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.