Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 18, clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 22, clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 23, clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 24, clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 44, Schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out,

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 48, schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 45, schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 46, schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi”, to “a” in line 39 and insert

“yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 47, schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 39, schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 40, schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 41, schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 42, schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 43, schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 25, clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 26, clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert

“under the age of 25 (“the customer”) to be aged 25 or over”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 27, clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 28, clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 29, clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert

“under the age of 25”;.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 30, clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 31, clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 32, clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 33, clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 38, clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Amendment 49, title, line 2, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

The stated aims of the Bill are really quite clear: as the previous Government and the new Government decided, it is a generational smoking ban, such that anybody who turns 18 after 1 January 2009 is prevented from ever purchasing tobacco in many different shapes and forms; I think that means people who have just turned 16, as we have just had a change of year, will be prevented from ever doing it.

The batch of amendments that have been grouped together effectively undermine the fundamental nature of what the Bill is trying to achieve. Instead of moving to an incremental generational ban, it moves to a different system that alters the age at which tobacco products can be sold to someone, and does so on an indefinite basis. The generational ban does not remove any individual’s rights to buy cigarettes, because at the moment the people who would be prevented from buying cigarettes and other tobacco products cannot do so; their rights are not changed, but rather prevented from ever kicking in. These amendments move instead to a system whereby the legal age is changed such that it is 25 rather than 18.

That will remove the right to smoke from seven years’ worth of people. Smoking has become a lot less prevalent among younger people, but there are seven years’ worth of people, aged 18 to 25, who can smoke at the moment, so if you passed this batch of amendments as they are, you would have seven years’ worth of people who effectively do have rights individually removed from them. However, that must be set against what you do to the collective.

My concern with the principle of clause 1—I know we are not talking about the principle at the moment—is that it creates two tiers of adults, but the generational ban will work its way through and, by the time that generation passes, you will have created one tier of adults again, so my principal objection works its way through. This batch of amendments would keep that static. Yes, you would have two tiers of adults, because you would have people under 25 and people over 25, but you would not be infringing the right of the majority of people to go about smoking tobacco products throughout their lives.

My general view of the Bill is that the generational smoking ban is the state overstepping the mark from public health into infringing personal liberty. However, I recognise the argument of both the previous Government and the new Government that smoking is fundamentally incredibly bad for somebody, so stopping people taking it up in the first place is in the realm of public health. In particular, even though the legal age is 18, we have people aged 15, 16 and 17 taking up smoking. One thing that the Bill setting the age at 25 might do is to stop those people at those ages from picking up a very bad habit indeed.

On this batch of amendments in particular, I am trying to weigh up the removal of those rights of that seven years, set against whether we need such a draconian ban that we stop all adults smoking in the future. I have come to the conclusion, listening to the earlier debate under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Gale, that on balance I would support these amendments.

[The Chair]

Before I call the next speaker, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant, we do not use the second person in debates—that is, “you”—because when you talk about “you”, you are talking about me. I respectfully ask people to bear that in mind and use another person—maybe the third person.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today.

These Liberal Democrat-tabled amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. The amendments also seek to change the age-of-sale notices to align with the change in the age of sale, which is why there are so many consequential amendments.

This group of amendments also includes amendments 29 and 30, which cover proxy sale of tobacco products in Scotland. To save time, I assure the Committee that, instead of now, I will discuss those particular issues during the clause 2 debate, which I hope will begin shortly, as that relates directly to the points in that group on proxy sales, rather than to age of sale.

As we heard from our expert witnesses during oral evidence, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, of disability and of ill health: it claims about 80,000 deaths a year across the United Kingdom; it causes one in four of all cancer deaths and it kills, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, two thirds of its long-term users. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that there is no liberty whatever in addiction. We seek to ensure that the next generation is never addicted to tobacco products in the way that the current generation and previous generations have been. That is the real freedom here: the freedom not to be addicted to a product that, frankly, would not be allowed were it invented today.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the Minister’s point, but there is the potential throughout the Bill for double standards. He talks about addiction—I disagree with him, but it is a perfectly reasonable point to make—but the same could be true of gambling or alcohol. We allow, for example, gamblers to advertise on football shirts. So if the Minister takes the logic of his argument all the way through to its necessary end conclusion, then this Government must be legislating for all those addictive social things that are incredibly damaging as well.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I understand the hon. Member’s argument, but it does not hold water. There is no safe level of smoking. That is the fundamental issue. People can drink or gamble responsibly. We have laws in place to protect against the harms of those things; we can argue—although this Bill is not the place for it—about whether those measures go far enough or go too far at present, but there are protections in place for alcohol and gambling harms. Tobacco is a product that kills two thirds of its users, and as a state, we have a duty to save lives.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the Minister’s point somewhat, but I think that there is a conflation of argument here about cigarettes and tobacco. If I may say so, the Minister alternated somewhat between the two. That may be the case with cigarettes; I have never been a smoker of cigarettes, but on new year’s eve I had a big cigar with my dad and brother, and the last one I had with them before that was at my brother’s 30th. I think that was a safe and pleasurable thing to do, and something that the state should not be infringing on. It is not just cigarettes that the Government are going after—it is all tobacco products.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The fact is that the primary consumption of tobacco in this country is through cigarettes. Tobacco is not a safe product. There is no safe level of tobacco use. The hon. Member might enjoy a cigar every now and then; that is a risk that he is prepared to take and that the law allows him to him to take, but I would argue that is still a risky behaviour. Tobacco, in whatever form it is consumed, causes health defects for him. The Bill seeks to ensure that we that we have a future generation that is weaned off tobacco, nicotine, and the toxins and the pollutants that come from a range of products, and that we give the tobacco industry no room for manoeuvre to shift from one product to another. It is about ensuring we have a generation that is freed from the addiction and the dirt and the death that tobacco brings.

Tobacco puts a huge pressure on our NHS. It costs taxpayers billions of pounds on our health and care services—a cost of £3.1 billion a year from smoke-related illnesses. The cost of smoking to our economy is also huge: £18.3 billion of productivity lost every year, with smokers being a third more likely to be off sick.

The Bill will deliver on this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment to create the world’s first smoke-free generation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, who supported the Bill on Second Reading and supported the previous iteration of the Bill that her Government introduced, it is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) that his Government brought in the original iteration of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I pay credit to him for showing leadership on public health, and to the shadow Minister for always being a vocal supporter of tobacco control and opponent of the scourge of youth vaping. I only wish that some of her colleagues understood the sense of what we are seeking to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not sure whether this is a point of order, and I am not sure how the other parties voted on this, but this was a non-whipped vote for the Liberal Democrats. It is not a Liberal Democrat amendment; it is an amendment from an individual MP. The entire Liberal Democrat health team certainly do not support the amendment to change the minimum age of sale to 25, and the majority of the Liberal Democrat party voted in favour of the Bill as a whole. I want to put it on the record that the Lib Dems are not in favour of the amendment.

[Jack Rankin]

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does Mr Rankin wish to push amendment 18 to a Division?

[Jack Rankin]

Yes.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.—(Jack Rankin.)

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Amendment 56 proposes a change to clause 1 and specifically targets the penalty provision for offenses under the sale of tobacco section on page 2, line 9. It suggests adding the phrase

“, save if it is a first offence.”

at the end of the current penalty clause, effectively modifying the penalties described for violations of the tobacco sale law. Under the legislation, as it is currently proposed, clause 1 specifies:

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

However, this penalty applies without any distinction to all offenders, regardless of whether it is their first offence or a repeat violation. Amendment 56 introduces an exception for first-time offenders, suggesting that they may receive a reduced or different penalty instead of the full fine that is typically prescribed.

[Jack Rankin]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but could my hon. Friend illustrate what levels 3 and 4 mean in practice and how they might read across to similar products, such as alcohol, so we can have some context for what she proposes?

[Dr Johnson]

My intention was to set out what these amendments seek to do and then to discuss the reasons why that might, or might not, be a good idea, and I will come to my hon. Friend’s very important point when I do so. The principle of amendment 56 is to bring in reduced or different penalties for those committing their first offence compared with those committing subsequent or repeated offences. This change acknowledges that businesses or individuals who commit an offence for the first time may not require the full penalty, but may require education or a form of leniency or mitigation. It separates first-time offenders from repeat offenders, offering an opportunity for compliance without the harshest penalties on the first offence. It could incentivise more careful compliance with the law, especially by businesses that are new or small, or are unfamiliar with or unintentionally violating the regulations on selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers.

Amendment 57, also within this group, proposes to amend clause 1, page 2, line 9 by adding a new subsection (4A), which specifically addresses the penalties for first-time offenders who admit guilt under the sale of tobacco section. This amendment introduces a more lenient penalty, stipulating that first-time offenders would be

“liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

Under clause 1(4), as it reads without the amendment, a person who commits an offence under that section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, regardless of whether it is their first offence. The addition of proposed subsection (4A), however, distinguishes and separates first-time offenders by offering a potentially reduced fine—level 3 instead of level 4—or alternatively a caution, which is a formal warning and a less severe still form of penalty.

The next amendment within this group, amendment 67, proposes an amendment to clause 50, page 25, line 34, adding two new paragraphs to subsection (5) and inserting new subsection (5A). Clause 50 is essentially a read- across of clause 1. There is understandable desire within Government to see the four nations of the United Kingdom having the same policy. That is simpler, it means that we can protect the health of people across the country, and it also makes it easier to enforce and manage the law. In Scottish law, the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 essentially provides Scottish tobacco regulations; clause 50 of the Bill thus alters sections 4, 4B, 6 and 8 of that legislation, so that the legislation in Scotland can essentially follow clause 1 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Amendment 67 is therefore designed to do to clause 50 what amendment 56 does to clause 1, introducing the phrase,

“, save if it is a first offence.”

to section 4(5) of the 2010 Act.

In doing so, it effectively exempts first-time offenders from the usual penalties set out in that section, which typically involve higher fines or penalties.

Secondly, amendment 67 introduces proposed new subsection (5A) to section 4 of the 2010 Act, specifying:

“A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1)”,

related to selling tobacco products to minors,

“is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”—

consistent with amendment 57—

“or a recorded police warning”,

which I understand is the equivalent of a police caution in the rest of England and Wales. This change allows a more lenient treatment of first-time offenders, in line with the approach seen in other amendments aimed at reducing penalties for first offences.

The level 3 fine is less severe than the typical penalty under the current system, which could be level 4, and the recorded police warning offers an alternative that serves as an official notice without a financial burden. The amendment applies specifically to Scotland rather than to the rest of the United Kingdom, and its discretionary penalty for first-time offenders is intended to focus on correction, compliance and education rather than simply punishment of offenders. It promotes a more rehabilitative approach for those committing what is, relatively speaking, a minor offence for the first time.

Amendment 73 to clause 68, by adding the words

“, save if it is a first offence.”

is designed to introduce a more lenient approach to individuals committing an offence under the clause for the first time. Again, clause 68 is essentially a read-across of clause 1 into Northern Irish legislation. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on tobacco control, which the clause will amend. It substitutes clauses such that we have the same rules for tobacco purchasing in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making them harmonious across our country. The amendment would provide in clause 68, and therefore in Northern Ireland, what the Government seek to provide for the rest of the country, which is the rolling smoke-free generation legislation. The exemption would mean that those who commit an offence under the clause would not be subject to the usual penalties if it was their first offence.

Amendment 74 would add a new paragraph (4A) to article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, to specify that a person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause is

“is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

My understanding is that a conditional caution in Northern Ireland is similar to a police warning in Scotland and to a caution in England and Wales.

The intent behind the amendments is to provide a more lenient penalty for first-time offenders than for those who have committed the offence previously, in particular by allowing a fine capped at level 3 on the standard scale, which is obviously lower than level 4. Alternatively, there would be the option of a conditional caution, which means the opportunity for the offender to avoid a formal criminal conviction by complying with certain conditions, such as attending educational courses or engaging in community service. The original briefing suggested that we would discuss amendments 75 and 76 at this stage, but I understand that we are going to postpone those to the debate on clause 2, so I shall leave them for now.

I will talk about the effects of the amendments, but first I will answer the question my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about what the standard scale is and what it means. On the standard scale, a level 3 fine has a maximum of £1,000 and a level 4 fine has a maximum of £2,500. Cautions are given to people over the age of 10 years who admit an offence and agree to be cautioned by the police; they do not amount to a criminal conviction, but they may appear on a Disclosure and Barring Service check, which is required for some forms of employment. The amendments speak to the proportionality and purpose of the penalties, which ought to be set at a level that is both a reasonable punishment and an effective deterrent. It is important to prevent crimes and to maintain the confidence of the public.

When we debate clause 1 later today, we will discuss further the challenges faced by shop workers implementing the provisions in the Bill; no doubt, we will also discuss who is liable for the fines. I invite the Minister to consider who he wishes to be responsible for them. Does he wish it to be the shop worker—the chap or lady working in the shop? Does he expect it to be the shop manager, the shift supervisor, the owner of the business or the chief executive of a major company? That is a relevant consideration when thinking about the proportionality of the fine. A fine of £1,000 may not deter a large supermarket chain, but it may well deter and be a substantial penalty for someone who works part time in a shop while working as a student. The size of the fine is a relevant consideration.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend might best be able to provide clarification. Perhaps I have misunderstood, perhaps this is a mistake or perhaps it is deliberate. I understand why each jurisdiction of the United Kingdom has to be taken separately, but do I understand correctly that in clause 68, which covers Northern Ireland, the suggestion is that it should be a level 5 offence, whereas in clause 1, which covers England, the suggestion is it should be a level 4 offence, and my hon. Friend is seeking an amendment to make it a level 3 offence in the first instance? Why would that offence be a different level in different parts of the United Kingdom? The Minister is frowning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

It is the top of page 36. As I understand it, clause 68 makes the sale of tobacco a level 5 offence in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend is seeking to make the first offence a level 3 offence, but on page 1, clause 1(4) makes the sale of tobacco a level 4 offence. It seems that there is a an inequity there, which perhaps is deliberate or perhaps I have misunderstood. I support her opinion, but it seems that there is a difference between the different nations of the United Kingdom and I do not understand why that is the case.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It brings us to the heart of the next part of my speech, which is the inconsistency between different parts of the United Kingdom. We will come on to other inconsistencies in further amendments to clause 1 relating to age verification processes. As for why there are differences in the legislation as drafted, I am afraid I did not draft it; the Minister did. Perhaps he will say whether that was intentional or whether he wishes to amend it later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I support my hon. Friend on the principle, which we see in other legislation, but the point about children is important. Shopkeepers are used to the concept of Challenge 25 for people over 18, and this starts in that way, but given how the legislation is designed, we will soon get to the cut-off for smokers being in their early 30s. Shopkeepers will not be used to challenging someone who is 32 in the same way, as part of a Challenge 37 policy or whatever. There needs to be an acceptance. In 10 years’ time, we will not see selling cigarettes to a 32-year-old—I have not got my sums right, but I just want to illustrate the point—in the same way as we see selling cigarettes to a 17-year-old today. There should be a recognition of that when it comes—

[The Chair]

Order. Please can you ask questions or make a short intervention? If you wish to speak on these clauses or to this amendment, feel free to do so, but I do not want an intervention to become a mini-speech. Please bear that in mind, because we have several days of this, and I want people to get into the routine and the discipline of making an intervention, asking a question or making a speech. It is fairly straightforward and simple. As we progress, that will become more apparent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

It is a pleasure to discuss the substantive portion of the Bill, starting with clause 1. This Bill is vital health legislation. It takes a much-needed regulatory approach to vaping, as well as phasing out the sale of tobacco for the next generation. I am proud that, as the Minister has said, it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the legislation. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for championing this issue, and to Dr Javed Khan for his comprehensive 2022 review, “Making smoking obsolete”, which is where I first saw the suggestion of a rolling ban. I am pleased that this iteration of the Bill continues to have strong cross-party and cross-national support. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his long-standing and tireless campaigning on nicotine and tobacco, and to Dame Andrea Leadsom, the Minister in the previous Bill Committee, whose proceedings began in April 2024.

It is now a truth universally acknowledged that smoking is bad for health. It is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. It is responsible for about 80,000 deaths a year. When we say that number, it is easy for us to let it trip off the tongue without realising just how many people it represents. For each of them, there is a personal story.

My own Nana Burton, my dad’s mother, smoked all her life—she smoked Woodbines—and she died of lung cancer. When she was diagnosed, her response was to buy herself some filters and start smoking filter cigarettes because they might be better for her, but it did not do any good. She used to smoke in the living room, and the ceiling had to be repainted annually for Christmas because there used to be an orange-yellow stain above her chair where the smoke had gone up. Perhaps not surprisingly, two of her children also smoked. My Uncle Alan died of emphysema following a lifetime of smoking, and my Aunty Chrissie died of oesophageal cancer following a lifetime of smoking. We do see—it has been discussed already—the pattern of generations. One benefit of the clause is that by breaking that cycle, we can stop generational smoking. We know that people are more likely to smoke if their parents do. My dad does not and never has, and perhaps that is why I do not, either.

As we come to what I hope will be the end of tobacco in many ways, it is worth casting our mind back to its history. Tobacco is actually not that old a product. It was first brought to England on 27 July 1586 by Sir Walter Raleigh, as the story goes. He brought it to England from Virginia, along with potatoes and maize—perhaps he should have stuck with potatoes and maize. It is said that his servants, seeing him smoking a pipe, threw water on him because they thought he was on fire. It was held at the time to be excellent for your health, whereas potatoes were viewed with great suspicion. Tobacco was touted as a relief for toothache, worms, halitosis—well, it certainly changes the smell of people’s breath—falling fingernails and even cancer. It is also said that in 1600 he tempted Queen Elizabeth to try smoking, and it was then copied by the rest of the population.

By the turn of the 17th century, tobacco was very commonplace and starting to cause concern. Sir Francis Bacon noted:

“The use of tobacco has immensely increased in our time”,

and that it gave men

“a kind of secret pleasure, so that persons once accustomed to it can scarce leave it off”—

an early description of the addiction that the chief medical officer described in evidence earlier in the week. If that period was when smoking first became popular, it is also when we find the very first anti-tobacco campaigning and regulation in this country. King James I, who was perhaps before his time in some respects, in 1604 produced a pamphlet called “A Counterblaste to Tobacco”, one of the earliest anti-smoking and anti-tobacco publications known. He reckoned that tobacco caused serious social problems and serious health issues; he described it as

“hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.”

Although that pamphlet was published 400 years ago, James I was not far off, and his words ring true today. He also, recognising the dangers, put an import tax on tobacco to try to reduce its use, and he noticed what the doctors in this Committee will have seen in their anatomy classes—I think there are pictures now on cigarette packets too—of black scarring in the lungs of people who smoked. Of course, that was not enough to put people off; during the great plague of 1665-66, at Eton College it was made compulsory for all the boys to smoke tobacco to protect them, which I thought was interesting.

Fast forward, though, to the 20th century and we begin to see tobacco being mass produced rather than sold as a luxury item. There had been some strides in regulation, such as the Children Act 1908, which forbade the sale of tobacco for those under the age of 16. It is interesting that it took from 1908 to almost modern times for that age limit to change.

After the conclusion of the war, tobacco companies had a captive audience, with lots of male soldiers wanting more, so they turned their attention to women. Recognising the strides that women had made during the suffrage movement, they cleverly used the equality angle as a basis for their mass marketing campaign to “light up for freedom”. They were also sold light or “Mild as May” cigarettes, which were supposed to be a more feminine version but were no doubt just as harmful.

As the chief medical officer said in evidence on Tuesday, big tobacco is very clever. As reports began to emerge suggesting a link between smoking, cancer and a whole host of other issues, tobacco advertising began to change tack. Cigarettes were no longer sold as being “Mild as May”, but focused on a male audience once again, promoting rugged individualism and stoicism. The Marlboro Man became a regular feature of motorsport events such as Formula 1 and featured on ski jackets and other clothing.

At that stage, to be pro-smoking was to be pro-choice, a rationale that amounted to “Die like a man, die free”. It is interesting that it was promoted as a form of choice—the argument being used against clause 1 today—when actually, as has been described to us in evidence, the only choice people make is that first cigarette. Once they have taken their first cigarette, they can become addicted to it, so the next cigarette is not the choice it is set out to be.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the point my hon. Friend is quite eloquently making, but might I suggest to her that times have very much changed: the advertising that she has talked about has long since been restricted, the idea that smoking is seen in that same way and is prevalent throughout society is no longer true, and perhaps the arguments she is making are not as relevant today as they might have been in the past?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right that the advertising restrictions have changed, because the Governments of different colours over the period have changed them. That has reduced tobacco smoking, which for people’s health is a good thing, as I am sure he agrees.

I am advised that the five men who appeared as the Marlboro Man all died of smoking-related illnesses, which is very sad to hear. In the 1950s, we started to see reports in the British Medical Journal that suggested a link between smoking and lung cancer, and by 1962 the Royal College of Physicians had enough evidence to push for a ban on advertising. Tobacco advertising has been banned on television since 1965, and a national warning sign saying, “SMOKING CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH” was imposed in 1971.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. My intention was merely to illustrate to the Committee the benefits of clause 1, rather than the risks, and the effect that reducing tobacco consumption will have on the environment and the public.

Early on in this Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester raised the issue of pets. We have a much-loved cocker spaniel. We do not smoke in our house, or at all, but it had not occurred to me that animals would be affected by smoking, too—it is obvious, when I think about it. Every day is a school day.

The number of smokers is falling, with only 12.9% of the English population smoking—I say “only”, but that is still 6.4 million people—which is a significant drop. However, there is still more to do, and this legislation is an effort, in part, to do that.

So what does clause 1 do? Essentially, it changes the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers so that those born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold these products in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, replacing the existing legislation, which sets the age of sale at 18. I appreciate that 1 January 2009 was the date set by the previous Government, but I wonder whether that was the reason the Minister chose it, or whether there was a more special reason. Given that we want to get children and adults not smoking as quickly as possible, why did he not choose to bring it forward a year? Why that date, specifically? Does he think it needs time to bed in, or does he think that leaves enough time to bed in?

I want to talk about subsection (1)(a) on tobacco products. There is a huge variety of tobacco products. We have talked mostly today about cigarettes, because they are the most common tobacco products, although they come in various different forms. There are also cigars, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor talked about earlier.

[Jack Rankin]

I will just expand the point a little bit. My understanding of heated tobacco, for example—my hon. Friend is a medical professional, so she may take a different view—is that where it has been introduced en masse, such as in Japan, there has been a 70% fall in cigarette sales. If we are talking about a smoke-free generation, and the health benefits that she and Government Members are talking about, is banning all tobacco products necessarily the right way to go about that?

[Dr Johnson]

Some people talk about celebrating special events with a cigar. My hon. Friend talked about new year’s eve, birthdays, the birth of a child or weddings—people might celebrate those sort of events with a cigar, although it is not as popular as it once was. It is possibly most famously associated with Winston Churchill. I think the expression “close, but no cigar” comes from the practice of giving away cigars as prizes at fairground games, which is thankfully not something we encourage today. Intriguingly, cigars have often evaded smoking bans, as a special exemption remains in place that allows customers of cigar shops to smoke on the premises, the idea being that smokers sample a product before committing to buying an entire box. Just a few hundred metres from where we stand, Members can stroll down St James’s Street and then smoke a cigar indoors, entirely legally, at the establishments that sell them. I think cigars have been given special treatment in the in the past for that reason. The Minister may consider that people who find themselves banned from tobacco, but addicted to it, may decide that they are going to smoke lots of cigars, but I would be interested to understand his thought processes on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which builds on the point I was trying to make.

The issue of managing individuals addicted to smoking who come to the UK is an important one. On my last foray through Heathrow, I met a gentleman who was unhappy to find himself there; I think he had been supposed to land in Paris but weather had intervened, and he was not happy at Heathrow because there was nowhere for him to smoke. I think he was travelling back to South Africa, having watched the rugby.

How we manage smokers who come here to visit as tourists or as migrants is an important economic question. If people come here permanently, what investment will the Minister make to promote awareness among such individuals of the various nicotine replacement therapies that might be available to them, in order to help them to quit smoking and improve their own health, which is obviously very important?

[Jack Rankin]

I will just expand on that point a little. The United Kingdom is something like the third biggest tourist destination in the world. Forgive my ignorance—there is a lot of paperwork here—but obviously we are trying to make the sale of tobacco and the distribution to others of tobacco illegal in the UK, and I have not seen a clause in the Bill that would make bringing cigarettes into the country for one’s own use illegal. Maybe the Minister will correct me on that.

We obviously have a tourism issue in that regard, but I was also thinking about when G7 leaders come to the UK. President Obama was famously a smoker. Will the United Kingdom not be able to host a G7 event, which is obviously of massive significance, if there is a leader of the free world who smokes? Their attendance might be vetoed. There are lots of things that have just not been thought about.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have not seen a clause in the Bill that prevents tobacco from being imported. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong about that; however, it does not look as if he is going to. If the leader of another G7 nation is coming to a conference in the UK, he will be bound by the same laws as everybody else. If that means he cannot buy cigarettes, then he cannot buy cigarettes, although I suspect that the current leader of the Bahamas was probably born before 1 January 2009, so we are safe for a little while.

However, it is right that my hon. Friend raised the point. After all, the purpose of this Committee is to ensure that someone has gone through the Bill line by line and thought about all the various different esoteric concerns that might be raised, and to ensure that they are brought to the fore. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the volume of tobacco that can be brought into the UK for personal use will exceed the amount that the average president might wish to use while they were here attending a conference. Who knows? The final point was about employers. Will they be required to train people in age estimation? Given that the evidence for that does not exist—we were told in evidence to the Committee earlier in the week that such training does not exist—would that form part of the reasonable steps? It would be reassuring to me if it does not, in particular for small businesses, which already bear a number of burdens in tax at the moment.

Amendment 68 is an Opposition amendment, in my name. It would prevent the imposition of penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vape products to individuals under 18. It would modify section 4A of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which regulates the sale of nicotine vapour products to a person under 18, by introducing lenient penalties for first-time offenders. The amendment stipulates that the penalties typically applied for selling such products to minors will not apply for the first offence. The new provision would allow first-time offenders who admit guilt either to receive a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to be issued a discretionary recorded police warning—similar to a caution—instead of facing more severe penalties.

The change aims to provide a less punitive approach for first-time violations, offering flexibility in enforcement while still holding offenders accountable. It comes back to the point that we made about proportionality in relation to the group of amendments that included amendment 56, and to the Minister’s comments on who exactly will be responsible for the fine—whether that is the shopkeeper or shop worker, or indeed whether it can be both.

Amendment 69 would add to section 4B(7) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 the phrase

“save if it is a first offence”,

and insert a new subsection (7A) after subsection (7). The provisions would ensure that individuals who commit a first offence under the age verification policy in relation to the sale of tobacco, and herbal smoking, vaping and nicotine products, are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. That goes back to the difference between a rogue trader and a young Saturday worker who mistakes the age of an older person.

The first change made by amendment 69 would limit the application of harsher penalties to those who have already been convicted, meaning that first-time offenders will not face the same level of penalty as those who have a history of non-compliance. The second change—the addition of the new subsection (7A)—would establish a graduated response for first-time offenders. It specifies that anyone who admits guilt for the first time, for their first offence, would be subject to a much lower fine of no more than level 2 on the standard scale, or a recorded police warning.

That is a significant reduction, compared with the penalties that may apply to repeat offenders, so it would offer more lenient consequences for a first offence. The recorded police warning would serve as an official notice, preventing the individual from avoiding further legal consequences if they do not comply with the conditions of the warning. That is similar to our earlier discussions about proportionality, and the Minister may want to comment further on that in relation to these amendments.

Finally, new clause 3 seeks to amend clause 1 to introduce a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to individuals born on or after 1 January 2009. The new clause would require businesses to offer an age verification policy to establish the age of persons who attempt to buy tobacco products. The policy must include the steps that are needed to verify the age of a person who attempts to purchase any of those products, if it appears that they may be under the age of 25 or any other age specified in the policy—in this case, the age of a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

New clause 3 outlines certain exemptions, specifying that businesses from which tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products or nicotine products are dispatched for delivery to other premises do not need to operate an age verification policy, to help with trade and providing them to retailers. It would avoid problems with businesses and delivery services that do not interact directly with the customer or end user in person. The new clause would allow the appropriate national authority in England or Wales to regulate the details of those policies, including by providing guidance on the steps that businesses need to take to verify age, the type of identification that can be accepted and the training requirements for staff.

I note that the Minister suggested that he would reject new clause 3. I am interested to understand which of the steps taken to verify age, to train people in identification and to set out training requirements for staff he does not want. The implementation of this age verification policy would reflect similar measures that are already in place in Scotland, which are included specifically in this Bill and are designed to ensure that individuals who are under the legal age are not sold these products. The Scottish legislation provides legal underpinning to the Challenge 25 scheme, which operates voluntarily in the rest of the UK.

There is an argument that customers in the rest of the UK are uncertain whether they will need to provide ID, whereas customers in Scotland under the age of 25 are certain that they will need to provide their ID. I am not sure that that holds water in some respects, because if one is close to the age of 18 or fortunate enough to look it, one is expecting it—although, as I said before, I was 38 the last time I was carded, and I did not expect it. I did not have my ID with me, and I was not able to buy the product, though I was amply old enough.

I note that in new clause 3, the fine is set at level 2, which is obviously lower than the level 3 fine. When she speaks to her new clause, can the hon. Member for City of Durham explain why she has chosen a level 2 fine? For the purpose of the new clause, the fine is applied to a business for not adequately training its staff to assess people’s age and putting them at risk of non-compliance with the law. Does she think that a level 2 fine, for which a young Saturday worker could be liable if they were to sell those products, is proportionate, or set at the right price point? We are trying to get businesses to comply, and a rogue business may be unlikely to be deterred by such a low amount.

Subsection (7) of new clause 3 stipulates that individuals selling tobacco products, cigarette papers, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products must undergo training. However, the practical implementation of age verification policies poses significant challenges, and businesses, especially small retailers, may lack the resources and training to effectively enforce them.

[Jack Rankin]

One thing that will be particularly operationally difficult is the period of time during which those on the shop floor may not be able to use cigarettes themselves, but they will not be prohibited from selling cigarettes. An 18-year-old shop worker might be asked to adjudicate whether someone is 33 or 34. In such instances, training might be really quite important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the shadow Minister for her intervention. She made that point powerfully during her speech. It is vital that we in this Committee, people listening to at home and those who will have to implement or abide by this legislation are really clear what those steps are. I hope the Minister is able to give us some surety on that.

We must ensure that we expand the acceptable forms of identification as much as possible, especially in clause 1, as the shadow Minister said. We have seen this in all sorts of walks of life, and she made the reasonable comparison with voter ID laws. Even if it is not something that the Minister can guarantee today, I hope that further forms of ID, such as veterans’ cards, will be inserted on Report, because as the age of people who are still allowed to smoke increases, they will have different forms of ID from younger people.

I will finish with a personal comment, if you will indulge me, Mr Dowd. I have two daughters, one of whom is nearly seven and one who is eight, and I find it fascinating that they find the idea of people smoking both bizarre and abhorrent. When we drive along in the car or walk along the street and they spot someone who is smoking, they rather loudly, and perhaps slightly to my embarrassment, point it out and say, “Daddy, that man”—or woman—“is smoking. Isn’t it awful?” Although the steps in the Bill are necessary and useful, I think that we as a nation, and Governments of all different colours, have done a good job in dealing with this. What worries me more for our young children is vapes, which we will discuss in future sittings. I will be happy to support clause 1 if it comes to a vote.

[Jack Rankin]

Judging from the tone of debate so far, I might be the most sceptical about the principle of clauses 1, 50 and 68, and I appreciate that perhaps I am in the minority. I will talk to what I see as the principle of those clauses and put on the record where I agree with the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will also give international examples that we should bear in mind, particularly in relation to the scope of “tobacco products”, which I think is wrong in these clauses.

We talk about a smoke-free generation. If we were to tweak that slightly and call it a “cigarette-free generation”, I would share the aim of the Government and the previous Government; that is laudable pretty much every which way. The Minister, the shadow Minister and Members from across the Committee have made eloquent contributions about the damage that smoking cigarettes does to people over many years. It clearly should be a priority of a Government of any colour to reduce cigarette smoking significantly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon eloquently said, we have made significant progress on that. Yes, there has been legislation, but the change has also been cultural. The legislation has been important. Government Members made the point to me earlier that some of the arguments I have used I might have used against previous legislation that sought to put barriers between people and smoking. But the cultural element that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about is deeply embedded in most young people today.

That is why, despite sharing with the Government the aim of moving to a cigarette-free generation, I do not think I can quite get over the principle of what they are doing to civil liberties in this Bill. We are on the journey to a cigarette-free generation anyway, so why would they need to use—I do not mean this in an incendiary way, although they might take it that way—quite draconian powers? I would say that that is what this is.

[Andrew Gwynne]

A simple question: whose civil liberties are we refusing?

[Jack Rankin]

Very simply, in the future, we will create two tiers of adults. Those people are children today, and it is right that in law we prohibit them from smoking, because they cannot make these responsible decisions, but once someone passes the age of 18, we as a society, generally speaking, accept that if they want to make bad choices, they are their bad choices.

[Andrew Gwynne]

With rights come responsibilities. People have the responsibility both to look after themselves and to not be overly burdensome on the state. We know that the cost of tobacco is borne hugely by the taxpayer. Does the hon. Member therefore not agree that the Bill seeks a very reasonable balance? The draconian measure would be to ban tobacco full stop. The Bill says that those for whom tobacco is not legal today will never be able to purchase it, but everybody else—those who have the civil liberty to purchase and consume tobacco—can do it till the day they die.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the Minister’s point that in a society in which we are looked after by our NHS, to which we all contribute, which is free at the point of use and which I am sure all of us across the House support, when someone smokes and creates a burden on society through health or social care, that is the responsibility of us all.

Where I think the difference lies is where we make a moral choice. I have heard different figures for the cost from cigarettes. There are different studies. I have heard numbers as low as £20 billion, but I think that today the Minister used £80 billion when talking about productivity. I think that should be calculated properly and appropriately with evidence, but if that is the cost, that is what we should levy in excise duty, at which point the people who impose that burden are the people paying it. That is where I would go, in principle. I think that if we go beyond that point, we are starting to make a moral decision on behalf of others.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the “polluter pays” concept that my hon. Friend is raising, but he is also talking about the morality of the situation. What does he think of the morality of producing a product that we know, more than on the balance of probabilities, will kill the person who uses it and will make them an addict and remove their choice of whether to purchase any more?

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, but there is not a single adult in this country who does not know how bad cigarettes are for them. It is an important function of Government to make that educational point. Governments of all colours have made it systematically, and it has massively changed the way people, including the new generation, perceive cigarettes. That education battle has been won. Once we have won that game, which I think we have, and once we have no longer socialised the healthcare cost to others, which is what I suggest cigarette duty should be doing, we are starting to make moral choices on behalf of others.

[Dr Chambers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Rankin]

I am sure I am winning some hearts and minds here.

[Dr Chambers]

We could rephrase the way we talk about civil liberties. We currently have a generation among whom some are addicted and have no choice, and we will be allowing a future generation to be free from having their choice taken away by addiction.

[Jack Rankin]

I take the hon. Member’s point. I understand that cigarettes are obviously incredibly addictive, but I think we can exercise that point too far. People who smoke have agency to stop; it might be difficult, but they can, should they choose to.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Having spent decades helping people quit smoking, I would like the hon. Member to think carefully about saying that quitting is easy. He should give some thought to the words he is using, for the sake of all those who have struggled to give up smoking. This is a choice we are giving back to millions of people.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Forgive me if I did say it was easy, but I try to pick my words carefully, and I do not think I did say that. I said they had agency, and that is a different point.

Linked to that is the fact that too often—not just on this issue—we talk about waving our magic wand with legislation to make things illegal. But that is not the way that the world works. I am concerned that there is the potential, with draconian legislation such as this, to exacerbate the illicit trade in tobacco, which will reduce the effectiveness of the regulations and the public health messages.

[Andrew Gwynne]

At this rate, I am going to start referring to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for the Institute of Economic Affairs—I am sure he has got the briefing. He probably sees that as a compliment, but believe me, it really is not. He talks about illicit trade, but let us talk facts. The last time there was a major piece of tobacco control in this country those same arguments were made, but the illicit trade fell by 25%. There is absolutely no evidence that, with the appropriate enforcement—through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, border control and trading standards—there will be any increase in illicit trade as a consequence of the Bill.

[Jack Rankin]

Does the Minister perhaps not see the difficulty with the fact that we will be out of international lockstep with everybody? My understanding is that both New Zealand and Malaysia introduced a generational ban policy, and both have been repealed.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—is that New Zealand introduced the ban, but it had not come into force, at which point the Government changed. When the Government changed, the political views of the Government changed—as we have seen happen in our country. Sadly, as a result, the law was rescinded before it came into force in New Zealand.

[Jack Rankin]

I am well aware that that is the case. Part of the reason for that change in Government—although I do not want to overplay the significance of this singular issue—was that the incoming Government made an argument about the practicalities of enforcing such a law. Frankly, that is a significant concern of mine.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Before the hon. Member moves off his point about the international picture, I think it is a point of pride that the United Kingdom—all four nations —will be the world leader. We thought we were going to be in second place behind New Zealand. I pity New Zealand, given the predicament it finds itself in, because it was leading the way. However, this Government—building on the actions of the last Government—will be the world leader. I reassure the hon. Member that, as I saw when I was representing the United Kingdom at the G20 Health Ministers summit in Rio de Janeiro late last year, the world is queuing up to look at what we do here. They all want to implement these measures. They wished us the best of luck and want this to work. We are going to make it work and lead the way in the world.

[Jack Rankin]

I sympathise with what the Minister says about the world wanting us to make it work. I will make an analogy that I think is directly relevant. My expertise before joining this House was in renewables development. The United Kingdom, particularly under this Government, has been quite aggressive on renewables; the Conservative party was quite aggressive on them too, and the new Government have come in, continued those policies and been more aggressive. The Government are clear that they want to be world leaders, but in the past week the United Kingdom was incredibly close to blackouts.

If you are a leader and you do something successfully, whether on renewables or cigarettes, you may well lead the world forward, and the Minister is right to say that other countries would want to follow us on this issue. However, there is an under-spoken truth about being a leader, and perhaps being first. Clearly, the Minister is passionate about the issue, as is clear in not just what he says, but how he says it; he wants the United Kingdom to lead on this, and I am sure he will be as forceful as possible. But a leader is also a warning if they do not succeed. If we make moves that are too draconian, too quick or over-eager on energy, and we get it wrong, that could mean blackouts. If that happens because we have taken an aggressive approach, no one will follow us. We will be a warning. For leaders, it goes both ways.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am sorry to prolong the debate, Mr Dowd, but the hon. Gentleman should believe in his country with a bit more passion. The patriotic case for leading the way on tobacco control is clear, and the world has been looking for some time at the United Kingdom and the measures that we have brought in over the past two decades. They have been incremental steps to get us to the point where we are absolutely determined, and where it is a viable proposition, that this country will be smoke-free. The hon. Gentleman should believe in this country a bit more, back the Bill and show the world that the real freedom is freedom from addiction to tobacco.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the Minister for his passionate remarks, which I am obviously not going to take lying down. I agree wholeheartedly that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the greatest country in the world, but before I try to make some progress, I might humbly suggest to him that a lot of that greatness may be based on the primacy of the individual and our rights to get on with our lives.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The hon. Gentleman talks about civil liberties, agency and this great country. One purpose of the Bill is to tackle inequalities in our country—stark inequalities between the rich and the poor. We know that tobacco is mainly prevalent in deprived areas, and that it kills one out of two of its users. What agency does a young person have, in terms of their health and life expectancy, once the tobacco industry has them hooked? That is not agency. Tobacco is a product that kills people, and the tobacco industry will continue to find loopholes to replace the people who have died because of its product. If the hon. Gentleman believes in this great country, he should believe that tackling inequalities and making a smoke-free future for our young people are paramount.

[Jack Rankin]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s passionate belief in equality, but I find that somewhat paternalistic and somewhat—I do not mean this dismissively—condescending. Poorer people have the same agency as anybody else. That is the point.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for the points he is making, which add to the interest of the debate, and I have listened with interest. I declare an interest as a public health consultant, and if the hon. Member is not interested in the greater moral argument, I would encourage him to look at my discipline and the 50 years of evidence and data we have collected since Sir Richard Doll first identified the fact that lung cancer had a causality with smoking. Data and evidence build this great Government and this great country. I ask the hon. Gentleman to please not accept the moralistic or paternalistic arguments: this is a solid Bill, built on 50 years of evidence.

[Jack Rankin]

I might make some headway, because I think that was more of a slap-down than a question for me.

[Dr Johnson]

It might be good to get on record some of the figures that appear in the Government’s impact assessment regarding the association between smoking and poverty. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people who are poor or rich have the same agency and intellectual capacity to make decisions, but the figures show that the number of people in poorer areas who smoke is greater.

Figures produced in the Government’s impact assessment show that, in 2023, 20.2% of those in routine and manual work smoked, compared with 7.9% in managerial and professional populations. For those who owned their home outright, smoking rates were only 7%, but for those who rented local authority or housing association properties, smoking prevalence was 25.7%, which shows there is a marked inequality in smoking rates between rich and poor. The health inequalities we see across the population in other forms of ill health will be improved by clause 1, because smoking rates will fall in all populations. The change will be seen most in the poor.

[The Chair]

Order. The principle was already agreed on Second Reading, so we do not need to rehearse all the arguments. I am sorry to have to say that, but that is my job as the Chair. Some may accuse me of being lax in this regard, but I am not—I want the debate to go on, but I want it to be about the clauses we are supposed to be debating.

[Jack Rankin]

I will move, then, to tobacco products, the definition of which is in clauses 1, 50 and 68—forgive me that digression, Mr Dowd, but I got blown off course a little by some Labour Members. I made a differentiation between smoke-free and cigarette-free. All the arguments I have heard about the hugely detrimental nature and health challenges of a life of smoking pertain, in the majority, to cigarettes. I find the widest possible definition of tobacco products to be unnecessary.

I have made the point about recreational cigars. The Minister said that there was no safe level of consuming tobacco, but I would suggest that an adult can make a perfectly reasonable choice to, once a year, have a couple of cigars. Yes, there will be detrimental health effects, but an adult in a reasonable country should be able to make that choice. The definition should not include recreational products that do not have the same hook as cigarettes. I do not feel the need to have a cigar on January 8 because I had one on 31 December.

There is also a degree of puritanism to having the widest possible scope of tobacco product. I mentioned heated tobacco earlier. Although I know it has negative health effects, I understand that the data shows that to be significantly less than for cigarettes. Heated tobacco could be used as a cessation device, so the heavy-handed approach here might be overdoing it. In the same way, I would be interested in how the Minister thinks about nicotine patches.

To achieve the smoke-free future we all want, the UK must move in an evidence-based way that differentiates clearly between various smoke-free products and traditional cigarettes, because I do not think the current approach has necessarily been justified. We need to exclude reduced-risk products from the generational ban, which will help minimise confusion and encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to put on record that I concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, particularly about vapes. My hesitation so far has always related to my concern about tobacco in clause 1.

I can reassure the Minister that I firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We have one of the finest legal systems in the world, and it is that basis that I have concerns: the greatest frustration in practice is that, while the principles are well intentioned, the drafting does not follow suit, which leads to litigation and sometimes to unintended consequences.

I firmly believe that health is wealth. As a type 1 diabetic, I do not want anyone else to experience any form of chronic suffering. I do not smoke and I never will, but I want to have strong law, which is what we are here to achieve. I therefore ask the Minister to give me some reassurances on Northern Ireland and TPD2, because that is fundamental to the roll-out of this smoke-free generation. I also have a question on what we will do about imports of cigarettes to ensure that we do not have the illicit trade we were talking of.