Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

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

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

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

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

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

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

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

(b) after subsection (7) insert—

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

(ii) after subsection (4) insert—

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

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

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

(ii) after subsection (3) insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

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

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

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

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

That’s not true!

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 142 stand part.

Clauses 147 and 148 stand part.

Clause 153 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

No-smoking signs in England

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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.

[Dr Johnson]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

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.

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

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.

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

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

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

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

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

“although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes”.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Jack Rankin]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 17.

Clause 146 stand part.

Schedule 18.

Clause 152 stand part.

Schedule 19.

Clause 157 stand part.

Schedule 20.

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Andrew Gwynne]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 142 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 147 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clauses 153 to 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 158

Power to prohibit vaping etc on ships

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

[Dr Johnson]

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

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

For four centuries, seamen and passengers used cigarettes, pipes and matches, which were a significant cause of maritime fires and disasters. The earliest dated clay pipe comes from a ship that sank off Alderney in the Channel Islands, probably in November 1592. A sea captain wrote in Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country in 1875, I think, a piece entitled “The Dangers of the Sea”. In it, he chastised the carelessness of merchant seamen. He said:

“It is to be regretted that in all classes of merchant ships smoking below is an acknowledged custom. Jack lies on his dirty bed of straw with pipe in mouth, reading some old scrap of a newspaper, or the pages of a novel, and not unfrequently falls asleep with the burning embers beside him”,

adding that the mystery is not why the ship in question was burned,

“but why such accidents are not constantly occurring from this and other causes.”

Indeed, we talked earlier in Committee about the dangers of house fires from people falling asleep while smoking in bed.

More than eight decades later, in a 1957 booklet, the Ministry of Transport still blamed smoking more than any other reason for fires on board ships. It said:

“Lighted cigarettes smoked surreptitiously are abandoned in combustible cargo and cause fires which smoulder unnoticed for days before bursting into flame. They are thrown away on deck where the wind catches them and blows them into an open port, hatch, or ventilator where they may land on inflammable material. They are left on the edges of ashtrays in the saloon or dropped from men’s hands as they fall asleep.”

With reports like that, it is no wonder that smoking was eventually banned in the maritime context.

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