Hansard

I congratulate the member for Ayr on securing this members’ business debate, which ensures that this topic is given the prominence that it deserves in this chamber. I was pleased to sign her motion. She is not alone in noticing the huge rise in the number of young people who are vaping, which should be a cause for concern for every one of us.

The rise in the number of young people using disposable vapes is clearly an issue, and we are not alone in thinking that it is. Research by Asthma + Lung UK Scotland shows that 83 per cent of Scots are concerned about the use of vaping products in schools and that 82 per cent are concerned about the marketing of such products. There is an obligation on us to respond to those concerns. Although there remains some dubiety about the long-term health risks, I believe that it would be foolish to assume anything other than that vapes are, ultimately, bad for young people and for the wider public. That is the basis on which we, as legislators, should determine our public health response.

I agree with the calls for increased regulation of such products, particularly disposable vapes, given the environmental damage that they cause, but I remain unconvinced by the calls for outright prohibition and a blanket ban. The reason for that is quite simple: I do not think that outright prohibition works in reducing the harm of any so-called vice in society. As we have seen throughout history, attempts to ban products such as alcohol or drugs often lead to a black market—unregulated trade that is dominated by organised crime—which often makes the problem worse.

That said, however, I believe that we have to be more diligent in the regulation of the industry. It seems perverse to me that we put cigarettes behind shutters and regulate packaging to make cigarettes less attractive but we allow vapes to be displayed prominently in shop windows in shiny, colourful packages, which are clearly designed to attract younger people to try them out. Indeed, just yesterday, a constituent sent me an email about a store in Glasgow that advertises vapes right next to slushies and desserts of the same flavour. That is clearly and cynically designed to manipulate young people’s consumer habits.

I do not know whether anyone is a fan of “Mad Men” but, in the pilot episode, which is set in the 1960s, Lucky Strike is concerned about Reader’s Digest first reporting the risk of cancer from cigarettes, so it decides to market them with the slogan “It’s toasted” to make them sound more benign and less potentially hazardous for consumers. That shows that a deceptive form of marketing that tries to seduce people into thinking that products are benign—whether it is cigarettes or, potentially, vapes—has long been a characteristic of the tobacco industry and similar vendors.

If the health risks are deemed to be similar, the regulation and policy response must surely be equally stringent. I would like the Government to explore that when considering a response to this growing problem. When dealing with increased regulation, we also need to consider the sanctions for those who are caught selling such products to under-18s. Anecdotally, it seems that young people under the age of 18 find getting hold of vaping products easier than getting hold of cigarettes, and we have to look at why that is the case. Clearly, the regulations that the Government introduced in April 2017 are proving to be ineffective in that regard. I am in favour of tougher sanctions on shopkeepers to ensure that they are suitably deterred from illegally selling such products.

In addition to the potential health risks, there are environmental concerns about the prevalence of disposal vapes. Those concerns have merit, so Labour supports, in principle, the Government’s position on a ban on disposable vape products. I hope that further study will show that that would result in a reduction in the levels of youth vaping.

As I said earlier, I am generally sceptical of outright bans, but it would be worth while to carry out an exercise to see whether we can reduce harm. At the very least, we need to make such products look significantly less attractive to young people, and we need to deal with the environmental impact of their use. If a ban is not appropriate, we should consider whether a return scheme of some description could be rapidly introduced to minimise the impact of their use on the environment.

We clearly have a problem on our hands, and the policy response to it will need to be multifaceted and measured. Taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut will not solve the issue. This is a perfect example of the need for us, as legislators, to know our limits. In the long term, although we might not want to introduce an outright ban, I hope that regulations of the kind that we have discussed today might exert a more positive influence on consumer behaviour in order to reduce public health risks and the environmental harms that we see today.