Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Written evidence submitted for the Public Bill Committee on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, by the Consumer Choice Center (TVB68)

About the Consumer Choice Center:

The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organisation dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption.

As an independent nonprofit organisation, the Consumer Choice Center relies on the support and funding from private donors. As described in our Code of Ethics, we strictly maintain editorial independence and do not give our funders any influence on editorial decisions.

Our support comes from corporations, individuals, and foundations. We have a tiered membership model available to members who support us on a yearly basis, equalling silver, gold, and platinum status.

In the past and currently, we have received funding from multiple industries such as energy, fast moving consumer goods, nicotine, alcohol, airlines, agriculture, manufacturing, digital, healthcare, chemicals, banking, cryptocurrencies, and fin-tech.

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Recent involvement of the Consumer Choice Center in consultations:

● Response to the UK Government’s consultation on creating a smokefree generation.

● Response to the Scottish Government consultation on draft Statutory Instrument on the prohibition of Disposable ( single-use ) Vapes.

● Response to the UK Government consultation on draft Statutory Instrument on the prohibition of Disposable ( single-use ) Vapes.

This submission is made by Mr Mike Salem, UK Country Associate of the Consumer Choice Center.

Executive Summary:

● The direction taken by the Government to achieve a smokefree society has damaged the UK’s international reputation as a leader in Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR).

● The Bill, if passed, will hand over a large market to criminals who will be the real winners from this legislation, and risks public health safety by not being able to regulate the contents of these illicit market products.

● The Bill, if passed, would face significant difficulties in being enforced.

Detailed submission

1. Smoking is harmful and most consumers are aware of the risks. However it is a decision they make. The Public Health Minister and CMO Chris Whitty claim that there is no choice in addiction. However, this is untrue. While tobacco addiction is a serious issue, many consumers are able to recover from it, crucially through nicotine alternatives which this legislation is planning to restrict. As such, public officials are shaping this legislation to fit their own narrative.

2. The CCC has been monitoring these debates over the last months in Parliament and will continue to do so.

3. Despite the government’s efforts to reach a sensible solution that would optimise public health, it took the easy decision of prohibiting tobacco and potentially many vape flavours, as well as restricting many other nicotine alternatives, such as heat not burn products. In this action, the government has successfully shifted the responsibility away from itself and to the already burdened enforcement agencies such as the border force and Trading Standards.

4. There are two fundamental misconceptions that the government overlooked: Firstly, smoking rates have declined and continue to do so. It is rather a shame that many fail to mention the past successes of the UK being a leader in Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR). Smoking amongst schoolchildren has declined from 13% in the 1990s to only 1% presently. Smoking figures continue to decline , and the concerns of a rise are unfounded.

5. In regards to vaping, the reality is that it is 95% less harmful than smoking, according to Public Health England . Those who make the leap in wanting to quit smoking often turn to vaping, so much so that the NHS suggested giving out vapes in A&E wards . Vaping is far less harmful than smoking. The fact that we have to repeat this point several times is disappointing. The CCC was also disappointed to see one of the oral witnesses publicly refuting Public Health England on the fact that vaping is less harmful than smoking . MPs and legislators who vilify vapes will be responsible for damaging the health of our nation.

6. Many who attempt to rationalise their dislike for tobacco harm reduction turn to the World Health Organisation (WHO). Sadly, the WHO has been treating vaping as equally harmful, if not worse than smoking. These recent posts by the WHO advocate that vaping is more harmful than smoking, which is clearly not the case.

7. It has recently been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) that for every restriction of a vape flavour for 1 less 0.7 mL, 12 additional cigarettes are consumed . As such, there are real life consequences to restrictions which the government fails to see.

8. Another certain consequence of this proposed Bill is the expansion of the illicit market for both vapes and tobacco, which will not only cost the government money, but will risk lives. As it stands, tobacco and nicotine products are regulated, and the government is aware of the content of these products. Once the government gives up the ability to inspect and regulate products, by prohibiting legal supply and sale of tobacco and potentially vape flavours, it will not be able to regulate what goes into these products as it will be entirely in the hands of the illicit markets. There is an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who wish to see vapes only used to quit smoking, meaning as medication and potentially licenced, and yet expose users to unregulated content in the same legislation.

9. The illicit markets argument cannot be dismissed, as the Public Health Minister suggested. South Africa imposed a tobacco prohibition during COVID, which led to 93% of consumers purchasing cigarettes from the illicit market, according to the University of Cape Town . Furthermore, Bhutan was the first country to implement a prohibition on the sale of tobacco and studies have shown the resulting "rampant" illicit trade.

10. The impact assessment and various Regulatory Policy Committee findings fail to explain how the government revenue lost from tobacco duty, which at the moment stands at around £10 billion a year, are to be recuperated. The argument that tobacco prohibition is a net saving is false and relies on analysis that does not calculate costs for those who have been prevented from smoking, as well as omitting several variables which leads to a bias in this conclusion. The New Zealand government cited fiscal responsibility as a reason for its U-turn on its tobacco prohibition policy. As such, the argument that this legislation is fiscally responsible is false.

11. The process of scrutinising the bill conducted at this stage is unfair and unrepresentative, which has denied the Commons a fair opportunity at performing its key role of scrutinising government legislation. Firstly, consumers were not invited to testify at the oral evidence stage. Consumers do not want to be punished or classified as criminals, and the government ought to by its own logic in this legislation to help them and not push them to the illicit market and expose them to criminals. Crucially, they are also constituents of MPs and to deny them the opportunity to hear their experiences of smoking and vaping is undermining. Second, policy making is best made when it is properly scrutinised. Usually this is done best at a committee stage as there are representations from different political parties, interests and opposing views. Sadly, on this occasion, only two MPs on this Public Bill Committee have voted against the Bill, no stakeholders that had objections to the Bill were invited to give oral evidence and crucially this means that there was no opportunity to discuss and criticise some of the shortcomings of a major legislative initiative. Furthermore, ‘creeping’ ministerial powers in this legislation allow ministers to make decisions without the scrutiny of Parliament at an unprecedented worrying rate. The use of secondary legislation and a vague framework on tobacco control results in less effective policies.

12. Finally, the government is yet to provide how this legislation will work in Northern Ireland without leaving its citizens behind. The EU has already ruled that a generational prohibition on cigarettes, which was proposed by Denmark, breaches Article 34 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). As such, this raises questions about how the government believes the Windsor Framework is consistent with this legislation.

13. In conclusion, the reality is that this Bill in its current form leaves the government in a weaker position, meaning that the government will not be able to regulate the contents of tobacco and nicotine products. It also diminishes Parliament, by surrendering powers away to ministers. Crucially, it will leave our consumers at a great risk of being exposed to criminals and illicit markets.

January 2025