Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025.

Clause 126 - Audiovisual services and radio broadcasting

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 127 stand part.

Schedule 16.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Pritchard.

Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 pertain to audiovisual and radio broadcasting restrictions on tobacco, vapes and the related products that we have been discussing endlessly in this Committee. Although there is a strong argument for the measures from a public health perspective, there may be legitimate concerns regarding freedom of expression and the impact on broadcasters and advertisers —I may be pre-empting points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor will raise.

One of the most compelling arguments for the clauses is their role in protecting young people from exposure to tobacco and vaping products. Studies have consistently shown that advertising plays a significant role in influencing smoking and vaping initiation. Research from Cancer Research UK indicates that young people who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to start smoking, and similar findings have been observed with vaping products, where targeted marketing strategies have contributed to a rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers.

By restricting tobacco and vape-related advertisements on television, radio and on-demand services, the clauses aim to reduce the normalisation of smoking and vaping. The UK has already seen the benefits of such measures in relation to tobacco: since the implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, smoking rates have declined significantly. Extending similar restrictions to vaping is the logical next step to ensure that history does not repeat itself, with a new generation becoming dependent on nicotine.

Critics might argue that the clauses may have unintended consequences for broadcasters, advertisers and the creative industries. The sector relies heavily on advertising revenue, and restrictions on tobacco and vaping-related content may limit potential funding sources, particularly for smaller, independent broadcasters, in an already challenging economic environment. However, as we have seen with the existing bans in relation to tobacco, the public health benefits clearly outweigh the potential issues with the funding that broadcasters could get from vape advertisements.

There is a practical consideration about how the clauses are enforced. We must ensure that broadcasters and on-demand services comply with the new restrictions, and that will require regulatory and oversight resources. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of how the provision will be enforced, whether that is through Ofcom or some other means. There is also a concern about what I describe as cross-border broadcasting. Many streaming services operate internationally, so content produced abroad but accessible in the UK may not be subject to the same restrictions, and if it is, ensuring compliance with UK regulations on the global platforms will present a significant challenge. How does the Minister intend to enforce the provisions in those cases?

This is a complex issue and a balanced approach is necessary, but as I have said, investing in public health campaigns alongside the regulatory measures could help to ensure that the public receive accurate information about smoking and vaping. I therefore support the clauses.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I support the clauses too, although I have a couple of questions. I hope the Minister will be so kind as to answer them.

Clause 126 outlines that part 6 does not apply to independent television or radio services, services provided by the BBC or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, on-demand programme services, or non-UK on-demand programme services that are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. Essentially, they will be covered by Ofcom. Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify exclusions for independent television and radio services regulated by Ofcom, provided they are not classified as additional services. Will the Minister clarify how additional television services and digital additional sound services are defined in practice, and what criteria will be used to classify services at the margins of those categories?

The clause exempts services that are defined as on- demand services under section 368A of the Communications Act from provisions of the Bill. In the rapidly evolving digital media landscape, does the Minister believe that the definition of an on-demand programme service is sufficiently clear to encompass emerging service models? Given the rapid growth of online platform streaming services and the desire he previously expressed to future-proof the bill, does he foresee current exclusions in clause 126 remaining relevant in the future? Should how these platforms, whether UK or non-UK based, are regulated be reconsidered, to ensure they adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast media in relation to tobacco and vapes while being viewed in the UK? We keep coming to this point—how online services can be used to circumvent measures of the Bill.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, raised in a number of our debates, about future-proofing the Bill. There is a big discussion going on about artificial intelligence and how that plays in. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has thought about that, or whether the Minister can clarify how artificial intelligence may be used by the tobacco and vaping industry to get round some of the provisions, and whether the future-proofing is strong enough to deal with that.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I know my hon. Friend is very interested in AI. I am sure that if it is possible to do so, these industries will use any means available to them to maintain their market.

The clause extends the regulations from tobacco to cover all vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. Given my concerns about children and vaping and the use of nicotine, I think this is a sensible measure, which I support.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 contain provisions relating to audiovisual services and radio broadcasting. Clause 126 provides that part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, does not apply to certain categories of television and radio service. That is because these services are already prohibited under the Communications Act 2003.

Clause 127 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Communications Act 2003. The amendments extend provisions in that Act that ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products in certain TV and radio services to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. That ensures that the advertising ban on tobacco in television, radio and on-demand programme services is extended to all of those products. In practice, the measure means we will no longer see banned products or promotional material for those products on any of those mediums.

The shadow Minister rightly points out that the services listed in the clause include ITV, independent television and radio, the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru, and on-demand programme services—that covers the points that Members have made—and non-UK on-demand programme services, which are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it also includes programmes produced and aired outside the United Kingdom that are brought into the United Kingdom.

As a helpful aide-mémoire for the Committee, the Communications Act 2003 regulates telecommunications broadcasting. It confers functions on the Office of Communications, a regulator, to oversee the services. The Act puts in place effective rules for the advertising of tobacco on television, radio and on-demand services. By amending the Act, we ensure that this existing framework also applies to vaping products, nicotine products, and cigarette and herbal smoking papers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and add more to the Bill, as we can use the existing provisions in the 2003 Act. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Clause 129 - Enforcement authorities

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 130 and 131 stand part.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The clause outlines the responsibilities and jurisdictions of enforcement authorities tasked with ensuring compliance with part 6, which covers advertising and sponsorship. Subsection (1) establishes that the enforcement authorities are legally bound to enforce the provisions of the Bill, and subsection (2) contains the definition of an “enforcement authority”. All that sounds very straightforward and sensible, but my question is about funding. If the weights and measures authorities are given an obligation to enforce something but not given the resources to enforce it, they are being given a legal obligation with which they have not got the resources to comply.

Paragraphs 613 and 614 of the impact assessment state that the average trading standards service, of which there are 197, has 9.4 full-time equivalent professionally qualified staff. It is assumed that all those staff would need to be familiarised with the policies and all the various regulations once they are passed through Parliament. We have talked about the amount of regulations that will be created under the Bill; staff will need to be trained in all that. In 2024, the cost of such training was estimated at £23,137, but given that the Bill will not come into force until later—we are in 2025 now—that is a moot point. How much does the Minister think training will cost once all the regulations are up and running? Clause after clause of the Bill provides for regulations to be made, which may be done in one go or several, repeating the need for training.

The impact assessment also talks about the cost of training for the Advertising Standards Authority, estimating it to be £1,945. If it costs that to train all the staff from the ASA on a given topic, it suggests the rest of the public sector’s training could definitely be made more efficient. I suggest that the Minister has a chat with the Chancellor about it—I believe she is looking for ways to make the country more efficient, which she has done so far by making businesses not exist—as it seems a little out of kilter, although I was not sure whether it was a dot or a comma. The impact assessment also measures what it believes Ofcom would need to enforce the training under the new measures. It estimates £3,500 for the staff there, but again, does the Minister think that is realistic?

Clause 130 is about the power of Ministers to take over enforcement functions in a specific case. We have talked at some length in previous debates about the potential for abuse of power in such measures. Clause 131, similarly, is about the power of Ministers to take over proceedings as part of the enforcement functions in respect of a specific case. Again, while I can understand the Minister’s desire to be able to take over from a weights and measures authority as a whole if there were to be a problem with the way it was functioning in a specific case, can he give assurances that there would not be any abuse of power in that respect?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. The Government are investing over £100 million over five years to boost His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force’s enforcement capability to tackle illicit tobacco. In 2025-26 we will invest £30 million of new funding for enforcement agencies, including trading standards, Border Force and HMRC, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting them to implement the Bill.

Decisions on funding for trading standards in future years will be made as part of the spending review process, but given our clear commitment to enforcement in the Bill and the fact that we have put down the payment of £30 million for enforcement in the next financial year, I hope hon. Members are assured that we take these matters seriously. We are investing £3 million over two years specifically to enhance the work led by National Trading Standards to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales. That work is carried out through enhancing market surveillance and enforcement action on ports, online sales enforcement, and boosting the storage and disposal of illicit vapes. The new funding for 2025-26 will build on this work to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales.

The shadow Minister asked how trading standards will use their additional enforcement funding. The crucial point is that we want to boost trading standards’ capacity, to enable the services to conduct more under-age sales test purchases, remove illicit products from the market and identify non-compliant products and bring them into compliance where possible.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My question was not simply how trading standards will use the money allocated, but whether the Minister feels that the money he has allocated is adequately purposed?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I do, which I have just said. The £30 million in the next financial year to boost the enforcement agencies will meet the needs that the Bill sets out. It is also about boots on the ground and having greater capacity. We will be working with trading standards on this additional enforcement funding to ensure that they increase their capacity and are able to take on the roles and responsibilities that the Bill places on them. We will continue to discuss with trading standards how we can best support them in respect of the measures of the Bill. I commend the measures to the Committee.

Clause 133 - Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 133 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, and the Communications Act 2003 to other products, specifically products that are devices of a specified description enabling a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a heated tobacco device or pipe, or an item that is intended to form part of such a device. It allows the Secretary of State to consult with the required persons and gain consent where required with the devolved legislatures. However, how will the Secretary of State further define that, and can the Minister give us some examples of the types of products that might be included under the power? Could it allow for the expansion of regulation to a wide range of products not originally envisaged in the Bill?

The inclusion of devices and items potentially covers a wide array of consumer products without any clear boundary. What are the specific criteria or considerations that the Secretary of State must use when deciding whether to extend the provisions? Could that lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decision making, depending on the political or public health priorities of the Government of the day? The wording seems to give considerable latitude, but not much clarity on when or how the Secretary of State should exercise the power.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am very happy to answer the question posed by the shadow Minister. It is a simple answer: we need clause 133 to avoid loopholes. Otherwise, newer products such as heated tobacco—and those products that have not even been developed yet—are in scope of the restrictions, but devices used alongside them could still be used to promote tobacco consumption.

Clause 136 - Addition of smoke-free places in England

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I beg to move amendmentusb 11, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, after “regulations” insert

“and a local authority may (as respects its area) make byelaws”.

This amendment would extend the power to designate areas as smoke-free to certain local authorities, by making byelaws. Any byelaws so made would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 136, page 77, line 14, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

Amendment 13, in clause 136, page 77, line 16, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

Amendment 14, in clause 136, page 77, at the end of line 24, insert—

“(5) Before making byelaws under this section the local authority must consult any persons the local authority considers it appropriate to consult.

(6) In this section,

‘local authority’ means a county council in England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”

This amendment is associated with amendment 11.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Amendments 11 to 14 are intended to extend the power to local authorities in England to designate areas as smoke-free by making byelaws. Any byelaws would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.What the amendments seek to do is to bring the power to extend smoke-free places to a local level, as there are already a number of local authorities that have had success with that approach.

As we know, local authorities are responsible for public health and know their communities well. Eleven councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating, including in thriving cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. There are many more areas where that approach could have benefits: for instance, in my Dartford constituency, we have a high street with an area where an excellent market takes place every Thursday and Saturday. It is an area not covered by smoke-free legislation, but one that in my view could greatly benefit from smoke-free areas.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

We may come on to this point when we discuss the substantive part of clause 136, but does the hon. Member not see any potential difficulty where there are different local authorities with different regulations on smoke-free areas? One of the beneficial simplicities in the Bill is that it applies the same rules across all areas in all the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. What he is suggesting could potentially add a level of complexity.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

That is indeed a good question. Consistency is clearly desirable: it is easier for the public to understand and it makes enforcement easier. However, there are councils already leading the way in that area, and it is a question of the needs of the community covered by that local authority. We know that smoking is particularly concentrated in deprived communities. Local authorities are able to understand what areas are most at risk, work with those communities and arrive at solutions hand in hand with them. We know that public spaces facilitate quit attempts, so it is a great way to do this in areas where the communities consent to that approach. I still advocate the measure as a good way forward.

Obviously I would have liked to have seen outdoor hospitality settings included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions to this Bill; however, I know that many Members at the Second Reading expressed relief that that is not in scope for England. Other Members have sought to put the areas identified by the Government on the face of the Bill to rule this out in future, but I disagree with that approach, because we need flexibility.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

This is a point I will raise with the Minister as well—just to forewarn him—but, whereas I entirely agree with the future-proofing of this Bill in areas such as products and advertising where the market may move on, I do not fully understand why the regulations need to be so open on public places. Public places are not going to change over the next 100 years, so why not define them on the face of the Bill?

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

Certainly, public spaces are not going to change, but smoking prevalence is; it may be that as, a result of declines in smoking prevalence, the public acceptance of smoke-free areas may change. I am sure that the Minister will have a useful contribution to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point when he speaks. There is a discussion to be had.

I would be particularly interested to look at the data and modelling and the customer feedback that suggests that hospitality venues are economically dependent on the consumption of tobacco. As we have discussed, currently only 11% of the population smoke—granted, if we are talking about nightlife, that prevalence may be higher, but I certainly believe that families should be able to enjoy eating outside in the summer without being exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke. We have seen that smoke-free pavement licences are popular with businesses and with the public, particularly families with children.

Giving local authorities a say in how smoke-free laws are applied will align with the commitment in the recent English Devolution White Paper to shift any power

“away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best”.

It is critical that local authorities consult fully on any measures, and particularly closely with the hospitality industry. As I say, there is a possibility that that industry, in specific parts of local authorities where the consultation takes place, may actually agree and feel that this is a sensible step. It is important that local authorities get this right with the right consultation, but they should have the powers to do it.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I remind Members that we are at this point talking about amendments, so any comments should be restricted to those amendments. We can talk about the generalities of the clause later in the debate. It is always helpful to have a reminder of that—for myself as well.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for clearly laying out what he seeks to do. I understand that his desire to see a healthy population is driving his good intentions behind this amendment, but I have some concerns. We are creating an offence of smoking in specific places: that requires buy-in from the public, because we police with consent, and the public need that knowledge. I visit Newcastle a reasonable amount, and I did not know that there was a rule banning smoking on park benches. I do not smoke, so it did not apply to me in any case, but it is conceivable that others are not aware that Newcastle has local rules.

I am concerned about the consistency of such measures and about people’s awareness of where it is possible to do something; otherwise, we will create criminal offences and fine people large amounts of money for doing something they had no reason to prevent themselves from doing because they had no way of knowing. The Government are also in the midst of reorganising —or trying to reorganise—all the local authorities; if local authorities are going to make such decisions and then be reorganised, that could further add to complexity and confusion for the public.

For people who smoke, we want to limit the harms to their health and ensure they have the opportunity to quit or to minimise those harms. Not everybody has a garden or outside space of their own. If they live in a flat and are a smoker, only being able to smoke in that flat because all the outside spaces are gone will increase the dangers to them, for health and for other reasons. My personal opinion is that these laws, or at least the principle of which spaces may and may not count, should be made nationally—even if there is some local guidance to be followed.

That is why we will come to the principle of which sort of spaces, because at the moment it is any space. It is conceivable therefore that, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, a group of local councils could decide to make all outdoor spaces of all kinds smoke-free. While I would find that desirable as a non-smoker, it would not be good for the overall health of the 11% of people who do smoke.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Looking at the amendments, I can see why the hon. Member for Dartford wants to do this. There clearly could be public health benefits and, as a localist myself, I am naturally sympathetic to having local decisions made as close to people as possible. I think the point I made during the intervention stands, however: the potential for confusion among people who are potentially not from the area, or who are from the area but do not understand the local byelaws, probably makes the amendments unworkable.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned that smoking prevalence is higher in places of social deprivation. The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting it would therefore be better to enforce regulations, or byelaws for regulations, in those areas. I can see the public health impact, but we must not ghettoise people who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and who are more likely to smoke, as seen in the evidence. The shadow Minister makes a good point that people who do not have outside space, and who may have children and not want to smoke and vape in their properties because they are rightly worrying about their children’s health, will find that difficult if there are local byelaws in place that prevent it. I think that is especially true with women who smoke.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a number of very good points, but will he respond to the notion that smoke-free areas are all about making smoking less attractive and so giving people incentives to quit? Does he accept that that might give people incentives to quit and therefore be a significant public health benefit, and worth considering as part of the legislation?

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I completely agree that we could very easily ban tobacco and vaping for everybody at every age. That would be the biggest incentive for people to quit. The Government—I think rightly—are not doing that, because they are not looking to criminalise people who are currently addicted to tobacco and vapes. If we are allowing people to do something legally, there should be places where they can do so safely and not harm others, such as their own children. I am sympathetic to the public health argument that the hon. Gentleman makes but, in practical terms, there may be areas where this is a problem.

My final point is really a question for the hon. Gentleman: under what regulations would the local authority be enforcing such byelaws? Would it be through the penalties and enforcement activities in this Act itself —if it becomes law—or would there be some sort of fine or penalty system that the local authority could use? While there are potential fines and enforcement activities on the face of this Bill, if there were local regulations, would these be in line with what is in the Bill, or would there be some other fining system that a local authority could dream up itself?

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

Taking on board what you said, Mr Pritchard, I just want to build on the point that my hon. Friend made about enforcement—I always talk about enforcement in practice. I want to know how rules will be advertised between different jurisdictions. I think we will end up spending an inordinate amount of money on trying to run a campaign that could have been better spent on helping with smoking cessation or on more practical measures.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend is talking about the enforcement and practicalities of such a move. If we have a national campaign and national uniformity about the areas in which one can and cannot smoke, that will be quite straightforward for people to understand and there will be no real excuses for breaking the rules. If the advertising has to be done locally, it will have to be continuous to reach all the visitors and tourists who come to that town or city.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like us to consider this issue when we look at whether to take these proposals any further. I cannot see how we can ensure in practice that everyone knows what is happening without there being a national campaign.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

Perhaps I can try to answer a couple of the questions from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. If a byelaw were enacted, it would need to be well publicised, and there would need to be signage. Clearly, it would be impossible for a local authority to enforce a byelaw against which the defence was, “We had no knowledge of the fact that there was a byelaw.” Therefore, doing those things would be very important, and that would obviously be part of the consultation. The local authority would also have to set out a plan, and it would ultimately have to be approved by the Secretary of State, who I am sure would ensure that it was adequate. In terms of the penalties, the local authority has the power to set out its own penalties, but only within the quite tight legal framework set out in the Local Government Act. It would be for the local authority in this instance to define the level of penalty and what was proportionate.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that point. Many Members would prefer that local councils were dealing with potholes rather than advertising those different spaces, but I thank him for his amendment and his proposal.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Amendment 14 defines a local authority as

“a county council…a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”

By the time we get to next summer, Lincolnshire will probably have district councils, a county council and a mayoral authority—I do not agree with having a mayoral authority, because I think that is too many tiers of government, but that is an aside. What if those authorities do not agree? If we give them all the power to make regulations, they could all make different regulations based on different opinions—as is currently the case in Lincolnshire, the various authorities are not always under the control of the same political party.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for bringing this issue before the Committee. As we have heard, amendment 11 would introduce a power for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places in England, which would sit alongside the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations in the same regard.

As we know, the Bill expands the Secretary of State’s powers to create additional smoke-free places at the national level. In England, the Government have already indicated that we intend to extend the smoke-free designation to outdoor places including children’s playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, but not to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces such as beaches. The reforms we are setting out in the Bill will be subject to full consultation, and we want to hear the views of people from across the country to ensure that we get them right.

As drafted, the Bill gives no additional powers to local authorities. However, they have existing mechanisms for designating certain spaces as smoke-free. As we have heard, areas such as Manchester, my home city, have already used pavement licensing provisions to ensure that people have smoke-free options when they consume food and drink in certain locations, and that works well. Some local authorities have implemented public space protection orders to prohibit smoking in certain areas. For example, the London borough of Enfield has used a public spaces protection order to restrict smoking within the boundaries of children’s playgrounds. Of course, that will be obsolete should the consultation for the national scheme extend to children’s playgrounds, as we intend it to.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the Minister for making those interesting points. Can he clarify whether powers such as those enacted in Enfield create a criminal offence?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We want to ensure that people who are smokers are not criminalised. Public space protection orders do potentially go down the criminal route. We want to ensure that that is not the case, which is why the Enfield scheme would of course be obsolete under the later provisions—which we are going to discuss today, hopefully—in relation to extending national outdoor smoke-free places.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

It is reassuring to hear the Minister talk about consulting before bringing in smoke-free places in specific public outdoor areas. Personally, as a non-smoker and someone who is very concerned about the public health impacts of passive smoking, I think we must also be mindful of the need for evidence-based interventions, and of the trade-offs. A good example is that of some fantastic pubs around Winchester and the Meon valley that have maybe two beer gardens, one to the side and one to the back. There would genuinely be no public health risk if smoking was permitted in one of the beer gardens and not the other.

The Liberal Democrats want reassurance on that. One of the reasons we tabled our amendment to clause 136, which is coming up, is simply to get assurances that the hospitality sector will not be impacted by any of these decisions, especially if the public health benefits are negligible.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Order. We will discuss the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment when he moves it.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I suspect we are straying off the measures before us, Mr Pritchard, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is a statutory duty in this Bill. Were the Secretary of State, or indeed Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish Ministers, to seek to change the scope in the future, they would have a duty at every stage to consult further. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I was talking about Enfield and its public spaces protection orders. It is of course for the local authority to determine whether a PSPO is appropriate and that the legal test for implementing a PSPO is met, along with completion of the relevant consultation requirements. Nottingham has created a voluntary smoke-free zone at events, especially those where children are present, and it introduced a smoke-free play park policy in 2015. Other local authorities, such as Oxfordshire county council, have introduced voluntary smoke-free school gates policies. Given the options already available to local authorities and the national reforms introduced through this Bill, which we will debate further, neither the Government nor I think it is necessary to grant these byelaw-making powers via the Bill.

In answer to a point that the shadow Minister raised, which I hope to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, legislation sets out all the different types of local authority. Enforcement in terms of the requirement to police any changes would appertain to the particular local authority, because it would be on that local authority’s land that the measures would apply. For example, in a two-tier area, if the county council as the highways authority deemed that pavement licensing were to be introduced, it would be for the county council to enforce its own measures; if a district council brought in measures in a park for which it was responsible, it would be for the district council. I think that is quite a simple explanation.

I understand that we have a complex jigsaw of local government, but it is for the particular type of council or authority that introduces a measure to enforce it. For example, the pavement licence in the City of Manchester is for the City of Manchester to enforce—not Andy Burnham as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, or indeed the Greater Manchester combined authority. That is pretty simple.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My question was not so much about the enforcement, which is defined in the Bill as the local weights and measures authority. Amendment 11 says that a local authority may make byelaws. The local authority that may make these byelaws includes the whole range of county councils, district councils and combined authorities, implying that, whoever is enforcing it, those that could make a byelaw could overlap and have contrary views.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Obviously, if a local authority introduces byelaws, as the City of Manchester has done in respect of pavement licensing, it is for that local authority to ensure that those byelaws are adhered to. Of course, in that case, the weights and measures authority is the City of Manchester, so I suppose that makes it easier.

These powers are already being used. Local authorities are already designating areas, whether it is for pavement licences, public space protection orders or just deeming that land within their own responsibility is smoke-free. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I kindly ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to withdraw them.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

The Minister has given a very comprehensive response. I suspect that the suggestion that this might be a way forward might come up in the consultation when that happens in the coming months. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Mary Kelly Foy, did you want to speak?

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

indicated dissent.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

No. Okay. That is fantastic. No problem. [Interruption.] I mean it is fantastic and we can hear you on another clause or amendment, just to be clear.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to the end of line 15 and insert—

“a place in England that is—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a school, college or higher education premises,

(c) a children’s play area or playground,

including outdoor public areas and frontages adjoining or surrounding such premises or designated areas.”.

This amendment would specify which places the Secretary of State has power to designate as additional smoke-free places in England on the face of the Bill.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12 at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—

(a) an NHS property or hospital building,

(b) a children’s playground, or

(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.

Amendment 94, in clause 136, page 77, line 21, at end insert—

“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”.

This amendment would re-instate existing section 4(3) in the Health Act 2006.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. To reiterate what I said before, the Liberal Democrats’ aim is to avoid unintended consequences that really damage the hospitality industry that we totally support. Amendment 4 would limit the places where we ban smoking or designate smoke-free to an NHS property or hospital building, a school, college or higher education premises, and a children’s playground or play area. We are not against public health measures; we are trying to ensure that we do not end up with provisions that are a bit over the top and damage hospitality businesses.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall speak to amendments 95 and 94, which stand in my name. Amendment 95 is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dartford a few minutes ago. Members will remember that earlier in the summer the Labour Government suggested that they would include hospitality venues within the scope of outside spaces, which led to pushback from a number of sources, mostly the hospitality industry. Speaking to Sky News on 5 November, the Secretary of State said that it was

“a leak of a Government discussion”,

but that it had promoted

“a really good debate about whether or not it would be proportionate”.

He then said:

“I think people know that the UK hospitality industry has taken a battering in recent years—”.

I agree with the Secretary of State on that. Covid-19 certainly challenged the hospitality industry. The previous Government supported it through business loans, reduced taxation and furlough schemes. Now, just as the industry is getting back on its feet, this Government have battered hospitality providers by raising national insurance contributions, increasing the minimum wage for young people, increasing business rates, introducing the deposit return scheme, and nearly doubling business rates for small businesses. They are indeed taking a battering; we can agree on that. In that Sky News interview, the Secretary of State also said:

“we do not want to add to their pressures, so we are not proposing to go ahead with an outdoor hospitality ban at this time”.

That was in November, but does he still mean it now? How will we know?

The challenge of this clause is trust. The Prime Minister has talked about trust. Before the general election, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, at the Country Land and Business Association conference, that Labour had no intention of changing the rules on agricultural property relief—but they have. The Government’s manifesto said that they would not increase national insurance on working people —but they have. On 11 June, Rachel Reeves told the Financial Times that she had no plans to increase capital gains tax—but she did. Labour said that it would not make changes to pensioner benefits, but then removed the winter fuel allowance. So there is no trusting that this Government will do what they say they are going to do and not do what they explicitly say they will not. I hope the Minister understands my reasoning.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats have a similar amendment to the Conservative amendment on this topic. As I said before, people need some form of open space and not everyone has a garden. There is some confusion about hospitality venues. For example, some pubs have a kids’ play area; will that be treated as a play area within the scope of the regulations, or will it be a hospitality area? Under the current statement, the Secretary of State will not include play areas, but the powers under the clause, which we will come to as a whole, give wide scope for the Minister and the Secretary of State to designate virtually anywhere as smoke-free, with criminal sanction for those smoking or vaping. The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that their only intention is to use these policies for NHS properties, hospital buildings, children’s play areas and education facilities. This being the case, I cannot see why the Minister would not be happy to have that on the face of the Bill. It is the stated intent. I am sure the Government will understand my point about trust.

There are a few minor differences between the Liberal Democrat amendment 4 and the Conservative amendment, mainly in that the Conservative amendment includes nurseries and the Liberal Democrat amendment defines play areas and playgrounds, as opposed to simply playgrounds. These are relatively small differences other than the addition of nurseries, which is beneficial that is where the smallest children are. Clearly smoking in a nursery school is an antisocial behaviour, so it would make sense for them to be included.

Amendment 94 states that:

“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

The Health Act 2006 states that the Secretary of State has to be clear, in his own mind, that there is a risk of high levels of smoke if he is going to ban smoking, so it is a measure of proportionality. Smoking in an outdoor space, miles from anywhere with nobody about, exposes no one but the smoker, making it slightly safer to smoke outside than inside for both the smoker and the people around them.

Why did the Minister choose to remove the “significant smoke” measure from the legislation? Does he feel that there is no significant amount of smoke to be inhaled by somebody who is in an outdoor space with somebody else? What is the chief medical officer’s advice on the amount of smoke that is likely to be inhaled by someone in an outdoor space alongside or nearby someone who is smoking? I understand that there will be a duration issue—how long the person is sat there, how long the smoker is smoking for and how many cigarettes they have, how close the person is and how windy it is—but will the Minister explain why he chose to remove that measure?

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be.

It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it.

The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.

Beccy Cooper (Labour, Worthing West)

This is an interesting debate, and I want to add some thoughts from a public health point of view. There is a balance to be struck in Government between supporting the hospitality industry and making sure that we are being fair and proportionate and encouraging businesses. We should also be mindful of public health evidence about passive smoking in an area—for instance, outside a pub where there are multiple people and some are passive smoking. It is clear that the Government, the current Secretary of State and our Minister have taken the proportionate response that the law will not extend to public spaces with hospitality. We should be mindful, however, that history does play out in public health and that people’s attitudes about what is acceptable does change. Therefore, leaving this issue open to allow that debate to continue within our political sphere is absolutely fair and proportionate.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but it is almost one that supports mine—although she said she believed that the current statements from the Government are proportionate, I can already hear in her voice that actually, she would like to see this provision extended to those areas.

Beccy Cooper (Labour, Worthing West)

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I am perhaps a public health consultant first and foremost and a politician second, but I do appreciate that in politics, we have to find fairness and balance and support people in their businesses, as well as being mindful of their health. As a public health consultant, I am looking at people’s health first and foremost, but I think this is the right place in Government to have this sort of legislation and this debate, so I am supportive of what is in the Bill. It is for people like me to make the argument that passive smoking outside hospitality, for example, is not the way forward, but as a politician, I absolutely appreciate that I have to be mindful of businesses. I therefore maintain that the proposals are balanced, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that I am a public health consultant, and I declare that as an interest.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I have great respect for her public health abilities and knowledge. I accept the points that she made, but Opposition Members feel that including in the Bill areas that will potentially be consulted on being smoke-free is proportionate to ensure that there is not overreach. I know that if the amendments are accepted and, at a future point, attitudes and science change, she will be a doughty campaigner to have the law changed, and I am sure that she will achieve it, if that is the way she wants to go.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In response to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Worthing West are saying, as a doctor, I have a lot of sympathy with her position. Certainly, if I take my children out for a meal in a restaurant and we sit outside in the summer, having a lovely day in the beer garden, and along comes a family or another group of people who sit and smoke, I dislike that. Whether it should be made illegal is a different matter, but it is something that I do not like.

As my hon. Friend said, there is a balance between enabling someone to do something that we have decided will be legal—that is, someone who is born in the right timeframe to be able to smoke—and giving them somewhere safe to do so. Over time, I suspect the measures that the Bill as a whole grants will lead to a reduction in smoking, which, of course, is its intention. As smoking becomes less prevalent, it is likely that smoking in front of children, particularly in outside hospitality spaces or in other places, will become less socially acceptable. We saw hospitality bring in non-smoking areas in the past.

The hon. Member for Winchester talked about having two different beer gardens in the same pub, one for smoking and one without. It is within the capacity of any given hospitality business to choose, as smoking becomes a minority and antisocial pastime, not to allow it within their facility, and to police that by throwing people out. It is also possible for individuals to choose not to attend a beer garden of a pub where smoking is allowed. To some extent, therefore, the ability of people to choose and vote with their feet, and the desire of the market and hospitality industries to maintain their custom, will surely have some effect on this over time.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

The shadow Minister is right. I do not want to stray into the main part of the clause, which we will come to, but one of the key reasons behind the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95 is that we want to protect areas that may be negatively impacted from a business point of view, if the Government were to bring in restrictions on smoking in outdoor areas—and it is not just smoking, but smoking and vaping. I agree with the shadow Minister that if I go out with my children and sit in a pub beer garden or restaurant, I find it absolutely disgusting if there are people smoking around me. I generally vote with my feet, as I am sure other punters do, and do not go back to that pub or restaurant.

What we are suggesting allows the market to decide. If pubs or restaurants allow smoking and vaping in their gardens, they will have to balance the customers who want to smoke and vape against those who do not want to breathe in that smoke. They will have to make a business decision about whether they ban smoking and vaping in their gardens, which they are perfectly entitled to do for their premises, as they can have a dress code or any other restriction as long as it does not break any equalities regulations. However, when the Government start interfering in private business, we go down a slippery slope, which is why our amendment and the Liberal Democrats’ amendment are important.

Amendment 94, as the shadow Minister says, reinserts a proportionality clause that was in the previous Bill. I would be interested to understand from the Minister why that has been taken out. He said that there is no safe level of smoking, which I agree with. I would probably also agree with him were he to say that there is no safe level of passive smoking either. To me, it comes down to vaping, where the science is not yet settled. I know that the hon. Member for Worthing West will pop up in a minute and tell me about the precautionary principle, as she has so many times in this Committee, but some proportionality needs to be reinserted into the Bill so that the public understand the differences and the dimensions of what is more harmful.

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to speak to amendments 4, 95 and 94; as they are very similar, my comments will apply in the generality. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister’s cynicism about the commitments made by the Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I was merely giving examples.

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

She may well have given a few examples—I can think of a litany of examples from the previous 14 years of Tory Government. However, that would stray from the amendments, and as we do not have the time, I will not indulge the Committee with that. But I would suggest that that cynicism is not merited because, as the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown in these sittings—

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

I will.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about broken promises from the Labour Government, but I do not think she was saying, and I certainly was not saying, that we currently hold any untoward view of the Minister or the Secretary of State. However, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we do not know who the Secretary of State or the Minister might be in future Governments, and that they might not wish to be beholden to previous statements? That is why it is so important to make sure that we are clear about which open spaces we are talking about when we restrict people’s right to smoke and vape in them.

Alex Barros-Curtis (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am grateful for that intervention. I point the hon. Member to proposed new subsection (4), which reiterates that the Secretary of State “must consult” before any such regulations can be made. I am sure that will assuage his concerns about whoever the future Secretary of State may be, whether they are from this side of the House or, God forbid, the other side in a few decades’ time.

I will point out a couple of issues about the drafting of the amendments. Although I understand the position of Opposition Members, I think the proposals inadvertently cause issues and risk causing more confusion than may have been intended. For example, does

“an NHS property or hospital building”

include private healthcare providers that are undertaking NHS work either on NHS premises or off-site? What about subcontractors? When the amendment mentions

“a nursery, school, college or higher education premises”,

are we talking about where premises have had to be vacated because of the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—crisis and where children are being taught in portacabins in a council car park, one or two miles away from the original site? These definitions are lacking and may inadvertently cause gaps in the application of the measures, if the amendments were successful. What about premises used for youth prisons? Should that be captured or not, given what was said about protecting children from the dangers of smoking?

Notwithstanding the fact that I understand the intention behind the amendments and what Opposition Members have said, I think the drafting may inadvertently cause issues and undermine what the Minister has said, both here and at the Dispatch Box, about the parameters in which this set of regulations would be brought in. Those would be underscored by consultation and the commitments that have been made at the Dispatch Box. Although I appreciate and understand hon. Members’ comments, I suggest that the amendments are not necessary, for the reasons I have outlined, and I would encourage them, if the amendments are not withdrawn, perhaps to vote against them if they are pushed to a Division.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I respect the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, because I understand that we do not want any unintended consequences. However, I would counter that by saying that although we perhaps need better definitions—that may be something we can consider—clause 136, as drafted, is incredibly wide, and any of the assurances that have been given to hospitality are merely words. There is absolutely no carve-out for the hospitality sector as this stands.

As much as I think the Minister is honourable in his intentions, unfortunately, we all know that we can go only on the law in front of us in black and white, and there is currently no security for the hospitality sector in this regard. We need to be incredibly clear about this with the hospitality sector, and we need the exclusion. One of the bigger concerns is that if people are not able to smoke—perhaps in a pub garden—it will force them into their homes, where they are actually more likely to drink and smoke more because they are not within that limited capacity of being out in public. We have to think about what the dangers are. Are we actually forcing people to take up worse habits in their private residence than if we allow them a little bit of flexibility in an open space?

I have a question about NHS properties generally. I appreciate that we want smoke-free places and that one wants to go into hospital and walk past people smoking, but I worry about those who have an addiction. Where do they go if they need to smoke, as they would if they are going through a process of cessation? What ends up happening as a result of all these provisions is that the smokers will just be forced down the road away from the property, but that has not really addressed the issue. We have just pushed the problem a few metres away.

We need to think in the round about how we best achieve our aim, how we deal with addiction, and how we clean up the hospital environment in a balanced and proportionate way. Perhaps the Minister has some other ideas, but I do not like the idea of just pushing some smokers down the road, rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful for our debate on amendments 4, 94 and 95. I am even more grateful that a lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, is sitting behind me—as a non-lawyer, I note that it is always good for somebody to have one on their side. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is a lawyer as well; in matters of law, there are always disagreements.

Amendments 4 and 95 would remove the power in the Bill to extend smoke-free places to any area that is a workplace or open to the public, including outdoor spaces in England. That would be replaced with a limited power to extend smoke-free places only to healthcare and education settings and to playgrounds. Amendment 94 would reinstate the test present in the Health Act 2006, which requires, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, a significant risk of exposure to significant quantities of smoke before being able to designate an additional place as smoke-free.

On extending smoke-free places, as we heard from a range of public health experts, evidence for the harm from exposure to second-hand smoke is well established. People exposed to second-hand smoke are at increased risk of cancer, chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that, every year, second-hand smoke kills up to 1.3 million people worldwide.

The science tells us three things about second-hand smoking. First, it poses a risk to health even outdoors. Secondly, it is particularly dangerous for vulnerable people, including children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing but usually invisible health conditions, such as asthma and diabetes. Thirdly, in some public settings, exposure to second-hand smoke can be high. If you can smell it, you are inhaling it.

It is important that the powers are broad, so that the Bill is appropriately future-proofed, as we have discussed in relation to other measures in the Bill.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

The Minister may come to this, and I am sorry to keep banging on about it, but I do not understand the future-proofing element of the clause and, therefore, why he opposes our amendments. Unless we have colonised Mars, surely there will be no new definition of an open space, or new wonderful industry way of claiming there is one. We know what open spaces are, and they are not going to change, so what is the future-proofing element?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The future-proofing element is if the science changes or, more likely, that over time public attitudes change. Smoking is already a minority pastime, and we expect that, in 25 years’ time, the prevalence of smoking among those aged 30 or below will be near to zero, so we will want to protect people from the scourge of second-hand smoke in other places. But that is a debate for other Ministers in other Sessions of other Parliaments at some stage in the future.

I do not want to tie the hands of my successors, so that they have to find a slot before the House for primary legislation to make simple changes. A far more practical and workable mechanism is for my successors to be able to come to the House to say, “The evidence has changed”, or, “Public opinion has changed”, and, “We now seek to consult the outside world on introducing further areas under the powers in the Bill”, and then to lay secondary legislation following the statutory duty to consult. Other areas can therefore come within the scope of the Bill.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I take the Minister’s point, but there is only a requirement to consult, so actually, completely unlimited powers have been given to make this change. We are trying to argue that we want the spaces to be clearly defined. It is important and right that we should come back to Parliament to make a change at a future point, if we want to extend the Bill further. But that will only be consultation, based on the current drafting, and a change could be pushed through regardless. The Labour party says that it is trying to support and back hospitality, so making this absolutely clear on the face of the Bill at this point will give hospitality the reassurance that it needs. I cannot see why there is any objection to more clarity, rather than overarching and wide powers. We are binding the hands of future generations and telling them that they cannot smoke and cannot vape—that right has gone—and then, on the other hand, we are saying, “I cannot bind the hands of my future successors”. We need reassurance and clarity for hospitality, and that is not in the Bill.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I have at no stage said that Ministers would not come back to Parliament. What I have said is that we should not be seeking to find one of those rare things—a slot in a King’s Speech for primary legislation—for something as simple as consulting on further areas.

I also remind the hon. Lady that the powers in the Bill are UK-wide. They do not give just the Secretary of State, or me as the Public Health Minister, the powers to consult in relation to England; they give the same powers to the Scottish Health Minister, the Welsh Health Minister and the Northern Irish Health Minister to consult and to bring forward secondary legislation on extensions following that.

We have been absolutely clear that the Government intend, in relation to England, to consult on schools, hospitals and children’s playgrounds—nothing else. It is those three things. That is our intention. The level of detail will be subject to the consultation. If in the consultation it is deemed that the measure should be extended to other NHS facilities beyond hospitals or to nurseries as part of an education setting, that will be entirely a matter for the consultation, and secondary legislation will therefore be brought to this House. But it is our intention—I cannot make it any clearer—that the three areas this Government are going to consult on are hospitals, outside schools and children’s play areas. We are not going to consult on hospitality. That is clear.

My counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom may well come to a different decision on which areas to consult on. They may not consult at all.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I thank the Minister for his clarity about what he and the Secretary of State are going to consult on; I take him at his word, of course. But is he not now demonstrating the concerns that we have? Other parts of the United Kingdom will potentially consult on retail. Therefore, the amendment is absolutely necessary. Although I am an England Member of Parliament and care mostly about the good people of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, I have a wider duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that the hospitality businesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected. I am afraid that the Minister has really worried me with what he has just said.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I can speak only for England, but I am legislating for the United Kingdom with the permission of Health Ministers. It may well be that Health Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom decide not to consult at all. In Wales, for example, they already have the coverage of all the areas that we are going to consult on in England.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon says he is now even more worried. Well, I tell him this: worry not, because his amendment relates to England only. If he is so mithered about the rights of the Welsh to consult Welsh business on Welsh matters, he should have put Wales in his amendment. If he so bothered about the rights of the Scots to consult on Scottish matters with Scottish business, he should have put Scotland in his amendment. If he is so bothered about the rights of the Northern Irish to consult Northern Irish business about Northern Irish matters, he should have put Northern Ireland on the face of his amendment. He doth protest too much, Mr Pritchard!

The hon. Gentleman has actually made my case for why these measures are proportionate: they cover the whole of the United Kingdom and it will be down to Ministers in the respective parts of the United Kingdom to decide who they will consult, why they will consult and what areas they will consult on. But as far as England is concerned, I cannot be any clearer: hospitality is out of the scope of our consultation. We will consult on three things: hospitals, schools and play areas.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the Minister for giving way, although I would point out that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon’s amendment at all.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

But he supported it.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

He is supporting it, but the Minister asked why my hon. Friend did not include things in it. The answer is that he did not write it. The amendments were written by others, one by the Liberal Democrats, and supported by him, which is not the same thing.

The Minister will no doubt have caused concern for the people in hospitality industries in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who are following proceedings today. Could he tell the Committee a bit about the discussions he has had with his counterparts? Have any of them indicated to him their intent regarding hospitality areas in their designated parts of the United Kingdom?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I certainly can. I have had umpteen conversations with Health Ministers from across the United Kingdom, and none of them has indicated to me that they intend to extend this to hospitality. But the point is that, as Ministers in their own legal jurisdictions, it for them to decide who they are going to consult and on what basis they are going to consult. In terms of the powers in this Bill, which areas they want to extend—if any—is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me or for this Parliament.

We are merely legislating to give those Health Ministers the tools; if they wish to go beyond the scope that the English Ministers are setting out, it is their right to do so. That is the devolution settlement. But they will, of course, have the statutory duty to consult, and they will, of course—I would imagine—want to work with businesses, in Northern Ireland, in Wales, or in Scotland, to make sure that whatever measures they bring forward are right and workable, just as we would in the Department of Health and Social Care, should we decide, at some stage in the future, to go further again.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I doubt whether the Minister has provided a huge amount of reassurance to the hospitality sectors in those jurisdictions.

I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his intervention about prisons. As far as I can tell, closed prisons are smoke-free environments—that is already the case both inside and outside—but I understand that prisoners in closed prisons are allowed to vape, including in their cells, where they may be vaping near other prisoners who may not wish them to have that choice. We are depriving people of their liberty for good reason when sending them to prison, but we should not be exposing them to chemical vapour as part of that if they are not vapers themselves.

Could the Minister talk to us about the discussions he has had with Justice Ministers about how provision is made for the public health of those currently in prison?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who is now making my case perfectly for why we need to have the regulations as we do. It may well be that, at some stage in the future, a Public Health Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, having had conversations with and guidance from the Ministry of Justice, seeks to quickly and simply extend provisions within the prison estate. Were the hon. Lady’s amendments to pass, the ability to do that would not be in the Bill.

We have had conversations with Ministers across Government. This Bill has been subject to the usual write-around, so it has the collective support of the Ministry of Justice. The details of which areas would be in or out of the scope of different measures within the Bill will be a matter for the regulations and for consultation. With that, the shadow Minister has precisely made the case for why having things prescriptively in the Bill ties the hands of Ministers.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is suggesting that to be able to restrict access to these products in prisons, he needs to have a wide scope within clause 136. Given that prisons are already smoke-free areas, that surely cannot be the case.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

No, but the point the hon. Lady is making is about what conversations Ministers have had with other Ministers to extend the scope, to protect the rights of others and so on. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill is drafted as it is. At some stage in the future, a Government Minister in another Department may well decide that they want to extend the scope, using the powers we are talking about. Under her amendment, we would then have to find a slot in primary legislation to amend a piece of primary legislation. That is precisely why her amendments are unworkable.

The mechanism in place would allow a consultation on an extension; following consultation, secondary legislation would be debated as part of the affirmative process—there would be a debate, a discussion, and a vote in Parliament. That is precisely why the amendments are unworkable, and I call on the Committee to resist them.

I move on to the removal of the test in the Health Act 2006. That is to enable the Secretary of State to more easily make regulations designating outdoor spaces as smoke-free, but only where such a space is a workplace or open to the public. Reinserting the test would conflict with our intention to extend smoke-free status to places I have mentioned—for example, children’s playgrounds probably do not meet the requirement of there being significant risk of significant quantities of smoke. However, making them smoke-free would almost certainly protect some of the most vulnerable.

Since 2006, the evidence base for harms of second-hand smoking has evolved. It is therefore necessary to update the current legislation, as clause 136 does, to provide more flexibility should the Government wish to designate additional smoke-free places in future.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is making a reasonable point. However, the evidence can change on what constitutes a significant amount of smoke—in the past, people may have believed that someone had to be smoking in order to come to harm and then that someone could also come to harm in an enclosed indoor environment with someone smoking. It may be that the evidence now shows that even being in proximity to someone smoking outdoors—the fact that you can smell it means you are breathing it in—means you are coming to harm on some level. But does the amendment not account for that with the word “significant”? Amendment 94 says:

“if in the Secretary of State’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”

A significant quantity of smoke may in the past have been considered to be quite a high volume, but now might be a much lower volume. The flexibility the Minister is seeking is already provided for in the amendment.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The shadow Minister would probably have a large degree of sympathy—at least one of her Back Benchers less so—with our updating the Health Act 2006 to allow us to take action to make more places smoke-free. We think that is right. We now have the ambition to make the whole United Kingdom smoke-free, and this is part of that effort.

Some areas that we are considering, such as children’s playgrounds, may not meet the existing test, but we want to extend the provision to those areas for all the reasons that I think the shadow Minister supports. Therefore, we think that it is right to remove the provision from the 2006 Act. It is obsolete, given our aim to make the UK smoke-free and to give the Secretary of State and Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the ability, from time to time, to review the evidence, perhaps come to the conclusion that areas currently out of scope should be within scope, to consult, which is a statutory duty, and then to bring in other areas through secondary legislation.

It is really important to recognise that, if we are serious about our ambition to make the United Kingdom smoke-free, we must have that flexibility. Tying the hands of Ministers—whether in England only, as is the shadow Minister’s intention, or across the United Kingdom—would run counter to our desire to be able to act with some degree of speed, should the evidence or public demand be there in future, or to extend the scope. Those are discussions for the future. We are clear that we will consult on three areas, and hospitality is not one of them.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is being generous with his time. He knows my thoughts on smoking and vaping, particularly in relation to children, and how important I think creating a smoke-free and nicotine-free generation is—although he does not share the second part. He is talking about how the Secretary of State needs to be able to move with the evidence. I completely and utterly agree with that, but the clause says that there is a significant risk that without designation, persons present will be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

I support the addition of the smoke-free legislation for spaces like playgrounds. If a playground were to be included, the Secretary of State could quite easily justify that by saying that even seeing someone smoking would encourage children to smoke, particularly if it is their parents, and that therefore it is a sensible action to take.

The words—drafted, I believe by the Minister’s predecessors—are “exposure to significant quantities”. “Exposure” does not necessarily mean breathing it in; children could be seeing it across the playground. “Significant quantities” does not necessarily mean a quantity enough to do them harm. If they cannot see it, they are not being exposed to it and it is not doing them harm, why would we want to stop it happening?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The point is that that is open to interpretation; that now runs counter to our ambition to have a smoke-free United Kingdom. We have put in place a much more flexible and workable measure. The measure from 2006 was right for 2006, but it is not right for 2027, when we hope to introduce the Bill. That is why we are looking to the measures in the Bill rather than the measures as they stood in 2006.

Lastly, I remind the shadow Minister that her amendments apply only to the clause in the Bill that relates to England. If we agreed to them, the powers in England would not be consistent with the powers in the rest of the devolved jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. This is a UK-wide Bill that provides a consistent legislative framework for the whole of the United Kingdom—all four nations—while allowing devolved nations to go further on subsequent regulations if they so wish. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I think that the official Opposition’s amendment is better, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I will make a couple of housekeeping points before we move on. First, if there is an amendment, it has to be formally moved. Secondly, could hon. Members not say “you”? Remarks have to be through the Chair. I have let it go for a bit, but most people have been here long enough to know the rules of the House.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 136, page 77, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—

“(a) for subsection (1A) substitute—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025 is passed, lay draft regulations to be made under this section which have the effect of providing for all enclosed vehicles to be smoke-free, other than vehicles of the type described in subsection (3).

(1B) Regulations may make provisions about the meaning of “enclosed vehicle”, which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.’”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft which are regulated under other legislation. The prohibition currently only applies to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under 18s.

Amendment 10 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft, which are regulated under other legislation. As hon. Members will know, the prohibition currently applies only to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under-18s. The 2015 ban on smoking in cars that contained children was a really important moment in in public health. It raised awareness about the harms of second-hand smoking in enclosed spaces and protected many children from being exposed to those harms.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I agree that the regulations on smoking in private vehicles with under-18s were symbolically the right thing to do. Is there evidence either that the ban was in any way enforceable, or that it had any impact on public health?

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

I thank the hon. Member for those comments; I will do my best to answer them. Compliance with the measure is still not where we would like it to be: the last survey undertaken by an independent company on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health indicates that 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds say that

“they travel in a car with someone smoking some days, most days or every day in 2024.”

The current law also does not protect those with clinical vulnerabilities. The smoke-free powers in this Bill are driven by a desire to protect people with clinical vulnerabilities from second-hand smoke. That includes pregnant women and those with asthma and lung conditions, among others. No smoker wants to harm their family, friends, pets or co-workers, so no smoker should smoke in an enclosed vehicle.

The evidence is clear: concentrations of smoke in vehicles where someone is smoking are greater than in any other small, enclosed space. If we are to be led by the evidence when extending smoke-free places, we have to consider vehicles. That would provide consistency in policy and raise awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke even further than they currently extend. It would be easier to enforce than the current law, where we have to check who else is in the vehicle, and would make the regulations on vehicles simpler and easier to understand—“It’s a straightforward ban; you can’t do it.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is supported by the public, with 67% of British adults saying they are in favour of an outright ban on smoking in vehicles.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of what he wishes to achieve. I have great sympathy with it, because nobody wants to see people making their health worse by smoking in a car. However, his statistics are quite interesting. He said that 9% of children find themselves on a regular basis in a car where someone is smoking, yet the Minister has said already this morning that 11% of people smoke. Given that not all of the 11% of people who smoke have children with whom they travel in a car, that implies that the measure is pretty badly enforced and badly adhered to at the moment. He might argue that a complete ban in all vehicles would make it more uniform and easier to enforce, but I am not sure that that is the case.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the amendment whether he has any information or statistics on the number of prosecutions that have occurred under the current legislation. I support the legislation that prevents someone from smoking in a car with children, and I would support an extension of that to include vaping and other nicotine products. I would also support a ban on people smoking while driving; if someone is holding a lit cigarette in their hand, that will have an impact on their ability to manoeuvre the car, particularly in an emergency situation.

Essentially the hon. Member is proposing to say to someone in a parked-up vehicle, perhaps in someone’s drive, “Although you are in a private space, you are not able to smoke.” I understand what he said about no smoker wanting to hurt someone—I am sure that is true—but I cannot imagine that there is any adult smoker that does not realise that smoking in a car with children is bad for the children. I find it very difficult to believe that that would be the case. I invite him to consider whether he is trying to prevent what is a legal activity—even under this Bill, if someone is the right age—in a private space that is theirs and theirs alone?

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

My comments follow on the shadow Minister’s. My understanding of amendment 10 is that, even if the occupant of the vehicle is entirely alone in their private vehicle, the hon. Member for Dartford is seeking to ban them from smoking in that vehicle. We are in danger here of overreaching on what we need to do to achieve a smoke-free generation.

As the shadow Minister said, if the Bill passes, smoking will not be illegal; smoking, and likewise vaping, will be illegal for certain people of a certain age. As I said previously, I support the ambitions of the Bill, but this is a massive overreach. If a person is legally allowed to smoke in their own home on their own—or indeed with others—then if they are in their own vehicle and their smoking is harming nobody other than themselves, I do not see that we should make that illegal.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

The hon. Gentleman is making his point very articulately. The idea that smoking legislation is an overreach is not new. Just about every change over the last 30 years—changes that have helped to cut very significantly the number of people affected by smoking-related diseases—has been described as an overreach. A lot of this is about public acceptability, and nearly all the polling accepts that a great majority of adults would see this not as an overreach, but as a welcome change.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I do not pretend to have deep wisdom and insight into the whole population’s view on this, and I have not seen the studies the hon. Gentleman talks about, but I accept them. My concern is the need to be careful about the balance between the stated ambitions of all of us—or certainly most of us—on the Committee to reduce smoking as much as possible, and the rights confined within the Bill. If someone is legally allowed to smoke—that is, they were born prior to 1 January 2009—or is over 18 in the case of vaping, and they are in the privacy of their own vehicle without harming anybody else in said vehicle, they can do so. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a step too far.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a step too far. Does he also agree that this would be an enormous waste of police time? The police often get their priorities wrong as it stands, but the idea that they should spend time prosecuting smoking in a private vehicle is clearly a waste of police time.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I must confess, I am not clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Dartford will be able to tell us—who will enforce this regulation. If it is the police, then I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an unnecessary burden.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

The police currently have responsibility to enforce a whole range of activities that take place within a car, such as mobile phone use. It would in no way be a new concept for the police to enforce something of this nature. If they saw someone in a car with a cigarette, they would be able to stop the car and apply a penalty as they currently do with other types of behaviour within cars.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I accept that point, but I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor’s point was that the police do not currently have powers to stop people who are driving dangerously. I completely accept that they should stop people using their mobile phones or doing things that constitute dangerous driving. The shadow Minister gave the view that smoking a cigarette could be counted as driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, so that may be a way of enforcing it. However, I think that having the police stop someone simply smoking in their own vehicle—something that is legal in every other private location—when they are over the legal age required in the Bill and they are not harming anybody else, is an overreach.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The key difference between a mobile phone and a cigarette is that with mobile phones, it is the driver using a mobile phone while driving that is the problem. If one is pulled over in a parking space in one’s private car, one can use one’s mobile phone to one’s heart’s content, and likewise when one is parked in one’s drive. If one wants to sit in one’s car on one’s drive and use a mobile phone, provided the car is stationary, that is also a legal thing to do. What the hon. Member for Dartford is suggesting is not that someone is unable to smoke while driving, which would be quite a sensible measure, but that if one’s car is stationary and private and one is essentially alone in an enclosed space like one’s home, one still would not be allowed to smoke, which seems a little odd.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I completely agree with the shadow Minister. I have two final points. Proposed new subsection (1B) makes reference to the meaning of an enclosed vehicle. I just want to clarify what that means. The amendment says:

“which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.”

Is the amendment trying to capture convertible cars—someone driving with the top down on a sunny day?

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

The amendment is not intended to change the way that the current legislation relates to individual vehicles, merely the activity happening within them, and that currently permits smoking in open-top vehicles with the hood down, i.e. unenclosed. The amendment does not propose any change to that.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

That is a helpful clarification. Finally, in the explanatory statement, it says that enclosed vehicles account for everything “except ships and hovercraft” apparently because that is “regulated under other legislation”. Perhaps it is in a later amendment, but why did the hon. Member decide not to amend the regulations for ships and hovercraft? Is that because he is hoping to get a private Member’s Bill at some point to change whatever legislation governs hovercraft and ships—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the shadow Minister whispers to me, “It’s further down,” so that clarifies the point for me.

(Afternoon)

Clause 136 - Addition of smoke-free places in England

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for putting this amendment before the Committee for discussion. The amendment would require the Government, within six months of this Bill gaining Royal Assent, to introduce regulations to prohibit smoking in all enclosed vehicles, other than certain vessels.

I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments my hon. Friend has put to the Committee on the harms of passive second-hand smoking, and I am certainly sympathetic to amendment’s aim of further reducing exposure to second-hand smoke. However, as I am sure the Committee is aware, smoking has been banned in enclosed vehicles used as a workplace or a public place since 2007, and it has also been banned where someone under 18 is present since 2015. We think that this level of protection is appropriate and provides the correct balance between protecting children and vulnerable people from the harms of passive smoking, while not unduly impacting current smokers by interfering with private spaces. That is an important point, because both I and the Secretary of State have been very clear from the outset that we are not seeking to extend measures in this Bill into private spaces.

I remind the Committee that, in the smoke-free generation that we hope and expect the Bill to create, smoking will become a thing of the past. Therefore, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we will not see anyone smoking in a vehicle because smoking will just not be as prevalent in the UK as it is today. Most people are law-abiding citizens, and we would expect the measures in this Bill, and indeed the in my hon. Friend’s amendment, to be something that most people consider anyway. If they are in an enclosed space such as a vehicle with a friend who has vulnerabilities, most people would probably not light up because they would recognise the harm that they may do to their friend.

Furthermore, the measures in the amendment would be for the police to enforce. We have had no prior conversations with Home Office colleagues about whether this is a power they seek or whether the police would be concerned about its enforceability. That would need further consideration if we were to proceed with this. Having said that, we just do not think that there is a strong argument for interfering in private spaces by extending this prohibition to smoking in all vehicles within six months of the Bill reaching Royal Assent. That is not a large amount of time anyway for such a major change. It is for those reasons that I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

Once again, the Minister has made convincing arguments for why now may not be the right time for this amendment to become legislation and be adopted. However, I think that within the next decade or so this measure is likely to become law one way or another, so for the moment I am content not to press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 136, page 77, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 7 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (6), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’

(3B) In section 8 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (7), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 136 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in England) being beyond a fine of level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 85, in clause 142, page 85, line 29, at end insert—

“(ya) in section 1 (Offence of permitting others to smoke in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (4), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’

(za) in section (2) (Offence of smoking in no-smoking premises)—

(i) in subsection (3), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(ii) after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 142 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Scotland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.

Amendment 97, in clause 147, page 93, line 13, at end of line insert—

“(1A) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1B) In the Welsh language text of section 5 (Y drosedd o ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg neu gerbyd di-fwg), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon ynagored i rybuddiad.’

(1C) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (6) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1D) In the English language text of section 5 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Mae person sydd wedi cyfaddef ei fod yn euog o drosedd gyntaf o dan yr adran hon yn agored i rybuddiad.’

(1E) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, arbed os trosedd cyntaf ydyw.’

(1F) In the Welsh language text of section 6 (Y drosedd o fethu ag atal ysmygu mewn mangre ddi-fwg), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’

(1G) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), at end of subsection (9) insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(1H) In the English language text of section 6 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle), after subsection (9) insert—

‘(9A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offences pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Wales being a fine or imprisonment and makes provision for the penalty for a first offence pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions to be a cautionary warning.

Amendment 86, in clause 153, page 109, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) In Article 8 (Offence of smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’

(3B) In Article 9 (Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place)—

(a) subsection (6), after ‘scale’ insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 153 (pertaining to smoke-free area restrictions in Northern Ireland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a conditional caution.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

This group of amendments comes back to the principle of proportionality, because there is not complete coherence between the different penalties across the United Kingdom and on the different offences that can be committed under the Bill.

The first part of amendment 84 would ensure that if someone admits guilt of a first offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, they should be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3, which is £1,000 on the standard scale, or a caution. That is a lot of money for lighting up in the wrong place, so it seems reasonable.

The second part of amendment 84 relates to the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, which is where somebody who is in charge of an area or building fails to prevent people from smoking there. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider the proportionality of the penalty if this has not happened before, compared with a repeat offender, who we would want to throw the book at, metaphorically speaking.

Amendment 85 relates to Scotland. Amendment 97 relates to Wales and is partly in Welsh, and amendment 86 relates to Northern Ireland. Again, we are asking the Minister to consider whether the penalties are proportionate to the offence committed and whether the legislation gives due flexibility and enough guidance for someone committing an offence for the first time, perhaps inadvertently, to be treated differently from someone who is repeatedly flouting the law.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. I have a sense of déjà vu, given that we have already debated ad nauseam her desire to weaken the enforcement regime and the penalties.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That’s not true!

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The hon. Lady says that is not true, so maybe it is not quite ad nauseam, but we have covered an awful lot of ground on these arguments.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not seek to weaken the Bill or its enforcement. I wish to see the Bill be successful in stopping people smoking and vaping, particularly our young people, and I wish to see people who are repeatedly flouting the law in this way treated appropriately. However, I am keen to understand whether the Minister feels there is enough flexibility to deal with offenders appropriately, particularly if it is an inadvertent first offence.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We will have to agree to disagree, because I think anything that brings in lesser penalties than those that already exist in tobacco control, and I will resist that as I resisted the shadow Minister’s earlier temptations to be more lenient to certain people.

These amendments would change the penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the Minister accept that a fixed penalty notice of £200 is actually a more lenient penalty than a fine of £1,000 or a caution, which incurs a criminal offence?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I will come on to those points in due course to explain to the Committee why I think the shadow Minister is wrong in this regard and why she was wrong in all previous discussions about weakening the penalty system for first-time offenders. The amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing one of these offences, if it is the person’s first-time offence. It would establish that someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or instead to a caution in England and Northern Ireland, or a recorded police warning in Scotland.

For the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, that is two levels higher than the level of fine someone is liable to under the current legislation, which is level 1 or £200 in England, and it is the same as the current level of fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For the offence of failing to prevent smoking, the new maximum fine would be one level lower, which is level 3 or £1,000, than the level of the fine that someone liable to under the current legislation, which is level 4 or £2,500, in all three nations. In Wales, amendment 97 would remove a fine altogether and someone who admits to committing either offence for the first time would be liable to a caution.

While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s intention in seeking to alter the penalty regime for first-time offenders, amendment 84 is not appropriate. We do not want to create a penalty regime for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place that has the potential to be stricter for first-time offenders than for repeat offenders. This amendment would see first-time offenders face a maximum fine of £1,000 on conviction, while repeat offenders would face a maximum fine of £200 on conviction in England. That is not consistent with our approach to the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation, where enforcement action can be escalated such that repeat offences may lead to harsher penalties. For example, repeated age-of-sale offences can result in a restricted premises order.

We also do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for tobacco and vape offences, including the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that existing consequences are not weakened for first-time offenders or for anyone who has committed these offences. It is therefore not appropriate to lower the maximum possible fine that an offender who has failed to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place for the first time may face. It is for those reasons that I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his thoughts on the matter, and I do not want to see the Bill weakened in this regard. As such, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 142 stand part.

Clauses 147 and 148 stand part.

Clause 153 stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Clause 136 amends an existing power in the Health Act 2006, relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places, to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to any area that is a workplace or open to the public smoke-free, which would include outdoor spaces. Private outdoor spaces are out of scope of the powers of this Bill. Clause 142 amends the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow Scottish Ministers the same powers, and clause 153 amends the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to do the same for Northern Ireland. The power to designate additional smoke-free places builds on existing provisions that made it illegal to smoke in an enclosed, or substantially enclosed, workplace or public place. For England, clause 136 does not replicate a test from the 2006 Act, so there no longer needs to be a “significant risk” that someone

“would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke”

before an additional space can be designated smoke-free. We have already debated that change at length.

The clause therefore allows us to expand current smoking restrictions more readily to outdoor places. That is essential because places such as children’s playgrounds may not meet the requirements of the previous test, but making those places smoke-free in England would protect the most vulnerable. Passive second-hand smoking, even outdoors, poses a risk to health. There is no safe level of exposure to smoke: if you can can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. That is particularly important to note for children, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions, including conditions that may not be readily visible to the smoker, such as asthma and heart disease.

In England, we are considering making the areas outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals smoke-free outdoor places. However, we consider that now may not be the right time to include outdoor hospitality settings—I have been very clear on that—or wider open spaces, such as beaches. Exactly which settings should become smoke-free will be a matter for secondary legislation, and there is a statutory duty to consult before using that power. Wales already has broader powers to make additional areas smoke-free. However, clause 147 adds a duty on Welsh Ministers to consult before making regulations on additional smoke-free places and on smoke-free vehicles. That brings Welsh legislation fully in line with the duty to consult that the Bill introduces for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Clause 148 amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to update the wording of an existing measure that grants the power to make exceptions to smoke-free vehicle restrictions. It adds that that power may be sub-delegated to, for example, the person in charge of a smoke-free place to allow them to create smoking areas. The power to create exemptions is an existing power that is being brought in line with the drafting of similar exceptions in this Bill.

The clauses mean that the devolved Governments will have equivalent powers to make additional smoke-free places. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the Minister for setting out what the clauses do, which is, essentially, to provide for smoke-free places in England.

Clause 136 introduces changes to the Health Act 2006, and specifically updates provisions regarding smoke-free places in England to allow for the addition of smoke-free areas beyond those already designated under existing law. It empowers the Secretary of State to extend smoke-free regulations to more places—and, I would argue, to essentially any place—with the aim of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and promoting public health.

Although it clearly is the Government’s intention to use these powers to improve public health, they are very wide-ranging. As far as I can see, the clauses give the Secretary of State carte blanche to extend the smoke-free legislation to any place without needing a reason, because the Government did not accept our amendment that it should only apply to places that have a significant risk of actually having any smoke. I understand that the measures allow for greater flexibility, but I would be interested in the Minister’s reasons for the wide-ranging scope.

The Minister has said that he wants to focus on three areas: hospitals, children’s playgrounds and educational settings, and I believe that that is his intention. Unfortunately, over time, that may not be the intention of the rest of his Government, which is a risk for the Committee in allowing these measures to stand.

The Welsh have banned smoking on hospital sites. We heard in our evidence that compliance regarding playgrounds has been very good but that compliance around hospitals has been relatively poor. Does the Minister have any figures to add to that evidence about compliance in Wales? That could be the number of people who have been prosecuted or convicted of such an offence, or surveys from hospital trust leaders on the prevalence in their site, accepting that not all people will necessarily be caught or prosecuted. If we are to be successful, it is not simply enough to write laws in Westminster; there has to be a practical application in the real world. Has the Minister had any conversations with his Welsh counterparts on the perceived reasons why the law on hospitals in Wales has been followed less well than it has been in other areas, so that we can understand why?

The Bill states in proposed new section 4(2) of the Health Act 2006—this is interesting terminology—that if

“the place is used as a place of work or open to the public only some of the time the regulations must provide for it to be smoke-free only when so used.”

That means that if a place is used for the public only some of the time, it can only be a smoke-free place during the time that it is in use. That could lead to a whole queue of people standing outside a hospital. If it were, say, a community diagnostic centre, so it is not open around the clock, or a GP practice, we could have people smoking outside just as people arrive for work in the morning and as the first patients arrive, which would be somewhat counterproductive to the aims of the Bill.

I wonder whether the word “must” would be better off as “should” or “could”, or perhaps we could allow leeway either side for hospitals or schools that are open from a set time. If a school opens at 8.45 am for the children to arrive, when is it officially open and when can people be expected to stop smoking outside it? It seems to me that the risk for children is that people are smoking as they arrive at school, and some children may arrive just before it opens. I remember standing outside the school with my son, waiting for the doors to open before I went to work. This particular question is important. It is sensible that if somewhere is closed and private most of the time, it would not have to be smoke-free except when it is open. However, some thought needs to be given to the detail of that and how it would apply in practice to places that are insufficiently open.

The regulations can also be tailored to different situations. The Bill states that the smoke-free designations can be applied to certain “places or vehicles”, in specific circumstances at particular times or if certain conditions are met. That flexibility ensures that the regulations can address a variety of scenarios and settings, including potentially temporary or conditional restrictions based on factors such as the type of location or event. The regulations also have the option to include exceptions, such as allowing areas within designated smoke-free places to be designated as non-smoke-free, based on the discretion of the person responsible for the area. That would potentially undermine the principle of the Bill, so I would be interested to hear more about that.

Before implementing any new regulations to designate additional smoke-free places, the Secretary of State “must consult” relevant individuals or groups, which again seems sensible. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on the definition outlined in proposed new section (4)(1), which allows the Secretary of State to designate “any place in England” as smoke-free if it meets the criteria of being “a workplace” or “open to the public”. But “any place” is very broad and could be interpreted to include beaches or open-air public festivals. Does the Minister intend to include other places open to the public within the remit of this legislation, such as public woodlands or national parks? Has he spoken to his counterparts in Scotland about the areas that are subject to the right to roam, and therefore open to the public to some extent? That includes, for example, public footpaths and rights of way through farmland. Could the very remotest piece of land in the United Kingdom be designated smoke-free and subject to legal repercussions thereof, if it were also open to the public?

I want to ask whether the enforcement of such broad measures would be feasible. If every public space, regardless of size, location or usage, was subject to a smoking ban, would it be realistic for local authorities or enforcement officers to monitor compliance across such vast and varied spaces?

In the modern day and with the change in working practices since covid, what counts as a workplace? In the age of working from home, can private homes count as workplaces? If a man sits down with his computer to work on a park bench, as is sometimes done, is that a workplace? If someone is working in an open area on the beach—we have heard that some people apparently do—does that make it a workplace? Does that place alternate between being smoke-free and non-smoke-free, depending on whether the man is typing away on his computer, or whether he is having a little break for a cup of tea?

Our hypothetical al fresco worker could be hashing out his latest policy report, but he could also be having a little break to play solitaire or chess. Would that count as working or slacking? Would that then be a workplace or not? Would the police officer attending the scene have to check that the man is working before issuing a fine to nearby smokers? I suppose playing computer chess could count as work if the man were a professional chess player—perhaps he is. How would the offending smoker or the police officer know what the person near them is doing?

These are somewhat colourful hypotheticals, but I hope I have demonstrated that the clause does throw up a great deal of colourful hypotheticals. For the sake of the Bill’s integrity, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on the terms used in the clause.

Furthermore, I would appreciate clarification on how we designate the physical borders of a smoke-free area. With three children, I have been to a fair number of playgrounds. Some playgrounds have physical barriers around them, often some sort of knee-high fencing, making it easy to say where the physical borders of the playground are. But some do not—some are play areas within a park where there is no clear boundary between where the play equipment is and the rest of the park. Does that make the rest of the park a playground or not, and where would the edges be?

Given the seriousness of the offence and the significance of the penalties, the Government should ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that people know when they are violating the law. In this case, will physical markers need to be built around every smoke-free area to ensure that smokers know exactly when they enter one? I can think of many village playgrounds local to me where there is no such marking. Has the Minister considered the cost of providing barriers or markings to ensure that people know where the boundary is?

The nature of second-hand smoke throws up another issue. The Minister well knows that the smoker need not be physically present in the smoke-free area for the effects of second-hand smoke to be felt in one. How does the clause propose to seek to address that scenario? If a park is designated smoke-free, and is or is not barriered, but someone is sat there smoking, watching her children play—she wants to be reasonably close to them so she can keep an eye on them, protect them and keep them safe—would she be violating the smoke-free area if her cigarette smoke wafts beyond the bounds of the park? What if the wind blows the other way? Would that then be legal? Are the mother’s actions based entirely on which way the wind happens to blow?

The principle behind the clause is very sensible: smoking is dangerous, passive smoking is a danger to others, and people—particularly children—should not be forced to breathe in other people’s smoke. But the enforcement of this clause requires it to be made very clear what people should and should not do, and where they should and should not do it. I am not entirely sure that the clause is clear enough on that.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Like the shadow Minister, I agree with the essential thrust of clause 136, notwithstanding the amendments that I voted for earlier, but there is a clear problem with second-hand smoke. We have seen in studies from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory diseases, heart disease, and lung cancer—particularly among vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly, as the Minister outlined.

However, we have to understand that there are clearly differences in how much smoke could be inhaled, depending on the setting. Where air circulation dissipates smoke, such as outside, the risks are probably not as pronounced as they are indoors. Although I do not dispute—I do not think anyone does—the dangers of second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, the question remains whether outdoor areas such as parks and public squares should be subject to the same restrictions.

This debate is not simply about health, but about personal autonomy. Should the Government have the power to restrict what is essentially legal—smoking if someone was born before 1 January 2009 and vaping if someone is over the age of 18—in an open-air environment? That addresses the concerns that I raised regarding the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dartford. There is, I am afraid to say, a real desire from some hon. Members of a certain political persuasion to interfere in private and legal activities just because they do not happen to like them. I do not happen to like them, either, but I think that we might be going too far in this area.

Also, we have to think about the principle of proportionality. If the risk of harm is significantly lower outdoors—the Minister might disagree, but I suggest that it is significantly lower outdoors—is a total ban justified, especially in the park area? Although I take at face value that all he wants to restrict is hospital settings, playgrounds and schools—I have a lot of sympathy for that and support those three areas of the ban—I am concerned that the wide nature of how the clause is written could easily extend to other areas that have been outlined, in terms of public spaces and the hospitality industry. We need a balance.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I certainly do not think the hon. Gentleman is putting pernickety arguments, as he put it. They are important points. He and the shadow Minister are allowing me to provide clarification, hopefully, on some of the concerns, which I would argue are unfounded, and to clarify the extent to which the powers in the Bill would be used by Ministers in England. Of course, it is for my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to clarify at future stages how they would seek to use the powers that the Bill confers on them.

As we have discussed at length, the fact that the powers are so broad means that we can respond to evolving evidence at a later stage, particularly when there are clear harms to children and vulnerable people. It allows us then to get on and make the necessary changes. That is consistent with the Bill as a whole, which gives us the legal framework for tobacco control and measures on vapes.

The shadow Minister mentioned hospitals. She is right to point to the evidence we heard on the first day of Committee about compliance with the existing measures in Wales. Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are rightly concerned about that in England. We are engaging with counterparts in Wales to understand what worked, what did not work and how we can mitigate the things that are not working as well as they could be when we consult on the measures that we wish to introduce in England, should the Bill get Royal Assent.

The answers to that and other questions about what a children’s playground is and what areas around a hospital would apply are down to the details that will be presented for consultation when His Majesty’s Government advance the proposals on outdoor spaces in England. The right place for us to have that discussion is when I bring forward the consultation and say, “This is what the Government consider to be the scope of children’s playgrounds, the scope of outside a school and the scope of outside a hospital setting.” We can debate whether those are the right or wrong definitions. We can put it out to consultation. We can draw on the experiences of other parts of the United Kingdom that already have measures in place. We can then refine our proposals if need be and introduce the secondary legislation.

Mary Foy (Labour, City of Durham)

I totally agree that we need a consultation—that is the beauty of gauging the public interest—but the issue around smoking in public places, and particularly play yards, is about not just second-hand smoke, but de-normalising exposure to smoking. The less that our children see adults smoking, the less chance they will have of thinking it is normal and becoming addicted. We need a comprehensive package to bring in the future smoke-free policy. We have evidence to show that the public, in the main, are in favour of a smoke-free generation, and I am sure that they would police the ban around playgrounds when there are children there. If people are not meant to smoke there, the issue will be policed—possibly by the public.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

My hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this area over such a long period of time, is absolutely right. I will come to some of the enforcement arguments. Our primary aim is to tackle passive second-hand smoking, but it is important that smoking is not so obviously prevalent in areas where children are present —for example, around children’s playgrounds and outside schools. It is not just that the issue of second-hand passive smoking is important—although it is—it is about the clear statement that smoking around children really should be something for the history books. That is why we have removed the public health test from the 2006 Act. Children’s playgrounds probably would not fall within the scope of that test, but it is a clear priority of the Government to remove the prevalence of smoking around children.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her excellent point; I agree entirely with her that we need to ensure that children are not exposed to cigarettes. Could the Minister clarify a couple of points on that basis? First, the edges of playgrounds have been difficult to define—when is the playground the park and when is the park the playground? If it is his intention that children do not see smoking and that that de-normalises the behaviour, which seems a noble aim, would that mean that if someone was within sight of the playground, they would not be able to smoke? Secondly, lots of hospitality venues have playgrounds within them. In fact, one attraction of some pubs that people take children to is that the children will be entertained, while the food is being cooked, by a play area. Will those play areas within hospitality venues be covered by these measures?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I refer the shadow Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago. These are all matters of detail that will be subject to consultation. We will have the arguments as to the definition of a children’s play area—whether it includes children’s playgrounds in hospitality settings or whether it is just in relation to playgrounds in housing estates and parks—and how the edges are defined. These are all matters for consultation and detail, before we get to the secondary legislation.

I want to challenge some of what the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said. To be fair to him, he rightly agrees that second-hand smoke is dangerous, but he makes the case that in outdoor settings it is potentially less dangerous than it is in enclosed settings. That was the view of the chief medical officer: clearly, if someone is indoors, in a constrained area, the prevalence of the toxicity that they are taking in as a second-hand smoker is much greater than it is outdoors—but even outdoors, if someone can smell it, they are breathing it in and it poses a risk to their health. The chief medical officers were really clear on this point: there is no safe level of exposure to smoke. That is particularly important for children, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

A really interesting statistic that the English chief medical officer told the Committee was that at this moment in time, in January 2025, there are more people with clinical vulnerabilities in this country than there are smokers. That is really important when we talk about the balance of rights and responsibilities. The fact that there are now many more people with hidden clinical vulnerabilities than there are smokers shows, I think, where the balance needs to be.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is making a very powerful argument that smoking outside also poses a danger to the health of the nearby public. On that basis, if I were taking an older relative—with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, perhaps—to a beer garden, I would be reluctant to sit outside in the summer in case someone sat down and smoked near her. Is the Minister not making an argument for including hospitality, on the basis that people who are outside in the beer garden are vulnerable to dangerous smoke?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

People sitting in a beer garden where smoking is prevalent are breathing in second-hand smoke, but as the chief medical officers reminded the Committee, there is a balance here, and the United Kingdom Government of which I am a member have decided that that balance is appropriate in order to protect the hospitality business. That is why Ministers—myself, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—have made it very clear that outdoor hospitality will not fall within the scope of the consultation that we intend to bring forward like the clappers. That is our view and it is what we will do. That is not to say that there is a risk that is mitigated for somebody sitting outside. There is a risk, and we cannot mitigate that risk, but it is the balance that the Government have come to. There have to be trade-offs and, given the precarious nature of the hospitality business, we have decided that we will not consult to extend the outdoor smoking provisions to hospitality. I know that that disappoints the shadow Minister—it probably delights other Members on the Opposition Benches—but that is where this Government are.

The powers in the Bill allow for a change at some stage in the future, when it may well be that the balance has shifted and people no longer desire there to be smoking outdoors in hospitality settings. The hospitality trade may say, “This is such a minority pursuit that it is putting off good people from coming to my restaurant.”

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but the Minister is saying that businesses may make the decision that they do not want people to smoke on their premises. They already have that power now, so I am not sure what point he is making.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The point I am making is that industry collectively may come to Ministers and say, “You know what? This carve-out that we’ve been given is no longer needed.” Ministers may well then come to the conclusion that, given that most of these hospitality businesses at some stage in the future are already imposing outdoor smoking bans because that is where their customer base is, we should bring the law into line with that and make it illegal. The provisions are written in the way that they are so that at some stage in the future, when things change, we can change the law, but right now, as I have said on umpteen occasions, we will consult on outside hospitals, outside schools and public children’s play areas, and that is it.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Can the Minister clarify a point? There seems to be a contradiction in my mind, but perhaps I have not understood him correctly. On the one hand, he is being very clear in stating that hospitality will not be included and that children’s play areas will—that seems very clear. Hospitality venues, however, do include children’s play areas. When I asked him about this before, he seemed to say that children’s play areas in hospitality would have to be part of the consultation. If children’s play areas within hospitality are included, then aspects of hospitality are included, are they not?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

That is why it will be down to the consultation as to what precise details we will bring forward. It is not our intention to include hospitality settings, but the hon. Member has rightly raised that some pubs and restaurants have children’s playgrounds. As part of the consultation exercise, we will have to work out how a children’s play area is defined for the purposes of these measures, so that there is absolute clarity on what constitutes a children’s playground. These are not matters for now; they are matters for when Ministers seek to bring forward proposals. We will have that debate then.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I know the Minister is a man of his word. I ask him to be really clear on this, because he has talked about “some point in the future”. Some people’s “some point in the future” may be a very long way off, while others’ may not be such a long way off. Will he give a commitment that, while he is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, he and his colleagues will not bring a consultation to include the hospitality industry?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Well, I hope that I will be a Minister for a very long time, both at the Department of Health and Social Care and with this public health brief, which I absolutely love. I will follow the evidence as and when it appears, but it is not my intention to bring forward changes any time soon. The reason that we are discussing changes now is that the last time that places were designated for a smoking ban was in 2006, and a lot of things have changed since that law came into force in 2007.

It may well be that, in a similar length of time into the future, things have changed sufficiently that the arguments we are having today on hospitality have become obsolete, and that the law needs to be brought into line with the facts on the ground. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon—I am a man of my word—that it is not my intention, nor the intention of this Government to include the hospitality industry, but at some stage in the future, if things change, it may well be that Ministers do come back to the House on this. I cannot judge how long or short that time period may be, but I politely remind him and other Members of the length of time between 2006-07—when these issues were last being debated—and now, and hope that that gives him some reassurance.

The hon. Gentleman said that I have not been emphatic enough on beaches, woodlands, public parks, rights of way and public squares; these are all scenarios that are subject to consultation at some stage in the distant future. It is not our intention to cover these areas in England. I have been very clear about the three areas that we seek to extend smoke-free places to.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I remain a bit confused. On the one hand, the Minister has been very clear: no consultation on hospitality areas. On the other, he has been clear that consultation will occur on play areas. Fair enough. He then said that play areas in hospitality will be discussed as part of the consultation. In that case, how can he be discussing play areas in hospitality but not be discussing hospitality? I am completely confused by that.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

Maybe I was not clear enough for the shadow Minister. We are seeking to bring children’s play areas into the scope of the Bill, and, as we have said, we will consult on restricting smoking around children’s play areas. How we define children’s play areas will be a matter for the consultation.

The hon. Lady has rightly raised a reasonable point that some pubs and restaurants have children’s play areas within them. The Government will have to come to a view, in advance of any future consultation, as to whether that would be included in the definition of children’s play areas—but those are debates for the future, not for now.

We have been clear that smoking will still be permitted in outdoor settings for hospitality. It may well be that there is a smoking facility in the beer garden and it is smoke-free around the children’s play area. That is a matter for a future consultation, but we are not going to bring outdoor hospitality settings into the scope of the smoke-free consultation. If anybody is a smoker today and wishes to sit in a beer garden, and that licensed establishment allows smoking—a growing number of pubs and restaurants are already making their outdoor settings smoke-free because that is where their customer base is—smoking will still be allowed. That will not be part of the scope of future consultation. I cannot be any clearer on that.

On the enforcement of the measures on outdoor spaces, I would first like to give a major plug to the great British public, because most of our constituents are entirely law-abiding citizens, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, so the policy does not need to be heavy-handed. Most people will enforce it themselves and encourage those around them to be considerate of others.

The example is already there: since the indoor smoking ban was introduced in 2007, compliance with the law has been incredibly high. Having been a Member of Parliament for almost 20 years now, I am old enough to have been here during the debate on the Health Act 2006. I was almost banned from Denton Labour club because I was told I would close it down with the smoking ban. Incidentally, it is still open today, but the people there were certainly not happy.

During the passage of that legislation, we Members of Parliament were told that the measures would be entirely unenforceable, that people would ignore the law and that smoking indoors would continue—“What’s the point of legislating for things that aren’t enforceable?” Lo and behold, not only has there been incredibly high compliance, but it has been a huge success, in terms of both its enforceability and the massive public health benefits that have arisen from that legislation. The same will be true of the measures that we seek to introduce. I can see no reason why people who have accepted the law as it stands today, which was introduced in 2007, and in 2006 in Scotland, would not accept the law when it comes to this Bill.

The enforcement of any extension of smoke-free places is expected to be undertaken by the same allocated teams in local authorities that currently enforce the existing smoke-free legislation. This is typically the responsibility of environmental health teams in local authorities. Those who smoke in a smoke-free place in England face a fine on conviction of up to £200, or a £50 on-the-spot fine. Existing penalties for smoking in smoke-free places will apply to any extensions to smoke- free places introduced through regulations. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 137 - Smoke-Free Premisies: Recasting of Power to Exempt Performers

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The clause relates to an existing regulation-making power in the Health Act 2006 that allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations that permit performers in England to smoke during a performance. The exemption would enable the creation of defences to the offences of smoking in smoke-free places and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place. It would be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a performance.

The creative industry is a significant part of the UK economy, and we have to balance a range of priorities while protecting the most vulnerable and ensuring that businesses are not financially impacted. The Bill aims to protect those who are most vulnerable to second-hand smoke, and we are of the view that the relative harm from the exemption is low. Without the exemption, it would not be possible for a film or TV show that is made in England to include an actor smoking, regardless of how of how integral that might be. The provision updates an existing power in the 2006 Act, so an exemption to allow performers to smoke during a performance is not new. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is right to say that the clause recasts an existing regulation-making power in section 3(5) of the Health Act 2006, whereby the Secretary of State may make regulations that allow performers to smoke during a performance

“if the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate”,

and is allowed, on that basis, to create a defence to the offences of smoking in a smoke-free place and of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.

The act of smoking in film, theatre and other forms of art can be a character-defining gesture that speaks volumes about the person’s identity or emotional state, or about the period in history they represent—think of images of Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart and James Dean. It can also establish the period in which a person lived. It was commonplace for virtually everyone to smoke in the 1940s and 1950s, and the smoke swirling around characters became as much a part of their onscreen presence as their dialogue or expressions. Although smoking in real life is certainly not cool, and comes with myriad negative health implications, its role in art and culture can deepen the portrayal of certain iconic figures and their stories.

The Minister says that the exemption has been part of law for a long time, and that it has worked. There are essentially two ways in which a performance can mimic smoking. The first is to have a fake cigarette, six of which can be bought on Amazon for less than a tenner. They look a bit like a cigarette and an actor can hold them, but they do not have any smoke coming from them. My understanding is that currently the most common prop cigarettes used by actors are cigarettes that contain no nicotine and no tobacco but some herbal items. They produce smoke but are less harmful than a cigarette because they do not contain tobacco, and less addictive because they do not contain nicotine.

The Bill provides for tobacco products to be banned for certain generations of people, and adds herbal smoking products to that ban. Could that inadvertently lead to individual actors and actresses smoking tobacco rather than the less harmful alternative, particularly if there is a price differential between the two? Has the Minister considered how the law will apply to actors and actresses who are born on or after 1 January 2009? Will there be an exemption from the other aspects of the Bill, either allowing them to buy the cigarettes themselves or allowing someone to give them cigarettes as a proxy sale, which would currently be banned under the first part of the Bill? At present, actors may be above the age of 18, but the Bill is intended to be future-proof, so if we roll forwards 15 years or so, when younger actors will be banned from smoking and buying cigarette papers and the like, how does the Minister envisage it working in practice?

Freedom of expression is essential to the arts, but the laws and practices that protect and nurture free expression are often poorly understood by practitioners and those who enforce the law. The question is, then: what is a performer? Section 3(8) of the Health Act 2006 states that “performance” can include

“the performance of a play, or a performance given in connection with the making of a film or television programme, and…if the regulations so provide, include a rehearsal.”

That seems a rather narrow definition of performance. Performance art can cross disciplines such as dance on the stage or on the street. If we go to the south bank, just opposite this House, we can see performers performing solo activities on the weekend. Contract law for those engaged in paid work offers some recognition and potential protection for performance-related work, defines it and outlines the conditions of the performance—it is indeed the performer and not other members of the performance who are included.

To create another hypothetical situation, suppose there is an interactive performance in which the performer on stage requires mass audience participation for their act and suggests that the people in the crowd have to join in with them. Would the artistic integrity of the performance trump the laws that prohibit smoking? The line between performer and audience can be blurred, so if an audience member were invited up on the stage by the performer, would they be allowed to try a cigarette or vape? Proposed new section 7(3) of the Health Act 2006 does not suggest that the performance needs to take place on stage or even in the theatre; some occur outside hospitality venues, as we have discussed.

To give a colourful example, imagine there is a performance called “Smokers”, taking place in a pub in, say, Sleaford, in my constituency. It features performers smoking and chatting in a pub. It is quite an experimental, interactive performance, and the members of the audience —in other words, regular pubgoers—can take part in the performance and light up a cigarette themselves should they wish to. Technically, does this scenario not fall within the remit of the law? We have to bear in mind that the tobacco industry is creative in looking for loopholes. Smoking is required in order to preserve the artistic integrity of this alleged performance. Will the Minister provide clarification on this point? Although my examples may sound inventive, the tobacco industry does come up with inventive ways of circumventing the legislation.

My other point relates to performers who are born after 1 January 2009 smoking or vaping on stage. We need some clarity on that.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

To follow on from what the shadow Minister said, the Minister said that performers who smoke during performances would not be a problem because the second-hand passive smoking would not be big enough of an issue. But why can a cigarette be smoked as part of a performance, yet a cigar cannot be smoked once a year by a single person? Why is smoking allowed for this artistic purpose, yet it is not allowed for someone who would like to smoke a cigar recreationally?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

This is an existing power, in the Health Act 2006, that we have retained in the Bill at the request of the creative industries in England. I reiterate what I said in opening the debate: the exemption will be available only where smoking is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of a particular performance, so smoking would not be allowed in the hypothetical situations we have heard about. The provision is intended solely to allow the artistic integrity of a performance to be retained.

The shadow Minister asked whether the provision would merely encourage actors to smoke tobacco. Of course, that is not the case. Herbal smoking products are covered under “smoke-free” as well, so they are treated the same.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

With respect to the Minister, the point was that they are treated the same. My understanding is that, because of the rules around tobacco, actors who are non-smokers are more likely to use a non-tobacco herbal product that does not contain nicotine. Given the Minister’s previous comments about tobacco being more harmful, why not make the exemption specific to products that do not contain tobacco and nicotine?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We are following the request of industry. This is an existing power in the 2006 Act and it is to be used only in the exceptional circumstances in which cigarettes or indeed herbal smoking products are appropriate for the authenticity of the performance. That is exactly what the law is now.

I agree with the shadow Minister that it is not cool to smoke. I may have mentioned in previous sittings that I have been successful in getting not one but four stories in LADbible. One of them made precisely the point that the shadow Minister made: that smoking is not cool and it is not glamorous. It is a dirty, stinking, horrible habit that kills two thirds of people who start it. That is why we are committed to a smoke-free generation.

I suspect that this exemption for the creative industries, which is pre-existing, may become obsolete at some point in the near future, not least because I would imagine that as more and more actors themselves are brought up smoke-free as a consequence of the measures we are introducing, actors will eventually point-blank refuse to smoke a cigarette, whether it adds creative authenticity or not.

As I have said, this is a follow-on from an exemption that was previously granted in the Health Act 2006, which is why I seek the Committee’s permission to retain it in the Bill.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I understand that the Minister is saying this is what the industry is asking for and that it existed before. However, as a result of the change in regulations, people who act as if they are smokers in a video or film are currently able to smoke herbal cigarettes that are designed as prop cigarettes and do not contain tobacco or nicotine. Although it may not be terribly good for their health for them to do so, those cigarettes do not contain the tobacco that kills two thirds of its users, and they do not contain nicotine either. In providing the exemption for the creative industries, will the Minister at least consider providing an exemption for the least harmful version of what will appear to the audience as a cigarette and cigarette smoke, so that we can protect actors as much as possible?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am open to taking that suggestion away and having a look it, but at this stage it is our intention merely to copy and paste the existing exemption that applies for the creative industries in England, which is what the clause does.

Clause 138 - No-smoking signs in England

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 143, 149 and 154 stand part.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 138 relates to no-smoking signs in England and amends section 6 of the Health Act 2006, setting out that whoever occupies or manages no-smoking premises must ensure that the relevant no-smoking signs are displayed in or near the premises—which is, of course, very sensible.

We talked earlier about the importance of people understanding what the law is and where they can and cannot smoke. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations further to the no-smoking signs. That is sensible for outdoor spaces, but does the Minister have information on how the regulations will define the size and edges of those spaces, and on the cost to industry and local councils of providing signage?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The exact requirements of the position of the signs for smoke-free locations will be set out in regulations, but we will ensure that they are required to be in a prominent position near the smoke-free place.

The other matters that the hon. Lady raises relate to questions that we will need to consult on and work through in regulation—for example, who will be required to provide the signs and whether it will be down to public bodies such as NHS trusts and local authorities. All the costs, including any requirements to put up signs and their exact locations, will be considered as part of any future impact assessment of the policy. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Before I put the Question, it may help the Committee if I say that we may be expecting a Division in the House at about 4 pm.

Clause 139 - Vape-free places in England

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 144, 150 and 155 stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to vape-free places across the four nations. They will allow the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also provide that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the vape-free locations, and they give the power to set requirements in respect of those signs.

Although vapes are less harmful than smoking, they are not harm-free. There are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term harms of vaping. Vapes produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potentially to other toxicants. This poses health risks to children and vulnerable people in particular, for example the risk of triggering an asthma attack. It is important and right that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms.

Many businesses and enclosed public places already voluntarily have schemes in place to prohibit vape use in their premises. We want clearer legislative requirements so that it will be easier for the public to understand where vapes can be used and for enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. The clauses will therefore give the relevant Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland powers to restrict the use of vapes in areas, but only those areas already designated as smoke-free. Those could include spaces such as indoor pub areas, public libraries or buses.

In addition to making it an offence to vape in a vape-free place, the clauses will place duties on persons who control or manage vape-free places—that can include drivers of vape-free vehicles—to ensure that their premises or vehicle remains vape-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a vape in a vape-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the obligation is to cause someone who is vaping in a vape-free place to stop using the vape. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The clauses make provision to permit the use of a vape during a performance if the use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, this takes the form of a defence to the offences of vaping in a vape-free premises or failing to prevent vaping in a vape-free premises. In England, the Secretary of State has the power to create equivalent defences.

The power to designate any spaces vape-free will be subject to a full and open consultation, and the evidence for imposing any restrictions will be considered before regulating. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

This is an important clause that I am pleased to see, as I have campaigned against vaping in children for quite some time, as the Minister is aware. As the Minister says, if you can smell it, you are breathing it in. That is an obvious statement, but I have had people tell me that vapes do not give out any smoke and that it is therefore not possible for them to cause damage to anyone nearby. They may not give out smoke, but they certainly give out chemicals that are inhalable by anyone next to the person vaping. Otherwise, it would not be possible to smell the blueberry, or whatever flavour the person has chosen.

Key findings from studies on second-hand vaping include those on nicotine exposure. E-cigarettes emit nicotine in their vapour—in lower concentrations than cigarettes, to be fair, but they do emit it. The amount of second-hand nicotine depends on the brand; nicotine emissions vary among products. One study found second-hand exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes to be lower than that from tobacco smoke generally. Nevertheless, it exists, and it is still undesirable for people, particularly children, to be forced to inhale such a toxin. It is particularly harmful to pregnant women and those with cardiovascular conditions. The potential long-term effects of such low-level nicotine exposure are unclear.

Although e-cigarettes do not release compounds such as carbon monoxide, as cigarettes do, they do emit other chemicals such as propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine, which have been associated with respiratory irritation. Certain volatile carbonyl compounds, such as formaldehyde, have been identified in cigarette vapour, which could pose health risks with long-term exposure.

One of the persistent limitations with vaping is the lack of long-term data on the health effects of second-hand e-cigarette vapour. Most researchers focus on the acute effects, but as e-cigarettes are a relatively new product, certainly on a mass-market scale, we still do not fully understand the potential long-term health consequences of inhaling these vapours regularly, especially in confined spaces.

I would argue—it seems from the clause that the Minister agrees—that we need to be careful, particularly with our children. We do not want to addict a whole load of generations to this habit. We do not want others to experience second-hand vapours. There have been cases of people dying of second-hand smoking. As the Minister has said, we know that second-hand vapour can cause asthma and other lung diseases.

Parliament itself has been a place where one experiences second-hand vaping. I was pleased to see last year that Mr Speaker had put notices in the Tea Room and elsewhere around the House stating that there should be no vaping in public. We are due to vote shortly, as you said, Mr Pritchard; even during votes, I have gone into the ladies’ rest rooms, where we have a little seating and sofa area, and found female MPs vaping, including one member of the Cabinet. It is prevalent in all parts of society. We should not be exposed to such things in the workplace. Children, in particular, should not be exposed to such chemicals at all.

Clause 139 will amend the Health Act 2006 by inserting a new chapter, “Vape-free places in England”, which will establish a framework for prohibiting the use of certain vapes in designated areas and in vehicles in England, ensuring that specific places remain vape-free, much like the existing rules for the smoke-free environment. Does the Minister intend there to be an overlap? Clearly it would be much simpler, both for enforcement and for understanding among the public, if there were a direct overlap with the incongruity between the smoke-free and vape-free environments. I know that some say that if we make places vape-free we are encouraging people to smoke, but they cannot smoke there either, so that seems to be a false argument.

Proposed new section 8B of the 2006 Act will give the power to make regulations designating vehicles as vape-free. It is constrained in that it can apply only to areas designated as smoke-free under the Act, ensuring that vape-free zones align with existing smoke-free zones, which makes sense. Will that be future-proof if those change over time?

My other question is about the places where people are expected to prevent vaping and enforce vape-free areas. Anyone who has sat on public transport will have noticed that it is easy for irresponsible commuters to quickly puff a vape, even though the train or bus may be a vape-free space. A cigarette is difficult to conceal easily in a pocket, because it must be put out first, but it is quite quick to have a puff on a vape and put it back in one’s pocket. Smoking a cigarette can take several minutes, whereas a vape can be used without gaining much attention, other than from the vapour being released into the environment.

I have not been in a nightclub for some time, but I understand from my staffers that it is commonplace to vape there. When a vaper is in a crowd, it is difficult for staff or security to tell which person is vaping. Even if the staff were alerted to vape smoke, the vaper would most likely have put it back into their pocket, making it virtually impossible to positively identify them. Can the Minister say more about the reasonable steps that he expects a nightclub or bar owner to take in order to prevent that?

We hope that most people will comply with the regulations. That is certainly what we found with the smoking regulations, but those are perhaps slightly less easy to get around than the vaping regulations will be. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points, but overall I welcome the measures. As I say, the Bill is a good public health measure.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I am afraid to say to Government Members and to the shadow Minister that I am going to break up the cosy consensus. I had lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has given me some classical liberal vibes. I know that that will warm the Minister’s heart.

Part 7 of the Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to designate smoke-free places through secondary legislation; clause 139 will do the same for vape-free places. I have a few concerns about that approach. First, it has the potential to force people who have already switched or are in the process of switching from cigarettes to vapes—or indeed to heated tobacco, which is the subject of the next clause—to use their devices in the same areas as smokers, which runs the risk of their moving back to cigarettes. There is a risk that the places designated for vaping will often be the places designated for smoking. We all agree that even though we do not want people to start vaping, we would rather that people vaped if they are on cigarettes. In my view, the clause will be detrimental to its own aims.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I appreciate that we do not agree on the point about vape-free places, but the argument that they will make people smoke seems to be based on the premise that if someone cannot have a vape in their office, they will pick up a cigarette. They cannot pick up a cigarette in their office either. If, as has been suggested, there is congruity between smoking and vaping, how is it that a person who cannot smoke or vape in a place will then decide to smoke when they go outside to an area that is not designated as smoke-free?

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

It is not that people are not going to vape. They will go outside to the designated vaping spot, which in the overwhelming majority of instances will be either the same place that is designated for smoking or immediately adjacent to it. If someone is a recent ex-smoker or is trying to quit, effectively forcing them to vape in an area near cigarette smoke seems incredibly damaging to public health. I do not think that that is a particularly controversial statement.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Surely the alternative is asking people to vape elsewhere, although they would be exposing non-vapers and non-smokers—perhaps with clinical vulnerabilities, or perhaps children—to their vapes instead.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I will come on to the point about the relative effects of second-hand vaping and of smoking, but I will make some progress first.

My second point, which I have made throughout our debates on the Bill, is that we are potentially conflating vapes with cigarettes in legislation, which will exacerbate the misinformation that such alternatives are equally harmful to cigarettes. That will further undermine the Government’s goal of helping smokers to quit. Indeed, Action on Smoking and Health found:

“Half of all smokers…incorrectly believe vaping is more or equally as harmful as smoking…This is the highest ever proportion with this misconception across all waves of the survey and a significant increase on misperceptions found in 2023. Only one third of smokers understand vaping is less harmful than smoking.”

It seems to me that if we group vapes and cigarettes together and treat them in the same way, that misperception will only be exacerbated. That may further reduce the inclination of smokers to switch to vapes.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I concur. Cancer Research UK followed a similar argument in written evidence to the Committee:

“It is important that any measures to restrict vaping do not exacerbate harm misperceptions, and do not deter or reduce accessibility of people who smoke from quitting with the use of e-cigarettes.”

I put it on the record that I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

It is nice to have a fellow freedom fighter on the Committee—[Interruption.] I am trying to get the Minister to intervene.

My third point is one to which I think the Minister alluded earlier, but I ask him to repeat it in summing up. This part of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make decisions without really having the full approval of Parliament. The Minister has said that the Government will consult on the expansion of smoke-free areas, but as I understand it from the drafting, it is not necessary for the Government to consult on expanding vape-free and heated tobacco-free spaces in the same way. I think he might have touched on that point in his remarks, but I would welcome his confirmation.

My fourth point relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on second-hand smoke. My understanding is that the rationale for smoke-free places, as initially envisaged, was that the smoker is affected as a result of them having made an informed decision, but people nearby are affected who have not. That is the point of the smoke-free place. Cancer Research UK, however, states that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

Public Health England has also found:

“Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds.”

In my view, therefore, the point about second-hand smoke does not make anywhere near the same kind of sense for heated tobacco products as it does with cigarettes.

Even the Bill’s impact assessment states:

“There are currently no legal restrictions in the UK on where a person may vape. However, many businesses, venues, educational institutions, health service providers and public transport providers have voluntarily introduced their own rules preventing vape usage in these locations.”

We all recognise that that is the case. Given that the impact assessment also notes that

“There is currently limited evidence of health harm from ‘passive vaping’.”

should it not continue to be for the proprietors of such venues to make their own decisions, based on the needs and desires of their customers? That is my position.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

My hon. Friend always tempts me with his libertarian arguments. I am not quite with him on this Bill, but almost. Proposed new section 8B(2) of the Health Act 2006 says:

“Only smoke-free places may be designated as vape-free.”

I understand that to mean that there will potentially be places that are smoke-free but not necessarily vape-free, and I wonder whether that gives him any solace. I am specifically interested in our discussion about introducing vapes in vending machines in mental health trusts. Does he think there is a case—perhaps the Minister will comment on this in his remarks—for vapes to be used as a smoking cessation tool in certain places where we cannot smoke a cigarette or use other tobacco-based products?

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the point that I am making. Vapes can be a tool to help the Government in their desire to create a smoke-free generation, and this legislation could be counterproductive to that, by their own measures of success. Members—certainly those on the Opposition Benches—have to engage with not necessarily the law that is written but how it will be implemented in reality. Businesses are likely to respond to this legislation by just putting up a sticker on the smoking shelter that says it is the designated vaping place as well. That is the risk.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Although I disagree with my hon. Friend on the principle of vape-free places, he is making a reasonable point about the enforcement and congruity with smoke-free areas. If there is not congruity with smoke-free areas, this legislation will be more difficult to enforce, because people will not know which is which and it will lead to more inadvertent errors. He also talks about the idea of vape-free areas being less important because vaping is potentially less harmful, but we do not know that.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not a doctor as she is, but I will repeat that Cancer Research UK said that there is

“no good evidence that second-hand e-cigarette vapour is harmful”.

and Public Health England made a similar comment. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West has made a few times about the precautionary principle, but we could take that to any excess.

Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

It is important to remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Someone said to me a while ago that having a smoking section in a restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I am not sure there is a question there, but the hon. Member has put a smile on my face.

My final point is about the visibility of vaping, because I think the Minister should consider the wisdom of this clause by his own logic. Public Health England guidance says:

“while smokefree law protects people from the harm of secondhand smoke, forcing smokers outdoors has increased public visibility of smoking, including to children and young people. Having a more enabling approach to vaping can mitigate this and help make smoking less of a social norm”.

Ensuring a differentiation between where people can vape or smoke might assist in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping, which would undoubtedly have a net positive public health benefit. In addition, allowing people to continue vaping indoors in places such as pubs, bars and nightclubs, which are age-gated anyway, would reduce the visibility of vaping in public and keep it away from people who are under age. When it comes to protecting people who are under age from picking up vaping in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government and the shadow Minister.

Those are the five points I wanted to make. First, are we sure that we want to push vapers to vape in the same place as smokers when they might be trying to give up smoking? Secondly, do we really want to conflate vapes with cigarettes, which might undermine the Government’s goal to help smokers to switch? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to consulting on any expansion of vape-free spaces, as he has for tobacco? Fourthly, the evidence is weak that second-hand vaping is a problem, but that is effectively the rationale for smoke-free places. Fifthly, is the Minister not concerned that he could be inadvertently putting vapes on show, particularly to young people, by forcing people out of age-controlled spaces such as pubs?

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

I want to confine my remarks to proposed new section 8D—“Offence of failing to prevent vaping”. I assume that the provisions under section 8D are similar, if not exactly the same, as the ones that would apply to cigarettes and other tobacco-based products. However, there is an issue: it is much easier to spot somebody smoking a tobacco-based product than a vape-based product. Tobacco has a distinctive smell. To be frank, the available products look like cigarettes, cigars and pipes, and we know what they look like, whereas the industry has got better at disguising vapes. Vapes do not have the distinctive smell of tobacco, although they have many flavours as we have discussed, and they do not necessarily look like a cigarette or a similar product.

I am interested in the Minister’s views on whether there will be a different defence threshold for failing to prevent vaping under proposed new section 8D. Subsection (4) says that a defence for a person charged with such an offence is

“that they took reasonable steps to cause the person in question to stop using the vape”.

The question is: will there be a different threshold for those who are sanctioned under the Bill for a tobacco-related offence versus a vape-related offence? That brings us back to burdens on the hospitality industry, retailers and so on. If there is not a differential, again, we will be putting undue pressure on retailers or nightclub owners that we would not expect for tobacco offences. It would be helpful to get some clarity on that.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

We have had a good discussion on the clause. I sincerely thank the shadow Minister for the leadership that she has shown over a good number of years on this issue. I am not just saying that because her boss, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), is in the Public Gallery, gazing his beady eye over the Conservative Benches to see what is happening—I am sure that is precisely what he is doing.

In all fairness to the shadow Minister, she has taken a consistent view on vaping, which in some regards goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I know that it frustrates her, and indeed perhaps one or two Members on my own Benches, that the scope of the Bill does not go as far as creating a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free one. I put on record my thanks and appreciation to her for championing this issue over a good number of years. I know that is why she supports the clause, as she said, and perhaps secretly supports a number of the other clauses that she has abstained on in Divisions—probably to further wind up the hon. Member for Windsor.

On the clause, there is evidence that second-hand exposure to vaping may worsen asthma in children and teenagers. There are also wider concerns about young people taking up vaping and becoming addicted to nicotine. To protect children and vulnerable groups, we are therefore taking powers to consider whether certain places, such as public transport, should be vape-free as well as smoke-free.

It is important that we consider exemptions for certain settings, particularly those with the intention of helping adult smokers to quit. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham. That is an important aspect for us to consider, and it will be explored through consultation.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Just for those listening, I should say that I am the Member of Parliament for Farnham and Bordon. The people of Bordon will be very upset if they are not mentioned.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I am sure that that has been noted by Hansard.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I am sure it has. I was using shorthand, Mr Pritchard, and the wonderful people at Hansard will of course have the hon. Gentleman’s full title. Being the Member for Gorton and Denton, I know how important it is that we reference both Gorton and Denton, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Many public venues and spaces have already put in place their own policies on vaping. For example, many hospitals and public transport providers have banned vaping on their premises. Subject to consultation, the clause will merely make those bans official.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I think the Minister is teasing me ever so slightly. I just want to say that I did write what I said; it was not given to me by the IEA.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The hon. Gentleman obviously wrote it after being inspired by his wonderful dinner with members of the idiotic economic arguments committee. I only half jest and half pull his leg, because I will never forgive the IEA for crashing the country’s economy, but we are not here to talk about the last Conservative Government, under the leadership of Liz Truss.

I do have some sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. We agree—and I think it has already been established—that vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective smoking cessation tool, so that is an area that we definitely want to get right. Clearly, we want to continue to ensure that adult smokers can use vapes as a quit aid, while protecting others from the risks of vaping. That is why only places that are smoke-free can also become vape-free. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, which the hon. Gentleman has raised on a number of occasions, the scope and impact of any future restrictions will be carefully considered. We will design the regulations in a manner that does not result in greater smoking harm.

I want to politely educate the hon. Gentleman on the process of secondary legislation, as he is a new Member—I do not mean this disrespectfully. Every statutory instrument that comes before a Delegated Legislation Committee appears on the Order Paper for a subsequent day on the Floor of the House of Commons. Before the Adjournment debate and the House adjourns, and after whatever votes we have had on the business of the day, there is something called the remaining orders of the day, which is all the secondary legislation that has been approved in Delegated Legislation Committees.

Should a Member shout “Object”, that leads to a deferred Division of the whole House. When the hon. Gentleman goes through the No Lobby, gets his pink card and puts a “No” next to Government legislation, as I am sure he has done on umpteen occasions since 4 July, that is a vote of the whole House on a statutory instrument that has been passed by a Delegated Legislation Committee. On all the measures that we introduce through secondary legislation, he will have the opportunity —I am sure his Whip and the shadow Health Secretary are taking note—to shout “Object” and cause a deferred Division.

On the question of who will enforce vape-free legislation, I accept that vaping is easier to conceal than smoking, and therefore it is much easier to enforce a prohibition on smoking in a designated area than to prevent someone from having a sly puff on a vape, but this policy is about ensuring consistency, notwithstanding the difficulties there will be in enforcing it. As we have argued before, the majority of the British public are law-abiding citizens. This does not need to be a heavy-handed policy. Most people will enforce it themselves, and they will encourage those around them to be considerate to others.

In England, enforcement of any extension of smoke- free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by the same allocated teams within local authorities that currently enforce smoke-free legislation. That is typically the responsibility of the environmental health teams within local authorities. As with smoking in a smoke-free premise, someone found to be vaping in a vape-free premise in England may be issued with a fine on conviction of up to £200, or an on-the-spot fine of £50.

In Scotland, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local environmental health officers, which is the case now with existing smoke-free places. As with smoking in smoke-free places, those vaping in a vape-free place in Scotland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

In Wales, enforcement of any extension of smoke-free or vape-free places is expected to be undertaken by local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing existing smoke-free legislation. The police are also authorised to enforce the smoke-free requirements in relation to private cars carrying children. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Wales face a fine on conviction of up to £200, or a £100 on-the- spot fine.

In Northern Ireland, local councils are primarily responsible for enforcing the existing smoke-free rules; we would expect that to extend to vape-free places as well. As with smoking in a smoke-free place, those vaping in a vape-free place in Northern Ireland face a fine on conviction of up to £1,000, or a £50 on-the-spot fine.

We will consult on regulations before any vape-free places are introduced. A new burdens assessment will be completed before the powers in the Bill come into force, to account for additional enforcement costs. I commend clause 139 to the Committee.

Clause 140 - Heated tobacco-free places in England

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 145, 151 and 156 stand part.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

The clauses will amend the Health Act 2006, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 by inserting new provisions relating to heated tobacco-free places. They provide for the Secretary of State in England, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to designate certain places and vehicles as heated tobacco-free, but only where they are already smoke-free. They also require that appropriate signs must be displayed in or near the heated tobacco-free place, and they give powers to set requirements in respect of those signs.

In addition to making it an offence to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place, the clauses also place duties on persons who control or manage heated tobacco-free places, which can include drivers of heated tobacco-free vehicles, to ensure that their premises or vehicles remain heated tobacco-free. In Scotland, the obligation is to not knowingly permit another to use a heated tobacco device in a heated tobacco-free place; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the obligation is to cause someone who is using heated tobacco in a “free from” place to stop using the device. The difference in approach is a result of amending existing legislation in a devolved area, but the practical effect will be the same.

The provisions for England will also provide powers for the Secretary of State to create defences to permit the use of heated tobacco devices during a performance if that use is justified to preserve the artistic integrity of the performance.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. All tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. There is evidence from lab studies of the toxicity of heated tobacco. There are less harmful, tobacco-free products that can support people to quit instead of using an alternative tobacco product. It is therefore important that heated tobacco products be included within the scope of the Bill.

We are considering making all currently smoke-free indoor places heated tobacco-free, and making outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. However, that is subject to consultation. There is a statutory duty to consult, as I have mentioned on umpteen occasions, before bringing forward regulations to designate any spaces heated tobacco-free. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 140 and the associated provisions for the other parts of the United Kingdom provide powers for the Secretary of State to prohibit the use of heated tobacco products in England in places that are already smoke free. That will need to be enforced by people who may not be familiar with heated tobacco devices. Will the Minister comment on the training?

I have only once come across a heated tobacco device at a dinner at Westminster. I initially thought the gentleman was vaping at the table, but it turned out he was using a heated tobacco device, which I had a look at—I had never seen anything like it before. It may be all well and good in metropolitan London, where people may be more familiar with heated tobacco, but how will people who are not familiar with these devices and have perhaps never heard of them be expected to recognise them and know they are not legal?

Has the Minister any plans on how to educate the public on the presence of heated tobacco, what it is used for and what the devices look like, in order that the law can be enforced? How will he do so without providing an advert for it to people who are old enough to buy it—at least in the short term, until it becomes illegal?

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

Government Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to repeat my points from the previous clause. Like the shadow Minister, I am less familiar with heated tobacco products, but I suspect the arguments I made regarding clause 139 apply to clause 140.

I want to make two or three points specific to heated tobacco. As with vaping, designating smoke-free areas as also being heated tobacco-free is dangerous, as it forces consumers to use their less harmful products alongside smokers. The risk is to increase the chance of their moving back to cigarettes. I will quote Public Health England:

“Compared with cigarette smoke, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potential harmful compounds.”

It is not clear to me that there is an effect on a bystander of someone using these devices. The Cochrane review cited an earlier review on heated tobacco products that concluded that users and bystanders were exposed to toxicants,

“although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on the relative harms, but I am not convinced.

Sadik Al-Hassan (Labour, North Somerset)

With the hon. Member’s libertarian view on freedoms, what does he think about the choice somebody has not to inhale carcinogens and other products? He is indicating that people who vape in areas where people do not smoke at all would force that choice on them.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

I would not describe myself as libertarian; I would say I was arguing straightforward centre-right classical liberal opinions, rather than libertarian ones, but we might differ on that. An arbitrary line must obviously be drawn. The same argument could be made about someone idling in a car and people on the street. There is obviously a difference between that and smoking, where we have drawn a line. I acknowledge that I know less about heated tobacco products but, from what I have read, the spill-over effect from nearby users does not reach a threshold to merit state intervention—though I agree that that judgment is qualitative. That is the argument I am advancing. I again make the point to the Minister that heated tobacco, while a recent innovation, has been reported to be positively associated with success in quitting. We should therefore be careful and not treat it the same way as cigarettes in an effort to advance the aim of the Bill, which is to get more adult smokers to use this product and move away from smoking.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative, Farnham and Bordon)

Like my hon. Friend, I am no expert in heated tobacco products, but is he suggesting that they can also be used as a smoking cessation tool? If that is the case, his argument bears some weight. Does he have any understanding of where in the spectrum of harms—from cigarettes and cigars at one end to not smoking at all at the other, with vapes placed at some point on that continuum—where heated tobacco would sit? Is it closer to traditional tobacco-based products or to vape products? Is it an intermediary step, whereby someone who is trying to quit might move from smoking a cigarette or a cigar to heated tobacco, to vaping, and then eventually to quitting? Is that how he would see it?

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

That is effectively the argument I am advancing. In terms of the quantum of harm as a percentage of a cigarette, I do not know. As I understand it, even though we do not fully know yet the dangers of heated tobacco, it is similar to vaping in that we do not want anybody to take it up, but if someone smokes we would prefer them to use it as a cessation device. I understand that that is the way they are marketed.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

indicated dissent.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

The Minister is disagreeing, but he can combat that in his speech.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My understanding is that the industry, in the same way that it in the past marketed filters as a way of making things less harmful, when in actual fact the microplastics may have made them more harmful, may have advertised heated tobacco as a way of saying, “You’re not smoking it, so it’s not as bad for you.” It is not therefore a recommended quit aid, but a way for the industry to try to maintain its market.

Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)

My hon. Friend’s points have been noted for the record. From what I have read and seen in the representations to the Committee and more widely, heated tobacco seems to me to be similar to vaping, in the sense that we do not people to start it as a product, but it is less harmful than cigarettes, so we should try to facilitate a way for people to use those methods as cessation devices.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

I will come to the shadow Minister’s point at the end, but first I want to nail the pernicious lie peddled by the tobacco industry that there is a tobacco product that is an adequate smoking cessation tool. There is no form of tobacco that is safe. That is why we are stopping the sale of tobacco in any form to anybody born on or after 1 January 2009. That is a clear aim and objective of the Bill.

I do not want to rehearse old arguments but, taking us back to the almost two-day-long debate we had on clause 1, I made it clear that we are effectively saying to the tobacco industry that as far as its market base is concerned in the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—this is as good as it gets. There will be no other route to peddle this deadly, toxic ingredient called tobacco that, were Sir Walter Raleigh to bring it to these shores today, would be illegal. However, because we have a 500-year history, which the shadow Minister kindly researched and gave us chapter and verse on in the debate on clause 1, we know we are where we are as a consequence of the tobacco industry. We will heaven and earth, however, to make sure that there is no other route for the tobacco industry to grow its market share. The lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool is precisely that—a lie.

There are smoking cessation tools that we are championing that are tobacco-free, which is why we have a differential between vapes and tobacco products in the Bill. We recognise that vaping has a value as a smoking cessation tool, but I will never, ever concede that another tobacco product is a smoking cessation tool.

Tobacco is uniquely harmful. It kills two thirds of its user base. It is a major cause of death and of cancer in this country to this day. Whether it is cigarettes, cigars or heated tobacco, tobacco is tobacco, and tobacco is dangerous. I will not concede to the hon. Member for Windsor on the tobacco industry’s lie that heated tobacco is a smoking cessation tool. He wants to switch on the conveyor belt, albeit slowly, but that conveyor belt is stopping—and stopping for good.

The shadow Minister raises an important point about how people will identify heated tobacco products if they are not aware what such products look like, in order for the measure to be self-enforcing in the way that not smoking in smoke-free places has largely been self-enforced, and as we expect measures on vaping to be. I reassure her that when the measures in the Bill are enacted, there will be a comprehensive information campaign so people will be aware of what is restricted as a consequence of its measures. That should raise awareness of products such as heated tobacco without promoting them, as the hon. Member for Windsor would like, as a pseudo-miraculous device for people to quit their addiction.

As I say, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 141 - Amendments consequential on sections 136 to 140

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 17.

Clause 146 stand part.

Schedule 18.

Clause 152 stand part.

Schedule 19.

Clause 157 stand part.

Schedule 20.

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 141 is fairly self-explanatory and links to schedule 17, which contains the amendments to other legislation consequential on clauses 136 to 140. I do not have any specific comments to make on it.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour/Co-operative, Gorton and Denton)

These clauses and schedules ensure that the definitions in existing legislation align with those used in the Bill, and that references are accurate and reflect any provisions inserted into or removed from the relevant Acts. I therefore commend the group to the Committee.

Clause 158 - Power to prohibit vaping etc on ships

Caroline Johnson (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 158 relates to shipping. I think a question was raised earlier about why ships were specifically excluded. That is partly because ships are important enough to have their own specific, separate clause. Clause 158 amends section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and makes provision regarding safety regulations that are made under that Act to provide for vape-free and heated tobacco-free provision for ships and hovercraft, corresponding to provisions in the Health Act 2006.

As I mentioned in an early sitting of this Bill Committee—I am glad that the Minister enjoyed the history of tobacco—maritime history and tobacco are inextricably linked. The allure of tobacco in the new world enchanted European sailors and left an indelible mark on global commerce as well as on our culture. Famous sailors, both factual and fictional, were smokers, from Captain Cook—who came from a place very close to where I was born, Marton in Middlesbrough—to Ernest Shackleton, and from Popeye the sailor man to Captain Haddock in the Tintin books. Smoking was a fact of life—worryingly, even aboard wooden vessels.

Written evidence reported to the House