Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

John Whitby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Cooper]

Q Thank you for coming along this afternoon. You mentioned the New Zealand case. Could you talk briefly, in case anybody does not know, about what happened and why the standards were dropped? What learnings might we take from that for our legislation?

Professor Linda Bauld: I think there are political aspects to that, which I will not comment on, but obviously the understanding was that it was a very comprehensive and ambitious set of measures that was introduced. Like this Bill, it was about not just the smoke-free generation but other measures as well, including, interestingly, on the density of retail outlets, which might be something for another day or another, potential future measure. A new Government came in and decided not to take it forward.

The learning that we need to take from that, from my understanding and from speaking to colleagues there, goes back to the CMOs’ evidence about the lobbying that is going to occur. The tobacco industry and partners around the industry are very powerful, so persuading colleagues that this is undermining choice and that it will be a burden in terms of regulation, cost to retailers and so on—those were the arguments that were used in New Zealand.

We need to keep a watchful eye, as we think ahead to the regulations and the next steps for the legislation, that we do not open that door too widely and allow those arguments to become too powerful. As you heard earlier, that industry is continually looking for new recruits to replenish those it loses through morbidity and mortality, and that will happen in the UK as well unless we get this right.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Q There are obviously going to be future health benefits and financial benefits but, realistically, based on what happened in New Zealand, how quickly are we going to feel the benefits, public health-wise and financially? It is going to take years for us to realise the benefits of the Bill.

Professor Linda Bauld: This is quite a comprehensive piece of legislation, with lots of different pieces, so I will give a couple of examples. One area we looked at was protecting more places from second-hand smoke, and the health benefits of that to people who are vulnerable—people with asthma, respiratory conditions and cardiovascular disease—are very immediate. When the smoking ban came in in England in 2007, I did a study looking at admissions to hospital from myocardial infarction after the legislation was introduced, and in the first year we saw substantial reductions in admissions to hospital for heart attacks. So I think some things will be quite quick.

In terms of the pregnancy question, if a woman is not smoking during pregnancy—some of the measures encourage that—the health benefits to the mum and the baby are immediate and long lasting. I also mentioned the modelling statistics on driving down prevalence, which is obviously going to take more time. There are then the regulations to protect young people from vaping, some of which will, I think, have quite a big effect if they prevent somebody from taking up vaping at all, and some will take a bit longer in terms of driving down the rates. It is a balance.

The final thing I would say is—this is my opportunity to make this point, as you would expect—please, let us make sure that we do the research. We must support the academic community to do the research to monitor how the Bill is implemented, so that we can provide evidence that what colleagues have put forward and decided to do actually makes a difference. Other countries will then be able to look at that evidence and make up their own minds.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The final question is from John Whitby.

[John Whitby]

Q Do you think there is anything missing from the Bill that would be beneficial for retailers?

Inga Becker-Hansen: I think the key would be guidance for retailers on implementation and how the measures will be carried out. Again, there is the idea of encouraging a consumer-facing public awareness campaign that highlights the new restrictions and the safeguards for shop and retail workers so that, when the new regulations go through, the public are aware of the changes.

In any new secondary legislation, we would encourage alignment within the regulations themselves and across the devolved nations so that it is clear and consistent.

[The Chair]

We can squeeze one more in if anybody wants to ask a question. I thank the witness for giving evidence.

Examination of Witness

Matthew Shanks gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

Q Is there a ballpark figure for a general day? When you have a list of paediatric respiratory cases, are maybe 10% or 20% due to this?

Professor Steve Turner: The children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home are over-represented among children with respiratory symptoms. Parents do not want their children to smoke, so they feel torn. They are conflicted: they are addicted to nicotine, but they do not want their children to smoke, and having a smoke-free generation will address that almost impossible parental conflict.

[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.