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.