Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Matt Warman Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

My dad used to smoke 60 John Player Specials a day. When he died in 2009, the last 20 years of his life had been blighted by heart attacks, by strokes and by dementia—the things that we know now, and we knew then, are exacerbated not by free human choice but by the fact that smoking is an addiction. Nobody chooses to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. Addiction forces them to do so, and it hits the poorest hardest. Tobacco ruins lives. Smoking takes away the rational, free, human choices that so many people in this Chamber have defended today. Defending smoking is not defending rational, free, human choices; it is defending addiction, which is the very opposite.

Every day when we come to this place, we should ask ourselves one question: how can I as a Member of Parliament, how can we as a Parliament and how can the Government do things that make the lives of our constituents better, healthier, happier, freer? Most of the time, I think that Parliament and the Government should get out of the way. There are even days when I think that what we can do most is not say anything. However, we have to ask ourselves: what are the things that government can do? There are some things that only government can do.

I will let you into a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Ronald Reagan quote that

“The…most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”

was a joke. Ronald Reagan was being slightly glib when he said that. The real most terrifying words in the English language might perhaps be that there is no government—that there is no operation above our individual choices to protect us, to give us security, and to fulfil the single most important function of government: security. Security in terms of health is just as important, because the Government exist to make people’s lives happier and healthier.

People might think that Governments are a necessary evil, or that they are a brilliant thing that can expand ever greater, but whatever we think, we do not improve people’s lives by getting out of the way all the time. Tobacco does not have some unique special status. We should ask ourselves why, as a Parliament, we have agreed that it is right to have speed limits, seatbelts and motorcycle helmets yet somehow people make a different argument for tobacco. That just does not make sense.

Some people will say that this Bill is not perfect, and they are right because nothing is, but if people vote against this Bill, or even abstain, they must demonstrate how it would make the current situation worse, and I cannot see a single example of how it would do so. Some might say that it makes some shops unviable; well, if the viability of a business depends on tobacco, I do not think that it is good for this country for that to be a viable business. Some will say that it fuels the black market. That does not seem to me to be an argument at all. We do not legalise crime for fear of it being driven underground; we in the Conservative party put 20,000 extra police officers on the streets. We fund what we need to do to tackle it.

Many have said that the problem is a 34-year-old in a shop being told, “I am terribly sorry, but you’re not 35.” The reality of this approach, and why it is the right approach, is that by the time today’s 14, 15 or 16-year-olds are 34 or 35, it simply will not be viable for those shops to be selling tobacco. It is a way of driving something—a bad thing—out of our society. That can only be a good thing.

An addicted life is not a free life. The spurious grounds cited for objecting to this Bill have not demonstrated what needs to be demonstrated: that this Bill would make things worse. The social contract that gives us legitimacy in this place is a balance. We have done some things recently that have tested that balance, and today we have a chance to show the 60% or so people who support this Bill that we are on their side. Government should not always be allergic to doing things that are popular, because when push comes to shove, yes of course people love freedom, but to exercise that freedom, people need to be alive.

I come back to where I started—to my dad. The last 20 years of his life were scarred by strokes, heart attacks and dementia, all exacerbated by smoking. That was not a free life; it was a life destroyed by addiction for precious little pleasure and a lot of money. We need the freedom to live longer, healthier, happier lives, with fewer people dying needlessly. That is what this Bill can do for us today.

I cannot understand why someone would vote against it. I cannot understand why they would be indifferent to it. What we should do, surely, is answer the question in front of us as best we can. I cannot help but think that if someone is voting against this today, they cannot see the human wood for the ideological trees. We have the answer. For all the high-flown arguments about the nanny state, the beginning and the end of this debate should be very simple: will people live longer, healthier, happier lives? Will they be alive? The Bill will deliver that. I commend it to the House.