Jim Dickson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is to Councillor Fothergill. Are there any circumstances you can envisage where local enforcement would not be enough and the Secretary of State would need to utilise the powers granted in the Bill under clauses 130 and 131 to intervene? David Fothergill: We have discussed this outside the room, and I think the area we would be most concerned about is illegal sales online. Our local teams could not get into those, and therefore we might need more national resources to break into how people are bringing illegal substances into the UK.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Some other countries, notably Australia and Canada, have introduced mandatory health warnings for manufacturers to place on individual cigarettes and filters, because quite often, young people in particular are accepting cigarettes away from the packaging. Do you see that as a useful way of increasing the saliency of health warnings? Professor Sanjay Agrawal: These additional measures warn people away from smoking—those who might be looking at the packaging or the individual cigarette. Remember, an individual cigarette—every time someone takes out a cigarette—is an advertisement for cigarettes. Lots of times, children are sold cigarettes on a per-cigarette basis, and they have never actually seen the packet; they have only seen the cigarettes. Therefore, having on-cigarette warnings is another measure that we can introduce to warn people off the harms of smoking. It would be great to see that.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am fine, Sir Mark.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Tobacco companies, as we know, collect a pretty rich dataset on their sales. Do you think that requesting, or placing in legislation an obligation on them to publish, that sales data would be a useful tool for trading standards? Lord Michael Bichard: I cannot see that it would not be useful, but it is not something that has come across my desk. Wendy Martin: Mine neither, but intelligence-led enforcement means the more that intelligence is available, the better one is able to target. I do not know exactly what tobacco companies collect, but generally any intelligence is useful.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health. Examination of Witnesses Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Professor Sir Michael McBride and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith gave evidence.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for all your work to advocate for smoke-free legislation. Can I ask you about differential smoking rates across the country? Which parts of the country are likely to benefit most from this legislation as we see a decline in smoking rates and in tobacco use more generally? Sarah Sleet: Health inequalities relating to lung disease are profound. The three conditions with the biggest gap in health outcomes between rich and poor are lung conditions: asthma, COPD and lung cancer. All three are profoundly affected by smoking, and smoking is concentrated in socially and economically deprived areas. Those in the poorest part of the country are twice as likely to smoke as those in the richest part of the country. It is even more profound in certain segments. We heard that young mothers are four times more likely to smoke in poorer parts of the country than in richer parts. If we can drive down smoking, particularly among young people, the impact will be greatest in those areas that are most in need of help and support. This is probably one of the biggest things that can be done to tackle health inequalities. For that reason, I think the Bill is probably the most important public health measure being passed through Parliament in a very, very long time. Dr Ian Walker: Thank you for the question, which I think is a really critical one. At CRUK, we have done a lot of research and work on cancer inequalities, which are part of broader health inequalities and which generally mirror similar trends. We know that people in the most deprived communities have higher incidences of cancer. They typically present at a later stage, they typically engage less with screening, they typically have worse outcomes and they typically do not get optimal treatment —it is a pretty difficult story right along the pipeline. The reasons behind that can be very complex and involve lots of different things. Despite all that, the one thing we do know is that higher smoking rates, particularly among children and young people in the most deprived communities, are a really significant contributor to health inequalities. It is very clear from the evidence that the most deprived communities across the UK are the ones that suffer most from the impacts of tobacco. This Bill is clearly not a magic switch—it will not change those things overnight—but it sets us on the pathway to fundamentally reversing some of those inequalities and to reducing some of the cancer inequalities that we see across the UK. Alongside the important measures in the Bill, a really clear, targeted set of actions around health marketing interventions in those communities and the effective funding of cessation services where we need them most will contribute to reducing health inequalities much more quickly and much more effectively. Again, it is a very positive story in terms of the potential impact on health inequalities.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q May I ask a question about some of the arguments from tobacco companies for heated products to be excluded from the tobacco regulations and the Bill—and presumably therefore the age of sale regulations. Would you have a view on whether that is a sensible proposal? Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have a very strong view. The tobacco industry is extraordinarily adept at pretending that it is on the side of the angels, and that it is trying to help with the problem. This goes along with slimline cigarettes, filters, low-tar cigarettes—many other marketing things, all of which claim to try and help with the health effects. Tobacco is extraordinarily dangerous, as well as being addictive. The heated tobacco products have probably slightly lower levels—they do have lower levels of the multiple chemicals that are toxic: multiple, not just one or two, but they are way away from safe levels. So heated tobacco products, while arguably being slightly lower in terms of the risk if someone had exactly the same amount, are a long way short of anywhere near safe, and they are still addictive. They also have some side-blow areas where they will have some issues for people around them as well. So the idea that this is some kind of solution only makes sense if you have shares in a company. So I would very strongly argue against trying to exclude these and carve these out. Sir Francis Atherton: Nicotine is addictive however you take it—whether it is in heated tobacco, in cigarettes, in snus, in chewed tobacco or in shisha pipes—so in terms of protecting the next generation, the great value of this Bill is the flexibility to deal with not just the issues that we see in front of us, but the things that may well come down the pipeline in the future. I believe the Bill is flexible enough to allow us to protect the next generation from these terrible problems that flow from addiction.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I very much thank those behind the petition who are here to listen to the debate. I know from the emails that I have had from Dartford residents who signed the petition that those residents have real concerns about some of the tough decisions that the new Government have had to make. I absolutely hear what they are saying to us. As other hon. Members have said, the petition is also a sign that many people across this country have seen their faith that politics can bring positive change diminish altogether. That is extremely unfortunate and we need to rebuild that faith. It is hard to argue that people are wrong to lack that faith, however, given the legacy of 14 years of Conservative Government. The basics of government went uncompleted, especially over the last decade, when far too little infrastructure was built and a coach and horses were driven through public services and the public finances, leaving both in dire straits. In my constituency of Dartford, the plan for a new lower Thames crossing, first proposed in 2009 by the last Labour Government, saw far too little progress and has still not been built, leaving my constituents facing growing traffic chaos. The current crossing continually operates over capacity, struggling every day with 50,000 more vehicles than it was designed for. Yet, as far as Dartford residents can see, nothing has been done to make their lives better. It is instructive that some hon. Members present believe that the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we identified on assuming office is an underestimate of the problem faced by our new Government. I urge Opposition Members to honestly consider whether they can defend the record of the last Government: a decade of growing NHS waiting lists—even before the pandemic—and stagnating living standards. The last Government never saw a crisis that they could not make worse. The asylum system was broken, but they passed a law that stopped the processing of applications, leaving thousands in permanent limbo, with only a vague hope that the £700 million Rwanda scheme would fix anything. If we are talking about broken promises, the last Government pledged many times to bring NHS waiting lists down and instead they grew and grew, with no resolution to the strikes that were making them worse. The last Government set a target of 300,000 new homes a year and yet, in a desperate attempt to appease their Back Benchers, they made changes to the national planning guidance that led to the supply of homes falling through the floor. Is it any wonder that people have doubts about the ability of any Government, or the ability of us as elected Members, to deliver positive change for their lives? Yet, like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I remain hopeful. Yes, democracy can seem slow and change can seem incremental, but I have faith in this Government to deliver the change our country needs and to prove that people’s votes at the ballot box can lead to better lives across our country. We set out our plans in our manifesto, which was intended to be for the full length of this Parliament—let us not forget that—and we have recently announced, in our Plan for Change, that we will make changes for this country. Unlike the last Government, we will build the homes that families across this country so desperately need. In Ebbsfleet, in my constituency, a further 10,000 homes are planned over the next decade. We will get the NHS back on its feet—today’s announcements were enormously encouraging—so that those neighbourhoods most in need will see a reduction in waiting lists, so that we see a health service that has the capacity to support all our residents, and so that in my constituency of Dartford, our Darent Valley hospital will have the capacity it needs to treat my constituents. I believe that we will build the infrastructure that our country needs for the 21st century, and I hope that in this new year the lower Thames crossing will also get the go ahead, and that we will also see investment in home-grown clean energy that will bring with it jobs for the future. At the end of this Parliament we will be rightly judged as to whether we have delivered on our manifesto, improved lives and set the foundation of our future prosperity. That will be the time for electors in Dartford, and across the country, to make their choice of a future Government, not now.