Research and analysis

RPC opinion: options for restricting the display of vaping, nicotine products and tobacco related devices and products

Published 7 August 2026

Lead department: Department of Health and Social Care

Summary of proposal: to retain and extend the existing tobacco product display restrictions to cover all tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and other nicotine products.

Submission type: options assessment – 15 October 2025

Legislation type: secondary

RPC reference: RPC-DHSC-25092-OA(1)

Date of issue: 18 November 2025

RPC opinion rating

Fit for purpose:

• the options assessment (OA) outlines the problem under consideration, focused on the need to reduce the consumption of tobacco and vaping products to improve health outcomes
• the assessment considers various measures at the long-list stage, progressing multiple options for both tobacco and vapes
• the assessment considers alternatives to regulation
• the small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient
• the OA justifies its preferred approach of restricting the display of products in scope, with the shortlisted options now to be consulted upon
• the scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on the business impacts
• the OA includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation, with a clear review timeline, evaluation questions and potential data sources

RPC opinion summary

Rationale: Green

The assessment outlines the problem under consideration and the argument for intervention, which is focused on the need to reduce the consumption of tobacco and vaping products to improve health outcomes, while noting the role that vaping can play in smoking cessation.

Identification of options: Green

The assessment considers various measures at the long-list stage, progressing multiple options for both tobacco and vapes. The assessment considers alternatives to regulation, justifying why these have not been carried forward. The small and micro business assessment provided is sufficient.

Justification for preferred way forward: Green

The OA justifies its preferred approach of restricting the display of products in scope. All of the shortlisted options will now be consulted upon to determine the final policy.

Regulatory scorecard: Satisfactory

The scorecard provides a satisfactory summary of expected impacts, focussing on the business impacts. This assessment could be improved by monetising some of the potential health benefits of the proposal.

Monitoring and evaluation: Good

The assessment includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation, with a clear review timeline, evaluation questions and potential data sources, as well as considering the possible unintended consequences.

Summary of proposal

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is responsible for the regulation of the display of tobacco products in England. The prevalence of tobacco consumption remains high, and the prevalence of vaping and nicotine use amongst young people has risen substantially in recent years, leading to detrimental health outcomes.

This OA proposes to retain and extend the existing tobacco product display restrictions, including the regulations on the display of prices, so that they cover all tobacco products, tobacco related devices, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. This is with the aim of reducing the consumption of these products.

There are 2 shortlisted options proposed for tobacco and 4 for vapes in this assessment.

Tobacco and herbal smoking products:

• option (a): align display regulations for tobacco related products currently out of scope of existing regulations with the tobacco regulations already in place
• option (b): introduce regulations covering all tobacco products that prohibits display and mandates that any display units must be behind a sales counter

Vaping and other nicotine products:

• option (a): align with existing tobacco display restrictions, with a partial exemption for commercial pharmacists
• option (b): align with existing tobacco display restrictions, but with no exemptions for commercial pharmacists
• option (c): ban the display of vaping products and require displays are behind a counter, with a partial exemption for commercial pharmacists
• option (d): ban the display of vaping products and require displays are behind a counter, with no exemption for commercial pharmacists

The department has not specified a preference between these options, and intends to consult on each of them to determine its preferred way forward.

Rationale

Problem under consideration

The key issue considered by the department is that the display of tobacco, vaping and other nicotine products leads to an increased perception of acceptability and accessibility of these products, resulting in more purchases, especially among young people. This leads to increased harm, as tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death, illness and disability in the UK. This also undermines the goal of the government to make the UK smokefree. The problem under consideration could benefit from considering the difference in risks associated with displaying tobacco versus vaping and other nicotine products.

The OA does well to use a range of evidence to support this problem statement, using research, survey data and evidence from other jurisdictions to show how the display of these tobacco products increases the likelihood to smoke, and that displays are increasingly targeted and noticed by children and young people. The OA would benefit from defining terms like ‘young people’ to improve clarity. The OA could do more to demonstrate how current display practices are leading to a documented rise in young people using these tobacco and nicotine products.

Argument for intervention

The department argues it is necessary for the government to intervene as there is an irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco, vaping and other nicotine industry’s interests and public health policy interests. As such, there is little incentive for retailers to limit the display of these tobacco and vape products, with only limited evidence of any voluntary action. The OA supports this argument using research to suggest that previous restrictions on display have reduced smoking numbers.

The assessment should be improved by expanding upon its rationale for intervention, including by identifying a market failure to support this argument, such as by discussing the negative externalities associated with smoking. The OA should also consider the previous display ban post implementation review conducted by the department in more detail, especially as it did not recommend extending the ban to vapes. The OA should justify further why a different approach is now being taken.

Objectives and theory of change

The assessment has set out 3 overall policy objectives, including to reduce tobacco consumption, reduce youth vaping and maintain the availability of vapes as a smoking cessation aid. The assessment then links these objectives to a set of strategic wider government priorities. The objectives should be improved by specifically linking each objective to the SMART framework, showing how they are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited.

Whilst the framework is mentioned, it has not been fully utilised to show how each objective meets these criteria. The department has also set out a high-level theory of change model to demonstrate how the proposed intervention will achieve the policy objectives.

Identification of options

Identification of the ‘long-list’ of options

The assessment considers a wide range of potential interventions to form its long list. This has been split into two sets of options, one for tobacco and herbal smoking products and another for vapes and other nicotine products.

Within these 2 areas, the department considers a range of sub-options for a variety of different elements of a potential intervention, including products in scope, type of implementation, businesses in scope and delivery approach. These interventions have each been briefly summarised qualitatively, however the assessment could be improved by providing more detail on each of the long-listed options that were not advanced to the shortlist.

The assessment could also be improved by including detail on the process behind developing the long-list of options, such as how research and other evidence have been used to form these policies. This would also have benefitted from using the Green Book’s Strategic Options Framework Filter (SOFF), which could help the present the long-list in greater detail whilst retaining a clear and concise structure.

The long-list of options has been assessed in stages, describing why options have not been advanced to the short-list in turn through each of the sub-levels. The assessment clearly assesses each of the options against the policy objectives using RAG ratings.

Consideration of alternatives to regulation

The OA has considered 2 non-regulatory changes as an alternative to regulation in its long-list, included in the ‘solution and delivery’ sub-section. The department considers the possibility of introducing a voluntary scheme for the products under consideration, or issuing guidance, however neither of these options have been advanced to the shortlist.

The assessment provides a sufficient justification for discounting these options at the long-list stage and therefore pursuing regulatory change, arguing that businesses would be unlikely to comply as a result of increased cost and burden associated with implementation, thus reducing the likelihood of meeting the stated objectives.

The OA does well to highlight the differences between interventions on tobacco and vaping products, with non-regulatory options having the benefit of not limiting the awareness of products for adult smokers seeking to quit smoking in the case of vapes.

Justification for the short-listed options

The assessment has discounted most of the proposed tobacco/herbal smoking sub options, with only one progressing for each of the sub-options aside from type of implementation, with 2 possible options advanced.

This has resulted in 2 headline options (aside from a ‘do-nothing’ option) progressing to the shortlist for tobacco/herbal smoking, which are to align display regulations for tobacco products currently out of scope of existing regulations with those in place, and to introduce regulations covering all tobacco products that prohibit display.

The department takes a similar approach with vapes and other nicotine products, with the addition of considering an exemption for commercial pharmacists. This has resulted in 4 headline options: aligning with existing tobacco display restrictions, or a ban on the visible display of vape products, each with the possibility of either a partial or no exemption for commercial pharmacists.

The department has used its policy objectives to assess the long-listed options, setting out in a table each of the potential interventions and how they perform against these objectives. This table has been used to demonstrate how rejected long-listed options fail to meet the policy objectives, with a description of why these options are an inadequate fit.

The OA uses a table to summarise shortlisted options, reconciling them into 2 overall options for tobacco/herbal smoking and 4 for vapes and other nicotine products, however this could be presented more clearly, with the number of varying sub-options presented in the table not matching the shortlisted options provided.

The assessment could be improved by providing greater qualitative detail on why discounted options are not suitable, for example further discussion of potential risks or explanation as to why an option may not be feasible.

Small and micro business assessment and medium-sized business assessment

The OA includes a good small and micro business assessment. The department describes how most affected business, including small shops, tobacconists, vape shops and pharmacies are small business, using ONS data to give an indication of the scale of this impact. Because of this, the department argues it would not be possible to achieve the policy objectives with small and micro businesses exempted. This justification is sufficient. The assessment could be improved by considering how many affected businesses are micro-sized.

The OA discusses the potential impacts on small and micro caused by the proposal, such as reduced profits from fewer sales. The department also anticipates a disproportionate familiarisation cost for smaller businesses relative to larger businesses that will be more equipped to deal with the regulations.

The department has briefly considered potential mitigations for businesses when dealing with the impact of new regulations. These include an exemption for vape shops, however this was ruled out as part of the options appraisal process. The department plans to use its consultation to identify further mitigation opportunities.

The OA also considers the potential impact on medium sized businesses, which may face a similarly disproportionate familiarisation cost relative to large businesses, and high potential storage costs compared to smaller businesses due to a higher amount of stock.

Justification for preferred way forward

Appraisal of the shortlisted options

The assessment includes a relatively brief qualitative discussion of the shortlisted options. This considers tobacco/herbal smoking options (a) and (b), and vapes/other nicotine product options a), b) c) and d) jointly, with the shortlist appraisal focussed more on the value of intervening relative to the baseline scenario.

A net present value calculation has also been provided, considering the set of tobacco and vapes options jointly as a ‘do minimum’, intermediate’ and ‘do maximum’ packages. This assessment does not result in the selection of a preferred option, instead advancing all of the shortlisted options to the upcoming consultation, which will inform a final decision.

The assessment discusses how banning the visible display of products in scope will meet the department’s policy objectives, resulting in a decrease in tobacco usage and youth vaping, which would lead to improved health outcomes, lower health and social care costs and increased economic activity.

The department should expand its increased economic activity argument, given the policy intent to reduce shop sales of products in scope. A preferred option is not stated due to uncertainty around the logistical possibility for all affected businesses to store all products in scope behind a sales counter, and the tension between restricting vape displays and the intention to continuing promoting vaping as a smoking cessation tool.

The assessment of options includes a monetised analysis of a combination of the shortlisted options against the baseline scenario. The department has chosen to present its analysis as three composite options of potential shortlisted approaches for both tobacco and vapes products, which have been combined into option 1 (do minimum), option 2 (intermediate) and option 3 (do-maximum).

The OA should have presented consistent options between its options appraisal process and monetised analysis to improve clarity. The estimated NPVs are -£258 million for option 1 and -£857 million for options 2 and 3 (2024 price year, 2027 present value (pv) base year). These figures do not include the potential health and environmental benefits of the scheme. The department should do more to justify not monetising these impacts.

The level of analysis conducted by the department is sufficient at this stage. The assessment usefully includes a clear definition of the baseline and the analytical assumptions, as set out in Annex A of the OA. As before, the analysis should be improved at a later stage so that the options assessed reflect those in the shortlist. The OA has done well to test key assumptions with a sensitivity analysis, which considers baseline methodologies, impact size and profit margins.

Selection of the preferred option

Overall, the qualitative discussion of the proposed options and monetised analysis used to justify the preferred approach is sufficient at this stage. The discussion reasonably sets out how restricting display of tobacco and vaping products could lead to a reduction in usage, leading to improved health outcomes. The department reasonably makes the case for consulting on it shortlisted options, rather than narrowing them down to a single preferred option at this stage.

Regulatory Scorecard

Part A

The scorecard has been used to provide an indication of the impact of the shortlisted options, with a focus on Option 2 (intermediate options) when going into greater detail on the impacts. As before, many of these impacts have been monetised, with an NPV of -£857 million (2024 price year, 2027 pv base year), mostly based on profit loss to retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers and increased restocking costs. The department expects these costs will be offset by the health benefits caused by reduced tobacco usage, which is described in a discussion of the non-monetised impacts.

The department estimates the Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) as £98 million (2024 prices, 2027 pv base). This is based on the aforementioned costs to retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers. The policy is expected to have an uncertain effect on households, with a household NPV estimated at -£15 million (2024 prices, 2027 pv). This is driven by increased transaction costs to consumers.

The OA discusses how profit loss may be partially offset by money being spent elsewhere, however this is the case for most consumption reducing policies reducing consumption, regardless of the extent business activity is restricted, so is an insufficient argument to support the policy. The department could have improved this assessment with the inclusion of an equivalent annual net direct cost to households (EANDCH) estimation.

The department should justify treating the overall household impact as uncertain, given the scale of health benefits is very likely to outweigh the £15 million transaction costs. The department considers the distributional effects of the scheme, arguing that as smoking and vape consumption is higher in less advantaged social grades, they are more likely to experience a health benefit.

Part B

The assessment usefully considers the potential impact on the business environment for the proposed intervention, covering the possibility that the measures may lead to reduced attractiveness of the sector and an increase in barriers to entry. The OA claims no expected impact on market concentration or competition, however if the policy is likely to impose disproportionate costs on smaller business, then it is possible this could lead to a stronger market position for larger firms.

The assessment includes a summary of international considerations, highlighting whilst the impact will be limited, reduced consumption may result in a decrease in imports. The department has not included any impacts on natural capital and decarbonisation, however the OA should summarise the environmental gains and benefits described in other sections.

Monitoring and evaluation

The assessment includes a good plan for monitoring and evaluation. The department has outlined how it plans on conducting a post implementation review (PIR) 5 years after the legislation comes into effect, which is expected to be 2027, leading to a 2032 review.

The OA sets a potential evaluation methodology, including a range of evaluation questions which could be used to assess if the policy has met the department’s objectives. The plan also includes a detailed range of potential data sources, a list of unintended consequences and external factors that could be considered and an example of a previous PIR the department has conducted following this methodology.