Bill to ban younger generation from smoking and crackdown on vapes clears first hurdle

Published

8 months ago

November 27, 2024

admin

A landmark bill to ban the younger generation from ever smoking has cleared its first hurdle in the House of Commons.

The legislation, backed by 415 to 47, means anyone born after 1 January 2009 will be prevented from buying tobacco if it ultimately becomes law.

Before then, the bill must go through further parliamentary stages, with MPs able to suggest amendments to any aspects they don’t like.

Other measures being proposed include a total ban on vape advertising and sponsorship, with a possible ban on the sale of sweet vape flavours, subject to consultation.

While tonight’s numbers indicate large cross-party support, there was some strong criticism from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Reform UK MPs, who raised concerns about “civil liberties”.

The division list showed Tory leader Kemi Badenoch voted against the measure, having previously said “people born a day apart will have permanently different rights”.

Former home secretary Suella Braverman, shadow immigration minister Robert Jenrick, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith are among the other high-profile Conservatives who also didn’t back the bill.

While most Liberal Democrats did vote to support the bill, the party’s health spokeswoman Helen Morgan said: “The introduction of a phased smoking ban is problematic and not because Liberal Democrats want to see people smoke themselves into an early grave – far from it – but because it raises issues of practicality and raises issues of civil liberties.”

Known as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, it was first proposed by Rishi Sunak when he was prime minister but failed to make its way to the House of Commons after he called the general election, which he lost.

Mr Sunak was recorded as having not voted tonight, as was the case for Nigel Farage – though the rest of the Reform UK MPs were against it.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the Labour government was bringing the legislation forward to stop young people spending a “life imprisoned by addiction”.

He also told MPs it would “come down on the vaping industry like a ton of bricks to prevent a new generation from getting hooked on nicotine”.

Call for levy on tobacco products

A wide-range of views were heard during the debate, which was a free vote for Tory MPs – meaning they could side with their conscience and not party lines.

Conservative MP Bob Blackman called for the legislation to go further to include a levy on tobacco companies’ profits to hold them responsible “for the blight on our population’s health”.

“Both of my parents died from smoking-related cancer. My late mother was only 47, and she was a very heavy smoker all her life. I was then left as a 23-year-old with three younger sisters to bring up as a family,” he said.

Former health secretary Victoria Atkins was also among the 23 Conservatives who backed the bill, while 35 Tories were listed as voting against.

The legislation includes powers to introduce a licencing scheme for retailers to sell tobacco, vape and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Shopkeepers found to be selling to anyone under age will receive on-the-spot fines of £200.

Mr Streeting said the government “will consult on banning smoking outside schools, hospitals and in playgrounds, protecting children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoke”, as part of the bill.

This will not be extended to pub gardens and other outdoor hospitality spaces, he confirmed, after the government dropped those plans following a backlash.

Politics

‘We’re a team’: Jess Phillips defends PM’s decision to suspend Labour rebels

Published

7 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Starmer suspends four Labour MPs for breaches of party discipline

A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.

It comes after the prime minister drew criticism for suspending four Labour MPs who voted against the government on its flagship welfare bill earlier this month, while stripping a further three of their roles as trade envoys.

Politics latest: PM to welcome German chancellor

Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.

Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.

But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.

“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.

“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”

Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”

She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.

More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.

Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.

However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.

Ms Maskell was one of the lead rebels in the welfare revolt, and has more recently called for a wealth tax to fund the U-turn.

Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.

Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.

Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.

Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.

Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.

“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.

Politics

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer’s MP suspensions

Published

8 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer's MP suspensions

I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.

In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.

The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.

Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.

Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.

After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.

This is the opposite approach.

The third reason I’m confused is because they’ve been suspended in part for their role in the welfare rebellion that forced the government into its U-turn.

It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.

Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.

Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.

She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.

Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.

But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.

It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.

I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.

But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.

And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.

But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.

But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.

And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.

So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.