Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

175: Clause 135, page 76, line 29, leave out from “smoke-free” to end of line 3 on page 77 and insert “any place in England that is—
(a) an NHS property or hospital,(b) a public playground,(c) a provider of early years education, or(d) a school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to only hospitals, children’s playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 175 and 179 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe propose restricting the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to a clearly defined and limited set of locations: NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, and providers of early years education and schools. As it stands, Clause 135 gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers to add new areas and designations to the list of smoke-free places: in effect, to designate almost any space or area regarded as open to the public smoke-free by regulation. While well intentioned, it is a sweeping power that merits careful scrutiny.

Therefore, the purpose of these probing amendments is to seek to understand how the Government intend to use this sweeping power and whether they will act responsibly in exercising it. The four categories proposed—NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, early years providers and schools— are all spaces where there is a clear public health argument for restrictions and, indeed, support for these restrictions. They are environments that the Government have consistently said they wish to protect. However, the Government intend to designate additional places through delegated powers. Therefore, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion, scrutiny and accountability for any such changes. Will this be by way of the negative procedure, draft affirmative procedure or made affirmative procedure? We hope that the Government, in seeking to augment or change this list, will return to Parliament and make the case openly, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State’s power in this area is clearly defined, appropriately limited and exercised with the scrutiny and responsibility that Parliament expects.

The other amendments in the group address in different ways the question of how far-reaching the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 135 ought to be and what safeguards should accompany them. Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which proposes that the Secretary of State can act only where there is evidence that smoking in a given place is causing harm to non-smokers, is a reasonable and proportionate test, but this evidential safeguard should be in addition to, not instead of, clear and meaningful parliamentary oversight. Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is welcome, since it seeks to ensure that Ministers are not handed sweeping authority to alter well-established rights, such as the ability to smoke in open, uncovered hospitality venues, without the explicit oversight or approval of Parliament. This also appears to be a sensible and proportionate check to ensure that government powers are exercised within a clear and democratically accountable framework and, when combined with Amendment 176 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would ensure that any extension of bans is justified by evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, all the amendments in this group seek to limit the powers in the Bill to make additional places smoke-free in England. On Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we know that passive smoking, whether indoors or outdoors, poses a risk to health. The rule of thumb is: if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

However, despite these well-known and very well-evidenced harms, trying to ascribe specific harms to locations is somewhat challenging, as this debate shows. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, in a large children’s play area it is difficult to evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke has caused a specific harm in a specific place. I can assure noble Lords that we are extremely mindful of this. Therefore, the test referred to in the amendment is overly restrictive, technically very difficult to do and not necessary, given the extensive evidence of harm to vulnerable people. It would also likely lead to a scenario in which we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harms of second-hand smoke.

Similarly, on Amendment 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as I mentioned, we know the harms of passive smoking. There is strong indirect evidence but, as I said, it can be difficult to demonstrate this evidence in specific locations. Again, this restrictive test would prevent areas where there are harms of second-hand smoke to children and medically vulnerable people from becoming smoke-free. Furthermore, as this amendment would apply in England only, it would leave England with more restrictive smoke-free provisions than the devolved nations. 

Amendments 175 and 179 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. As we have made clear but I would like to reiterate, in England we plan to consult on extending smoke-free places as and when. In the first instance, it would be to the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, children’s playgrounds and healthcare settings. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that all proposed smoke-free locations will be subject to consultation both now and into the future and that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will be guided by public health advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly observed that the powers within the Bill allow us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time, particularly where there is evidence of clear harms to children and vulnerable people.

On Amendment 177 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, we have made it very clear—I am glad to take the opportunity to do so again, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that outdoor hospitality settings will not be in scope of the consultation on smoke-free places. We fully recognise the balance that is needed to protect the most vulnerable as well as ensure that businesses are not financially impacted. We are confident that we have the balance right in deciding the places, which I have already outlined, on which we plan to consult.

However, the powers in the Bill, as has been observed, allow for additional places to be designated smoke-free in the future, subject to further consultation and parliamentary debate. The landscape may change significantly on tobacco legislation, as it has done over the years. Evidence and attitudes may also shift, again as we have seen over the years, so it is sensible to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and can respond to evolving evidence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the wide range of noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. These are clearly intended as probing amendments, at this stage, to understand—as the Minister herself agreed—these wide sweeping powers to designate additional spaces as smoke-free. We are grateful because we were concerned about the level of scrutiny there would be. The Minister assured us that there will be consultation and that any changes will be by regulation following the affirmative procedure. We are very grateful for that and that perhaps answers some of the probing amendments that we have in future groups. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 175 withdrawn.