Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on a Bill that delivers on our manifesto commitment to finish the job started by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) at the back end of the last Parliament. We should be proud that, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will be the most advanced legislation of its kind in the world.

I should declare at the outset that I was a smoker, and that experience gives me particular clarity on the need for change. I am also honoured to be vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I will use my six minutes to say a little about why this Bill is so necessary and—I hope the Minister does not mind —to gently set out where I think it could go further.

We often hear that smoking is about choice. The only choices I made were to have my first cigarette at the age of 15 and then, almost 15 years and thousands of cigarettes later, the much more difficult choice to finally give up.

According to the wonderful Action on Smoking and Health, which has been quoted widely in this debate, the majority of smokers wish they had never started, and it takes, on average, 30 attempts to quit. This legislation will ensure that future generations in this country, including in Dartford, will not have their freedom to choose stolen by a deadly addiction.

The latest figures, before their collection was interrupted by the pandemic, show that in Kent, nearly 6,000 people died from smoking between 2017 and 2019, with 10,000 hospital admissions due to smoking during 2019 and 2020 alone. Before being elected to this place, I was, for many years, a local councillor working on public health issues, and I saw at first hand the burden that smoking places on my local community. Now that I have the great honour of representing the wonderful constituency of Dartford, I see smoking taking a similar toll.

No matter where we are in the country, we will hear the same stories of loved ones lost too soon, of people becoming addicted as children and of the most disadvantaged groups bearing the heaviest burden. We cannot, and must not, accept a situation in which more than 74,000 deaths a year are attributable to smoking. We now know, with more clarity than ever, the damage that smoking causes. Smoking can lead to at least 16 different types of cancer, and it cost England £21.8 billion in 2023, mainly in lost economic productivity.

We have a chance to change this. Modelling by the Department of Health and Social Care estimates that raising the age of sale by one year every year will prevent almost 500,000 cases of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and other lung diseases by the end of the century. It will save tens of thousands of lives and help untold numbers of people to lead healthier and more enjoyable lives.

An issue that often comes up when discussing measures of this nature is how we make them enforceable. The legislation enjoys widespread public support, with 69% of the public in favour of the measures, according to polling undertaken by YouGov for ASH earlier this year, and even a slim majority of smokers in favour, which indicates that many smokers recognise that we do not want the next generation to grow up addicted to smoking. The measures command high levels of public support, and when such policies are done with and not to people, compliance is self-enforcing and high.

Turning to where the Bill might go a little further, I welcome the additional powers to create smokefree outdoor spaces and to designate smokefree places as vape-free. However, I admit slight disappointment that the Government seem to have ruled out hospitality premises from the scope of the regulations, rather than setting out options via a consultation about how we might proceed. I hope the Minister will recognise that there are options other than an outright ban.

As the number of smokers in the UK continues to decline, there are discussions to be had about how we use public spaces and protect individuals from second-hand smoke, particularly children and those with health conditions. From my time in local government, I know that councils can play a vital role in improving the health of their communities. Councils across the country have used the pavement licensing system to create smokefree outdoor spaces. That has proved popular with businesses and customers, particularly families with children. I gently urge the Minister to consider whether the Bill might be amended to allow local authorities to decide which additional spaces, beyond those regulated nationally, they might like to make smokefree in the best interests of communities.

My final point, which reflects those made by other hon. Members, is about the “polluter pays” principle. We all know that public finances are under significant strain. If the funding we desperately need to create a smokefree country cannot be found in our existing budgets, I would urge Ministers to consider the imposition of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I cannot hear everything because of that noise, but I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Professor Sir Michael McBride and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am sorry, Sir Chris. Just for the purposes of timekeeping, which is my job, we have about 20 minutes left and five people wish to ask questions, so can we keep the questions as tight as possible, and within reason the answers as well?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I wanted to give the exact numbers, which I just found in my notes. Some 75,000 GP appointments a month are caused by smoking—just think of that when you phone up the GP—and 448,000 admissions to the NHS: again, think of that when you look at these areas. So the impact of this is really very substantial.

[Jim Dickson]

Q May I ask a question about some of the arguments from tobacco companies for heated products to be excluded from the tobacco regulations and the Bill—and presumably therefore the age of sale regulations. Would you have a view on whether that is a sensible proposal?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have a very strong view. The tobacco industry is extraordinarily adept at pretending that it is on the side of the angels, and that it is trying to help with the problem. This goes along with slimline cigarettes, filters, low-tar cigarettes—many other marketing things, all of which claim to try and help with the health effects. Tobacco is extraordinarily dangerous, as well as being addictive. The heated tobacco products have probably slightly lower levels—they do have lower levels of the multiple chemicals that are toxic: multiple, not just one or two, but they are way away from safe levels. So heated tobacco products, while arguably being slightly lower in terms of the risk if someone had exactly the same amount, are a long way short of anywhere near safe, and they are still addictive. They also have some side-blow areas where they will have some issues for people around them as well. So the idea that this is some kind of solution only makes sense if you have shares in a company. So I would very strongly argue against trying to exclude these and carve these out.

Sir Francis Atherton: Nicotine is addictive however you take it—whether it is in heated tobacco, in cigarettes, in snus, in chewed tobacco or in shisha pipes—so in terms of protecting the next generation, the great value of this Bill is the flexibility to deal with not just the issues that we see in front of us, but the things that may well come down the pipeline in the future. I believe the Bill is flexible enough to allow us to protect the next generation from these terrible problems that flow from addiction.

[The Chair]

Sir Michael, you were nodding. Did you have any comment to make?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I simply echo Sir Frank’s comments on the flexibility that the Bill affords us, and again confirm my agreement with Sir Chris’s comments. Let us be clear: there is no other product that causes life-limiting addiction, that kills two thirds—kills two thirds—of the people who use it. It is staggering, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to address a scourge on our society. There is no safe tobacco product —none.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Some of the evidence that has been submitted referred to the gateway effect and how there is perhaps not the evidence to suggest that there is a transition from one to the other. Are your organisations still concerned about the increase in vaping among groups who have not previously smoked cigarettes?

Sarah Sleet: That is a tricky one. We know that a lot of people who use vaping to stop smoking end up dual-using for a while. Some then move on to just vaping, and some eventually move completely away from it. We seriously need a comprehensive programme for nicotine cessation and smoking cessation to support people on that journey and make sure that people who go on that journey do not come back in. We heard earlier from ASH Wales about some really good measures that have been put in place, but without that wider context it is hard to cement the behaviour needed to move completely away from it. We need to think broadly about the whole support structure to help people to get off smoking and eventually to move away from nicotine altogether.

Dr Ian Walker: I agree. The real killer in the room, if you like, is cigarettes and tobacco. There is no safe way of consuming tobacco. The alternative of smoking versus vaping is very clear; even though we do not know the long-term health implications of vapes, we know that you are much better off vaping than smoking. Having said that, of course we do not want young people and never-smokers to vape either.

The power of the legislation is its double-pronged approach: preventing people from ever smoking in the first place by raising the age of sale by one year every year, and putting in place a comprehensive package of measures alongside that to control vaping, particularly the access to vaping and the appeal of vaping for young people, to reduce uptake in those communities. All those things together, alongside—you will forgive me for saying this—the investment that will be required for smoking cessation services and to support enforcement by Border Force, HM Revenue and Customs and retailers, will be important components of the Bill’s ability to drive the change that it can make.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Thank you for all your work to advocate for smoke-free legislation. Can I ask you about differential smoking rates across the country? Which parts of the country are likely to benefit most from this legislation as we see a decline in smoking rates and in tobacco use more generally?

Sarah Sleet: Health inequalities relating to lung disease are profound. The three conditions with the biggest gap in health outcomes between rich and poor are lung conditions: asthma, COPD and lung cancer. All three are profoundly affected by smoking, and smoking is concentrated in socially and economically deprived areas. Those in the poorest part of the country are twice as likely to smoke as those in the richest part of the country.

It is even more profound in certain segments. We heard that young mothers are four times more likely to smoke in poorer parts of the country than in richer parts. If we can drive down smoking, particularly among young people, the impact will be greatest in those areas that are most in need of help and support. This is probably one of the biggest things that can be done to tackle health inequalities. For that reason, I think the Bill is probably the most important public health measure being passed through Parliament in a very, very long time.

Dr Ian Walker: Thank you for the question, which I think is a really critical one. At CRUK, we have done a lot of research and work on cancer inequalities, which are part of broader health inequalities and which generally mirror similar trends. We know that people in the most deprived communities have higher incidences of cancer. They typically present at a later stage, they typically engage less with screening, they typically have worse outcomes and they typically do not get optimal treatment —it is a pretty difficult story right along the pipeline. The reasons behind that can be very complex and involve lots of different things.

Despite all that, the one thing we do know is that higher smoking rates, particularly among children and young people in the most deprived communities, are a really significant contributor to health inequalities. It is very clear from the evidence that the most deprived communities across the UK are the ones that suffer most from the impacts of tobacco.

This Bill is clearly not a magic switch—it will not change those things overnight—but it sets us on the pathway to fundamentally reversing some of those inequalities and to reducing some of the cancer inequalities that we see across the UK. Alongside the important measures in the Bill, a really clear, targeted set of actions around health marketing interventions in those communities and the effective funding of cessation services where we need them most will contribute to reducing health inequalities much more quickly and much more effectively. Again, it is a very positive story in terms of the potential impact on health inequalities.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. As there are no other questions from Members, let me thank the witnesses, Ian Walker from Cancer Research UK and Sarah Sleet from Asthma and Lung UK.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Q I am assuming that from a public health point of view, looking at the epidemiology, certain communities and demographics will be more greatly affected by this. Is that something that you are mindful of? How do you see the Bill changing health inequalities?

Alison Challenger: We are very mindful of that. Some of the statistics we give around smoking prevalence are an average smoking prevalence for often quite large geographical areas. For my own area in west Sussex, our local survey suggests there is a variance of 4.3% in our most affluent area compared with 16% in our least affluent area. Those are still averages. We also know that in households in the most deprived part of our area, 40% of children are exposed to cigarette smoking from a parent or carer. That is through our own survey.

The point I am trying to make is that there is very much a health gradient, and in those who are most disadvantaged and living in our most disadvantaged areas, we see both higher rates of smoking and more children exposed to that smoking. Those children are more likely to take up smoking if they have been exposed to it.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q This is to Councillor Fothergill. Are there any circumstances you can envisage where local enforcement would not be enough and the Secretary of State would need to utilise the powers granted in the Bill under clauses 130 and 131 to intervene?

David Fothergill: We have discussed this outside the room, and I think the area we would be most concerned about is illegal sales online. Our local teams could not get into those, and therefore we might need more national resources to break into how people are bringing illegal substances into the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Jim Dickson.

[Jim Dickson]

I am fine, Sir Mark.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witness, Professor Bauld, for her contribution. We will move on to the sixth panel of witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Lord Michael Bichard and Wendy Martin gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

One final quick question from Jim Dickson, before we have to go on to the next panel.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Tobacco companies, as we know, collect a pretty rich dataset on their sales. Do you think that requesting, or placing in legislation an obligation on them to publish, that sales data would be a useful tool for trading standards?

Lord Michael Bichard: I cannot see that it would not be useful, but it is not something that has come across my desk.

Wendy Martin: Mine neither, but intelligence-led enforcement means the more that intelligence is available, the better one is able to target. I do not know exactly what tobacco companies collect, but generally any intelligence is useful.

[The Chair]

I thank both panellists for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Inga Becker-Hansen gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q As we know, we have very high levels of child poverty in this country. Much of that poverty is in the areas where there is high smoking prevalence, as well as many other health issues. How important do you think the Bill is for the health of children as they grow into adulthood, for the impact that it will have on the communities they live in, and for addressing inequality?

Professor Steve Turner: Touching on what I have said before, there are communities, invariably the poorer communities, in something called the tobacco map. If you look at the areas where tobacco use is greatest, it maps totally on top of deprivation. We have an opportunity to break that generational social norm of, “It’s okay to smoke.” The people who come to the greatest harm from cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction are invariably the poorest. What is proposed here will be a good step towards narrowing the divide we see in this country in health outcomes, which is totally determined by poverty.

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: We estimate that around 350 children a day start to smoke. A lot of those will be from the most deprived communities. In addition, smoking in the UK brings around a quarter of a million families into poverty, and those families have children. The Bill will go a long way to not only reducing the health harms to individuals, but reducing poverty and hopefully smoking-related deprivation.

To answer one of the questions earlier about the cost of smoking to the NHS, it is estimated that it costs secondary care about £1 billion a year. With primary care in addition, that is a total cost of £2.6 billion to the NHS, around £20 billion a year to social care, and about £50 billion a year in lost productivity. That is the overall cost of smoking to our society, whether at the level of the individual, poverty, deprivation, social care or workforce productivity, and that is why the Bill is so important.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Some other countries, notably Australia and Canada, have introduced mandatory health warnings for manufacturers to place on individual cigarettes and filters, because quite often, young people in particular are accepting cigarettes away from the packaging. Do you see that as a useful way of increasing the saliency of health warnings?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: These additional measures warn people away from smoking—those who might be looking at the packaging or the individual cigarette. Remember, an individual cigarette—every time someone takes out a cigarette—is an advertisement for cigarettes. Lots of times, children are sold cigarettes on a per-cigarette basis, and they have never actually seen the packet; they have only seen the cigarettes. Therefore, having on-cigarette warnings is another measure that we can introduce to warn people off the harms of smoking. It would be great to see that.

[The Chair]

I was incorrect; we have until 5 o’clock, rather than 4.50 pm, which is now. Do we have any more questions from Members? No. In that case, I thank Professor Turner and Professor Agrawal for giving evidence, which I am sure will be useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The next panellist happens to be the Minister. Instead of asking questions, he will come under fire from his own Committee.

Examination of Witness

Andrew Gwynne MP gave evidence.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I merely make the point that ID is used for purposes other than to buy cigarettes and tobacco, Sir Roger.

I want to return to a point raised in an earlier intervention about the group of people who would be asked to carry ID. If somebody’s birthday is, like mine, in 1977, it is sadly unlikely that anyone will think that I was born in or after 2009. The cohort affected will be those born around 2006 or 2012. I do not see this as an ID for old people through the back door, because, as I view it, there will be a cohort of people within five or even 10 years on either side of the 2009 boundary who will find themselves required to carry ID if they wish to smoke. If they do not wish to smoke or use any tobacco, cigarettes or smoking products, they will not be affected.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I keep getting promoted—that is fine.

[Jim Dickson]

Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.

[Dr Johnson]

It is certainly the case, as I am sure we will come to when we discuss clause 1 itself in more detail, that where tobacco control measures have been brought in—on place, price, display or age group—they have led to a fall in smoking, which is a welcome and intended outcome.

I have been lumbered with a lot of interventions and I did not get to answer one point in full, which was on the issue of adult consistency. Amendment 17 would create two groups of adults—those aged between 18 and 25, who would be unable to smoke or use tobacco products, and those over 25, who would. The previous Government sought to say, “This is when you become an adult—when you turn 18. Before that, you are a child, and we will use child protection and safeguarding measures, so you cannot get married or buy a lottery ticket.” We sought to create consistency across the board, because consistency helps people to understand what the law is, which makes it easier for them to follow it and give a greater level of consent to it.

Let me turn back to the amendments. I cannot speak directly for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who tabled the amendments, but one of the reasons that has been given to me for increasing the age to 25 is that people normally begin smoking when they are young. Most people begin before they are 16, and many more before they are 21. That means that in principle, if we raised the age to 25, we would find that people did not start smoking in any great numbers, because their brain and their thinking process would be more mature, so they would be less likely to start. It is also the case that if someone starts smoking at a younger age, they are more vulnerable to the addictive properties of nicotine, as we heard in the impact assessment and in medical evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

On the point made the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, a common maxim applied to our public policy on harmful substances is that we permit. Even having a permission to smoke and buy cigarettes after the age of 25 means that society is effectively saying that that is fine to do, albeit harmful. We do not do that with very many other harmful substances, so it would seem odd to do it with cigarettes.

[Dr Johnson]

I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.

There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Moving forward, nothing much changed until 1927 when a man called Joseph Robinson in New York filed a patent for a device he called a medical butane ignition vaporiser. That never really made it off the drawing board, but it shows how the early idea of an e-cigarette first came into play as an alternative to smoking. Numerous patents for nicotine inhaler devices were filed throughout the 20th century and early 2000s by tobacco companies and individual vendors, with a flurry of activity in the 1990s. But the first commercially successful e-cigarette was invented by a smoker who wanted to quit, so it was initially conceived as a device in that regard. In 2004, a pharmacist in China called Hon Lik invented—

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I applaud the hon. Lady for her admirable history lesson on the background of vaping. Can I ask how it is relevant to what we are discussing in terms of the penalties and the sale of products?

[Dr Johnson]

It is relevant because we are discussing a product in the UK that we are considering essentially doing away with, and banning completely for children. The hon. Gentleman may note that we discussed the history of tobacco when we debated clause 1, on tobacco, and no less than two Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party talked about how interesting and relevant that was—[Interruption.] At least one of those individuals appeared very genuine.

Let me go back to Hon Lik, who invented the first e-cigarette as a way to cure his own smoking addiction and to try to prevent deaths such as his father’s from lung cancer—and we have talked much about the potential for smoking to cause lung cancer. The basic concept of mimicking smoking via vaporising liquids remains the same. The company he started was later bought as a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco, which again demonstrates that the industry will continue to try, where it can, to be involved in nicotine addiction.

The World Health Organisation proclaims that it does not consider electronic cigarettes a legitimate smoking cessation aid. It demands that marketers immediately remove from their material any suggestion that it considers electronic cigarettes to be safe and effective. In 2011, the WHO released a report on e-cigarettes recommending that they be regulated in the same way as tobacco products. Clause 10 will do some of that, inasmuch as it will bring e-cigarettes in line with the legislation on tobacco products so that they cannot be sold to under-18s. However, it does not go so far as to bring it in line with the new smoke-free generation legislation. The Minister may wish to comment on why he has not done so.

In the last Bill, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment that would have included nicotine products in the smoke-free generation legislation, banning them for those born after 1 January 2009 rather than just for under-18s. Her concern, as I understand it, was that the industry would pivot to other forms of nicotine that did not contain tobacco, hook a new generation on them and use similar marketing techniques to hook them on a lifetime of nicotine addiction, as it once did with tobacco. The Minister could seek to avoid that by preventing non-medicinal products containing nicotine from being used by anyone born after 1 January 2009. That power is within his grasp. On a personal level—this is not necessarily my party’s view—I would like him to seize that power.

The sale of vaping products to under-18s is addressed in clause 10. One of the reasons for restricting the sale is the range of pulmonary and coronary conditions—lung and heart conditions—that can occur for people who vape. To help us to understand why they are so damaging, it is important to understand what is in vapes per se. This is not just about nicotine products; it is also about vaping products.

As I say, nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that disrupts brain development in adolescence. Because adolescence is a critical time for neural development, it makes young people particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of nicotine. Adolescence is marked by substantial neurodevelopment, including synaptic pruning and the maturing of the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that governs decision making, impulse control and emotional regulation. Nicotine exposure during this period can disrupt those processes, leading to lasting cognitive and behavioural impairment. Research indicates that nicotine alters the neurotransmitter systems, noticeably those using acetylcholine and glutamate receptors, affecting the neural pathways essential for learning and memory development. Nicotine exposure during adolescence has been linked to deficits in attention, learning and impulse control. Studies have shown that adolescents using nicotine products exhibit diminished cognitive performance and are more prone to mood disorders, including depression and anxiety.

Another reason to get rid of these products, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, is that they can lead, in and of themselves, to problems with mental health. As hon. Members will know, these issues can adversely affect academic achievement—as we have heard from teachers’ evidence in the past and evidence to this Committee—and social interactions, potentially leading to broader physical challenges.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister very much for his birthday felicitations. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.

[The Chair]

I only hope that is not open to challenge.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

We are straying from the point a little, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Premier League will shortly initiate a shirt front ban on gambling sponsors? His examples of free advertising and sponsorship of gambling will probably be out of date soon.

[Jack Rankin]

I am glad to hear that—it sounds like positive news, but I will finish my point and go down the list. Crystal Palace FC is sponsored by Net88, a Vietnamese betting company; Everton FC by Stake, an Australian online casino; Fulham FC by SBOBET, a Philippine gambling company; Leicester FC by BC.Game; Nottingham Forest FC is—

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very happy to answer the question posed by the shadow Minister. It is a simple answer: we need clause 133 to avoid loopholes. Otherwise, newer products such as heated tobacco—and those products that have not even been developed yet—are in scope of the restrictions, but devices used alongside them could still be used to promote tobacco consumption.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136

Addition of smoke-free places in England

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendmentusb 11, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, after “regulations” insert

“and a local authority may (as respects its area) make byelaws”.

This amendment would extend the power to designate areas as smoke-free to certain local authorities, by making byelaws. Any byelaws so made would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 136, page 77, line 14, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

Amendment 13, in clause 136, page 77, line 16, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

Amendment 14, in clause 136, page 77, at the end of line 24, insert—

“(5) Before making byelaws under this section the local authority must consult any persons the local authority considers it appropriate to consult.

(6) In this section,

‘local authority’ means a county council in England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

[Jim Dickson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Amendments 11 to 14 are intended to extend the power to local authorities in England to designate areas as smoke-free by making byelaws. Any byelaws would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.What the amendments seek to do is to bring the power to extend smoke-free places to a local level, as there are already a number of local authorities that have had success with that approach.

As we know, local authorities are responsible for public health and know their communities well. Eleven councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating, including in thriving cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. There are many more areas where that approach could have benefits: for instance, in my Dartford constituency, we have a high street with an area where an excellent market takes place every Thursday and Saturday. It is an area not covered by smoke-free legislation, but one that in my view could greatly benefit from smoke-free areas.

[Gregory Stafford]

We may come on to this point when we discuss the substantive part of clause 136, but does the hon. Member not see any potential difficulty where there are different local authorities with different regulations on smoke-free areas? One of the beneficial simplicities in the Bill is that it applies the same rules across all areas in all the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. What he is suggesting could potentially add a level of complexity.

[Jim Dickson]

That is indeed a good question. Consistency is clearly desirable: it is easier for the public to understand and it makes enforcement easier. However, there are councils already leading the way in that area, and it is a question of the needs of the community covered by that local authority. We know that smoking is particularly concentrated in deprived communities. Local authorities are able to understand what areas are most at risk, work with those communities and arrive at solutions hand in hand with them. We know that public spaces facilitate quit attempts, so it is a great way to do this in areas where the communities consent to that approach. I still advocate the measure as a good way forward.

Obviously I would have liked to have seen outdoor hospitality settings included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions to this Bill; however, I know that many Members at the Second Reading expressed relief that that is not in scope for England. Other Members have sought to put the areas identified by the Government on the face of the Bill to rule this out in future, but I disagree with that approach, because we need flexibility.

[Gregory Stafford]

This is a point I will raise with the Minister as well—just to forewarn him—but, whereas I entirely agree with the future-proofing of this Bill in areas such as products and advertising where the market may move on, I do not fully understand why the regulations need to be so open on public places. Public places are not going to change over the next 100 years, so why not define them on the face of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

Certainly, public spaces are not going to change, but smoking prevalence is; it may be that as, a result of declines in smoking prevalence, the public acceptance of smoke-free areas may change. I am sure that the Minister will have a useful contribution to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point when he speaks. There is a discussion to be had.

I would be particularly interested to look at the data and modelling and the customer feedback that suggests that hospitality venues are economically dependent on the consumption of tobacco. As we have discussed, currently only 11% of the population smoke—granted, if we are talking about nightlife, that prevalence may be higher, but I certainly believe that families should be able to enjoy eating outside in the summer without being exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke. We have seen that smoke-free pavement licences are popular with businesses and with the public, particularly families with children.

Giving local authorities a say in how smoke-free laws are applied will align with the commitment in the recent English Devolution White Paper to shift any power

“away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best”.

It is critical that local authorities consult fully on any measures, and particularly closely with the hospitality industry. As I say, there is a possibility that that industry, in specific parts of local authorities where the consultation takes place, may actually agree and feel that this is a sensible step. It is important that local authorities get this right with the right consultation, but they should have the powers to do it.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that we are at this point talking about amendments, so any comments should be restricted to those amendments. We can talk about the generalities of the clause later in the debate. It is always helpful to have a reminder of that—for myself as well.

[Gregory Stafford]

Looking at the amendments, I can see why the hon. Member for Dartford wants to do this. There clearly could be public health benefits and, as a localist myself, I am naturally sympathetic to having local decisions made as close to people as possible. I think the point I made during the intervention stands, however: the potential for confusion among people who are potentially not from the area, or who are from the area but do not understand the local byelaws, probably makes the amendments unworkable.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned that smoking prevalence is higher in places of social deprivation. The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting it would therefore be better to enforce regulations, or byelaws for regulations, in those areas. I can see the public health impact, but we must not ghettoise people who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and who are more likely to smoke, as seen in the evidence. The shadow Minister makes a good point that people who do not have outside space, and who may have children and not want to smoke and vape in their properties because they are rightly worrying about their children’s health, will find that difficult if there are local byelaws in place that prevent it. I think that is especially true with women who smoke.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a number of very good points, but will he respond to the notion that smoke-free areas are all about making smoking less attractive and so giving people incentives to quit? Does he accept that that might give people incentives to quit and therefore be a significant public health benefit, and worth considering as part of the legislation?

[Gregory Stafford]

I completely agree that we could very easily ban tobacco and vaping for everybody at every age. That would be the biggest incentive for people to quit. The Government—I think rightly—are not doing that, because they are not looking to criminalise people who are currently addicted to tobacco and vapes. If we are allowing people to do something legally, there should be places where they can do so safely and not harm others, such as their own children. I am sympathetic to the public health argument that the hon. Gentleman makes but, in practical terms, there may be areas where this is a problem.

My final point is really a question for the hon. Gentleman: under what regulations would the local authority be enforcing such byelaws? Would it be through the penalties and enforcement activities in this Act itself —if it becomes law—or would there be some sort of fine or penalty system that the local authority could use? While there are potential fines and enforcement activities on the face of this Bill, if there were local regulations, would these be in line with what is in the Bill, or would there be some other fining system that a local authority could dream up itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like us to consider this issue when we look at whether to take these proposals any further. I cannot see how we can ensure in practice that everyone knows what is happening without there being a national campaign.

[Jim Dickson]

Perhaps I can try to answer a couple of the questions from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. If a byelaw were enacted, it would need to be well publicised, and there would need to be signage. Clearly, it would be impossible for a local authority to enforce a byelaw against which the defence was, “We had no knowledge of the fact that there was a byelaw.” Therefore, doing those things would be very important, and that would obviously be part of the consultation. The local authority would also have to set out a plan, and it would ultimately have to be approved by the Secretary of State, who I am sure would ensure that it was adequate. In terms of the penalties, the local authority has the power to set out its own penalties, but only within the quite tight legal framework set out in the Local Government Act. It would be for the local authority in this instance to define the level of penalty and what was proportionate.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that point. Many Members would prefer that local councils were dealing with potholes rather than advertising those different spaces, but I thank him for his amendment and his proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Obviously, if a local authority introduces byelaws, as the City of Manchester has done in respect of pavement licensing, it is for that local authority to ensure that those byelaws are adhered to. Of course, in that case, the weights and measures authority is the City of Manchester, so I suppose that makes it easier.

These powers are already being used. Local authorities are already designating areas, whether it is for pavement licences, public space protection orders or just deeming that land within their own responsibility is smoke-free. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I kindly ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to withdraw them.

[Jim Dickson]

The Minister has given a very comprehensive response. I suspect that the suggestion that this might be a way forward might come up in the consultation when that happens in the coming months. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

Mary Kelly Foy, did you want to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

Division 25

Ayes: 4

Noes: 8

[Jim Dickson]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 136, page 77, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—

“(a) for subsection (1A) substitute—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025 is passed, lay draft regulations to be made under this section which have the effect of providing for all enclosed vehicles to be smoke-free, other than vehicles of the type described in subsection (3).

(1B) Regulations may make provisions about the meaning of “enclosed vehicle”, which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.’”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft which are regulated under other legislation. The prohibition currently only applies to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under 18s.

Amendment 10 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft, which are regulated under other legislation. As hon. Members will know, the prohibition currently applies only to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under-18s. The 2015 ban on smoking in cars that contained children was a really important moment in in public health. It raised awareness about the harms of second-hand smoking in enclosed spaces and protected many children from being exposed to those harms.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree that the regulations on smoking in private vehicles with under-18s were symbolically the right thing to do. Is there evidence either that the ban was in any way enforceable, or that it had any impact on public health?

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Member for those comments; I will do my best to answer them. Compliance with the measure is still not where we would like it to be: the last survey undertaken by an independent company on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health indicates that 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds say that

“they travel in a car with someone smoking some days, most days or every day in 2024.”

The current law also does not protect those with clinical vulnerabilities. The smoke-free powers in this Bill are driven by a desire to protect people with clinical vulnerabilities from second-hand smoke. That includes pregnant women and those with asthma and lung conditions, among others. No smoker wants to harm their family, friends, pets or co-workers, so no smoker should smoke in an enclosed vehicle.

The evidence is clear: concentrations of smoke in vehicles where someone is smoking are greater than in any other small, enclosed space. If we are to be led by the evidence when extending smoke-free places, we have to consider vehicles. That would provide consistency in policy and raise awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke even further than they currently extend. It would be easier to enforce than the current law, where we have to check who else is in the vehicle, and would make the regulations on vehicles simpler and easier to understand—“It’s a straightforward ban; you can’t do it.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is supported by the public, with 67% of British adults saying they are in favour of an outright ban on smoking in vehicles.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of what he wishes to achieve. I have great sympathy with it, because nobody wants to see people making their health worse by smoking in a car. However, his statistics are quite interesting. He said that 9% of children find themselves on a regular basis in a car where someone is smoking, yet the Minister has said already this morning that 11% of people smoke. Given that not all of the 11% of people who smoke have children with whom they travel in a car, that implies that the measure is pretty badly enforced and badly adhered to at the moment. He might argue that a complete ban in all vehicles would make it more uniform and easier to enforce, but I am not sure that that is the case.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the amendment whether he has any information or statistics on the number of prosecutions that have occurred under the current legislation. I support the legislation that prevents someone from smoking in a car with children, and I would support an extension of that to include vaping and other nicotine products. I would also support a ban on people smoking while driving; if someone is holding a lit cigarette in their hand, that will have an impact on their ability to manoeuvre the car, particularly in an emergency situation.

Essentially the hon. Member is proposing to say to someone in a parked-up vehicle, perhaps in someone’s drive, “Although you are in a private space, you are not able to smoke.” I understand what he said about no smoker wanting to hurt someone—I am sure that is true—but I cannot imagine that there is any adult smoker that does not realise that smoking in a car with children is bad for the children. I find it very difficult to believe that that would be the case. I invite him to consider whether he is trying to prevent what is a legal activity—even under this Bill, if someone is the right age—in a private space that is theirs and theirs alone?

--- Later in debate ---

As the shadow Minister said, if the Bill passes, smoking will not be illegal; smoking, and likewise vaping, will be illegal for certain people of a certain age. As I said previously, I support the ambitions of the Bill, but this is a massive overreach. If a person is legally allowed to smoke in their own home on their own—or indeed with others—then if they are in their own vehicle and their smoking is harming nobody other than themselves, I do not see that we should make that illegal.

[Jim Dickson]

The hon. Gentleman is making his point very articulately. The idea that smoking legislation is an overreach is not new. Just about every change over the last 30 years—changes that have helped to cut very significantly the number of people affected by smoking-related diseases—has been described as an overreach. A lot of this is about public acceptability, and nearly all the polling accepts that a great majority of adults would see this not as an overreach, but as a welcome change.

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not pretend to have deep wisdom and insight into the whole population’s view on this, and I have not seen the studies the hon. Gentleman talks about, but I accept them. My concern is the need to be careful about the balance between the stated ambitions of all of us—or certainly most of us—on the Committee to reduce smoking as much as possible, and the rights confined within the Bill. If someone is legally allowed to smoke—that is, they were born prior to 1 January 2009—or is over 18 in the case of vaping, and they are in the privacy of their own vehicle without harming anybody else in said vehicle, they can do so. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a step too far.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I must confess, I am not clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Dartford will be able to tell us—who will enforce this regulation. If it is the police, then I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an unnecessary burden.

[Jim Dickson]

The police currently have responsibility to enforce a whole range of activities that take place within a car, such as mobile phone use. It would in no way be a new concept for the police to enforce something of this nature. If they saw someone in a car with a cigarette, they would be able to stop the car and apply a penalty as they currently do with other types of behaviour within cars.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I completely agree with the shadow Minister. I have two final points. Proposed new subsection (1B) makes reference to the meaning of an enclosed vehicle. I just want to clarify what that means. The amendment says:

“which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.”

Is the amendment trying to capture convertible cars—someone driving with the top down on a sunny day?

[Jim Dickson]

The amendment is not intended to change the way that the current legislation relates to individual vehicles, merely the activity happening within them, and that currently permits smoking in open-top vehicles with the hood down, i.e. unenclosed. The amendment does not propose any change to that.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is a helpful clarification. Finally, in the explanatory statement, it says that enclosed vehicles account for everything “except ships and hovercraft” apparently because that is “regulated under other legislation”. Perhaps it is in a later amendment, but why did the hon. Member decide not to amend the regulations for ships and hovercraft? Is that because he is hoping to get a private Member’s Bill at some point to change whatever legislation governs hovercraft and ships—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the shadow Minister whispers to me, “It’s further down,” so that clarifies the point for me.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), and I congratulate her on her work on vaping and combating illegal sales. I declare my interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for action on smoking and health for nine and a half years. I have seen the work that the Conservative Government did to combat smoking, which led to a dramatic drop, but we are not where we need to be. I commend the Minister and the Government on bringing forward the Bill, and on absorbing almost all the amendments that my colleagues and I proposed in the Bill Committee for the previous Bill to strengthen it and make it much more likely that we can achieve a smokefree England by 2030.

As has been said, the Bill will make us a world leader in tobacco control. We have always been at the forefront, but it consolidates regulation and limits the reach of the tobacco industry. We should be clear that tobacco is a uniquely lethal product that, when used as intended, kills two thirds of long-term users. Above all else, it is highly addictive and hard to quit once people are addicted. Most smokers will say that they wish that they did not smoke and had never started, and that they have had their agency removed by their addiction. By passing this legislation, we are giving choice back to young people in the future, who will avoid ever falling into that trap and the addiction that it brings.

I have tabled a number of new clauses. I think that the Minister is unlikely to accept them, but I commend them to her for further consideration. New clause 17 calls on the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy on the profits of the big tobacco industry. The all-party group has championed this campaign for many years. It is supported by the Khan review, which was set up by the former Member for Bromsgrove to enable a position to be reached. Almost all its recommendations are absorbed by the Bill, as they were by the previous Bill, but some are outstanding. The “polluter pays” levy is one of them. It is supported by charities, health organisations, academics and think-tanks.

Tobacco consumption costs our society greatly. The latest data from Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs society in England alone £43.7 billion a year—far more than the £6.8 billion that is raised through tobacco taxes. That includes £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. We heard from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about reducing the cost of the welfare state. If we can stop people smoking, they will not become unhealthy and unable to work. They will be able to get back into the workforce and pay taxes rather than be in receipt of welfare. This is an opportunity to reduce the impact on the benefit system and improve productivity right across the UK.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech so far and his work over many years to reduce smoking prevalence in this country. Does he agree that the tobacco companies still make a huge margin on the tobacco that is sold, and therefore could easily afford the “polluter pays” levy that he proposes?

[Bob Blackman]

I welcome that intervention from the vice-chair of the all-party group. As we have said, smoking is not a free choice; it is an addiction peddled by an aggressive industry. I will come to some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I want to speak to amendment 4 and the subsequent amendments in my name, and to new clause 3. It is right that where a public health issue is identified, this body should look at whether anything can be done about it through law, fiscal policy, or the other levers available to us, but we should ask ourselves, when we introduce laws, what the consequences are. Are there any unintended consequences, and how practical and enforceable are the measures? If they are unenforceable, all we do is bring the law and this place into disrepute. While some have described this Bill as well-meaning, essential, a flagship Bill, and a show of leadership, I am concerned that we have given little thought to, and had little debate about, the consequences, which are hitting us in the face. Let us be honest with ourselves: it would be good to walk away at the end of today’s sitting and say, “We have done a wonderful thing for future generations; we have introduced laws that will do away with smoking and will improve the health of the nation,” but we are ignoring the fact that we have introduced legislation that is unworkable, and to which I believe, through my amendments, there is an alternative.

[Jim Dickson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that many warned before the 2007 smoking ban that it would be unenforceable, and that there would be barely any compliance with it? However, from day one, there was 97% compliance. That law has helped to drive a reduction in cancers due to secondary smoking, and a massive number of people gave up as a result of no longer being able to smoke in the pub.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member will have the answer to that if he reflects on what we are debating today. We introduced that legislation, yet here we are, revisiting the issue, because people are still smoking and health outcomes are still bad—and we have additional problems, which I will come to in a moment, namely the illegal purchase and supply of tobacco. We have tried this in the past—we have tried bans and all kinds of other measures—yet we still have the problem with us.

Let us consider the consequences. First, we are being asked to introduce legislation, the burden of which will fall on retailers, because it is at the point of purchase that the scrutiny required by the Bill, and its implementation, will have to take place. There is a question that we have not debated yet: what happens when a retailer is faced in a few years’ time with two people, one aged 29 and the other 28, both demanding tobacco? One says “I’m 29” and the other says “I’m 29 as well.” The retailer is meant to distinguish which of them he can sell tobacco to legally. That is a real, practical problem, and it places a burden on the retailer, because if he does not make the right decision, he faces a fine and the removal of his license, and that source of income for his business will be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) with regard to the importance of this Bill applying to all four nations: I want it to cover the entirety of the United Kingdom. Some 2,200 people in Northern Ireland die every year from a smoking-related illness. One in four of our cancer cases is related to smoking. The consultation carried out by the previous Government on their legislation, which was specifically about creating a smokefree generation, found that 62.5% of the UK population were supportive. In Northern Ireland, however, 79% were in favour of bringing forward this legislation.

Back in May 2024, when I was a Northern Ireland Health Minister, I introduced the original legislative consent motion, which received all-party support across the Northern Ireland Assembly, and yes, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has mentioned, there were concerns over the applicability of the measure owing to EU regulations and legislation. There was a concern that the law would remain undelivered in Northern Ireland. At that stage, I engaged with the then UK Government, and have now engaged with this Government to seek assurances that this lifesaving, life-changing legislation will apply equally and favourably to all parts of our United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister being able to give me those reassurances. I have signed new clause 3, because I accepted those reassurances as Health Minister but would appreciate reinforcement in this legislation.

Much has been said about the entrapment of our young people—whether previously with regard to tobacco, or now with vaping and vaping products and how they are being marketed and presented. One of the most harrowing reports that I have read recently was regarding Alder Hey children’s hospital, which has now opened a clinic for children addicted to nicotine. They became hooked because of vaping. Twelve children between the ages of 11 and 15 have had to seek medical help to cut down and deal with their nicotine addiction. Twelve children between the ages of 11 and 15 are receiving treatment in a children’s hospital due to the evil promotion and enhancement of not just vaping but nicotine. We are looking to save money within our national health service, but we are already encouraging and enabling these young people to become addicted to a dangerous drug. We should be doing everything we can in this place for young people.

According to reports about the Alder Hey clinic, children as young as eight are vaping regularly. Some reportedly cannot get out of bed in the morning before they take their first puff. That is a disgrace. I encourage anyone in this Chamber who in any way opposes the Bill or thinks that this is not the right thing to do to seriously consider how vaping is impacting our young people across this United Kingdom.

I finish by asking the Minister to reassure this House, not just with words but with action. Can she assure those of us from Northern Ireland who have supported the legislation and worked hard to make sure that it had a four-nations approach that the guidance, support and legal enforcement in the Bill is equally applicable to us in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Dickson]

I rise to speak to new clause 14 and amendments 86 and 87. I declare an interest as vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I am also a previous smoker and a strong supporter of this legislation.

New clause 14 would introduce a ban on all filters, regardless of whether they contain plastic. I understand the environmental motivations behind new clause 2 from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), but I worry that the amendment is not sufficient to address environmental concerns and could even have a damaging impact on public health. Let us start from the understanding that there are no health benefits to filters. They were developed by the tobacco industry following evidence that smoking caused lung cancer in order to give a false sense of reassurance to smokers. Filters have been dubbed

“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.

Most filters contain single-use plastics and are a major environmental hazard, costing UK local authorities around £40 million a year to clean up. Cigarette filters are the most littered item in the world. In the UK they make up 66% of all littered items. Biodegradable alternatives may therefore feel like an attractive solution, but biodegradable filters do not eliminate environmental concerns. They have been shown to be equally toxic to marine and freshwater life when littered in our rivers and seas. They take between two and 14 years to decompose, and they often do so only in very particular conditions, such as under high temperatures. Biodegradable filters could also lead to an increase in guilt-free littering through smokers believing that discarded butts do not have an environmental impact.

However, the greatest risk of biodegradable filters is that they allow tobacco companies to continue with filter fraud and greenwashing in order to rehabilitate their reputation. The best policy, therefore, is to ban all filters. It would mean smokers smoking filterless cigarettes, which, I remind the House, are no worse for their health. It would incentivise quitting, which is the best way to tackle tobacco-related litter and pollution, and it would put people off starting smoking—something of which I am sure everyone in this Chamber would be in favour.

Ending the sale of filters would remove the fraud being perpetrated on smokers that by using a filter they are protecting their health. We banned descriptors such as “light” and “mild”, because they gave false comfort to smokers that they were using safer products and inhibited them quitting. We should do the same again by banning filters, ensuring that those who smoke do not do so because of a belief that their cigarette is safer. Recent ASH polling showed that only 25% of the public is able to correctly identify that filters have no health benefit. The Government should be bold in addressing these misconceptions for the benefit of public health and take the opportunity of a ban to highlight the harms of tobacco.

A ban on filters is an opportunity to protect the environment and secure health benefits. The impact of any ban should be maximised by a strong communications campaign to educate smokers and the wider public about filter fraud.

Briefly, amendments 86 and 87 flag the need for the Government to consider the matter of the sale of bundles of tobacco papers and filters, which could be seen as smoking starter kits. Some supermarkets offer these bundles at only a small cost above the price of the tobacco alone. They are convenient and cost-saving for smokers. That undermines the public health motivation for increasing the price of tobacco products.