who currently smoke.

--- Later in debate ---

In the Bill Committee, many raised the issue that any advertising seen by adults would inevitably be seen by children. That is why I tabled amendment 46, which would avoid this problem by permitting advertising in adult-only environments such as pubs, bars and clubs. To me, that is just common sense. If we know that everyone is 18, is no good reason why advertising of these products should not be permitted. Further, we know that these night-time venues are often hotspots for smoking. These are the people who could benefit from tobacco-free products the most. If a vape or a nicotine pouch is advertised in this location, a smoker may well think twice before going to the local newsagent to buy cigarettes. This would work especially well if the same pubs were licensed to sell these products on the premises. I urge the Government, through these amendments, to reconsider their approach to advertising when it comes to legitimate smoking-cessation tools. My recent written question to the Department exposed that either no real assessment has been done in this area of policy or it has been obscured.

[Euan Stainbank]

Specifically on amendment 46, which I have a degree of sympathy for, who would be responsible for enforcing the advertisements and ensuring that it was only those over the age of 18 who were seeing them?

[Jack Rankin]

I am assuming, to be honest, that it would be the same people who are responsible for the licensing of alcohol advertising.

All my amendments speak to the principles that I have outlined, which I think are consistent with the aims of the Bill, and for which I have received support from across the House. I hope that Members both in here and in the other place will recognise the value of my amendments and that the Government will take these concerns seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that the Government—and the previous Government should have done the same—need to take concerted and decisive action to deal with the unintended consequence of well-meaning legislation that led to a huge growth in the illegal sale of tobacco and cigarettes. Rather than introducing a rolling age of consent, which, by the way, is entirely unenforceable, they ought to target their efforts, draw on their resources and seek the almost limitless expertise that is available to Government to deal with an issue that, frankly, is going largely unrestricted.

Good work is being done by trading standards in my constituency in Lincolnshire and by local police, but they struggle, because the legislation is inadequate. I would have supported a Bill, had it come to the House— I will not digress too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will not allow me to do so—that licensed the sale of tobacco. Most tobacconists and most newsagents, I suspect, would welcome that measure. I know that police would like to see that kind of measure, which is rather like what we do with alcohol. There is a precedent there, but that is not what is before us today.

On the rolling age of consent, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has tabled amendment 4, is right that it cannot be enforced. I am in favour, by the way, of raising the age of consent. To be honest, I am in favour of raising the age of consent to 21 for virtually everything. That could be enforced, although it would not be straightforward. But the idea that someone will go into a tobacconist or a newsagent and say, “I am 29” and the tobacconist will say, “Actually, I think you could be 28” or in years to come, “I am 57” and the tobacconist or newsagent will say, “No, no, I think you could be 55” is nonsense. It is never going to happen. No retailer is going to do that. Either the Bill will fail—I think the law would be broken daily—or we will devote undue resources to policing something that frankly does not warrant such attention. Let us recognise that this is a preposterous proposal. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, by and large we should not do things in this House that are preposterous.

[Euan Stainbank]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is going to tell me why we should.

[Euan Stainbank]

I was a retail and hospitality worker myself in Scotland, and we applied “Check 25” regularly. Would the simple question not be, “Were you born before or after 1 January 2009?” Is that a complex question? I would appreciate an explanation of how it is.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

It was thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget that we were able to award £889 million for general practice. That is why the Minister for Care was able to get the GP contract agreed for the first time since the pandemic. Opposition Members cannot continue to welcome the investment and oppose the means. They have to spell out where they would cut services or raise taxes instead.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Last year, my constituent Danielle was diagnosed with POTS—postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. She found herself unable to get out of bed and unable to speak for long periods. She could not receive care in Scotland. Specialist treatment does not seem to exist for POTS. What more can we do for people like Danielle, and what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts about establishing specialist treatment in Scotland?

[Ashley Dalton]

In England, it is the responsibility of local integrated care boards to work with clinicians, service users and patient groups to develop services and care pathways that are convenient and meet the needs of patients with POTS. NICE has published a clinical knowledge summary on the clinical management of blackouts and syncope, which provides advice for UK clinicians on best practice and the assessment and diagnosis of POTS.

Rare Cancers Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. It may be the most repeated phrase in the Chamber, but politics is about choices and he, having ranked so highly in the private Member’s Bill ballot—an early accolade in this Parliament—chose a Bill that would put patients suffering from a rare cancer and their families higher up on the list of priorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) so movingly put it, I hope that, in time, the Bill will mean that in some instances, my constituents in Falkirk and families across the United Kingdom will get precious extra hours, days, weeks and years to spend with our loved ones.

Every Member of the House and every constituent I have spoken to about this has a story of a loved one who has suffered through the heartbreaking cruelty of a cancer diagnosis. I lost two of my grandparents in their early 60s. I still remember the seven years of my life that I spent with my grandad Robin. We found plenty of time to exchange robust views on football, and I am sure that if he had more time with us, we would today be exchanging views on life and politics, too. He was lucky, though, to meet all four of his grandchildren, thanks to the immense care he received from his doctors and the support he got from his family.

I remember my granny Janet, who passed away in 2012 after a 10-month battle with a brain tumour. I remember most fondly her fussing over everyone in the house to make sure they had absolutely everything they needed at all times. I remember holding her hand in Strathcarron hospice, where she had volunteered for a number of years, and where she received care in her final days. One thing I have drawn from those experiences is the value of our NHS and hospice staff to those who have cancer and their families. Those staff, day in, day out, take the worst parts of life and allow us to endure them. We should arm them with the best possible tools for treating illness and disease.

Statistically, half of us in the Chamber will have to comprehend our own diagnosis of some type of cancer. The definition of “rare cancer” is, for the purposes of the Bill, one that affects fewer than one in 2,000 people. We must acknowledge that active intervention is required to ensure that research, treatment and clinical pathways for those cancers have parity with other cancer research. As has been mentioned, rare cancers account for about 47% of all cancer diagnoses.

I will go through the Bill and each of its clauses to show why I support it. Clause 1 and the statutory requirement for a review relating to orphan medicines will be an essential step to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the availability of medicines and how they can best be calibrated towards new treatments and new research. The comparative approach that the Bill puts forward for the review acknowledges that while we have a proud history of world-class research, other countries have been able to make substantial strides in this area in recent years when we have not. In the last six years, the UK has dropped from being ranked second for the availability of orphan medicines—behind only Germany—to England being 10th and Scotland being 13th among European countries. That does not necessarily look like regression, but it potentially exposes stagnation in advancing research that would benefit those suffering from a rare cancer. The British pharmaceutical industry has stated that it is increasingly challenging to develop medicine for rare diseases in this country, citing, among other things, the low prospect of NHS reimbursement for rare disease medicines.

Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State a duty to promote research on rare cancers, ensure that patients can be easily contacted about such research, and ensure appropriate oversight of rare cancers. That is a progressive move, as the duty to promote research will write into law that any Health Secretary must take a proactive approach to maintaining and promoting rare cancer research. It embeds in the Government’s job description a duty to ensure that ease of contact is properly facilitated, and that there is appropriate oversight. The Bill is not overreaching when it says that strategic co-ordination is key. The appointment of a national speciality lead for rare cancers will put into law the requirement for a champion who can cut through any silos that exist, or that start to develop as the Bill takes effect.

Clause 3 is a critical part of the framework. It will aid the building of a robust evidential basis for clinical trials by making a bespoke register for those with a rare cancer. The sharing of information from the national disease registration service by the NHS with the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” registry, so that patients can be identified and contacted, will improve an issue that has come up several times when I have spoken to organisations in this space: there are not enough people available for clinical trials for rare cancers. Correspondingly, as has been mentioned by other Members, clearly there is a substantial barrier at the patient end. Cancer52 found that 82% of those with a rare cancer had not been offered a clinical trial. That evidences the clear case for the change proposed in the Bill.

With rapid advances in cancer treatment, there is a massive opportunity to take steps forward in increasing survivability after diagnosis. For all these new treatments to be effective, there needs to be corresponding clinical trials. Currently, connecting those with a rare cancer to clinical researchers involves an amount of luck that the information about the trial will make its way to the patient or that they will be aware of a clinical trial. Organising the register so that clinical trials can get in touch with patients will simplify and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the system, saving time and increasing the chance of successful trials. I give the Bill my full support.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

The chief medical officer sounded a note of caution about the tobacco industry and the fact that it tends to move quickly to maintain its market when the law is changed. As I understood it from him at the beginning of the week, if we changed the age of sale to 25, people may be less prone to taking up tobacco products and less prone to addiction if they do, but the risk is that the industry would regroup around the new age of 25 and look instead at what advertising and promotion measures would most likely make 24, 25 or 26-year-olds—that generation—smoke or take up tobacco products. In a few years’ time, we would therefore be back saying, “Should we increase the age to 30?” In practice, that is what the Government propose to address by picking a defined date instead.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can we acknowledge that youth initiation often starts before the age of 18? Moving the age to 25, as this amendment proposes, would not automatically shift the dial on when youth initiation starts by seven years. The Bill permanently demarcates a smoke-free generation that we are specifically targeting.

[Dr Johnson]

When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.

Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.