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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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, 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.

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.

I am sure that that has been noted by Hansard.

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.

There is an emerging evidence base, and it is important that we continue to monitor it. That is why my Department, my officials and I, as the Minister for public health and prevention, are in regular contact with stakeholders. I have to tell the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that that includes Cancer Research UK, which is a major stakeholder of the Bill. It is also important to put clearly on the record that it fully supports the measures in the Bill. I do not want anybody reading Hansard at subsequent stages, such as on Report or in the House of Lords, to be under the misapprehension that Cancer Research UK does not fully support the Bill, because it does.

Turning to the hon. Member for Windsor, I am not sure that I am going to take public health advice derived from a briefing from the office of idiotic economic arguments, otherwise known as the IEA. It is not clear whether the IEA gets funding from the tobacco and vaping industry, but I suspect that it does. Therefore, we have to take what it says with a large modicum of prejudice thrown in.

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.

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.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.