Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Simon Clarke Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I think that is extraordinary. I do not think that smoking is slightly harmful; I think it is the single biggest cause of cancer, and I think that the costs to people’s health, to our national health service and to our economy are enormous. This sort of argument—that if we ban smoking for young people, we have to ban everything else—is absurd. I think that the Secretary of State just pointed out the absurdity of it when she pointed to a whole range of harmful things in our country that are already banned.

Let me put the question back to the libertarian wing in the corner of the Chamber. Will the new modern Conservative party not ban anything? Will we have a libertarian dystopia in which people are free to do whatever they want in the name of liberty? [Interruption.] I am just trying to help the Secretary of State by taking on the libertarians in the corner. I would be very sad if she wants me to give in to them but, with 187,000 people on the waiting list in the local area of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), I think we should do something about it.

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I proudly call myself a libertarian, because I believe in the fundamental value of freedom of decision making. On what we should and should not ban, I would argue there is a very substantial difference between banning class A and class B drugs, which do immense harm in all our communities, and banning tobacco. We already struggle to stop the former, so why on earth would we try to create and police a huge black market in the latter?

[Wes Streeting]

I admire the right hon. Gentleman for sticking to his convictions as a libertarian in making that case, even though I strongly disagree with him, but how far does his commitment to libertarianism go? He is defending the right of our country’s children to become addicted to nicotine for the rest of their life, which is an extraordinary argument. There are 356,000 people in his local area on NHS waiting lists. Does he want a future where that gets worse and the disease burden and cost pressures rise? When he was in government, the low-tax Conservatives crashed our economy and sent people’s mortgages through the roof, and rents, bills and the tax burden rose. That is their record. I wish he would do more to stand up for his low-tax convictions than his libertarian desire that children growing up in our country today should become addicted to nicotine. I have to respectfully disagree with him.

Compared with three years ago, half a million more people are out of work due to long-term sickness. People’s careers are being ruined by illnesses that prevent them from contributing to Britain’s economic success. We cannot build a healthy economy without a healthy society. Not only is there a moral argument for backing this progressive ban, based on the countless lives ruined by smoking and our shared determination to make sure that children growing up in Britain today will not die as a result of smoking, but there is an economic argument, too.

It is certainly true that vaping is less harmful than smoking and is a useful smoking cessation tool, but vapes are harmful products none the less. In the past few years, entirely on the Conservatives’ watch, a new generation of children have become hooked on nicotine. An estimated quarter of a million children vape today, and there is no doubt that this is the result of vaping companies’ decision to target children. On any high street in the country today, people can buy brightly coloured vapes and e-liquids with names such as “Vimto Breeze” and “Mango Ice”. They are designed, packaged, marketed and deliberately sold to children. The effect of this new nicotine addiction on our country’s young people should trouble us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, although I confess it is one that has depressed me, because this is fundamentally illiberal legislation. If I am in the House for any reason it is because I believe in liberalism—in the ability of people to make better choices for themselves than can the state.

It strikes me that we are witnessing an encroaching tide whereby ever more of our liberties are taken away from us—the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry) was very good on that. We are fortunate in Britain to live in a country where we do not get our rights from the state; we have them inalienably from birth, and it is only the things that we proactively proscribe that we cannot do, but we are adding more and more things to that list.

I say that as someone who is totally clear that smoking is a terrible idea, and I would not recommend it to any young person. I have spent a lot of time with Mr Jonathan Ferguson at James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough and have seen the pioneering work he has done on lung cancer. It is absolutely crystal clear that smoking damages your health and damages your wealth and is an antisocial habit in so many ways, but—and it is a big but—I do not believe it is my right to tell my fellow citizens that they cannot do it, any more than it is their right to tell me that I cannot have a glass of red wine with dinner. These are not things that the state ought sensibly to be proscribing.

I actually think we have reached a relatively sensible point with regard to smoking legislation. Not allowing smoking in public places where it can impinge on others is very reasonable and sensible, and I do not think anyone would want to go back to the situation before the 2006 legislation. However, whether we smoke at all in private should be up to us, not the state. We risk creating a huge philosophical as well as practical problem, which will undoubtedly lead to further rights creep as the years go by, because it is likely that the health lobby—the interventionist lobby, as the shadow Secretary of State put it in his speech—will use this as a logic to allow them to move into other fields, and what will our ability then be to resist that argument if we have conceded it here today? So there is a profound philosophical problem with this.

I also believe that it will in practice be a nightmare for shop workers up and down the country to be asked to enforce this. It will place them in an invidious position, which is likely to lead either to them facing real trouble in their shops or, frankly, to them passing the buck and ignoring the law, and making a mockery of its existing at all.

[Steve Brine]

On the “what next?” point, when I was Public Health Minister, we brought in the sugar tax with the soft drinks industry levy. That encouraged the industry to reformulate drinks and took quite a lot of sugar out as a result, because industry followed that trend. If we reformulated processed food to take a lot of salt out and saved a lot of lives from stroke, would that be a good or a bad thing?

[Sir Simon Clarke]

That would arguably be perfectly sensible, but it is different from a ban. The point is about the degree of harm. I strongly support the ban on illegal drugs, but I do so because cocaine, heroin and the like wreck lives and destroy communities. Tobacco does not do that, but we already have enough difficulty enforcing the existing bans that we have in place, which already stretch our resources to the utmost. Frankly, as we all know, we all too often fail to enforce those bans. Adding a new ban risks creating something that will be unworkable from the outset, while creating a huge black market in which criminal enterprise will thrive. Meanwhile, the state will have forgone the tax revenues—some £10 billion or £11 billion a year—that are ploughed back into our public services, including the health service, to combat the effects of smoking. That revenue simply will not be there anymore. We will likely still have people smoking, but we will have offset many of the revenue streams that allow us to combat it.

I simply do not understand how a Conservative Prime Minister thought it appropriate to bring forward legislation that is the opposite of why we are sent to this House, which is to defend and uphold the principle of individual choice and individual liberty. As we have heard, where this legislation has been introduced, it has already been repealed, as in New Zealand. I fear that in this country we will face a choice in the years ahead: either eventual repeal because the legislation does not work or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said, an outright ban, because of the sheer unworkability of trying to ascertain in practice whether the person in front of you in the queue is aged 39 or 40. We will doubtless simply see a Labour Government move towards an outright ban to make the situation simpler, tidier and neater. That would be a real red line, but we would have forgone the ability to make the principal case against it.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that drugs destroy lives, but tobacco does not. What about the people who are dying from emphysema and long-term lung cancer? Many families in the United Kingdom are seeing their relatives die a long, lingering death as a result of using tobacco.

[Sir Simon Clarke]

With respect to my hon. Friend, I said that those drugs destroy communities. There is a profound difference. The ripple effect of illegal drugs is to prompt real social harm to others, because those habits are so destructive that people steal and rob to fund them. Tobacco does not do that. It is obviously extremely bad for people, but it does not drive patterns of behaviour as destructive as those associated with crime. That is a fundamental difference, and it is why we should focus our efforts on stopping those trades, rather than on banning something that has been legal for hundreds of years. We all recognise it carries real medical harms, but it is not, I submit, our job to try to take it away from people. We should rely on education and the tax system, but we should not rely on legislation to tell other people what to do when they are grown adults in a free country.