Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow such powerful contributions from Members on both sides of the House—from my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Worthing West (Dr Beccy Cooper) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—as well as the entire Ulster Unionist party delegation in the form of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann).

I support this landmark legislation, which is an important step towards delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment to ensuring that the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes, and to creating the first smokefree generation. This is an overdue natural step towards tackling the scourge of smoking, which claims about 80,000 lives a year in the United Kingdom. Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in our United Kingdom, and it is responsible for one in four cancer deaths, killing up to two thirds of smokers. In Wales, tobacco causes 3,100 cancer cases every year, and smoking is still the leading cause of cancer there. However, cancer does not respect borders, so the Bill will serve the health interests of our entire United Kingdom. I welcome that, and I also welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to supporting this legislation and bringing it into force in Wales from 2025.

In fact, the Welsh Government have been well ahead of the curve on this issue. As far back as 2016, my constituency colleague Mark Drakeford presented legislation that would have banned cigarette use in public spaces, but it fell owing to shameless politicking on the part of Plaid Cymru—whose Members, I note, have not been present at all for this important debate. Rather than agreeing with the Welsh Government and introducing what would have been landmark public health legislation, Plaid Cymru’s Members were joined by the Welsh Conservatives and the Members of the United Kingdom Independence party—remember them?—all of whom described it as unnecessary Government regulation. Plaid Cymru sided with the populist right in Wales to make a political point, and the people of Wales were worse off because of it.

Undeterred, in 2021 the Welsh Government launched their tobacco control action plan, which includes actions to protect children and young people from the dangers of vaping, such as tighter regulations on advertising and on the sale of e-cigarettes. That is a clear sign that the Welsh Government take this issue seriously, and it is our responsibility here in Westminster to support and complement those efforts. This Bill illustrates that this Government take seriously their commitment to create the first smokefree generation, and to protect children from becoming hooked on vaping.

Let us be clear: vaping is not harmless. In 2023, Action on Smoking and Health estimated that 20.5% of children aged 11 to 17 had tried vaping. Although vaping can be an effective way for adults to quit smoking, vaping cannot be recommended for children, as it carries a serious risk of addiction and future harm. Accordingly, rather than being a deterrent to smoking, vaping will see more children, not fewer, being exposed to nicotine if left unregulated. That is why the measures set out in the Bill to implement a total ban on vape advertising and sponsorship, and, subject to consultation, on the sale of vape flavours that overtly appeal to children, are so important. I fully support them.

This Bill is legislation that our teachers, headteachers, medical professionals and health services are all calling for. The vaping industry has been allowed to attract kids with different flavours and bright packaging. We would not allow that with any other addictive drug, and we should not allow it with vaping. In addition, the Bill does not deal with an aspect of vaping that I would be grateful for the Government to consider as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. Currently, police officers do not have specific powers to confiscate vapes from children—a power that they do have with traditional cigarettes, pursuant to section 7(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Having spoken to South Wales police officers and police community support officers, I know that the power of confiscation is an important tool that they use to deal with antisocial behaviour in designated areas of Cardiff, but their work is neutered if they cannot confiscate vapes. Although I recognise that if this Bill is passed, such powers will not be necessary in time—indeed, it will omit section 7(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 from 2027 onwards—I ask the Government to consider whether it would be useful to retain the power of confiscation and expand it to include vapes for the period between now and 2027, so that our police officers have the same legal powers across cigarettes and vapes as a tool in their armoury to combat antisocial behaviour.

Aside from that specific point, I reiterate my support for this important piece of legislation. Not only will it align this Parliament with the progressive actions of the Welsh Government on such important health matters; it will bolster our commitment in this place to safeguarding public health. In so doing, it will save many thousands of lives from the scourge of cancer and protect children from becoming hooked on vaping.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q This is a question specifically on vapes. You mentioned earlier that because it is a new product, there is a lack of scientific consensus on the medium to long-term effects. Are we going to see publications around this over the next five to 10 years—maybe sooner? Presumably there have been clinical trials on these products. Can you tell me perhaps the difference between the two? I accept fully the tobacco legislation; my concern is the evidence base for the vapes, and the potential for a cobra effect, where we might see people go back to tobacco-based products because they are cheaper to purchase. The second piece of evidence for this is that in the Regulatory Policy Committee report it says that it expects a 12% reduction in vaping, in a similar trend to tobacco-based products. Is that a reasonable assumption, given that there has been a long-standing public awareness of tobacco, versus perhaps a lack of awareness around the complexities of vaping products?

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Would Sir Michael like to go first?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. Thank you for the important question. You are quite right that the evidence on the potentially harmful effects of vapes is still developing, and we are not at the stage that we are with our knowledge of tobacco. Certainly, as we have said already, the harmful effects of vapes are, and are likely to be, significantly less than those of tobacco, but are unlikely to be zero. This is an area in which there is ongoing research. The World Health Organisation has raised concerns about the potential impact, particularly in children, in terms of brain development. I know you will hear more about that later from other panellists. That is something that we will obviously need to continue to keep under review. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to introduce further measures, should that be required.

However, in all this there is a need for balance. Obviously, the Government—and certainly the Northern Ireland Assembly, when they will be debating this in the coming weeks—will wish to ensure that there is a balance between ensuring that vapes are accessible to individuals to assist cessation of smoking and help them to quit, but also that we are guided by the evidence to ensure that any legislation that is introduced is proportionate. That is incumbent on all of us at this time. Certainly, should further evidence of harmful effects become available, there is the opportunity and flexibility within the Bill to look at this again.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I would add only that it took us some decades to work out the extraordinary impact of smoking. Much of that tends to be cumulative over time, so you do not see the major effects of someone starting to smoke in their 20s till they are in their 50s, 60s and 70s. What we do not want is to be looking back in 20 years’ time and saying, “We knew these were addictive; we knew that people were smoking things.” Things that go into the lungs are much more dangerous than things you eat, for a variety of reasons. Just basing it on lab studies is not a safe way to proceed. I think all of us were therefore thinking that the sensible thing to do, while maintaining vapes as a smoking quit aid, is to avoid a situation where people who are currently not smokers take up vapes, because they will definitely get addicted—the nicotine is there, and there is a high chance in our view that they will have harms, although the size of those harms is currently difficult to put an exact number on over time. Some people come to extreme harms quite quickly, actually, but those numbers are fortunately relatively small.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q Building on what my colleague and yourselves are talking about, specifically on vaping, I am trying to drill into your confidence levels on the flexibility in the legislation, which you have been talking about. As has been indicated—you have all talked very eloquently about it—there is not as much of an evidence base when it comes to vaping, for all the reasons you have outlined. If we think of a new car or a new product in the market, it will go through a lot of testing before it is put out there, in order to ensure it is safe. I recognise that in that regard, the genie is out of the bottle. However, the evidence underpinning vaping, as regards the integrity and safety of public health, is not as rigorous. Therefore, should the Bill not go further in terms of putting in more stringent requirements in that regard, until we have confidence in the impact on public health across all our four nations?

Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is very difficult to disentangle the evidence about vaping, because so many of the people who are currently vaping are either current or ex-smokers as well. To do some form of longitudinal study that actually gets to develop the evidence base for any potential harm that is caused by vaping is difficult—although there are attempts to try to do that, such as through the Our Future Health study. At this moment, I think the provisions within the Bill represent a proportionate and reasonable approach with the flexibility that exists within it to be able to respond as new evidence develops, either towards or against the harms that are associated with vaping. I think it is proportionate in that it maintains vaping as a potential tool in the armoury to help people to stop smoking, but similarly it is proportionate in stopping the abhorrent marketing of vapes to children, which Sir Chris has already mentioned, and in allowing the position, which I think is correct, that if you have never started vaping or smoking, you should not. The proportionality of the provisions just now is heading in the right direction, but with the ability to flex as future evidence emerges.

[The Chair]

We have one more question, which I am afraid is probably the last one to this set of witnesses, from Liz Jarvis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

Q Do you believe that there is a substantial health impact on people working in certain sectors who unavoidably encounter second-hand smoke in the course of their employment? What impact will the measures in the Bill have on that?

Dr Ian Walker: The impact of the Bill will reach every sector, on the face of it. Obviously the aim of making a smoke-free UK will impact everybody in whichever sector, but I think you are probably referring specifically to increasing smoke-free places, or places where smoking is not allowed. For people who are exposed unavoidably by their working environment, of course this will be good news and a good expansion.

As you heard from Sarah, we did not quite get to hospitality in the Bill, but it will be interesting, as we go through consultation, to review the evidence and understand the sentiment. Clearly, people working in hospitality are likely to be exposed to smoke in their work environment, even if that is outside. The Bill makes important steps in increasing the number of smoke-free places and reducing exposure to tobacco smoke.

Sarah Sleet: As the CMO said earlier, it is about the duration as well as the density of smoking. If you work in hospitality in those outdoor spaces, the duration will clearly be longer; if you work on a coach concourse, you will be exposed for longer. It is really important to remember that.

Another issue is inequality. There is a concentration of working lives that are more exposed to second-hand smoking, which is exacerbated by inequality.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Some of the evidence that has been submitted referred to the gateway effect and how there is perhaps not the evidence to suggest that there is a transition from one to the other. Are your organisations still concerned about the increase in vaping among groups who have not previously smoked cigarettes?

Sarah Sleet: That is a tricky one. We know that a lot of people who use vaping to stop smoking end up dual-using for a while. Some then move on to just vaping, and some eventually move completely away from it. We seriously need a comprehensive programme for nicotine cessation and smoking cessation to support people on that journey and make sure that people who go on that journey do not come back in. We heard earlier from ASH Wales about some really good measures that have been put in place, but without that wider context it is hard to cement the behaviour needed to move completely away from it. We need to think broadly about the whole support structure to help people to get off smoking and eventually to move away from nicotine altogether.

Dr Ian Walker: I agree. The real killer in the room, if you like, is cigarettes and tobacco. There is no safe way of consuming tobacco. The alternative of smoking versus vaping is very clear; even though we do not know the long-term health implications of vapes, we know that you are much better off vaping than smoking. Having said that, of course we do not want young people and never-smokers to vape either.

The power of the legislation is its double-pronged approach: preventing people from ever smoking in the first place by raising the age of sale by one year every year, and putting in place a comprehensive package of measures alongside that to control vaping, particularly the access to vaping and the appeal of vaping for young people, to reduce uptake in those communities. All those things together, alongside—you will forgive me for saying this—the investment that will be required for smoking cessation services and to support enforcement by Border Force, HM Revenue and Customs and retailers, will be important components of the Bill’s ability to drive the change that it can make.

[Jim Dickson]

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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne]

Q I have read some of your research from Edinburgh and have two questions relating to it. First, you said that in the research you undertook two years ago 40% of smokers thought that vaping was more harmful than cigarettes. What is the evidence base for that? Based on my understanding of the industry, and from elsewhere, that seems to be quite a high proportion.

Secondly, linking to the economic argument you made earlier, you are right that deprivation is key. There is more smoking in deprived communities. I have asked all the witnesses this question. Is there a concern that because of the concurrency of people vaping and smoking, the people who are doing both will move to an economically cheaper option—that is, pick up smoking again because vapes might become more expensive because of other measures that are introduced? Has that concern been raised in academia?

Professor Linda Bauld: Let me start with the first part of your question. Those data come from the Action on Smoking and Health survey covering Great Britain, which was funded by Cancer Research UK and conducted by YouGov for ASH. Those harm perceptions are really concerning to me because we do not want people who have never smoked or young people to be vaping but, from the evidence I have seen, if more of those 6 million smokers could switch to vaping, we would see health benefits. I think those misconceptions are largely driven by the media and some of the myths—the really harmful stories that get the front page. We need to deal with that and make sure that health professionals and others are empowered to give accurate advice about vaping. We have got a distance to run on that, and anything that the Bill can do to assist that would be welcome.

On whether people who are dual using, which is a significant proportion of smokers, are more likely to switch to smoking if we take action on, for example, removing point-of-sale displays or take other measures on vaping, I am actually not sure about that. The key point is that we need to continue to make smoking more expensive than vaping and to make sure that we address the availability of tobacco in our environment and in different settings. If we can keep that balance to show that vaping is a good option for cessation and is more affordable than cessation, while we keep doing the research on it, I would be optimistic that we are not going to see masses of smokers who are currently vaping to cut down just switch back to smoking in its entirety—hopefully.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Professor Bauld, for your evidence today. Reflecting on your wealth of experience in this area and your analysis of the Bill—with comparisons to our international partners and counterparts—are there any aspects of the Bill that you think could be further improved, noting, obviously, the difference between the previous Government’s version and this version? We heard one example from the previous panel, who talked about the fixed penalty notices. Is £200 too low a number? You may want to comment on that. But, generally, on the wider parts of the Bill, is there anything you think could be improved on to deliver the public health and other benefits that we have espoused in this session?

[The Chair]

Can I ask people to speak into the microphone if they can? We are often finding it difficult to pick things up, and the volume is on maximum as it is. Thanks.

Professor Linda Bauld: I think that the legislation, as currently put forward, is good. There are not areas where I would say that the research community—the colleagues I work with—would suggest that the right measures have not been put forward; I think they have been put forward. But I will come back to the point I made at the beginning: I think it is about the implementation, and making sure that we get that right.

Again, I would come back to the four F’s that I mentioned at the beginning. Just thinking about implementing this, I think there are things that need to be considered in how we sequence things. For example, in the last session, you heard from witnesses about the licensing scheme; we already have a register in Scotland that works pretty well, and we are going to move to a conditional register. As those licensing elements and so on have been consulted on, let us at least get retailers in England and Wales on a register, so that we know who is selling vapes and tobacco, until we move to that next step.

Thinking about the promotion aspects, and in-store promotion in particular, let me just give you one figure from a recent study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Stirling—the Cancer Research UK-funded vaper study. When they asked young people where they were seeing the promotion of vaping products, it was on shop fronts and in shops. At almost two thirds, that is the most common area where they see advertising promotion, and then on posters and billboards. There are also concerns about social media and so on. So, again, if you are thinking about what you might implement first, some of those in-store promotions are important. Then, on the product, I think that removing those promotional characteristics from the packaging and labelling is particularly important. Those are the kinds of things that I think need to be brought forward first, as well as thinking about really getting the regulation right.

The only other thing I would say is that, in terms of the different products in this Bill—and it is very flexible—let us not forget the categories that maybe you have not asked about yet. I think one colleague mentioned shisha, but there are also smokeless tobacco products, which are used in some of our communities in particular and which often get through the loopholes. I have done a number of studies on oral tobacco, which we know is very harmful and is linked to mouth cancers and head and neck cancers. So let us make sure that we just keep a focus on the range of tobacco products, even though the dominant product used is the cigarette.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

That is really helpful. Thank you.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Q We have spoken a bit about the gradual change and about that preventing uptake, but how does the gradual change in the age of sale affect the impact on tobacco and vaping behaviour, compared with increasing the age of sale in one go? That is based on comments we have heard about the difficulty in asking people’s ages at 34 or 35—I think most people have no problem knowing I am old enough for most things nowadays.

Professor Linda Bauld: That is an interesting question. My colleagues at UCL did a study that looked at what happened when they raised the age of sale from 16 to 18. I have to be honest with you: at the time, the tobacco control research community would not have pointed to that as the most ambitious measure that you could do; we did not think that changing the age by just two years would make an impact. But, from the data, it actually created 1.3 million more people who could not be sold cigarettes. We also know that, at the same time, due to the action on illicit tobacco, which is really important, the amount of illicit tobacco consumed fell by about 25%. So it is about those two things in partnership: tackling illicit, which of course is really important, and changing the age of sale.

The promise of the smoke-free generation is more ambitious, however. Rather than just raising the age of sale by a few years, we are gradually changing it over time. That protects future generations, because we do not have the big jump to being suddenly ineligible to be sold cigarettes. To go back to the evidence in the annexe to the legislation, which shows the modelling done by my colleagues for the Department of Health and Social Care, it looks pretty robust. I think that this will have a big impact over time. I hope that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Whitby]

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

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

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q I think the professors have probably answered the question, but I am going to ask it anyway, based on the evidence that you have given to colleagues. Recognising that you have said you feel that the Bill strikes the right balance overall, with the different methods it is trying to employ, is there anything else that you would still like it to do?

I am particularly thinking about vaping here, given that I think there is pretty unanimous agreement on the tobacco side. Therefore, just on vaping, is there any more that you think the Bill could do, not necessarily in terms of vaping as a cessation tool to support the transition from smoking, but in terms of preventing people—obviously children, but even just adults—from beginning that journey and vaping in the first place?

Professor Sanjay Agrawal: From my standpoint, there are the online harms—for example, through social media, gaming and music videos. It is a wild west out there—regarding both tobacco and vapes, actually—and there are lots of depictions that lure people in. There is a lot of advertising and promotion of both tobacco and vaping products. I think that that online and social media area is the one area that we could do much more with. That would strengthen the Bill further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cooper]

Q Thank you, Minister, for that rousing speech. I will keep it brief. I want to come back to smoke-free spaces. As you say, the Bill will lead to smoke-free spaces outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals. That is all very laudable and evidence based, but it is important, if you can, that you address the issue around hospitality settings. Please state to the Committee why they are not in the Bill as it stands.

Andrew Gwynne: We wanted to have a proportionate approach. We recognise the difficulty that the hospitality sector has gone through and is in. We listened to the voices of concern. I cannot speak for ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but, as far as England is concerned, we decided that we wanted to target outdoor smoke-free places to areas where children and the most vulnerable people are likely to be. That leads to the logical conclusion that we should target the outside of hospitals, where a lot of vulnerable people go through the doors, outside schools and outside children’s playgrounds.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Minister, could you say a bit more about why you are taking the four-nation approach? I am a Welsh MP, and we have talked about some of the positive and progressive examples that have been illustrated in Wales, which we can learn from. Is the four-nation approach one of the strengths of this Bill? Will it help to ensure that you get that world you talked about, which I suspect—although I do not want to speak for everyone—we all support? Can you say a bit more about that four-nation approach, and if that is one of the key strengths underpinning this Bill?

Andrew Gwynne: It is. The four nations that make up our United Kingdom have gone at different speeds and to different depths in terms of tobacco control over recent years. Zubir was absolutely right to point out that it was the Scottish Labour Government that first introduced the indoor smoking ban, and we followed suit soon after, but it is really important that the four nations stand together on this, not least because some of this does require a four-nation approach in legislative terms. It also means that we can meet this ambition together, and that we are all in this together, because, for me, a health inequality in parts of Greater Manchester is just as important as a health inequality in Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast.

We need to tackle these inequalities, because they are a scourge on our society. That is why a four-nation approach, alongside the permissive nature of this Bill, means that the four nations can go forward together, but also diverge on the basis of extending consultations and so on. That is why we have the support of the devolved nations and the Ministers, who come from different political persuasions across Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; we are all in one, as far as this Bill is concerned, and we have shaped it together.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Q We have heard overwhelmingly from the witnesses how important the Bill will be for tackling inequalities and bringing about a smoke-free future. I am confident that the Bill will pass. In terms of supporting the 6 million current smokers that we have in the UK, do the Government still have plans to make good on their pledge to produce a road map and strategy for reaching targets, especially in places such as the north-east and other deprived area? That way, we can keep an eye on those smokers who do want to quit and what the smoking prevalence ranges are in those areas. A few of the witnesses and submissions have called for that, saying how it would help them.

Andrew Gwynne: That is really important, and I want all Members to understand that a key aspect of reaching our smoke-free ambition is to drive down the prevalence of current smokers. That means a real investment in smoking cessation, a close eye on what is happening on the ground, and using the flexibilities in the Bill, should they be needed, to ensure that we reach that smoke-free ambition.

We announced £70 million of stop smoking funding this week, which has been weighted towards the areas with highest deprivation and smoking prevalence, so that we can try to drive down those inequalities. Obviously, future years funding is subject to the usual processes of the spending review, but let me make it clear that it is a priority of this Government to invest in stop-smoking services. We will ensure that local authorities and the public health functions of the country have the resources needed to reach a point where we are smoke free.