Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

181: Clause 138, page 79, line 2, leave out from “designating” to end of line 3 and insert “as vape-free any place in England that is a—
(a) public playground,(b) provider of early years education, or(c) school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free places to only playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the designation of vape-free places. As with the earlier debate on smoke-free places, they probe—I stress, probe—the Government on the powers they seek to extend the restriction of the use of vaping products, and whether those powers will be exercised proportionately and responsibly.

There is a careful balance to be struck here, just as with other issues. We all agree on the importance of protecting children and preventing the normalisation of vaping among young people, but at the same time we must recognise that for many adults vaping represents a less harmful alternative to smoking—a point that the Minister has repeatedly made—which can be an essential part of a person’s journey towards quitting altogether.

It is with this balance in mind that we have tabled what I stress are probing amendments—Amendments 181, 183 and 184. Amendment 181 would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free spaces to three categories of child-centred environments where there is arguably a rationale for such prohibition. But beyond the specific context, the case for ministerial intervention may become weaker. As with the earlier group of amendments, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion and accountability in granting Ministers this very wide discretion to designate almost any public or quasi-public space vape-free, provided that it is also designated smoke-free.

This gives rise to two questions. First, if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, as with the question on tobacco-free spaces, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the designation of vape-free spaces would be by way of the negative procedure, the draft affirmative procedure or the “made affirmative” procedure?

My second question relates to the consideration the Government have given to the effects of passive vaping as opposed to passive smoking, particularly in outdoor environments. I tried to look for papers on the effects of passive vaping and my impression is that there is as yet no definitive conclusion on the harms from passive vaping in outdoor settings. One study concluded:

“Bystanders in both settings (a car and in a room) experienced some short-term irritation symptoms, expressed as dry throat, nose, eyes, and phlegm. In conclusion, short-term use of an e-cigarette in confined spaces increased harmful particulates of 2.5 micrometres or less and caused some irritation symptoms in bystanders.”


Another study looked at the effects of 76 subjects who were vaping next to 73 non-vaping subjects who had agreed to be exposed to the vapour. The conclusion was that non-vaping subjects exposed to vapour had significantly higher oral temperature after 20 minutes of exposure, but blood sugar and forced vital capacity—in simple terms, a measurement of lung function—were not significantly affected by vaping or exposure to vapour.

The point here is that the vapers were sitting next to the non-vapers or passive vapers, and I have been unable to find any studies on the harms of passive vaping in outdoor environments. So my second question is a simple one: what evidence do the Government have on any negative effects of passive vaping in outdoor spaces? Can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to and details of these studies, and the department’s own assessment of them? Can she give an assurance that, if the Government designate further outdoor spaces, this will be based on scientific evidence of harm?

I also have to admit a certain concern about messaging. We know that some people believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, which is clearly a barrier to encouraging smokers to switch to vapes. If the Minister does not believe that the harm profile of passive vaping is the same as that of passive smoking, what is the rationale for linking smoke-free and vape-free places? If the Minister does indeed recognise that the harm profiles of these products are in fact different, does it not make sense that the places liable for designation under the Bill should in fact be different?

Amendment 183 is equally important and would prevent the Secretary of State from designating as vape-free any hospital or part of a hospital that provides mental health services. We have had the discussion before: in many mental health settings, many people have a higher risk of smoking than those in the general population. Vaping can be a vital tool in reducing harm, improving well-being and supporting gradual cessation. To impose a ban on such settings not only would be counterproductive but, in some cases, could be inhumane. It would risk forcing some of the vulnerable individuals in society back towards cigarettes and undermine the very public health objectives that this Bill seeks to promote.

I want to probe the Government on how the nuance will translate into practice. On an earlier set of amendments, the Minister said that

“vapes will still be able to be sold in healthcare settings via on-site shops. It is the sale through vending machines that we are seeking to prohibit in the Bill”.

When my noble friend Lord Moylan raised the issue of vapes for smoking cessation in hospitals, the Minister replied:

“We know that a number of mental health trusts, for example, are providing free vape starter kits as part of our national Swap to Stop campaign. The noble Lord’s point was well made, and we continue to work on that”.—[Official Report, 30/10/25; col. GC 232-33.]


Could the Minister clarify what was meant by “we continue to work” on that? Is she saying that all patients in mental health settings who want a cigarette or vape will be offered one of these free vape starter kits? If not, what is the solution that the Minister is working on to make sure that those who do want access to an e-cigarette or a vape can get one, as my noble friend Lord Moylan intended in his earlier set of amendments?

Amendment 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe simply suggests clear definitions for “public playground”, “provider of early years education” and “school” to ensure that any designations made under these powers are precise, transparent and legally consistent.

I turn briefly to Amendments 182 and 187 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. They offer an opportunity to probe the Government on whether they intend to prohibit only those under the age of 18 from vaping on school premises or whether they have had any discussions with teachers’ organisations or perhaps trade unions on banning teachers and adult visitors from vaping on premises of schools and colleges. I believe that most if not all noble Lords agree that vapes offer smokers a pathway to quit smoking. We understand the concerns about children taking up vaping, so how do we get that balance in settings where there are children but also adults—some of whom, maybe after a stressful class, will want to turn to a cigarette or a vape?

I quickly turn to Amendment 182A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which raises the important issue of age and responsibility. In spaces where we know that most people will be over 18, it makes sense that vaping should be permitted. I understand that there may be certain settings where people under 18 manage to creep in. I am sure that in our youth we all did that, although I have no evidence of my own past misdemeanours in that sense. What consideration has the Minister given to the challenge that the noble Lord has raised and what is the Government’s view on the potential harms that vaping in such a space could have? In other words, why do they believe that the Bill as drafted, particularly with respect to these issues on vaping, is necessary? I look forward to the answers from the Minister and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me first turn to the opposition to Clause 138 standing part of the Bill, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Clause 138 amends the Health Act 2006 to insert new provisions relating to vape-free places in England. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are also smoke-free.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about evidence. The fact is that evidence is developing, as the noble Lord himself rightly acknowledged, but we do know that while vapes are less harmful than smoking, there is a reason why the Chief Medical Officer says:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.


Vapes are not harm-free; there are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term health impacts of vaping. They produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants, which poses health risks to children and medically vulnerable people in particular; for example, they can trigger asthma attacks. It is therefore important and right—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms. I should also say that evidence suggests that, in adolescence, the brain is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people compared to adults.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, many businesses and enclosed public places already have in place, on a voluntary basis, schemes to prohibit vape usage on their premises. We want to introduce legislative requirements to make it clear to the public where it is illegal to use vapes and to enable enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. I know that noble Lords understand the reasons for wanting to be clear about what is and is not legal, and this Bill and the provisions in it are very much part of that.

Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed, the main answer to all the questions today— I will continue to go through the various amendments—is that we will be consulting on making indoor settings that are subject to existing smoke-free legislation vape free. The consultation in this area and beyond is crucial, because we also plan to consult on making some outdoor places where children are present vape free—for example, children’s playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about how we will recognise the difference between harms. I can assure him that this is an area we absolutely want to get right. We do want to ensure that adult smokers who are using vapes as quit aids are doing so in appropriate places, such that they do not return to smoking. That is exactly why we will consult before making regulations and carefully consider the responses to ensure the policy seeks the appropriate balance.

Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, would not be able to be made vape free. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her views on this. As I have already outlined, vapers pose potential risks to both users and non-users, especially indoors. We had a debate in an earlier group about the workability or otherwise of designating particular areas as able to police themselves. It is quite important to say to the Committee that the vast majority—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to these second-hand harms.

As discussed, this is a particular concern for medically vulnerable people whose conditions may not be in the least visible to the vaper, who I am sure does not wish to cause harm—for example, those with asthma. Additionally, people who wish to vape will still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings—for example, in the outdoor smoking areas of an over-18 nightclub. We have been very clear that we will not be consulting on including those outdoor areas in the scope of vape- free places.

Ultimately, the Bill grants powers to make places vape free and does not itself make any place vape free. The consultation will ask questions relating to areas that should become vape free, any necessary exemptions and any additional evidence on the second-hand harms of these products. Therefore, in our view there is no change needed to the primary legislation.

It is appropriate now to turn to Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would seek to limit the locations that can be designated as vape free. As I have already outlined, the current power allows us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time and ensures the Bill is future-proof. The noble Lord asked about the process. I can confirm as I have done previously that the power for vape-free places will be through an affirmative regulation. That will mean, as the noble Lord knows, a debate in both places. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about vape-free areas being specified in the Bill. I hope I have explained why that is not the case. It is particularly important as we talk about evolving evidence that we look to the future. That is why we will be consulting and why we will turn to regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned vape-free schools and asked whether that measure applies to children or adults. I can confirm that it is about the area rather than the people in it. So there are no limitations on people of a certain age; it is the area that would be designated.

I turn to Amendments 182 and 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to vape-free policies in schools and colleges in England that are made vape-free places. It is my view that these amendments are not necessary. As I have said, we have already made it clear that we will consult on making schools, sixth-form colleges and early years settings vape-free places. Public consultation will allow us to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including those who run education settings. Enforcement officers will have the power to issue on-the-spot fines or pursue convictions where they deem it necessary for the offence of using a vape in a vape-free place. However, we anticipate—this may be helpful to noble Lords—that there will continue to be a role for internal sanctions for pupils found vaping on the premises. Schools are already required to publish a behavioural policy.

In relation to education provisions for pupils on vaping, we have worked closely with the Department for Education to incorporate education on the risks of vaping and nicotine use in the recently updated relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance for schools and teachers; I am sure that the person referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will benefit from that in future.

I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and his intention in Amendment 183, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke. I agree that it is important that patients receiving care in a mental health setting have access to appropriate smoking cessation tools; that is particularly true given that smoking rates among those with a long-term mental health condition are far higher than in the general population. As I have mentioned previously, in England, we are considering making inside hospitals—but not outside them—smoke-free. I appreciate and am alive to the fact that there are particular considerations in the case of mental health facilities, but I assure noble Lords that we are keen to get things right in this area and are going to follow the evidence. We want to ensure that vapes can continue to be accessible as an effective quitting aid for adult smokers; noble Lords have made strong and important points about this. As outlined, we believe that the details of any exemptions are best explored through the consultation process, although we understand the intention behind the amendment.

I hope that this provides reassurance and understanding to noble Lords that the settings that will be in scope of the vape-free policy will be fully considered by consultation and then considered under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that any further extension of the designation of vape-free places will be done via the affirmative procedure, which is very welcome.

I have a couple of outstanding questions; I suspect that the Minister and her department were not able to get the answers quick enough, thanks to the power of the internet or whatever, so I wonder whether the Minister could write to noble Lords on these matters. First, is there any evidence yet from studies of passive smoking in outdoor settings? As I said, the studies I looked at were all on indoor settings; nothing has been done on outdoor settings. It would be good to know what evidence the department currently has. I also ask the Minister to share that evidence, with the appropriate links, so that we can all understand it. usbI understand that the consultation is all about seeking further evidence, but it would be interesting to know what evidence the department currently has—on the understanding that the evidence is evolving, as the Minister rightly said.