Following on from the ghastly scene of the Chancellor installing a tax on vaping products which prioritises a grubby tax grab over public health (see part 1), the government’s born-again ignorance about the benefits of vaping – and its refusal to hear any word of opposition - has further ramped up with some aspects of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill that is working its way through parliament. It comprises Orwellian clauses which hand the Secretary of State power to implement policies against e-cigarettes however and whenever he or she chooses, and without having to endure the inconvenience of having MPs vote on it.
Additionally, the impact assessment cited an unpublished 2017 Canadian opinion which inflated the relative risk of vaping products compared to cigarettes. In doing so, the government ignored far more recent and fully peer-reviewed research from Public Health England and the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities – commissioned by the government. The research rated vaping as four times less of a risk than the obscure Canadian document. Cherry-picking science to exclude that of its own scientific advisers is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but also proves that the government is scrambling to justify vaping proposals which they must know will be at the expense of public health.
The Farcical Committee
Following the bill’s second reading, the make-up of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee to scrutinise this legislation is a farce. The Committee is a who’s who of ignorant anti-vaping extremists who refuse to consider any evidence which challenges their bigotry against nicotine, tobacco harm reduction products, and science.
For example, Rachael Maskell has recently tabled questions to the public health minister demanding a ban on all vape advertising and “banning the use of vapes in public spaces, bars and vehicles with child passengers.” Her contribution to the House of Commons debate was to complain that banning children from buying cigarettes was not enough and that “there must be greater ambition to prevent people over 18, as well as those under 18, from starting vaping.”
Caroline Johnson, another whose weasel words claimed to understand that vaping is useful for public health, used her allotted time during the debate to promote dubious anti-vaping research and attempt to widen the prohibition. She was quick to say she wanted to “focus most of my remarks on vaping” which she described as “an alternative addiction.” She, too, has already moved on from the inevitable generational age ban on tobacco sales to insisting terms of the Bill should not only apply to vapes but also nicotine pouches.
But those invited to give evidence to the farcical one-sided make-up of the Committee is nothing but a sick (and deadly) joke. The most important stakeholders, (as the most affected, are consumers), were not represented or had their opinions considered. The UK’s two vaping trade associations were also omitted.
Biased Testimonies
The testimony of one witness proves beyond doubt that the exercise was designed solely to hear remarks which slap the government on the back rather than a process of scrutiny that the Committee is supposed to be designed for. David Lawson, a scientist involved in testing products for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and Trading Standards, rightly pointed out that, had the terms of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations in 2016 been properly enforced, the new proposals on destroying vaping products as a viable option for adult smokers to quit would have been unnecessary. Lawson was instantly challenged by the Committee about whether he was an employee of a tobacco or vape company, visibly shocked that a heretic had made his way through their scrupulously-constructed net of purity and clearly totally forgetting who he was.
Government Tactics
Andrea Leadsom (Public Health Minister) repeatedly proved she was not there to scrutinise the Bill, but instead to ask for arguments to use against those who opposed it in parliament. Or, in her own words, “this is a public evidence session and we are looking to make the strong case for this Bill.”
Experts who are much in favour of vaping were mostly excluded as witnesses, but there was room for a PHD student from Scotland who has spent her entire time in the past year or so lobbying for a ban on disposable vapes. So keen was the Committee to throw as much mud around about vaping as possible, that they must have forgotten that the ban on disposables is not even part of the Bill they are supposed to be scrutinising. It is, instead, already tacked onto the Environmental Protection Act as a Statutory Instrument.
An Affront to Democracy
The process is blatantly not an impartial consideration of views on the rights or wrongs of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. It is the legislative equivalent of a kangaroo court.
Watching the proceedings, it was clear that the government has abandoned any semblance of balance and transparency. Nor does it care that the blatant intention is to force through the legislation with no attempt to consider the totality of the evidence.
A credible government adheres to evidence-based policymaking, but this distasteful process is a prime example of blinkered, policy-based evidence-making. It is also a disgraceful abuse of power and an affront to democracy created by a farcical government.
Martin Cullip is an International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance's Consumer Center and is based in South London, UK.
