PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) - 28 January 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

Enforcement authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 130 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133

Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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.

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.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136

Addition of smoke-free places in England

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was merely giving examples.

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—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But he supported it.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 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.”.—(Dr Johnson.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)