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.