Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier group I spoke about the importance of fixed penalty notices in the Bill, as they provide trading standards officers with an additional enforcement tool to bring retailers into compliance without taking up court resource. I have carefully considered the points raised by noble Lords in Committee about the proceeds of fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, including those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

I am therefore pleased to have tabled these government amendments because they will allow local authorities in England and Wales to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing fixed penalty notices for enforcement purposes, rather than having to return proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. That will enable local authorities to reinvest proceeds into strengthening the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation—something that noble Lords have asked for.

In addition, we are investing up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help to enforce the law. This funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England, and we will continue to provide funding to support the apprentices over the next three years as they complete their training.

Trading standards plays an essential role in ensuring compliance with tobacco and vape legislation. The enforcement provisions in the Bill, further strengthened by this amendment, will give them the tools they need to carry out that role. Proper enforcement of the law will protect the public from potential health harms and help to realise public health outcomes from policies in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These provide that the money collected by trading standards in small fines imposed by fixed penalty notices for offences other than those related to the licensing regulations should go towards smoking cessation services provided by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Supporting a smoke-free society is the right direction of travel, in my view, but I also worry about contact with reality.

A road map should also include the potential unintended consequences of cannabis smoking in a smoke-free country, with real targets and interventions. Walk across London and other towns and cities and smell the cannabis smoking on every street corner. People are breaking the law, with the police doing virtually nothing about it.

Cannabis has profound long-term health implications in the young. Some of us have worked in this space and have to deal with them. What are the unintended consequences of the Bill for the uptake of cannabis smoking among the next generation? I ask the Minister: what work have the Government done on the unintended consequences of this policy, and what do they plan to do about the potential uptake and increase in cannabis smoking, and the increase in illicit dealing on our streets?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling Amendment 202, to which I have added my name. It would require the Government to publish, every five years, a road map to a smoke-free country: in other words, a plan for the event rather than a review after it.

There are two essential components to achieving a smoke-free country. The first is that no one should start smoking at all. I hope that the Bill will successfully achieve that over time; the Government have shown great ambition in this area. The second component is that all current smokers are supported to quit, so that everyone stops. On this second part, the Government have been a little quieter, until recently. We have heard about the recent success of targets met for the number of pregnant women smoking at the time of delivery: I think it has gone down by half. However, the rates for other groups remain stubbornly high and we are not seeing the same targeting interventions. We need to ensure that we have this type of focus, energy and commitment with other groups, where we know that smoking rates are higher. Plans for these groups could be located in the road map being proposed.

For example, mental health is a key priority area for the Liberal Democrats. There is a dual causal relationship between smoking and mental health: if you smoke, it increases your chances of developing mental health conditions and, if you already have a mental health condition, you are more likely to smoke. Nearly half of those with a serious mental illness in England smoke, alongside a quarter of people with depression or anxiety, compared with 11.6% of the general population. High rates of smoking in this population have a disastrous impact on physical health, particularly for those with a serious mental health illness who, on average, live 15 to 20 years less than someone without. It is estimated that smoking accounts for about two-thirds of this reduced life expectancy.

The pervasive false narrative that smoking somehow alleviates mental health symptoms urgently needs to be addressed, as it creates so many challenges when we are trying to support these smokers to quit. If the Government are going to publish a strategy, a dedicated section on how they will bring down smoking rates in this group would be extremely welcome and needed. I welcome the Government’s concession that vaping vending machines should be allowed in secure adult mental health settings; this should certainly help this population to quit.

Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require the Government to publish a review of the Bill. I welcome government Amendment 205, which does something similar but with a lot less granularity. However, would the Minister give us a little more information about where the Government will get their evidence to underpin the review? Can she assure the House that that evidence will be independent and not influenced by any lobbying or so-called evidence put before the Government by big tobacco, or anybody else who would benefit from slowing down the elimination of smoking in the UK?

The intent of this review should be to support the legislation. As several noble Lords have said, the smoke-free generation is a novel policy and we need to demonstrate the impact and evaluate implementation to encourage other countries to follow. There are also many regulations on the way, along with those from other government departments, on nicotine products. A clear analysis of how these policies will work together would be very welcome.

However, the review must not be viewed as a sunset on the smoke-free generation, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on what, at this point, we know will not be in the Government’s review. For example, the Bill’s impact assessment notes that many of the health impacts of the rising age of sale will not be seen for 10 years, so we should be mindful that this part of the Bill is playing a very long game. There may be early data that we are on the right track and the review will perhaps be able to look at compliance, retailer feedback and all the other things that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. I feel that much of this falls into the scope of her Amendment 207.

Finally, Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raise concerns about the Bill’s implementation in Northern Ireland. I have been reassured by the Government’s response to the TRIS process, which lays out in some detail their response to the concerns raised, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, mentioned, the legal opinion published in the Daily Mail was commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. Without seeing it, I cannot really comment other than to say it is not surprising that the industry is laying the ground for future legal challenges. It is, as we know, highly litigious and wants to chill the appetite for tobacco control globally. It all goes to show, I suppose, that if you put two lawyers into a room, you get three opinions. There are, as we have heard from the Minister on other occasions, other legal opinions out there that say that the Bill is compatible, but I leave the noble Baroness to answer for those concerns. However, I support the Government to press on with this vital public health legislation, and to plan it and review it as required.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate with some powerful contributions, but I should like to turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It was reported last week in the Times that seven EU member states have formally expressed concern that the Government’s proposed generational smoking ban might breach the Windsor Framework. The Minister said last week that the provisions of the Bill intended to apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Windsor Framework. However, these external concerns plainly have not gone away.

In a previous meeting, I was grateful to the noble Baroness and her officials for discussing the Technical Regulations Information System—or TRIS—procedure in respect of liaising with the European Commission and those EU countries that have raised objections. She explained that, in the Government’s opinion, the TRIS procedure is about consultation and will not lead to any decisions that would be binding on the UK Government. Can the Minister clarify if my understanding of the Government’s position is correct in that regard? Will she also update the House on discussions with the European Commission and with representatives of member states that have raised their concerns? Can she also say whether any formal objections have been lodged through the Windsor Framework structures, including the joint committee?

In general on this issue, we see a rather polarised position, with the tobacco industry on one side and ASH and the Government on the other, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government have sought or obtained any independent external legal advice on compatibility and whether they are confident that the measures would withstand a challenge in the event of infraction proceedings or dispute resolution. Following on from that, what contingency planning, if any, has been undertaken should a divergence issue arise in relation to Northern Ireland?

Let me turn to Amendments 202, 205 and 206, which relate, in their several ways, to reviewing the effects and outcomes of the Bill as an Act. I am supportive of them but especially grateful for Amendment 205, which responds to the plea put forward by a number of noble Lords in Committee that this far-reaching Bill, whose real-life effects on the health of the population must inevitably lie in the realm of uncertainty, merits close review at a point when we are in a position to assess those effects realistically. Hence, I particularly welcome subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment, which refers to assessing the impact of the Act. As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, the review needs to drill down into the granular detail and the substance of how smokers and non-smokers are behaving in response to the implementation of the different strands of policy.

Having said that, I very much support the ideas contained in my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 202, for all the reasons that he gave. A review within four to seven years, as the Government have proposed, considering both economic and health outcomes and involving the devolved Governments, is a sensible safeguard as far as it goes. However, a road map and milestones, which both government and Parliament could follow and monitor along the way, would add considerable value. I am sorry that it appears that this is not an idea that the Government are willing to take further.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Walmsley]

123: Clause 89, page 50, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) Provision made by the regulations must ensure that—(a) vaping products are sold in plain packaging;(b) vaping products are not displayed at the point of sale in the usual course of business, including promotional or marketing materials used at the point of sale, such as imagery, wording, branding, or promotional offers;(c) a person who fails to comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations under this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“plain packaging” means packaging that does not include branding, logos, imagery, or colours designed to make the product attractive;“point of sale” means any location within retail premises where vaping products are available for purchase.”

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 123 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Northover. When in Committee my noble friend tabled an amendment to prevent companies advertising vapes in a way that attracted children, the Minister’s response was that this was not necessary because advertising of vapes would be banned under the Bill except for public health purposes as a smoking cessation tool. In that case they would not be allowed to be advertised in a way that attracted children, and our amendment was therefore not necessary.

Having accepted the Minister’s point, we turned our attention to the packaging itself and point of sale display materials, because we know that the companies trying to sell vapes to people who have never smoked before will stop at nothing to hook people into nicotine addiction. That is why we have proposed that vapes must be sold in plain packaging like cigarettes and not displayed with attractive materials at point of sale. A recent UCL study showed that implementing plain packaging for vapes reduced their appeal to young people but did not affect how harmful adults perceive vapes to be compared with cigarettes. In particular, the paper noted that:

“Packaging is a primary marketing tool for vape companies”,


and that

“it is commonplace for brands to also use youth-appealing elements, such as images, cartoon characters, stylised fonts, and novel brand and flavour names on vapes and e-liquid packaging”.

We therefore felt it worth exploring the Government’s plans with regard to consultation and regulations about the packaging and point of sale of vapes. Vapes were on the market for quite a few years before the big uptick in youth vaping around 2021. That coincided with cheap, colourful, ergonomic disposables flooding the market. We need to make vapes a dull cessation tool again. Regulating packaging can and should be done quickly because vapes are being more aggressively marketed, partly through displays in stores. This is having an effect. Action on Smoking and Health’s latest youth vaping survey found that awareness of vaping promotion grew among 11 to 17 year-olds between 2022 and 2025. There was a significant increase in awareness of promotion of vapes over that period, particularly in shops: 37% in 2022 compared with 55% last year.

In 2022, 56% of 11 to 17 year-olds who were aware of vapes reported that they were exposed to some form of vape promotion. In 2022, 11% of young people who were aware of vapes reported seeing vape displays every time or most times they went into supermarkets. Last year that figure had risen to 27%, so there is a pressing need to do something about this. I accept that plain packaging and display rules for tobacco products were implemented, following consultation, through secondary legislation. I therefore ask the Minister what research has been carried out on the potential effect of plain packaging and point of sale for vapes, whether it would deter young people who do not smoke from taking up vaping and whether it has been shown that there would be any deterrent effect on adults who wish to quit by using vapes to help them to do so. Frankly, I would be very surprised if someone who wishes to quit would be deterred from buying a vape just because it was not in a shiny, colourful, attractive package on a shiny, colourful, attractive display, like the ones I currently see all over the place.

I do not support Amendments 125 and 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I felt we had a balanced debate in Committee about the role that flavours play in smoking cessation, and I was reassured by the Minister’s comments at that time. Clearly, regulation of flavour descriptors is easier to do and may give us the desired outcomes, meaning that we do not need to regulate flavours themselves. However, it is important that the Government retain the right to regulate flavours in case evidence emerges about particular flavours that require action.

On Amendment 136A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the limit on vape size is currently 2 millilitres, but I know there are concerns regarding products that attach to vapes to increase this. I urge caution in this area. While it might seem likely that larger tanks increase consumption, there is not yet evidence of this being the case, and concerns regarding big-puff products may be unfounded. We need to find out. Indeed, the rise in youth vaping in Britain since 2020 appears to have been primarily driven by 2-millilitre, colourful, single-use vapes, not larger-capacity products. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing littering—which would be a good thing—and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking. I look forward to comments from the Minister on the broad point regarding attachments. I know that both these issues were included in the recent call for evidence, so she may have some early insights for us in the light of that. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 125 and 134 in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the support that she has indicated for them. On the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am obviously distressed that she has been exposed needlessly to the sight of shiny vapes in her local supermarket, petrol station or whatever it is. We can sympathise with her on that, but she seems to have ignored entirely the context of Clause 89. This gives the Government the most extensive powers, at least in relation to packaging, which, as far as I can see, could very easily lead to the equivalent of plain packaging, but she made no reference to it.

My amendments would increase the powers that the Government have in Clause 89. I will first explain the rationale for what I am proposing. There is a great deal of agreement—there has been throughout Report—between the Minister and me; I hope that we can continue that in the course of this debate. We agree, crucially, on the importance of how the flavours are described and presented to the public in attracting buyers to vapes.

However, that cuts two ways. We know, on the one hand, that vapes can have what I call “flavour descriptors” on them. These are deliberately designed to appeal to children and young people in a way that we are all opposed to. We do not wish to see vapes marketed in such a way as to seduce children and young people into taking them up. When we see flavour descriptors such as “cotton candy” and “gummy bear” on the side of a vape, we can all agree that that sort of thing should have a stop put to it because we know the market that it is intended to reach. On the other hand, as I think the Minister has acknowledged, for vapes to be an effective cessation tool for adults it is important to have a range of flavours available to them. As I said, I think the Government have acknowledged that.

Where in the Bill is the power that the Government need to regulate flavour descriptors? It is the flavour descriptor—the “gummy bear”, the “cotton candy”—that the Government need a clear power to be able to eliminate. We discussed this in Committee. The Minister very kindly wrote to me afterwards and said that the Government would rely on Clause 89, which relates to retail packaging. This gives the Government a certain number of powers to make regulations concerning packaging, but it does not at any point, as far as I can see, specify the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging as something that the Government have a direct power to regulate.

The Government may rely on Clause 89, and it may be possible that its scope could be stretched to cover their point. It would ultimately, I suppose, be a matter for the courts to decide. My Amendment 125, fairly straightforwardly, would give the Government that power explicitly. It would add to the list in Clause 89(3), currently running from paragraph (a) to paragraph (k), of the things that the Government can regulate. It would add a further thing: the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging. I do not think the Government would necessarily want to reject this amendment. It would give them a power that could be very useful; even if they feel that they have this power already, making it explicit would make matters somewhat easier.

To complement that, there is in Clause 91, which relates to contents and flavours, a power for the Government to make regulations concerning the “flavour of relevant products”. Here I want to make a point which I made in Committee and which is of the utmost importance; I speak as somebody who uses vapes. My point is that, in practice—I say this especially for the benefit of noble Lords who do not use vapes—the flavour descriptor on the vape has almost no relationship to the flavour of the vape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, in particular, the words—and I hope I quote them correctly—these are areas on which we are planning to act. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I looked very carefully at Clause 89, as my earlier comments in earlier debates on how they might affect specialist tobacconists might have proved to him, but I point out that it talks only about packaging and not about display materials—that appears in a different part of the Bill.

I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, even if my amendment was put word for word into the Bill, it would not prevent information about the products being provided on the packaging or the display to people who wanted to buy them. That would be fine. My intention—and I know the Minister understands this—is to do everything possible to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to stop it being taken up by young children who have never smoked. Vapes are and should remain a cessation tool.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister, because we have discussed this issue outside the Chamber. She has given me what I want in that she has clarified that the Government have the powers in the Bill to regulate both packaging and display and has said the Government intend to act in these areas. I am very grateful for that. Having been given what I want, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 123 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, despite the comments of the previous two speakers, I will speak to Amendment 199, the purpose of which is simple: to make every future and renewed pavement licence issued by local authorities smoke-free.

Your Lordships will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted. They gave cafés, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors: no smoking. The LGA supported this, saying that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke”.

It welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of allowing people to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road but not on the other if a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies. Since then, pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. However, after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke-free was removed without proper consultation of health authorities.

In 2021, this House supported an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke-free. Amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health-protecting measure is applied consistently.

There is currently a requirement for some seating to be smoke-free, but the distinction means very little when you talk about a very small bit of pavement. More than 10 councils have made smoke-free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham—not outstandingly liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. Councils also aim to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, which would make outdoor seating areas cleaner, more welcoming environments.

Second-hand smoke is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions, and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke-free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ASH shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafés and restaurants; indeed, 40% said that they would be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. That is more than double the number of people who say that they would go less often, debunking the idea that smoke-free means customer-free. Making outdoor areas smoke-free is not only sensible but what the public want.

I regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke-free places. It is a shame that the Government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all and that they fell into this false narrative that smoke-free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality.

Less than 12% of the population smoke, so the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors. Indoor smoke-free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of nearly 5,000 pub customers reported that more than one in five visited the pub more often than before smoke-free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will, in future, consider looking at the pilots for smoke-free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon, where these spaces will naturally become smoke-free.

This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the Government would consult on any use of smoke-free powers as they are doing currently.

Moving on, I welcome Amendment 194A from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited. However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also to ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke passes that test. While the evidence of exposure to second-hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reducing any possible risks around children must be prioritised, following careful consultation.

In that respect, I do not support Amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would remove these powers altogether. However, there is a challenge in all of this. Given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said—and she is quite right —how do we ensure that in creating vape-free places we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talked to a young man the other day who asked me, “What are you doing in the House of Lords?” I explained about this Bill, and he said, “Oh, all my friends vape”. He said, “I think it is just as harmful as smoking, isn’t it?” QED. Of course it is not.

I welcome the commitment in the published consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that score. Will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vaping is less harmful than smoking? How will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect to encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting aids?

It is disappointing to see only council-run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds. Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people’s smoke, so are the Government planning to commit to look at these too?

Amendment 192A from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very interesting, but we do not think actors should have to smoke at work. I think it was pointed out in Committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes; in particular, I believe that the National Theatre has such a device. If it is good enough for that theatre, it is good enough for me. Moreover, Wales does not have this exemption in place, and it has not harmed Welsh theatres.

We do not think that Amendment 193 is appropriate either: most venues are vape- free anyway, and the law is just really catching up.

On Amendments 197 and 198, I do not think that heated tobacco should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it is not recommended by NICE for cessation. However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices, because I have had a letter expressing some concern that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the Bill applies to any advert,

“whose purpose or effect is to promote … a tobacco product”.

So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices—not just sticks—will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco product?

I see that in Clause 132 the Government explicitly take the power to extend provisions in Part 6 to tobacco- related devices. I understand that this is to future-proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space, as we know the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. I ask the Minister: why are heated tobacco devices explicitly included in Clause 132? Is it because of the difficulties they have had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they are advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising the tobacco sticks themselves? A little clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could provide it, please.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this last group of amendments. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House that, on 13 February, the Government published their consultation on free-from places. We are consulting on making outdoor public places, including children’s playgrounds, hospitals and schools, smoke-free and heated tobacco-free. Additionally, we are consulting on making outside playgrounds and schools vape-free.

With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smoke-free, we are consulting on also making these heated tobacco-free and vape-free. I want to emphasise—and I hear different opinions on this within your Lordships’ House—that the consultation does not consider extending these proposals to outdoor hospitality. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised under Amendments 194 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as well as Amendment 196 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

With regard to Amendment 193 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the vast majority of people—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is present in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to second-hand harms. This would be of particular concern to those who are medically vulnerable, whose conditions may not always be visible.

Additionally, under the proposals put forward in the consultation, those who wish to vape would still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings. I should say that we have been pleased to meet various stakeholders, including UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, and we have welcomed their input.

Furthermore, a number of establishments, as I am sure we are all aware, have already introduced their own policies restricting vaping indoors. These proposals provide consistency and clarity for the public and businesses, and that is crucial if we are thinking about legislation.

I turn to the evidence. Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, question the need for the vape-free places and heated tobacco-free places clauses. I also refer to Amendment 194A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

We have already published a draft impact assessment alongside the consultation on free-from places. To the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, this sets out the evidence base for the proposed policies. I encourage noble Lords to review the document, which is thorough, if they have not had the chance to do so already. I can say that we will reassess the evidence after the consultation is closed, and we will consider any additional evidence identified before deciding on final policy positions and publishing a final stage impact assessment alongside regulations.