Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Danny Chambers Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I readily accept that it has a huge intellectual underpinning, but we have had public health campaigns for years on the dangers of smoking tobacco. In some instances, it has worked. We have also used taxation and the pricing mechanism. My late father told my mother that he would give up when cigarettes reached 10 shillings a packet. He eventually gave up when smoking was banned in public buildings and the like. The question that remains is: do we allow unfettered freedom if it harms only the individual who is exercising it, and step in when the exercise of that unfettered freedom has negative impacts on society?

The Secretary of State and others have dilated, perfectly correctly, on the impact on demand and supply in the national health service. A disproportionate amount of resource goes to dealing with smoking-related diseases, illnesses and conditions. We can do something about that. We know full well the negative impact of passive smoking on other people’s health, so the impact of the exercise of that liberty is not limited to the individual. I suggest respectfully that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would have a stronger point if it was limited to the individual. Then we could say, “Provide the information and let the individual take the decision.” However, that decision impacts many other people. It affects the productivity of the nation and the national health service, and the health of family and society.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is an entirely Conservative instinct to say, when all the levers have been pulled and buttons pushed—when there has been public information, education and some forms of prohibition—“It has worked up to a point, but not enough and not at the right speed. We will have to do something else.” I accept that not everybody who describes themselves as a Conservative, as my hon. Friend and I both do, will make the same analysis and arrive at the same position as me. I voted for the Bill in its last iteration, and I will vote for it again today, because I think it is the next lever that we need to pull and the next button that we have to push.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have an NHS and a Government who are expected to provide and pay for treatment when people are ill, so there is a duty and an onus on the Government to try to keep people healthy, and to provide information about well-known dangers to people’s health? This is not about having a nanny state, but about nudging people to make the right choices, because it costs money to treat people, and we want to save money as well.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One can nudge, prod, push and exhort as much as one can, but the Bill is probably the final stepping stone in quite a long line of stepping stones to try to wean people off their dependency on tobacco.

The House has been generous with its time, as have you with your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. In closing, I echo and endorse the point made by the Secretary of State and other contributors from the Government Benches: people who have an addiction are not free. They are trapped by their addiction, and that affects many areas of their life. If someone is terribly well off, they can afford the addiction to tobacco, and it will make not a jot or tittle of difference to the household budget or income, or to their standard of life—

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q Do you believe that the generational smoking ban might cause an increase in the use of other nicotine products such as vapes, smoke-free tobacco or even illicit products?

Alison Challenger: We are ultimately trying to reduce the harm caused by smoking—that is the big killer, and we really would not want to lose sight of that. The Bill also brings in elements around the second-hand smoke agenda. It is important to recognise that there are many vulnerable people who would potentially be harmed by breathing in second-hand smoke, so we welcome the fact that the Bill includes that element. As for whether it will increase vaping, it is really hard to know at the moment how that will work out. Potentially more people might switch to vaping, but ultimately, the Bill brings in a progressive approach to taking out smoking tobacco, which is to be welcomed.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Q You might not have the answer here, but do you have a rough estimate of what it costs the NHS financially to deal with passive smoking and second-hand smoking every year?

Alison Challenger: I do not have the actual figure, but it is significant. One of the early benefits of the Bill going through will be the impact on children, particularly around asthma. Obviously, second-hand smoke will be exacerbating some of those respiratory illnesses, particularly for children. There is a considerable burden on the NHS as a result of breathing in second-hand smoke. We must also consider those who have cardiovascular disease and those who have existing respiratory illness. It is not always evident that somebody is vulnerable, so it is really important that the measures in the Bill serve to protect those who are vulnerable from inhaling second- hand smoke.

[Dr Chambers]

Q I am assuming that from a public health point of view, looking at the epidemiology, certain communities and demographics will be more greatly affected by this. Is that something that you are mindful of? How do you see the Bill changing health inequalities?

Alison Challenger: We are very mindful of that. Some of the statistics we give around smoking prevalence are an average smoking prevalence for often quite large geographical areas. For my own area in west Sussex, our local survey suggests there is a variance of 4.3% in our most affluent area compared with 16% in our least affluent area. Those are still averages. We also know that in households in the most deprived part of our area, 40% of children are exposed to cigarette smoking from a parent or carer. That is through our own survey.

The point I am trying to make is that there is very much a health gradient, and in those who are most disadvantaged and living in our most disadvantaged areas, we see both higher rates of smoking and more children exposed to that smoking. Those children are more likely to take up smoking if they have been exposed to it.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q This is to Councillor Fothergill. Are there any circumstances you can envisage where local enforcement would not be enough and the Secretary of State would need to utilise the powers granted in the Bill under clauses 130 and 131 to intervene?

David Fothergill: We have discussed this outside the room, and I think the area we would be most concerned about is illegal sales online. Our local teams could not get into those, and therefore we might need more national resources to break into how people are bringing illegal substances into the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

Q Dr Ahmed asked almost word for word what I was going to ask, but from a population medicine point of view, do you have a rough estimate of how much smoking is costing the NHS and how much would be saved if the measure was implemented properly?

Professor Linda Bauld: I do not have in front of me the cost to the NHS—other witnesses will probably have it at the tip of their tongue—but it is substantial. If you look at the number of admissions to hospital from smoking, there are over 500,000 every year in England, and we still have over 75,000 deaths. By reducing smoking prevalence, you are going to see very significant impacts and cost savings.

The other thing we know from our research, as previous witnesses have said, is the effect on productivity and workplace absence. As you all know from your constituencies, smoking is also driving some of the loss of people from the workforce in their 50s, early 60s or even younger that we have seen recently. I think that you will see cost savings and an impact on productivity.

The final thing that I would say on that, despite not having the figures in front of me, is that this is an area that causes such a burden to the NHS. One of the things that our CMOs did not make clear earlier, although they said it indirectly, is that if you look at non-communicable diseases in the UK, smoking is the only risk factor that is linked to all four of our NCDs—respiratory conditions, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is the only one that is directly linked to all of those. If you think about all of those diseases, and the burden of disease that Sir Gregor mentioned, of a 21% increase by 2040 in my own nation of Scotland, we are going to make an impact on that, and that will achieve cost savings for the NHS—and, importantly, for social care.

[Dr Chambers]

That is well articulated. Thank you.

[Dr Cooper]

Q Thank you for coming along this afternoon. You mentioned the New Zealand case. Could you talk briefly, in case anybody does not know, about what happened and why the standards were dropped? What learnings might we take from that for our legislation?

Professor Linda Bauld: I think there are political aspects to that, which I will not comment on, but obviously the understanding was that it was a very comprehensive and ambitious set of measures that was introduced. Like this Bill, it was about not just the smoke-free generation but other measures as well, including, interestingly, on the density of retail outlets, which might be something for another day or another, potential future measure. A new Government came in and decided not to take it forward.

The learning that we need to take from that, from my understanding and from speaking to colleagues there, goes back to the CMOs’ evidence about the lobbying that is going to occur. The tobacco industry and partners around the industry are very powerful, so persuading colleagues that this is undermining choice and that it will be a burden in terms of regulation, cost to retailers and so on—those were the arguments that were used in New Zealand.

We need to keep a watchful eye, as we think ahead to the regulations and the next steps for the legislation, that we do not open that door too widely and allow those arguments to become too powerful. As you heard earlier, that industry is continually looking for new recruits to replenish those it loses through morbidity and mortality, and that will happen in the UK as well unless we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q The Bill seeks to reduce youth vaping. How do you think we can best achieve that while not deterring adult smokers from quitting?

Professor Steve Turner: That is a really good question. I think that the balance in this Bill—between supporting the 6 million smokers to quit and not engaging children in nicotine addiction—is the right balance. Going back to what I was saying earlier, getting the message across to young people is a multifaceted intervention that requires education as well as legislation. It is a really difficult balance, but I do believe that the Bill, as it is, has that balance just right.

[Dr Chambers]

Q Thank you for coming all the way down from Aberdeen; I worked there for a few years, so I know it is a long way. We have been trying to ask some panellists approximately what this issue is costing the NHS. As a consultant, in your clinic, doing respiratory paediatrics, what proportion of your patients are in some way involved with smoking or second-hand smoking?

Professor Steve Turner: The impact on the whole of society of second-hand smoking in children is complex, but there are various pieces of the jigsaw. First of all, children come to the clinic, are admitted to hospital, come to the emergency department, or go and see the GP, so there is that healthcare side. If any of you have children, however, when your child is off school, that has implications for you as a family; there are some difficult discussions over breakfast about who is going to work and who is not. Therefore, there are a number of different impacts on us as a society, economically and to the NHS from second-hand smoking.

I am not clever enough to put a number on it, but it is a lot bigger than I think people know. I do know that £46 billion is the number cited as the direct health cost to the NHS of smoking—it is almost too big to consider—but I suspect that the wider societal cost will probably be a magnitude greater than that.

[Dr Chambers]

Q Is there a ballpark figure for a general day? When you have a list of paediatric respiratory cases, are maybe 10% or 20% due to this?

Professor Steve Turner: The children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home are over-represented among children with respiratory symptoms. Parents do not want their children to smoke, so they feel torn. They are conflicted: they are addicted to nicotine, but they do not want their children to smoke, and having a smoke-free generation will address that almost impossible parental conflict.

[John Whitby]

Q The Bill makes it illegal to sell vaping products to under-18s, and to proxy-buy vapes for children, but it does not make it illegal for under-18s to buy vapes. What is your view on that?

Professor Steve Turner: I support the Bill as it stands. I think that the onus has to be on the vendor not to sell, not on criminalising the customer or the child.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

Wisdom or age, but I shall be cautious not to answer too closely.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I accept the view that having to provide ID will be inconvenient and frustrating for some people, but all the expert witnesses on Tuesday pointed out that many smokers do not wish the younger generation to continue smoking. I think that most of them would probably be of that view that the slight infringement of their civil liberties in having to carry ID is a small price to pay for the knowledge that they are preventing smoking from being taken up.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the measures have broad support. Certainly, the pollsters who have investigated people’s views of this legislation—that proposed by the previous Government and the legislation as it is now, with some tweaks to it—have found the public to be overwhelmingly positive. We legislate because we are elected by those people. On the basis of their opinions and given that policing in this country is done by consent—

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

The prospect of the next generation of children becoming adults in a smoke-free country, where they will never be able to legally purchase tobacco products, and where the older generations will never be able to legally buy the products for them by proxy, leads effectively to tobacco being a thing of the past for the next generation. For me that is a real prize in terms of public health, the NHS and the economy.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I agree with everything that has been said; the Minister has given a powerful summary. We have discussed freedom of choice and the lack of it, and I remind hon. Members of the extreme examples provided by some of the expert witnesses yesterday: they talked about someone who had their leg amputated purely because of complications as a result of smoking, and who, the same day, felt the need to light up another cigarette. There is no freedom of choice when someone is addicted to this substance.

This might sound comical, but it shows that there is no safe level of passive smoking: as vets, we struggle to manage asthma in pets—in dogs and cats—that come from houses where the owners smoke. That is how dangerous it is. This Bill is obviously about public health—I am not trying to conflate human and animal health—but the perception that there is a safe level of smoking is utterly wrong.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who heard the evidence on Tuesday cannot but have been shocked at what medical professionals see with their own eyes—not just the procedures they have to use, such as amputations, but the people who are so addicted to that product that they have to light up, even having lost both legs. That was a powerful contribution, and he is right to labour the point that there is no freedom in addiction. We are seeking to free the next generation from ever being in the situation that, as he reminds us, was outlined in detail by professionals in the evidence session.

That leads me to the amendments. Simply raising the age of sale to 25 will only raise the age at which people start smoking; it will not meet this Government’s, or indeed the previous Government’s, ambition to make the United Kingdom smoke-free. We also know—and we heard this from the four chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in unison—that whenever there has been a change in tobacco control legislation, the tobacco industry is clever; it is smart; it sees that one road has been blocked, so it finds another. The industry has been swift to refocus its tactics. For example, when flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, were banned in the UK, the industry used product innovation to exploit loopholes in the ban. It created new products, such as menthol filter tips and cigarette-like menthol cigarillos.

Those examples demonstrate how the tobacco industry will always regroup and refocus its efforts to respond to whatever regulations are in place. If we raised the age of sale to 25, the industry would likely change its business model to target older age groups.

Let us be clear here about what we are seeking to do. We are not criminalising current smokers; people who are legally able to purchase tobacco products and consume them will always be able to do that. However, we are having a cut-off point. We are saying to the tobacco industry, “This is your customer base now. That’s it. Game over. What you have got is all you have got. You can’t kill two thirds of your customer base and expect other people to come along the conveyor belt. We’re stopping the conveyor belt. What you have got is it.” We will do all we can to make that customer base even smaller through smoking cessation services and effective targeting of existing smokers to help them to quit. But this is it—this is the customer base, and it will shrink rapidly over the next few years, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 can ever legally be sold tobacco products.

That means that the examples we have heard from Members in this debate about a 45-year-old being asked to show ID are an irrelevance. They miss the point. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill says really clearly that in 25 years’ time—in 2050, which is not that far away—we expect smoking prevalence among people aged 30 and below to be near zero. The logical consequence of that is that there will be very few people of middle adult age going into shops to purchase tobacco. The reality is that there probably will not be a market for tobacco products by then. Retailers will have diversified into selling something else, because there will not be a market of sufficient scale for tobacco to be sold.

All the arguments that we have heard—they have actually been pursued by the tobacco industry—as to why these things are not workable are for the birds. They are for the clouds. They are for another world that does not exist, because the measures in the Bill will ensure that we are smoke-free, and I find that really exciting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I certainly do not want to press the amendments to a vote, but it may be that other members of the Committee do.

[Dr Chambers]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not sure whether this is a point of order, and I am not sure how the other parties voted on this, but this was a non-whipped vote for the Liberal Democrats. It is not a Liberal Democrat amendment; it is an amendment from an individual MP. The entire Liberal Democrat health team certainly do not support the amendment to change the minimum age of sale to 25, and the majority of the Liberal Democrat party voted in favour of the Bill as a whole. I want to put it on the record that the Lib Dems are not in favour of the amendment.

[Jack Rankin]

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, but there is not a single adult in this country who does not know how bad cigarettes are for them. It is an important function of Government to make that educational point. Governments of all colours have made it systematically, and it has massively changed the way people, including the new generation, perceive cigarettes. That education battle has been won. Once we have won that game, which I think we have, and once we have no longer socialised the healthcare cost to others, which is what I suggest cigarette duty should be doing, we are starting to make moral choices on behalf of others.

[Dr Chambers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Rankin]

I am sure I am winning some hearts and minds here.

[Dr Chambers]

We could rephrase the way we talk about civil liberties. We currently have a generation among whom some are addicted and have no choice, and we will be allowing a future generation to be free from having their choice taken away by addiction.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is precisely the point I was coming to. We will take the argument away because it is a reasonable argument, and we will perhaps consider returning to this issue on Report.

I know that the shadow Minister has every sympathy with the fact that cigarette papers are dangerous when used for the consumption of tobacco, which is what we want to bear down on. As I have said, there are powers in part 5 to restrict the flavours of cigarette papers, but we want to get the balance right so we will take the argument away and consider it.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I am reticent to extend the discussion about cigarette papers; I was unaware it was possible to discuss something to such an extent. I am not legally trained, so I ask this for my own understanding as someone who is not a learned Member. If the exact same product was renamed and rebranded as model paper or musical instrument paper, would this law still apply to it?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is a good question. Of course, if it was to be used for the consumption of tobacco, it would come within the scope of the Bill. We have to be clear that many of these products have dual uses, as we have heard. I am as guilty as anybody of making pipe-cleaner characters for my children and grandchildren—grandchild, rather, because I have only one so far.

We want to make sure that those who want to continue smoking are able to do so, but that obvious restrictions and boundaries are put in place regarding the accessibility of these products, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be sold them.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Last Tuesday, we heard in evidence from various medical sources, and both the Select Committee and our processor Bill Committee heard in evidence that nicotine is, of itself, harmful, and that the chemicals added to vapes are harmful. In some cases, they are extremely harmful. I will talk more about vaping chemicals later. Indeed, sometimes the products do not contain what they are expected to contain, and that can be worse still. I will return to that subject later, too.

Nicotine is highly addictive and can permanently affect the development of the adolescent brain. We have heard how the industry targets young people, and that is because the adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable. Nicotine can permanently affect its development. Nicotine also fulfils all the criteria for drug dependence. Giving it up is very difficult, and withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Symptoms associated with nicotine and dependence are often not recognised by novice smokers, particularly if they are young.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

On the subject of how nicotine affects the brain and brain development, one thing we have not really touched on—and we have touched on many physical health issues—is the incidence of smoking among people with mental health issues. One submission was from the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which said that 45% of people with a serious mental health issue smoke, and around 25% of people with clinical anxiety. It would stand to reason that the impact on a young person’s brain could also start to lead to serious mental health issues, as well as all the physical health and development issues.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of managing nicotine dependence for those with mental health conditions. We know that smoking, in particular, is more likely to take place among people with mental health conditions or those who are in mental health in-patient units. I am sure we will go on to discuss the issue of vending machines.

Last May, in the previous Bill Committee, we heard evidence from the Mental Health Foundation about the myth that tobacco helps with anxiety, and how that myth needed busting. We also heard about the importance of giving extra support to people with mental health conditions to enable them to kick the habit of nicotine—whether that habit is smoking or vaping—because it will help both their physical and mental health. However, it can be more challenging for them to complete. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue.

Returning to clause 10, a study considering the effects in adolescents of nicotine dependence after the initiation of smoking cigarettes found that the symptoms of nicotine dependence can appear only a few days after initiation. Given that oral nicotine pouches contain similar or higher levels of nicotine, similar symptoms may appear following initiation of oral nicotine pouch use, which is why it is particularly important for children that we pass clause 10 and ensure that children are protected from these nicotine products.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Tenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

The impact of cigarette packaging regulations needs to be considered today, because we are looking at changing the regulations for all other age-restricted tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. The impact of plain packaging has been the subject of significant research. Several studies have indicated that plain packaging has had a measurable effect on smoking behaviour, particularly among young people and those who have not yet become regular smokers. The evidence shows that removing brand logos and colours has made cigarette packs less appealing and reduced the likelihood of smoking initiation among adolescents. In our evidence sessions, we heard the chief medical officer say that young people are in a particular sweet spot to become addicted, and that is why it is important that we ensure that young people are not attracted to these products.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is about not just the attractiveness of the packaging, but where products are located in the store. They are often near the sweets, so young people can go and grab some chocolate or sweets and a vape and then head out. One big benefit of changing the regulations is that vapes, like cigarettes, now have to be not only plain packaged, but kept behind the counter, where people have to ask for them. The culture of seeing them as something recreational, almost like junk food or a treat, would also be removed.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The aim of the regulations that were introduced to remove sweets from immediately adjacent to tills was to discourage children from taking sweets and pestering their parents at the till. That was part of a drive to reduce obesity levels, but the sad thing is that in many places those products have been replaced by vapes, which are more harmful to youngsters than sweets were.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we have seen that putting tobacco displays out of sight of children can help to reduce products’ attractiveness. Clauses 13 and 14 provide for display regulations in England and Wales—I cannot remember the clause numbers for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but those clauses also exist in the Bill. The clauses provide for displays to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman says: to ensure that children are not enticed through the display of these brightly coloured products.

To return to packaging, research has shown that graphic health warnings—particularly some of the graphic pictures—on cigarette packs can increase smokers’ awareness of the health risks and motivate some to quit. The larger and more vivid the warning, the more likely it is to have an impact, with some studies suggesting that plain packaging, combined with graphic warnings, can lead to higher levels of cessation. That is the effect of tobacco packaging, but we now need to look at vapes.

Now that vapes are so commonly used by children, the question is, what effect will vape packaging have? In recent years, research and public opinion surveys have shed light on the potential harm caused by the packaging of e-cigarettes and related products. The Government call for evidence on youth vaping published in 2023 found that many children were drawn to vaping products due to the bright colours, eye-catching designs and child-friendly images on the packaging. Those designs, which included cartoon characters and fun and vibrant logos, have led to concerns about vaping becoming mainstream and appealing to younger audiences who have never smoked.

We need to remember that, in theory, vaping is a stop-smoking device. The industry also tells us that it is—at least in theory—not trying to market vapes to non-smokers and children. However, that appears to be the effect of the marketing that it has done, and the use of packaging to target, or seemingly target, young people has become a concern for many health professionals and lawmakers and for the public and parents alike.

Research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association Network has reinforced those concerns. It showed that standardised packaging for vaping products, which reduces or eliminates brand imagery, could significantly decrease their appeal to young people. Interestingly, it did not seem to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to adult smokers. That suggests that although branding might attract young non-smokers, it does not play a critical role in attracting those who are already smokers or who are trying to quit—I did wonder whether that is because a plain packet is more enticing for those who are used to a packet with pictures of diseased lungs on it. It would also seem that colours are not necessary for adult smokers. Therefore, according to that research, we can bring in clause 90, without any concern that it will deter smokers from quitting, and in the knowledge that it may prevent children from starting to vape.

One study, which was particularly revealing, was designed to explore the association between different types of e-cigarette packaging—fully branded versus standardised—and the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes among youth and adults in Great Britain. Specifically, the researchers sought to determine whether standard packaging that removes brand imagery and uses a plain colour scheme could reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to young people without diminishing the appeal to adults who may be using them as a smoking cessation aid.

That research is particularly relevant in the context of public health policy, because the Government have been considering measures to reduce the attractiveness of e-cigarettes to young people, while encouraging their use as a cessation tool among adult smokers. The study focused on young people aged 11 to 18 and on adults aged 18 or over. It was conducted in 2021 and involved 2,469 young people and 12,046 adults. They were randomly assigned to view one of three kinds of packaging: fully branded e-cigarette packaging, for control; white standardised packaging with brand names; or green standard packaging with brand names. The experimental design allowed the researchers to compare the level of interest in trying e-cigarettes under those different conditions.

The colour of the packets, and the fact that the researchers chose a white one and a green one, are interesting. The Committee was given evidence about which colour should be chosen. Some people suggested that black or a very drab colour, as is used for cigarettes, might give the message that vapes are as dangerous as cigarettes, which may not be the case for current smokers.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I will not labour my point any further, because I think I have made it; I am sure that the Minister can respond to it when we get there.

The only other thing I will mention is the online advertisements mentioned in a number of the clauses. Is the intention to do with the website displaying the advert, the person who has put forward the advert or the intermediary companies? Online, a lot of adverts are now tailored via cookies. When the Minister goes on to a website, the adverts that he sees are tailored to the things that he has been looking at. I could go on to exactly the same website at exactly the same time and receive a different set of advertisements based on my internet viewing preferences—[Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is laughing. I get a lot of weird stuff, mostly for hoof trimming videos—I am not sure what I typed in to get those. Maybe it is my rural seat. I do not know.

My point is that those advertisements are totally unconnected to the website that I am looking at, which essentially has no control over what adverts are being displayed, as far as I understand it. Because the internet is so complicated, what thoughts does the Minister have about the fact that essentially, the internet provider and the website may not have any knowledge of what adverts are being put on?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As part of the solution, legislation must already be in place, because human and veterinary prescription-only drugs are not allowed to be advertised to the public, but they can be advertised to medical professionals. There must be legislation that prevents rogue companies from advertising in the UK products that they are not allowed to advertise to the general public, and I imagine that it should be incorporated into the Bill to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Gregory Stafford]

Forgive me; I am not sure I fully understand the hon. Member’s point in relation to what I was just saying, but that is probably because I have not explained myself well enough, not because he has misunderstood it. I entirely agree that the advertising of tobacco and vape products should be banned, and I agree with the sentiment and the outline in the law. All I am saying is that when the Minister or the relevant authority seeks to prosecute somebody for this offence, there may be occasions, given the complexity of the internet these days, when people may not know that their website is hosting said adverts. I do not want to labour that point again, but I am sure the Minister can respond.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

To reinforce the point that athletes may be uncomfortable wearing that type of branding, they are not only role models for children, but the epitome of health, fitness and what the human body can achieve. It seems outrageous that they should be advertising harmful products.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well, some of them are—the way Man City have been playing this season, I am not quite sure. Anyway, we will get back on to the Bill as quickly as possible.

The ban will apply to agreements entered into after the clause comes into force, two months after Royal Assent. It will be an offence if a contribution is made from either party after the specified date, which will be set out in future regulations. The ban will apply to any agreements entered into after that date, and will therefore not apply to existing contracts. The reason for the two-month period is to provide businesses with advance warning and to prevent them from entering into new agreements.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked whether this could create a rush to get sponsorship deals in place within that two-month window. That is a fair question, but I think that is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, sponsorship deals are pretty tricky contracts and it tends to take more than two months to reach contractual agreement. Secondly, even if matters were expedited, most clubs already have their deals in place, and they would not replace something when they already have a contractual arrangement for something else. Were that unlikely scenario to play out, we would be looking at only a small number of cases anyway.

When drawing up the regulations, we will have to be careful to ensure that no new contract can be signed, and certainly not for the kind of time period that the shadow Minister set out. That would be really out of the spirit of this legislation and the Government might have to come back to tighten it up further.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

We want to ensure that people who are smokers are not criminalised. Public space protection orders do potentially go down the criminal route. We want to ensure that that is not the case, which is why the Enfield scheme would of course be obsolete under the later provisions—which we are going to discuss today, hopefully—in relation to extending national outdoor smoke-free places.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is reassuring to hear the Minister talk about consulting before bringing in smoke-free places in specific public outdoor areas. Personally, as a non-smoker and someone who is very concerned about the public health impacts of passive smoking, I think we must also be mindful of the need for evidence-based interventions, and of the trade-offs. A good example is that of some fantastic pubs around Winchester and the Meon valley that have maybe two beer gardens, one to the side and one to the back. There would genuinely be no public health risk if smoking was permitted in one of the beer gardens and not the other.

The Liberal Democrats want reassurance on that. One of the reasons we tabled our amendment to clause 136, which is coming up, is simply to get assurances that the hospitality sector will not be impacted by any of these decisions, especially if the public health benefits are negligible.

[The Chair]

Order. We will discuss the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment when he moves it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Chambers]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to the end of line 15 and insert—

“a place in England that is—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a school, college or higher education premises,

(c) a children’s play area or playground,

including outdoor public areas and frontages adjoining or surrounding such premises or designated areas.”.

This amendment would specify which places the Secretary of State has power to designate as additional smoke-free places in England on the face of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12 at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.

Amendment 94, in clause 136, page 77, line 21, at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”.

This amendment would re-instate existing section 4(3) in the Health Act 2006.

[Dr Chambers]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. To reiterate what I said before, the Liberal Democrats’ aim is to avoid unintended consequences that really damage the hospitality industry that we totally support. Amendment 4 would limit the places where we ban smoking or designate smoke-free to an NHS property or hospital building, a school, college or higher education premises, and a children’s playground or play area. We are not against public health measures; we are trying to ensure that we do not end up with provisions that are a bit over the top and damage hospitality businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The point is that that is open to interpretation; that now runs counter to our ambition to have a smoke-free United Kingdom. We have put in place a much more flexible and workable measure. The measure from 2006 was right for 2006, but it is not right for 2027, when we hope to introduce the Bill. That is why we are looking to the measures in the Bill rather than the measures as they stood in 2006.

Lastly, I remind the shadow Minister that her amendments apply only to the clause in the Bill that relates to England. If we agreed to them, the powers in England would not be consistent with the powers in the rest of the devolved jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. This is a UK-wide Bill that provides a consistent legislative framework for the whole of the United Kingdom—all four nations—while allowing devolved nations to go further on subsequent regulations if they so wish. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Dr Chambers]

I think that the official Opposition’s amendment is better, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12, at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.—(Dr Johnson.)

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not a doctor as she is, but I will repeat that Cancer Research UK said that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

and Public Health England made a similar comment. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West has made a few times about the precautionary principle, but we could take that to any excess.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is important to remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Someone said to me a while ago that having a smoking section in a restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

[Jack Rankin]

I am not sure there is a question there, but the hon. Member has put a smile on my face.

My final point is about the visibility of vaping, because I think the Minister should consider the wisdom of this clause by his own logic. Public Health England guidance says:

“while smokefree law protects people from the harm of secondhand smoke, forcing smokers outdoors has increased public visibility of smoking, including to children and young people. Having a more enabling approach to vaping can mitigate this and help make smoking less of a social norm”.

Ensuring a differentiation between where people can vape or smoke might assist in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping, which would undoubtedly have a net positive public health benefit. In addition, allowing people to continue vaping indoors in places such as pubs, bars and nightclubs, which are age-gated anyway, would reduce the visibility of vaping in public and keep it away from people who are under age. When it comes to protecting people who are under age from picking up vaping in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government and the shadow Minister.

Those are the five points I wanted to make. First, are we sure that we want to push vapers to vape in the same place as smokers when they might be trying to give up smoking? Secondly, do we really want to conflate vapes with cigarettes, which might undermine the Government’s goal to help smokers to switch? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to consulting on any expansion of vape-free spaces, as he has for tobacco? Fourthly, the evidence is weak that second-hand vaping is a problem, but that is effectively the rationale for smoke-free places. Fifthly, is the Minister not concerned that he could be inadvertently putting vapes on show, particularly to young people, by forcing people out of age-controlled spaces such as pubs?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was absolutely shocked to learn that cigarette butts account for one in five pieces of discarded plastic. When it is predicted that by 2050 there will be more tonnage of plastic in the ocean than fish, we should look at every way possible of protecting the environment and wildlife from plastic pollution. Back in 2019, a third successful dive was made to the Mariana trench—the deepest part of the ocean; it is 36,000 feet deep, which is greater than the height at which jumbo jets fly—and I was surprised that when the people were down there documenting previously unseen life forms, they came across plastic pollution. This is such a serious issue that we need to look at every way possible of reducing plastic pollution. Those tiny cigarette butts in particular can be swallowed by a huge number of creatures, as well as contaminating the environment.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He is absolutely right that these items are a huge danger to the environment, and it is sad when we go to parts of our world that are still not well explored, such as the Mariana trench, and find evidence of damage caused by the human race, such as plastic pollution. Although I have huge sympathy for people who have become addicted to nicotine and find it difficult to quit smoking, there is no excuse for the litter that it creates all over our beaches and our urban and rural areas.

Cigarette filters are neither biodegradable nor effectively recyclable. They are made, as I said, primarily from cellulose acetate—a plastic material that does not biodegrade. Even after two years of decomposition, cigarette filters will have lost only about 38% of their mass, and the remaining material continues to persist in the environment. During that time, filters leach harmful substances, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals such as arsenic, that have been inhaled through the filter and into the surrounding environment, further contaminating soil and water sources.

Cigarette butt waste has been shown to impact marine and coastal environments. Studies have demonstrated that cigarette filters affect the micro-biodiversity of coastal sediment and that they pose harm to marine animals that ingest them. That is a growing concern, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, as plastic waste continues to accumulate in the ocean, harming wildlife and disrupting ecosystems. The Ocean Conservancy’s international coastal clean-up has, over the course of 32 years, collected more than 60 million cigarette butts from the ocean. Although that sounds like a lot, that accounts for just 0.00001% of all cigarette filters thrown away in a single year, so this is a difficult thing to clean up.

Despite the growing awareness of the environmental impact of single-use plastics, cigarette filters have not been subject to the same regulations as other plastic products. For example, the European Union banned many forms of single-use plastic in 2019, but cigarette filters were not included, leaving a significant loophole. As cigarette consumption remains widespread, the environmental impact of the filters continues to grow. In October 2024, Santa Cruz county in California became the first jurisdiction in the world to approve a ban on filtered cigarettes and cigars.

One of the questions I have for the hon. Member for Dartford who tabled the new clause—he sadly is not here—is why he has chosen to use the 1990 Act. The previous Conservative Government banned a number of single-use plastics on the basis that they were harmful to the environment, that there were non-plastic, more environmentally friendly and more suitably priced items available, and that it would help to improve the environment, which is a very good thing. However, one of the reasons for introducing those bans through secondary legislation under the 1990 Act was that there was not an opportunity to do so in primary legislation, because of the time constraints of the parliamentary calendar. The Minister has talked about getting time for primary legislation already.

This Bill is a piece of primary legislation, and to add cigarette filters to it only requires the Government to write in clause 1 “and cigarette filters too”, and to make consequential amendments through the Bill on that basis. I agree with the principle that cigarette filters are a bad thing for the environment, and they are not good for people’s health, but I am not entirely sure why the 1990 Act is being used and why the Minister has not included filters in clause 1 and consequentially throughout the Bill. Perhaps he can tell us in winding up.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am almost like a standing article now for LADbible. I am not sure whether that makes me a social media influencer—about which we have heard a lot during the course of the debate—or just a media tart. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was not one, two or three but four features we got out of LADbible —and who knows; we might get a fifth.

I sincerely thank the Clerks, the Hansard staff and the Doorkeepers. We do not thank them enough for the work that they do to keep Committees like this going, and I want to place that on the record.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As a new Member, and someone who came into politics with a passion for health—specifically public health—and addressing inequality, I am really proud to have been a part of this group. I remember the chief medical officer saying that the Bill will not only have the biggest impact on public health of any legislation in about 20 years, but it will be one of the biggest interventions to help even up inequality, especially in life expectancy. As a new Member, and as part of the Liberal Democrat health team, I am really pleased to be involved in this.

Unfortunately he is not here today, but on several occasions the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon pontificated on what the flavour of unicorn milk in vapes might be. I never contributed but, as the only vet here, I could have made some assumptions. Assuming that the unicorn’s horn does not influence the flavour of the milk, we can probably extrapolate that it tastes very much like a horse’s milk. As someone who has regularly had to milk a mare to feed a newborn foal, I can tell the Committee that when the mare does not enjoy that, the milk often sprays everywhere—sometimes into one’s mouth. It does not taste terrible, but I would not advise vape manufacturers that it is a good flavour to put into vapes.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I now know more about the equine sector than I ever wanted to. We have got to the accidental squirting of horse milk into one’s mouth, but of course, we started the Committee with a whole tale about getting one’s hoof trimmed—which, I have to say, Mr Pritchard, has a whole other meaning in Manchester.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I also welcome the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to her position as Minister for Public Health. I had the privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, as other hon. Members did—indeed, I see some familiar faces in the Chamber. One of the things that struck me most was when the chief medical officer gave his evidence: he said that the Bill was not only the most significant piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but probably the single of piece of legislation that will most help to address inequality. Inequality is multifactorial, but one of the main factors in the difference in life expectancy between certain wealthier areas and certain more deprived areas is the rate of smoking. This Bill will have a huge impact, especially on the communities for which we are really trying to improve life expectancy.

I am very pleased that the Government accepted so many amendments in the Lords. Some of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats are really keen on are regarding fixed penalty notices and require all the money from those fines to go to local public health initiatives, as directed by local authorities. We know that public health is so important, yet funding for such organisations is usually extremely limited, given the pressures on local authorities. Without the Lords amendments on fixed penalty notices, the money would go straight back to the Exchequer. We fundamentally believe that if we are serious about making a meaningful difference to people’s lives, that money must be used in local smoking-cessation initiatives.

As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I am acutely aware of the benefits of the Lords amendments that support those with long-term mental health conditions, who have higher rates of smoking than the general public. We know that going cold turkey is simply unrealistic and can even be dangerous. The exemption on vape vending machines in secure mental health hospitals ensures that people are supported professionally in quitting in a sustainable and maintained way that will not further damage their mental health.

I welcome the Lords amendments on regulating filters, which have cross-party support. Not only are filters an environmental issue, but they provide a false perception of safety to smokers. Ensuring that there is awareness of the lack of protection that these filters provide and of smoking as a whole is imperative if we are to ensure that people can make informed decisions about their health and wellbeing.

I am very pleased to support this Bill as it goes through Parliament; it is momentous and significant. We really appreciate the Government’s accepting the Liberal Democrat Lords amendments, which will slightly improve how the Bill will be delivered. We are very pleased that this will be a strong and impactful Bill. We hope that it will deliver meaningful change on public health for generations to come and that we will have a smokefree generation growing up.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her predecessors for all the excellent work that they did in getting this legislation through Committee and in their representations in the House of Lords.

As has rightly been said by Members across this Chamber, this is a seminal piece of legislation that puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation. It is a Bill that will be modelled in other nations around the world and that reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was growing up in the 2000s—not that many years ago some might say—smoking was a real problem in schools. Among under-18s in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. I am a former schoolteacher, and if we fast-forward to today, that figure has dramatically reduced. However, we see new technologies such as vapes and chewable tobacco taking the place of smoking.

I welcome many of the measures in this Bill and the fact that we are the cheerleaders taking it forward. I also welcome the cross-party consensus in accepting many of the Lords amendments and in accepting proposals from representative groups outside the House. Those proposals include the ban and restrictions on filters, which are evolving as I speak; in many cases around the world, filters are quickly changing, so they still remain a problem.

I accept some of the changes regarding vending machines. One of the big things discussed in Committee was vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as smoking-cessation tools. It is welcome that, as a result of the debate in Committee, we have accepted that vaping remains a smoking-cessation tool. Broadly speaking, until evidence is presented that shows otherwise, vapes are a far healthier product than cigarettes, so they continue to have a place in smoking cessation.

I thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments on the issuing of fines of up to £2,500 by local authorities and the ringfencing of that money for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco. My council in Medway in Kent has one of the most successful track records in identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. These products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product that can be severely damaging to people’s health.

I also want to mention restrictions on advertising. We know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know that tobacco companies have sought to advertise specifically to young people so that they become addicted at ever younger ages. That is not a new technique; it has been happening for generations. I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendments on advertising to ensure that we restrict it on television and in other marketing efforts.

This Bill and all the amendments tabled by Members across this Chamber and in the other place, reflecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are broadly speaking extremely sensible, and I am glad that the House is not dividing on the Lords amendments tonight.

Lastly, I pay tribute to all the people working in our health services, who have been the most clear advocates for this Bill. They are the people who have been at the coalface every single day dealing with the consequences of tobacco, be they lung conditions, heart disease or concurrent conditions. It is because of their work over many years that we are here today with this Bill and these Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands.

Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers.

If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate points about the pressures facing small businesses at the moment, but does he not agree that there must be better ways of supporting small businesses than facilitating children to get cancer?

[Jack Rankin]

I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so.

As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill.

The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected.

Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.

Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that?

Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected.

Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.