Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Sarah Bool and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.

Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year-old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke-free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Sarah Bool]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non-smoker.

[Dr Johnson]

I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.

On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law-abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.

Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

in clause 1 and insert the words

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

This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date-specific restriction to a general age-based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.

[Sarah Bool]

I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age-restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

with the phrase

“under the age of 25”.

That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke-free generation to a fixed age of 25.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Sarah Bool and Caroline Johnson

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. My other question is about the difference between indoor and outdoor exposure to smoke. In this country, we have had laws preventing smoking in certain indoor spaces for many years now. How does exposure to smoke inside differ from exposure to it outside? Imagine sitting next to someone smoking on a park bench and someone smoking at a neighbouring table in a restaurant—what are the comparative health risks between those two?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think the first thing to say is that second-hand smoke is a very serious problem. I think that is underestimated among the general public because, if I am honest, the cigarette industry has been very successful in muddying the waters on this.

There are three key things that really make a difference. The first is the degree of concentration of the smoke. The second is the duration of exposure—let us say you sit next to someone for half an hour; the effect is more significant than if it had been just a couple of minutes. The third is the vulnerability of the people being exposed to it. That is one of the things that this Bill will help with.

Over 88% of the population do not smoke. There are roughly 6 million smokers still. There are significantly more people in the UK, non-smokers, who have medical vulnerabilities that mean that the smoke is particularly dangerous to them, perhaps acutely. They can be exposed to smoke and have an asthma attack, and that lands them in hospital. In severe cases it could land them in a very dangerous situation. The situation may also be chronic—for example, people living with diabetes already have a disease that is going to accelerate things like cardiovascular disease. If people are smoking on top of that, it will accelerate those things still further.

Although outdoor smoking is less in terms of passive smoking than indoor smoking, in most situations if you are close to someone, exposed for a long period or vulnerable, it can have very significant health impacts. In broad terms, if you can smell smoke, you are being exposed to significant amounts of smoke, and that is one of the things that the Bill is aiming to address.

I would like to make one additional point: the cigarette industry has been extraordinarily good at trying to pretend that to be pro-smoking is to be pro-choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smoking is highly addictive. Most smokers wish they had never started and want to quit, but they are trapped by addiction. Their choice has been taken away deliberately by these companies as part of their policy. And if you are talking about second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors, the person downwind or next door has no choice at all at any point. They are exposed to the risks with no advantages at all. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. Frank, do you want to add to that?

Sir Francis Atherton: The only thing I would add is that there is no safe level of smoking. As Chris says, if you smell it, you are breathing it in, and there is no safe level. Obviously, indoors is worse than outdoors. The dose response is a big issue, but there is no safe level. I think that is a really important point.

[Sarah Bool]

Q You mentioned that 88% of the population do not smoke, and the numbers are now declining. Can I ask why you supported a generational ban as opposed to raising the age from 18 to 21 or even 25? It is predominantly younger people whom we want to stop smoking.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I might ask Michael to come in. I can have the first go and Michael might want to come in after that, because this is a critical point. Historically, the cigarette industry, despite what it claims, has always targeted children. It always deplores it in public, but if you look at its internal documents you discover that that is what it has been aiming to do. Most people, the great majority, start as teenagers before they are 20—you are, of course, correct. To refer back to Dr Johnson’s original question, the same thing is now being done with vaping and exactly the same playbook is being followed. You get people at their most vulnerable and you addict them. That is the aim.

However, were we to stop at, let us say, 21, the cigarette industry, which is extraordinarily good at regrouping around whatever regulations are in place, would simply regroup around 21. To go back to my very first point about addiction, if you are a 21-year-old and you start, you become addicted and then you wish you had stopped. That does not change the fact that your choice has been taken away. So the logic of saying 21, 25 or 30—various people have looked at various ages—is no better than the logic of the current situation.

The advantage of the current model, which was first put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Mr Sunak, to whom we should all pay great tribute on the basics of the Bill, was to ensure that current children are not addicted and do not have their choice taken away, but that rights are not taken away from existing smokers. That is the reason why this particular model was chosen. Michael, do you want to add to that? You are on mute.