Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Sir Michael, you were nodding. Did you have any comment to make?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I simply echo Sir Frank’s comments on the flexibility that the Bill affords us, and again confirm my agreement with Sir Chris’s comments. Let us be clear: there is no other product that causes life-limiting addiction, that kills two thirds—kills two thirds—of the people who use it. It is staggering, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to address a scourge on our society. There is no safe tobacco product —none.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. I am afraid this will probably be the last question before the next panel of witnesses. Tristan Osborne, we have about two and a half minutes left.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q To go back to my earlier question on product displacement, which you have alluded to, you said there is concurrent evidence that people who are smoking are also vaping. Is there any evidence that there might be a cobra effect whereby, because we are banning disposable vapes, we are increasing the price of vaping, so you might then see people return to the product you were originally trying to get them off? Has there been any conversation in this space around what the evidence would be to show that the legislation is a success, beyond the overall reduction of smoking?

Hazel Cheeseman: Currently, vapes are much less expensive than smoking, and that is the kind of gap that we need to maintain. As the excise tax comes into force in October 2026—that is its planned enforcement date—the intention is to raise the tax on tobacco at the same time to maintain the price differential. That is crucial. We do want to find a sweet spot for the price of these products that makes the entry level for young people and non-smokers higher. It is a dissuasive technique so that people who do not need to be using these products do not use them. We obviously want them always to be cheaper than smoked or combusted tobacco, so that there is always that incentive for people to switch from the more harmful to the less harmful.

As has been repeatedly said, there is flexibility in the legislation: it allows us to calibrate. In particular, unlike the previous Bill, it allows us to regulate around product design and the size of products, so you could, for example, look to make them more expensive by changing the minimum size of the amount of liquid that could be sold. All this needs to be looked at once the Bill has passed. There is an awful lot of work to be done to calibrate around things like price, branding and so on, as the Bill passes and we move on to the secondary regulations.

Sheila Duffy: Absolutely—

[The Chair]

I do apologise, but I have to bring the session to a close as the time has been used up. I am sorry for interrupting. I thank our witnesses Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson for their evidence, and I am grateful for the questions that have been asked.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Ian Walker and Sarah Sleet gave evidence.