debates/debates2025-03-26b conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-26)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-26b conversation_24

Frank McNally:Albion Rovers has been a football institution in Coatbridge since 1882. However, following relegation and the lack of financial support for teams leaving professional leagues, it now faces a deeply perilous situation, and the very future of one of Scotland’s oldest football clubs is at risk. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that clubs such as Albion Rovers are integral to the fabric of our communities? Will he join me in encouraging all parties to be solution-focused on this matter, and in encouraging football authorities to strengthen our clubs in the lower leagues to help protect their future? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is a superb local champion. Regardless of which club any of us supports, we share a love of the game and they are at the heart of our communities. Albion Rovers is exactly that—a huge point of local pride. I would encourage all efforts to secure the future of the club. \p Kieran Mullan: We are joined in Parliament today by Katie Brett, whose 16-year-old sister Sasha was raped and stabbed to death; by Ayse Hussain, whose cousin Jan was killed by a sex offender who stored her body in a freezer; by Paula Hudgell, whose adopted son Tony lost his lower legs as a result of childhood cruelty; and by Becky and Glenn Youens, whose daughter Violet-Grace was killed by a hit-and-run driver who spent barely more time in prison than she was alive. Supporting them are Jeremy and Susan Everard, who received justice for the murder of their daughter Sarah, but who know that too many others do not. They have come together to say with one voice that it is time for us to start ensuring that sentences truly deliver justice for victims and their families. Would the Prime Minister agree to meeting them to hear their stories at first hand? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. The courage of these campaigners, after simply appalling cases, is astounding and I find it humbling. I am pleased that the Minister for Victims my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) will be meeting the group—today, I think—and I look forward to meeting them in future, because we must prioritise victims and make sure that sentences punish offenders and protect the public. I thank him for raising that really important set of cases. \p Rachel Reeves: This Labour Government were elected to bring change to our country, to provide security for working people and to deliver a decade of national renewal. That work began in July, and I am proud of what we have delivered in just nine months: restoring stability to our public finances, giving the Bank of England the foundation to cut interest rates three times since the general election, rebuilding our public services, with record investment in our NHS bringing waiting lists down for five months in a row, and increasing the national living wage to give 3 million people a pay rise from next week.

Now our task is to secure Britain’s future in a world that is changing before our eyes. The threat facing our continent was transformed when Putin invaded Ukraine. It has since escalated further and continues to evolve rapidly. At the same time, the global economy has become more uncertain, bringing insecurity at home as trading patterns become more unstable and borrowing costs rise for many major economies. The job of a responsible Government is not simply to watch this change. This moment demands an active Government—a Government not stepping back but stepping up, a Government on the side of working people helping Britain reach its potential. We have the strengths to do just that as one of the world’s largest economies, an ally to trading partners across the globe, and a hub for global innovation. These strengths and the progress we have made so far mean that we can act quickly and decisively in a more uncertain world to secure Britain’s future and to deliver prosperity for working people.

As I set out at the Budget last year, I am today returning to the House to provide an update on our public finances, supported by a new forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, ahead of a full spending review in June. I will then return to the House in the autumn to deliver a Budget in line with our commitment to deliver just one major fiscal event a year.

Let me now turn to the OBR’s forecasts; I want to thank Richard Hughes and his team for their dedicated work. The increased global uncertainty has had two consequences: first on our public finances and secondly on our economy. I will take each in turn.

In the autumn, I set out our new fiscal rules that would guide this Government. These fiscal rules are non-negotiable. They are the embodiment of this Government’s unwavering commitment to bring stability to our economy and to ensure security for working people, because the British people have seen what happens when a Government borrow beyond their means. The mini-Budget delivered by the Conservatives resulted in higher bills, higher rents and higher mortgages, and it was not the wealthy who suffered most when they crashed the economy; it was ordinary working people. They continue to feel the effects two and a half years later of the damage that the Conservatives did.

Let me be clear: there is nothing progressive, there is nothing Labour, about working people paying the price for economic irresponsibility. The British people put their trust in this Labour Government because they knew that we—they knew that I—would never take  risks with the public finances and would never do anything to put household finances in danger. We must earn that trust every single day.

I set out two rules at the Budget. The first was our stability rule, which ensures that public spending is under control, balancing the current budget by 2029-30 so that day-to-day spending is met by tax receipts. The second was our investment rule to drive growth in the economy, ensuring that net financial debt falls by the end of the forecast period, while enabling us to invest alongside business.

Turning first to the stability rule, the OBR’s forecast shows that before the steps that I will take in this statement, the current budget would have been in deficit by £4.1 billion in 2029-30, having been projected to be in surplus by £9.9 billion in the autumn, as the UK, alongside our international peers like France and Germany, has seen the cost of borrowing rise during this period of heightened uncertainty in global markets. As a result of the steps that I am taking today, I can confirm that I have restored in full our headroom against the stability rule, moving from a deficit of £36.1 billion in 2025-26 and £13.4 billion in 2026-27 to a surplus of £6 billion in 2027-28, £7.1 billion in 2028-29 and £9.9 billion in 2029-30. That compares with the headroom left by the previous Government of just £6.5 billion. That means that we are continuing to meet the stability rule two years early, building resilience to shocks in this, a more uncertain world.

The OBR forecast that the investment rule would also be met two years early, with net financial debt of 82.9% of GDP in ’25-26 and 83.5% in ’26-27, before falling to 83.4% in ’27-28, to 83.2% in 2028-29 and then to 82.7% in 2029-30, providing headroom of £15.1 billion in the final year of the forecast, broadly unchanged from the autumn forecast.

After the last Government doubled the national debt—[Interruption.] After they doubled the national debt, debt interest payments now stand at £105.2 billion this year. That is more than we allocate to defence, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. That is the legacy of the Conservative party. The responsible choice is to reduce our levels of debt and borrowing in the years ahead, so that we can spend more on the priorities of working people, and that is exactly what this Government will do. I said that our fiscal rules were non-negotiable and I meant it. I will always deliver economic stability and I will always put working people first. I said it at the election; I said it at the Budget; and I say it again today.

Let me now set out the steps that the Government have taken. At the Budget we protected working people by keeping our promise not to raise their rates of national insurance, income tax or VAT. At the same time, we began to rebuild our public services after the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole in our public finances. Ours were the right choices: the right choices for stability and the right choices for renewal, funded by the decisions that we took on tax.

As I promised in the autumn, this statement does not contain any further tax increases, but when working people are paying their taxes while still struggling with the cost of living, it cannot be right that others are still evading what they rightly owe in tax. In the Budget, I delivered the most ambitious package of measures  we have ever seen to cut down on tax evasion, raising  £6.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast. Today I go further, continuing our investment in cutting-edge technology, investing in HMRC’s capacity to crack down on tax avoidance, and setting out plans to increase the number of tax fraudsters charged every year by 20%. These changes raise a further £1 billion, taking the total revenue raised from reducing tax evasion, under this Labour Government, to £7.5 billion. These figures are verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility and I to thank my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary for his continued work in this area.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out this Government’s plans to reform the welfare system. The Labour party is the party of work: we believe that if you can work, you should work, but if you cannot work, you should be properly supported. This Government inherited a broken system: more than 1,000 people every day are qualifying for personal independence payments; one in eight young people are not in employment, education or training. If we do nothing, we are writing off an entire generation. That cannot be right and we will not stand for it. It is a waste of their potential and it is a waste of their futures, and we will change it.

As my right hon. Friend said in her statement last week, the final costings will be subject to the OBR’s assessment. Today, the OBR has said that it estimates that the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget, reflecting its judgments on behavioural effects and wider factors. This also reflects final adjustments to the overall package, consistent with the Secretary of State’s statement last week and the Government’s “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. The universal credit standard allowance will increase from £92 per week in 2025-26 to £106 per week by 2029-30, while the universal credit health element will be cut for new claimants by around 50% and then frozen.

On top of that, we are investing £1 billion to provide guaranteed, personalised employment support to help people back into work, and £400 million to support the Department for Work and Pensions and our jobcentres to deliver these changes effectively and fairly, taking total savings from the package to £3.4 billion. While spending on disability and sickness benefits will continue to rise, these plans mean that welfare spending as a share of GDP will fall between 2026 and the end of the forecast period, which is very different from what we inherited from the Conservative party. We are reforming our welfare system, making it more sustainable, protecting the most vulnerable and, most importantly, supporting more people back into secure work and lifting them out of poverty.

At the Budget, I fixed the foundations of our economy to deliver on the promise of change. That work has already begun. There are some 2 million extra appointments in our NHS; waiting lists are down; new breakfast clubs are opening across England; there have been the largest settlements in real terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the history of devolution; and asylum costs are falling—promises made, and promises kept, and every single one of them was opposed by Opposition parties.

At the Budget, alongside providing an increase in funding for this year and next, I set the envelope for the spending review, which we will deliver in June, led by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That will set departmental budgets until 2028-29 for day-to-day spending, and until 2029-30 for capital spending.

Today’s statement reflects two steps that we have taken on our spending plans. First, because we are living in an uncertain world, as the Prime Minister has set out, we will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of gross national income. That means that we save £2.6 billion in day-to-day spending in 2029-30 to fund our more capital-intensive defence commitments. Secondly, in recent months, we have begun to fundamentally reform the British state, driving efficiency and productivity across Government to deliver tangible savings and improve services across our country.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister set out our plans to abolish the arm’s length body NHS England, and to ensure that money goes directly to improving the service for patients. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is driving forward vital reforms to increase NHS productivity, and is bearing down on costly agency spend to save money so that we can improve patient care.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is taking forward work to reduce the cost of running Government significantly—by 15%. That will be worth £2 billion by the end of the decade. This work shows that we can make our state leaner and more agile, and deliver more resources to the frontline, while ensuring that we control day-to-day spending to meet our fiscal rules.

Today, I build on that work by bringing forward £3.25 billion of investment to deliver the reforms that our public services need through a new transformation fund. That is money brought forward now to bring down the cost of running Government by the end of the forecast period by making public services more efficient, more productive and more focused on the user. I can confirm today the first allocations from this fund, including funding for voluntary exit schemes to reduce the size of the civil service, and for pioneering artificial intelligence tools to modernise the state; investment in technology for the Ministry of Justice to deliver probation services more effectively; and up-front investment so that we can support more children in foster care, to give them the best possible start in life and reduce cost pressures in the future.

Our work to make Government leaner, more productive and more efficient will help deliver a further £3.5 billion of day-to-day savings by 2029-30. Overall, day-to-day spending will be reduced by £6.1 billion by 2029-30, and it will now grow by an average of 1.2% a year above inflation; for comparison, in the autumn, that figure was 1.3%. I can confirm to the House that day-to-day spending will increase in real terms above inflation in every single year of the forecast. In the spending review, apart from the reductions in overseas aid, day-to-day spending across Government has been fully protected.

I can also confirm our approach to capital investment. In the autumn Budget, I announced £100 billion of additional capital spending to crowd in investment  from the private sector, in order to fix our crumbling infrastructure and create jobs in every corner of our country. Today, I am not cutting capital spending, as  the Conservative party did time and again, because that choked off growth and left our school roofs literally crumbling. That was the wrong choice. It was the irresponsible choice. It was the Tory choice. Today, I am instead increasing capital spending by an average of £2 billion per year, compared with in the autumn, to drive growth in our economy and to deliver in full our vital commitments on defence. This Government will ensure that every pound we spend will deliver for the British people by increasing productivity, driving growth in our economy and improving our frontline public services.

Let me turn to the impact of increased uncertainty on our economy. To deliver economic stability, we must work closely with the Bank of England, supporting the independent Monetary Policy Committee to meet the 2% inflation target. There have been three interest rate cuts since the general election, and today’s data shows that inflation fell in February, having peaked at 11% under the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that consumer prices index inflation will average 3.2% this year, before falling rapidly to 2.1% in 2026 and meeting the 2% target from 2027 onwards, giving families and businesses the security that they need, and providing our economy with the stable platform that it needs to grow.

Earlier this month, the OECD downgraded this year’s growth forecast for every G7 economy, including the UK, and the OBR has today revised down our growth forecast for 2025 from 2% in the autumn to 1% today. I am not satisfied with these numbers. We Labour Members are serious about taking the action needed to grow our economy; we are backing the builders, not the blockers, with a third runway at Heathrow airport and through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We are increasing investment with reforms to our pension system and a new national wealth fund, and tearing down regulatory barriers in every sector of our economy. That is a serious plan for growth. That is a serious plan to improve living standards. That is a serious plan to renew our country.

A changing world presents challenges, but also opportunities for new jobs and new contracts in our world-class defence industrial centres from Belfast to Deeside, and from Plymouth to Rosyth. In February, the Prime Minister set out our Government’s commitment to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027—the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—and an ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament. That was the right decision in a more insecure world—we are putting an extra £6.4 billion into defence spending by 2027—but we have to move quickly in this changing world, and that starts with investment. Today, I can confirm that I will provide an additional £2.2 billion for the Ministry of Defence in the next financial year—a further down payment on our plan to deliver 2.5% of GDP by 2027. This additional investment is about increasing not just our national security, but our economic security.

As defence spending rises, I want the whole country to feel its benefits, so I will now set out the immediate steps that we are taking to boost Britain’s defence industry, and to make the UK a defence industrial superpower. We will spend a minimum of 10% of the Ministry of Defence’s equipment budget on new, novel  technologies, including drones and artificial intelligence-enabled technology, driving forward advanced manufacturing production in places like Glasgow, Derby and Newport, creating demand for highly skilled engineers and scientists, and delivering new business opportunities for UK tech firms and start-ups. We will establish a protected budget of £400 million in the Ministry of Defence—a budget that will rise over time—for UK defence innovation, and a clear mandate to bring innovative technology to the frontline at speed.

We will reform our broken defence procurement system, making it quicker, more agile and more streamlined, and giving small businesses across the UK better access to Ministry of Defence contracts—something welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses. We will take forward our plan for Barrow, a town at the heart of our nuclear security, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham). We are providing £200 million to support the creation of thousands of jobs there. We will regenerate Portsmouth naval base, securing its future, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). We will secure better homes for thousands of military families—the homes that they deserve, which were denied to them by the previous Government—in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) and  in Aldershot. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

Finally, we will provide £2 billion of increased capacity for UK Export Finance to provide loans for overseas buyers of UK defence goods and services. I want to do more with our defence budget, so that we can buy, make and sell things here in Britain. I want to give our world-leading defence companies and those who work in them further opportunities to grow, and to create jobs in Britain, as military spending rightly increases all across Europe. To oversee all this vital work, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I will establish a new defence growth board to maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers’ money that we spend, and we will put defence at the heart of our modern industrial strategy to drive innovation, which can deliver huge benefits for the British economy. That is how we make our country a defence industrial superpower, so that the skills, jobs and opportunities of the future can be found right here in the United Kingdom.

As the previous Government learned to their detriment, there are no shortcuts to economic growth. It will take long-term decisions. It will take our putting in the hard yards. It will take time for the effect of the reforms that we are introducing to be felt in the everyday economy. It is right that the Office for Budget Responsibility should consider the evidence and look carefully at measures before recognising a growth impact in its forecast, but I can announce to the House that the OBR has considered and has scored one of the central planks of our plan for growth.

In my first week as Chancellor, I announced that we were pursuing the most ambitious set of planning reforms in decades to get Britain building again, and in December we published changes to the national planning policy framework, driven forward tirelessly by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We are reintroducing mandatory housing targets, and bringing grey-belt land  into scope. The OBR has today concluded that these reforms will permanently increase the level of real GDP by 0.2% in ’29-30—an additional £6.8 billion for our economy—and by 0.4% of GDP within 10 years, which is an additional £15.1 billion in the British economy. That is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecast, for a policy with no fiscal cost. Taken together with our plans to increase capital spending, which we set out in the Budget last year, this Government’s policies will increase the level of real GDP by 0.6% in the next 10 years. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making. Those are policies to grow our economy promised by a Labour Government, delivered by a Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

The planning system that we inherited was far  too slow. The OBR has concluded that our reforms will  lead to house building reaching a 40-year high, with 305,000 homes a year by the end of the forecast period. Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of delivering our manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament. Those are homes promised by this Labour Government, homes built by this Labour Government and homes opposed by the parties opposite.

The impact on our economy goes further still. I said at the election that we could not simply tax and spend our way to prosperity. We need economic growth, so I can today confirm that the effect of our growth policies, including our planning reforms, means an additional £3.4 billion to support our public finances and our public services by 2029-30. Those are the proceeds of growth, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

Earlier this week, we provided an additional £2 billion of investment in social and affordable homes next year, delivering up to 18,000 new homes, and allowing local areas to bid for new development across our country, including sites in Thanet, Sunderland and Swindon. That is more security for families across the country, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

To build these new homes, we need people with the right skills. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced more than £600 million to train up 60,000 more construction workers, including through 10 new technical excellence colleges across every region of the country, giving working people the chance to fulfil their potential. Those are new opportunities for our young people, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

All this is just the start. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill passed its Second Reading on Monday. That was no thanks to the parties opposite. Once that Bill completes its passage, it will help deliver the homes and infrastructure our country badly needs. I say to the parties opposite: the British people will be watching. If the parties opposite do not support these reforms, let us be clear about what that would mean: they are opposing economic growth,  they are opposing more homes for families and they are opposing good jobs across our country. We on the Government Benches are clear about whose side we are on; the parties opposite must decide, too.

This Labour Government are taking the right decisions now to secure Britain’s future. Today, I can confirm to the House that the OBR has upgraded its growth forecast next year and every single year thereafter, with GDP growth of 1.9% in 2026, 1.8% in 2027, 1.7% in 2028, and 1.8% in 2029. By the end of the forecast, our economy will be larger compared with the OBR’s forecast at the time of the Budget. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

This is not just about lines on a graph; it is about improving people’s lives. Working people are still feeling the pinch after a cost of living crisis caused by the Conservatives that caused interest rates and inflation to go through the roof, so I am pleased that the OBR confirms today that real household disposable income will now grow this year at almost twice the rate expected in the autumn. Compared with the forecast in the final Budget delivered by the Conservatives, and after taking inflation into account, the OBR says today that households will be on average more than £500 a year better off under this Labour Government. That will mean more money in the pockets of working people and higher living standards—promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

The world is changing. We can see that, and we can feel it. A changing world demands a Government who are on the side of working people, acting in their interest, acting in the national interest, not retreating from challenges, and not stepping back. It demands a Government with the courage to step up to secure Britain’s future and to seize the opportunities that are out there and before us. I am impatient for change. The British people are impatient for change after 14 years of failure, and we are beginning to see change happen. Our plan for change is working. Defence spending is rising. Waiting lists are falling. Wages are up and interest rates are cut. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

Today, the OBR confirms that our plan to get Britain building will drive growth in our economy and put more money in people’s pockets. There are no quick fixes, but we have taken the right choices: returning stability to our economy after years of mismanagement by the party opposite, and delivering security for our country and security for working people. That is what drives this Government; that is what drives me as Chancellor; and, that is what drives the choices I have set out today. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor. \p Mel Stride: At the last Budget, the right hon. Lady said that she would bring stability to the public finances, but this statement, more appropriately referred to as an emergency Budget, has brought her to a cold—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Rightly, I wanted to hear the Chancellor, and I now want to hear the shadow Chancellor. [Interruption.] I do not need any help. \p Mel Stride: This emergency Budget has brought the right hon. Lady to a cold hard reckoning. She has become fond recently of talking about the world having changed, and indeed it has. This country was growing at the fastest rate in the G7 only about a year ago. Just as the OECD, the Bank of England and other forecasters—including, we learn today, the OBR—have stated, growth has been halved for this year. It has been cut in two as a consequence of the decisions and the choices that the right hon. Lady has made on her watch. Inflation was down to 2%—bang on target—under a Conservative Government on the very day of the last general election. We are now told that this year we will be running at twice the level as was forecast under us in 2024. That will mean prices bearing down on households and on businesses right across the country, because of her choices.

The OBR also says that unemployment will be rising this year, next year and the year after. In fact, across the forecast period it will not decline at all. So much for the right hon. Lady’s back to work plans. We have already seen what it means when it comes to controlling borrowing under this Chancellor. She has come forward now with a plan to squeeze spending later on in the forecast period, and she has of course told the OBR that these are the elements of spending restraint to which she will stick, but what do the markets think? Given her track record, and the fact that she has failed to control spending and borrowing to date, what does the right hon. Lady think the markets will make of her latest promises?

Of course, the right hon. Lady says that none of this is her fault. It is the war in Ukraine, it is President Trump; it is tariffs; it is President Putin; it is the Conservatives; it is her legacy; it is anyone but her. What the British people know, however, is that this is a consequence of her choices. She is the architect of her own misfortune. It was the right hon. Lady who talked down the economy so that business surveys and confidence crashed through the floor. It was the right hon. Lady who confected the £22 billion black hole, a smokescreen that was only ever there to cover up for the fact that she and the Prime Minister reneged on their promises to the British people during the last general election, and a black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility itself—ironically, at the Government’s behest—has said it will not legitimise. She chose to be reckless with a sliver of headroom against her fiddled targets. She borrowed and spent and taxed as if it were the 1970s. Little wonder that the Chancellor has tanked the economy, little wonder that we have an emergency Budget, all because of her choices.

The Chancellor likes to tour the television studios and tell everyone that they should be thankful that she will not be ramping up taxes in this emergency Budget as she did before, but that will be cold comfort to the millions up and down the country who are waiting in fear and trepidation for the start of the new tax year, buckling under the burden of tax that will rise to the highest tax burden—on her watch—in the history of our country. May I ask the right hon. Lady whether, when she replies, she will give that much-needed reassurance, particularly to businesses, that she will not be ramping up taxes still further in the autumn? Even a basic economist knows that if you tax something, you get less of it. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for 10 years to know that.

So what did the Chancellor tax? She taxed jobs and wealth creation. She has destroyed livelihoods. Businesses have been clobbered, big and small—small companies, the backbone of our economy—and enterprise has been crushed on the altar of her ineptitude. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has told us that a third of the businesses affected will shed labour, with Morrisons losing 200 jobs, Tesco 400, and Sainsbury’s 3,000. No wonder the Federation of Small Businesses has said that outside the pandemic, business confidence has been left at its lowest level on record. However, it is not just businesses. It is charities, it is GPs, it is pharmacies, it is those who transport children with special educational needs, and it is hospices caring for the sick and the dying. In this House, the Labour party had the opportunity, yesterday and last week, to stop that, but they voted our amendments down, and we will never let their constituents forget it.

If you ramp up taxes, Mr Speaker, and if you ramp up borrowing and spending without any commensurate improvement in productivity, it leads to growing inflation, and inflation has been increasing on this Government’s watch. It means that interest rates stay higher for longer. The Chancellor has just trumpeted the fact that there have been three interest rate cuts since the Labour party came to office. She knows full well that there would have been more than that had she managed—[Interruption.] She knows full well that interest rates are higher for longer because of the choices that she made. This has led to servicing costs for our national debt running at twice the defence budget, and today we have learnt from the OBR that debt interest is to increase still further—and none of this money will be spent on public services. It will be going down the drain.

The real black hole is not the one that the Chancellor invented; it is the one that the Chancellor created. Is not the central problem that this Chancellor is a gambler? Even with her fiddled fiscal targets, she left way too little headroom. Is not the truth that while the right hon. Lady said of the last Budget that it was a

“once-in-a-parliament reset”,

she rolled the dice on a wafer-thin margin, and she lost? Reckless, with her fingers crossed, she fiddled the targets and she missed them. [Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure about the language being used. I think there are better and more constructive words that the shadow Chancellor would prefer to use in future. \p Mel Stride: May I just point out that all the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom disappeared, not just some of it? In fact, she went underwater to the tune of £4.1 billion. Reeling from one fiscal event to the next is not a way to run the public finances, and breaking your fiscal rules to the extent that the right hon. Lady has in just six months is a public humiliation.

May I now focus briefly on defence spending? We on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Government will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027, as we pressed them to do, and we note the stepping stone along the way that the right hon. Lady has just announced, but we should go further than that. The 3% target should be brought forward to this Parliament. So may I ask the right hon. Lady: given the geopolitical tensions that she has raised, what provision she has made in her headroom, in her  fiscal plans, for increasing defence spending more quickly in this Parliament, if that proves necessary? May I also ask her this: would she scrap the absurd Chagos deal, and put that money behind our armed forces?

The economy is in a perilous state, but there was a different way. There were different choices on taxing and spending and borrowing, and on productivity, and on welfare. Let me just say a few words about welfare. It was the privilege of my life to serve as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when it came to welfare reform, with that privilege came a deep responsibility: the responsibility for welfare reform to be properly thought through, with a very clear plan—[Interruption]—I know that Labour Members do not like it, because it is an alien idea to their party—so that we could be fair to the taxpayer, but equally fair to the many people up and down the country, some of whom are highly vulnerable. That was an approach, on our watch, that led to £5 million of savings across the forecast period, and 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits as a direct consequence.

We would have gone further—much further—and we set out a clear plan in our manifesto to do exactly that, but those in the party opposite rushed their changes. They had no plan. There was not a single mention of the personal independence payment in the Labour party manifesto, and when they got into office, the Labour Government pussyfooted around and dithered. Why? Because it is deeply divisive within their rank and file. Then suddenly, when the Chancellor decided that she had run out of money, out went the word to find some savings in welfare, to scrabble around, to yank every lever possible.

Then there was the spectacle, frankly, of what the OBR has said about the simply shambolic changes that were announced only last week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have gone from incompetence to chaos. There have been more changes to this policy than there were at the last minute to the right hon. Lady’s LinkedIn profile. The result is the worst of all worlds: a wholly inadequate level of savings on welfare, with welfare costs spiralling ever higher, and changes that are likely to harm many vulnerable people. May I ask the right hon. Lady: when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House last week with these changes, she did not provide an impact assessment, but was this because the OBR had not signed off the numbers, was it because the Department did not have enough time to produce one, or was it only provided today, as many of us suspect, because this was thought to be a good time to bury bad news?

The forecast for growth is down, the forecasts for borrowing costs and inflation are up, and business confidence has been smashed into a million pieces. This Chancellor is constantly trying to blame forces beyond her control. The right response is not to duck responsibility, but to build a resilient economy. The right hon. Lady would have us believe that that is what she is doing, but how can we believe this Chancellor? How can we trust this Chancellor? She is the Chancellor who said she would not increase borrowing, but she did. She said she would not change her fiscal rules, but she did. She said she would not put up national insurance, but she did.  She said she would not cut the winter fuel payment, but she did. She said she would not tax farmers, but she did, and she said she would not move to more than one fiscal event a year, and she just has. Now we are all paying the price of her broken promises. Today’s numbers confirm it. We are poorer and we are weaker. To govern is to choose, and this Chancellor has made all the wrong choices. \p Rachel Reeves: I know that the shadow Chancellor has not been in his role for very long, but at least he is not misquoting Shakespeare today. If this was a Budget, it would be the Leader of the Opposition responding. I am glad that she is still in her place, but I know she will want to get back to her office for a lunchtime steak soon.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Budgets. Let me remind the Conservative party that the only emergency Budget we have seen in recent years was in response to their party’s disastrous mini-Budget—a mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sent mortgage bills spiralling and left a £22 billion black hole in our nation’s finances. Conservative Members may have forgotten about the damage that they did to our country, but the British people never will.

As always, the shadow Chancellor talked a lot, but he did not offer a single alternative. He says he opposes our tax rises, but he cannot tell us whether he would cut the NHS to reverse them. He says he wants economic growth, but Conservative Members abstained on the very planning reforms that the OBR has said will kick-start growth. Mr Speaker, you do not change the country by abstaining or by sitting on the fence; you change the country by leading and by taking action, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor says he wants businesses to trade, but he does not want us to talk to the second largest economy in the world or, indeed, our biggest trading partners in the European Union. He simply is not serious. Four months into the job, and he has got no clue.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about growth, but he does not say anything about the fact that the OBR has upgraded growth next year and every single year after. He talks about pensioners, but he forgets that it is his party’s policy to scrap the triple lock, which we are protecting and which will mean the state pension rising next month by over £400. He talks about wages, but he forgets the fact that we are boosting wages by boosting the national living wage from next month. The shadow Chancellor says nothing about living standards or this morning’s fall in inflation, because the last Parliament was the worst on record, and the OBR has today revised up its forecast for family finances. Working people are always better off with Labour.

The right hon. Gentleman is learning something, because at least this time he has asked a couple of questions, so let me respond to them. He asked what the markets should make of this. What the markets should see is that, when I have been tested with a deterioration in the headroom, we have restored that headroom in full. That is one of the choices that I made. He says that it is a sliver of a headroom. Well, it is 50% more headroom than I inherited from the Conservative party. When I was left with a sliver of headroom, I rebuilt it after the last Government eroded it. That is the difference that we have made. While they left the public finances and the public services in a mess, we wiped the slate  clean, which means that we have the flexibility now to increase defence spending, as the leader of the Labour party has done. The Conservatives had 14 years to increase defence spending, and now they lately come to the party.

The shadow Chancellor mentions welfare reform and his time at the Department for Work and Pensions. What a legacy: one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 1,000 people a day going on to personal independence payments. The OBR says today that welfare spending as a share of GDP will now start falling—a far cry from what we had under the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor speaks about employment. The OBR says that employment will increase, that wages will increase and that living standards will increase. What a change, after 14 years of the Conservative party.

The world is changing, and no one can be in any doubt about it, but the Conservative party is stuck in the past—divided, out of touch and carping from the sidelines. Conservative Members have no plan: no plan to kick-start growth, no plan to fix our public services and no plan to keep our country safe. The only plan for change they are working on is a plan to change their party leader, and we cannot blame them for that.

If the Opposition have no plan, let me remind them about ours. The minimum wage up, real wages up, house building up, NHS investment up, investment in our schools up, investment in our roads up, defence spending up—and every single one of those policies is opposed by the party opposite. They are opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the SNP, opposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Greens. It is the anti-growth coalition in action. They are the blockers. We are the builders—securing Britain’s future, protecting working people and delivering change. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: My right hon. Friend inherited a very difficult challenge when she became Chancellor of the Exchequer last July, and she is absolutely right that the books need to balance. This is not other people’s money we are spending, but taxpayers’ money—our constituents’ hard-earned money—and she is right to be tough as Chancellor. We look forward to quizzing her at the Treasury Committee next week, and I am sure she is looking forward to it just as much.

The Chancellor announced an extra £2 billion a year in capital spending, and she talked about extra defence spending. Could she give some more detail about where she hopes that extra £2 billion a year will go? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I do indeed look forward to attending the Treasury Committee next week. I was pleased to serve on the Treasury Committee in the past, and it is a pleasure to give evidence to it.

We will set out in the spending review—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out in the spending review—the allocation of the additional capital money. However, I was able to announce today the £2.2 billion for defence from next year, as well as the £2 billion as a downpayment to build the affordable and social housing  that we need. Those are two examples of the priorities of this Government to get Britain building and to secure our national security. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: The people of this country are crying out for change, but they feel they are just getting more of the same. Of course, it was the Conservative party that wrecked the public finances, but we are eight months into the new Government and people are left wondering, “Where is the change that was promised?” The Chancellor says that the world is changing, so why will she not change course with it? The Chancellor said she wanted a dash for growth, but with her national insurance jobs tax she shot herself in the foot before she even crossed the start line.

After the Government’s disastrous Budget, the Government had the chance today to change direction, fix our finances, kick-start growth and deliver a small business Budget. The Government could have scrapped the jobs tax, which will hammer our high streets, and instead ask the big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies to pay their fair share instead. The Government could have changed their approach to trade, launching talks to boost growth through a new trading deal with our European neighbours. Instead, the Government have made the wrong decisions to cut public services, hit disabled people and inflict more pain on our small businesses and high streets. In doing so, they have delivered no change and almost no growth at all.

After years of Conservative mismanagement, people can see just how broken our public services are. They cannot see a GP, they cannot see a dentist, they are fighting for an education plan and, they are picking up the pieces of a broken social care system. Everything is broken. Nothing works. That is why people are impatient for the change they were promised.

We have to bring the welfare bill down and support more people into work. That is right for people and our economy, but cutting support for someone who needs help getting dressed and washed in the morning is not just wrong; it does absolutely nothing to support that person into work. If anything, it does the exact opposite. It will also have knock-on impacts for the entitlements of their family carers, too. Will the Chancellor come clean about this? If the Government are serious about cutting welfare spending, they must get serious about fixing health and social care. Will the Chancellor speed up the social care review and ensure that it concludes no later than the end of this year?

In the Chancellor’s quest to slim down the civil service, I wonder why she has not looked at the mountain of red tape created by the previous Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. A whopping 2 billion extra pieces of paper have had to be completed by businesses since Brexit, enough to wrap around the world 15 times. If we manage to cut the red tape, we can give British businesses a tailwind, deliver far more growth than is currently predicted, increase the fiscal headroom to deal with global headwinds, and free up precious time and money in our civil service. That would be real change.

Business was promised change too. Today’s statement should have been a small business Budget. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised the alarm about the  impending damage of the national insurance jobs  tax, bigger business rates bills and changes to reliefs  for family farms and family businesses. Those changes will be a hammer blow to small and family businesses, leaving communities facing the prospect of an epidemic of boarded-up shopfronts. They will be a hammer blow to community health and care providers who stop our NHS from falling over. This is not the change that was promised. Instead, I say again that the Chancellor should look again at much fairer ways to raise the tax revenue our public services desperately need by reforming capital gains tax more fairly and asking the big banks, the social media giants and the online gambling companies to pay their fair share.

I know the Chancellor must contend with President Trump’s trade war, which is causing global economic turmoil, but our response to Trump’s bullying cannot be to cower in the corner and just hope that he is nice to us. We cannot sit on our hands while British steel is hit with Trump’s tariffs. We Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Chancellor’s move to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but instead of cutting the aid budget, which abandons the world’s poor and damages our soft power, she should be covering the cost by raising the digital services tax, handing the tab to Elon Musk and Trump’s other billionaire backers. At the very least, can the Chancellor categorically rule out any reduction in the tech tax in an attempt to appease the White House, especially when disabled people in Britain face eye-watering cuts?

To conclude, I have a series of questions. Will the Chancellor recognise that cutting public services that are already stretched is a false economy? Will she accept that trying to bring down the welfare bill without fixing health and social care is a road to nowhere? Will she listen to the warnings of small and family businesses that her jobs tax will do more harm than good? Will she look at the fairer ways of raising revenue that we Liberal Democrats have put forward? And will she take the bold action we need to grow our economy by rebuilding our broken trading relationship with Europe? The public were promised change. Where on earth is it? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Lady says, “Where is the change?” Let me tell her: more money into our NHS, with 2 million additional appointments and waiting lists falling five months in a row; rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools from April this year; increasing defence spending to protect us in a more uncertain world; additional support for carers, the living wage up, the Employment Rights Bill and so much more. That is the difference we have made in nine months, and we have only just got started.

The hon. Lady talks about trade. We believe in free trade. We are an open trading economy and we benefit from trade links around the world, including with our single biggest trading partner, the United States of America. It is right that we work with our allies in the United States to ensure that that free and open trade continues. That is in our national interest and this Government will always act in our national interest. At the same time, there will, as the hon. Lady knows, be a summit between the UK and the EU in May, where we will look to re-set our relationship, so we can see  more free trade and the better flow of trade, especially for our smaller businesses to be able to export around Europe.

The hon. Lady talks about welfare. She has not admitted that there is a single problem in the welfare system as it exists today. I am not willing, and this party is not willing, to write off one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why, for example, we announced this week, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, an additional 60,000 training places to train people up in the construction industries of the future, and a £1 billion package of personalised targeted support because there are many disabled people—the hon. Lady knows this—who are desperate to work but are not getting the support and were denied support by the previous Government. That is why we have said there will be additional support for the most sick and disabled, and that personal support for getting people back into work. That is the right approach, so that we have protections for those who need it, work for those who can, and a sustainable system that is here for generations into the future.

I want to take on the hon. Lady’s main point. She wants all the money for public services, but she does not want to raise the taxes to pay for them. At the moment, we spend £105 billion a year in interest on Government debt. It seems that she would just like more of that debt. She says that people cannot see a GP or a dentist. How does she and the Opposition parties think that we pay for those things? They cannot object to the tax increases and support the money we have invested in our public services. To say otherwise, I am afraid, is fairytales and the magic money tree—it just does not add up. The difference on the Labour Benches is that we will put money into our public services, explain where it comes from, and ensure that the public finances are on a firm footing. That is the difference between our party and the Opposition parties. \p Jeevun Sandher: Young people in my constituency, and indeed across the country, have had an incredibly difficult time growing up: austerity saw their further education budgets cut by 14%, then there was a pandemic and now war in Europe. Will the Chancellor please set out how her plans to get Britain building again will help my young constituents get the good, non-graduate jobs they need in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Loughborough. The 1.5 million additional homes the Government are building will ensure that families in Loughborough have a chance of getting on the housing ladder and that young people in Loughborough will have the opportunities to help build those homes. That is the difference we are making: more jobs, paying decent wages, and more homes for our families. \p John Glen: I hope the Chancellor, next Wednesday in front of the Treasury Committee, will reiterate her commitment not to come back with more tax increases. On page five of the OBR report, paragraph 1.2 states:

“While the Government’s planning reforms deliver a modest boost to the level of potential output of 0.2 per cent in 2029, its cumulative growth between 2023 and 2029 is still ½ a percentage point lower than we projected in October, and the level of productivity is over 1 per cent lower.”

I would like to know what the Chancellor thinks about that, and can she confirm that the Employment Rights Bill has not been evaluated by the OBR? \p Rachel Reeves: The key point in what the right hon. Gentleman says is that cumulative growth is lower from 2023 to the end of the forecast. Of course, this Government did not come into power in 2023; we came into power in July 2024. The OBR numbers show that the economy is bigger because of the changes we have made—it is just a difference in the dates. I look forward to coming to the Treasury Committee next week, and I am sure I will take more questions from the right hon. Gentleman then. \p Yuan Yang: The Chancellor has rightly championed economic stability, in stark contrast to the previous Government—indeed, in stark contrast to the previous five Chancellors. Yet, as she has said, the world is becoming more unstable, and that global instability feeds through to rapid changes in official projections, which can constrain our room for action. Can the Chancellor reaffirm to us that she will keep her focus on fiscal stability, despite these challenges, to meet the long-term missions of this Government: to defend our country, improve living standards and protect the most vulnerable in our society? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that her constituents—all our constituents—depend on economic stability. It ensures that they know how much they will pay on their rent and mortgages; it ensures that they are not caught out, when they go to the shops, by prices constantly rising. That is why, as a Government, we have said that the No. 1 thing we need to achieve in order to grow our economy is economic stability, which is why I am so pleased that the Bank of England has been able to cut interest rates three times since the general election and the OBR has forecast that inflation will fall rapidly to 2.1% next year, and then 2% in the years after that. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Schools face a huge rise in costs imminently due to the rise in national insurance contributions. Headteachers had been reassured by the Government that schools would be recompensed with money to cover these costs, yet Sir Robert Pattinson academy in my constituency—a great school—finds itself £33,000 short. Will the Chancellor commit to ensuring that Sir Robert Pattinson, and indeed all the schools in my constituency, is given enough money to cover her jobs tax? \p Rachel Reeves: Public services, including schools, have been compensated for the increase in national insurance, but I am happy for the hon. Lady to get in touch with me or the Education Secretary to set out the case of that school.

The only reason we have been able to put record investment into our schools is because of the stability we have returned to the economy, including the tax increases that we had to bring forward last year in order to provide that extra money for our public services, including the schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency. \p Debbie Abrahams: I recognise the difficulties that my right hon. Friend is facing, with the fiscal challenges and so on that she inherited. I also support the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary has set out. However, all the evidence points to the fact that the cuts to health and disability benefits will lead to increased poverty, including severe poverty, and worsened health conditions. How will making people sicker and poorer help to drive our economy up and get people into jobs? \p Rachel Reeves: As my hon. Friend knows, we set out in the Green Paper that we are consulting on a premium payment for the most severely sick and disabled, because, as a Government, we believe that those who need support should get it. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that there are many people who are sick and disabled. However, there are also many young people who could be working, but were written off by the previous Government, and that is why we are putting record investment into helping those people to get back into work with guaranteed personalised, targeted support. Someone is half as likely to be in poverty if they move from welfare into work. We are determined to lift people out of poverty by ensuring that there are good jobs that pay decent wages and with security guaranteed through the Employment Rights Bill. \p Bobby Dean: The OBR said that the information it received on the package of welfare cuts was late, contained insufficient detail and that the estimates are highly uncertain, and it will now have to certify them in the next forecast. Can the Chancellor confirm whether that means the Government will have to go further, with even deeper cuts to welfare than they have so far announced? \p Rachel Reeves: The OBR has not taken into account any of the package of measures to get people back into work or looked at any behavioural effects of people making that switch into work. It said in that document that it will spend the summer looking at the entirety of the package, including the efforts we are making with a huge package to get people back into work. I am confident that that personalised, targeted support will get more people into work and lift them out of poverty, so that they can support their families and so that the economy can benefit from their contribution. \p Rachael Maskell: Fiscal responsibility under this Government, unlike the previous Administration, ensures that people are paying less and keeps the cost of living down. However, as the Labour party, we have an additional social responsibility, so can we look at those DWP changes again? Of course we have to protect the most vulnerable, but we are really worried about the people just above that band who are set to lose out. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I share the deep concern felt by everyone on the Government Benches—in fact, everyone in this Chamber—about the most sick and disabled, who need support. That is why we have set out in the Green Paper that we are consulting on an additional premium payment to the most severely disabled. It is also why, instead of writing people off and not providing the support that  they need to do a job that matches their abilities and needs, we are providing that personalised, targeted support. I was at a jobcentre last week in Pudsey, in my constituency, where I heard amazing stories of work coaches helping people into work who are far from the labour market. We want to see more of that. We want to lift people out of poverty and help them to achieve their potential. \p Harriett Baldwin: At the general election, the Chancellor promised growth and no increase in taxes, but as Chancellor, she has delivered no growth and a record increase in taxes. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibility is halving her growth forecast this year, with cumulatively half a percent less over the forecast period. More worryingly, it is forecasting a more than 1% reduction in productivity growth. Why does she think that is? \p Rachel Reeves: I have huge respect for the hon. Lady, but that question does not do her justice. As I said to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) earlier, with the starting point of 2023, cumulative growth is lower. However, the general election did not take place in 2023—it took place in 2024. The economy is bigger at the end of this Parliament than the OBR forecast previously. Those are the numbers and the facts, and that is the difference that this Labour Government are making. \p Ruth Cadbury: I also congratulate the Chancellor on her excellent statement, which addresses the challenge the previous Government left her with. In order to drive growth across the UK, new heavy and light rail infrastructure is badly needed. What work is the Chancellor doing to develop new models of funding to deliver those important projects? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the reasons we have put an additional £13 billion into capital spending over the forecast period is to invest in the infrastructure that our country needs, including transport infrastructure, which I know my hon. Friend, as Chair of the Transport Committee, has a keen interest in. She is absolutely right: we do need to look more at how we can leverage in private sector funding for a whole range of projects, including the lower Thames crossing. \p Chris Coghlan: I declare an interest as an alumnus of London Business School. The Chancellor will recall that in November, when she came to the Treasury Committee, I asked her to look at a London Business School paper on using specific public R&D on defence spending to boost economic growth. I was delighted to hear that the Treasury did evaluate that paper by Professor Paolo Surico as part of the spring statement, and has listened to me and the Liberal Democrats. Does the Chancellor agree that using defence spending focused on public R&D is one way to not only keep us safe, but raise productivity and boost economic growth? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and look forward to taking more questions from him at the Treasury Committee next week. When I visit defence companies or meet our armed forces,  they tell me about the amazing abilities of new technology and innovation to help them to better do their jobs and keep our country safe. As we invest more in defence and get to 2.5% of GDP, it is absolutely right, as I have set out today, that more of that money is used for innovation, R&D and new technologies. \p Zubir Ahmed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping the challenges and opportunities that this new world presents us with. Those opportunities will mean that, in my constituency of Glasgow South West, there will be more investment in the defence sector, which is timely, because after 18 years of SNP Government, one in six people in my constituency is economically inactive. Does she agree that this investment will finally raise their ambitions and their pay packets? \p Rachel Reeves: Unlike the SNP, Labour supports investment and jobs in the defence sector in Scotland, which, in turn, supports people in Glasgow South West and across Scotland. There will be more good jobs  for young people—more jobs paying decent wages— that will keep our country safe. That is what this party believes in. It is a shame that the SNP believes in something entirely different. \p Martin Vickers: A cloud hangs over the economy in northern Lincolnshire at the moment with potentially significant job losses at the Scunthorpe steelworks. In view of that, can the Chancellor assure us that funding will be available not only to look after any redundant workers, but to attract new business and provide retraining for existing workers? \p Rachel Reeves: At the general election, we set out our plan for a steel fund as part of the National Wealth Fund. I understand the concern of hon. Members across the House about the future of the steel industry in this country. We were able to improve the deal for Tata, to protect more jobs in south Wales. We want a thriving steel sector right across the UK, and we will continue to work with the company and the trade unions to achieve just that. \p Richard Burgon: Making cuts instead of taxing wealth is a political choice, and taking away the personal independence payments from so many disabled people is an especially cruel choice. A disabled person who cannot cut up their own food without assistance, cannot go to the toilet without assistance and cannot wash themselves without assistance will lose their personal independence payment. Have not the Government taken the easy option of cutting support for disabled people rather than the braver option, which would be to tax the wealthiest through a wealth tax? \p Rachel Reeves: There is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about not supporting people who are disabled or sick or who are young to do jobs that are commensurate with what they are able to do. One in eight young people has been effectively written off by the Conservative party, and we are not willing to leave them in that position. We are consulting in the Green Paper on an additional premium to pay to the most sick and disabled people, because we recognise that they need support from the state, but too many people are not given the  opportunities to fulfil their potential, and we are not willing to carry on like that. In the Budget last year, we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, introduced VAT on private schools and changed the rules on inheritance tax, so I do not recognise what my hon. Friend says. \p Dave Doogan: The Chancellor tells us that the world has changed. If that is true and it allows her to stick the boot into disabled people, it must also be true to allow her to review her income tax rates, perhaps making them commensurate with those in Scotland, which saw the Scottish economy grow in January by 0.3%, while the UK economy contracted by 0.1%. She could also choose to revise the Government’s position on re-accessing the European Union single market, which would allow a £30 billion recurring return with no compensation required. She could impose a 1% tax on assets over £10 million— a wealth tax, as the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has just highlighted—which would allow a £40 billion recurring return every year with no need for compensation. If she has the disabled, the WASPI women, pensioners and hospices in her cross hairs, why can she not tap up multi-millionaires for a few quid? \p Rachel Reeves: The world has changed, and we can see that all around us, which is why our defence is more important than other things. That is why it is so astonishing that the SNP continues to oppose the nuclear deterrent. \p Preet Kaur Gill: I commend the Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that the Conservative party does not understand the link between its total failure to build houses and infrastructure, which our constituents desperately want, and the economic constraints that we face today? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents in Birmingham. We need to build the homes that all our constituents are crying out for. The level of home ownership declined under the previous Government and we are determined to turn that around, as well as to build the affordable and social houses that our country needs. As we build those homes, there will be more good jobs for young people who take pride in their work. Those good jobs, which will pay decent wages, will be backed by the increase in the national living wage and by our Employment Rights Bill. \p James Cleverly: The Transport Secretary failed to stand up to the transport unions, the Health and Social Care Secretary failed to stand up to the health unions, and the Work and Pensions Secretary failed to stand up to the Back Benchers of her own party. The Chancellor’s savings are predicated on getting rid of a whole tranche of civil servants. How can we have any confidence that she or the Prime Minister will stand up to the civil service unions? \p Rachel Reeves: Today, as part of the transformation fund, we have set aside £150 million next year for redundancy costs for a voluntary exit settlement, which shows how serious we are about reducing the size of the civil service, after it increased to record levels under the Conservative party. \p Michelle Scrogham: Communities such as mine in Barrow and Furness feel very acutely the failures of the previous Government, as they left us in a dreadful state. Does the Chancellor agree that it is through this Government’s commitment to, and funding in, Barrow and Furness and our defence sector that we can transform things on the ground, which will mean that Barrow can be a blueprint for how the defence pound can be better spent across our constituencies? \p Rachel Reeves: I know that my hon. Friend is incredibly proud to represent Barrow and Furness and that her constituents are incredibly proud to work on our nuclear deterrent. This Government will always stand with them, putting in place our new plan for Barrow for new jobs and new investment in the town, so that we get value for money for taxpayers and, critically, ensure our country’s national security. \p John Hayes: The Chancellor was right to highlight productivity as an issue, and right, too, to focus on skills shortages, although she did not explicitly note the implicit link between them. She failed, however, to say that her productivity ambitions have been scaled back and that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is growing. Will she set out—perhaps in a note in the Library of the House or in a statement—by how much she expects apprenticeships to grow year on year? When I was a Minister, we reached the highest level in modern times, and the numbers are much lower now. We need to grow apprenticeships to build our skills and to grow productivity. If she does not do that, we will feel that hope exceeds expectation. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He speaks powerfully about something that he knows a huge amount about. Let me answer three parts of that question. First, the OBR has revised up our productivity in its forecast. Secondly, we have a massive problem with young people not in education, employment or training—it involves one in eight young people. However, as I said in answer to a previous question, the OBR has not taken into account the impact of our back to work programme. It will work on that over the summer with the DWP and the Treasury, because we want to make sure that we design that in a way that gets as many young people back into work, contributing to the economy and contributing to our society.

We were able to announce, just a couple of weeks ago in National Apprenticeship Week, an expansion of the apprenticeship programme, particularly through foundation apprenticeships and by relaxing some of the maths and English requirements. If we want to build the homes that our country needs, we need to get people into construction jobs and not say, “I’m sorry, you didn’t get a grade C in maths and English, so you’re not welcome on the construction site.” That makes no sense at all, which is why we are reforming how apprenticeship works, to get more people with the skills they need so that they can contribute to their families and the economy. We want those numbers going up. \p Johanna Baxter: Our fiscal rules were designed to ensure that we did not repeat the damaging austerity of the Conservative  party, which harmed my constituents so much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only because of those fiscal rules that the OBR has today confirmed that people in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will be, on average, £500 a year better off with this Labour Government? \p Rachel Reeves: To ensure that people are better off, we need to control inflation, which is why stability is so important; bring interest rates down, and the Bank of England has had the confidence to cut interest rates three times since the election; and boost wages, which we are beginning to see, with real wages growing at twice the rate of inflation. That benefits my hon. Friend’s constituents and people up and down the country. That is why we welcome the fact that, today, the OBR has revised up real household disposable income per person by £500. \p Steve Darling: Today and last week the Chancellor rushed through severe cuts to the benefits system that will hit some of the most vulnerable in our society. Although we should have considered benefit reform, this is ill conceived. Can the Chancellor explain to the Chamber why she is choosing to balance the books of the nation on the backs of some of the most vulnerable in our society? \p Rachel Reeves: I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, but everybody in this House and across the country can see that the welfare system is just not working. One in eight young people are not in education, employment or training and 1,000 people are going on to personal independence payments every single day, and we cannot carry on like that. The basic principles of this Government are that people who need support should be protected; that those who can work should work and will be supported with personalised, targeted support; and that we need a system that is sustainable. That is what the reforms set out by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary last week deliver. Alongside that, there will be further consultation on the Green Paper to make sure that those with the most severe need get the additional support that they are rightly entitled to. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have another 45 minutes on the statement. If questions are short, more Members will get in. \p Imran Hussain: It is absolutely right that the Opposition devastated our communities and left us with billions of pounds’ worth of debt, but it is not right that disabled people and the most vulnerable in our society should pay for it. Thousands of my constituents continue to be fearful about the announced welfare cuts, and disability organisations have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be pushed into poverty. So I say to the Chancellor: we must make the right political choice. We must protect the most vulnerable in society and introduce a wealth tax so that multimillionaires and billionaires can pay their fair share. \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend represents the constituency that neighbours mine. He knows as I do that there are far too many people in both our constituencies in Leeds and Bradford who are written off. There are people who are not working who are quite capable of working if they are given support. People may be disabled, but it does not mean that they cannot work and contribute if they are given the proper support. That is what the Conservative party failed to do, and that is what our Government are determined to deliver. We will work with disabled groups and jobcentres, including the one in Pudsey, where I was last week, to make sure that we support people to fulfil their potential and do not just write them off like the Conservatives did. \p Julian Lewis: I welcome the Chancellor’s emphasis on defence expenditure and her support for the nuclear deterrent, but does she agree that, by his actions in Ukraine, Putin has restarted the cold war? Will she bear in mind that during the 1980s, up to the end of the cold war, we were regularly spending between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence? That is the sort of scale that is required. \p Rachel Reeves: The right hon. Gentleman has long been an advocate of spending properly on defence. We have set out a fully funded and costed plan to get to 2.5% of GDP in the next two years and to 3% in the next Parliament. The world has changed. We can see that all around us. This Government will always put our national security and defence first, and as the situation evolves, of course so will we. \p Andy McDonald: I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She is absolutely right to highlight the stimulus that the Employment Rights Bill will bring to our economy, but I respectfully say that the impact of the cuts to welfare payments will be reduced incomes for some of my poorest constituents. That contrasts with the easy ride that the very wealthy get from lower margins of tax on their assets and gains than my constituents face through income tax. The world indeed has changed since the Chancellor set her fiscal rules, so will she consider putting capital gains tax on an equal footing with income tax or implementing a wealth tax of 2% on assets worth over £10 million in order to improve the country’s finances? \p Rachel Reeves: At the Budget last autumn, we increased taxes by £40 billion without asking working people to pay more. We did that by abolishing the non-dom tax status, increasing the rates of capital gains tax, tightening the rules around inheritance tax and, yes, by asking businesses to pay more as well. We have already raised taxes to put more money into our health service, reduce NHS waiting lists and provide free breakfast clubs at primary schools. Today’s spring statement shows that we can grow the size of our economy through planning reforms and therefore ensure more money for our public services. The Government’s No. 1 priority is growth, so I am so pleased that the OBR has said that by the end of this Parliament the economy will be bigger than that we inherited it from the Conservatives. \p Sammy Wilson: The Chancellor has claimed today that she is building foundations for the economy, but sadly those foundations are built on  sand—increased borrowing, higher inflation, lower growth, jobs taxes and so on. How will such structures stand against the economic forces that will be affecting the United Kingdom, as she has described today? Specifically, what proportion of the transformation fund will be available to the Northern Ireland Executive for the important transformation of public services in Northern Ireland? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The OBR is clear that the economy at the end of this Parliament will be bigger than it previously envisaged—bigger than the plans we inherited from the previous Government—and the average person with real household disposable income will see their income rise by £500. We are already beginning to deliver the change that we promised. At the Budget last year I was able to announce the biggest ever settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That continues to be the case after today’s spring statement. \p John Grady: Reckless management of public finances leads to higher costs of Government borrowing. As any economist will say, that increases the cost of capital across the British economy, putting at risk and increasing the cost of the essential investments in housing and infrastructure that my constituents desperately need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very important reason why it is essential to manage public finances carefully, unlike the last Conservative Government, and unlike the Government in Scotland, who are overfamiliar with emergency Budgets? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of robust fiscal rules which, even in difficult economic circumstances, we will continue to meet through the decisions that I have set out today. The reason that economic stability is so important can be seen in what happened in the last Parliament, where a Government borrowed beyond their means. The people who lost out were not the wealthy but ordinary working people, who paid more in the shops and more on their mortgages and rents. This Government will never repeat the mistakes of Liz Truss and the Conservatives. \p Luke Evans: The Chancellor has created a storm and is now complaining about the rain. She increased spending to £70 billion, she increased borrowing by £30 billion, and she increased tax by £40 billion, yet the economy shrank in January. She talked about change and the abolition of NHS England. In a written question I asked the Department how much that would cost, and it said that there would be some up-front costs but could not specify what they would be. Could she tell me the estimated cost of this top-down change to abolish NHS England? \p Rachel Reeves: It is really difficult to understand what the Conservative party want. Do they want to reduce the cost of admin and bureaucracy, or do they want to carry on with everything the way it was? We want to change things. That is why the transformation fund that I set out today includes £150 million for a voluntary exit scheme. We want more money on the frontline, not in the back office in a bloated bureaucracy that was left by the Conservatives. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: There is so much to welcome in today’s statement, but the Chancellor will be aware of serious concerns regarding welfare reform. A constituent told me last week:

“I’m terrified of what will happen to me if I can’t work. I’m already having thoughts of suicide at the prospect of these changes and what they will mean for disabled people.”

Today’s impact assessment shows a 250,000 increase in the number of people living in relative poverty and a 50,000 increase in children living in relative poverty. What will the Chancellor do to stop this from happening? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks about a constituent who is in work. I am sure that she and others will welcome the work that Charlie Mayfield has done on ensuring that people with sickness and disability can stay in work. We know that the best place for people is in work—for both their physical and mental health—and that too often when people drop out of the labour market they really struggle to get back into it. Alongside the targeted support to get people back into work, we are determined to work with businesses and ensure that more people with sickness and disability can stay in work, contributing to their family finances and to the wider economy. \p Nigel Farage: Does the Chancellor agree that GDP as a measure of growth and relative wealth is not the most relevant number to our constituents? As we are living in an age of mass immigration and a rising population, surely, what matters to our constituents is GDP per capita, which has fallen consistently for the past two years and is falling still. Should we not tell people that, actually, they are getting poorer? \p Rachel Reeves: The OBR forecast that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% during this Parliament, having fallen under the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman ever gets to Clacton, he can tell his constituents that. \p Matthew Patrick: I welcome the Chancellor’s £3 billion investment into a transformation fund to sort out how government is run. Does the Chancellor agree that the Tories ducked that reform—they should have done it but did not—and their failure to address it put pressure on frontline services and stretched the public finances? \p Rachel Reeves: The transformation fund, worth £3.25 billion, is about trying to reduce further the costs of failure. We are putting more money into recruiting foster carers, because we want to ensure that more children get the best possible start in life. We also know that children ending up in poor-quality children’s homes has consequences not just at the start of their life but later on. We are also putting more money into technology in the Probation Service so that probation works better to rehabilitate offenders and ensure that people pay for the crimes that they commit. \p Alberto Costa: The Chancellor rightly reminded the House that the British public are watching. Among them are tens of thousands of the most vulnerable pensioners in our society. Will she please explain what is Labour about removing the winter fuel payment from those on £13,500 a year? \p Rachel Reeves: As a result of the triple lock, which we have been able to protect, next month the basic state pension will increase by more than £400. By the end of this Parliament, the triple lock, which the shadow Chancellor opposes, will cost an additional £31 billion. That is the protection that we are giving to pensioners, as well as record investment in our NHS, which older people use with greater frequency than anyone else. \p Zarah Sultana: The UK is the 6th richest country in the world, yet more than one in three children and 25% of adults live in poverty. Since Labour came into power, 25,000 more children have been pushed into poverty due to the two-child benefit cap. Now, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, more than 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these cuts, including 50,000 children. I ask the Chancellor, who earns over £150,000 annually, who has accepted £7,500-worth of free clothing and who recently took freebie tickets to see Sabrina Carpenter, does she think that austerity 2.0 is the change that people really voted for? \p Rachel Reeves: There is nothing progressive and nothing Labour about pouring more money into a broken system. The changes that we are making will help young people who are not in education, employment or training, through targeted support. As I set out, the OBR has not scored any of our back to work programme—the biggest programme for many years—and it will do so in the autumn. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to get them into good, secure work that pays a decent wage. From next month we are increasing the national living wage by £1,400 for someone working full time. The Employment Rights Bill will ensure that people have security at work. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making. \p Adrian Ramsay: The Chancellor knows that our economy has been driven to the edge over the past 15 years, with ordinary people forced to bear the burden while a small minority have amassed extreme wealth. She could change that. Her own Back Benchers are lining up to argue for a wealth tax. Why will she not do the fair and right thing and introduce a tax on the very wealthiest, rather than launching austerity 2.0 and removing vital support from disabled and ill people? \p Rachel Reeves: The best thing that we can do for our constituents is build the homes that they desperately need. I have no understanding of why Green party Members voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill this week. What do they have against families getting homes and young people getting jobs? \p Amanda Martin: Today’s defence announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is fantastic news for my city. It delivers security for working people across the country and cements Portsmouth’s reputation as not just the historic home but the future home of the Royal Navy. After 14 years in which the Conservative party decimated all areas of our armed services, imposed three Portsmouth Ministers on my city and axed shipbuilding, it has fallen to this Government to once again fix the mess inherited from you—the people over there. Sorry, I almost said  “you lot”. Does she agree that the announcement will secure the future of the naval base and those serving our country? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is a proud advocate for her city, and this Government are a proud advocate for the people of Portsmouth. That is why we have put investment in the Portsmouth naval base in today’s statement. As we grow our defence spending to keep our country safe and secure, we want to ensure more good jobs that pay decent wages, to make Britain a defence industrial superpower, and to support those who serve on the frontline. \p Wendy Morton: Today, the Chancellor could have taken action to reverse the damage that she has done to people and businesses in my constituency and beyond, but she failed; she chose not to. What does she say to all the pensioners, farmers, businesses, charities, hospices and hard-working people who face her huge tax rises? \p Rachel Reeves: When I became Chancellor, I inherited from the Conservative party a £22 billion black hole, which we have taken action to address. I would say to the right hon. Lady’s constituents that they will now see a doctor or nurse more quickly than under the last Government, because NHS waiting lists have fallen for five months in a row. \p John Slinger: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main contrast between this Government and the last one is strength versus weakness? They were too weak to crack down on wasteful spending, to address the tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy, and to take on the blockers in the planning system. Does she further agree that while the Conservatives—the party of vested interests—seek to conserve what has failed, this Labour Government have the strength to take the tough, long-term decisions to build a better and much fairer Britain? \p Rachel Reeves: Today, the OBR has scored some of our planning measures, which will make the economy £6.8 billion bigger by the end of the Parliament, contributing £3.4 billion to our public finances and services. That is possible only because we are taking on the vested interests, and are getting Britain building by backing the builders, not the blockers. We are the Government increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Tories had 14 years to do that, but they failed. This Labour Government have done that in our first year. \p Josh Babarinde: Heartbreakingly, last week St Wilfrid’s Hospice in Eastbourne announced many redundancies, citing the national insurance increase as a reason. I have just received a message from Mrs Robinson at Motcombe school, which faces increased costs due to a catering supplier passing on the cost of the NIC hike. If the Chancellor will not increase the digital services tax to fund a reversal of that hike, how will these organisations be supported to keep doing their great work? \p Rachel Reeves: At the Budget, we set out tax increases on the wealthiest and on businesses to properly fund our public services. Constituents in Eastbourne will get to see a doctor or nurse a little more quickly, and will benefit from the breakfast clubs that we are rolling out  because we had the money to. Hon. Members cannot back increased investment in our public services, including the settlement for hospices, if they oppose raising the money to pay for it. \p Nadia Whittome: I understand that this Government inherited from the Conservative party a huge financial mess, caused by over a decade of austerity. However, what is the justification for cutting disability benefits—a third of disabled people are already in poverty—instead of taxing the growing wealth of the super-rich? A 2% tax on assets over £10 million could raise £24 billion a year. \p Rachel Reeves: At the Budget, we set out £40 billion-worth of tax increases; we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, put VAT on private schools and tightened the rules around inheritance tax. We made those decisions so that we could invest more in our public services, including in our schools and our hospitals. Indeed, we have now committed to lifting defence spending within the next two years to 2.5% of GDP. On welfare spending, there is nothing progressive about writing off a generation of young people, so our targeted, personalised support will help people get back into work, lift them out of poverty, and help them to contribute both to their family finances and to our nation’s finances. \p Katie Lam: The right hon. Lady talks of financial responsibility, but will she please tell us when Government bond yields hit their highest levels since the global financial crisis, and who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer then? If she needs a clue, we can bring her a mirror. \p Rachel Reeves: If we look at financial markets and follow them closely, we can see that the increases in bond yields in the UK, France and Germany have closely tracked each other. Global financial instability has affected countries around the world, and that is why it is so important that we continue to meet our fiscal rules, as I have set out today. \p Sam Rushworth: A moment ago, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) mentioned GDP per capita; I see that he asked his question and ran away. The truth is that GDP per capita increased by only 4.3% in the past 16 years, compared with 46% in the years prior. What matters to my constituents in the left-behind towns and villages of Bishop Auckland is not just growth, but growth that they can feel, and which has an impact for their pockets. What will the Chancellor do to ensure that working people feel the growth? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government want people in Bishop Auckland and constituents in all parts of our country to feel the benefits of growth through good jobs paying decent wages. That is why we are increasing the national living wage; making work pay; and backing the builders—not the blockers—who are creating new jobs, new homes for families, new transport infrastructure and new energy infrastructure. The OBR has said today that, compared with the plans we inherited, real household disposable  income per person is set to rise by £500 by the end of this Parliament. That shows the difference that the Government are making. \p Llinos Medi: Wales has a higher percentage of disabled people and a larger public sector workforce than the UK, so we will be hit hardest by these cruel cuts. All that damage for self-imposed fiscal rules. There have been five major changes to fiscal rules since 1997. Will the Chancellor change the fiscal rules now, so that she does not impose further austerity? \p Rachel Reeves: Last year in the Budget, we provided the biggest ever settlement for the Welsh Government, yet Plaid voted against that. I do not understand why the hon. Member does not want money to go to Wales and to her constituents. \p Polly Billington: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and in particular her recognition of the excellent work of Labour-run Thanet district council, which is building more social homes with local firms and employing local people, including local apprentices. The Government’s recent planning changes mean not only council homes for local people, but growth. Will she confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility has scored only the effect of the national planning policy framework changes, and not the effect of the upcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill? \p Rachel Reeves: I was pleased to note in my statement that Thanet has already come forward with plans to build affordable housing under the affordable housing plan, for which I set out more money. Opposition parties that abstain or vote against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are voting against homes for our constituents and jobs for our young people. On the Government side of the House, we back the builders, not the blockers. We back opportunities for young people and housing for our constituents. It is a shame that those parties do not do the same. \p Graham Stuart: The Chancellor claimed that growth was her top priority, yet she has taken the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and brought it to a shuddering halt. She promised that there would be no tax rises, but next week’s jobs tax will put tax rises on ordinary working people. Today, she has cut the housing numbers by 200,000 and put up borrowing by £18 billion in the next two years. Is it not time that the Prime Minister invited the Chancellor next door and said, “Rachel, you’re fired”? \p Rachel Reeves: The plans that we inherited from the previous Government saw the OECD forecast that the UK would have the slowest growth in the G7 this year. It is now forecasting us to have the second-highest growth. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making, moving us up the league tables. \p David Burton-Sampson: I thank the Chancellor and her team for the prudent work that they are doing to restore stability to our economy. Figures show that wages are already increasing in my constituency under this Labour Government, and inflation is falling. Does my right  hon. Friend agree that that, alongside the new living wage, worth £1,400 a year, will make work pay and start to lift more people out of poverty? \p Rachel Reeves: I was pleased to be able to announce in the Budget last year a 6.7% increase in the national living wage, as well as a record increase in the youth rate of the minimum wage. That will help lift working people—working families—out of poverty. That comes alongside our Employment Rights Bill, which will ensure greater security for those who go out to work. \p Sarah Dyke: Growth is not the word on the lips of farmers, whose confidence in the Government is at a low ebb following the family farm tax, the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive, and now possible departmental cuts, which could reduce the farming budget further. Charlie from Upton Bridge farm in Long Sutton told me that he is contemplating leaving his ground fallow due to the risk of a failed crop putting his farm further into debt. Will the Chancellor assure farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the country, that following the spending review, the Government are still committed to championing British farming while protecting the environment? \p Rachel Reeves: At the Budget, we put record investment into our farming sector, after being left plans by the previous Government that did not even involve their using all their farming budget. We are determined to give farmers the support that they need. \p Nesil Caliskan: I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I represent Barking, which she will know has some of the highest deprivation figures in the country, and where 20% of working adults have no qualifications whatsoever. Does she agree that it is only by our creating jobs and those people getting the qualifications that they need that those people can ever improve their life chances? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks passionately about expanding opportunities for her constituents in Barking. The changes to the apprenticeship levy and the growth and skills levy are about ensuring that more people, including her constituents, can access apprenticeship courses and foundation courses. Just this weekend, we were able to announce an additional 60,000 places on construction courses to help people get jobs that pay a decent wage and offer security. That is what the Government are all about. \p David Reed: Given that the Chancellor chose not to mention Chagos in her statement, and that she chose not to answer the shadow Chancellor’s question on Chagos, can the House assume that this disastrous deal will not be going ahead, and that, more importantly, the UK taxpayer will not be footing the bill? \p Rachel Reeves: As the hon. Gentleman will know, our Prime Minister and President Trump discussed these issues when our Prime Minister was at the White House recently. We continue to work on those plans.  The most important thing is that we protect our national security and can continue to operate out of that important base. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: Paragraph 1.14 of the OBR report outlines that the planned cuts to disability benefits will reduce personal independence payments for 800,000 claimants, and cut health-related universal credit for 3 million families. Is it not time that we asked those with the broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burden, rather than the poorest in our society? \p Rachel Reeves: As I have set out, the Office for Budget Responsibility does not assume in its numbers any changes in people going back to work. That is what we are going to work on, between the OBR, the DWP and the Treasury, over the summer, so that we develop those plans to ensure that people are not worse off but better off because they can progress into jobs that suit their abilities and needs. We want more people to have the fulfilment of a good job, with security, that pays a decent wage. \p Alex Brewer: In a statement with significant problems, I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to better military homes, which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Will she clarify how much and by when, and will that commitment include RAF Odiham in my constituency—or is it just for the constituencies that she listed, which happen to have Labour MPs? \p Rachel Reeves: We support military families wherever they are based in the United Kingdom. We will set out more detail in the spending review in June. In the past few months, we have already taken back into the public sector homes that were previously contracted out to the private sector so that we can make improvements to military accommodation, which I know will be welcomed in the hon. Lady’s constituency and by military families across our country. \p Sarah Coombes: My West Brom constituents work hard and pay their taxes, and they want to know that the Government treat that money with respect. I am glad that we finally have a Chancellor who is being careful with every pound of taxpayers’ money so that we can invest in the NHS, which has seen a 10% cut to the waiting list in my area. How is she drawing a line under the waste and chaos of the previous Government and finally putting our public finances back on a stable footing? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents, ensuring that the people of West Bromwich get a good deal from their public services and value for money when they pay their taxes. There was too much waste under the previous Government. That was exemplified during the pandemic, when so many contracts went to friends and donors. We have appointed a covid corruption commissioner because we want that money back in our public services, not in the hands of Tory friends and donors. \p Jeremy Corbyn: There are 4.3 million children living in poverty in our society, and 1.2 million people in receipt of PIP are about to lose it following the statement last week. The Chancellor  has put a huge amount of money into defence. Could she not think for a moment of reversing the decision last week to take £5 billion out of the welfare budget, and of ending the two-child benefit cap, which has driven so many children and families into really desperate poverty? \p Rachel Reeves: I will not make any apologies for putting more money in defence. This Labour Government take the defence of our country seriously, and so we should. We are the party that created NATO, and the leadership of the Labour party today will always defend our country. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on her action to end austerity by investing £26 billion in the NHS and £3 billion in education, raising defence budgets, and unleashing over £100 billion of additional capital investment to build the foundations of our economy. On the day after this Government voted through a pay rise for 3 million working people by raising the minimum wage, does she agree that it is only by making the tough decisions to restore stability and push ahead with our bold plans for reform that the Government can repair the terrible damage done by the Conservative party, deliver strong public services and get more money in people’s pockets? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for all his work to back growth and improve living standards for working people. I was pleased to announce in the spring statement £13 billion extra for capital spending during the course of this Parliament. We know that the previous Government always made the easy choice to cut capital spending, and the deterioration of infrastructure is why we are in the mess that we are today. We will not make those short-term decisions; we will invest to grow our economy, working with business to do so. \p Nick Timothy: The Chancellor’s trouble is that although her manifesto promised to limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, her Budget increased spending by £76 billion a year—eight times as much. She has previously said that she will not come back asking for more tax rises or more borrowing. Will she rule out both in the Budget later this year? \p Rachel Reeves: The Budget in autumn last year wiped the slate clean after 14 years of economic mismanagement by the Conservative party. We will not have to repeat a Budget like that because we are not going to inherit anything like that ever again. We have changed the rules so that the OBR always gets information now, rather than the information being hidden as it was by the previous Government. \p Clive Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) gave examples of alternative taxes to Labour’s national insurance increases, asking that big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies pay their fair share of tax. Can the Chancellor confirm that she has heard those Liberal Democrat alternatives, and will she explain why she is not listening to those fair and sensible proposals? \p Rachel Reeves: One thing that is scored in the OBR document today is the gambling levy that the Government have introduced. That money will be used to ensure that we regulate gambling properly in our country, and rightly so. \p Gregor Poynton: For defence companies in Scotland, UK Export Finance plays a crucial role in financing sales to our allies around the world, including Ukraine. Will the Chancellor outline how the increase in capacity for UK Export Finance will help defence companies in Scotland to create jobs in my Livingston constituency and strengthen our national defence? \p Rachel Reeves: Just two week ago, I was able to announce £2 billion extra for UK Export Finance specifically to help defence companies in the UK to export. As countries around the world, particularly in Europe, increase defence spending, I want to ensure that we get those contracts here in Britain to support our proud defence industry, including in places such as Livingston and Rosyth, where I met Babcock just a couple of weeks ago. \p Robin Swann: The Chancellor’s statement referred to people who were listening. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union was in the Public Gallery to hear her statement, which did not reference agriculture or farming at all. It talked about the country’s security and safety, but there was nothing on food safety. It spoke of not writing off a generation of young people, but her family farm tax will write off a generation of young farmers. What confidence can she give our agricultural sector? \p Rachel Reeves: With specific reference to agricultural property relief, people will not pay extra tax unless they have a farm worth around £3 million. More than two thirds of farms are not affected at all by the changes in that relief. For those who do pay the tax, it is at half the rate that anybody else pays, and they can pay it, interest-free, over a period of 10 years. That is very different from the inheritance tax bills that anybody else pays. \p Mark Ferguson: I welcome the Chancellor’s reference to the £13 billion of additional capital expenditure announced today. Will she put today’s statement into the context of the significant investments that have already been made and those that are forthcoming, and contrast that with the previous Government, who did not have a plan for long-term growth and abandoned communities like mine? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Gateshead, who rely on the infrastructure that our country needs, be it energy, digital or transport infrastructure, or the houses that all our constituents need. In the Budget last year I put £100 billion extra into capital spending during the course of this Parliament, and I have been able to announce an additional £13 billion today. Unlike the Conservative party, I am not willing to cut capital investment, because it is absolutely crucial to grow the economy and leverage the private sector investment that we need. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The Chancellor has made much of the Government’s investment in defence and desire to make the country a defence industrial superpower. I am keen to pitch for a slice of the protected £400 million for UK defence innovation. Huntingdon is the home of our defence intelligence capability, the US air force’s joint intelligence operations centre Europe, and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre. There is huge investment in sites such as the Alconbury Weald enterprise campus and Brampton Cross, and the potential redevelopment of Ministry of Defence land around RAF Wyton. It is the perfect location for defence start-ups, and with the arrival of several already in flight, the US Government are investing north of £500 million in Huntingdon alone. Will she make a similar commitment to Huntingdon and include it in her list of defence sites? \p Rachel Reeves: What a great pitch! I am sure that one of the Ministers from the Ministry of Defence will be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those opportunities. As we move to 2.5% of GDP spent on defence and 3% in the next Parliament, I am determined that that money benefits our troops in the UK but also supports us becoming a defence industrial superpower. I am sure that we can work with the hon. Gentleman to realise those ambitions for Huntingdon. \p Rosie Wrighting: The Conservatives left a £22 billion hole in our public finances and they continue to oppose every decision made by the Chancellor to clean up their mess. Can the Chancellor tell us how things would look now if the Conservatives had their way? \p Rachel Reeves: What it would mean for people in Kettering and around the country if we had continued under the plans of the previous Government is that interest rates would have remained high, inflation would have remained high and growth would continue to flatline, whereas the OBR today has forecast that real household disposable incomes will rise, growth will be higher and living standards will be higher because we have returned stability to the economy and we are backing the builders, not the blockers. [Interruption.] \p Max Wilkinson: I do not wish to interrupt the discussion on the Front Benches. I have another opportunity for the Chancellor. In Cheltenham, we have a scheme that can produce jobs and growth and will support the defence industry: the Golden Valley development next to GCHQ, which will be a key part of this country’s defence investment over the coming years. Will the Chancellor take it upon herself to work with Ministers in other Departments who already know about that to ensure that we get the investment that we deserve and that GCHQ workers deserve too? \p Rachel Reeves: I am proud of what GCHQ does to keep our country safe. Part of what we are doing around the defence budget, above the lift to 2.5%, is including some of the work of the Security Service that, increasingly, is crucial for our national security and defence. That is on top of the 2.5%. As we protect defence spending, it is right that we take into account GCHQ and other security agencies as well. I am very  happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we maximise the benefits for so many constituencies, including Cheltenham. \p Graeme Downie: May I thank the Chancellor for her statement and welcome the increase in defence spending, which represents a huge opportunity for Scottish workers? I was delighted to have her visit Rosyth in my constituency recently. Will she work to ensure a continuous shipbuilding programme in this country to maximise the opportunities for Scottish workers? Does she agree that it is utterly shameful that those workers have been ignored by the SNP for the past 18 years? Also, will she confirm that this Labour Government will always value the role of shipbuilding for our economy and our national defence? \p Rachel Reeves: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is just a shame that there are no SNP members in the Chamber—although there are so few of them—to hear what he said. Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to the SNP and ask them why they refuse to back the defence sector in the United Kingdom and specifically in Scotland. \p Adnan Hussain: It is estimated that in under five years there will be more than 3 million families in receipt of disability benefits who will lose financially as a result of today’s announcement, with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation. Is the Chancellor comfortable knowing that she has brought despair and horror to disabled people and their families across the country? \p Rachel Reeves: We have a very basic principle that people who deserve to be protected should be, that those who can work should and that we need a system that is sustainable. We do not have any of those three things today. That is why we are reforming our welfare system to give additional support for those with the highest needs, to give personalised, targeted and guaranteed support to help people back into work and to ensure that we have a system that is sustainable so that it is there for generations to come. \p Louise Jones: As the Chancellor will know, the east midlands is often at the bottom of investment league tables and we suffer through a lack of transport planning. Will the Chancellor outline how the extra public investment and the national wealth fund will change that and deliver for people in North East Derbyshire? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. People in North East Derbyshire will benefit from the additional homes, whether they are able to buy those homes, rent those homes or, indeed, build those homes, as we expand the number of construction apprenticeships and construct 10 new technical excellence colleges. They will also benefit from the increases in real household disposable income. When the economy grows, we want to have more money in people’s pockets and that is what the OBR today confirms will happen. \p Helen Morgan: Pharmacies such as Green End pharmacy in Whitchurch in my constituency are struggling with the impending hike in employer national insurance and business rates. In fact, they do not know what they are being paid for NHS services   this financial year, let alone next. Will the Chancellor confirm whether Pharmacy First will continue beyond the end of next week? \p Rachel Reeves: I am sure that the relevant Health Minister will be willing to meet with the hon. Lady to talk about that. Because of the investment that we put into our national health service at the Budget last year—more than £20 billion of additional funding—we are able to start to rebuild our NHS and reduce waiting lists. Indeed, we have done that now for five months in a row. \p Alex Baker: As we secure Britain’s role in a changing world, I welcome the Chancellor’s focus on defence innovation and I thank her for referencing my community, Aldershot and Farnborough. We are ready to serve.

When it comes to defence innovation, too many small and medium defence businesses in my community struggle to get access to the banking and finance facilities they need, often on the basis of self-imposed environmental, social and governance criteria. Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the investors and financial institutions that have responded to the campaign that I am leading with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), calling on our banks and our fund managers to broaden their approach so that we can defend our country, support Ukraine and fire up our industrial base? \p Rachel Reeves: I was pleased to mention my hon. Friend’s constituency in my statement. As the home of the British Army, on behalf of this Government, we thank the people of Aldershot and Farnborough for the service that they give our country every single day.

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance  of companies in the defence sector, whether big or small, being able to access finance. That has never  been more important than it is today, when the threats posed by Putin continue to grow. I therefore urge everyone in financial services to do their part to make sure that our fantastic defence start-ups have the money that  they need to grow and help defend our country and  our values. \p Judith Cummins: For the final question, I call Jim Allister. \p Jim Allister: Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. That is why we have not set a number for the reduction in the size of the civil service and instead have made it an admin target. We do not want the number of civil servants to fall and then the number of agency workers and consultancies to increase. Absolutely, this Government will learn from failed efforts, both of the UK Government under the Conservatives and other Administrations in the past. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Anna Gelderd: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the teaching and promotion of the Cornish language in educational institutions; to make provision about the recognition of the Cornish language and Cornish heritage; and for connected purposes.

Today is not just about preserving the Cornish language, or Kernewek in Cornish; it is about protecting a cultural identity that is woven into the fabric of Cornwall’s past, present and our future. Cornish can be traced back 4,000 years. Over that time, Cornish speakers were driven further west due to conflicts and invasions from Europe, but it was our fishermen who kept the language alive until it faded in the 18th century. Despite this, Cornish was officially recognised as a regional language by the UK Government in 2002 under part 2 of the European charter for regional or minority languages.

This was a landmark moment, affirming that Cornish—alongside Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots—is a language to be protected and promoted. The UK Government have committed to supporting those languages, yet Cornish remains at part 2 status while four of the other five Celtic languages have part 3 protection, which offers stronger commitments in areas such as education, public life and the media. In November 2024, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages issued recommendations urging the UK Government to take stronger measures to support minority languages, including enhancing educational provision and promoting language awareness. This Bill would work in lockstep with those recommendations and strengthen the UK’s commitment to linguistic diversity.

Recognition of Kernewek is growing, but it needs sustained support. Cornwall council and the Cornish National Minority Working Group have championed its survival through initiatives such as Go Cornish, which now reaches over 8,000 primary school children in 51 schools, including Dobwalls community primary and Menheniot primary school in South East Cornwall, yet Cornish is still not formally embedded in secondary or higher education. A GCSE in Cornish once existed, but was discontinued in 1996. The option to learn should always be available, and the Government’s own charter commitments state that minority language education should be strengthened, and we must ensure that learning Cornish is a viable, accessible option—not a requirement, but a choice for those who wish to engage with their cultural heritage.

Teaching Cornish should not be an added burden for overstretched schools, but rather an exciting opportunity for students who wish to learn. The Go Cornish programme proves that effective teaching can be done without increasing teacher workload, as it provides structured resources, sound files and low administration learning models. It aligns with Ofsted’s cultural capital framework, which encourages schools to celebrate cultural traditions and histories. Beyond schools, there must be provision to provide lifelong learning opportunities. At present, hundreds of people sign up for Kernewek classes each year, and universities such as Exeter and Cambridge  have previously offered Kernewek courses. If Welsh and Gaelic can be successfully integrated into higher education, why not Cornish?

Language visibility in public life is crucial for its survival. Currently, Cornish does not have official status in Cornwall, nor is there any legislative requirement for its promotion. However, Cornwall council has worked hard since 2013 to implement a strategy promoting the language. I want to see this work and local efforts strengthened by increasing the use of Cornish in road signs, place names and public services. Kernewek is a beautiful and expressive language, reflected in the meanings behind some of the names of our towns and villages. Menheniot means “sanctuary of St Neot”. Cargreen translates to “seal rock”. Looe means “sea lake” and Luxulyan signifies the “holy place of a saint”.

Understanding these meanings not only improves our knowledge of the language but deepens our sense of belonging and connection to Cornwall’s history, landscape and identity. The Media Act 2024 now ensures that public service broadcasters must consider content in regional and minority languages, including Cornish, yet obstacles remain to efforts to enhance visibility and normalise everyday use of the language in media such as local radio, television and online platforms.

Cornwall’s distinct culture is not just historical; it is living and evolving. Supporting Cornish in public life is not about excluding English but about embracing bilingualism as a strength. We have seen this work successfully in Wales and Scotland, and Cornwall should not be left behind. Supporting Cornish language and heritage is not just a cultural necessity; it also makes economic sense. Research commissioned by Glasgow city council in 2022 found that Gaelic contributed £21.6 million to Glasgow’s economy through tourism, cultural events and branding. Cornwall has its own recognised identity and we have the same potential.

Tourism is a cornerstone of Cornwall’s economy but it must be sustainable and beneficial for local communities. Research published in 2021, has shown that technological advancements leading to globalisation have resulted in an increased trend of tourists looking for a unique, authentic experiences, and cultural tourism is a growing market. Kernewek events, heritage experiences and bilingual signage can enhance visitors’ experience while reinforcing our local identity. This is not about selling our identity; it is about strengthening it. The commercialisation of linguistic heritage must be done responsibly to ensure it benefits Cornish people first and foremost.

Cornwall’s language and culture are deeply connected to our natural environment, and it is not just aesthetic; it is part of our identity. Cornwall and its people have always lived in partnership with nature. We are of the sea and the land, working in harmony in the environment to grow and thrive. This is demonstrated in Cornwall that we see today. Our landscape and coastlines are beautiful, drawing tourism from across the UK and internationally and serving as the backdrop for brilliant movies and TV shows, such as “Beyond Paradise”. Although the show is set in Devon, it is actually filmed in Looe, Whitsand bay and other beautiful locations across South East Cornwall. Clearly Devon recognises the beauty of Cornwall.

Even our wildlife carries Cornish identity, and none more so than the Cornish chough, our iconic red-billed black-feathered crow. Once lost in Cornwall in the  mid-20th century, it was successfully reintroduced in 2001, a symbol of resilience and revival. And just as the chough has returned, so too can Kernewek flourish with the right protection and support. The Duchy is also visited by iconic species such as humpback whales, basking sharks and blue sharks, while our land nurtures unique flora such as the Cornish heath, a vibrant purple flower that thrives on our specific rugged cliffs. In Cornwall, we are proudly unique and distinct.

The revival of Cornish has come through grassroots efforts, supported by Cornwall council and cultural organisations such as Golden Tree Productions, the Cornish Language Board and the Institute of Cornish Studies, but national support is needed to secure its future. Cornish is more than just words. It is a link to our history, our stories, our identity and our future. The promotion of Cornish language and heritage is about ensuring that Cornwall’s culture and language have the recognition they deserve, and the support to flourish for generations to come. My a generth pubonan dhe dhyski nebes Kernewek. I encourage everyone to learn some Cornish. Meur ras. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Anna Gelderd, Jayne Kirkham, Noah Law, Perran Moon, Andrew George and Ben Maguire present the Bill.

Anna Gelderd accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 211). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (age restrictions on sale of tobacco products etc)—

(a) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—

‘(b) the accused had taken such steps as may be prescribed to establish the customer’s age.’;

(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In section 4A (age restrictions on sale of vaping products etc)—

(a) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—

‘(b) the accused had taken such steps as may be prescribed to establish the customer’s age.’;

(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).

(4) In section 4B (age verification policy), in subsection (5) omit paragraph (b).”—(Ashley Dalton.)

Someone accused of selling things contrary to the age of sale restrictions in Scotland has a defence if they checked the customer’s age on certain documents. The clause allows other steps to be specified to establish a person’s age. The purpose is to accommodate digital methods of verification.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Ashley Dalton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Review of contaminated e-liquid—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the prevalence of contaminated e-liquid in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) The review required under subsection (1), must include, but is not limited to an assessment of—

(a) the awareness of the issue of contaminated e-liquid,

(b) the extent of e-liquids found spiked with illegal substances,

(c) the measures in place to tackle the importation of contaminated e-liquid,

(d) measures used by other jurisdictions to combat the importation and prevalence of contaminated e-liquid, and

(e) options for further regulating e-liquid to limit the dangers of contamination.

(3) In conducting the review required under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may consult with whoever they see fit.

(4) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament following the conclusion of the review.

(5) The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations under this section including the power to make—

(a) offences relating to the contamination of e-liquid, including the distribution, importation, supply and merchandising or tampering of such products,

(b) offences relating to the online sale of e-liquid containing illegal substances,

(c) provisions to improve the ability to identify, test and intercept contaminated e-liquid, and

(d) provisions recommended in the review implemented by subsection (1).

(6) For the purposes of this section,

‘contaminated e-liquid’ means e-liquid which has been mixed with or includes an illegal substance.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review and publish a report on the impact of contaminated e-liquid and ways to reduce its prevalence. It would give the Secretary of State the powers to make regulations in relation to curbing the harm caused by contaminated e-liquid.

New clause 2—Ban on the supply of plastic cigarette filters—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) In this section,

‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, within two years, which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

New clause 3—Amendment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—

“(1) The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, after subsection (4), insert—

‘(4A) This section does not apply in relation to Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.’”

This new clause asserts the primacy of the regulations made in this Bill which affect Northern Ireland in relation to the EU tobacco directive 2014/40/EU.

New clause 4—Ban on manufacture and sales of high-strength nicotine pouches—

“(1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength nicotine pouch.

(2) It is an offence to—

(a) sell or expose for sale a high-strength nicotine pouch, or

(b) offer or expose a high-strength nicotine pouch for sale.

(3) It is an offence for a person to have a high-strength nicotine pouch in their possession with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.

(4) In this section ‘high-strength nicotine pouch’ means a nicotine pouch that—

(a) is intended for oral use,

(b) is not intended to be inhaled,

(c) does not contain tobacco, and

(d) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per pouch.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.

(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”

This new clause provides for a ban on the manufacture and sale of high-strength nicotine pouches.

New clause 5—Report on sale of vaping products to facilitate child sexual exploitation—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report on—

(a) the potential prevalence of retailers with a personal or premises licence selling vaping products which facilitate child sexual exploitation; and

(b) whether licensing authorities have adequate powers to investigate retailers which may be connected to the sale of vaping products to facilitate child sexual exploitation.

(2) A copy of this report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) In this section—

‘vaping’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 (see section 48),

‘licensing authority’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 (see section 16),

‘personal licence’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 (see section 16),

‘premises licence’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 (see section 16).”

New clause 6—Requirement for retailers of vapes in England to include age-verification technology—

“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations making it an offence for a tobacco retailer who sells vapes on premises in England to sell vapes that do not contain approved age-gating technology.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the requirements with which any age-gating technology must comply, which must include (but need not be limited to)—

(a) the information, including biometric information, that a user must provide to the age-gating technology in order to be able to use the vape;

(b) the steps that the age-gating technology must require the user to take in order to verify their identity and that they are aged 18 or over before first activating the vape for use;

(c) the steps which the age-gating technology must require the user to take in order to verify their identity following activation of the vape, and the frequency with, and circumstances in, which the age-gating technology must require these steps to be taken;

(d) the requirements with which the age-gating technology must comply in order to ensure the security of the information, including personal data, provided to it by users;

(e) the technical specifications which the age-gating technology must meet in order to ensure that it is compatible with vapes made by different manufacturers.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations under this section make further provision about requirements with which tobacco retailers must comply.

(4) In this section, ‘age-gating technology’ means technology designed to prevent the use of vaping products by persons aged under 18.

(5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would introduce a requirement for retailers of vapes in England to include age-verification technology.

New clause 7—Requirement for retailers of vapes in Wales to include age-verification technology—

“(1) The Welsh Ministers may make regulations making it an offence for a tobacco retailer who sells vapes on premises in Wales to sell vapes that do not contain approved age-gating technology.

(2) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations specify the requirements, with which any age-gating technology must comply, which must include (but need not be limited to)—

(a) the information, including biometric information, that a user must provide to the age-gating technology in order to be able to use the vape;

(b) the steps that the age-gating technology must require the user to take in order to verify their identity and that they are aged 18 or over before first activating the vape for use;

(c) the steps which the age-gating technology must require the user to take in order to verify their identity following activation of the vape, and the frequency with, and circumstances in, which the age-gating technology must require these steps to be taken;

(d) the requirements with which the age-gating technology must comply in order to ensure the security of the information, including personal data, provided to it by users;

(e) the technical specifications which the age-gating technology must meet in order to ensure that it is compatible with vapes made by different manufacturers.

(3) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations under subsection (2) make further provision about requirements with which tobacco retailers must comply.

(4) In this section, “age-gating technology” means technology designed to prevent the use of vaping products by persons aged under 18.

(5) Before making regulations under this section the Welsh Ministers must consult any persons that the Welsh Ministers consider it appropriate to consult.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would introduce a requirement for retailers of vapes in Wales to include age-verification technology.

New clause 8—Prohibition of advertising of vaping, nicotine and heated tobacco products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of this Act being passed make provisions by regulations for the prohibition of advertising of—

(a) a vaping product; or

(b) a nicotine product; or

(c) a heated tobacco product.

(2) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause commits the government to consult on proposals for prohibiting the advertising of vaping, nicotine or heated tobacco products.

New clause 9—Marketing of products to existing smokers—

“(1) The Secretary of State, or a person authorised by the Secretary of State, may make provision about the nature and inclusion of health warnings or disclaimers relating to a relevant product to ensure that the product is marketed exclusively to existing smokers as an alternative to smoking.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant product’ refers to—

(a) a vape, or

(b) a nicotine product.

(3) Compliance with this section is considered a defence to a charge in relation to an offence under Part 6.”

This new clause will allow the Secretary of State to place an additional disclaimer or warning on products.

New clause 10—Displays of products or prices in England—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose limitations or requirements on retailers in relation to the display, in the course of business, of—

(a) relevant products in a place in England where the products are offered for sale,

(b) empty retail packaging of relevant products in a place in England where the products are offered for sale,

(c) prices of relevant products in a place in England where the products are offered for sale, or

(d) advertisements for relevant products.

(2) In subsection (1), reference to a product includes anything that represents the product.

(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) must make provision—

(i) for ensuring that an adult is able to be informed that a premises sells a related product,

(ii) for ensuring that a consenting adult is able to view the related products and information relating to them,

(iii) relating to the appropriateness of a display to ensure that it does not appeal to children, and

(iv) relating to the location of a display in a place in England where the products are offered for sale;

(b) may create offences for a failure to comply with the regulations;

(c) must provide for any offence to be punishable–

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;

(ii) on conviction or indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both;

(d) are subject to public consultation;

(e) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(4) Compliance with regulations made under subsection (3) is considered a defence to a charge in relation to an offence under Part 6.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

‘consenting adult’ means an adult who has entered any licensed premises that sells nicotine, vapes, and tobacco products;

‘relevant products’ mean—

(a) tobacco products,

(b) vaping products, or

(c) nicotine products.”

This new clause will allow for the Secretary of State to restrict how vapes and nicotine products are advertised in store windows and in store, while ensuring that adult smokers are still able to determine that a premises sells a product.

New clause 12—Review of provisions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, in consultation with the appropriate ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—

(a) carry out a review of the provisions for relevant products in—

(i) sections 1 to 6 (sale of tobacco etc);

(ii) sections 50 to 55 (Part 2 Sale and Distribution: Scotland: sale of tobacco etc);

(iii) sections 68 to 72 (Part 2 Sale and Distribution Northern Ireland sale of tobacco etc);

(iv) sections 90 to 93 (Product requirements etc);

(v) section 94 (Non-compliant images);

(vi) sections 101 and 102 (Matters dealt with by 2016 Regulations);

(vii) Part 6 (Advertising and Sponsorship);

(b) prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review;

(c) lay the report before Parliament.

(2) The review in subsection (1) must—

(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the provisions as set out under subsection (1)(a),

(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and

(c) make a recommendation on whether the provisions as set out under subsection (1)(a) remain appropriate and necessary.

(3) The first review under this section must be published and laid before Parliament before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025 is passed.

(4) If the review recommends under subsection (2)(c) that one or more of the provisions set out under subsection (1)(a) are no longer appropriate or necessary, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (5) to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within a period of 28 sitting days beginning immediately after the review is laid before Parliament under subsection (3).

(5) The form of the motion in subsection (4) is—

‘That the provisions of sections 1 to 6, 50 to 55, 68 to 72, 90 to 94, 101 and 102 and Part 6 (Advertising and Sponsorship) of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025 should expire.’

(6) If both Houses of Parliament approve the motion in the form set out in subsection (5) (or in such form as may be subsequently amended by the House to specify one or more of the provisions of sections 1 to 6, 50 to 55, 68 to 72, 90 to 94, 101 and 102 and Part 6), moved by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (4), the provisions specified in the motion shall expire at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the second House approves the motion.

(7) Subsequent reports must be published at intervals not exceeding five years.

(8) In this subsection, ‘Relevant products’ refers to—

(a) tobacco products;

(b) nicotine products.”

This new clause requires a review of the necessity of provisions relating to the sale restrictions for tobacco products and nicotine products. Published every 5 years, the review could recommend that certain provisions are no longer required, and Parliament would have an opportunity to expire them.

New clause 13—Reports on roadmap to a smoke-free United Kingdom—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, on or before the relevant day and at least once every five years after that day, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) how the Secretary of State expects the smoke-free target will be achieved;

(b) the steps proposed to achieve that target (which may include the setting of interim targets);

(c) an analysis of statistical data relating to the achievement of the smoke-free target.

(2) The reports must set out targets and proposed steps relating to geographical areas or categories of people in respect of which there are higher than average rates of smoking.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the appropriate national authorities when preparing the reports.

(4) In this section—

(a) ‘appropriate national authority’ means—

(i) Welsh Ministers,

(ii) Scottish Ministers, and

(iii) Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland.

(b) ‘relevant day’ means the last day before 25 December 2026 which is a sitting day for both Houses of Parliament;

(c) ‘the smoke-free target’ means the end of the smoking of tobacco products in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament five-yearly reports containing a roadmap to a smoke-free country including targets and specific interventions for populations with high prevalence rates.

New clause 14—Prohibition on supply of cigarette filters—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations having the effect of prohibiting the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) Subsections (6), (8), (9), (10), (10A), (10B), (10C) and (10D) of section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under those sections.

(3) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as applied by subsection (2) in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) In this section, ‘cigarette filter’ means a filter which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready-made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters.

New clause 15—Advertising exemptions for specialist vaping retailers—

“(1) A person does not commit an offence under any of the sections 114 to 118 in relation to an advertisement whose purpose or effect is to promote a vaping product if the advertisement—

(a) Is in a specialist vaping shop

(b) Is not visible from outside the specialist vaping shop

(c) Complies with the requirements (if any) specified by the appropriate national authority in regulations as to the inclusion of health warnings and information.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

(3) In this section—

‘appropriate national authority’ —

(a) In relation to specialist vaping shops in England, means the Secretary of State,

(b) In relation to specialist vaping shops in Wales, means Welsh Ministers,

(c) In relation to specialist vaping shops in Scotland, means Scottish Ministers, and

(d) In relation to specialist vaping shops in Northern Ireland, means the Department of Health for Northern Ireland;

‘shop’ includes a self-contained part of a shop (and, in relation to a self-contained part of a shop,

‘premises’ means that self-contained part);

‘specialist vaping shop’ means a shop selling vaping products by retail (whether or not it sells other things) more than 90% of whose sales on the premises in quest derive from the sale of vaping products and vaping accessories.

(4) For the purposes of determining whether a shop is a specialist vaping shop the sales are to be measured by the sale price—

(a) During the most recent period of 12 months for which accounts are available, or

(b) During the period for which the shop has been established, if it has not been established long enough for 12 months’ accounts to be available.”

This new clause would enable specialist vaping retailers to operate and provide free advice and consultations to smokers who are trying to find the right product for them to quit.

New clause 16—Online sale of tobacco products—

“(1) It is an offence to supply a tobacco product through an internet service, whether by way of sale or not.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

‘internet service’ means a service that is made available by means of the internet, even if it’s made available using a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service as defined in Section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003.”

This new clause creates an offence of selling tobacco products online.

New clause 17—Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme with one or more of the following purposes—

(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any producer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,

(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any producer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products,

(c) providing for any producer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.

(2) In this section—

‘importer’ in relation to tobacco products, and “tobacco products” have the meaning as in Part 5 (see section 112),

‘producer’ in relation to tobacco products, is to be construed in accordance with the meaning of ‘production’ in Part 5 (see section 112).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers.

New clause 18—Consultation on licensing regulations—

“(1) Within two months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations for the licensing of retail sale of tobacco products etc in England.

(2) Following the publication of the draft regulation as set out in subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence seeking views on the efficacy and suitability of the draft regulations and invite the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise the draft regulations.

(3) After six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence required by subsection (2) and any recommendations of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee.

(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 168(4) bringing sections 16 to 18 and Schedules 1 and 2 into force until the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations for the licensing of retail sale of tobacco products etc in England and ensure they receive parliamentary scrutiny.

New clause 19—Reports on illegal sale of tobacco and vaping products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare an annual report on the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products in the United Kingdom; and

(b) lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) Each report must provide details in the United Kingdom of—

(a) the estimated amount and value of illegal, counterfeit and contraband cigarettes and other tobacco products available for sale;

(b) the estimated amount and value of illegal or non-compliant vapes available for sale;

(c) the action taken to tackle the illicit trade of tobacco, tobacco products, vaping devices and vaping products; and

(d) an assessment of the impact of the illicit trade of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products on public health and safety.

(3) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(4) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”

This new clause would require that the Government produce annual reports on the rate of sale and availability of illegal tobacco and vaping products and their impact on public health and safety.

New clause 20—Age verification requirement for online sales of vaping devices and products—

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) continues to operate an online vaping product business, and

(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of online sales of vaping products and devices.

(2) An ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish and ensure the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product (the ‘customer’) is not under 18 years of age.

(3) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (2).

(4) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—

(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,

(b) documents that may be used as evidence of a customer’s age,

(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling vaping products,

(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed on websites; and

(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(6) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(7) In this section—

‘the appropriate national authority’ means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,

‘online vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail online.”

This new clause introduces a requirement on online vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy vaping products online. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland.

New clause 21—Prohibition on manufacture and retail of high-capacity count vaping devices—

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce regulations relating to the design, manufacture and sale of vaping devices and products that ensure—

(a) Vaping devices must not be designed or manufactured in a way that allows refill containers, modular attachments, or third-party modifications that increase e-liquid capacity beyond the limit of 2ml per tank or pod, which includes, but is not limited to detachable extensions, multi-pod configurations, and external refill reservoirs.

(b) Any vaping device must contain a fixed, non-modifiable single-use tank or pod with a maximum capacity of 2ml.

(c) Refill e-liquid containers must be limited to a maximum of 10ml per bottle and must not be sold in forms that enable direct integration with a vaping device as an extended tank or automated refill mechanism.

(d) No manufacturer or retailer shall promote, sell, or advertise modification kits, refill systems, or accessory attachments designed to contravene the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 restrictions on vaping device capacity.

(2) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) Manufacture, import, distribute, or sell a vaping device or accessory that does not comply with the regulatory requirements set out in subsection (1).

(b) Advertise, market, or sell components that facilitate increasing a device’s effective e-liquid capacity beyond the legal limit.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2)(a) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £20,000 per violation or a ban on further sales within the UK market.

(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2)(b) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £10,000 per violation and may be subject to further regulatory action, including product recall or withdrawal from sale.”

This new clause would seek the introduction of regulations and new offences to prohibit the manufacture, design and retail sale of high-capacity count vaping devices.

Amendment 103, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

This amendment removes the generational ban on selling tobacco products to people born on or after 1 January 2009.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 21, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.

Amendment 38, page 1, line 7, leave out “a tobacco product” and insert

“cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”.

Government amendment 47.

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

“shown that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Government amendments 48 and 49.

Amendment 104, page 2, line 10, leave out clause 2.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “18” and insert “21”.

This amendment makes it an offence to purchase tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers on behalf of a person under the age of 25, rather than a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 12, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Amendment 39, page 2, line 13, leave out “a tobacco product” and insert

“cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 38.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 18, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Government amendment 50.

Amendment 105, page 3, line 3, leave out clause 5.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 106, page 3, line 25, leave out clause 6.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 11, page 3, line 32, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 21 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Government amendments 51 to 59.

Amendment 1, in clause 38, page 20, line 19, leave out from “be” to the end of line and insert

“be allocated by the relevant Local Authority to public health projects.”

This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives as determined by Local Authorities.

Amendment 2, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert

“such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Authorities”.

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 1.

Government amendments 60 to 63.

Amendment 107, page 25, line 26, leave out clause 50.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 40, in clause 50, page 25, line 30, after “subsection (1)” insert—

“(i) for ‘a tobacco product’ substitute ‘cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)’, and”.

This amendment exempts tobacco products other than cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco from the offence of selling tobacco products to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

Amendment 12, page 25, line 30, leave out “‘born on or after 1 January 2009’” and insert “‘under the age of 21’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 13, page 25, line 33, leave out

“‘born on or after 1 January 2009 (“the customer) to have been born before that date”’”

and insert

“‘under the age of 21 (“the customer”) to be aged 21 or over’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 14, page 25, line 37, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 15, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 41, page 26, line 6, leave out “a tobacco product” and insert

“cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 40.

Amendment 42, page 26, line 28, after “subsection (1)” insert—

“(i) for “a tobacco product” substitute “cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”, and”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 40.

Amendment 16, page 26, line 28, leave out

“‘born on or after 1 January 2009’”

and insert

“‘under the age of 21’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 17, page 26, line 30, leave out

“‘born on or after 1 January 2009’”

and insert “‘under 21’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 18, page 26, line 33, leave out

“‘born on or after 1 January 2009’”

and insert

“‘under the age of 21’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Government amendment 64.

Amendment 108, page 35, line 24, leave out clause 68.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 19, page 35, line 28, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 43, page 35, line 30, leave out “a tobacco product” and insert

“cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”.

This amendment exempts tobacco products other than cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco from the offence of selling tobacco products to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

Government amendment 65.

Amendment 20, page 35, line 37, leave out

“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert

“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Government amendments 66 and 67.

Amendment 109, page 36, line 13, leave out clause 69.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 21, page 36, line 16, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Amendment 22, page 36, line 18, leave out “18” and insert “21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Amendment 23, page 36, line 19, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Amendment 44, page 36, line 21, leave out “a tobacco product” and insert

“cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 43.

Amendment 24, page 36, line 26, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 6.

Government amendment 68.

Amendment 110, page 37, line 19, leave out clause 72.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 25, in clause 72, page 37, line 27, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Government amendments 69 to 79.

Amendment 86, in clause 90, page 50, line 32, at end insert—

“(da) cigarette filters;”.

This amendment enables the Secretary of State to make provisions about the retail packaging of cigarette filters and the composition of individual products contained in an individual pack of products outlined in Clause 90(1).

Amendment 87, page 51, line 13, at end insert—

“(ja) the composition of individual products contained in an individual pack;”.

This amendment enables the Secretary of State to make provisions about the retail packaging of cigarette filters and the composition of individual products contained in an individual pack of products outlined in Clause 90(1).

Amendment 36, page 51, line 30, delete “shape” and insert “design, shape or interoperability”.

This amendment empowers ministers to regulate the design and interoperability of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high-puff count vaping devices.

Amendment 37, in clause 92, page 52, line 3, after “flavour” insert “descriptors”.

This amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to make provisions about the flavour descriptors of relevant products.

Amendment 88, in clause 110, page 60, line 35, leave out from “consult” to end of line 36 and insert

“any persons or bodies as appear to him or her representative of the interests concerned.”

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has to consult all relevant parties before making regulations, rather than just those that they deem appropriate.

Government amendment 80.

Amendment 90, in clause 114, page 63, line 16, after “product,” insert

“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.

This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.

Amendment 46, in clause 120, page 68, line 22, at end insert—

“(ca) it is, when in relation to the advertising of vaping products or nicotine products, in a location in which it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present is aged 18 or over.”

This amendment would allow for the advertising of vaping or nicotine products within locations where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18.

Amendment 91, in clause 125, page 73, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) No offence is committed under this Part if—

(a) it is for the purposes of an interaction between a representative for the product and a member of the public, and

(b) the representative for the product has taken reasonable measures to ensure that the member of the public is aged over 18 and is an existing tobacco or nicotine user.”

This amendment will allow for vapes and nicotine products to be promoted through one-to-one interaction between individuals representing the product and adults who are already existing smokers or nicotine users.

Amendment 85, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to end of line 15 and insert

“a place in England that is—

(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, nursery, school, college or higher education premises as smoke-free areas.

Amendment 84, page 77, line 9, leave out from “place” to the end of line 12 and insert

“or description of place in England that is not smoke-free under section 2.

(1A) The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed.

(1B) The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if they are advised by the Department for Health and Social Care's Chief Scientific Adviser that there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke or, if said place is—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

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

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, nursery, school, college or higher education premises, or places with significant risk of second-hand smoke as smoke-free areas.

Amendment 92, page 77, line 12, at end insert—

“(1A) 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 provides that regulations to designate places as smoke-free may only be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons being exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

Amendment 82, in clause 137, page 78, leave out lines 5 to 12.

This amendment removes the proposed power for the Secretary of State to create defences for performances. This protects the health of actors in the workplace and prevents the promotion of smoking through artistic means.

Amendment 83, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 21.

This amendment removes the proposed power for the Secretary of State to create defences for performances. This protects the health of actors in the workplace and prevents the promotion of smoking through artistic means.

Amendment 93, in clause 139, page 79, line 13, at end insert—

“(1A) 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, the use of vapes may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using vapes.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate places as vape-free may only be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to adverse health effects.

Amendment 94, in clause 140, page 82, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) 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, the use of heated tobacco devices may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using heated tobacco devices.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate places as heated tobacco-free may only be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to adverse health effects.

Amendment 95, in clause 142, page 85, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) Premises may be prescribed as no-smoking premises only if in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion there is a significant risk that, without prescribing them, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

This amendment provides that regulations to prescribe premises as smoke-free may only be made if the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons being exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

Amendment 96, in clause 144, page 90, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) Premises may be prescribed as vape-free premises only if in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion there is a significant risk that, without prescribing them, the use of vapes may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using vapes.”

This amendment provides that regulations to prescribe premises as vape-free may only be made if the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to a significant risk of adverse health effects.

Amendment 97, in clause 145, page 92, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Premises may be prescribed as heated tobacco-free premises only if in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion there is a significant risk that, without prescribing them, the use of heated tobacco devices may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using heated tobacco devices.”

This amendment provides that regulations to prescribe premises as heated tobacco-free may only be made if the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to a significant risk of adverse health effects.

Amendment 98, in clause 150, page 98, line 40, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations may designate a place or vehicle as vape-free only if the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that doing so is likely to contribute towards the promotion of public health.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate a place or vehicle as vape-free may only be made if the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that this is likely to contribute towards the promotion of public health.

Amendment 99, in clause 151, page 105, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations may designate a place or vehicle as heated tobacco-free only if the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that doing so is likely to contribute towards the promotion of public health.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate a place or vehicle as heated tobacco-free may only be made if the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that this is likely to contribute towards the promotion of the health of the people of Wales.

Amendment 100, in clause 153, page 108, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) The Department may designate a place or description of place under this Article only if satisfied that, without the designation, persons present there would be likely to be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate places as smoke-free may only be made if the Northern Ireland Department is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons being exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

Amendment 101, in clause 155, page 110, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The Department may designate a place or vehicle under this Article only if the Department is satisfied there is a significant risk that, without a designation, the use of vapes may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using vapes.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate places as vape-free may only be made if the Northern Ireland Department is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to adverse health effects.

Amendment 102, in clause 156, page 113, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) The Department may designate a place or vehicle under this Article only if the Department is satisfied there is a significant risk that, without a designation, the use of heated tobacco devices may have adverse effects on the health of persons present there who are not using heated tobacco devices.”

This amendment provides that regulations to designate places as heated tobacco-free may only be made if the Northern Ireland Department is satisfied that they are necessary to avoid persons present there being exposed to adverse health effects.

Amendment 89, in clause 168, page 120, line 39, leave out from “force” to end of line 41 and insert

“on such a date as the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint following the consultation on licensing regulations (see section (Consultation on licensing regulations)).”

See explanatory statement for NC18.

Government amendment 81.

Amendment 26, in schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 21 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 27, page 132, line 7, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 21 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 28, page 132, line 12, leave out

“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 21 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 29, page 132, line 38, leave out

“wedi cael ei eni cyn 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert

“yn 21 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 30, page 133, line 2, leave out

“wedi cael ei eni ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 21 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 111, page 133, line 15, leave out paragraph 5.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 103.

Amendment 31, page 133, line 16, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 32, page 133, line 21, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 33, page 133, line 26, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 45, page 133, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section, “tobacco products” means cigarettes or hand rolling tobacco within the meaning of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/829).”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 38.

Amendment 34, page 134, line 9, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4.

Amendment 35, page 134, line 14, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 21”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 4. \p Ashley Dalton: I would like to start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their invaluable contributions during the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular, members of the Public Bill Committee for providing insight, scrutiny and debate. I am honoured to have taken on responsibility for this Bill. It is a watershed piece of legislation and the most significant public health intervention since the ban on smoking  in public places in 2007. It will establish a smokefree generation by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the UK so that a child turning 16 this year will never be able to be legally sold tobacco, saving countless lives in the process. It will strengthen existing powers to reduce the harms of second-hand smoke in public spaces. In keeping with our manifesto commitment to the British people, it will outlaw the manipulative promotion of vapes to children to protect the next  generation from becoming hooked on nicotine. Finally, it will implement robust measures to strengthen enforcement activity.

I do not need to tell anyone in this Chamber that tobacco kills—we all know that. What hon. Members may not know is just how much it kills, the rate at which it kills, and the devastation it causes for individuals, families and communities across the country. Let me remind hon. Members that tobacco kills more people than any other preventable cause of death. Around 80,000 people in the UK lose their lives to tobacco every year. It robs an average of 10 years off the life expectancy of smokers. It substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions throughout people’s lives, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, dementia and asthma. This daily tragedy continues unabated, with someone being admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute, day in, day out, with no end in sight.

Tobacco harms are not felt equally either. Our most disadvantaged communities suffer most, with 230,000 households living in smoking-induced poverty. In Blackpool, 17.5% of pregnant women still smoke at the time of delivery compared with 2.8% in Kensington and Chelsea. Over a quarter of people with a long-term mental health condition smoke.

Beyond the immeasurable cost to lives in the UK, the staggering economic impact of tobacco on our NHS cannot be ignored. The treatment of smoking-related diseases consumes approximately £3 billion a year of vital NHS and social care resources. The cost of smoking to our economy is even greater: £18 billion is lost in productivity every year, far outweighing the tax receipts it brings in of around £9 billion. The Bill is a vital step to break the devastating cycle of tobacco addiction and safeguard future generations from a lifetime of ill health.

But the world moves forward, and we cannot ignore the alarming rise of youth vaping. While vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, children should never vape. However, in the past five years, youth vaping has more than doubled. One in four 11 to 15-year-olds tried vaping in 2023, and that is no accident. It is in part due to the deliberate branding and advertisement of vapes to our children, with brightly coloured packaging and enticing sweet-like flavours—a calculated strategy to hook young people on nicotine. We cannot afford to wait to act.

I turn to the Government amendments, which seek to strengthen the Bill and ensure greater clarity. As we create the first smokefree generation and strengthen age restrictions on vapes and nicotine products, we want to support retailers in taking appropriate steps to ensure they do not sell to customers under the age of sale. New clause 11 and Government amendments 47 to 49, 51 to 53, 61, 63, 65 to 67, 69 to 71, 75, 77, 79 and 81 are a package of amendments and consequential amendments to the Bill. They seek to remove potential ambiguity for retailers regarding the use of digital identity for verifying the age of prospective customers when selling tobacco, vaping and nicotine products.

In Committee, Members raised concerns that the list of identity documents to satisfy the defence for a person charged with selling products to someone under the age of sale was limited, and queried the inclusion of other forms of physical and digital identity. These amendments remove the lists of physical ID from the Bill and instead  provide powers for the Secretary of State and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age to meet the requirements for the defence. This revised approach better future-proofs the defence against developments in identification processes and provides the potential to recognise digital ID, as well as physical ID, in the context of the defence, supporting the widespread use of digital ID.

The amendments provide the opportunity for effective interaction with part 2 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill that is currently going through Parliament, which includes provisions relating to digital verification services. Digital verification services provide an opportunity to securely verify age for in-person and online sales. We will continue to work closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and other Departments when developing the regulations.

New clause 11 provides a similar power for Scottish Ministers to prescribe in regulations the steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age as a defence to an age of sale offence. That will enable Scottish Ministers to respond to changes in technology and consumer behaviours, which may move away from the presentation of a physical document.

The last Labour Government took bold action to prohibit displays of tobacco products to protect children and young people from being enticed into addiction and to create a more supportive environment for adults seeking to quit. The Bill goes further and gives powers to limit the display of a wider range of products, including herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. Government amendments 56, 57, 60, 62, 74, 76, 78 and 80 will alter the powers in the Bill for England, Wales and Northern Ireland that regulate displays of products and their prices, so that they also cover tobacco-related devices. As was discussed in Committee, pipes, heated tobacco devices and bongs are currently displayed in shops and can have the effect of promoting tobacco usage. The amendments will ensure that we can make regulations to stop products that facilitate the consumption of tobacco being openly displayed by retailers.

The Bill bans the sale of vapes, nicotine products and cigarette papers from vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and restates the existing ban on tobacco vending machines. We know that vending machines are used to bypass age of sale restrictions and to undertake proxy purchases on behalf of people under the age of sale. Government amendments 50, 54, 55, 64, 68, 72 and 73 are clarifying amendments that make the scope of the prohibition on vending machines absolutely clear, as was discussed in Committee. The Government’s position is that the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010 already apply where a customer has a coupon, receipt or token purchased elsewhere that can be redeemed at a machine. We are amending the clauses so that all machines that dispense products in connection with a sale are clearly captured by the ban.

The Bill strengthens the enforcement regime to support law-abiding retailers while taking action against those who break the rules. Along with introducing new fixed penalty notices and new powers to create a licensing system, the Bill re-enacts provisions on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders. Those are existing  measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches restrictions. That ensures there is a range of tools in the enforcement armoury, so that trading standards officers can act quickly and effectively against rogue retailers.

Government amendments 58 and 59 clarify a point raised in Committee by removing a duplicative and unnecessary provision that would prevent a business or individual from operating a vending machine for the sale of tobacco, vaping or nicotine products following the issuing of a restricted premises order or a restricted sale order. Given that the Bill already prohibits the use of vending machines for tobacco, vaping or nicotine products, there is no need for restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders to expressly prohibit the use of vending machines. Together, the Government amendments will improve the implementation and enforceability of measures in the Bill to ensure the most effective protection for the public, and I commend them to the House.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I thank hon. Members for their scrutiny of the Bill so far. When I wind up, I will try to cover the key themes that are touched on. On the amendment that seeks to undermine the smokefree generation, I am sure we will hear arguments from some hon. Members who have been listening to the tobacco industry’s arguments and myths about how people should be free to make their own choices. I would say to them that smoking kills two thirds of its users. Three quarters of people wish they had never started smoking, and the majority want to quit—that is not freedom of choice. The tobacco industry took away that choice with addiction, usually at a young age.

On smokefree places, we have been clear: in England, we intend to consult on extending smokefree outdoor places to outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals, but not to outdoor hospitality settings at this time. No smoker wants to harm people, but with second-hand smoke, they do. If people can smell smoke, they are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease. The only way to stop this harm is to stop people smoking around others. While I understand hon. Members’ proposals to list specific places in the Bill or to add additional limits to the use of the powers, it is right that we consult on the detail before making regulations and have the necessary powers to protect children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoking.

I am grateful to the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for their long-standing support for the Bill. Through their amendments, they highlight the importance of retaining a focus on support for current smokers. That is why we are investing an extra £70 million for local stop smoking services this year and working to ensure that all NHS hospitals offer opt-out smoking cessation services into routine care. I hope they will be pleased that we have been able to confirm the extension of the swap to stop scheme for the coming year, with up to £19 million of funding to provide free vape starter kits for smokers to use as quit aids.

On the group of amendments relating to vape advertising, we realise that products being deliberately marketed at children is unacceptable, which is why we have included a commitment to stop vapes being branded and advertised to children. The Government are also investing £10 million of new funding for the coming year for National Trading Standards to tackle underage illicit tobacco and vapes and to boost the trading standards workforce by recruiting 80 new apprentices, providing additional boots on the ground. \p Joshua Reynolds: Trading standards are really important and obviously, therefore, so are fixed penalty notices, so will the Minister support amendment 1, which would mean that any fixed penalty notice sums will be retained by local authorities to spend on public health, thus saving the NHS money, as she mentioned earlier? \p Ashley Dalton: As the hon. Member will know, there are already measures in the Bill that allow some of the fines to be retained—they can certainly be retained to make it cost-neutral for local authorities—but I am sure we will explore that issue later on.

The Bill contains regulation-making powers on a range of aspects of product requirements that already allow us to do many things that hon. Members seek to achieve, but I look forward to listening to the contributions to today’s debate on the wider list of amendments and to responding to the points that are made. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Opposition spokesperson. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: It is now a truth universally acknowledged that smoking is bad for one’s health. It is the leading cause of preventable death in this country, responsible for over 80,000 deaths every year. When we say that number, it is easy to allow it to trip off the tongue as another statistic without really realising just how many people it represents. For each of them—such as my Nana Burton, who was a smoker and who died of lung cancer—there is a personal story of damaged health and often an early and preventable death.

The Conservative party introduced a Bill based on a similar premise to this one in the last Parliament, although the Government have made significant changes since to the legislation, including taking a power that could be used to ban smoking and vaping in pub gardens, as well as a licensing scheme for tobacco products.

On amendment 85, while we have received repeated assurances that the Secretary of State intends to use the measures in the Bill only to improve public health, we must still examine whether the legislation is proportionate and reasonable. As far as I can see, it gives the Secretary of State enormous powers to extend the smokefree legislation to any place with minimal oversight and without needing to provide a reason. There were whispers last summer that the Government were considering banning smoking in pub gardens, before they hastily withdrew this provision in the face of public backlash. If only they would withdraw more of their policies in the face of public backlash, because perhaps then we would not be in the situation we are in now.

The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to extend smokefree and vape-free regulations to more places—essentially, to any place—with the aim of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and promoting public health. However, on Second Reading the Government did not accept our amendment that it should apply only to places that have a provable significant risk to public health to justify such a ban. For that reason, I commend amendment 85 once again, which would restrict the Secretary of State to being able to designate only open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, a children’s playground, a nursery school, a college or a higher education premises as a smokefree area. Those are the areas the Secretary of State has said he wants to target, and the amendment would prevent any targeting of other areas, such as pub gardens, by the back door. While he claims that that is not his intention now, that may not remain the case for the rest of this Government’s time in office, nor indeed for any future Government. That is the risk in allowing these measures to stand, and for those reasons I encourage the House to support amendment 85.

3.15 pm

On new clause 18 and amendment 89, the new Bill also gives powers to the Secretary of State to introduce a new licensing scheme for retailers selling tobacco, vaping or nicotine products. However, we know that licensing schemes will come at a cost, to businesses and local authorities that will administer them, and in enforcement. That does not make it the wrong thing to do, but we would need to make sure that any licensing scheme is not excessively burdensome or expensive. New clause 18 and amendment 89 would therefore require the Government to consult on the new licensing scheme for tobacco sales before it came into force. That would mean that the views and impact on businesses including small businesses are heard, and ensure that councils and trading standards have the capacity to deliver such a scheme. Ultimately, there is a balance to strike between the requirements on business and public health, and a public consultation would ensure that the Government are more likely to get that balance right.

On new clause 19, another concern we have heard from those who oppose the Bill is about the impact that the legislation would have on the black market. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that the illicit market in tobacco duty and related VAT was £2.8 billion in 2021-22, with the tobacco duty tax gap remaining broadly unchanged since 2015, while in 2023 the Chartered Trading Standards Institute estimated that a staggering one in three vape products were non-compliant. Given warnings that increasing the age requirement for tobacco products and prohibiting more vaping could expand the black market economy further, it is sensible to take precautions to tackle the issue. \p Ashley Fox: Specifically on new clause 19, does my hon. Friend agree that it is inevitable that the generational smoking ban will lead to an increase in the illegal tobacco market and that that is a highly regrettable consequence of the Bill? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: That is certainly a significant possibility, and that is the reason for moving the amendment, as my hon. Friend will understand.

Illegal products can include smuggled and counterfeit cigarettes, vapes with nicotine levels way above the legal limits, and products containing illegal and potentially dangerous ingredients. They can be more harmful and may not include the appropriate labelling requirements and health warnings that genuine products have to carry. Regardless of whether colleagues support or oppose this Bill as a whole, I am sure we all agree that a black market is unacceptable. We have therefore put forward an amendment that would require the Government to produce annual reports on the rate of sale and availability of illegal tobacco and vaping products and their impact on public health and safety. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend has rightly taken a fierce line on illegal tobacco sales in Lincolnshire. Does she acknowledge that those illegal tobacco sales are often linked to serious and organised crime? The shops that sell them are often linked to money laundering—and are usually foreign owned, by the way—and the damage they do is extreme. Will she join me in urging further action by Government to support trading standards and the local police, who are doing such a fine job in trying to clamp down on this industrial-scale crime? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: As is usually the case, I find myself agreeing with my right hon. Friend, and that is of course why we have tabled the amendment: it will give us the evidence that we and the enforcement authorities require to make sure that the black market is reduced. \p Jack Rankin: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is not a risk that a black market will open, because a significant black market in tobacco already exists? In 2021, some 23.6 billion cigarettes were sold under duty, whereas in 2024 the figure was 13.2 billion, a 44% reduction. Yet an Action on Smoking and Health survey has found that smoking has reduced by only 0.5%. The black market is already here—it is not a new thing that will be created—so the Bill presents an even greater risk. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We know the black market exists, but the amendment would enable the Government to understand the scale of that black market and the changes in it, so that regulation could be enforced more robustly.

On amendment 90, as currently drafted the legislation will ban all forms of advertising of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes, nicotine products and sponsorship that promotes those products. Adverts will no longer be permitted on posters, billboards or the sides of buses, and sports teams will be prevented from being sponsored by a vaping company. As a Member of Parliament and a children’s doctor, I have been very concerned by the sharp increase in children addicted to vaping and, more recently, the other nicotine products such as pouches that have begun to flood the market. Schoolteachers have reported that children are unable to concentrate or even to complete a whole lesson without visiting the bathroom to vape.

Action to tackle the rise in vaping is welcome, and I support steps that restrict the appeal of vapes to young people, including through flavours and packaging. However, as the Minister mentioned in her opening  speech, vaping can be a useful smoking cessation tool for adult smokers trying to quit; in my view, that should be their only purpose. Within the context of proposed advertising restrictions, amendment 90 would ensure that vapes that are targeted solely as a quit aid, to help adults stop smoking, can continue, in recognition of their role in bringing down smoking rates.

Finally, new clause 20 would introduce a requirement on online vaping products to operate an age verification policy, as is currently the case in Scotland. Whether someone is buying vaping products online or in store, robust provisions must be in place to ensure that the purchaser is of legal age, and businesses must have a robust policy in place. As we have seen through recent tragedies, the age verification process for online sales on age-restricted products has not always been effective. The new clause would be an important step towards protecting children from accessing products online that they should not be able to buy.

In closing, the Conservative party has a strong record of action on tobacco control. It was under a Conservative Government that plain packaging was introduced for all tobacco products and that minimum pack sizes for cigarettes and rolling tobacco were introduced—policies that have been demonstrably effective at reducing smoking rates. I have personally campaigned passionately on the issue of tobacco and vapes for over two years, and I am pleased that some of my original amendments to the Bill have made it beyond Committee stage and are with us today. I was also glad to see some of the new Government amendments introduced on Report that were born of debates we had in Committee, which have strengthened the Bill.

Our amendments are designed to highlight some of the difficulties in the Bill. We oppose the Government’s power-grab—creating powers to ban smoking and vaping wherever they choose by regulation, but without consultation or enough notice. We have concerns about how the Bill will operate in practice, especially the burden on small businesses, and the potential for unintended consequences, such as a growth in the black market for tobacco products, so we ask that the Government seriously consider our amendments today. \p Preet Kaur Gill: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), to her role. It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to support this genuinely world-leading piece of public health legislation, which will help to consign smoking to the history books.

Unless we act to help people to stay healthy, the rising tide of ill health in our society threatens to overwhelm our NHS. Paring back public health, as the last Government did, was the definition of penny wise, pound foolish. It is vital that we tackle the causes of ill health, not just the symptoms, so that we can save the taxpayer billions of pounds and, most importantly, save lives.

We know that prevention is better than cure. As we have heard today, smoking remains the single biggest preventable cause of ill health in our country, causing 80,000 deaths a year. It is responsible for one in four cancer deaths, and it is a factor in over 70% of lung cancer cases. In my own constituency alone, nearly 12,000 people smoke. They are more likely to leave the  workforce due to ill health. Many will suffer strokes, heart attacks and conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On average, they will lose 10 years of life expectancy.

However, the real tragedy is how many thousands of those smokers will have started when they were children, when they did not know any better, and have simply never been able to quit. Most smokers report wishing that they had never started, which is why it is incumbent on us all to support this legislation to help stop the start. According to ASH, in my constituency alone the cost of smoking exceeds £90 million every year, including £56 million in lost productivity, £4 million drained from the NHS and £30.7 million in social care. The costs of smoking to our society are enormous, and that is why it is time to stub it out.

Even today, in 2025, hundreds of young people a day take the first drag of a habit they will never manage to kick, and will regret for the rest of their lives. I was proud to lead the Opposition’s response to the last Government’s Bill through Committee in the last Parliament and, as I said then, there is no freedom in addiction. It is a shame that the leader of the Conservative party allowed her ideology to blind her from that fact when she voted against the legislation in the last Parliament, and against this Bill in this one. Where the last Government failed to get their Tobacco and Vapes Bill over the line, this Government will get the job done.

I am proud that the Government have vastly improved on the legislation that the previous Government drew up. First, the introduction of a new licensing regime to cover tobacco and nicotine products, including vapes, is hugely welcome. That was a key recommendation of the Khan review in 2022, which the last Government largely ignored and which retailers and the public overwhelmingly support, according to surveys conducted by ASH. The status quo, where there was no requirement to obtain a licence to sell those products, is a major gap in enforcement, particularly when we consider that the sale of alcohol is licensed, while nicotine and tobacco are not.

Secondly, I am pleased that the Government are taking forward an amendment I tabled in Committee during the last Parliament, for the introduction of £200 on-the-spot fines for retailers selling products to under-age people. In 2019 to 2020, 50% of the councils that undertook test purchasing reported that cigarettes or tobacco products were sold to children who were under 18 in at least one of their premises. That proves that the current regime is not enough of a deterrent. The introduction of new on-the-spot fines, which are double the amount proposed by the previous Government, will be much easier to issue and much harder to ignore. Does the Minister agree with me that double the fine is double the deterrent?

Thirdly, I commend Ministers on the action they are taking on vapes. Under the last Government, youth vaping trebled in two years. An estimated one in three vapes on the market were illicit, and products often contained harmful chemicals, heavy metals or even drugs. Gaping loopholes were left to sit on the statute book for years, putting children at risk. The promulgation of dangerous illicit vapes in shops, schools and on our streets is a real concern. Recently, in Birmingham, trading standards officers and the police led raids on  retailers under Operation Cloud, when they seized nearly £6 million-worth of illicit vapes, tobacco and drugs. One raid alone, the biggest ever in Birmingham, clawed £1 million-worth of goods out of criminals’ hands. That shows the extent of the problem of the illicit market and the incredible job that council trading standards teams do to keep the public safe.

I thank the Government for getting behind trading standards with a £10 million boost to support their work next year. In particular, I welcome the new Government’s introduction of clauses to this Bill to set up a testing regime for vapes, a proposal that I championed in the last Parliament. It is shocking that under the current rules, unlike with tobacco, there is no testing regime for vaping products. That means that dodgy products can be rubber-stamped by the British regulator and wind up on our shelves, undermining the valuable enforcement work that trading standards do to identify and seize un-notified products.

As testing of vapes marketed at young people has shown, a significant proportion of vaping products are not what they say they are. Some market themselves as 0% nicotine when they are not, leading to accidental addictions; others contain harmful substances, such as heavy metals and even anti-freeze, as evidenced by research undertaken by Inter Scientific. That is why during the last Parliament I tabled amendments that would have established a new testing regime for vapes. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted them down. I commend Ministers for introducing powers that the previous Government snubbed. Nearly 3 million people have quit smoking using vapes. Clearly vapes have a role to play in the transition to a smokefree future, but if they are to be used as stop-smoking aids, we need confidence that the products people buy are safe, which is what routine testing would do.

Finally, I commend the Government on the amendments that have strengthened this Bill; they close the loopholes on vape vending machines and ban vape advertising, promotions and sponsorships. The new clauses will ensure that these products are kept away from the impressionable eyes of young people, so that the next generation are not simply substituting one nicotine addiction for another. There were significant holes in the last Government’s plan, and I am glad that the new Government are slamming them shut.

The health crisis facing our country has never been confined to the running of its hospital wards, doctors’ surgeries and dental practices. We are a sicker nation, and that public health challenge needs confronting. Life expectancy was extended by three and a half years over the course of the last Labour Government, but in the 14 years under the Tories, it grew by just four months. In this Bill, we see the epitome of the future-facing approach that only a Labour Government can deliver. By stopping the start and ensuring that the next generation never develop an addiction to nicotine, we can protect their health and wellbeing and protect our NHS for many years to come. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Morgan: I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and add my broad support for the improvements that the Government  have made to the Bill. I will restrict my comments mainly to amendments 1 and 2, which have been tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I will also comment on new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), to which I have added my name.

Amendments 1 and 2 would direct the moneys raised from fixed penalty notices to public health initiatives chosen by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that prevention is better than sickness and cure, and that public health initiatives are crucial in making those key shifts in healthcare that we all hope to achieve. The Secretary of State hopes to create a smokefree generation for those born after 1 January 2009, but there will be existing smokers who may well wish to stop, and who may need help from a public health initiative or a smoking cessation programme to do so. The Conservatives cut public health budgets by a quarter since 2015, meaning that fewer people have had help to quit. That is not what anybody hopes to achieve through this legislation or, more broadly, the reforms to the NHS.

Research by University College London showed that in parts of England, smoking rates have begun to rise again, and they have been flatlining as a whole since 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, the rates rose by 10% in southern England and fell by 9.7% in the north. Overall, an estimated 7.5 million adults in England are smokers. UCL concluded that the disparity between north and south reflected the concentration of dedicated tobacco control programmes in northern regions and their positive impact, and their relative absence in the south. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), mentioned, there is also evidence of significant black market activity in the United Kingdom. Cessation activities have therefore become even more important to deprive the criminal gangs involved of funds, and to ensure that people are free of their grip. Given the impact of public health initiatives, I sincerely urge the Government to accept Liberal Democrat amendment 1, and consequential amendment 2, which are in line with the Government’s objectives, and would improve health and save taxpayers money in the long run.

Amendment 84, which is also in my name, is very similar to the Opposition’s amendment 85. It would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to unreasonably designate a place as a smokefree area. If they do not mind me saying so, the Conservatives have been a bit sloppy in drafting their amendment, because they have managed to remove protections in existing law for areas where there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke in smokefree areas. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 84 has an added safeguard: if the chief scientific officer—that is not easy for me to say—advises that there is a significant risk of second-hand smoke, an area can be designated as smokefree. The amendment also retains mention of the areas that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will designate as smokefree, including NHS premises, schools, educational establishments and children’s playgrounds.

The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not designate other areas as smokefree, particularly if it would have a detrimental impact on our already struggling hospitality industry and much-loved village pubs. We take him at his word on that commitment, but I hope that the Minister can imagine a future in which a different Secretary of State is less inclined to honour a promise made by someone else at the Dispatch Box. It is right and in good order that in that scenario, Parliament should get a vote on the change of heart. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and ensure that the legislation matches the promises made at the Dispatch Box.

New clause 1, which I have also added my name to, would require the Secretary of State to review and report back on the presence of contaminated vapes, and to find ways to reduce their prevalence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath has campaigned on this issue following findings by the University of Bath that one in six vapes in English schools contained the drug Spice, which can have serious side effects in children, including cardiac arrest. It seems reasonable that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State should try to find a way of addressing that issue.

I intend to push amendments 1 and 2 to a vote to ensure that there is additional funding for public health measures. I very much hope that hon. and right hon. Members will support me in this common-sense move to improve public health. \p Mary Foy: I begin by declaring an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I will speak to my amendments and one or two others.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is world-leading health legislation that will create the first smokefree generation, protecting children and young people from the harms of smoking. In the City of Durham alone, some 5,500 children start smoking each year. Most of them will go on to wish that they had never started. This Bill will end that. It will stop the start and ensure that every child has a smokefree future. Recent data from UCL has shown that the rates of smoking are falling fastest in the north-east. This can at least partly be attributed to hard work and amazing regional programmes such as Fresh, which works so hard to tackle inequalities in our region. The same data also shows that progress is not guaranteed; in some areas, smoking rates appear to be increasing. The case for action is clear.

New clause 13, in my name, would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smokefree country every five years. It was a Labour Government who introduced the first-ever smoking strategy in 1998, “Smoking Kills”. It is 2025, and smoking still kills. This world-leading Bill is to be celebrated for many reasons, but the rising age of sale will not impact the 6 million people who are currently smoking in the UK. Smoking is not spread equally across our society; the most affluent 10% are set to become smokefree this year. However, at the current rate, the most deprived will not achieve that until 2050. It is vital that the Government ensure that no one is left behind as we create a smokefree future. Having a clear plan for achieving that, and targets for reducing smoking not only for the whole population, but for pregnant women, those struggling with their mental health and those in occupations with high rates  of smoking, will save lives. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group following the publication of our report to discuss how we can turbocharge reductions in smoking and create the smokefree generation?

New clause 19, tabled by the Conservatives, would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on the illicit market. Let us be clear that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already publishes annual data with a detailed analysis of the illicit market, so it is difficult to see what the Department of Health and Social Care could do in addition. There are no additional data sources available that would yield any different results.

Finally, amendments 82 and 83 would remove the exemption for performers. Since 2007, it has been against the law to smoke inside. However, that does not apply to actors smoking in performances for artistic reasons. There is a play on in London’s west end that tells the story of the American oil lobbyist and master strategist Don Pearlman. Don Pearlman was a heavy smoker who died from complications arising from lung cancer. The actor playing the lead role smokes on stage. The exemption should be removed, because actors deserve to have their health protected at work as much as everyone else. Audiences and other actors also deserve to be protected from second-hand smoke. Performances at the National Theatre already require that smoking in performances be substituted for vaping or other alternatives. There is no reason why all performances should not follow suit.

Amendments 85 and 86 deal with smokefree extensions. I know that there will be further consultation and debate on the regulations creating extensions to smokefree places and vape-free areas, but can the Minister confirm that there will be exemptions if it is shown that the use of vapes in certain settings aids smoking cessation efforts? I am thinking of, for example, mental health settings. The Mental Health and Smoking Partnership has pointed out that vapes are a valuable tool in such settings to help patients quit. Will the Minister undertake to visit a mental health trust to hear directly about people’s experiences? It is vital that we all work with trusts to provide clear guidance on how to navigate these changes. Particular attention must be paid to how the policies in the Bill, and those that will come into effect after it, such as the disposable vapes ban in June, will interact with each other.

Today’s funding announcement is welcome, but we have gone down to the wire, given that the funding was due to end at the end of this month. Can we be reassured that, following the spending review, services can expect consistent, long-term funding that will allow them to plan their activities and hire staff on longer contracts?

The Bill presents us with a historic opportunity to transform public health in this country, and, after working tirelessly on it for more than a decade, I am proud to support it. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure that no one is left behind. All aspects of the Bill, from the smoking cessation measures to protections for workers in the arts, must be fully realised if we are to create a truly smokefree generation. \p Caroline Dinenage: I think you may agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the longer we spend in this job, the more we realise that almost  nothing is ever straightforward. Even the best intentions nearly always have unintended consequences, and there is absolutely no doubt that smoking, and specifically smoking tobacco, has done untold damage in my constituency and continues to do so. The health of my constituents has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of regular smoking, and, moreover, smoking is a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn, on average, 7% less than non-smokers. I could not believe that statistic when I first read it, but when I thought about it, I realised that it made complete sense. Those who take more time off work because of the inevitable ill-health effects of smoking, those who spend more of their disposable income on tobacco, and those who develop a dependency on a drug such as nicotine will obviously experience, over time, an impact on their earnings. Smoking is like an extra tax on the most disadvantaged communities, and I can see why this Government have maintained the last Government’s ambition to phase it out. \p Edward Leigh: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying about smoking, but the elephant in this room is the dramatic decline in legal tobacco sales. According to HMRC, they have declined by 44% since 2021, while the number of smokers has declined by only 0.5%. We are reaching a stage at which we are taxing cigarettes so heavily that we are fuelling the black market and criminality, and we have to be aware that, as my hon. Friend says, these are unintended consequences. \p Caroline Dinenage: It is almost as if my right hon. Friend had read what is written next on my piece of paper. I was about to say that unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world, even our noblest ambitions have unintended consequences, and the Bill is not a silver bullet. There is already a thriving black market for tobacco in Gosport, and I am extremely concerned about the possibility that prohibition will exacerbate the problem. I am keen to hear from the Minister what action she plans to take, alongside the phased prohibition, to provide proper resources for the police forces in Hampshire and the rest of the country to ensure that the law is upheld, and what plan she has to take on the criminals who are already profiting, and who will only profit more as the age at which a person can legally buy tobacco rises.

Even without the Bill, smoking rates are falling across the UK as a result of a number of policy interventions, including education, smoking support and awareness campaigns. I recently visited a company in Gosport that provides innovative smoking cessation support. It is a vaping company, but it has a partnership with Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, which signposts smokers to its stores, where they are given continuing support to further enhance their shift away from tobacco. Hampshire county council has a similar Smokefree Hampshire scheme, which it says contributes to 500 quits per year. Interventions such as these have proven to be successful, so has the Minister weighed up their merits against the possible implications of the Bill?

I want to talk mainly about new clause 2, which has been tabled in my name. In a rare example of things genuinely being as simple as they seem, the new clause would simply ban the use of plastic filters in cigarettes.  The debate today will largely focus on the public health benefits of banning smoking—improving cancer rates, for example—and rightly so, and I have to be very clear that banning plastic filters will do absolutely nothing for public health. It will, however, make a great deal of difference to the thousands of my constituents who bathe or swim in the Solent, and to the marine life there.

Over 2 million cigarette butts are littered or dropped in the Gosport constituency, and that figure will be replicated in every constituency across the country. It is litter that we are all paying to clean up: it costs a local council on average about £40 million a year. Inevitably, many cigarette butts are flushed into our waterways, our rivers and our seas. In fact, they account for 66% of all littered items in the UK: it is pretty grim.

Cigarette stubs can take about 14 years to degrade in the marine environment, so it is unpleasant to swim around Stokes bay, at the end of my road, among little pieces of discoloured plastic. The bigger threat, though, is to the environment. One cigarette butt left to soak in water for 96 hours will release enough toxins to kill half the saltwater or freshwater fish that are exposed to it, and 40% of the chemicals contained in cigarette butt leachate have been found to be either toxic or very toxic to marine life. There is even a chance that the slow degradation of plastic butts is contributing to the rise in the microplastics increasingly found in the human body.

Marine ecosystems such as the Solent seascape, which covers 52,000 hectares of coastal and marine habitats, including the Titchfield haven in my constituency, are precious. We have spoken at length over many years about the impact of sewage in our waterways, but we now need to talk about the impact of plastic. That project aims to reverse loss of biodiversity in the Solent, which will have all kinds of benefits, including tourism and nature-based solutions to flooding. Seagrass installation relies on a very delicate ecosystem, which includes thriving fish populations, but leaching toxins from plastic cigarette butts put those populations at risk.

Some large companies have already demonstrated that it is easy to make the switch in production required to accommodate such a change in the law. Biodegradable filters already exist. It has been six years since McDonald’s made a decision to switch to paper straws, for example, but biodegradable filters, unlike paper straws, work and make no discernible difference to the user experience. That explains why polling suggests that this measure is supported by 86% of UK adults.

New clause 2 would represent a huge step towards removing 3.9 billion cigarette butts from our ecosystem, combating the blight on our beaches and streets, the stain in our streams and the rubbish on our roads. It is an environmental no-brainer. It is also a parliamentary no-brainer, as it has massive public support. I hope the Government can see the merit in supporting it today. \p Euan Stainbank: I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on responsible vaping.

I was asked by a teenage member of my family over the Christmas break what my biggest regret is, and I undoubtedly go back to the evening at an empty—a party, for anybody unaware of the Scottish parlance—back in 2016, when I first took a draw off a cigarette. I know all too well the addictive power of nicotine, and I promised when I was sent here by the people of Falkirk in July  that I would do everything I could to prevent another generation from being so easily exposed to it. Sadly, I must say that some of the amendments proposed may jeopardise that near universally supported ambition in our communities.

There is no safe way to consume nicotine, and we have known for near a century that smoking tobacco will in the long term be incredibly damaging to the health of a person. If we pass this Bill and slowly but surely cut off the tobacco industry from new customers, we will see lower occurrences of cancer, fewer heart attacks, fewer strokes and less illness in our communities. Points raised by hon. Members about the black market are important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but they do not undermine my support for the generational ban in this Bill.

For all the reasons articulated, I do not support the various attempts in amendments to alter the generational smoking ban. In Committee, I saw an attempt to alter the scope of the Bill to set the age of sale at 25. I see similar attempts on the amendment paper to change the age of sale to 21, or to scrap the generational smoking ban altogether. I doubt it will come as a surprise to my constituents, who are well aware of my leanings, but for me the freedom for our bairns eventually to be allowed to smoke something that may ultimately kill them does not fall into the philosophical sphere of inalienable liberties.

Saying that, I will don the cloak of alternatively minded colleagues momentarily. For all but the last three days in Committee, I was 24 years old. The shift in the age of sale proposed in Committee would have deprived me of a liberty I already have and that regrettably I exercised extensively in my younger years. Depriving adults of their liberty in the name of liberty does strike me as an odd argument for opponents of a generational smoking ban. This generational smoking ban does not deprive anyone of a liberty they currently hold, but shifts tobacco into the category of inaccessible substances for those who never had, or will have, the right to begin with. The “liberty for our bairns to eventually be able to start smoking” campaign would get short shrift from parents at the school gates of Falkirk, or from those sitting at the bedside of loved ones dying decades prematurely. No smoker wants their bairns to start smoking. \p Catherine Atkinson: There is growing concern about the use of vapes as a tool to entice children into sexual exploitation. My probing amendment, new clause 5, was prompted by a police officer in Derby concerned about this national issue. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss it. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must acknowledge the use of vapes to groom children, and ensure that licensing authorities and the police work together to crack down on any retailers connected to such activities? \p Euan Stainbank: My hon. Friend identifies an important point about the protection of young people, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister address it in her winding up.

Non-smokers should never vape, but we should acknowledge that vaping can help a hell of a lot of smokers to quit, and that the evidence base we have on relative harm shows that vaping is far less harmful than tobacco smoking. The consolidation of vaping into a  more utilitarian device used solely for the cessation of smoking is something we should pursue. That necessitates measures that stop the worrying rise in young people getting their hands on vapes in the first place. During evidence in Committee, Trading Standards articulated that online age gating has a far lower failure rate than sales over the counter. We heard from various sources about how vapes are still far too easy for our bairns to get their hands on through proxy or underage counter purchases. There is still work to be done to put the onus on the vaping industry to safeguard our bairns.

That why I put my name to new clause 6 and new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon). They would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations mandating vape retailers to sell only vapes that include approved age-gating technology, allowing adults to lock their vapes and prevent bairns being able to use them. That would align with and strengthen the Bill’s objectives of deterring underage use by seeking to extend protection away from the point of sale to the point of use. I will ask Ministers to commit to meet me and the all-party parliamentary group to discuss how age-gating technology and wider measures can be supported in the United Kingdom to strengthen the shared aim we all have to stop bairns vaping.

The Bill grants the Secretary of State similar powers to bring in regulations relating to the display, packaging and flavours of vapes. On that, I will make a few brief points. The Bill should not deter smokers switching to vapes. Flavours are a huge reason why smokers quit and stick by quitting, and we should not regulate in any way that undermines the crucial message we must get to stick with adult smokers, which is that vaping has a far lower relative harm than continuing to smoke.

If we can, across this House, acknowledge the scientific consensus that there is no non-harmful consumption of tobacco, the Bill should be supported. It is time to take a step that will do a substantial amount to deter smoking, prevent nicotine addiction and secure a generation against smoking-related disease and premature death. \p Jack Rankin: I hesitate to break up the consensus ever so slightly, but I do disagree fundamentally with the Bill. In my view, a generational smoking ban misrepresents the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and creates two tiers of adults. Members will be heartened to know that, recognising the will of the House on Second Reading, I do not intend to plough on with that argument too far. What I have tried to do with my amendments, however, is to genuinely improve the main aim of the Bill in a way that gets people off smoking in the interests of public health, which, whether we are for or against a generational ban on smoking, is something that we should all support. That is why I am grateful to Members from across this House—on the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Democratic Unionist Benches, as well as some independent Members—for supporting the measures in my name, new clauses 8, 9 and 10 and amendment 46.

The message behind those measures is simple: let us ensure less harmful vapes and nicotine products get to the adult smokers who could benefit from them so that smoking rates continue to fall. In that regard, I associate  myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).

I feel the risk of the Bill is that Ministers may inadvertently weaken the decline in smoking in Britain somewhat. As the Minister and shadow Minister both said in their opening remarks, vaping is a legitimate and desirable smoking cessation tool for adults who currently smoke. \p John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I associate myself with much of what he has said already. He will understand that when plain packaging was introduced, just that kind of inadvertent effect was felt, as those who wished to counterfeit tobacco products were able to do so at will, using plain packaging that looks no different from legal tobacco packaging. \p Jack Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks, and also associate myself with the same remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). We have to be a little careful about the inadvertent effects of what might be the goodwill of all of us in this House.

Regardless of how one sees the state’s role in this matter, we should all welcome the decrease in smoking in this country from the highs of almost 30% in the early 2000s to 11.6% today. We have to recognise that that is partly due to education, partly to do with social stigma and partly because of legislation that this House has brought forward. We should also acknowledge, however, the essential role that the free market has played, particularly with vapes and other non-tobacco products, in getting adult smokers to stop smoking.

There are still 6 million smokers in this country, and none of them will come under the umbrella of the generational ban. We therefore need to ensure that there are safer alternatives out there for them. In my view, the Bill as currently drafted risks hanging those smokers out to dry by treating vapes and nicotine products—although they are not included in the ban—in the same way as cigarettes are treated, which is a false equivalence that is not backed by the science.

Sitting on the Public Bill Committee, I realised how prevalent the view is among the public that vapes and other smoking cessation tools, such as non-combustible tobacco, are as bad as cigarettes, when in reality vapes are at least 95% safer than cigarettes, according to Public Health England and Dr Khan’s independent review—look at any smoking cessation website to find a similar message. Any smoker knows how difficult it is to go cold turkey, and less dangerous off-ramps like vapes can be a lifeline for those looking for a way out of cigarettes. In fact, in many aspects, the NHS actively promotes such tools through its swap to stop scheme, and has found that almost two thirds of people who vape alongside using a stop smoking service quit smoking.

What concerns me primarily is the blanket ban approach to marketing, particularly for vapes and nicotine products, which my new clauses 8 and 9 would address. I know that many across this House have supported the new clauses and share those concerns. Although I totally support the need to stop disposable, rainbow, candy floss-flavour vapes being aimed at children—that is absolutely unacceptable—adult smokers do need to know that there is a safer alternative to cigarettes.

On that concern, many smokers now believe vaping to be as dangerous as cigarettes. Cancer Research UK has found that 57% of adult smokers think that vaping is just as harmful, if not more harmful, than smoking cigarettes. The risk of a draconian approach to vaping, as I consider the Bill to take, will only reinforce that incorrect messaging, which is damaging to public health.

By permitting marketing in limited circumstances and under strict restrictions, as my new clauses aim to do, we can get the message to the 6 million adult smokers that there is a safer alternative out there. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment recognises the risk of the

“Health impacts of fewer people using vapes and nicotine products to quit smoking.”

I say respectfully to the Minister that this should set off alarm bells in Government.

That is what new clause 8 does. It simply asks the Government to have a proper consultation on the potential impacts of a marketing ban, digging deeper than the sparse bullet points currently given to it in the impact assessment. This would allow us to listen to the consumers who actively use these products and find out how these changes will impact them. In the Public Bill Committee, the consumer voice was largely absent. Restrictions on flavours and packaging and vape-free areas are already subject to consultation and this amendment would simply bring marketing in line with that.

A deeper consideration of the impact of the marketing ban would help us maintain our progress towards a smoke-free 2030 and allow the Government the opportunity to prevent the unintended consequences of the Bill. Education through marketing is one of the best tools the Government have at their disposal, so why not wield the free market to effect real social change and let vape companies do the leg work?

Further, if new clause 9 were to be included in the Bill, every single non-cigarette nicotine product would have to have a printed warning at the Secretary of State’s discretion. This could say something like, “Strictly for adult smokers.” We could even use the chief medical officer’s own words, “If you don’t smoke, don’t vape.” This would send a clear message about the purpose of vapes, without stopping them from getting into the hands of smokers who could benefit from them.

In the Bill Committee, many raised the issue that any advertising seen by adults would inevitably be seen by children. That is why I tabled amendment 46, which would avoid this problem by permitting advertising in adult-only environments such as pubs, bars and clubs. To me, that is just common sense. If we know that everyone is 18, is no good reason why advertising of these products should not be permitted. Further, we know that these night-time venues are often hotspots for smoking. These are the people who could benefit from tobacco-free products the most. If a vape or a nicotine pouch is advertised in this location, a smoker may well think twice before going to the local newsagent to buy cigarettes. This would work especially well if the same pubs were licensed to sell these products on the premises. I urge the Government, through these amendments, to reconsider their approach to advertising  when it comes to legitimate smoking-cessation tools. My recent written question to the Department exposed that either no real assessment has been done in this area of policy or it has been obscured. \p Euan Stainbank: Specifically on amendment 46, which I have a degree of sympathy for, who would be responsible for enforcing the advertisements and ensuring that it was only those over the age of 18 who were seeing them? \p Jack Rankin: I am assuming, to be honest, that it would be the same people who are responsible for the licensing of alcohol advertising.

All my amendments speak to the principles that I have outlined, which I think are consistent with the aims of the Bill, and for which I have received support from across the House. I hope that Members both in here and in the other place will recognise the value of my amendments and that the Government will take these concerns seriously. \p Mary Glindon: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping, I have followed the progress of the Bill closely. I will speak to new clauses 4, 6, 7 and 15, as well to amendments 36, 37 and 88, all of which stand in my name. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and on stepping up so wonderfully to help move the Bill forward today.

Youth vaping is an enormous public health challenge that forms one of the Government’s central messages in the Bill. All of us in this place will have heard concerns from teachers and parents about the prevalence of youth vaping, and the challenges that schools face in tackling it. The Bill sets out to reduce the appeal of vaping to children, but a delicate and calculated approach must be taken when addressing youth vaping. In addressing one problem, it is incumbent on us all as legislators to not give rise to another—in this case, deterring tobacco smokers from making the switch.

We still have more than 6 million smokers to reach, and vaping is 95% safer than smoking, according to King’s College hospital and the former body Public Health England, and it is the most successful tool to help smokers to quit. According to data from Action on Smoking and Health, 3 million adult vapers are ex-smokers. There are hard yards that we still have to take to reach smokers, and I fear that the Bill, at present, is losing sight of what the evidence base says about the relative harms.

Vape flavours can play a significant role in passporting adults towards a less harmful alternative. I was pleased to see in the response to a written question I tabled that the Government recognise that flavours are a consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit. The previous Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), said that

“it is important we strike the balance between restricting vape flavours to reduce their appeal to young people, whilst ensuring vapes remain available for adult smokers as a smoking cessation tool.”

A study led by the University of Bristol last year found that flavour restrictions could discourage adults from using e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking. Amendment 37, which stands in my name, seeks to strike a balance between banning flavour descriptors, which would remove  flavours that deliberately appeal to children such as gummy bear and bubble gum, and allowing adults to use their smoking cessation product of choice.

Sticking on product requirements, amendment 36 would empower Ministers to regulate the design and interoperability of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high-puff count vaping devices. These products are typically cheaper per puff, contain significantly more vape liquid and plastic content than other devices, and have a specific youth appeal. In January, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released new guidance outlining what can be considered a reusable product, aiming to prevent the retail of vapes with superficial charging and refilling features. I believe that this should be put on a statutory footing to ensure its consistent and effective application. The Bill should be amended to clearly stipulate “one device, one tank” to prevent irresponsible actors from flooding the UK with these products following the disposable ban.

New clauses 6 and 7, which stand in my name, would introduce a requirement for retailers in England and Wales to include age verification at the point of use. While the Bill seeks to tackle youth appeal, a fundamental issue is left unaddressed. Once a vaping product leaves a shop, there is no barrier to its being used by children, but technology against this already exists. I met with IKE Tech LLC, a company that has developed low-cost, Bluetooth-enabled chips that pair with a mobile app for secure identity verification. Its technology also includes geofencing, which can disable devices in certain areas, such as schools. The new clauses would harness the potential that innovation has to offer to address youth vaping accessibility head-on.

Turning to advertising, new clause 15 would create a limited and tightly defined exemption from the new advertising restrictions for in-store promotional materials in specialist vape shops, provided that these are not externally visible and that they meet any conditions around health warnings set by Ministers. I am fearful of a situation where specialist tobacconists are given exemptions to the restrictions set out under clauses 114 to 118 but specialist vape shops are not. These vape stores provide adult smokers with important advice and product consultations in their journey away from tobacco, and I have seen that in action.

Nicotine pouches are currently only regulated through the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, meaning that there is comparatively little regulation around these products, particularly regarding nicotine strength. Nicotine pouches with strengths ranging from 70 mg to 150 mg are easily obtainable. There is a pressing need to limit the strength of nicotine to lower levels. New clause 4, which stands in my name, would ban the manufacture and sale of pouches with more than 20 mg per pouch. This would eliminate the dangerous high-strength products while maintaining a threshold that minimises adverse consequences arising from the restriction, such as smoking and illicit pouches.

Before making any regulations under part 5 of the Bill, amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to consult

“any persons or bodies as appear to him or her representative of the interests concerned”,

instead of what is stipulated in the more limited current wording. The Bill provides Ministers with broad powers to make further regulations. It is vital that these powers are exercised in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including public health experts, enforcement bodies, cessation specialists, retailers and industry.

As chair of the APPG for responsible vaping, I hope that Ministers will be willing to engage in the coming months as regulations are brought forward. People who do not smoke should not vape. But for those who do use tobacco, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that legislation effectively harnesses the power of vapes as a smoking cessation tool. \p Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), and I congratulate her on her work on vaping and combating illegal sales. I declare my interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for action on smoking and health for nine and a half years. I have seen the work that the Conservative Government did to combat smoking, which led to a dramatic drop, but we are not where we need to be. I commend the Minister and the Government on bringing forward the Bill, and on absorbing almost all the amendments that my colleagues and I proposed in the Bill Committee for the previous Bill to strengthen it and make it much more likely that we can achieve a smokefree England by 2030.

As has been said, the Bill will make us a world leader in tobacco control. We have always been at the forefront, but it consolidates regulation and limits the reach of the tobacco industry. We should be clear that tobacco is a uniquely lethal product that, when used as intended, kills two thirds of long-term users. Above all else, it is highly addictive and hard to quit once people are addicted. Most smokers will say that they wish that they did not smoke and had never started, and that they have had their agency removed by their addiction. By passing this legislation, we are giving choice back to young people in the future, who will avoid ever falling into that trap and the addiction that it brings.

I have tabled a number of new clauses. I think that the Minister is unlikely to accept them, but I commend them to her for further consideration. New clause 17 calls on the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy on the profits of the big tobacco industry. The all-party group has championed this campaign for many years. It is supported by the Khan review, which was set up by the former Member for Bromsgrove to enable a position to be reached. Almost all its recommendations are absorbed by the Bill, as they were by the previous Bill, but some are outstanding. The “polluter pays” levy is one of them. It is supported by charities, health organisations, academics and think-tanks.

Tobacco consumption costs our society greatly. The latest data from Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs society in England alone £43.7 billion a year—far more than the £6.8 billion that is raised through tobacco taxes. That includes £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. We heard from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about reducing the cost of the welfare state. If we can stop people smoking, they will not become unhealthy and unable to work. They will be able to get back into the   workforce and pay taxes rather than be in receipt of welfare. This is an opportunity to reduce the impact on the benefit system and improve productivity right across the UK. \p Jim Dickson: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech so far and his work over many years to reduce smoking prevalence in this country. Does he agree that the tobacco companies still make a huge margin on the tobacco that is sold, and therefore could easily afford the “polluter pays” levy that he proposes? \p Bob Blackman: I welcome that intervention from the vice-chair of the all-party group. As we have said, smoking is not a free choice; it is an addiction peddled by an aggressive industry. I will come to some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said.

A “polluter pays” levy would achieve three things. First, it would raise approximately £700 million a year. That money would go to the Treasury and could be used for smoking cessation services that support people to quit, and indeed other health-related matters. In fact, all the Government’s programmes on tobacco, including mass media campaigns, incentives for pregnant women and support for workers with mental health problems, could be funded by that, and there would still be cash to spare for other services. That could go to other public health initiatives to achieve the Government’s aim of halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest, which the Minister outlined earlier.

Secondly, it would allow the Government to have greater control over the market. The combination of tobacco being highly addictive and four companies having almost a monopoly in the UK leads to severe market failures. We tax tobacco, quite rightly, to incentivise quitting. However, the industry gets around that because it just ups the price, so the cost goes on the consumer rather than on the profits that these companies are making. When there is a tax hike, prices on luxury brands go up even more and prices are kept lower on the budget ones, which undermines the public health objectives of tobacco taxation.

As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said, the reality is that people on a lower income often smoke more, and they will smoke the worst brands. Minimum excise tax was put in place to address that problem, but the practice still exists, so greater controls are needed. The levy model that we propose would give us the tools we need to end those practices and narrow the price gap between the most and least expensive products. We would expect that in itself to bring rates of smoking down, even before the revenue raised was invested in further programmes.

Finally, a levy of this kind would correct a moral wrong. It is right and fair that the tobacco industry, and not the UK taxpayer, should pay for the damage that it has caused to our society. I repeat that the model would come directly from the industry’s profits, which far exceed the norm for consumer products, as has been mentioned. The public support the measure, with 79% of adults in Great Britain supporting a levy on the tobacco industry and only 5% opposed. In the current fiscal environment—we discussed that earlier—where the Government are prepared to look at more controversial ways to raise revenue, it is  clear that they should consult on this proposal. If the Minister is not minded to accept this excellent idea today, would she take it to the Treasury and encourage participation on it?

New clause 16—my second new clause—would introduce a ban on online sales, which is not currently covered under the Bill. I understand that that would be rather unique for the UK, as there is not currently a product available for sale in bricks and mortar shops that cannot be purchased online. However, we would by no means be the first country to do so: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, our neighbours in France, and Greece, to name but a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet.

Banning online sales was recommended in the Khan review and by the World Health Organisation, which argues that internet sales constitute a “point-of-sale display” and

“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.

Indeed, we can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarkets’ websites and see reviews such as:

“Quite nice for relaxing on a summer day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps, or at a test match.”

That is not aligned with the message that we want to impart to smokers. As a cricket fan, I very much doubt that any test match ground these days would allow people to light up in any case.

It is important that we look to the implementation of the smokefree generation. With the right support and guidance, retailers will be able to implement the policy. However, will delivery drivers for supermarket shops and Deliveroo drivers, for example, be given the same level of training and information? Will they be as invested in enforcing the age of sale as shop owners and other workers? Currently, online sales are not exploited by under-age individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we must be mindful that that may happen in the future. In a country that is moving ever closer to becoming smokefree, should tobacco continue to be available and delivered to our doors at the click of a button? I think not.

Although I fully support the smokefree generation policy, I believe that it needs to go further and that we need to create a nicotine-free future. Nicotine is the drug that people become addicted to. The long-term effects of other nicotine products, such as snus and heated tobacco, are just as damaging and addictive. If we forbade their sale to anyone born after 2009, they would hopefully never know what it is like to experience nicotine and would never be stuck in the vicious cycle of nicotine addiction.

I also fear that legislating only for a smokefree society will leave opportunity for the tobacco industry to innovate and create new products, which we know it does all the time. The industry has targeted marketing at vulnerable people many times, and there is nothing to stop it doing it again in order to monopolise a new market that harms people’s health. That is why the legislation must be active and amendable. To prevent reopening the Bill in future years, we might as well kill two birds with one stone by ensuring that there is no opportunity for nicotine to continue ruining people’s lives. We may need to consider that as the Bill progresses through the Lords.

To avoid duplicating what my colleagues have said—and what they will no doubt go on to say—I will not go into depth on the amendments. I have added my name in support of new clauses 13 and 14, and amendments 86 and 87. I also support the Government amendments.

I thank the Government for adopting the Bill from the previous Conservative Government. I have been advocating for the Bill since I first entered this House back in 2010. It is great that we are finally on the cusp of protecting our future generations and our children’s children. I urge Ministers to accept my amendments in the spirit in which I tabled them, to ensure that we cover all bases and leave no room for misinterpretation or for big tobacco to circumvent the measures. I commend the amendments and the Bill to the House. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: It is a pleasure to follow some of the speeches that we have heard so far. I rise to support new clause 11 and the package of related amendments that the Government have tabled to this landmark Bill.

I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee for two reasons: first, I had the pleasure of the company of colleagues from across the House—albeit sometimes for more hours than one might care for on a Thursday evening—and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this legislation will undoubtedly save lives. On Second Reading, I talked about how the Bill will deliver on our Government’s commitment to ensuring that the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes, creating the first smokefree generation. As has been said, smoking is still the biggest cause of cancer and death. Tobacco is responsible for 160 cancer cases per day in the UK, and 3,100 cancer cases annually in Wales.

New clause 11 and the associated grouping of amendments is welcome. As the Minister said, the purpose of those amendments is to ensure that, for example, the list of identity documents keeps up with innovation and accommodates the possibility of digital ID. That is to future-proof the Bill, as the Minister said. Future-proofing has been mentioned in a couple of contributions today, and it came up in Committee, too, where the Opposition in particular expressed concern about the powers that would be delegated to Ministers in order to bring into effect certain provisions of the Bill. Those powers are needed, because we need the Government of the day to be able to respond quickly and with agility to the innovation—I use that term sardonically—of the tobacco industry in finding ways around the rules that we will impose on it if the Bill proceeds.

A great deal of the debate has focused on vaping, on which I will focus the remainder of my remarks. Although I recognise the value of vaping in acting as a smoking cessation tool for some, is it neither harmless nor some panacea, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, and as colleagues have said, too. There is much to welcome in the Bill in relation to vaping. The ban on the advertising of vapes, and measures to curb youth vaping and regulate the use of vapes, are examples that we welcome. However, the reality is that, as has been said, vaping among the youth has more than doubled. Action on Smoking and Health estimated that as recently as 2023, 20.5% of children aged 11 to 17 had tried vaping. That is an example of a powerful industry profiting not just from cessation but from addiction, marketing vaping at children by switching their conveyor belt of customers to a new source. Indeed, there is some alarming evidence that some vapers are not quitting smoking but simply swapping one addiction for another and many are becoming dual users. I welcome some of the contributions from colleagues, but we must be very much alive to those dangers.

Throughout the passage of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s work in the realm of public health since they took office, vaping is regularly referred to as a smoking cessation tool. As has been mentioned, and as various chief medical officers from all our home nations have said, if someone smokes, vaping is much safer. Although I accept that vaping is a helpful tool in the fight for better public health, it is regrettable that we do not have for vaping the wealth of evidence over decades that underpins tobacco and the deadly consequences of smoking. We must therefore be clear on this: if someone does not smoke, they should not vape. Vaping is not harmless; it is just less harmful than smoking tobacco.

Public health policy must be based on evidence and not on spin from the industry. Indeed, the power of big tobacco has been expanded on by colleagues. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I particularly like the way he summed up the inherent risks of vaping and his explanation that vaping could be helpful to people who wish to give up, but that at the same time there is a real threat to people who have never smoked or vaped. Does he agree that this matter needs to be seen in the wider contexts of issues at secondary and even primary school and of differences in public health outcomes across communities, with a need to focus resources on particular communities—whether children or others—to try to help? \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I trust the Minister will expand on that when she comes to wind up the debate.

As I said, public health policy must be based on evidence and not just spin or perception, so moving forward, I urge the Government to ensure that as part of their work to implement the legislation, as well as promoting vaping as a smoking cessation tool they must also undertake work to research the consequences of vaping on both the physical and mental health of the individual, its financial impact and, as was said, any regional and national inequalities that have become entrenched by vaping. When she comes back to this matter in her wind-up, will the Minister also assure me that in so doing she will work with the four home nations to ensure that that data is as thorough as possible?

If that research shows, as I have no doubt it will, that vaping is significantly damaging to the nation’s health—perhaps less so than smoking, but none the less still significantly damaging—we must act to curb it. We cannot afford to wait decades and decades for that truth to come out in the way that it took decades for big tobacco to be found out. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on that point.

In conclusion, I am proud to support this legislation. As has been said, there is no liberty in addiction and there is no freedom in being victim to a craving that kills. The Bill takes an unprecedented step forward to curb that damage and I urge colleagues from across the House to support it. \p Nigel Farage: I must declare an interest: I am a co-founder of Action on World Health.

I have to say, I find the tone of moral superiority in the Chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. Members clearly believe they are better human beings than those outside who choose to pursue activities that Members  perhaps would not pursue. It would come as a bit of a shock, I suppose, to some in this Chamber, but there are some of us who like a smoke—we do. We even go for a few pints in a pub, we have a punt on the horses and I am even tempted to have the odd doughnut—I know; that is perhaps the naughtiest of all. We want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. This place can educate us, tell us, give us the facts, but the idea that it should make those decisions for other people shows me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well. \p John Slinger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a responsible Government should seek to improve public health, particularly the public health of the younger generation? \p Nigel Farage: It is quite possible that sugar should be banned, so yes, I agree. It is possible, but I do not think that is what the Government are here to do. The Government can educate; individuals should make up their own mind.

Some of the nonsense I have heard this afternoon has been quite extraordinary. A smokefree generation! We even had the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) suggesting we would be smokefree by 2030. To begin with, the idea that nobody born after 2009 could buy the tobacco products that those born before then could is just another aspect of two-tier Britain. And not a single Member—not one, despite the fact that we are discussing nicotine and tobacco products—so far has mentioned drugs. Oh, no! Let’s forget about that, because drugs are illegal already and we cannot do anything about them. I have been hearing for decades that there will be a war on drugs. Where is it getting us? Drug use is rocketing, and class A drugs in particular, with all the associated crime, are proliferating everywhere.

Here is the danger: believe it or not, an ounce of tobacco is now more expensive, if purchased legally in a shop, than an ounce of silver, so already we have a rocketing trade in illegal cigarettes and loose tobacco. If we carry on down this route, with age bands and so on, we will find ourselves in the position that Australia has stupidly put itself in by over-taxing tobacco and making it very difficult to smoke. There have been 40 fire-bombings of premises in Melbourne alone in the last two years. Do not drive tobacco into the hands of the criminals. Do not create a new black market. I totally agree with the Minister: this is not an activity that we should encourage. We are not keen for our kids to smoke, but please treat us as grown-ups. Educate us. Let us make our choices. Do not let the criminals win. \p Beccy Cooper: First, I should say thank you to the Minister for presenting this afternoon, and for allowing me to be on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, which was incredibly interesting. There were differing views and there was robust conversation. It is always good to listen to different views, but overall the Bill generally had cross-party support. As Conservative Members have pointed out, many Members of their party have been campaigning for this Bill for a long time.

I am a public health consultant—I trained for 10 to 15 years to be one—and the precondition for public health policy is data and evidence. Opinions are interesting—they can add great colour and character to a conversation—but data and evidence will ultimately deliver better population  health outcomes. This public health Bill will stop people dying and will take away addiction to a substance—an addiction that is not a choice.

For many years, there have been public health conversations about whether we should impose measures. This conversation is not new. I wonder how many of us in the House feel strongly these days about wearing seatbelts, but we do not have to go too far back to find a time when people really objected to being told to wear a seatbelt. Tobacco is undoubtedly still the leading cause of premature death and disability in the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Every day, around 160 people are diagnosed with cancer caused by smoking, and smoking causes at least 16 different types of cancer.

I will talk primarily about new clause 13, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). The Bill will do outstanding work to enable a smokefree generation, but we also need to continue to tackle health inequalities for existing smokers. Smoking is harmful, and differences in smoking prevalence across the population translate into major differences in death rates and illness. We in this place come together from across the country and represent different constituencies. We want the best health outcomes, among many other things, for our residents. It is therefore incumbent on us to look at inequalities and where they reside, and to legislate against them where possible.

Smoking is the single largest driver of health inequalities in England. It is far more common among people with lower incomes, and I am happy to discuss with any Members why that is. The more disadvantaged someone is, the more likely they are to smoke, to suffer from smoking-related disease, and to suffer a premature death. Smoking-related health inequalities are not related solely to socioeconomic status. We represent different parts of the United Kingdom. The poorer health of people in the north of England is in part due to higher rates of smoking there. Smoking rates are also higher among people with a mental health condition, people in contact with the criminal justice system, looked-after children and LGBT people. We all have different types of people in our constituencies, and we should be mindful of those inequalities and the need to address them.

Health inequalities will be reduced through measures that have a greater effect on smokers in higher prevalence groups. In practice, that means prioritising population-level interventions that disadvantaged smokers are more sensitive to, and targeting interventions on those smokers. Having run smoking cessation services during my time as a public health consultant, I can absolutely say that it is incredibly difficult for anybody to give up smoking. We have Members who have succeeded, and who are perhaps still trying to give up. To give up smoking, a person needs to be in a place where they have the mental resilience and can put time and energy into quitting. If they are fighting all the other issues that come with the burdens of being poorer—if they are fighting for employment or trying to feed their children—it is so much harder.

My hon. Friend has proposed a road map to a smokefree country, and a report to this place every five years. I am not particularly wedded to that, but we should be laser-focused on reducing health inequalities across all populations. I therefore hope that our Government will consider having a reporting process similar to the one in new clause 13 among the changes to the national  health service. In the Health and Social Care Committee this morning, we were talking about where the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will go following the dissolution of NHS England. This is an ongoing conversation that we need to be mindful of.

We need to ensure that the ongoing importance of addressing health disparities is not lost, and I think that is front and centre of the Secretary of State’s agenda in the 10-year plan. On behalf of public health consultants and professionals, I commend the Bill to the House, and I am proud to be part of a Government and a Parliament that will bring this life-changing piece of legislation to the country. \p Sammy Wilson: I want to speak to amendment 4 and the subsequent amendments in my name, and to new clause 3. It is right that where a public health issue is identified, this body should look at whether anything can be done about it through law, fiscal policy, or the other levers available to us, but we should ask ourselves, when we introduce laws, what the consequences are. Are there any unintended consequences, and how practical and enforceable are the measures? If they are unenforceable, all we do is bring the law and this place into disrepute. While some have described this Bill as well-meaning, essential, a flagship Bill, and a show of leadership, I am concerned that we have given little thought to, and had little debate about, the consequences, which are hitting us in the face. Let us be honest with ourselves: it would be good to walk away at the end of today’s sitting and say, “We have done a wonderful thing for future generations; we have introduced laws that will do away with smoking and will improve the health of the nation,” but we are ignoring the fact that we have introduced legislation that is unworkable, and to which I believe, through my amendments, there is an alternative. \p Jim Dickson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that many warned before the 2007 smoking ban that it would be unenforceable, and that there would be barely any compliance with it? However, from day one, there was 97% compliance. That law has helped to drive a reduction in cancers due to secondary smoking, and a massive number of people gave up as a result of no longer being able to smoke in the pub. \p Sammy Wilson: The hon. Member will have the answer to that if he reflects on what we are debating today. We introduced that legislation, yet here we are, revisiting the issue, because people are still smoking and health outcomes are still bad—and we have additional problems, which I will come to in a moment, namely the illegal purchase and supply of tobacco. We have tried this in the past—we have tried bans and all kinds of other measures—yet we still have the problem with us.

Let us consider the consequences. First, we are being asked to introduce legislation, the burden of which will fall on retailers, because it is at the point of purchase that the scrutiny required by the Bill, and its implementation, will have to take place. There is a question that we have not debated yet: what happens when a retailer is faced in a few years’ time with two people, one aged 29 and the other 28, both demanding tobacco? One says “I’m 29”  and the other says “I’m 29 as well.” The retailer is meant to distinguish which of them he can sell tobacco to legally. That is a real, practical problem, and it places a burden on the retailer, because if he does not make the right decision, he faces a fine and the removal of his license, and that source of income for his business will be affected. \p Jack Rankin: I agree about the practicalities of needing to pick between two adults of similar age in a shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the person selling the cigarettes will probably be a shop lad aged 18 or 19? He will have to draw a distinction between adults much older than him. We should consider the position that puts that young gentleman in. \p Sammy Wilson: That was the next point I was going to come to; the hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was going to say. We will place a burden not just on the retailer, but on those who work in the retailer’s store. We are concerned about assaults on retail staff; we have taken legislation on the subject through the House. The evidence from the British Retail Consortium is that many of those assaults take place when goods are denied to individuals because they cannot offer identification and show their age, so we are placing retailers and those who work in shops in great danger. There may be a safeguard against that in some of the bigger stores that have security guards, but many of the shops that sell tobacco are small corner retailers that do not have security guards, or even anyone in the shop other than the shopkeeper or the person behind the counter. Yet we are demanding that they implement the legislation, regardless of how practical or impractical it is for individuals to make a distinction between somebody who is 37 and somebody who is 36, or whatever. \p Tristan Osborne: The right hon. Member might be forgiven for thinking that we are starting from a zero-sum game, but we already have restrictions, as people must be 18 to purchase cigarettes and vapes. Shop workers are already challenging customers on their age, so the regulations do not come from nowhere. Secondly, if you read the Bill, you would know that there is a date specified that would be very clear on identification— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Interventions should be short and the term “you” refers to me in the Chair. \p Sammy Wilson: It is easier to distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old. Usually, the younger the age, the easier it is to make that determination, but it is much more difficult when people are older, yet that distinction will have to be made.

The idea may be that the cost of the licence will be so expensive that many small retailers will be squeezed out of the market, and the only outlets will be bigger stores where there are security guards. However, the sale of tobacco provides an important part of the income of many small retailers. Whether we like it or not, we are putting a burden on people who will find that they are exposed to dangers and difficulties, and will be subject to the law if they make the wrong decision.

The second issue, which has been touched on today, is what happens when people cannot get the tobacco that they want. Where do they go? They go to people who are prepared to sell it to them illegally. We cannot run away from the fact that the sale of illegal tobacco is already lucrative, especially because of the tax increases that we have introduced. It is lucrative for criminal gangs and it funds many of their activities. We have heard statistics that 7% of cigarettes and 33% of rolling tobacco are already sold by criminal gangs. In Northern Ireland, it is probably far higher because paramilitaries were involved in the trade and used it to fund their activities for so long. If anybody thinks, “Oh well, we’ll deal with that problem when it comes,” look at the history of Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds found its way into the coffers of terror gangs and action was not taken, because it was sometimes too hard or too difficult to trace the things. Yes, action has now been taken, but do not think that we are going to have an all-out assault on the booming industry that this legislation will produce.

My last point about the Bill being impractical is that it cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as part of the EU single market, we are under the tobacco products directive. The Irish Republic tried to introduce similar legislation and found that it could not because of that directive. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, challenging the Government to amend the Windsor framework so that the legislation will apply across the United Kingdom. This is not a counsel of despair because I believe that there is an alternative, as set out in the amendment. Indeed, the Government’s own modelling suggests that a much more practical way is to set the age limit at 21.

If the figures and the modelling are correct—although there are questions about the tobacco modelling on doing away with smoking in a generation—and if we impose the age limit of 21, which avoids some of the problems we have talked about with the sale of tobacco, we reach zero consumption by 2050, just as we do with the generational model. That avoids many of the problems and difficulties I have outlined and the consequences for retailers, rather than rushing into this. It is a headline-grabbing measure, but it has not worked elsewhere. Why did New Zealand drop it? Because of the booming market in illegal tobacco. I believe that in a number of years, we will find that we made the same mistake. \p Lillian Jones: For me, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a landmark opportunity to improve health outcomes for people in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, as well as people across the whole United Kingdom. Almost 80,000 people die each year from smoking-related illness, and many of my constituents have told me they wish that they had never started smoking in the first place. With this Bill, we draw a line under the public health tragedy that tobacco has caused over too many decades. On top of the tragedy of 80,000 deaths, every year smoking costs the NHS more than £3 billion and sees our economy lose more than £18 billion in productivity. This Bill is the bold action that our country needs and that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun will benefit from.

I am proud that this Labour Government are standing up to the tobacco lobby with the banning of tobacco products for anyone born in or after 2009. That radical  change will save lives. In my constituency, I have seen people as young as 12 puffing on vapes on their way to school and when returning home. That is a huge concern for the health and wellbeing of those young people, and the ease of access that they have to vapes is simply unacceptable. \p John Slinger: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She refers to the risk that young people will increasingly use vapes. Does she agree that the ban on advertising vapes cannot come quickly enough? In my constituency of Rugby, I see shops that look like sweet shops and whose names sound like sweet shops that are clearly designed to encourage and frankly entice young people to take up this unpleasant habit. \p Lillian Jones: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points.

While some argue that vapes may be less harmful than smoking tobacco products, our new generation should not be encouraged to become dependent on the addictive effects of nicotine. This Bill does exactly the right thing in giving the Secretary of State the power to ban flavoured vapes that are very obviously marketed to children and young people. Researching the flavours on offer, I found cola gummies flavour, pink lemonade flavour, strawberry chew flavour and tropic bubblegum flavour, to name just a few. Can anyone really claim that those flavours and the countless others on offer are not aimed at children? Many Members from both sides of the House would raise more than an eyebrow at that claim.

This Bill will regulate the wild west of vaping, which we have seen expand on our high streets over the last decade. It will also address the issue of poor-quality vapes, which are a safety concern, including single-use vapes, and end the scourge of these products littering our streets and communities. As someone with a background of 23 years in the NHS, I know the difference that this Bill will make; it will save lives and help to save our environment, and I will be proud to vote for it. \p John Hayes: In our post-spiritual or at least post-religious age, two phenomena are evident. When God is forgotten and faith declines, people do not believe in nothing but, as G.K. Chesterton said, they believe in anything. They find new causes and crusades, and I know the advocates of this Bill believe that they are crusading in a noble cause.

The second thing that occurs is that, as demons are regarded as purely mythical entities, things that were once regarded as normal and regular become demonised. The curious paradox is that while cocaine is widely available—and, I am told, de rigueur among certain elements of the urban liberal elite—pipe smokers are now seen as heretics. Were that not so alarming, it would be the subject of a comic satire. That is the kind of world we live in: we are simultaneously becoming more prurient and more puritanical.

The amendments that stand in my name and those of other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are designed to improve the Bill to avoid unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said— I think I am quoting her accurately—that we need data and evidence. What is clear from the data and evidence is that previous attempts to deal with the issue of smoking have resulted in a huge surge in illegal tobacco.  Some 83% of smokers report purchasing tobacco not subject to UK tax in 2024. That number has increased hugely since that earlier legislation. Three quarters of smokers claim to buy tobacco not subject to UK tax from under-the-counter suppliers, who have become legion in constituencies such as mine and, I am sure, in small towns across the whole of the country.

Those are the unintended consequences of well-meaning crusaders who thought they were doing noble things when they passed legislation in this House. That is the data. Those are the facts. \p Beccy Cooper: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p John Hayes: I will give way. As I have cited the hon. Lady, how could I do anything other? \p Beccy Cooper: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he making the argument that we should not address population health issues—population health interventions have seen a reduction in smoking and a reduction in health-related damage from smoking—because of the consequences of illegal tobacco? Those issues do need to be addressed, but is he saying that we should keep it legal and therefore not see a reduction? \p John Hayes: What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that the Government—and the previous Government should have done the same—need to take concerted and decisive action to deal with the unintended consequence of well-meaning legislation that led to a huge growth in the illegal sale of tobacco and cigarettes. Rather than introducing a rolling age of consent, which, by the way, is entirely unenforceable, they ought to target their efforts, draw on their resources and seek the almost limitless expertise that is available to Government to deal with an issue that, frankly, is going largely unrestricted.

Good work is being done by trading standards in my constituency in Lincolnshire and by local police, but they struggle, because the legislation is inadequate. I would have supported a Bill, had it come to the House— I will not digress too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will not allow me to do so—that licensed the sale of tobacco. Most tobacconists and most newsagents, I suspect, would welcome that measure. I know that police would like to see that kind of measure, which is rather like what we do with alcohol. There is a precedent there, but that is not what is before us today.

On the rolling age of consent, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has tabled amendment 4, is right that it cannot be enforced. I am in favour, by the way, of raising the age of consent. To be honest, I am in favour of raising the age of consent to 21 for virtually everything. That could be enforced, although it would not be straightforward. But the idea that someone will go into a tobacconist or a newsagent and say, “I am 29” and the tobacconist will say, “Actually, I think you could be 28” or in years to come, “I am 57” and the tobacconist or newsagent will say, “No, no, I think you could be 55” is nonsense. It is never going to happen. No retailer is going to do that. Either the Bill will fail—I think the law would be broken daily—or we will devote undue resources to policing something that frankly does not warrant such attention. Let us recognise  that this is a preposterous proposal. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, by and large we should not do things in this House that are preposterous. \p Euan Stainbank: rose— \p John Hayes: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is going to tell me why we should. \p Euan Stainbank: I was a retail and hospitality worker myself in Scotland, and we applied “Check 25” regularly. Would the simple question not be, “Were you born before or after 1 January 2009?” Is that a complex question? I would appreciate an explanation of how it is. \p John Hayes: I tell you, there are two things about this legislation— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. “I tell you”? Sir John Hayes, you should know better than that. \p John Hayes: I said “two”. I said that there were two things about this legislation. \p Nusrat Ghani: I think it was “you”, but no matter—time is short. \p John Hayes: Well, let me rephrase it. I tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are two things about this legislation—I have got it right now—and the first is its core objective and the second is the means by which that objective is met. I am, at the moment, talking about the means by which it is met, and I will say a little more about that when I address some of the amendments in my name and those of other Members. When we pass measures in this House—when we make laws—we should concentrate on both their purpose and their effect. If we do not do that, we are not doing our job as lawmakers. My concern about the Bill is that the effect will be compromised by the means, regardless of its purpose.

I entirely endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about plastic filters. I think that her new clause 2 would be a helpful addition to the Bill, and I should be amazed if the Minister did not embrace and adopt it. Perhaps it could be tabled as a Government amendment, but we may vote on it later. I am sure that the Government Whips will want to whip their Members to support it, because it is environmentally right, terribly sensible and entirely deliverable. It would oblige the industry to do the right thing and create filters that are biodegradable and which, as we heard earlier, are produced in immense numbers.

I have mentioned amendment 4, in the name of the right hon. Member for East Antrim, which deals with this nonsense of the rolling age of consent. It is a straightforward amendment that proposes that the age of consent should be 21—a considerable increase on where we are now—and that retailers must observe that. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) said that the matter was already being dealt with because there was already an age of consent. Yes, there is one age of consent, but not a series of ages of consent, with the need to assess  people’s age presumably by some formal means. Perhaps they will have to take their passports with them every time they go to the newsagent to buy their papers and their ounce of Golden Virginia, or whatever else. \p John Slinger: rose— \p John Hayes: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I thought asked a terribly weak question during Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today. Let us see whether he can do better now. \p John Slinger: It is not very pleasant of the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but I thank him for letting me intervene. Regarding the age of consent and the amendment calling for it to be raised to 21, does he not accept that the tobacco industry would merely target its immense marketing power on those who were over 21, and that that that could have a very bad effect on public health? \p John Hayes: The key thing about tobacco—as the hon. Member for Worthing West, the expert on public health who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, will no doubt confirm—is that people tend to acquire the habit early and, as the hon. Lady said, cannot break it. Not many people are non-smokers at 30 and become smokers at 40. The vast majority of smokers acquire the habit early in their lives. My father probably started smoking at 13. He gave up overnight when he was 75, because the price of Golden Virginia went up. I said to him, “Do you feel any better,” and he replied, “I didn’t feel ill when I smoked and I don’t feel ill now”—but that is another matter.

This issue really relates to young people and children in particular, and that brings me to vapes. I support much of what is in the Bill about them. Schools have an immense problem with vaping. Headteachers and teachers tell me that it is something that they have to be religious in scrutinising, because these things can find their way into schools so easily—in someone’s bag, for instance. Rather as with mobile phones, we must enforce a ban on vapes in schools with rigour. I think that the measures being introduced in the Bill will reinforce that, so I share the Government’s ambition in that respect.

On new clause 12, which stands in my name, I again find it hard to believe that the Government will not accept it willingly, because it simply says that we should review how effective the legislation is. It is probably true that every Bill we debate ought to have something like this attached to it, because it is a good idea—once a Bill has been published, debated, considered and passed into law—that it should be regularly reviewed in such a way.

I understand that the movers of this Bill, its advocates and its enthusiasts believe that they are doing the right thing, and I am not unsympathetic to some of their ambitions. I do sometimes—often indeed—wish that this House was coloured by common sense as liberally as it is peppered with piety. None the less, let me be generous and say that I know that the Minister and others feel that they are doing something noble. However, it is absolutely right, when we legislate in this House, that we do so with the greatest care, with clear and desirable purposes of the kind I mentioned a moment or two ago, appropriate means and measurable effects. \p Tom Hayes: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p John Hayes: I am moving to my thrilling peroration, but I will hesitate for a moment or two. \p Tom Hayes: I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, and I cannot express just how pleased I am that he has. Children make up one in five of our population, but routinely get ignored, so it is no wonder that playground after playground gets closed. If a child is able to make their way into a playground, they are now subject to second-hand smoke, because to date there is no law to stop that. Does he agree with me that one of the great things about this Bill is that we are going to protect children against second-hand smoke and make sure that their health is better as a result? \p John Hayes: I agree that it would be better if children were able to avoid either first-hand or second-hand smoke. We have to stop young people themselves smoking. Sadly, too many people do smoke too young. Rightly, as the hon. Gentleman says, we need to prevent their being affected by the smoking of others, so what he said is of course perfectly reasonable.

I will repeat my pre-peroration briefly. I have said that the legislation we pass should have a clear and desirable purpose, appropriate means and a measurable effect. In other words, we need to do the right things by the right means for the right reason. Laws that are unenforceable are not only undesirable; they do us as legislators no favours, for they undermine popular faith in what we do and in who we are. Much of this law is unenforceable for the reasons I have given. Parliament’s history is littered with unforeseen consequences. I foresee, and I hope others might too, that with the improvements the amendments would bring to this Bill, we can avoid some of the worst of those unforeseen consequences. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I apologise to all Members, but we will now have a speaking limit of five minutes. \p Tristan Osborne: I appreciate that you want to guillotine speeches to five minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and, as a member of the Public Bill Committee, to see it come before the House. I welcome the contributions of Members across the House, and the quality of the scrutiny we saw in the Public Bill Committee. I also want to reflect on the years of campaigning and service undertaken by Ministers and shadow Ministers that have brought us to this place, and on the advocacy in broadcasts and on the news of people who were smokers but who say that they never should have started. I also welcome the views of young people in my constituency who, when speaking to me at schools and colleges, have told me how vapes are becoming more pernicious and more commonplace in their lives.

I will speak to Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification and the rising escalator, and I will challenge some of the points made about enforcement. I will also talk to new clause 13 on education and a road map to a smokefree generation, and to new clause 19, which sets annualised reporting on nicotine-based products. I will also challenge some of the Opposition’s misconceptions about trading standards and the regulatory landscape.

The Bill is forward thinking and responds to an issue, but it builds on previous legislation over many years and best practice in other places and other countries to regulate and reduce smoking. We know that noble crusaders on public health have in the past taken action to clean our air, clean our water, and introduce seatbelt restrictions and food standards. We know that public health measures work. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of illness and premature death in the United Kingdom, killing about 80,000 people a year. It is estimated to cost £2.4 billion to the NHS and a further £1.2 billion in costs every year, with smokers five times more likely to need social care support at home. The annual economic productivity loss adds up to £27 billion. Not only is there an ethical and social motivation behind the Bill; there is an economic one as well.

Age verification was a topic of debate in Committee. I welcome Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification. Government new clause 11 introduces digital identification, and links in with Government legislation to introduce digital ID over the next five years. This is absolutely enforceable. In many off-licences and supermarkets today, age challenge happens at bespoke counters. Individuals under the age of 18 who try to purchase vapes or tobacco-based products are challenged on their age. All the Bill will do is introduce a fixed date, which can then be assessed using any form of digital ID. It is no more onerous than what is currently happening, but it will require training and a transition period. I challenge the comments made by some opposing the measure that it is somehow unenforceable. We already enforce age restrictions on the sales of products—it already happens. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will have read my new clause 12, which asks for a review. It would be really good to look at whether the measure can work in the way he says. I hope he might support my new clause just on that basis. Let us take it at face value: if it works, it works; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. \p Tristan Osborne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I want to take him back to his speech, when he said that he would consider an increase in age to 21 or 25. My concern is that that would introduce a two-tier adult status. If we increase the age from 18 to 21 overnight, there will be adults who previously could smoke who will then be banned from smoking for three years. I do not accept the premise that we should have two-tier adults, which is why I believe in a staged increase in smoking cessation.

On new clause 13, I support the Government’s ambition to reduce smoking and I want to make it absolutely clear that this measure is part of a global standard to reduce smoking around the world. The Bill is pioneering and I urge Members to support it. \p Jim Allister: On Second Reading, the Government said that this is a four nations Bill. On the face of it, it is, but the legal reality is that it is not. The provisions applicable to Northern Ireland are inevitably destined to be struck down by the High Court because of Northern Ireland’s subjugation, under the protocol or Windsor framework, to EU law. The specific EU law that Northern Ireland is subject to  relevant to this Bill is the tobacco directive. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. That caused the Governments of two countries within the EU—the Governments of Denmark and the Irish Republic—to withdraw proposals, while acknowledging that they wanted to do what this House is doing, but could not do so, because it would breach the tobacco directive.

To me, it is an appalling vista that this so-called sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom can produce a Bill that, on its face, applies to all parts of the United Kingdom, but, because of a Parliament that we do not elect decreeing a superior piece of legislation, in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned—because we are, alas, subject to its rules—the proposal will, as far as my constituents are concerned, be stillborn. That is quite an appalling situation.

The legal recommendations have been quite clear. That is why I drafted new clause 3, which would provide a route to allowing this Bill to apply in Northern Ireland. It would do so by exempting the tobacco directive from passing through the conduit that delivers EU law to Northern Ireland—namely section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Northern Ireland is governed under these pernicious EU laws through annex 2 of the Windsor framework, which sets out 289 laws that will continue to apply to Northern Ireland. One of those laws is the tobacco directive. Along with the other 288 EU laws, the directive is, through section 7A, applied as superior law in Northern Ireland law—law that this sovereign Parliament cannot disapply.

That is why, in new clause 3, I have provided the Government with the opportunity to amend section 7A so as to exempt the tobacco directive’s application in Northern Ireland. I say to the Government that although they have not accepted this new clause, there is still time to do so in the other place, and that there is no point in simply repeating an assurance, as on Second Reading, that they are confident that the legislation will apply. The same Government lawyers advised the previous Government that the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 would apply in Northern Ireland. When those pieces of legislation hit the buffers in the High Court, it was because Northern Ireland, on those two issues, was subject to the superiority of EU law, under which the court ruled.

This is an even clearer situation. The tobacco directive, which says that states cannot ban the sale of products, is set out expressly in annex 2 to the Windsor framework as the superior applicable law. It is therefore even clearer that this legislation will be unable to apply in Northern Ireland.

My challenge to the Government is the following. There will, no doubt, be challenges in the High Court from the tobacco industry, with its vested interests. If it turns out that these provisions are struck down in Northern Ireland, will the Government tonight at least commit to overriding that in future legislation? \p Leigh Ingham: I rise today in support of this legislation. Young people vaping is not the biggest issue that comes up in surgeries, but it is one of the biggest issues that comes up when I walk through  town or visit a school, and even when I talk to young people themselves. It is an urgent crisis—not just vaping, but smoking. There are around 760 cancer deaths in the areas around Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages every year, and data suggests that in the next five years more than 1,100 of my constituents will have had lung cancer-related issues.

This legislation shows that this Labour Government care about the children of this country. We care about who they are, and who they will become; we want them to live longer, be happier, and never have the chance to pick up a £5 vape or a cheap pack of tobacco that could set them on the path of addiction for the rest of their lives.

I wish to take a moment to acknowledge the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for starting a version of this Bill and bringing it forward despite significant opposition in his own party. I know that he did it out of concern for the future of the children of this country and I commend him for it.

Today, some will talk about choice when they oppose this Bill. In my work as an MP, I have spoken to people whose lives have been devastated by this addiction. I ask whether those who speak about choice truly believe that, once addiction has taken hold, a person has the same freedom of choice that they once did. This is not about taking choice away; it is about giving people freedom from addiction before it ever appears.

For me, the Bill is also about something so much deeper. It is about time—time with family and time with friends. How many of us have lost loved ones to cancer? I lost my grandfather to cancer, and my mum has had lung cancer. My mum was entirely fit at the time she was diagnosed with lung cancer—she used to do a Joe Wicks workout every morning. As she came from a place in the north where people suffer from lung-related illnesses, she was part of a pilot scheme to scan smokers and previous smokers for issues. Her cancer was caught early, while she had no symptoms. My family know how lucky we are. We were lucky that the cancer, which would have continued to grow in her body, was caught then and there. In fact, the cancer was so small that after it was taken away, she needed no further treatment; just a lobe of her lung was removed. My family could not be more grateful that she was part of that scheme, that she is still doing Joe Wicks exercises in the morning, and that she is still around to play with her grandchildren.

How many more precious moments with families will this Bill provide? That is the only question that I am here to answer. Truly, the children of the future may never know how their lives were changed by this Bill—just as I do not really know how my life was changed by the seatbelt Bill introduced years before I was born—because they will never have picked up the smoking habit in the first place. They will live longer, live healthier, and have more time with the people whom they love. Let this be the generation that ends youth addiction before it begins. \p Robin Swann: I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) with regard to the importance of this Bill applying to all four nations: I want it to cover the entirety of the United Kingdom. Some 2,200 people in Northern Ireland die every year from a smoking-related  illness. One in four of our cancer cases is related to smoking. The consultation carried out by the previous Government on their legislation, which was specifically about creating a smokefree generation, found that 62.5% of the UK population were supportive. In Northern Ireland, however, 79% were in favour of bringing forward this legislation.

Back in May 2024, when I was a Northern Ireland Health Minister, I introduced the original legislative consent motion, which received all-party support across the Northern Ireland Assembly, and yes, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has mentioned, there were concerns over the applicability of the measure owing to EU regulations and legislation. There was a concern that the law would remain undelivered in Northern Ireland. At that stage, I engaged with the then UK Government, and have now engaged with this Government to seek assurances that this lifesaving, life-changing legislation will apply equally and favourably to all parts of our United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister being able to give me those reassurances. I have signed new clause 3, because I accepted those reassurances as Health Minister but would appreciate reinforcement in this legislation.

Much has been said about the entrapment of our young people—whether previously with regard to tobacco, or now with vaping and vaping products and how they are being marketed and presented. One of the most harrowing reports that I have read recently was regarding Alder Hey children’s hospital, which has now opened a clinic for children addicted to nicotine. They became hooked because of vaping. Twelve children between the ages of 11 and 15 have had to seek medical help to cut down and deal with their nicotine addiction. Twelve children between the ages of 11 and 15 are receiving treatment in a children’s hospital due to the evil promotion and enhancement of not just vaping but nicotine. We are looking to save money within our national health service, but we are already encouraging and enabling these young people to become addicted to a dangerous drug. We should be doing everything we can in this place for young people.

According to reports about the Alder Hey clinic, children as young as eight are vaping regularly. Some reportedly cannot get out of bed in the morning before they take their first puff. That is a disgrace. I encourage anyone in this Chamber who in any way opposes the Bill or thinks that this is not the right thing to do to seriously consider how vaping is impacting our young people across this United Kingdom.

I finish by asking the Minister to reassure this House, not just with words but with action. Can she assure those of us from Northern Ireland who have supported the legislation and worked hard to make sure that it had a four-nations approach that the guidance, support and legal enforcement in the Bill is equally applicable to us in Northern Ireland? \p Jim Dickson: I rise to speak to new clause 14 and amendments 86 and 87. I declare an interest as vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I am also a previous smoker and a strong supporter of this legislation.

New clause 14 would introduce a ban on all filters, regardless of whether they contain plastic. I understand the environmental motivations behind new clause 2 from  the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), but I worry that the amendment is not sufficient to address environmental concerns and could even have a damaging impact on public health. Let us start from the understanding that there are no health benefits to filters. They were developed by the tobacco industry following evidence that smoking caused lung cancer in order to give a false sense of reassurance to smokers. Filters have been dubbed

“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.

Most filters contain single-use plastics and are a major environmental hazard, costing UK local authorities around £40 million a year to clean up. Cigarette filters are the most littered item in the world. In the UK they make up 66% of all littered items. Biodegradable alternatives may therefore feel like an attractive solution, but biodegradable filters do not eliminate environmental concerns. They have been shown to be equally toxic to marine and freshwater life when littered in our rivers and seas. They take between two and 14 years to decompose, and they often do so only in very particular conditions, such as under high temperatures. Biodegradable filters could also lead to an increase in guilt-free littering through smokers believing that discarded butts do not have an environmental impact.

However, the greatest risk of biodegradable filters is that they allow tobacco companies to continue with filter fraud and greenwashing in order to rehabilitate their reputation. The best policy, therefore, is to ban all filters. It would mean smokers smoking filterless cigarettes, which, I remind the House, are no worse for their health. It would incentivise quitting, which is the best way to tackle tobacco-related litter and pollution, and it would put people off starting smoking—something of which I am sure everyone in this Chamber would be in favour.

Ending the sale of filters would remove the fraud being perpetrated on smokers that by using a filter they are protecting their health. We banned descriptors such as “light” and “mild”, because they gave false comfort to smokers that they were using safer products and inhibited them quitting. We should do the same again by banning filters, ensuring that those who smoke do not do so because of a belief that their cigarette is safer. Recent ASH polling showed that only 25% of the public is able to correctly identify that filters have no health benefit. The Government should be bold in addressing these misconceptions for the benefit of public health and take the opportunity of a ban to highlight the harms of tobacco.

A ban on filters is an opportunity to protect the environment and secure health benefits. The impact of any ban should be maximised by a strong communications campaign to educate smokers and the wider public about filter fraud.

Briefly, amendments 86 and 87 flag the need for the Government to consider the matter of the sale of bundles of tobacco papers and filters, which could be seen as smoking starter kits. Some supermarkets offer these bundles at only a small cost above the price of the tobacco alone. They are convenient and cost-saving for smokers. That undermines the public health motivation for increasing the price of tobacco products.

I reiterate my full support for this legislation, and how important it is that we stop the start and bring about a smokefree generation. I commend the work of Action on Smoking and Health in supporting and shaping an excellent Bill that will be a great law. \p Wera Hobhouse: I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would strengthen the Bill by requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review and publish a report on the impact of contaminated e-liquid and ways to reduce its prevalence. It would also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to kerb the harm caused by contaminated e-liquid.

I have been campaigning on the issue of Spice-spiked vapes ever since it came to my attention last summer. The Bill is an opportunity to make a real change on this hugely concerning problem that is sweeping through schools across the country. New clause 1 would improve our understanding of contaminated e-liquid and ensure that the necessary regulations could be introduced to reduce the harm that it causes. The issue was first uncovered by Professor Chris Pudney at the University of Bath, who found that one in six vapes confiscated in schools contained the synthetic drug Spice.

Spice is a dangerous prison drug that causes serious harm to users, including hallucinations, dizziness, chest pain, breathing difficulties and damage to vital organs. The highly addictive nature of Spice makes it a gateway to criminal activity, coercion and abuse. It is tragic that anyone would take this drug, but it is especially tragic when young people do, who are often unaware of the dangers. Many young people inadvertently smoke Spice under the impression that it is cannabis. Worryingly, recent investigations have found that vapes are being contaminated with not just Spice but ketamine and MDMA, which are particularly harmful when taken in high doses. The landscape of contaminated e-liquids is evolving rapidly, and it is likely that this issue will worsen if the Bill passes unamended.

An unintended consequence of banning disposable vapes is that it will drive more users towards refillable vapes, which are the primary vehicles for contaminated e-liquids. Refillable vapes are more susceptible to being spiked with harmful substances than disposable vapes. This shift could exacerbate an already significant public health threat, making it even harder to control the spread of dangerous substances in the market. I welcome the ban on disposable vapes, but we must take action to safeguard against these unintended consequences.

The Metropolitan police have warned about children accessing illicit vapes through social media platforms such as Snapchat and Telegram. There is clearly a link between social media-driven drug dealing and the rise of vaping in schools. The ease of access to vapes and their widespread use makes them even more difficult to regulate, and makes it difficult to protect individuals from unknowingly consuming illicit substances. There is a lack of knowledge and oversight, and counterfeit or illicit vape products are slipping through the cracks, exacerbating the already alarming rise in drug-related incidents. There is much more to understand about how illicit vapes and e-liquids are obtained. New clause 1 would set us on our way; it would ensure that we built on the research of Professor Pudney at the University of Bath by conducting a review of the impact and prevalence of these illicit e-liquids.

I have had several conversations with Ministers about this issue. First, in response to my Adjournment debate, the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention committed to addressing the issue through the Bill. I also met the former public health Minister, who assured me that the Government and health officials were taking the issue very seriously. I appreciate that Ministers want to make changes in this area; I urge them please to follow through and make this change by supporting new clause 1.

As I have a little time, I note new clause 19, in the name of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), which would require the Government to report on the availability of illegal tobacco and vaping products. This is a serious problem to which attention is rightfully being brought. I support that addition to the Bill, but the new clause does not quite get to the heart of the issue that I am focusing on. New clause 1 calls for a specific review of contaminated e-liquid and ways to reduce its prevalence, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to combat the harm that contaminated e-liquid causes. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: I welcome the amendments to the Bill. This is now a strengthened piece of legislation that will create the first smokefree generation. The chronic health issues that stem from smoking and their impact on our NHS are well known. The Bill, the amendments and what they will go on to achieve will be critical in supporting the NHS and improving health outcomes.

Smoking costs the economy and wider society more than £20 billion a year, including a cost of £3 billion to the NHS and social care. That is equivalent to the annual salary of almost 700,000 nurses or 500,000 GPs, and is the cost of more than 500 million GP appointments.

While the Bill will create the first smokefree generation, the Government recognise that we need to do more to help people quit smoking. That is why I was so glad to welcome the additional funding announced in December to support local authority-led stop smoking services. Suffolk was allocated an additional £900,000 for this year, which means that people in Suffolk Coastal will be able to access support and live healthier, smokefree lives. I know from personal experience just how hard that is. On the very day of the Bill’s Second Reading in November, I gave up smoking, because I had just voted on a Bill that would mean that my nieces and nephews would never legally be able to smoke. I have tried to give up smoking before—the last time was just before the general election, when in truth I never stood a chance of succeeding—but I was able to succeed this time only because I have moved to vapes. To quote something that has already been said, “If you smoke, vape; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape.” It is simple and true.

I spoke on Second Reading about the important role that the Bill will play in preventing young people from taking up vaping. The dramatic rise in children taking up vaping should be nationally recognised as one of the most concerning crises facing young people and children. The Bill will make it harder for young people to be drawn into vaping and will bring the law on vape advertising in line with that for tobacco advertising: there will be a total ban on vape advertising and sponsorship. There will also be a consultation on the vape flavours that we all know are far too appealing to children.

However, we need to do more. As I stand here delivering this contribution, new products are appearing on the market that seek to exploit the loopholes in the upcoming ban on single-use vapes. I understand that the Bill explicitly gives the Secretary of State power to regulate further to limit the size of vapes, and to ban the so-called big puff vapes, which provide more than 600 puffs per pod. Since Second Reading, we have seen products come on to the market that allow people to attach refillable 10 ml pods, creating, in effect, a 3,000-puff vape. That is not a big puff vape; it is a colossal puff vape. \p Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Lady is talking about refillable vapes. Does she agree that contaminated refills are a huge problem, and that the Government should take that seriously and amend the Bill further? \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have heard that point made articulately, and not just by her. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

The issue of the 3,000-puff vape and the additions that can be made to vapes are why I tabled new clause 21, which builds on themes that have been spoken about in the Chamber this afternoon. I welcome the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to regulate further to standardise the size of reusable vapes, but my new clause would allow us to limit their size sooner and prevent rogue vape manufacturers from circumventing the rules while the Secretary of State undertakes further consultation on such measures. Though the Bill provides the power to standardise vapes, I am asking the Government to legislate now to standardise and regulate puffs per vape, so that we do not see an explosion of new vapes in the marketplace that are trying to get around the single-use vapes ban in this legislation.

I close by thanking the Minister and the Department for their work in bringing the Bill forward, and for the cross-departmental push to make vaping safer and reduce its appeal to children. I hope that it is welcomed in all parts of the House. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I will focus my comments on the vaping elements of the Bill, and particularly the impact on children.

It is a desperately sad and damning reflection on our society that we now need a dedicated clinic at Alder Hey children’s hospital to treat children as young as 11 for vaping addiction. I was horrified to read Professor Isba’s account of children reaching for their vapes early in the morning, before they get out of bed. Their vape sits next to their mobile phone on the bedside table. The alarming rise in nicotine dependency among children is deeply troubling. Although I welcome the fact that the clinic’s success will lead to similar schemes being rolled out across the country, that is not a sign of progress; it is a glaring wake-up call.

Today, we have a chance, through the Bill, to break the cycle of addiction, protect our children and build a healthier future for country. We face the alarming rise of vaping, which has hooked a record number of young people. As a former deputy headteacher, I saw vaping spread through schools like wildfire. I caught students hiding vapes—already hooked before they even understood what addiction meant. I saw students who should have  been focused on their schoolwork struggling instead with cravings that they could not control. I saw teachers battling to keep their students in the classroom, instead of sneaking puffs in the toilet. I spoke to worried parents who felt helpless and never thought that their child would be caught up in this. Vaping is not just a bad habit; it is a trap, and too many of our young people are already caught in it.

The situation that we face did not come about overnight. For far too long, the previous Government failed to act while vaping rates among children soared. It felt like the stable door was left wide open and the horse had bolted. We could sit back and do nothing, and watch another generation of young people in Wolverhampton North East and across the country get hooked, but that is not what a responsible Government do, and it is not what this Labour Government will do. Through the Bill, we will take bold action. Smokefree zones will be expanded to protect children, families and the most vulnerable in our communities. For those who want to quit, there will be real support, backed by real investment, delivering real results. For too long, we have seen a market designed to hook kids on nicotine, with bright colours, fruity flavours and shameless advertising that deliberately targets young people. \p Alison Hume: My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Vaping is not a safe alternative for children. According to last year’s “Growing Up in North Yorkshire” survey, 25% of year 8 students and 49% of year 10 students have tried vapes, with 9% vaping regularly. Does she agree that the Bill will put an end to vapes deliberately being branded in ways that appeal to children? \p Sureena Brackenridge: I am pleased to say that that will end with the Bill, which will ban vape advertising aimed at children, outlaw sales from vending machines and crack down on packaging designed to attract young eyes. Firm action to protect the health of children includes a £10 million boost for trading standards to fund more enforcement officers.

I welcome the recent announcement of the £62 million groundbreaking research to investigate the long-term health effects of vaping by tracking 100,000 young people aged eight to 18 over a decade. Unless we prevent illness, our NHS will continue to be overwhelmed, and billions of pounds will be spent addressing a problem that could have been curbed in advance. I call on the House to pass the Bill in order to protect children in Wolverhampton East and across the country. \p Ashley Dalton: Let me begin by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I will try and touch on the many amendments discussed and the key questions raised.

At the heart of the Bill is the establishment of the smokefree generation by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the UK. Amendments 4 to 35 tabled by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), amendments 38 to 45 tabled by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), amendments 103 to 111 tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and new clause 12 tabled by the  right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) would remove that policy or water it down. There is no liberty or choice in addiction, however, and that is why the Government are committed to creating the world’s first smokefree generation. We have the public’s backing, with 71% of adults supporting the goal of a smokefree Britain in a YouGov poll carried out in November 2023. Raising the age of sale to 21 will not meet our ambition to make the UK smokefree.

The shadow Minister and other hon. Members raised the issue of smokefree places and amendments 84, 85 and 92 to 102 would limit those powers. I reassure all hon. and right hon. Members that in England we intend to consult on extending smokefree outdoor places to outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals. Private outdoor spaces are out of scope of the Bill’s powers, and we recognise that now is not the right time to extend smokefree places to outdoor hospitality settings. The powers, as currently drafted, ensure that the Bill is appropriately future-proofed. Any regulations made under the clauses will be subject to a statutory consultation to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of any extension and as health is devolved, the devolved Governments will decide which places they wish to designate as smokefree.

I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) to ensure local authorities have funding to address local public health priorities. It would be inappropriate, however, for local authorities to retain the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences as set out in amendments 1 and 2, as that could distort the enforcement priorities of local authorities and encourage revenue generation. Councils are already provided with a ringfenced budget for public health and in 2025-26 we are increasing the public health grant to £3.858 billion. We have extended the swap to stop scheme for the coming year, including free vape kits for smokers to use as a quit aid. I can also confirm today that the national smokefree pregnancy incentive scheme will continue into the coming year.

In response to claims of growth in the illicit market, the latest official data from HMRC, published in 2024, does not show an overall increase in the illicit market for tobacco up to 2022-23. History shows that when we have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, they have had a positive impact on tackling the problems of illicit tobacco. When the smoking age was increased from 16 to 18, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25% and smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third.

I also understand the aims of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), with new clause 19. However, the new clause is not needed. The Government already publish annual data on the illicit tobacco market and will do the same for vapes, following the introduction of the new vaping products duty in October 2026. Similarly, the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers provides annual reports and updates specifically on enforcement activity, which includes illegal sale and importation of vapes. An annual report would only duplicate that.

Although I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) wishes to achieve with new clause 1, vapes contaminated with controlled drugs, including spice, are already illegal and are therefore a matter for the police and Border Force. \p Wera Hobhouse: I hear what the Minister is saying, but the Metropolitan police and other forces tell us that it is incredibly difficult. The Bill gives us an extra opportunity to protect young children from a terrible pathway into addiction and crime. Is it not the task of this Government to stop that? \p Ashley Dalton: The entire Bill is about preventing addiction among our young people and preventing their move into crime. These things are already illegal and the Government believe that existing legislation will allow for them to be dealt with.

On cigarette filters, I understand hon. Members’ concerns about tobacco litter, but new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), could lead to greenwashing, improving the reputation of tobacco manufacturers while not necessarily improving environmental outcomes. \p Caroline Dinenage: That is an incredibly lazy argument. We do not care about greenwashing; greenwashing is just semantics. We care about cleaning up our beaches, cleaning up our streets and reducing the cost to local councils of cleaning up litter. It is ridiculous if the Government are going to be swayed by one lobby or another and not do the thing that is common sense and much better for our environment. \p Ashley Dalton: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If I am allowed to finish, that is one of the issues and that proposal may not necessarily improve environmental outcomes. However, we consider that powers are already available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters, so the amendments are unnecessary.

Similarly, new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), would prohibit the supply of all cigarette filters or cigarettes containing filters, whether they contain plastic or not. Ultimately we believe that the best way to tackle filters is through the reduction of smoking rates. On bundles of tobacco products, the Bill gives the Government the powers to regulate retail packaging of tobacco products and devices, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as vaping and nicotine products. In addition, the Bill already gives the Government powers to regulate how products are packaged together in bundles, so amendments 86 and 87, also tabled by my hon. Friend, are not necessary.

Amendments 46, 90 and 91 and new clauses 8 to 10 and 15 would all undermine our promise to the electorate to stop vapes being advertised to children. We have a clear mandate, with 74% of adults in Great Britain supportive of a ban, and we will not create any exemptions that could undermine this. On amendment 90 and new clause 15, let me reassure the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) that the Government are not prohibiting the promotion of vapes in general as a smoking cessation tool.

Let me reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) that the Bill already provides the Government with powers to limit the amount of nicotine in a nicotine pouch, to regulate vaping products in such a way that would prohibit the sale of  high puff count vaping devices, including setting tank capacity limits for devices where multiple refill tanks are attached, and to ban any other ingredient that may be harmful. The Government believe that these measures are more appropriate for secondary legislation due to the technical details that need to be captured, rather than in primary legislation as new clauses 4 and 21 would require.

On amendment 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, we recognise that vape flavours are a really important consideration for adult smokers seeking to quit smoking, but we also know that sweet or fruity flavours are the main flavours that appeal to children and that certain flavours and ingredients can be particularly harmful to health. We have been clear that we will carefully consider our future regulations so that we get the balance right, and this is subject to a statutory duty to consult. Similarly, I reassure my hon. Friend that amendment 88 is unnecessary. We will honour the long-established principles of good consultation when consulting on regulations under part 5 of the Bill, including in relation to who is consulted.

On new clauses 6 and 7, while the Government are committed to protecting children from the risk of harms through addiction, our approach across all products in the Bill is for age to be verified at the point of sale, not at the point of use. Mandating any age-gating technology for vapes would create harsher restrictions on vaping than smoking. That could make vapes less accessible and attractive to adult smokers wishing to quit and use vapes as a smoking cessation tool.

I recognise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about online sales. However, it would not be proportionate to ban all online sales because that would impact on those retailers seeking to operate within the law.

As was discussed in Committee, going back to the issue of wider enforcement, new clause 18 and amendment 89 do not reflect the complex processes required to develop the licensing scheme in England and Wales. Although I am sympathetic to the shadow Secretary of State’s aims, rushing to publish draft regulations within two months of Royal Assent would risk creating flawed policy.

I pay tribute to colleagues in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This UK-wide Bill has been developed in partnership with them, and I thank them for their support. Our manifesto committed to resetting our relationship with the devolved Governments, and this Bill is a great success in demonstrating collaboration across Governments in improving the health of the nation. \p Jim Allister: Since the tobacco directive applies to Northern Ireland under the protocol through section 7A of the 2018 Act and applies directly, and the directive forbids the type of proposition in this Bill, would the Minister care to explain to the House how this Bill will be applicable in Northern Ireland as long as the tobacco directive applies? \p Ashley Dalton: This Bill has been put together, as I said, with collaboration across all the Governments and bearing in mind all the Government’s legal obligations under the law. All those things have been taken into account, and the Bill is able to be brought forward in that way. Our manifesto committed to delivering the  smokefree generation, and we are working across all Governments to ensure that we deliver that, as well as honouring our international obligations. As a result, the Government do not consider new clause 3 tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) to be necessary. That is because we are content that measures drafted in the Bill that apply in relation to Northern Ireland are consistent with our obligations under the Windsor framework, and the proposed new clause would put us in breach of international law. In the drafting of the Bill, as I have stated, we have considered all its domestic and international obligations, and it is for those reasons that the Government cannot support new clause 3.

The Bill will bring about a real change by creating a smokefree generation. As we have discussed, there is no liberty or choice in addiction, and almost all smokers want to quit and two thirds wished they had never started. I started smoking at the age of 16 and decided I would stop when I was 18—I could not stop. I thought, “I know, I’ll stop when I am 21” and then it was 25, then it was when I graduated, and then it was when I had a child. At no point was I able to give up this pernicious addiction. It took a cancer diagnosis to scare me into being able to stop smoking, and I do not wish that on any of our young people.

In conclusion, many of the amendments are unnecessary because the Bill already grants the Government the power to take forward the issue through the more appropriate route of secondary legislation. This is a landmark Bill: the most significant public health intervention in a generation. It strikes the right balance on the interests of public health by being proportionate and not overly burdensome. It allows the Government to bring forward the appropriate primary and secondary legislation to ensure that we can deliver a smokefree generation that protects all our children from the addiction of tobacco, a uniquely harmful substance.

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 26 November 2024).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.

(2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) In this section,

‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”—(Dame Caroline Dinenage.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, within two years, which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare an annual report on the scale of the illegal sale and availability of tobacco and vaping products in the United Kingdom; and

(b) lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) Each report must provide details in the United Kingdom of—

(a) the estimated amount and value of illegal, counterfeit and contraband cigarettes and other tobacco products available for sale;

(b) the estimated amount and value of illegal or non-compliant vapes available for sale;

(c) the action taken to tackle the illicit trade of tobacco, tobacco products, vaping devices and vaping products; and

(d) an assessment of the impact of the illicit trade of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products on public health and safety.

(3) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(4) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)

This new clause would require that the Government produce annual reports on the rate of sale and availability of illegal tobacco and vaping products and their impact on public health and safety.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 47, page 1, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) that they took such steps as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State to verify that the customer was born before 1 January 2009, or”.

This amendment allows regulations to specify steps that a seller may take to benefit from the defence in clause 1(2) of the Bill. The Bill currently focusses on paper documents. The purpose of the new power is to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents.

Amendment 48, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(2A) Before making regulations under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers if the regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.

(2B) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

This is consequential to Amendment 47.

Amendment 49, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (3). —(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendment 47. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 50, page 2, line 29, leave out from “means” to end of line 30 and insert

“a machine from which any of the following products may be bought or from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale—”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This is one of a number of amendments extending prohibitions on vending machines to cover machines from which products are dispensed in connection with a sale (for example if payment for cigarettes is made at a self-service till and the customer gets a code which is input into a machine which dispenses the cigarettes). \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 51, page 5, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) that they took such steps as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State to verify that the customer was at least 18 years old, or”.

This amendment allows regulations to specify steps that a seller may take to benefit from the defence in clause 10(2) of the Bill. The Bill currently focusses on paper documents. The purpose of the new power is to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents.

Amendment 52, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) Before making regulations under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers if the regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.

(2B) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

This is consequential to Amendment 51.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (3). —(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendment 51. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 54, page 6, line 13, leave out from “means” to end of line 14 and insert

“a machine—

(a) from which nicotine products may be bought, or

(b) from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 50.

Amendment 55, page 6, line 15, leave out from “means” to end of line 16 and insert “a machine—

(a) from which vaping products may be bought, or

(b) from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale.”—(Ashley Dalton.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 50. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 56, page 6, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) tobacco related devices,”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

Clause 13 confers a regulation-making power to impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the display of products and prices in England. The amendment extends the power to cover tobacco related devices (which would include things like heated tobacco devices and pipes and bongs that enable tobacco to be consumed). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 57, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) tobacco related devices,”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

Clause 14 confers a regulation-making power to impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the display of products and prices in Wales. The amendment extends the power to cover tobacco related devices (which would include things like heated tobacco devices and pipes and bongs that enable tobacco to be consumed). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 58, page 13, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).—(Ashley Dalton.)

This removes the express provision that prohibitions imposed by a restricted premises order apply to sales by means of a machine or other means. The natural meaning of “sales” includes sales by any means. Express provision here might make readers mistakenly think it is intended to have a narrower meaning elsewhere. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 59, page 15, line 29, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).—(Ashley Dalton.)

This removes certain consequences of a restricted sale order in relation to vending machines. Vending machines for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products are in any event banned by clauses 3 and 12. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 1, page 20, line 19, leave out from “be” to the end of line and insert

“be allocated by the relevant Local Authority to public health projects.”—(Helen Morgan.)

This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives as determined by Local Authorities.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 60, page 23, line 4, leave out from second “to” to end of line 7 and insert “a tobacco related device.”—(Ashley Dalton.)

This amendment changes the wording to reflect the new definition inserted by Amendment 62, but does not change the effect of clause 45. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 61, page 23, line 16, leave out clause 46.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This leaves out the power to amend lists of identity documents in clauses 1 and 10 since the lists are being removed (and replaced with enabling powers to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents). \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 62, page 24, line 21, at end insert—

““tobacco related device” means—

(a) a device, other than a vape, which enables a tobacco product to be consumed (for example, a heated tobacco device or pipe), or

(b) an item which is intended to form part of such a device;”.

This is consequential to Amendments 56 and 57.

Amendment 63, page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendments 47 and 51. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 64, page 30, line 39, leave out from “means” to end of line 41 and insert—

“a machine from which any of the following products may be bought or from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale—”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 50. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 65, page 35, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

“(a) that they took such steps as may be specified in regulations made by the Department to verify that the customer was born before 1 January 2009, or”.

This amendment allows regulations to specify steps that a seller may take to benefit from the defence in new Article 3(2). The provision currently focusses on paper documents. The purpose of the new power is to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents.

Amendment 66, page 36, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under paragraph (2)(a) are subject to negative resolution.”

This is consequential to Amendment 65.

Amendment 67, page 36, leave out lines 3 to 10.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendment 65. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 68, page 37, line 3, leave out from “means” to end of line 4 and insert—

“a machine from which any of the following products may be bought or from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 50. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 69, page 39, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

“(a) that they took such steps as may be specified in regulations made by the Department to verify that the customer was at least 18 years old, or”.

This amendment allows regulations to specify steps that a seller may take to benefit from the defence in new Article 4H(2). The provision currently focusses on paper documents. The purpose of the new power is to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents.

Amendment 70, page 39, line 36, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under paragraph (2)(a) are subject to negative resolution.”

This is consequential to amendment 69.

Amendment 71, page 39, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 40.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to amendment 69. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 72, page 41, line 1, leave out from “means” to end of line 2 and insert

“a machine—

(a) from which nicotine products may be bought, or

(b) from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale;”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 50.

Amendment 73, page 41, line 3, leave out from “means” to end of line 4 and insert “a machine—

(a) from which vaping products may be bought, or

(b) from which they are dispensed to a customer in connection with a sale.”—(Ashley Dalton.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 50. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 74, page 41, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) tobacco related devices,”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

Clause 79 confers a regulation-making power to impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the display of products and prices in Northern Ireland. The amendment extends the power to cover tobacco related devices (which would include things like heated tobacco devices and pipes and bongs that enable tobacco to be consumed. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 75, page 43, line 24, leave out clause 82.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This leaves out the power to amend lists of identity documents in Articles 3 and 4H since the lists are being removed (and replaced with enabling powers to accommodate digital methods of verification as well as methods involving paper documents). \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 76, page 44, line 26, at end insert—

“‘tobacco related device’ means—

(a) a device, other than a vape, which enables a tobacco product to be consumed (for example, a heated tobacco device or pipe), or

(b) an item which is intended to form part of such a device;”.

This is consequential to Amendment 74.

Amendment 77, page 44, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendments 65 and 69. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 78, page 48, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 23 and insert “a tobacco related device”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This amendment changes the wording to reflect the new definition inserted by Amendment 76, but does not change the effect of clause 86. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 79, page 49, line 19, leave out subsection (2). —(Ashley Dalton.)

This is consequential to Amendment 75. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 80, page 62, line 12, after “consumed” insert—

“(for example, a heated tobacco device or pipe)”.—(Ashley Dalton.)

This amendment brings the wording of the definition of “tobacco related device” in clause 112 into line with that inserted by Amendments 62 and 76 but does not change the legal effect. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 85, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to end of line 15 and insert

“a place in England that is—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

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

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, nursery, school, college or higher education premises as smoke-free areas.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 81, page 121, line 10, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

“(7) The following provisions come into force (so far as not in force by virtue of subsection (2)) on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint—

(a) section (Age verification in relation to tobacco and vaping products etc) (age verification in relation to tobacco and vaping products etc);

(b) section 65 and Schedule 9 (extension of retailer register etc in Scotland).”—(Ashley Dalton.)

This amendment produces the effect that NC11 will come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.

Third Reading \p Ashley Dalton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me start by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their positive and constructive engagement today and more generally as the Bill has progressed through the House. Let me put on record my sincerest thanks to all members of the Public Bill Committee, who scrutinised the Bill extremely thoroughly and brought it to this stage.

The Bill is the next step in a long history of action on tobacco, but as the House is aware, it is not a step that this Labour Government have taken alone. I thank the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for his ambition to make a difference to the future of our country by championing the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The Bill that we are discussing today is even stronger in its ambition to tackle smoking and youth vaping, in part thanks to the contributions and debate from MPs from all parties on these most critical of issues.

I thank the Opposition Front Benchers for their engagement with the Bill, particularly the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who has been a determined campaigner for action on youth vaping for a number of years. I also thank my officials in the Department for Health and Social Care and the devolved Governments, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Government Legal Department and the Clerks, whose tireless work and support on the Bill have enabled the development of this extraordinary legislation.

When this Government took office, we promised to create a smokefree generation. Today we are delivering on that promise. By creating a smokefree UK, we are investing in a healthier society for all. The Bill will tackle the concerning rise in youth vaping and reduce the immense burden that tobacco-related illnesses place on our society and our NHS. I consider it a great privilege to have overseen these last parts of scrutiny of the Bill, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support it to proceed to the other place. \p Edward Argar: I am conscious of time, so I will be brief. I recognise the sincerely and strongly held views on both sides of the debate, which has played out with courtesy in this Chamber and in Committee, where Members have shown respect for one another and for differing views. I want to put on record my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I congratulate the Minister on being thrown in at the deep end and taking through a piece of legislation with courtesy, very swiftly after she was appointed.

I thank the Clerks, the Whips and those who served on the Bill Committee. I do want to single out the phenomenal work done by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and her staff, Angus Forbes-Cable and Joey Ricciardiello, who did so much on the Bill, especially in Committee. As ever, even though there are strong feelings on both sides, the House has shown itself able to grapple with difficult issues with courtesy and thoughtfulness.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 41.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Frank McNally: It is a privilege to bring the resettlement of Ukrainians in Coatbridge to the House this evening.

We recently recognised the third anniversary of Russia’s barbaric and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and the House has rightly been united in its condemnation of Putin and his illegal actions. As has been referenced often in the House, both the current and previous Governments, devolved Governments and local authorities stepped up to support Ukraine, as did ordinary people who engaged in extraordinary acts of kindness towards those forced to flee from their homes and seek refuge. I will focus much of my remarks on the efforts in my constituency, recognised nationally as an example of great practice. I wholly appreciate, however, that such examples are seen across the country.

It is also important to recognise the presence in the House earlier of a delegation from Bring Kids Back, who are working to return tens of thousands of Ukrainian children who have been abducted by Russian forces. The whole House will stand with them in their ongoing fight, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for raising that at Prime Minister’s questions.

In June 2022, North Lanarkshire council in partnership with central Government delivered the Warm Scots Welcome programme in my constituency. The council immediately began work to re-provision and renovate 200 empty flats at High Coats in Coatbridge and in Birkshaw tower in Wishaw, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash). Those towers, previously earmarked for demolition, were redeveloped and supported 400 Ukrainians into permanent accommodation. Shortly thereafter, the three “welcome hotels” in North Lanarkshire that were established in the weeks following the invasion were closed. Health and education provision was also arranged for the families, overseen by a cross-agency support network.

I should note that successful integration into the community of Coatbridge is no accident. North Lanarkshire’s resettlement team has effectively supported refugees from crisis areas across the world over many years: from the Congo, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan and now Ukraine. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for an absolutely superb Adjournment debate, because every one of us can say “Hear, hear” to what he is doing in his constituency. In my constituency, similar things happen. Ballynahinch high school has a class of Ukrainian children with a Ukrainian teacher and Ukrainian classroom assistants. Ukrainians also have employment in Finnebrogue Foods, Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods. That tells me that we welcome the Ukrainians, as he does in his constituency. I commend him for this debate and say “Hear, hear; well done for helping the Ukrainians.” We are here to help. \p Frank McNally: The term tireless advocate is often used in the House, and the hon. Gentleman has certainly been a tireless advocate for Ukrainian refugees over many years. I commend him and the work he has done in his constituency and across Parliament.

The resettlement team in North Lanarkshire have worked diligently over many years and it has been commended for its work and recognised with awards from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Local Government Chronicle for its efforts. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate on this award-winning project. Does he agree that it is vital that we share best practice across the country with local authorities and Governments in order to be able to plan and respond quickly in times of crisis, to give people the care and security that they desperately need? \p Frank McNally: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The resettlement team in North Lanarkshire have been sharing such best practice, not just in Scotland but beyond, and that is something I am sure the Minister would be interested in as well. My hon. Friend did a lot of work on this issue in her area of West Lothian when she was deputy leader of the council, and I commend her for her efforts. I would also like to mention that three of the Ukrainian refugees have now got jobs with the resettlement team, which is absolutely fantastic. \p Alison Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this important debate. In my constituency, like his, we have a number of Ukrainian families, who are most welcome, contributing to both the community and the economy. I commend all the organisations that have employed refugees, and I take this opportunity to thank Glasgow airport, which in 2022 invited those arriving in Paisley to a jobs fair, resulting in a number of refugees securing employment in the airport industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of these Ukrainian refugees should be supported? \p Frank McNally: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Glasgow airport is one of a number of businesses that stepped up to the mark and supported Ukrainian refugees, and it is the same in my constituency as well. A number of establishments operating within my constituency have engaged in similar efforts over the past several years. That is welcome to see, and I appreciate her comments. I would like to put on record my thanks to the housing convenor for North Lanarkshire, Councillor Michael McPake, and the head of housing, Stephen Llewellyn, for their strategic focus on ensuring the programme’s success.

In my maiden speech, I referenced the long history of immigration in my constituency, from the Lithuanian community to those with Italian heritage, from people from Pakistan and India to, of course, my area’s significant Irish diaspora. That heritage was apparent a few weeks ago on Coatbridge main street when hundreds gathered for the St Patrick’s day festival led by local champion Tom Nolan. I can now say that following the Ukrainian resettlement in Coatbridge, not only the Irish national day is celebrated in the town; there was a well attended celebration of Ukrainian Independence Day in August 2023 at the town’s Summerlee museum. The programme included performances of Ukrainian music and dance. It was incredibly powerful to have the virtual attendance of family members and friends on FaceTime calling from Ukraine, who watched on as Ukrainian children in Coatbridge honoured their heritage.

There have been celebrations of the nativity held by the local Ukrainian community, as well as museum exhibitions about the plight of Ukrainian refugees. The fact that the Ukrainians who have settled in Coatbridge feel comfortable to celebrate their national heritage and to engage the local community in doing so highlights the warm welcome they have received from people in my constituency. \p Lillian Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House this important debate on the resettlement of Ukrainians. Does he agree that not only local authorities and businesses across Scotland welcomed Ukrainians, but families opened their doors and welcomed Ukrainians into their homes? It was an absolutely fantastic thing to have done, and to the benefit of Ukrainians, who have now settled into these communities and become part of them. Would he join me in congratulating and paying tribute to all those families for doing so? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I gently remind Members that when they are making interventions they should do so through the Chair—not least because that enables the microphones to pick up what they have said. \p Frank McNally: I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend made a good point. As I said, they were extraordinary actions taken by ordinary people, who opened up their homes to those fleeing the most horrendous situations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in those early days that was a critical action taken by people not just in my constituency and hers but across the country.

The warm welcome received by Ukrainians is in stark contrast to the violence continuing to emanate in Ukraine from the Russian invaders. Perhaps my Scottish colleagues will have read the recent article in Holyrood magazine, which contained testimony from residents at High Coats. One resident—Olga—spoke of the challenging initial period in Scotland living in emergency accommodation on MS Victoria, docked in Leith. Her only request of the resettlement team was to have sunlight after five months of living in a ship’s dim cabin. With the move to Coatbridge, Olga said her sons began to smile again, making friends in the local school. Local primary schools, namely Greenhill primary school and St Patrick’s primary school, have embraced thriving Ukrainian pupils, who have in some cases had to learn English from scratch. Some 60 Ukrainian children in High Coats are part of the Ukrainian kids club supported by the Mission of Innocents organisation. The club is a safe and supportive environment for the children to develop the sort of talents that have been so visibly displayed in the cultural events I mentioned earlier.

The High Coats tower now hosts a full range of cultural and wellbeing opportunities, including English language classes, walking clubs and employability programmes, and it even established a tenants and residents association, which is great to see.

The achievements and successes of this programme have been the result of a multidisciplinary effort incorporating housing services, health partners, schools, social work departments, community learning and development, faith groups, and local organisations in the voluntary sector. This comprehensive effort, touching on all areas of  public service and community partnership, makes a big difference to those fleeing the turmoil of war. It can be an antidote to the disarray and insecure feelings that so many refugees experience. Permanent accommodation, as has been provided in North Lanarkshire, can also make a lasting difference to circumstances and outcomes. As I have said, there are real lessons that the Minister and her Home Office team could learn from the approach taken in North Lanarkshire, and I know that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have closely monitored the programme because it is an innovative local solution to the crisis.

It would be remiss of me not to say that it is important that the Department continues to look at the situation regarding visas, as there is growing trepidation among Ukrainian refugees. The Department should give further consideration to additional steps, and to the possibility of permanent right to remain. I appreciate that there remains uncertainty about the conflict, but some Ukrainians are concerned about the expiration of their 18-month visa extensions and the impact of that.

At the commencement of the conflict and in the months and years since, people in my constituency refused to walk by on the other side of the street; they stepped up, as people have done across the country. For those who have fled the terror, Ukraine is and will always be home, and never far from their thoughts are those who are lost or in peril—family and friends whose lives have been taken prematurely, or who continue to face down Russian aggressors on the frontline while they defend their cities, towns, villages, and land, be it small or large. Their thoughts are also with the Ukrainian children so cruelly stolen—at least 19,500 of them—and their lost homes, lost connections, lost livelihoods and lost time. They seek a lasting and just peace, as we all do, but until then, we must and will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and its people. Slava Ukraini. \p Patricia Ferguson: It is a pleasure to contribute to this short debate. I will be brief, but I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) for securing this debate, and add my comments to his in praise of the excellent work done by people and communities in his constituency.

It is a pleasure to hear such heart-warming stories coming out of such a dark and difficult situation. Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my home city of Glasgow has a long, proud record of welcoming refugees; the city has eventually become their home in many cases. My constituency of Glasgow West has a particular record of welcoming people fleeing conflict in their native land. In the 1970s, Drumchapel played host to many people fleeing Chile because of the brutal and fascist regime of General Pinochet. Many of those refugees were fortunate enough to be able to return home after Pinochet’s downfall, but others chose to stay and make Scotland their home, and many of those who stayed ended in Lanarkshire, close to where my hon. Friend is from.

In the present day, my area has welcomed the Ukrainian refugees fleeing Putin’s murderous onslaught in their country. Many of them, as my hon. Friend said, were originally accommodated in cruise liners—not the best of starts, perhaps, but at least it was a safe refuge  for them, and it is there that many of the cultural activities and school classrooms that have been developed began. The fact that people were together in a confined space obviously helped make that happen.

The joyous part of the story for both the Ukrainian and Chilean communities is that our local Glaswegian communities have been so enriched by being able to be part of their lives and their celebrations, and they have learned so much about another culture on the way. Over the past three years, I have attended many concerts and church services that have been both moving and enjoyable. On 24 August last year, I was delighted to again join in the Ukrainian independence day family fun event in Victoria Park in my constituency, an annual event that is much anticipated. With workshops, music and dance, as well as sporting events, it is truly a fun day, but I hope nobody will ask me to demonstrate what I learned, as I definitely do not have the skill to replicate Ukrainian art. I tried very hard, but I am afraid that my attempts were pretty pathetic. \p Blair McDougall: I was not planning to intervene, but I am minded to mention the 80th anniversary of Operation Open Door, in which the Royal Navy went to Norway to rescue 500 refugees who were under extreme terror from the Nazis. They were brought to my constituency, to the village of Neilston, where they found sanctuary and humanity among the villagers. Does she agree that the relationships and cultural exchanges that she describes will last for generations, as they have in my constituency? \p Patricia Ferguson: I agree with my hon. Friend. When there is more time, I will share with him my experience of being the manager of Glasgow dental hospital, where many Norwegian dentists were trained after the second world war.

In the context of the Ukrainian celebrations in my constituency, I must mention the Friends of Victoria Park, who do much to promote and protect the park, and who have been generous hosts; the recent installation of a Ukrainian bench in the park is a visible gesture of solidarity. Glasgow also now has an Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain club that promotes a range of services for Ukrainians living in the city and beyond.

I mentioned earlier that the Chileans who lived in Glasgow were eventually able to make a decision about where they wished to live. I sincerely hope that the time will not be too far away when our Ukrainian friends can also safely make that decision for themselves. \p Seema Malhotra: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) for securing this important Adjournment debate on the issue of displaced Ukrainians here in the UK, and the resettlement of Ukrainians in his constituency. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for her impassioned speech highlighting the culture of Ukrainians, the work done and effort made to integrate the community, and the contribution that Ukrainians make in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill is a dedicated supporter of those Ukrainians who have found sanctuary in his constituency. I thank all hon. Members here who have made significant contributions,  showing that this is the story of not just one constituency, but many of our constituencies across the country. I recognise the work of North Lanarkshire council, which responded to the call from the UK and Scottish Governments to extend the hand of support to those Ukrainians who were fleeing and coming here in their time of need. I also recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done as a councillor over a number of years, leading on many programmes and being a leading voice on this issue. \p Mike Martin: As the Minister knows, last month the Ukrainian permission extension scheme came into force, offering a further 18 months in the UK to our Ukrainian friends. Will she shed some light on the situation facing those Ukrainian guests who seek to enter further education, perhaps for three years, but who are unable to do so because they only have an 18 month extension to their visa? \p Seema Malhotra: I will cover that when I come to my points on the UPE scheme.

I pay particular regard to the efforts and determination that teams in North Lanarkshire have shown and to their support for Ukrainian families seeking sanctuary. We heard about the rapid refurbishment of properties and how Ukrainian families have been able to find good accommodation and be supported to establish themselves and integrate into the community. We have seen in all our constituencies—indeed, I saw it myself when I came to Scotland last month—the support given to children to settle in schools and nurseries and how they have been welcomed in our communities.

I also recognise the support given to help Ukrainian families to seek employment, be more self-sufficient and extend their contribution to our society. There are a number of initiatives in the areas of culture, art, dance and so on, all of which are important in staying connected with Ukraine, but are also important—particularly for children and families—for connecting with the wider community and ensuring that a sense of diversity is truly appreciated. I thank all my hon. Friends and all hon. Members for their support for Ukrainians in their constituencies and for their stability and certainty in the UK.

A number of issues have been raised. I will broadly say that we engage regularly with the Ukrainian community and its representatives. As well as meeting members of the Ukrainian community in Scotland last month, when it was very valuable to hear of their experiences in different parts of the country directly, I attended the service at the Ukrainian Catholic church in London to commemorate the third anniversary of the full-scale, horrific and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. I assure the House that the Government stand in solidarity, as I know we all do, with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people against Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and barbaric war. Along with our allies, we remain unwavering and united in our support for Ukraine’s defence of its freedoms and pursuit of peace and justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill also raised the horror of children being abducted.

To demonstrate our continued commitment to and support for Ukraine, earlier this year the Government, led by the Prime Minister, signed the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership agreement, laying the foundations for closer collaboration and co-operation between our  two countries. The partnership seeks to ensure an enduring alliance for life beyond this conflict, covering economic and trade co-operation, investment in energy and infrastructure, and cultural ties, including the twinning of British and Ukrainian schools. That builds on the really important work that is going on and the relationship being built between British and Ukrainian children both here and in Ukraine, which will be important for that relationship in future years.

Thanks to the immense generosity of the British people, we have offered or extended temporary sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families here in the UK through the bespoke Ukraine visa schemes.

The schemes have provided much-needed sanctuary to our Ukrainian friends for the past few years. We continue to do that, and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme remains open. The Ukraine schemes provide an initial period of three years’ permission to stay in the UK, recognising the inherent uncertainty of the conflict. Understandably, as time has passed, there has been a need to provide further certainty to those who have come to the UK. That is why in February the Government launched the new Ukraine permission extension scheme, which provides a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK and a continuation of rights to work, to study and to access benefits. Section 3C leave is applied from when an application is successfully submitted.

We want to make sure that students can complete their studies. I know that there have been questions about how that is implemented, and I can certainly share some information about whether we can make that a bit easier, beyond the support already in place. We are working with universities and others on this, including whether support is sufficient or whether we need to do anything differently. The launch of the scheme demonstrates our continued support of Ukrainians here in the UK, and the offer of further permission to stay, along with the continuation of the same rights and benefits, provides vital certainty and security.

Members have raised points about settlement. As I have said, it is a tribute to the British people and the leadership of Governments and Members across the House that we have been able to see so many Ukrainians here in the UK, able to support themselves and their families through incredibly difficult circumstances and living their lives independently. I have heard the matters raised by Members, and the Ukrainian schemes have always sought to provide temporary sanctuary to those displaced by the war in Ukraine. The schemes are not and have never been routes to settlement, but at its heart that reflects the wishes of the Ukrainian Government for the future return of their citizens. The importance of that cannot be overstated. There are millions more displaced Ukrainians in Europe and beyond, particularly women and children, and as events in Ukraine develop, our support remains steadfast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill can be assured that we continue to keep the Ukraine schemes under review to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of Ukrainians. In closing, I thank him again for securing this Adjournment debate and allowing important contributions from Members to be heard.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.