Smoking Reduction and Tobacco Control Bill - Clause 1

Supports the Secretary of State's argument, urging colleagues to visit a respiratory ward to witness the struggle patients go through due to smoking. Emphasises that if the Bill helps prevent such situations, it should be supported.

Questions the Secretary of State about how banning tobacco will not lead to increased criminality. Expresses concerns that such bans might result in more illegal activities, as has been seen with other banned substances.

Supports the Bill's principle of protecting future generations from smoking. Criticises the Conservative party for blocking similar measures in the past and suggests that they are now following Labour’s lead.

Questions the practicality of a rolling age of consent for buying tobacco, arguing it is impractical and potentially confusing. Suggests being open to improving the Bill.

Supports the Bill's aim to prevent underage sales of tobacco products. Asks for additional resources for councils to tackle illicit tobacco trade, highlighting statistics from her constituency showing high levels of illegal tobacco sales.

Questions the Secretary of State about why banning tobacco would be more effective than existing bans on cannabis. Suggests that similar legislation for drugs has not been successful in preventing use among young people.

Supports the Bill based on feedback from young people in her constituency who favour measures to prevent smoking. Argues that these measures are necessary because they affect younger generations, not MPs.

Asks about additional resources for retailers facing violent attacks when enforcing age checks. Questions whether the Bill might inadvertently increase such incidents by making it harder to enforce.

Argues that the Bill should not restrict access to vaping products which can help smokers quit, as he believes they would have helped him when quitting smoking. Suggests caution in banning helpful cessation aids.

Questions the necessity of focusing on tobacco cigarettes, suggesting that youth are already not interested in smoking traditional cigarettes. Advocates for more focus on regulating harmful vape products instead.

Supports including shisha tobacco in the Bill, highlighting its popularity among young people and health risks equivalent to smoking hundreds of cigarettes within an hour.

Welcomes the Bill but raises concern about the time it will take to see results in poorer communities, citing a delay until 2044 based on the Khan review.

Questions the enforceability of the Bill and its effectiveness compared to past measures. Also argues that poor diets are a greater health risk than smoking.

Asks why the legislation does not address vaping alongside smoking, suggesting a vape-free generation alongside smoke-free generation to eliminate nicotine addiction.

Raises concern about lack of consultation requirements in the Bill for wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State regarding vape flavours and packaging.

Seeks a guarantee that the Bill will apply equally across all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to avoid potential EU interference under the Windsor framework.

Asks for increased sentences for illicit tobacco supply and sale to combat tax avoidance and evasion, suggesting it could lead to more illicit tobacco sales if not addressed.

Supports a progressive ban on tobacco to reduce health risks. Argues that vaping should not be banned due to its use as smoking cessation tool, but emphasises the need for regulation to prevent youth addiction.

Questions Labour’s stance on vaping regulations, pressing Streeting on whether a similar ban would be imposed if Labour were in power. Suggests inconsistency between Labour's views on smoking and vaping.

Argues that people using vapes to quit smoking should be consulted, questioning the necessity of a ban on flavoured vapes which helps cessation efforts.

Calls for consultation to ensure proper regulation of vaping products. Presses Streeting repeatedly about Labour's stance on consulting users before implementing regulations.

Emphasises the importance of consultation with those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Questions the necessity and fairness of banning flavoured vapes without proper consideration.

Defends the progressive ban as a step towards better public health, questioning why similar bans are not proposed for substances like sugar and salt that also cause significant health issues.

Advocates libertarian principles, suggesting a black market would form if tobacco were banned due to difficulty in controlling it compared to illegal drugs. Questions the logic of banning legal substances.

Raises concerns about youth vaping, citing a survey showing 4% of year 6 children had already vaped and emphasises the importance of tackling misinformation among young people.

Order was given to remind speakers not to exceed seven minutes, setting the tone for disciplined debate.

Streeting raises a point of order questioning if it is appropriate for MPs to attack individual officers like the chief medical officer or civil servants who cannot respond in turn.

Chope interjects, agreeing with Truss and referencing comments made by Sir Chris Whitty regarding his stance on puberty blockers and support for the current amendment.

Johnson supports Truss, mentioning her inability to contribute during a filibuster on puberty blockers and expressing gratitude for the Cass report.

Oswald supports the Bill, citing its importance in reducing smoking and protecting public health. She mentions significant support from various organisations and highlights the environmental impacts of disposable vapes. She also raises concerns about the accessibility of vapes to children and their potential long-term health effects.

Supports preventive measures to reduce smoking rates, citing model predictions and advocating for funding mechanisms like a tobacco industry levy. Expresses caution on vaping regulations due to unknown long-term health effects but welcomes excise duty increases and environmental protection measures for disposable vapes.

Supports the bill in principle but criticises it for being late, inadequate and failing to address existing smokers. Argues that current laws are already strict enough and enforcement is insufficient. Worries about additional pressure on shop workers and retailers due to generational smoking ban. Emphasises the need for more effective measures to help existing smokers transition to less harmful alternatives like heated tobacco products.

Defends the bill as necessary public health legislation aimed at protecting future generations from nicotine addiction. Highlights the addictive nature of nicotine and its adverse impacts on personal freedom, economic opportunities, and overall public health. Argues that banning disposable vapes will prevent youth smoking initiation and improve societal well-being.

Ms Cooper thanked the public health Minister and chief medical officer for their engagement. She supported the Government’s proposals on vapes due to environmental concerns and fears over marketing tactics aimed at young people, highlighting that vapes are being used as containers for smuggling dangerous substances. However, she expressed reservations about a proposed ban on cigarette sales to those under 15, noting practical issues such as proving age without appropriate identification and preventing retailer abuse. She acknowledged supporting the measures in the Bill but emphasised her journey of considering the broader context of cancer prevention needs, including research funding, outdated equipment, staffing shortages, and tackling waiting times. Despite initial concerns, she concluded that banning tobacco for those under 15 is a useful step to reduce smoking-related harm.

Argues against the clause, questioning its effectiveness given that other banned substances like cannabis are still tried by young people. Raises concerns about personal liberty and freedom of choice. Questions the mandate for MPs to introduce such measures before a general election.

[INTERVENTION] Supports his colleague's position, emphasising the importance of freedom with responsibility and individual choice over government dictation.

While supporting the aim of reducing smoking, Mark Eastwood argues that the Bill is impractical and could lead to unintended consequences. There are five million users of vaping products, and restricting their use could push them back to smoking, increasing healthcare burdens. Public Health England recognises vaping as 95% safer than tobacco use; a study shows half of adult smokers switching to vaping could save NHS £500 million annually. Restricting vape flavours would affect one million adults negatively. A Bristol University study found that banning all flavours increases the risk for adult smokers to revert to smoking tobacco cigarettes. Illegal nicotine products are easily available, posing health risks and funding criminals; no excise is paid on illicit products. The Bill fails to help existing 6.4 million smokers and might decrease chances of switching to safer alternatives. Concerns about enforcement pressures on legitimate retailers and violence against them for enforcing age limits highlight the impracticality.

Maskell supports the Smoking Reduction Bill, emphasising its importance in reducing preventable deaths and addressing health inequalities. She highlights that smoking kills one person every five minutes in the UK and 7.69 million globally annually. She calls for a harm reduction approach and urges public health teams to receive necessary resources. Maskell raises concerns about vaping among young people, noting 19% of children have tried vaping while 5% vape regularly in York. She advocates for strict regulation on vaping products, including plain packaging and health warnings, akin to tobacco regulations. She also calls for a ban on all forms of vaping advertising, similar to the tobacco industry’s ban. Maskell urges the Minister to strengthen enforcement measures and increase funding for local authority trading standards teams.

Mr. Whittaker argues that the Bill will not achieve its intended goals as it is out of touch with current smoking habits and does not address the illicit tobacco market adequately. He cites a poll showing 76% of smokers buy untaxed cigarettes, highlighting the resilience of the illegal market. The Bill's £30 million funding for trading standards is insufficient to enforce the ban effectively given historical budget cuts and staffing reductions. Mr. Whittaker also criticises the lack of cessation tools in the Bill compared to New Zealand’s approach.

Mr. Rosindell interjected to support Mr. Whittaker's points, reiterating that the Bill is impractical and unenforceable due to insufficient funding for trading standards.

Cunningham supports the Bill, citing its potential to create a smoke-free generation and acknowledges the support from local retailers despite tobacco industry opposition. He also mentions the success of regional tobacco control programmes like Fresh in his constituency, which has seen smoking rates fall faster than anywhere else in the country.

Johnson asks about the number of prosecutions for the offence mentioned, indicating an interest in enforcement details but not clearly stating a position.

Mr Afriyie argues against a generational smoking ban, highlighting the success of current smoking cessation policies in reducing youth smoking rates to 1%. He emphasises that bans do not work and suggests enforcement and regulation as better alternatives. He is in favour of measures on vaping but opposes the clause due to its inequality under the law.

Mr Rosindell agrees with Mr Afriyie, stating that the generational ban is unnecessary and ineffective given current low youth smoking rates. He advocates for an evolutionary approach to policy rather than a sudden imposition.

Supports the Bill, citing the harm of smoking, economic costs, and the need to protect future generations from tobacco. Mentions that one in five 11 to 15-year-olds used vapes in 2021 and under-age vaping has increased by 50% over three years.

Opposes the Bill, arguing for personal freedom of choice. Believes people should have the right to make informed decisions about smoking and vaping without government intervention. Concerned about the discriminatory nature of the rolling age of consent in the bill.

Smoking prevalence is currently 9.9% in my constituency, with an estimated total cost of £73.2 million annually due to smoking-related issues such as productivity loss, social care costs, and healthcare costs. The bill aims to create a smoke-free generation by implementing measures that will level up the health and wealth of our nation, especially in regions like the north-east where smoking rates are traditionally higher.

While I appreciate the noble cause to encourage people to give up smoking or not take it up in the first place, this legislation will not stop children from smoking per se. It aims at them once they reach adult life and does not effectively prevent under-age sales. This principle restricts one group of adults having rights that are different from those of other sets of adults and is unenforceable.

Clarke argues against the proposed smoking ban, stating it is illiberal legislation that restricts individual choice. He believes the state should not dictate personal habits such as smoking in private spaces. Clarke raises concerns about enforcement difficulties for shop workers and potential revenue loss from tobacco taxes used to fund public health initiatives. He also highlights the philosophical risk of rights erosion if more restrictions are imposed.

Supports gradual increase in smoking age to reduce number of smokers. Argues that vaping is causing addiction among children, especially due to flavored vapes. Welcomes clause 10 for extending provisions to other nicotine products and questions why vaping isn't restricted like smoking under Health Act 2006.

Argues that libertarian principles should limit government interference. Supports ban on disposable vapes but questions enforceability of age-increasing ban without proper licensing scheme for retailers. Proposes licensing scheme as a better solution to control under-age sales.

Mr Gareth Johnson agrees with the bill's aim to reduce smoking but believes a generational ban is unnecessary and patronising. He argues that other countries like Sweden have lower smoking rates due to allowing alternatives such as vapes, and criticises the bill for potentially discouraging adult smokers from switching to vaping because it may be perceived as equally bad as tobacco.

Sees the Bill as an opportunity to improve life chances for children in her constituency, despite concerns about implementation. Supports the legislation based on evidence that smoking causes harm and limits life opportunities, particularly for the poorest. Argues that the NHS needs reform and preventive measures are necessary. Cites support from health experts who say the policy will significantly improve public health outcomes, including reducing hospital admissions and premature deaths in Gloucestershire.

Believes smoking is an addiction that ruins lives, especially for the poorest. Argues that government intervention can improve lives by protecting citizens from harm caused by tobacco. Supports the Bill as it aligns with other health and safety measures such as speed limits and seatbelts. Highlights personal experience of his father's life blighted by smoking-induced illnesses and argues that voting against the Bill would not demonstrate how current situation could be improved.

Fletcher argues the amendment is not conservative, creating a nanny state by banning legal products. He questions where such bans would end—should we ban unhealthy foods or alcohol too? He also raises concerns about enforcement, noting existing laws are often not strictly enforced. Fletcher worries that making decisions for adults weakens individuals and creates more powerful governments.

Supports the Bill to create a smoke-free generation. Cites research from University College London indicating that over 50,000 young people have taken up smoking since the Government's proposals were announced. Advocates for measures despite economic concerns about lost tobacco taxation revenue. Criticises opposition to the measure and highlights public support for raising the age of sale.

Acknowledges the conflict between personal freedom and responsibility on public health but supports the Bill based on feedback from young people in her constituency. Cites mixed views with a majority supporting the measures, particularly regarding vapes. Highlights concerns about enforcement, environmental impact of disposable products, and potential for more dangerous items to take over if products are banned.

Emphasised that preventing smoking among children is crucial for future health and financial savings. Cited NHS data indicating a £17 billion annual cost from smoking, impacting NHS resources and services availability. Highlighted support from doctors and health professionals across constituencies, praising the Prime Minister's vision to tackle smoking addiction.

Supported the Bill’s aim to create a smoke-free generation, addressing high smoking rates in Southend and concerns about vaping. Raised practical issues regarding enforcement with only 5,000 trading standards officers and potential loopholes like purchasing cigarettes abroad. Noted student concerns over unregulated products and black market risks.

Mr. Double supports the Bill despite his reservations about government intervention, arguing that those addicted to nicotine are not truly free and citing health impacts on families and the economy. He mentions 75,000 GP appointments weekly due to smoking and welcomes measures against vaping which he feels should be more stringent.

Mr. Grundy, a smoker himself, supports the Bill but raises concerns about enforceability and suggests expanding alcohol licensing to tobacco sales to tackle illicit trade in tobacco and vapes. He advocates for strict penalties including fines up to £10,000 and suspension of alcohol licenses to combat the black market.

Supports raising the age of sale for tobacco and vaping products to prevent youth addiction. Highlights the health impacts, including 80,000 deaths annually from smoking in the UK. Argues that smoking is not a free choice but an addiction, which reduces life expectancy by an average of 10 years. Cites constituency example of Eric, who started smoking at age 14 and faced severe health issues later in life. Emphasises the role of public health measures like the smoking ban in 2007 as a defining achievement.

Argues that raising the age of sale to 15 is crucial in preventing children from becoming addicted to nicotine, with statistics indicating that more than 100,000 children aged 11-15 start smoking annually. Also emphasises the economic impact of smoking, noting a £3 billion annual cost to the NHS and social care system.

Intervenes to support the Bill by highlighting that moderate smoking is fundamentally different from other health risks like alcohol or poor diet, as it significantly reduces life expectancy.

Intervenes to note the transformative impact of banning smoking in public places and suggests that raising the age of sale will be similarly accepted as a common-sense measure.

Intervenes to question the logic behind choosing 15 as the new minimum age, given that smoking is already illegal for those under 18. Also raises concerns about the effectiveness of such bans in preventing underage smoking.

Intervenes to ask about the regulation of vape product advertising on sports kits and facilities, demonstrating support for addressing marketing issues in public spaces.