Tobacco and Vapes Bill - second reading
Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 8:15 The second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill takes place in the House of Commons today.
There will be a debate followed by a vote this evening. Reports suggest 50 to 100 Conservative MPs, including a few Cabinet members, may rebel and either vote against the Bill or abstain. (I suspect more will abstain than vote against.)
Either way it won't be enough to derail the Bill because Labour is committed to supporting it so it would need a huge Tory revolt - 276 votes, I think - to scupper it and that’s not going to happen.
Nevertheless, it only needs 26 Tory MPs to vote against the Bill for the Government to need opposition votes to get it to the next stage, and that’s not a good look for the prime minister.
My guess is that, vote wise, the so-called rebellion may be fairly muted today. The problem we have is two-fold.
One, many Conservative MPs will be reluctant to rock the boat by giving the prime minister a bloody nose before the local elections on May 2.
Two, MPs are today being asked to vote on the Bill in its entirety, and while many Tories are opposed to the generational ban, some of the same MPs are also minded to support the ban on disposable vapes, which is also in the Bill, so you can see the problem.
After the second reading the Bill goes to the committee stage, during which amendments can be tabled, and that’s where it could get interesting, and more complicated.
It has been suggested, for example, that an amendment to raise the age of sale from 18 to 21 might be tabled with a view to replacing the generational ban.
Today therefore is only one stage in the Bill’s journey through Parliament and although the odds are against the generational ban being defeated, opponents of the policy won’t go down without a fight, that’s for sure.
Some, like Philip Davies MP, have suggested they might hold their fire until the third reading (in June) so whatever happens today this is not the end of the matter.
See: Tory ministers threaten to vote against Rishi Sunak’s smoking ban (The Times) - includes a quote by me.
Sunak faces 50 MP rebellion over smoking ban (Telegraph)
PS. I was on Times Radio last night, discussing the Bill with Hazel Cheeseman, deputy chief executive of ASH.
This morning I’m on the Five Live phone-in with Nicky Campbell, followed by GB News, and after that I shall I be travelling to London for a possible interview with Channel 4 News. More later.
Update: Just been interviewed by Channel 5 News outside Blackfriars Station. They wanted a soundbite to drop into their evening news and it was quicker for them to come to me.
This evening I’m doing three interviews at Millbank studios in Westminster - BBC Radio Wales, BBC Look North, and Sky News.
Andrew Marr’s producer from LBC has been in touch too but they wanted me on between 6.00 and 6.30 when I’m doing two of the interviews above.
Can’t do ‘em all, I’m afraid.
That said, we’re not as in demand as we might have been. I’m guessing that with a number of profile Tories voting against the Bill (Liz Truss and my namesake Simon Clarke, for example), their reaction is, understandably, a better story than the comments of those perennial lobbyists, Forest.
Talking of which, I was intrigued to read this report in the Guardian - Chris Whitty urges MPs to ignore lobbying and pass smoking ban bill.
It includes a reference to Forest:
Polling is also being used to influence the debate. Forest, the self-styled “smokers’ rights” campaign group, has urged MPs to reject the bill, describing it as “ageist”.
“If you are legally an adult, it’s ageist if you are denied the same rights as adults who may be only a year or two older than you are,” said Forest’s director, Simon Clark. He cited a poll that found 64% of the public believed people should be allowed to buy cigarettes if they were allowed to drive a car, join the army, possess a credit card, buy alcohol and vote at 18.
This is the poll the Guardian is referring to. God help us if only the ‘public health’ elite are allowed to lobby our elected representatives, but that seems to be the way we are going.
Reader Comments (5)
Tragically unelected public health elitists are the only ones allowed any say on the issue of other people's personal liberty and they are the ones making policy and telling politicians what to do. Never before have our pathetic leaders been so weak willed.
Already the case is being argued that all smokers must be criminalised and not just those in the future to ensure "equality". The Conservatives deserve to lose the next election for being the lap dog of the likes of Whitty but I am sure that if Labour get in, Wes Streeting, annoyed that Sunak stole his thunder, will take it further and demand Starmer puts a vote to parliament calling for smoking to be made illegal for everyone.
How long then, I wonder, until the jackboots force their way into smokers' homes to arrest them for the crime of smoking or being in possession of tobacco - or how long until they are dragged off to rehab centres to be forced to quit?
This sounds totally outrageous but look at how much smokers have been persecuted in 20 years and so I genuinely do fear that within 10 years, this could be reality.
Weak and ineffectual politicians who want to look and sound tough have found picking on targets among the weakest in society who have their voice taken by powerful elitist public health bullies is easy and ensures their all important legacy.
Shame on them for failing to make any real difference to people's lives. They can do nothing about war, homelessness or poverty, or tackling the cost of living crisis, or creating opportunities that give real hope to disadvantaged communities. All they can do is continue to feed the egos and fat salaries of those in powerful positions in public health. Stealing from the poor to feed the rich seems trendy these days and what most politicians aspire to.
The reason that the British government appears to be on the verge of passing, what amounts to tobacco prohibition, is that not enough people actively opposed it. My thanks to Simon Clark and others who have done what they can. I hope, if, God forbid, this law passes, it meets with abject failure. I hope Rishi Sunak and those who promoted this bill, live to regret it.
Choice not an addiction.
The minimum age required to buy tobacco should be raised to 21 to avoid having this generational smoking ban put in place. Don't express your disagreement with raising the age limit to 21, it is not a restriction but it is a real measure that is normal. It is not an anti-smoking restriction but just another reasonable and rational measure like having it for 18 and having it for 21 instead which is not different. Raising the age limit to 21 is not like having a smoking ban! It is like having an age limit like the one at 18. It is not an anti-smoking restriction or even a restriction, it is an expected measure. And it is what must happen now by introducing and proposing an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes bill that will do that instead of phasing out smoking from future generations of adults. Just because the smoking ban exists it does not mean that anything else related to smoking that decreases is the same with it having the same nature. Setting the age limit to 21 is not like having a smoking ban or an anti-smoking restriction, but an ordinarily expected measure! Donald Trump has implemented this measure in most American states that would otherwise be proposing incremental smoking bans and getting them passed instead of it. Incremental smoking bans have been proposed for some areas in the U.S. and if it wasn't for Donald Trump raising the smoking age to 21 those proposals might have pursued their cause. It is absolutely imperative that an amendment be made for that to the bill.
The Guardian says that Chris Whitby urges MPs to ignore the opposite opinion in order to pass the bill the government proposed. But that is the whole point of having a parliament, a debate or discussion and a vote before legislating, to listen to different opinions and intake what others have to say, and that is the point of having democracy, that other opinions including those that are opposite must be considered instead of ignored. Then why does the Guardian find it right to ignore the opposite opinion and those who have it when they are talking? In another instance similar to that in context, The Guardian said that the tobacco industry wants to derail the bill. And again, as of course it is expected, those who disagree with the bill are going to vote against it, and those who disagree with the bill do not want it passed, and they are entitled to their opinion and to its objectives of being heard. Just like the government wants to punish innocent people for buying tobacco without being underge or young, those who do not want to be punished or blackmailed in exchange for doing so want justice and for that not to be the case. They don't want to derail or destroy anything, they want to obstruct punishment being exchanged for their social exchanges with other people, which must not have that nature. And so they disagree and proclaim their disagreement. And their opinion must be heard like all other opinions are heard. This terminology that The Guardian uses is not right and conducts propaganda for one side of the story and suppresses the opposite opinion from the one the government or some of its members may have as if that is the opinion of the state on the same matter. That is wrong, different people are entitled to the different opinions they have, which they have the right to voice and count in with the others. The opposite side of the argument trying to derail or destroy the bill that will punish innocent people for their innocent actions is a form of disagreement and a matter of opinion based on which votes belonging to MPs are being cast for or against. Why should they not listen to what others have got to say, but considered like they are trying to derail the bill and that they must be ignored? This is not the right tone of speech. The right tone of speech is we say that others disagree and don't want this bill when voting against it and they are bringing their arguments against the bill to influence the votes that will be cast for and against it. There's no overriding of what is to be decided collectively or ignoring anyone's opinion!