Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Just over a year ago, I welcomed the previous Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill. As the House may know, I have called for a smokefree generation for many years. I was not best pleased when the Conservatives voted down my amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill in 2021. Those amendments called for a ban on flavours and packaging targeted at children, which the shadow Secretary of State has just brought to the House’s attention. If they had not been voted down, we would already have regulations to protect children from smoking and vaping.

I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) on bringing the Smoking and Vapes Bill forward, but it was regrettable that the previous Government did not fast-track it in the wash-up before the general election. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Labour Government for bringing this Bill forward. It is stronger than the previous legislation, and it responds to many of the issues that I and others raised in Committee with the previous Bill.

The comprehensive regulation of all vaping and nicotine products is important for addressing the concerns that vaping has become too widespread among young people. I strongly support regulations to reduce the appeal of such products, but we must ensure that the regulations are enforceable, robust and fit for purpose. My first of many questions to the Minister is this: will he confirm that a detailed policy paper will be forthcoming, setting out the policy objectives on vaping and how the new regulations will deliver against the objectives?

The Labour manifesto made a bold commitment on halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England. Tobacco control is the best way to close the gap. We cannot say it enough: the range of diseases that smoking causes is extraordinary, from stillbirths and asthma in children to heart disease, stroke, dementia in old age, poor mental health and many cancers.

It will never cease to amaze me that there are people in this place who are happy to be lobbied by the tobacco companies—including, I am guessing, the shadow Secretary of State—some of whom we have heard from already, knowing full well the damage caused to individuals, families and communities, as well as to our health services. That includes communities such as mine in the north-east of England, where smoking is still the key driver of health inequalities and has been the cause of 26% of all deaths in the last 50 years and the cause of 125,000 deaths since 2020.

In my constituency of City of Durham, smoking costs us over £95 million a year, and more than £3 million is spent on healthcare. In County Durham, smoking costs us over £500 million a year, and over £21 million is spent on healthcare. In the north-east, the cost is over £2 billion, with healthcare costs at over £93 million. Nationally, smoking is still the greatest cause of preventable death, still the leading cause of premature death and disability, and still responsible for half the difference in healthy life expectancy between the rich and poor. That is why I have asked time and again in this Chamber for action.

It is a tragedy when we consider the further health implications. According to Cancer Research UK, the most deprived communities will not be smokefree until 2050. I urge the Government to restate their intention to publish a road map to a smokefree country and outline how support will be targeted at those who most need to quit. Smoking is also directly and indirectly linked to poor mental health. Nearly 40% of those who have a severe mental health problem smoke, and smoking accounts for two thirds of the reduction in life expectancy among that group.

I want to touch on the “polluter pays” levy. The Darzi review found that our health service is in real trouble. The Secretary of State is right that to rebalance supply and demand in our healthcare system, we need a major shift from sickness to prevention. The Khan review and the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have advocated for a “polluter pays” levy, which could raise £700 million a year to create a smokefree fund. That would ensure that the tobacco companies—not the public—pay for the harm that they inflict. Will the Minister consider that approach to fund the work needed to reduce smoking across society and to protect the NHS?

I should add that public health initiatives to tackle smoking are remarkably good value for money and that failing to fund efforts to tackle smoking is a false economy. Initiatives such as Fresh—the north-east’s tobacco control programme—have led the way in tackling smoking in our region. Fresh and others could provide best practice for the Department.

The Minister will know that the UK Government are party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. Article 5.3 seeks to protect policymaking from industry influence, but we have already seen that influence even at this stage of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will live up to their obligations under the FCTC and commit to protecting the Bill from industry influence throughout its parliamentary process and the following regulations?

I am proud to vote for a Bill that will improve people’s lives and extinguish the injustice that smoking causes to individuals and society. Smoking is never about choice, and it is pathetic that some Members have argued that this is an issue of freedom; it is absolutely nothing of the sort. Tobacco companies target children and young people. Smoking is an addiction, and the only free choice is that first cigarette. When someone is in hospital, struggling to breathe because of smoking-induced lung cancer, where is their freedom? Today, we have the opportunity to give people the freedom to live healthy lives, free from disease and the inequalities that smoking causes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I declare an interest as a practising pharmacist. [Interruption.]

[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 have about three minutes left, so I will ask Mary Kelly Foy to ask a very brief question with a very short answer, because we will be finishing spot on 10.25 am.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q Do you have any view on how restricting vapes in public places, which is obviously a very welcome power, should be implemented so that it does not deter smokers from switching to vapes and they do not relapse back into smoking cigarettes?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will suggest that Sir Frank takes this question, because it is his very last answer to a parliamentary question; he is about to stop as chief medical officer, so he is going out on a high.

Sir Francis Atherton: What the Bill does is to simplify matters, making it as simple as possible: a smoke-free place is a vape-free place as well. That does not take away people’s ability to go into a place where smoking and vaping are allowed, but it helps to disentangle the confusion that currently exists about where people can legitimately use those products. It is a simplification that can only help to lead, in the long term, to that reduction that we need. In Wales, 13% of people continue to smoke. Our ambition is to get to 5% by 2030; we will struggle to get there, but this Bill will help us to get there.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that that draws this particular session to a close. I thank our witnesses, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Sir Gregor Smith and Sir Michael McBride, for their attendance and for their helpful contributions, and I thank Members for their helpful questions. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

Q I want to follow up on that point, because clause 12 of the Bill will actually include a ban on vending machines for vaping, but I know that there have been mental health trusts that have said that, actually, they would call for those to be exempted. Is that one of the exemptions that you would perhaps go for, and actually allow those vending machines in hospitals?

Suzanne Cass: Absolutely. I think we need to consider the vulnerable smoker at the heart of this and how they are managing to abstain from that addiction. It comes back to that addiction all the time. With smoking, nicotine is such an addictive substance that it is very difficult just to tell somebody that they cannot do it. You need to give them the right support, as well as the support that they want. When it comes to choice, that is where we need to be looking at what their choices are and how they choose to move away from that deadly tobacco use.

Hazel Cheeseman: On the mental health settings, we have done a lot of work in England with mental health trusts, and vending machines have been one way in which they have been facilitating access to vapes in quite a large number of mental health trusts. It is certainly something that we would be interested in looking at, because it will make it a bit more challenging for them to implement smoke-free policies in mental health settings if the vending machine rule applies across the NHS estate.

Also, going back to Dr Cooper’s question, in mental health settings and those places with vulnerable smokers, vapes have been really important in England in facilitating. We do not have legislation in relation to smoke-free grounds in England, but obviously it is the policy across the NHS estate that they are smoke free. Allowing vaping, particularly in those mental health settings, has been very facilitative of creating smoke-free grounds and supporting those people to maintain their smoke- free status as they move out of mental health settings as well.

Sheila Duffy: Scotland already has a ban on e-cigarettes in vending machines and has had for some years.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q I notice in your submission that you have a recommendation:

“The government should make good on their pledge to publish a ‘roadmap to a smokefree country’…with a strong focus on tackling inequalities.”

I am from the north-east region, where we have high deprivation and high smoking prevalence. It is the only region that has a clear vision—if you like—and declaration from Fresh and the directors of public health for how to achieve a smoke-free country. Could you explain a bit more why we need that vision and that strategy going forward?

Hazel Cheeseman: The legislation is fantastic; it is world-leading and brilliant, and it will really set us on that path toward being a smoke-free country. However, it will not be the last word in how that is achieved. We have 6 million smokers across this country, and we need to ensure that all of our agencies are lined up to do the job that they need to do to help those people stop smoking—the NHS, local government and integrated care boards across the system need to have the right approach. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to do that too. The Government have committed to the funding in stop-smoking services in local government, but we also need to see funding in mass media campaigns. The chief medical officer was talking earlier about people’s waning understanding of the harms of second-hand smoke. One way to address that would be to go back on TV and radio and explain to people what the harms of second-hand smoke are. That package of measures alongside this legislation would really help us to accelerate progress.

The Bill will massively raise the saliency of the harms of smoking with the public—there is no doubt about that. There has been, and there will continue to be, a strong public debate on the measures in this Bill. By really riding the wave of that public understanding through that coherent strategy and that investment, we could really see smoking rates start to drop, particularly in those disadvantaged populations where we continue to have persistently high levels of smoking.

[Euan Stainbank]

Q By restricting vaping products in this Bill in the same ways that tobacco products are currently restricted—be that packaging, display or potentially flavourings, as we discussed with the CMOs earlier—do you think that this will lead to greater misconceptions by the public and, quite crucially, current smokers about the relative harm between the two products?

Suzanne Cass: We obviously have an issue when it comes to the understanding of and the misconceptions around the harms of vaping. In particular, the most worrying stats are among smokers considering them as harmful as or more harmful than tobacco. That is that a significant issue. This legislation allows us to reset the clock and promote these products as smoking cessation products, using health professionals to promote them and getting the right language around them. Rather than their being seen as a recreational toy, they can be seen as a product that is going to help people to quit smoking. When it comes to the positioning of these products, it is essential to readdress those misconceptions and re-place this product.

On standardised packaging, what we did with tobacco was put it in the ugliest packaging you could ever imagine. We are not talking about that when it comes to vaping products; we are talking about plain packaging—something that is informative but not necessarily attractive to young people. There is a big difference between something that is repulsive and something that is not attractive. That is where we see the difference, and that is where we see this legislation coming into its own and allowing us to reset and to have that different conversation.

Hazel Cheeseman: I am sure we will tease more of it out through the consultation process that will follow this legislation, but some of the early research that has been done has indicated that you can, to some extent, have your cake and eat it on this. If we remove some of the attractive branding elements on packaging, which we know appeal to children, that does reduce the products’ appeal to children, but it does not damage their appeal to adult smokers and it does not damage harm misperceptions. We can progress with this legislation, via the consultation and looking properly at the evidence, to make sure that we get the balance right.

There are also provisions in the Bill to allow public health bodies to do marketing and public health messages around vapes as a smoking cessation tool. It will be important that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Advertising Standards Authority work with public health bodies to make sure that they have the right guidance to be able to do that and to give smokers directly the right information about how vapes can be used as a cessation tool.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Can I ask a question to all of you? We know that the Bill will go a long way towards reducing health inequalities. In more deprived areas, which have the highest prevalence of smoking, will the Bill also have an impact on the economics of local communities?

Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: That is exactly the focus: reducing health inequalities and ensuring we get good health equity across all of our populations. When we look at preventable premature mortality, we know that smoking is a huge driver around that. We need to think about this across the life course. If we can stop the harms that second hand smoke causes to children, we can then think about deprivation across the life course and people who are dying early from preventable harms, with smoking being one of the risk factors.

We need to focus really narrowly on that, because it is not just about life expectancy, but about the number of years we live in good health. In my patch across Gwent in Wales there is huge variance, with up to 14 years’ difference in healthy life years between the richest and the poorest parts of the population. It is about not only the health outcomes around that, but the economic part of it, in terms of work productivity and work days lost. When we think about the cost of the NHS, which we often do, that is the cost of healthcare, but if we look at the economic picture of employability, productivity and those kinds of things, it increases that sum tenfold. We need to think about this so that when we look at the inequalities associated with smoking, we do so through a social, cultural, economic and environmental lens, to ensure that we get the full cost impact. It is something that we need to be mindful of.

Alison Challenger: I wanted to make a point about household income. We know that cigarette smoking is incredibly expensive. If one or both parents smoke in a household with a low income, that will have a considerable impact on the family’s spending capability for other things. It is not a matter of choice, either; smoking is an addiction. Seven out of 10 smokers really do not want to smoke, but it is incredibly difficult because of the level of addiction. If one or both parents smoke in a family household, that has huge repercussions for the funding of all the other household commitments.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Q We have touched on local variations. How do you think local variations should take into account the small variations in health inequalities that exist in different areas? You gave an example of a shop being the only shop in a village, but if that village was also an area of high deprivation, how should that affect the outcome?

David Fothergill: That is where local knowledge comes in. Taking that shop in the village, we would not say that it should not sell tobacco, but we would say that it should not be selling tobacco during these periods—for example, 8.30 am to 9.30 am, or 3.30 pm to 4.30 pm. Knowing the local communities and being able to put in local restrictions would help us to really have an impact. Clearly, in urban areas it would be very different.

When the Minister asked questions about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should have said that what we would really like to see—it is in the Scottish legislation—is verification, where people are required to verify their age. Challenge 25 seems to work really well with alcohol, and we would like to see that brought in. We understand that that is in the Scottish legislation, and we would like to see it brought in in England as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

Q Thank you. My second question digs into the illicit online vape market that you referred to. Is the issue more the structure of enforcement that you were discussing, or do you have any concern about online retailers’ age gating policies?

Lord Michael Bichard: No, the point I was making was about enforcement.

Wendy Martin: To add to that, as part of the programme that DHSC has been funding for the last 18 months, we tested out a number of issues, and one was online under-age sales. I think we tested 312 purchases, and there was a 10% failure rate. That was significantly lower than premises-based sales. There was a lot in the platform’s corporate website design to try to ask the right questions and kick purchasers out. It is very much about who does it and who takes responsibility, rather than a major problem in itself.

We also work quite closely with the Advertising Standards Authority, and it does a lot around broadcast and published media, and website compliance and claims. That is quite a well-established mechanism for enforcement. It is about the structure of enforcement, as you have rightly identified.

Lord Michael Bichard: It is probably worth pointing out—it does not relate to the online point—that I said earlier that last year we carried out 4,000 test purchases, and 26% of those were failures. Compared to the 10% online, it is significantly higher. This is a very practical point, but some of the other changes that are going to happen will make it easier for us to do test purchasing. At the present moment, we can only use children or young people, so we have issues of safeguarding and we can only do it at certain times of the day. It should become easier, in that sense, for us to enforce the legislation.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q We heard from a previous witness that young people say that most of the advertising for vapes is in the shops. The Bill will bring in powers to regulate vapes, and that includes advertising. How do you envisage that the ban on advertising will be enforced on the high street, locally and in small shops?

Lord Michael Bichard: It will be enforced in the same way we enforce it for tobacco and other things. This is not new. Trading standards officers employed by local authorities are constantly visiting premises, and they will therefore deal with any offences that are being committed. They also have their own local intelligence networks. We cannot afford, because we do not have enough staff, to just have a random system where we pop in every now and then. We depend on people giving us intelligence. Some of those people are members of the public, and some are from other agencies. We try to target what we do. When you visit a shop—there are something like 60,000 outlets—you can see whether the current legislation, or future legislation, is being implemented. We can take action against the retailer if it is not.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q I was basing that on what you said at the beginning—that trading standards had been cut by 50%—so I know that local authorities will struggle. I also know that although a penalty has been put in place, six months later that same shop will be doing exactly the same thing again. I guess the question is about the resourcing of trading standards—

Lord Michael Bichard: Absolutely. I was going to say that if you are making a case for trading standards to have more resources, I am absolutely with you. I think that trading standards does an amazing job with limited resources. One borough in London now has no trading standards officers, and that is a great worry. We are there to protect consumers in all sorts of ways, but we are also there to try to establish a fair marketplace, so we are working on behalf of legitimate businesses. A lot of retailers want to support us in dealing with bad practice among their competitors. Yes, we need more resources.

Wendy Martin: Clearly, the responsibility is on businesses to comply with the law, first and foremost, and the hope would be that the vast majority of those outlets do so, because they are either part of bigger businesses with corporate structures to ensure compliance, or part of trading associations where that training and information is available. Generally, most people want to do the right thing. What that means is that the additional resources are necessary and can be focused on those sectors where there is intelligence from consumers, enforcers and other businesses—businesses will complain, and rightly so, about competitors who are flouting the law. That enables targeting, rather than feeling the need to try to inspect 60,000 or 70,000 premises. That would not work, and it does not need to work like that.

Lord Michael Bichard: Local trading standards officers know the problem retailers, where the problems are. I started my career doing prosecutions for trading standards, so I know a bit about how they work on the ground. They know where to target their efforts. I should also point out that there is a committed workforce here. Recently, we did a survey of the workforce, and 80% of them supported the legislation. It always helps.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Q From what I remember, vapes really started in the UK around 2010. Do you think that the Bill is sufficiently future-proof for the next evolution of nicotine or oral tobacco products? Whatever is coming next, do you think the Bill has enough to protect us from it?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: I have not yet had the chance to say this, but first, I think the Bill is really well balanced. It is bold and world leading; all nicotine products and non-nicotine containing vapes are part of it. The people who put this together should be congratulated, but we also have to be aware that industry never sleeps. It will try to adapt to regulation and legislation, and we need to be wary of that and make sure that we use the powers in the Bill in the future, depending on how industry responds.

For example, with disposable vapes, which are due to be banned later this year, I am sure that there will be a lot of companies right now changing their products to make them look as though they are not disposable vapes when, to all intents and purposes, they are. There will be lots of adaptation by industry that we must be wary about. The Bill provides those future powers for us to adapt to industry.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Minister, could you say a bit more about why you are taking the four-nation approach? I am a Welsh MP, and we have talked about some of the positive and progressive examples that have been illustrated in Wales, which we can learn from. Is the four-nation approach one of the strengths of this Bill? Will it help to ensure that you get that world you talked about, which I suspect—although I do not want to speak for everyone—we all support? Can you say a bit more about that four-nation approach, and if that is one of the key strengths underpinning this Bill?

Andrew Gwynne: It is. The four nations that make up our United Kingdom have gone at different speeds and to different depths in terms of tobacco control over recent years. Zubir was absolutely right to point out that it was the Scottish Labour Government that first introduced the indoor smoking ban, and we followed suit soon after, but it is really important that the four nations stand together on this, not least because some of this does require a four-nation approach in legislative terms. It also means that we can meet this ambition together, and that we are all in this together, because, for me, a health inequality in parts of Greater Manchester is just as important as a health inequality in Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast.

We need to tackle these inequalities, because they are a scourge on our society. That is why a four-nation approach, alongside the permissive nature of this Bill, means that the four nations can go forward together, but also diverge on the basis of extending consultations and so on. That is why we have the support of the devolved nations and the Ministers, who come from different political persuasions across Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; we are all in one, as far as this Bill is concerned, and we have shaped it together.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q We have heard overwhelmingly from the witnesses how important the Bill will be for tackling inequalities and bringing about a smoke-free future. I am confident that the Bill will pass. In terms of supporting the 6 million current smokers that we have in the UK, do the Government still have plans to make good on their pledge to produce a road map and strategy for reaching targets, especially in places such as the north-east and other deprived area? That way, we can keep an eye on those smokers who do want to quit and what the smoking prevalence ranges are in those areas. A few of the witnesses and submissions have called for that, saying how it would help them.

Andrew Gwynne: That is really important, and I want all Members to understand that a key aspect of reaching our smoke-free ambition is to drive down the prevalence of current smokers. That means a real investment in smoking cessation, a close eye on what is happening on the ground, and using the flexibilities in the Bill, should they be needed, to ensure that we reach that smoke-free ambition.

We announced £70 million of stop smoking funding this week, which has been weighted towards the areas with highest deprivation and smoking prevalence, so that we can try to drive down those inequalities. Obviously, future years funding is subject to the usual processes of the spending review, but let me make it clear that it is a priority of this Government to invest in stop-smoking services. We will ensure that local authorities and the public health functions of the country have the resources needed to reach a point where we are smoke free.

[The Chair]

Last, but certainly not least, I call Taiwo Owatemi.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

If one is expected to have a policy, guidance on what that policy should contain is certainly important. If one is going to be held accountable for not having such a policy in law, it is clearly not sufficient to say, “You must have a policy but we are not going to tell you what it must say or do.” It comes back to the point that I have been making throughout the day. Who will face this fine? How will it be decided who the fine applies to? Will it be applied to the retailer as well as to shop workers, shop supervisors, shift supervisors or CEOs, and under what circumstances? I think there needs to be guidance on that so we have a clear pathway.

Clause 1 states that it is a defence if someone has taken “all reasonable steps”. If having a policy is not to be a reasonable step—there are arguments for why we might not want it to be, because it is an extra regulatory burden on business, and some very small businesses could struggle with that—and neither is looking at someone and making one’s own mind up, it is important to understand what is. I do not think we have got to the bottom of that yet.

My final question for the hon. Member for City of Durham, who tabled new clause 3, is: why not Northern Ireland? I think one reason why she has chosen to introduce this is because there is such a policy for Scotland, but not for England and Wales. I do not believe there is such a policy for Northern Ireland either, and I wonder why she did not seek to correct that in her new clause. It may be something that she wants to consider in refining such a new clause before Report.

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

I wish to speak to new clause 3, which is in my name. I do not intend to press it to a vote, and I will be very brief because there has been a lot of discussion—about three and a half hours—on this part of the Bill already, and I hope it will answer some of those points. I am introducing it because I think it would enhance the Bill’s consistency with the Government’s four-nations approach. New clause 3 would apply to all the nations of the United Kingdom mandatory age verification for purchasing tobacco, vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products, in line with the provisions set out for Scotland in the Bill.

Scotland has had mandatory age verification for anyone who looks under 20 as a legal requirement for purchasing tobacco and vapes since 2017. In lay terms, there is a legal underpinning for Challenge 25, which is voluntary in the rest of the UK. The Bill amends the Scottish system so that from 2033, it will be a legal requirement to verify the age of anyone trying to purchase tobacco who looks like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. My new clause would simply extend that beyond Scotland to ensure consistency for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies.

[Gregory Stafford]

Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady doing this simply to make it equitable across the United Kingdom, or is there something specific in the policy that she thinks will strengthen the Bill or add to it parts that are not covered currently?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause will make the policy consistent across the nations and simplify the process. If I can carry on, I will expand on those points. The new clause will extend the policy further than Scotland and simplify the process for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies. There has already been a lot of discussion about the implementation of a smoke-free generation, and about trying to make it simple and easy to understand. We heard in oral evidence concerns about the difficulty, when the policy has been in place for some decades, in telling the difference between two individuals in their forties who fall on either side of the policy. While that is likely to be a marginal issue in practice, the new clause will further help to resolve it.

Mandatory age verification currently exists in Scotland and is supported by retailers here. In response to the Minister’s point about it possibly being a burden on businesses, a survey of independent UK tobacco retailers by Action on Smoking and Health in 2024 found that more than seven out of 10 retailers—71%—in England and Wales supported this.

[Dr Johnson]

We have heard dreadful stories of retailers who have experienced nasty abuse and, in some cases, violence when they have asked for someone’s age. If somebody knew for certain that they would have their ID checked, it would no longer be an evaluation by the shopkeeper of their age, but merely a simple, expected transaction.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I agree. We heard concerns on Tuesday in evidence about the aggression towards retailers, and the impact that the Bill might have on that. I would argue that providing consistency about identification is a potential mitigation of those risks. It takes away the guesswork.

[Dr Johnson]

May I ask the hon. Lady if there is any evidence that in Scotland, it has reduced aggression towards retailers?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I cannot point to any evidence in statistics, but retailers welcome it. I think 90% of retailers in Scotland are in favour of it. In England, 83% of small retailers agree with it, and I am sure that is because it takes away those cloudy grey areas. It means that once someone shows their ID, that is the end of it.

On the point about this being a slippery slope towards mandatory ID cards, young people now are used to carrying ID. In fact, the Bill provides a list of different forms of ID that people can provide, including passports and driving licences. I believe the Government are talking about introducing digital ID checks for the purchase of alcohol. If this were applied to tobacco, individuals would not need to carry a physical ID with them. The measure is supported by retailers and by seven out of 10 members of the public, as well as by the Local Government Association and trading standards, which both believe it would help with enforcing the legislation and aid prosecution.

I have tabled the new clause to simplify things. This has already happened in Scotland, and it would make the Bill consistent with the Government's four-nation approach. Given the issues that we have been discussing today, having mandatory ID would make things so much easier and simpler. Just to be clear, I will not be pushing it to a vote.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to take a step back and look again at clause 1 itself. Enforceability has to be considered as an important element of achieving the smoke-free generation. As I keep stating, as a former lawyer, I want to be absolutely sure before I can give further support.

I seek assurances from the Minister on the implementation of the policy with regard to Northern Ireland, if it is truly to be a smoke-free nation. One of the provisions of EU law in the Windsor framework is the EU’s second tobacco products directive—TPD2—which applies to Northern Ireland. It lays down various requirements that must be satisfied for tobacco products and vapes to be marketed in the EU—for example, on ingredients, emission levels and packaging. Most crucially, it also states that member states, which include Northern Ireland for these purposes,

“may not...prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products which comply with this Directive.”

So a generational smoking ban may be incompatible with TPD2.

Similar plans for generational bans in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland were ditched in 2022 and 2024, respectively, because of TPD2. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Health and Social Care has any plans for this issue, and whether the Attorney General has formed a view that can be shared with us. I think we have learned over the years that it is imperative that we do not jeopardise our Northern Irish friends.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn briefly to new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham. I understand her point about simplification, but I say to her and to Scottish Members—SNP Members or whoever—that I think it is a regulatory burden too far. Far be it from me to tell any Scotsman or woman what to do, but I do not think we need to introduce such a measure in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

As I pointed out, surveys of retailers in Scotland show that 83% of them do not think it is a burden. As things are, there are fewer tobacco sales year on year, and as we progress, the sale of tobacco will phase out anyway; it will not be a thing of the future for businesses. In the meantime, they have pointed out that this measure aids them.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am interested to hear those facts. I know the hon. Lady will not press her new clause to a vote, and given that the Government do not support it, as far as I can tell, it is probably not going to be part of the law, but perhaps we can have a further discussion on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Features of Products

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

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 91, page 51, line 26, at the end insert—

“and markings containing health warnings”.

This amendment enables regulations to be made requiring health warnings to be marked on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Mandatory health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers: consultation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on draft regulations (see section 91 (features of products)) which would, if made, include a requirement on producers of tobacco products and cigarette papers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and individual cigarette papers.

(2) In this section, ‘cigarette paper’ and ‘tobacco product’ have the same meaning as in section 112.”

This new clause commits the government to consult on regulations under clause 91 requiring the placing of specified health warnings on cigarettes and rolling papers by tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Clause stand part.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I will not press these provisions to a vote but they are worth raising now, and perhaps for consideration at a later stage of the Bill, further down the line.

The amendment and new clause would require tobacco manufacturers and importers to put health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. The Government are consulting on pack inserts which, of course, is welcome. However, those warnings do not catch those who buy individual cigarettes or those who are offered one out of someone else’s pack. Warnings on individual cigarettes—dissuasive cigarettes—were recommended by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health in 2021, and by the Khan review in 2022. These warnings already exist in Canada, introduced in August 2023, and will be implemented in Australia from July this year. Research commissioned by Health Canada into the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes showed that cigarettes with health warnings were seen as less appealing than those without. That is true the other way too; cigarettes without health warnings were perceived as less harmful. We all know about the harms of smoking, and we have heard it again and again in these sessions, but the more that we can convey that message to consumers, and particularly young people, the better.

Overall, participants in the research felt that labelling individual cigarettes made packages complete and impactful. That was particularly true among youths who do not smoke, smoked occasionally or wished to quit. We know how addictive cigarettes are. It is often said in these debates that the only choice is the first cigarette. For many, even that may not be true; children are four times more likely to take up smoking if their parents smoke. If we truly want to stop the start, we need to make sure that people know how harmful these products are, even if they are offered just one of them.

It is great that the Department is currently consulting on pack inserts, but that does not quite capture those who may purchase or are offered single cigarettes.

[Jack Rankin]

Earlier in the debate, we voted on a clause about splitting up cigarettes—I was just trying to find which clause it was—so I think we are already proposing to make it illegal to sell single cigarettes. Does the hon. Lady not think that, given that we voted for that clause to stand part, these amendments are unnecessary?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

No, I do not. As I said, the Department is consulting on pack inserts, but that may not capture the people who have or are offered one cigarette. We all know that it takes only one cigarette to become addicted. Does the Minister have a timeframe that the Department is working to for the introduction of pack inserts? Will the Department monitor the effectiveness of that and continue to look at evidence from other countries, such as Canada, where dissuasive cigarettes do have an impact, and potentially use the powers in the Bill to introduce dissuasive individual cigarettes at a later stage?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling this amendment, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I suspect that it is a reversal of the process from the last Committee, when my hon. Friend was on that Committee and moved a similar amendment, which was supported by the hon. Lady.

This is not a new suggestion. In fact, looking back at the debate from the last iteration of this Bill—I think it was about new clause 5 at the time—I discovered that it was the noble Lord Young of Cookham who first proposed warnings on cigarettes in 1979. He said:

“The solution to many of today’s medical problems will not be found in the research laboratories of our hospitals, but in our Parliaments. For the prospective patient, the answer may not be cure by incision at the operating table, but prevention by decision at the Cabinet table…Historically, a nation would look to its doctors for better health. Now they should look to their Members of Parliament.”

That is one of the reasons why I am here, standing with you today, and why I see a number of other medical professionals on the Opposition Benches. Parliament offers the opportunity not to look after one’s patients one at a time, but to look after the health of many patients all at the same time. I hope that we will seize that opportunity in relation to the public health measures in much of this Bill. My noble friend in the other House, Lord Young, has now been in Parliament for over 50 years—I hope we will get round to bringing forward some of the things he has proposed before another 50 years go by. The proposal was supported not only by the noble Lord Young, but by Sir Stephen Powis, then director of NHS England, and by the Khan review.

However, I have a couple of questions. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is making, which is that if people sell cigarettes only in packages and the packages are, as we have discussed, very thoroughly controlled in terms of what they look like and what they say, is it then necessary to mark the cigarettes that are inside them? I also understand that in clause 4, we as a Committee have chosen to introduce a measure that bans the sale of single cigarettes, but despite that being something people should already not do, it does happen, as we heard from the Royal College of Physicians in its evidence at the beginning of the Committee proceedings on 7 January.

There is some benefit to marking the cigarettes. It is also the case that it does not look terribly cool to have a stick sticking out of one’s mouth that says “Smoking kills”, and I get that. One question I would ask, though—perhaps the hon. Member for City of Durham will know the answer to this—is what they use to dye the papers chemically and what the effect of breathing in the smoke from the dyes is.

We talked about cigarette papers and why they are being banned at the beginning of the Bill; we talked about the chemicals put into cigarette papers to colour the paper, to ensure that the ash is white, to control how fast it burns and so on. If cigarette papers are to be marked with a message, that will require inks of some description, which will then be burned and the smoke from them inhaled. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has information on whether that can be done without adding additional harm to an already harmful product. On the one hand, what is the benefit of adding the message to reduce people’s uptake of cigarettes, and on the other, what harm is added to the cigarette by adding the message?

Cigarette papers already have a lot of pictures on them. I do not know whether the Minister will change that under clause 90, but health warnings on cigarette papers, as opposed to the cigarettes that come pre-rolled, would have the same effect: if one is printing a message on them, what harm is one adding and what risks is one taking away? I suppose he would have to look at both the risks and the benefits.

Clause 91 relates to the features of the products. Subsection (1) authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations on the features of various products, including

“(i) tobacco products,

(ii) tobacco related devices,

(iii) herbal smoking products,

(iv) cigarette papers,

(v) vaping products, or

(vi) nicotine products,”,

covering such aspects as the marking on the products, including branding, trademarks and logos, and the information provided with them. It also includes regulations on the appearance, size and shape of products and any distinguishing features that could differentiate brands.

Subsection (2) states that the regulations may include

“prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the production, importation or supply of such products in the course of business.”

Subsection (3) clarifies that regulations made under this section are also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the Minister is correct that at some point there will be a short delegated legislation meeting to debate them, but there will not be as much time to scrutinise them as there is in this Bill Committee.

The shape and size of packaging and of products have changed over time. Tobacco always used to be sold in bulk or in pouches by weight and wrapped in simple paper packaging. Cigarettes were not very common, and most tobacco products at that stage were loose-leaf cigars or pipe tobacco. The size and shape of the packages was straightforward, and the design at that time was more for preservation than marketing. As the industry grew, they became more standardised and recognisable. The first iconic package designs were rectangular boxes, usually made from cardboard, with a flip-top opening containing 10, 20 or 25 cigarettes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Given that the hon. Member for City of Durham has decided not to press new clause 1 to a vote, I will not elaborate on it much, but she did mention that she might bring it back so I will just make a few comments. New clause 1 emphasises putting specific health warnings on individual cigarette papers and cigarettes. The hon. Member mentioned that Canada has introduced this and that Australia is thinking of doing so in coming months, specifically on the butts of the cigarettes. I believe there are warnings such as “toxic addiction” and “poison in every puff”—obviously, the phraseology has to be relatively succinct, given the size of a cigarette.

I understand that the point in trying to make it clear to those using the product that it is unsafe, unhealthy and will have negative implications on their health, but I am not aware that there is any substantive evidence to suggest that placing such wording on individual papers or products has a noticeable impact on smoking cessation. If the hon. Member for City of Durham is planning to bring the new clause back later, or if the Minister is minded to pick it up in some way, we—as the Minister said during the debate on clause 90—must be data-driven along these lines. We should not put extra burdens on the producer and customer if there is no evidence that having individualised health warnings on individual cigarette papers and cigarettes has any noticeable effect on smoking cessation.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

In my speech, I referenced evidence from Canada—the Health Canada survey. If the hon. Gentleman would like some more information on that, he could get in touch with ASH, which has the results. There was evidence to suggest that having health warnings had an impact, particularly on young people.

[Gregory Stafford]

That is very helpful. If I have not already seen it in the evidence packs that have been sent to us, then I will look that up.

I move on to clause 91—the features of the product. Implementing the regulations could require significant adjustments from manufacturers. To quote the Minister back to himself, he wants to move “like the clappers” on this. Although I welcome that, there needs to be a period where manufacturers have the opportunity to adapt to the rules.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a key point, and she has been making it throughout our discussions, as have others. Clearly, we want to move as rapidly as possible to ensure that as few children as possible are addicted to cigarettes or ever pick one up. I completely agree that we should move as fast as possible, but we need to do it in a sensible way to ensure that manufacturers can implement what we want them to implement, and that we do not end up in a situation where they are caught out by that.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I am not pressing the new clause to a vote, although I suggested that the Minister or Department could look into the issue once the Bill has received Royal Assent. But just for information, Canada is the first country in the world to require mandatory health warnings on cigarettes. That legislation came into force in 2023. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point, there was a minimum lead-in time for king-size cigarettes of nine months for manufacturers and 12 months for retailers, and longer lead-in times for other products. Australia followed suit by passing legislation in December 2023; its regulations will come into force by July this year.

[Gregory Stafford]

Those sound like fairly reasonable timeframes; if the Minister were minded to follow those, I would support him, notwithstanding what I have already said.

On clause 91, which I support, we need to ensure that there is a comprehensive stakeholder consultation for whatever the Minister plans to do in this area. There needs to be some kind of phased implementation—by which I mean an eight or nine-month period, or whatever—to ensure that manufacturers can catch up with whatever is being implemented. As I have said previously on other clauses, there must be robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure that manufacturers and retailers comply. Once again, this is all about educating the public about what the legislation means and what they should be expecting. Public education campaigns on this matter are essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course, trading standards enforces the sale of these things, so if the hon. Lady has concerns about particular products being sold in the online sphere, the first port of call is trading standards, which can investigate and take the appropriate action.

Regarding enforcement of online sales, the Bill enables Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce the licensing scheme that we have already debated for retail sale, including online retail sale, of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. Penalties will be capable of being brought against retailers who do not adhere to sales regulations. Obviously, as we have discussed —I do not want to tread on old ground—we will consult on the details of the licensing scheme before regulations are laid. Moreover, in the financial year 2025-26, this Government will invest a total of £30 million of new funding for the enforcement agencies, including trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting the implementation of measures in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly raised some concerns about how long manufacturers and retailers will have to implement the changes. There will be a transition period for businesses before any of the new regulations come into force. The length of the transition will be considered as part of the consultation exercise. There is clearly a balance to be struck between acting quickly to curb youth vaping and carefully considering the unintended consequences that we are all worried about. That is why these measures are a proportionate step. However, let me be clear that we will not stand idly by while industry knowingly and deliberately encourages children to use a product that will addict them to nicotine. Industry has failed to self-regulate. The fact that a quarter—25%—of all children aged between 11 and 15 have vaped shows that self-regulation has failed. We must now intervene to ensure that this can no longer happen—or get worse.

We are not banning the sale or manufacture of vapes; rather, we are ensuring that all the measures that we are talking about happen in a proportionate way that seeks to remove the harm and risk to our children and future generations. However, let me be clear that industry self-regulation has failed. That is why I call on hon. Members to support clause 91.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Contents and flavour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

This clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to regulate substances, and the amount of a substance, used in vaping products, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.

We know that the use of tobacco products and herbal smoking products can increase when they are flavoured or are used alongside flavour accessories. For instance, menthol cigarettes appeal to young people because, compared with non-menthol cigarettes, they make it easier and less harsh to inhale smoke. That is why the sale of menthol-flavoured cigarettes was rightly banned in May 2020 by the previous Government, and I give credit to them for moving on that issue.

It is therefore very concerning that industry has used the same tactics for vaping and nicotine products. Research shows that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described. We have heard a lot over the past few weeks, particularly from the shadow Minister, as well as from others, about flavours such as gummy bear and rainbow burst. Unicorn milkshake was another favourite of the shadow Minister—not that I am suggesting that she vapes, just that it is one of her favourites to refer to.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Mary Kelly Foy, did you want to speak?

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

indicated dissent.

[The Chair]

No. Okay. That is fantastic. No problem. [Interruption.] I mean it is fantastic and we can hear you on another clause or amendment, just to be clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

I certainly do not think the hon. Gentleman is putting pernickety arguments, as he put it. They are important points. He and the shadow Minister are allowing me to provide clarification, hopefully, on some of the concerns, which I would argue are unfounded, and to clarify the extent to which the powers in the Bill would be used by Ministers in England. Of course, it is for my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to clarify at future stages how they would seek to use the powers that the Bill confers on them.

As we have discussed at length, the fact that the powers are so broad means that we can respond to evolving evidence at a later stage, particularly when there are clear harms to children and vulnerable people. It allows us then to get on and make the necessary changes. That is consistent with the Bill as a whole, which gives us the legal framework for tobacco control and measures on vapes.

The shadow Minister mentioned hospitals. She is right to point to the evidence we heard on the first day of Committee about compliance with the existing measures in Wales. Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are rightly concerned about that in England. We are engaging with counterparts in Wales to understand what worked, what did not work and how we can mitigate the things that are not working as well as they could be when we consult on the measures that we wish to introduce in England, should the Bill get Royal Assent.

The answers to that and other questions about what a children’s playground is and what areas around a hospital would apply are down to the details that will be presented for consultation when His Majesty’s Government advance the proposals on outdoor spaces in England. The right place for us to have that discussion is when I bring forward the consultation and say, “This is what the Government consider to be the scope of children’s playgrounds, the scope of outside a school and the scope of outside a hospital setting.” We can debate whether those are the right or wrong definitions. We can put it out to consultation. We can draw on the experiences of other parts of the United Kingdom that already have measures in place. We can then refine our proposals if need be and introduce the secondary legislation.

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

I totally agree that we need a consultation—that is the beauty of gauging the public interest—but the issue around smoking in public places, and particularly play yards, is about not just second-hand smoke, but de-normalising exposure to smoking. The less that our children see adults smoking, the less chance they will have of thinking it is normal and becoming addicted. We need a comprehensive package to bring in the future smoke-free policy. We have evidence to show that the public, in the main, are in favour of a smoke-free generation, and I am sure that they would police the ban around playgrounds when there are children there. If people are not meant to smoke there, the issue will be policed—possibly by the public.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this area over such a long period of time, is absolutely right. I will come to some of the enforcement arguments. Our primary aim is to tackle passive second-hand smoking, but it is important that smoking is not so obviously prevalent in areas where children are present —for example, around children’s playgrounds and outside schools. It is not just that the issue of second-hand passive smoking is important—although it is—it is about the clear statement that smoking around children really should be something for the history books. That is why we have removed the public health test from the 2006 Act. Children’s playgrounds probably would not fall within the scope of that test, but it is a clear priority of the Government to remove the prevalence of smoking around children.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

Clause 160 and schedule 21 provide further general consequential amendments relating to this Bill. The specific amendments to existing legislation are set out in the schedule. Those amendments help the provisions in the Bill to function effectively within the existing legislative framework. This is a standard supplementary clause that enables the legislation to function as intended following the Bill’s introduction.

The shadow Minister refers to different aspects of legislation. Many of the clauses that we have already debated bring together existing tobacco control legislation in one place, so the consequential powers that we are seeking through this clause will make sure that the existing legislation set out in the schedule will be amended, to ensure the smooth running of the legislation. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 agreed to.

New Clause 2

Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme with one or more of the following purposes—

(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any producer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,

(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products,

(c) providing for any producer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.

(2) In this section—

‘importer’, in relation to tobacco products, and ‘tobacco products’ have the meaning as in Part 5 (see section 112),

‘producer’, in relation to tobacco products, is to be construed in accordance with the meaning of ‘production’ in Part 5 (see section 112).”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will not be pushing this new clause to a vote; nevertheless, I think it is a policy that the Minister should take into consideration. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on a “polluter pays” levy. The Minister will know that I and members of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have campaigned for this for some time. It was also recommended in the Khan review in 2022 and, more recently, by the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on health and prosperity.

Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs England more than £43 billion a year. That is more than £27 billion in productivity costs, nearly £14 billion in social care costs and more than £1.8 billion in NHS costs—and much more. A “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers could raise around £700 million a year, with that money coming from tobacco companies’ profits, not raised from consumers.

A levy of this kind would provide sustainable funding for tobacco control and could be given to organisations such as Fresh, the tobacco control programme in the north-east, which does such vital work in ensuring that no one gets left behind as we move to a smoke-free future. In fact, all the Government’s programmes on tobacco, including mass media campaigns, incentives for pregnant women and support for smokers with mental health problems, could be funded many times over, with cash to spare that could go to other public health initiatives.

This would be subject to consultation, but the model proposed by Action on Smoking and Health would cap the wholesale price of tobacco, similarly to how we cap the prices of essential utilities and hence limit profits. The big four tobacco companies account for 95% of UK sales and make excessive profits selling a highly addictive product that kills two in three long-term users when used as intended by the manufacturer. Tobacco manufacturers make an estimated £900 million in profit per year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%. For context, the average profit margin for UK manufacturing is 10%.

There is widespread public support for this measure: 79% of adults in Great Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, with only 5% opposed. I hope the Government will seriously consider this, because it would complement the intentions of the Bill.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested by this new clause. Tax is applied to some products that the Government would like us to consume less of, to make them more expensive so that we consume less of them, and that has been the case with tobacco for some time.

Looking at the current levels of tobacco duty, we see that tax on cigarettes is 16.5% of the retail price of £6.69 for a pack of 20, which is quite a substantial proportion of the cost. Cigars are taxed at £4.17 on a 10 gram cigar, and there is 14.3% tax on a £30 packet of hand-rolling tobacco.

The Government introduced an escalator for further increases in tobacco taxation in their autumn Budget. In addition, they have introduced a tax on vaping products, which will help to take them out of the reach of pocket money. Personally, I have been quite concerned about the fact that vaping products are so cheap that children can easily buy a vape with pocket money, and if they are potentially about to get caught, they can discard it without worrying and then buy another one. A tax on vaping products is, therefore, a welcome initiative.

However, as I understand it, the Government make £8.8 billion per year from tobacco taxation—I am sure the Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong—and it is in the gift of the Chancellor to increase these taxes if she wants to. She is quite good at increasing taxes, so I am sure she knows that that is the case.

As I understand it, the hon. Member for City of Durham proposes that the tax on these products should automatically go towards improving the health—including the public health—of the nation, as opposed to going into general funds. In practice, the Government are already free to spend the money that they receive from tobacco and vape taxation on the health service. They certainly already spend more on the health service than they receive in tobacco taxes. It is a choice. To govern is to choose, and they are choosing how they wish to spend the taxes they raise.

The new clause proposes

“limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer”.

Presumably, that would require some sort of open-book system, and I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady thinks that would work. This level of regulation of the market would require quite detailed open-book working. Perhaps she would like to explain why she thinks that is necessary, when the Government already have in their remit the levers of taxation specifically for these products.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The difference is that the tax would not come from the consumers. This would be a tax on the big four tobacco companies, rather than raising taxes from consumers. We know that consumers of these products are already likely to come from deprived backgrounds. In addition to raising revenue, the measure would allow us to impose much tighter controls on the prices of tobacco products. That would disincentivise the tobacco industry from creating so much profit from their products.

Although the Chancellor can use taxes for whatever purpose, this measure would be a tax on those companies whose product, as we know, kills one in two of the people who use it. Just raising taxes in the way that the hon. Lady describes would be an extra burden on the consumers who we are trying to help quit tobacco.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation, which was really helpful. I am grateful that she, as a Labour MP, understands that a tax on business will be passed on to the consumer, because it seems that the Chancellor does not. Perhaps the hon. Lady should apply for a new job.

The hon. Lady is right that if taxes are applied to a business, the business will pass them on to the consumer. The only way to avoid that is through price control. Nevertheless, I do not think that makes price control a desirable thing for the Government to interfere with. That level of regulation would go too far, and other measures in the Bill already seek to restrict and disincentivise smoking in so many different ways. I hope that they will be effective and that there will be no need for such onerous regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

As the Minister has often said, tobacco sales are declining, so perhaps the new clause would not be as effective as it needs to be in the long term, although I see the principle behind it. I am also concerned that if we put on caps or try to close down the market, we may end up with poorer quality, illicit-market tobacco. I am trying to think about the wider implications. Perhaps the hon. Lady wants to say something further in that regard.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause would be a game changer. One of the questions was whether the measure might later be applied to other areas—I presume that the hon. Member means taxing the big alcohol and gambling companies—but tobacco is a uniquely lethal and addictive product, so in this case the intervention is justified. She makes a good and compelling point, but I think the Government’s overall health strategy is to shift from sickness to prevention, which will require looking at all habits and supporting people to live healthier lives in healthy environments.

[Dr Johnson]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she have a price for tobacco products in mind? Governments of different colours have increased tobacco duty a bit at a time, presumably to nudge behaviour. If we do not increase it enough, we do not have the desired effect, but if we increase it too much and too fast, we potentially drive people into illicit-market tobacco. We heard from the chief medical officer about the difficulties people have in giving up cigarettes because of the profoundly addictive nature of nicotine, so if we were to increase the prices too quickly, we could end up making life difficult for people who are poor and addicted to nicotine, without the necessary support in place. If the prices are going to go up to somewhere in the middle, how is that different from taxation?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

The new clause asks for a consultation, so a lot of issues would need to be worked through with the Chancellor. However, the tobacco companies make exorbitant profits from a product that kills the folk to they sell it to, so I am sure that the shadow Minister would agree that that means we should use some of their profits to pay for the damage being done.

[Dr Johnson]

I certainly agree that it is immoral to sell products that they know are addictive, are dangerous and kill people.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for tabling the new clause, because it allows us to have a debate about a really important matter. As has been discussed, the new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult and report on a scheme to regulate and to raise funds from the prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

Duty on tobacco raises around £8.8 billion a year. The Government’s preferred approach is to continue with a proven and effective model of dealing with tobacco products through increases in tobacco excise and through duties. This generates finances that can support a full range of public services, including public health and the NHS, as well as smoking cessation services. We believe the proposed scheme would be complex to implement and might take several years to materialise.

Alongside the Bill, we are taking strong action to reduce the affordability of tobacco, which is an effective measure to trigger smoking cessation. The United Kingdom already has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. The World Health Organisation recommends that total taxes on tobacco are at least 75% of the retail price on typical cigarettes. The United Kingdom comfortably meets this target, with taxes at around 80% of selling price.

As announced at the autumn Budget 2024, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased in line with the tobacco duty escalator by 2% above retail price index inflation. The duty rate on hand-rolling tobacco was increased by a third of 10%, to 12% above RPI inflation, to reduce the gap with duty on cigarettes. Those changes came into effect on 30 October 2024.

Cigarettes are also subject to minimum excise tax, which sets a minimum amount of duty collected on a pack of cigarettes. That discourages manufacturers from selling cheap cigarettes, as it reduces the profitability of cigarettes sold at or below minimum excise tax trigger prices. The new minimum excise tax is £8.93 for a pack of 20, and it applies to cigarettes sold at or below £13.59 for a pack of 20.

We are still going further on tobacco tax. As announced in the autumn Budget, there will be an additional one-off increase for all tobacco duties. That will come into force on 1 October 2026, when the vaping duty comes into effect. From a financial perspective, that will maintain the incentive for smokers to switch to vaping once the new excise duty on vaping products comes into force.

On one last technical note, His Majesty’s Treasury can consult on tobacco taxation and fiscal policy at any time, so that does not need to be set out in the Bill. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to withdraw her new clause.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Ban on supply of cigarette filters

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) In this section,

‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dartford is not here to discuss his important new clause 4, which is about a ban on cigarette filters. I asked the Minister why cigarette filters were not included in clause 1, along with cigarette papers and tobacco products. Cigarette filters have a health effect, but it is not necessarily the effect that most people think. Filters were first introduced in the 1950s in response to mounting scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of smoking. The tobacco industry seized upon the opportunity to present the filter as a way to make cigarettes safer. It claimed that they reduced the inhalation of harmful substances such as nicotine, tar and other toxicants.

The early filters were made of cork, which is the origin of the cork pattern that can still be seen on many cigarettes. By the end of the 1950s, sales of cigarettes with filters had surged to more than 40% of the market, and by 1965, more than 60% of cigarettes were manufactured with filters. Alongside that shift, the marketing of light and mild cigarettes with ventilated filters further enhanced the illusion—and it is an illusion—of reduced harm, making smoking appear to customers more palatable, and to some extent reducing customer awareness of the risks involved.

There were some early studies that appeared to support the tobacco industry’s claims. Filter tip cigarettes at that time were thought to be associated with lower rates of lung cancer and mortality, compared with their unfiltered counterparts. However, when comprehensive and rigorous studies were completed over time, the initial findings were disproven. Subsequent epidemiological data revealed that both ventilated and non-ventilated filter tip cigarettes were just as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes. In fact, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma—a type of lung cancer that has increasingly replaced the more prevalent squamous cell carcinoma—has risen significantly in recent decades. The rise in adenocarcinomas is believed to be linked to the use of ventilated filters, as they affect smoking behaviour and the combustion of the product.

One of the key reasons why filter tip cigarettes fail to reduce the risk of lung cancer and other diseases is the changes they cause in smoking behaviour. When cigarette filters were introduced, they altered the way people smoked. For example, smokers began taking longer and deeper puffs, increasing their exposure to harmful chemicals in the smoke. Such behaviours may have upset the potential benefits that some individuals thought filters might have in reducing the toxic smoke inhaled.

The presence of a filter, especially those with ventilation, changed the combustion of the cigarette itself. That led to a greater exposure in smokers to tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens and a major contributor to lung cancer. The filtering process did not remove those harmful substances, and in some cases may even have enhanced their presence in the smoke that smokers inhaled.

Another concerning aspect of modern cigarette filters is the material from which they are made. The most common material used is cellulose acetate—a synthetic plastic that, when inhaled, can contribute to respiratory issues. The fibres and microplastics from filters can embed in the lungs, potentially leading to long-term damage. Although that material can be effective in filtering out some particles, it does not remove gases of low molecular weight, such as carbon monoxide, which are also harmful to health.

Despite cigarette filters being marketed as a safer option, their widespread use over the past 60 years has had little effect on reducing the health risk of smoking. In fact, it may have contributed to a decrease in public awareness about the dangers of smoking, and may have led to more people becoming addicted to smoking without fully understanding the risks involved.

I note that new clause 4 suggests that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be used to ban the supply of cigarette filters, because they have a significant environmental impact. Roughly 4.5 trillion cigarette filters are disposed of annually, making them the most littered man-made waste item in the world and accounting for roughly a third of all litter found in coastal and urban clean-ups. Despite their small size, the sheer volume of discarded cigarette butts would fill almost 50,000 shipping containers every single year, and that is expected to increase by 50% in 2025.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is a remarkable moment in parliamentary history, because we have got the Tobacco and Vapes Bill through Committee. I thank you, Mr Pritchard, as well as Sir Roger, Sir Mark and Mr Dowd, for your diligent chairing. Please pass on the whole Committee’s appreciation for the way in which you have kept us going throughout.

I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee for the role that they have played, particularly as many are new Members. It has been a baptism of fire for some of them, but I hope that they have found the experience of amending, scrutinising and debating a really important piece of legislation to be of benefit. New Members should be assured that their Whips have already noted that this will be their first Committee of many.

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

I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to indulge in a history lesson of my own, as that seems to have been the order of the day for most of the Committee’s sitting days. While I am overjoyed that the Bill is one step closer to becoming law, I must make the Committee aware of a previous smoking ban introduced in the 16th century by Pope Urban VII. During his short period as pope—it lasted 13 days—he went like the clappers to bring in a smoking ban, before he snuffed it. That ban was taken further by Pope Urban VIII, who banned snuff and threatened to excommunicate anyone smoking it, chewing it or sniffing it in or anywhere near a church. I only wish that the hon. Member for Windsor was in his place to realise that the Bill is positively liberal compared to the papal bulls of those popes.

[The Chair]

May I say that that was completely within scope? [Laughter.]

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

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

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and add my broad support for the improvements that the Government have made to the Bill. I will restrict my comments mainly to amendments 1 and 2, which have been tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I will also comment on new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), to which I have added my name.

Amendments 1 and 2 would direct the moneys raised from fixed penalty notices to public health initiatives chosen by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that prevention is better than sickness and cure, and that public health initiatives are crucial in making those key shifts in healthcare that we all hope to achieve. The Secretary of State hopes to create a smokefree generation for those born after 1 January 2009, but there will be existing smokers who may well wish to stop, and who may need help from a public health initiative or a smoking cessation programme to do so. The Conservatives cut public health budgets by a quarter since 2015, meaning that fewer people have had help to quit. That is not what anybody hopes to achieve through this legislation or, more broadly, the reforms to the NHS.

Research by University College London showed that in parts of England, smoking rates have begun to rise again, and they have been flatlining as a whole since 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, the rates rose by 10% in southern England and fell by 9.7% in the north. Overall, an estimated 7.5 million adults in England are smokers. UCL concluded that the disparity between north and south reflected the concentration of dedicated tobacco control programmes in northern regions and their positive impact, and their relative absence in the south. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), mentioned, there is also evidence of significant black market activity in the United Kingdom. Cessation activities have therefore become even more important to deprive the criminal gangs involved of funds, and to ensure that people are free of their grip. Given the impact of public health initiatives, I sincerely urge the Government to accept Liberal Democrat amendment 1, and consequential amendment 2, which are in line with the Government’s objectives, and would improve health and save taxpayers money in the long run.

Amendment 84, which is also in my name, is very similar to the Opposition’s amendment 85. It would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to unreasonably designate a place as a smokefree area. If they do not mind me saying so, the Conservatives have been a bit sloppy in drafting their amendment, because they have managed to remove protections in existing law for areas where there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke in smokefree areas. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 84 has an added safeguard: if the chief scientific officer—that is not easy for me to say—advises that there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke, an area can be designated as smokefree. The amendment also retains mention of the areas that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will designate as smokefree, including NHS premises, schools, educational establishments and children’s playgrounds.

The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not designate other areas as smokefree, particularly if it would have a detrimental impact on our already struggling hospitality industry and much-loved village pubs. We take him at his word on that commitment, but I hope that the Minister can imagine a future in which a different Secretary of State is less inclined to honour a promise made by someone else at the Dispatch Box. It is right and in good order that in that scenario, Parliament should get a vote on the change of heart. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and ensure that the legislation matches the promises made at the Dispatch Box.

New clause 1, which I have also added my name to, would require the Secretary of State to review and report back on the presence of contaminated vapes, and to find ways to reduce their prevalence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath has campaigned on this issue following findings by the University of Bath that one in six vapes in English schools contained the drug Spice, which can have serious side effects in children, including cardiac arrest. It seems reasonable that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State should try to find a way of addressing that issue.

I intend to push amendments 1 and 2 to a vote to ensure that there is additional funding for public health measures. I very much hope that hon. and right hon. Members will support me in this common-sense move to improve public health.

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

I begin by declaring an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I will speak to my amendments and one or two others.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is world-leading health legislation that will create the first smokefree generation, protecting children and young people from the harms of smoking. In the City of Durham alone, some 5,500 children start smoking each year. Most of them will go on to wish that they had never started. This Bill will end that. It will stop the start and ensure that every child has a smokefree future. Recent data from UCL has shown that the rates of smoking are falling fastest in the north-east. This can at least partly be attributed to hard work and amazing regional programmes such as Fresh, which works so hard to tackle inequalities in our region. The same data also shows that progress is not guaranteed; in some areas, smoking rates appear to be increasing. The case for action is clear.

New clause 13, in my name, would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smokefree country every five years. It was a Labour Government who introduced the first-ever smoking strategy in 1998, “Smoking Kills”. It is 2025, and smoking still kills. This world-leading Bill is to be celebrated for many reasons, but the rising age of sale will not impact the 6 million people who are currently smoking in the UK. Smoking is not spread equally across our society; the most affluent 10% are set to become smokefree this year. However, at the current rate, the most deprived will not achieve that until 2050. It is vital that the Government ensure that no one is left behind as we create a smokefree future. Having a clear plan for achieving that, and targets for reducing smoking not only for the whole population, but for pregnant women, those struggling with their mental health and those in occupations with high rates of smoking, will save lives. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group following the publication of our report to discuss how we can turbocharge reductions in smoking and create the smokefree generation?

New clause 19, tabled by the Conservatives, would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on the illicit market. Let us be clear that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already publishes annual data with a detailed analysis of the illicit market, so it is difficult to see what the Department of Health and Social Care could do in addition. There are no additional data sources available that would yield any different results.

Finally, amendments 82 and 83 would remove the exemption for performers. Since 2007, it has been against the law to smoke inside. However, that does not apply to actors smoking in performances for artistic reasons. There is a play on in London’s west end that tells the story of the American oil lobbyist and master strategist Don Pearlman. Don Pearlman was a heavy smoker who died from complications arising from lung cancer. The actor playing the lead role smokes on stage. The exemption should be removed, because actors deserve to have their health protected at work as much as everyone else. Audiences and other actors also deserve to be protected from second-hand smoke. Performances at the National Theatre already require that smoking in performances be substituted for vaping or other alternatives. There is no reason why all performances should not follow suit.

Amendments 85 and 86 deal with smokefree extensions. I know that there will be further consultation and debate on the regulations creating extensions to smokefree places and vape-free areas, but can the Minister confirm that there will be exemptions if it is shown that the use of vapes in certain settings aids smoking cessation efforts? I am thinking of, for example, mental health settings. The Mental Health and Smoking Partnership has pointed out that vapes are a valuable tool in such settings to help patients quit. Will the Minister undertake to visit a mental health trust to hear directly about people’s experiences? It is vital that we all work with trusts to provide clear guidance on how to navigate these changes. Particular attention must be paid to how the policies in the Bill, and those that will come into effect after it, such as the disposable vapes ban in June, will interact with each other.

Today’s funding announcement is welcome, but we have gone down to the wire, given that the funding was due to end at the end of this month. Can we be reassured that, following the spending review, services can expect consistent, long-term funding that will allow them to plan their activities and hire staff on longer contracts?

The Bill presents us with a historic opportunity to transform public health in this country, and, after working tirelessly on it for more than a decade, I am proud to support it. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that no one is left behind. All aspects of the Bill, from the smoking cessation measures to protections for workers in the arts, must be fully realised if we are to create a truly smokefree generation.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I think you may agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the longer we spend in this job, the more we realise that almost nothing is ever straightforward. Even the best intentions nearly always have unintended consequences, and there is absolutely no doubt that smoking, and specifically smoking tobacco, has done untold damage in my constituency and continues to do so. The health of my constituents has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of regular smoking, and, moreover, smoking is a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn, on average, 7% less than non-smokers. I could not believe that statistic when I first read it, but when I thought about it, I realised that it made complete sense. Those who take more time off work because of the inevitable ill-health effects of smoking, those who spend more of their disposable income on tobacco, and those who develop a dependency on a drug such as nicotine will obviously experience, over time, an impact on their earnings. Smoking is like an extra tax on the most disadvantaged communities, and I can see why this Government have maintained the last Government’s ambition to phase it out.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief.

Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation.

Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them.

Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39.

However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed.

The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny.

A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market.

We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.

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

I declare an interest: I am proud to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I am pleased that the Bill has returned from the Lords with minimal amendments. All the amendments before us are either Government amendments or have Government support, so I hope that the Bill can achieve Royal Assent as soon as possible. I understand that the amendments put forward today by the Secretary of State are simply to correct drafting errors, so I assume that they will need only brief consideration by the Lords.

I am proud that the Bill will become law under a Labour Government. I hope that this Government will be remembered as the one that began the end of smoking in this country. In a few decades’ time, I hope that people, particularly young people, will look back on smoking with disbelief, and will say, “Can you believe that selling tobacco, a lethal product, with the aim of getting us hooked, was ever allowed?”

Before coming to this place, I was a councillor in Gateshead council, where I held the public health portfolio from 2009 to 2019, and I chaired the Gateshead Tobacco Alliance. Tackling smoking was a central part of my work during that time, and it continues to be so today, because it remains the single biggest driver of health inequality in communities like mine and across the north-east.

In areas of high deprivation, smoking is not just a public health issue, but a deeply entrenched inequality. It is far more common in disadvantaged communities, where people are more likely to start smoking younger, find it harder to quit, and suffer the worst health outcomes as a result. That means higher rates of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness, and lives cut tragically short. I have seen that reality at first hand over many years, and it is why action like that set out in the Bill is so important.

We should remember that tobacco is the single most harmful commercial product on sale in the world. It is sold for profit, while killing around two thirds of its long-term users and generating enormous returns for the companies that manufacture it. It is highly addictive, and many who start smoking wish they never had. Over 80,000 people die in this country every year because of it, and if it was introduced today, it is unthinkable that it would ever be permitted.

This Government are right to legislate for a smokefree generation, because there is a fundamental imbalance at the heart of this issue. Companies are making vast profits from a product that drives disease, kills two in three of their customers, deepens inequality and places huge costs on our NHS and wider society. We know how important it is to work towards a truly smokefree future, and to drive smoking rates down to as close to zero as possible.

In the north-east, we have a clear declaration for a smokefree future, endorsed by all directors of public health, our integrated care boards, Fresh, all 12 local councils and all 10 local hospital trusts. That kind of whole-system commitment is vital, not just for improving health but for tackling poverty, supporting a more productive region and preventing the premature loss of loved ones to smoking-related disease. That work is already delivering results. In County Durham, smoking rates have nearly halved over the last decade, reflecting a sustained effort across prevention and support to help people quit. However, rates remain higher in some communities, so we cannot afford to lose focus now.

I am equally pleased about the strong cross-party support for the Bill. We saw that clearly in debates in the other place. The APPG on smoking and health is a great cross-party effort, which I am proud to co-chair with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

There is much to welcome in the amendments. In particular, amendment 80, which requires the Government to review the Act, is an important addition that strengthens the Bill. To be clear, it is not a sunset clause, nor is it a test of whether the smokefree generation policy has succeeded in its health aims—the impact assessment makes it clear that we are playing the long game—but rather it will assess how smoothly implementation has progressed and what burdens, if any, have fallen on retailers. I am confident that it will report positively, and that it will encourage other countries to follow our lead. I note that a similar private Member’s Bill is before the French Parliament, which I hope reassures colleagues about the policy’s compatibility with EU law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for all her work as part of the APPG on smoking and health and in her former role as a councillor. Does she find it as shocking as I do that four in 10 adult smokers in this country believe vaping to be as harmful or more harmful than smoking, when it is one of the most effective tools to help people quit?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must keep in mind the fact that it is smoking that causes harm and death, not vaping, which can be a very successful cessation tool. I hope that the Bill will continue to push that.

Powers in the Bill cover marketing, display, packaging and product design, as well as flavours and their descriptions. However, there is a crucial balance to strike: reducing youth appeal without limiting access or effectiveness for those using the products to quit smoking. We must keep the harms of smoking firmly at the forefront of our minds.

A review after four to seven years feels appropriate to assess how the regulations are affecting usage and the market, and whether we are striking the right balance. This should be considered alongside the disposable vape ban and the forthcoming vape excise tax. I would welcome reassurance today that the review will place the harms of smoking and the needs of smokers at its centre.

Many of the other amendments are technical in nature. I welcome the comprehensive definition of tobacco coming into force on Royal Assent, through Lords amendments 89, 90 and 91, as there is no need for a transition period. The exemption for vape-vending machines in Lords amendments 3 and 4 is also welcome, as others have noted, because we must ensure that vulnerable smokers are supported as much as possible to quit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has recently taken up her role, I welcome her to her position as Minister for Public Health. I look forward to working with her as this Bill, soon to be an Act, progresses, so that we can continue our work, and hopefully set out a road map for a totally smokefree country and to look again at introducing a polluter pays levy.

Finally, as someone who has spent many years advocating for a smokefree future, free of death and disease from tobacco, I know from speaking and listening to many people affected by smoking just how much the public want and need this action. We have already shifted the social norms around smoking and now, thanks to the work of organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health and Fresh, and the work of colleagues across the two Houses, a smokefree future is now possible. That is truly something to celebrate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.