Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2005.

Health Bill - Standing Committee E

Health Bill

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Health Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.35 a.m. on Tuesday 6th December) meet—

(a)at 3.55 p.m. on Tuesday 6th December;

(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th December;

(c)at 10.35 a.m. and 3.55 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;

(d)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th December;

(e)at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December;

(f)at 10.35 a.m. and 3.55 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 8; Schedule 1; Clauses 9 and 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 and 12; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 13 to 15; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 16 to 30; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 31 to 52; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the accounts of health service bodies and the auditing of such accounts); Clause 54; Schedule 4; Clause 55; Schedule 5; Clauses 56 and 57; Schedule 6; Clauses 58 to 66; Schedule 7; Clauses 67 and 68; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5; Clauses 69 to 71; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; Clause 53; Schedule 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the accounts of health service bodies and the auditing of such accounts; Clauses 72 to 76; Schedules 8 and 9; Clauses 77 to 80; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January.

I am pleased to move the programme motion because, as a result of discussions through the usual channels before it met, the Programming Sub-Committee did not need to vote on it. That indicates that all parties were pleased with it.

You will be aware, Mr. Illsley, that we plan to continue, if necessary, until 20 December. The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), has placed no knives on our debates; we want to ensure that everyone has ample time to discuss the important parts of the Bill. Without further ado, I commend the motion.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. It will be a pleasure to serve under you and your fellow Chairman. I do not recall having had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship before, but I look forward to doing so.

I am grateful to the Minister for moving the programme motion. It seems tight but achievable so long as we constrain ourselves to the subject in hand rather than speaking of extraneous matters. The Minister did not point out that we have nine substantive subjects to discuss, although one or two loom somewhat larger than the others. However, we must ensure that we have time to discuss other matters that are less controversial but none the less significant.

I am comforted by the fact that the same will not be done with this Bill as happened with the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee that considered that legislation, and I remember that the general medical services contract was added on Report rather than being discussed in Committee. For example, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the general ophthalmic services contract in Committee. I hope that it will be given at least the one and a half hours that was allocated to discussing the general medical services contract. Subsequent events have demonstrated the value of discussing such matters in Committee before implementation exposes all the problems.

I know that the eyes of the nation are upon us today—little else is happening. People will be looking to us to proceed swiftly to discuss Part 1, which is a matter of great interest. I am happy to say that we accept the programme motion; we want to get on with the business at hand.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley, and good morning. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and I look forward to serving under you and your colleague.

We welcome the flexibility that the programme motion gives us. It will allow us time to discuss Part 1, which has attracted a great deal of attention. However, many members of the Committee will have received representations—for example, about the proposed changes to optometry services. If it seems as though important issues will be squeezed out, the Sub-Committee has the opportunity to revisit the motion. However, to begin with, the flexibility that it gives us is welcome.

One of my worries is that one issue can dominate debates in Committee and that other important changes receive little scrutiny as a result. If we do not scrutinise them in Committee, the danger is that those one or two headline issues will dominate time on Report. That would be regrettable, as further important issues are dealt with later in the Bill. I give you my assurance, Mr. Illsley, that we will not seek to protract proceedings. We will make our points as succinctly as possible and then sit down.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I was a member of the Programming Sub-Committee, and I should like to correct the Minister’s assertion that we were “pleased” with the programme. We were in so far as we do not have the knife; that is welcome given that most of the public controversy rests with the initial clauses of the Bill. However, it would be more accurate to say that we were content with the total time available. We must get to the important later clauses, particularly those relating to ophthalmic services and pharmacy. It would be regrettable if the emphasis on smoking, controversial though that is, were to detract from our consideration of those matters.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I must now outline one or two arrangements. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. I should also like to remind hon. Members that adequate notice must be given of amendments and that, as a general rule, my fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

May I also point out at this juncture that starred amendments Nos. 75 and 76 have been printed in error in the name of the Minister rather than in those of the hon. Members for Northavon (Steve Webb) and for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams)? Hon. Members are free to remove their jackets as they wish when I am chairing the Committee. It might be necessary to seek permission from my fellow Chairman.

Clause 1 - Smoke-free premises, places and vehicles

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I was rather hoping that, in the course of her comments on the clause, the Minister might explain to us the underlying principles of the Bill. Nevertheless, let us get straight to it. The purpose of the clause is to bring into law the prohibition on smoking in certain premises. From that prohibition will flow the discussion about how it is to be defined and how exemptions are to be made.

I suppose that, at this stage, I want to explore two things. The first is the Government’s view on the structure of the prohibition. On what evidence have they based it? The second is the consultation process on the policy that led to the introduction of the legislation. Before we get into the detail, it would be sensible to understand where the Government are coming from.

The Committee will recall the discussion on Second Reading. I want to make it clear that our objective is to achieve a dramatic reduction in the incidence of smoking in public places, thereby contributing to a reduction in the prevalence of smoking. There were substantial reductions in the 1970s and 1980s, but the trend has slowed since then and there are serious problems, particularly the prevalence among younger people, which has barely reduced in the past four or five years. The Minister will know that one of the issues is the extent to which young people starting work are able to smoke in the workplace. The evidence clearly suggests that if we can reduce opportunities for smoking at work, we can reduce the overall prevalence of smoking among young people, with consequential major long-term health gains.

At the time of the publication of the White Paper, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health set out clear summary evidence of the negative health impacts of smoking in relation to lung cancer and coronary heart disease. As I said on Second Reading, the most significant part of that in terms of changing the character of the debate on smoking—especially passive smoking—was the increasing evidence of the impact of relatively small amounts of environmental tobacco smoke on myocardial infarction, or a heart attack.

Occasionally I must wear these glasses, and not just because we shall later be discussing general ophthalmic services. I am not trying to curry favour with the optical professions. The Minister will be aware of the interesting paper published in the BritishMedical Journal on 24 April 2004, which relates to a six-month period in the town of Helena, Montana. That geographically isolated community had a local byelaw that prevented smoking in all public places. During the six months when that law was in force, the number of admissions to hospital for heart attacks fell significantly from an average of 40 admissions during the same six months of the preceding year to 24 admissions during the time the law was in effect. When the byelaw was subsequently challenged in a court and suspended, the rate of attendances at hospital for heart attacks rose again.

It is increasingly clear that relatively modest amounts of exposure to second-hand smoke can have significant impacts on health, especially where coronary heart disease is concerned. For some, second-hand smoke can have a substantial impact on their likelihood of having a heart attack. We must be aware of the benefits of what we are trying to achieve. This is not a matter of nuisance. I preface some of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and I shall make later by stating that we are not talking about the nuisance effect of smoke; we are talking about the health effects of smoke. This is a Health Bill.

One of the central matters that has been in our minds is the strange circumstances of the Government’s publication last November of a White Paper that was supposed to be about health. Published evidence to which I have just referred illustrates the health impacts of second-hand smoke and shows the necessity of there being a means by which we can dramatically reduce the prevalence of smoking. However, the proposal that was put into the public health White Paper appeared to be geared more to questions related to the nuisance value of smoke to people eating meals in restaurants or pubs than it did to evidence relating to health.

Of course, we understand that a balance must be struck. It is an obvious, simple fact that if we were, somehow, able to ban smoking entirely, we would reduce the negative health impacts dramatically. About 23 per cent. of premature mortality among men is in some way related to smoking. However, we cannot bring in a complete ban because smoking is legal and has been for a long time. Many people are habituated to smoking, and we are striking a balance between their liberty to smoke and the impact that that has on others. Those are the balances that we shall have to strike in the course of this debate.

The Government do not seem to have struck a balance at all, either geared to public opinion or to health effects. Public opinion research that I have seen seems to point to the kind of conclusions that my colleagues and I have reached. The public’s view is that workplaces and restaurants should be smoke-free but that public houses are something of an exception. Even on that matter, public opinion has moved sharply to a point where they wish pubs, generally, to be smoke-free except for specific rooms or areas that are designated for smoking. The largest number—although not a majority; it is something less, at 47 per cent.—in the last survey that I saw suggested that that was where the greater number of the public pitch their tent. There is no major public view that a balance should be struck whereby pubs are either smoking with no food or non-smoking with food.

That is a strange conclusion that the Government reached last November and then put forward. It was reflected, as I am sure the Minister will remind her colleagues many times, in the Labour party manifesto. If that had been the end of the matter, the Government would have proposed legislation based on their manifesto and would not have done anything else about it, but they did not. They consulted.

On 20 June, the Government issued a consultation. It is reasonable to ask what the point of that consultation was. Was it to find out specific details regarding enforcement and implementation? No; it was, on the face of it, to establish whether the proper balance had been struck with the proposed policy. We know what was going on: the new Secretary of State and team at the Department of Health very much wanted to move away from the policy that they had been left with to one that made more sense in health terms. That is not surprising considering that they were receiving advice from the chief medical officer who, as he recently made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee on Health, was strongly of the opinion, in his annual reports from 2002 to 2004, that there should be a comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and that anything else would be substantially less beneficial.

It is not surprising that Ministers might want to reflect that professional advice in policy, so they had a consultation—but was it real? What was it intended to allow? I understand that there were 57,000 responses, 90 per cent. of which opposed the partial ban that the Government propose. What kind of response to a consultation would it take for the Government to change their mind about a policy that they subjected to consultation? Does it take 100 per cent? Are the Government prepared to proceed with opposition of anything up to 99 per cent? That is odd. The Minister will have to explain why they have proposed legislation of a structure that is clearly opposed by expert bodies and regarded as nonsensical by the public.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government run consultations that are seen to be a sham, it destroys all future consultations because the public and organisations will see that all the input that they give in good faith simply will not be taken seriously? The figure of 90 per cent. is overwhelming; it is extraordinary that the Government are not listening on that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the cost of such exercises is an issue for concern if the Government simply ignore them.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly right. You would think it out of order, Mr. Illsley, if we were to talk about other consultations which, frankly, seem to be bogus, but that seems to be a continuing feature. The medical profession and people across the NHS are heartily tired of the extent to which they are engaging in bogus consultations on matters on which the relevant decisions seem to have been taken in advance.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am interested to see the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the consultation that the Government have just undertaken. Why is he choosing selectively from the results of that consultation? Did it not also show that the public rejected an exclusion for private clubs, which he supports?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I was not trying to represent the whole of those consultation responses, to which we will return when we discuss other issues. Clearly, we have to strike a balance. I am not saying that the results of the consultation must be the only basis on which we make our judgments; I am asking on what basis the Government entered into the consultation. It is obviously intended to inform what we do, and I shall have to make my judgments, as the hon. Member for Northavon will have to make his, and as the Minister will have to do for the Government. I want to know why the Government proceeded with the consultation, given the broad opposition to the structure of the partial ban that they propose. If the consultation was real, what have the Government done to reflect the responses in their policy?

I shall now discuss the structure of the benefits associated with the legislation as set out in the regulatory impact assessment. The Minister will recall that the RIA considered what benefits are likely to accrue from the partial ban that is being proposed. I am sure she will say that the ban will cover 99 per cent. of workplaces, the implication being that 99 per cent. of the benefit will be derived because 99 per cent. of workplaces are covered. What she does not take into account is the simple fact that more than one in two workplaces is already smoke-free, and that a higher proportion of the rest have designated smoking-only areas, the number of which is declining dramatically. Members of the Committee will know that more employers are coming to the conclusion every day that they should move to a work-free—[Laughter.]—a smoke-free workplace for health and safety reasons and because of their responsibilities towards their employees.

Many of the benefits that would be derived from workplaces becoming smoke-free are already being gained, so the question is what additional benefits are to be gained by introducing a smoking ban. The RIA highlights that fact, drawing the broad conclusion that a comprehensive ban would have the benefit of reducing the number of deaths by about 2,300, by my reckoning, as a result of the reduction in second-hand smoke. The partial ban would lead to a benefit that is only just over half that figure, not a figure that is only 1 per cent. away from the benefit of a full ban. Ministers must therefore tell us why they believe that we should engage in this major, complicated regulatory exercise. The costs of enforcing a partial smoking ban are higher than the costs of enforcing a comprehensive smoking ban, yet the Government propose to derive only half the benefit.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the RIA is quite controversial, particularly since Professor Konrad Jamrozik’s paper, which was published in the British Medical Journal earlier this year, suggested that passive smoking at work accounted for a total of 617 deaths a year—a fairly precise figure—and at home, interestingly, for 10,700 deaths a year?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that because the evidence set out by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health related to various studies, many of which compellingly describe the impact of second-hand smoke on health and the likely mortality resulting from it. However, the studies overwhelmingly involved people with partners, spouses or family members who smoke or people who are persistently exposed to second-hand smoke at work.

There are extrapolations. I made a point earlier about the impact of modest exposure to second-hand smoke on coronary heart disease. It is significant, because initial evidence suggests that there is no linear relationship between exposure to second-hand smoke and the impact on mortality and morbidity, particularly where coronary heart disease is concerned. It is a non-linear relationship, and therefore modest exposure to second-hand smoke is one of the issues that we have to address. That is why I have no doubt that our objective should be to try to reduce sharply the incidence of smoking in all enclosed public places. The debate is simply about how we get there and the mechanisms involved.

The point that I want to establish at the outset is why the Government have gone down such a path. Why have we ended up in a position where the origin of the policy appears to have more to do with satisfying competing arguments inside Government than the health needs of the country? We seem to have had second thoughts—perhaps even third or fourth thoughts—set out among Ministers in the course of this year, on which they appear to have been frustrated and unable to act. The chief medical officer made it perfectly clear to the Health Committee that he did not agree with the Government’s policy, and said:

“I think it is rare for the Government to ignore the advice of its Chief Medical Officer or to fail to act on it. This is the first situation I have encountered in the seven years I have been in post when this has happened.”

The Minister has to explain why we are in this position at all.

The regulatory impact assessment, if we are to believe it, shows that the Government’s proposals will achieve barely half the potential benefits of a ban, with all or more of the enforcement costs and more of the ensuing complications and difficulties for the public. There is also limited evidence of the certainty of those benefits. Although I am taking the mid-point of the Government’s estimates, it is entirely possible that, as the Government’s regulatory impact assessment contemplates, the benefits for customers exposed to second-hand smoke may be negligible as a consequence of the changes. We need to be clear about what we are setting out to do.

So with clause 1, the purpose of which is to introduce the overall prohibition, although we might come on to one or two detailed points our main purpose is to examine what the Government are setting out to do. How did they come to this policy and how do they justify the fact that they will not deliver the benefits of a reduction in smoking, which are really needed?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

It seems appropriate to use clause 1, which introduces part 1 of the Bill, to make a short number of observations about the general strategy for the smoking ban that the clause will enable to be brought into force. It is helpful to say at the start that a number of the amendments that we will discuss later will try to make the best of a bad job. Our preference would have been the total ban that was in our manifesto and remains our policy to this day. It is worth stressing that, because later this morning and beyond some of the things that we suggest may not be consistent with a total ban. We will be trying to make a partial ban more effective.

I want to place on the record at the start my clear commitment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West to a total ban in line with our manifesto. The reasons for that have been eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who rightly pointed out that the maximum benefit from the Bill, in terms of the Government’s cost-benefit analysis, would come from a total ban. I find it puzzling, therefore, that he supports a different partial ban, which produces fewer benefits.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

At this early stage, will the total ban in the hon. Gentleman’s treatise cover cannabis? I understand that his party’s policy is to liberalise the use of cannabis, and he did not quite clear that up on Second Reading.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Gentleman seems rather obsessed with the subject of cannabis; perhaps we should discuss that. Interestingly, clause 1(2)(a) states that

“‘smoking’ refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance”

so that is within the scope of the Bill. Our support for the Bill incorporates anything else that might be smoked in enclosed public places as well.

We are concerned—there is some common ground with the Conservative spokesman in this respect—about the welfare and health and safety of people who work in enclosed public places. It is as simple as that. As far as we are concerned—a number of my colleagues have made this point to me quite forcefully, and I agree with them—this is not about whether we approve or disapprove of what people do, for example, in their own homes; it is about places where that action has a consequence for other people. Arguably, part 1 of the Bill might usefully have been a health and safety measure brought in by another Department, because that is very much the way in which we approach it.

People sometimes say that the issue does not matter because those who work in smoky environments could choose to work somewhere else. In fact, that is arguable. If a town has one bar and it is a smoky bar, the people who work there may not be able to find other employment, but even if they could, from a health and safety point of view why should they have to? If asbestos was found in the roof here, we would not say, “It’s not a problem. Let’s go and use Committee Room 13.” We would say that it was bad for the health of the people who work here and sort out the health and safety problem. That is the approach that Liberal Democrat Members take. My liberty to smoke is not an unlimited liberty; it is limited by the impact of my exercise of that liberty on other people. We believe that that applies whether or not food is being served and whether or not the premises in question are a private members’ club. Such exemptions make no sense if we view the issue as one of health and safety.

There is an advantage to the way in which clause 1(2)(a) is drawn. As I said, it states that “smoking” relates not merely to tobacco but to other substances. Clearly, it will be a great deal easier if the enforcement authorities do not have to inspect the contents of the cigarette to try to work out exactly what it is. If smoke is coming from the substance, that is sufficient to provide for a ban.

No doubt we shall discuss the place of public opinion in all this; indeed, we have had some selective readings of public opinion already. Where health and safety is concerned, we should be leading public opinion, not following it. I believe that there is momentum in public opinion in the direction of a total ban and that there is evidence from other countries that when bans are introduced, they become popular very quickly and few people ever want to turn the clock back. The Government should have the courage of their convictions and lead public opinion in the interests of the health and safety of workers, not follow public opinion and be afraid of the focus groups.

I have described the framework within which we approach the Bill, and the lens through which we shall assess any amendments tabled. We hope that, by the end of our process of scrutiny, we will have a Bill that generates more benefits for people who involuntarily are subjected to passive smoking and its consequences.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Having heard the two previous speakers, I am grateful for this opportunity to outline further what we said on this matter on Second Reading. The contribution from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was interesting, because, listening to it, one might have assumed that he supported a total ban. However, based on what we heard on Second Reading and in his contribution today, it is clear that that is not the case, and when we consider the amendments, we shall see that it clearly is not the case. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman uses an argument used by those who support a total ban, but then steps back from the brink. It is not clear whether Conservative Members support any legislation to impact on smoking in public places.

Let me recap on why the Government have reached this position. First, 1.2 million people have stopped smoking since 1998. That is a good example of how we are building on the progress that has been made over decades in public awareness of the dangers of smoking both to those who smoke and to those exposed to second-hand smoke. The Government should get some credit for building on those reductions through our anti-smoking campaigns, particularly on exposure to second-hand smoke, aimed not just at smokers but at families with children.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The Minister has fairly characterised the further reduction of just over 1 million smokers as being part of a long-term trend, while mentioning what the Government have done. However, what would have been the counterfactual, supposing that there had been a do-nothing Government? Given a long-term trend of so many hundreds of thousands every few years, what would have happened over an eight-year period? How many fewer smokers would we have expected anyway, and how many can we ascribe to Government intervention? How much would have happened if the Government had stood by and watched? Some information now, or at some point, would indicate the effectiveness of the Government’s policy.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue. Smoking cessation sessions are available through the NHS, and I can provide details on the number of people who have quit as a result of being involved in them. Nicotine replacement patches are available at those sessions. Alongside that, Government support for getting the message across in relevant ways to different sections contributes to the underlying trend. Importantly, Mr. Illsley, we have to do further work with some of the harder-to-reach individuals and communities. We are not making as much impact with them as we want.

I cited, on Second Reading, an interesting article that I read about some young women who were worried about giving birth to a heavy baby. They thought that that would add to the pain of childbirth and that smoking would create a low birthweight baby and, therefore, less pain. The fact that some young women think that demonstrates that we have to listen to and understand people’s reasons for not giving up. We should then try to engage differently with them; for example, with that group of young women by reassuring them about pain relief in childbirth. Equally, in our recent adverts aimed at young people we chose to give a social message rather than a health message. It was about how people feel about others, perhaps when looking for a new partner in life, and has been successful among young people.

In 1996, smoking was in fact increasing to 13 per cent. among 11-15 year olds. I feel that we have contributed to reducing that to 9 per cent. by 2004. That is one example; I am happy to write further on where Government intervention and the good work by primary care trusts and others has affected the trend.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

On that point, the Minister will no doubt know that the figures from which she quotes also show that in 1999, 9 per cent. of youngsters aged 11-15, were recorded as being smokers. It was back to 9 per cent. in 2004. If the 1996 figure was 13 per cent., up from 10 per cent. in 1992, the fact that it was down to 9 per cent. in 2004 does not necessarily indicate an established downward trend.

On the Minister’s point about the effectiveness of smoking cessation services, it would certainly help the Committee if we could see the emerging results of the examination by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence of those services. I think that NICE is due to give guidance on that in the new year; it should have completed work on its initial guidance for consultation this month. Will the Minister ask NICE to give us access to its emerging conclusions before we conclude our proceedings?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will not give a firm commitment on that at this stage. I will seek advice on where NICE is regarding that information. I can provide figures that are already in the public domain on the number of people who have quit four weeks into the available programmes. I shall write to hon. Members of the Committee on that issue.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon, I understand that before 1996 the reduction had hit a plateau. We have tried to influence that by education and by national and local campaigns—both are important—by providing additional services through the NHS and, of course, by tobacco control. I know that measures on the sale of tobacco to young people are important for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis).

Where we are today is based on where we felt that a step change was necessary. The “Choosing Health” White Paper is recognised as having been substantial. Not just smoking but the whole area of public health came under scrutiny in order to identify what more we could all achieve by focusing on preventing rather than treating illness. I shall not go into the consequences of smoking. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire acknowledged, and we can all agree, that smoking is a killer. It is a major contributor to cancer, chronic heart disease and other illnesses and we know that passive smoking can also kill—the hon. Member for Westbury mentioned a report in that regard.

For a long time, all political parties have publicly acknowledged the dangers of smoking. That is one of our reasons for supporting the messages on cigarette packets that advise people about the dangers. In that context, the question that was asked in the “Choosing Health” White Paper was, “How can we take the issue forward?” A great deal of progress has been made by organisations that have encouraged voluntary bans. Going by the ages of Committee members, many of us will remember when it was permissible to smoke on buses and tube trains, and even at the cinema and in theatres. That was part of the atmosphere in which we were brought up, but things have changed substantially over many years.

I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. By saying that we will achieve 99 per cent. coverage under these proposals, I do not for a minute take away from the fact that a number of workplaces are already smoke-free or provide smoking areas. However, our figures are based on 51 per cent. coverage, and the proposals will take us a long way towards our goal. That is not to diminish the actions that have already been taken—and continue to be taken—in workplaces and other public places. I was pleased to present certificates to some organisations in Doncaster, both public and private, that had decided to become smoke-free.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The 51 per cent. to which the Minister refers is the proportion of workplaces in which no smoking is permitted. That figure is likely to be for 2002-03. What evidence has there been since then on the number of workplaces that are entirely smoke-free?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is based on the 51 per cent. of people who report their workplaces as being completely smoke-free. It does not account for places in which there is a smoking room.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

That is for 2003.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is the figure on which we base our information. I shall see whether there is any more up-to-date evidence. I do not want to get into an argument; I am being open and acknowledging that progress has been made on a voluntary basis. When we published “Choosing Health”, and asked the public and organisations what they felt about smoking, they expressed the view that we should go further, and that the time was right to legislate.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No. If I could make some progress—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

This is a debate.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about the bases for our decisions. I will try to explain them even more thoroughly than we did on Second Reading. I will be happy to take interventions, if I can just finish my point.

When we asked people for their opinions in “Choosing Health” there was an overwhelming response from both smokers and non-smokers on the places where there should be restrictions. Some of that is also backed up by the smoking-related behaviour and attitudes survey that was conducted by the Office for National Statistics in 2004, which found that 88 per cent. of people supported restrictions on smoking at work, 91 per cent. supported them in restaurants, 93 per cent. in indoor sport and leisure centres, and 65 per cent. in pubs.

However, when people were asked whether they supported a complete ban, in relation to pubs the issue became much clearer. They said that where food was served in restaurants or pubs, there should be a complete ban on smoking, but only 31 per cent. supported a ban in establishments where there was just drinking. However, I should say that that was an increase of 11 per cent. on the previous poll. That shows that although there is not a majority in favour of a total ban, the public’s attitude is moving. What we are trying to do in this legislation is reflect public opinion, building on the compliance that there has been with voluntary bans because they have been in tune with what the public feel.

The Bill introduces a total ban, but with some exemptions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there will be a review within three years and monitoring and evaluation from day one. That is the reason for introducing regulations; instead of having to come back with primary legislation, we can come back and change the regulations at a later date. This is based on good evidence.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as it is tedious for her to take interventions that refer back to points made long ago.

The Minister says that this is based on good evidence. Does she not agree that it is in fact based on an association in the public mind between smoking and drinking, as distinct from between eating meals and smoking, which they are opposed to, principally on grounds of the nuisance and irritation caused by people smoking around others who are eating? I want the Minister to focus on this point. She refers to evidence, but where is there any health justification for distinguishing between places where food is served and places where it is not? Surely the health evidence is distinct and very different from the nuisance reasons?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I intended to come to that issue. A combination of factors led us to arrive at our proposals, which we put in our manifesto. One factor, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is keen to acknowledge, is what we know about dangers to health from smoking. However, smoking is not an illegal activity so, if we are to legislate, how do we get the balance right? How will our proposals be applied? How will they be enforced? Are they in tune with public opinion? Are they a driver for change? Our policy reflects the different levels of evidence in respect of all aspects of the matter.

As for the question of smoking in food and non-food establishments, I do not believe that I or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or her predecessor have ever said that there was a health-related distinction. We have said that we have health evidence, but we also have evidence about what the public feel is right in respect of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke. People were very clear about where they felt there should be a total ban, and where they felt there should not be a ban. The hon. Gentleman raised this issue on Second Reading. This is a health Bill and it will reduce smoking in public places and workplaces. However, the fact of the matter is that it is also a balanced Bill that reflects where public opinion is at present. Arguments have never been put forward about a health divide in respect of food. What is clear, as the hon. Gentleman stated, is that people have a preference, and that is reflected in the Bill.

The Bill takes us on a journey. For the first time, we are legislating and not leaving it smoking bans to voluntary effort. We are legislating in a real and substantial way on the huge number of areas where not smoking is voluntary, and on a number of places where smoking happens. The Bill will make that an event of the past.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I want to make a little progress in dealing with the points raised by hon. Members.

Some points were made about the regulatory impact assessment. Again, we have been very upfront. The RIA is primarily about costs, and it is obvious that a total ban would be cheaper. I said so to the Select Committee, and it has been said on the Floor of the House. We have to balance the options and how they fit in with our work on policy development, and we have to balance that against the costs. As a result, we have gone for a measure that takes us a significant step forward, but it allows a few exemptions.

This morning, we have talked primarily about bars, but let us not forget the other exemptions. Some are in line with those in Ireland and Scotland for establishments such as hospices, prisons and so forth; and even some hotels have designated rooms for smokers. We recognise that a total ban would not be appropriate.

In the Bill, we have something that is clear. It is a lot clearer than the policy of the Conservative party. I am bemused; I wonder what Opposition Members would do if they were sitting on this side of the Room, although I hope that that will not be for a long time yet. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it. I am happy to take an intervention before going on to the specifics of clause 1.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister is gracious in giving way. I am trying to find some sort of evidence base for what she wants to achieve. We have heard about the distinction between food and non-food areas, and the lack of evidence about the health benefits. She might like to comment on the 1 m-from-the-bar rule on which she seems so keen. It seems to have been plucked out of the air, and there is no real evidence for the health benefit; rather, it is a nuisance. I hope that the Minister can understand our concern about the distinction between nuisance and health—this is a health Bill.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is a health Bill, and I believe strongly that the measures in the Bill, particularly those in part 1 on smoke-free places, will contribute to a number of people giving up smoking and, I hope, stopping. Just as important, it signals a shift in the culture of the society in which we live; it will be predominantly smoke-free rather than allowing smoking with some smoke-free areas.

As I said before, we feel that there will be significant health benefits. However, it is also about public understanding and an acceptance of how people want to live their lives, which is why we are providing choice. I see no incompatibility between looking at health evidence on the dangers of smoking and then, through legislation, seeking to prevent smoking in a number of public places and workplaces.

The hon. Member for Westbury raised the question of the 1 m rule. I note from one of their amendments that the Conservatives would like voluntary bans to continue without any interference from the Government. The 1 m rule has resulted from a voluntary ban that is often used by the pub and leisure sector. We asked a question about that in our consultation; it is probably the one example of something that is currently used in the pub and leisure sector.

There is a debate about which of a number of measures would be most helpful in meeting our manifesto commitment to protect bar workers from exposure to smoke. We are continuing to consult on that. One measure is the 1 m rule, but we are not stuck with that. It was put in the consultation as a chance to debate how it might work and what other measures were available. Obviously, we will keep the House informed as to the results of that consultation when we come back with regulations on that.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked an important question. He asked what was the point of the consultation that we carried out over the summer—a question that was echoed by the hon. Member for Westbury. There was a point to the consultation. First, it was on the proposals in the “Choosing Health” White Paper and was based on our manifesto commitment. There were 16 or 17 specific questions about enforcement, fine levels, the definition of food and non-food establishments, the bar area, timetabling and whether substances other than tobacco should be included. I will get to that final point eventually.

We got a huge amount back from that consultation. Yes, most responses were clearly in favour of a total ban. However, although people might want to go further, the measures that we suggest represent a step change: for the first time there will be a law that can be enforced to prevent smoking in certain places. There are aspects of the consultation on which we are not in agreement, such as the total ban. However, we have taken on board issues that people have mentioned in relation to the timetable. We brought that forward by 18 months.

We have listened to people on clause 1 and the definition of smoke, and we are still listening to representations on some of the exemptions. We are in discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office about areas that they cover where there is a residential connection. We are talking to people in mental health about the issues that affect them. We have also taken soundings about fines, enforcement and signage. That will be reflected in our draft regulations. So it is not true to say that we have had a consultation and have not listened. Based on our principal position, we have listened to many points about how it will be implemented. We will discuss that further in Committee, but we still feel that our position, as set out in our manifesto, is right.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Question 5, to which the Minister did not refer, invited views on the merits and practicability of the proposal for creating a distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not. There were 41,833 responses. The Government summary states:

“The majority of responses to this question (over 90 per cent.) are against any exemption for pubs not serving food.”

In the face of such overwhelming opposition, why have the Government proceeded in precisely the same way as they originally proposed?

May I also ask a question about the evidence base for the “Choosing Health” White Paper proposal? The then Secretary of State for Health—the present Secretary of State for Defence—said that his reason for not having a total ban included the idea that that would lead more people to drink and smoke at home. We have previously discussed the fact that much of the scientific evidence about the negative effects of second-hand smoke relates to people who are exposed to it at home. Does the Minister think that that is a good reason for not having a total ban?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is an interesting point. Regardless of the legislation, people in other countries, as well as in this one, have increasingly taken to drinking at home. Videos, CDs and DVDs have contributed to the increase in the number of people pursuing their leisure activities at home.

There is evidence from Europe, which I cited at the Health Committee, that people are increasingly buying alcohol to consume in their homes—hence the increase in beer sales. We need to address that, for the same reason as we need to address the problem of second-hand smoke in the home: we know that 95 per cent. of deaths from smoking are the result of smoking in the home.

Hon. Members expressed their concern to me before the summer that our proposals might push people into the home to smoke more. So far as I am aware, on the basis of a report that the Royal College of Physicians published in July, and another report that was published in Ireland, there is no evidence to that effect. I would be happy to write to the Committee to confirm that. I believe that I referred to those reports at the Health Select Committee’s evidence inquiry. Those reports of the past six months seem to suggest that our proposals will not do that.

Our proposals recognise the fact that there is still a view that there should be choice about smoking and having a drink in certain social settings. That is what we are reflecting here, but we do not believe that removing that choice will lead to an exodus into the home. I hope that my earlier remarks put the matter into context. We are concerned about the amount of smoking at home, and our efforts to tackle that by giving people access to smoking cessation services, and by increasing awareness through campaigning, are designed to ensure that we do not lose sight of the health dangers to individuals, particularly children, of smoking in the home.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Perhaps I am beginning to see the light. We are concerned about smoking at home, particularly as that means smoking in front of children. We are particularly concerned about things such as sudden infant death syndrome, which we know are causally related to tobacco smoke. If I understand the Minister correctly, she is saying that the reason for having a distinction between food and non-food is that that will preserve some sort of smoking den to which people can go, so that they do not go home with their six pack and smoke in front of their children. Is that a fair interpretation?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, that does not at all reflect what I have just said. Again, this discussion is very interesting, because it makes me want to ask Opposition Members whether they support a full ban. On the one hand, they tease us with indications that the evidence leads to such a ban, but they do not actually step up to the plate and argue for one. They do not, in fact, step up to the plate and argue for any legislation whatever.

I believe that I was clear when I said that we were concerned about smoking in the home. That is why the Department of Health does a lot of work, and why a lot of work is done at local level by PCTs, Sure Start units and schools to address smoking in the home. Our proposals are clear about the distinction between public houses that serve food and public houses that do not serve food, and are not dependent on the idea that not offering the option of smoking in a public house that did not serve food would necessarily lead to an exodus of people to the home. I cited two reports from the past six months that have given us the latest evidence that there would be no such exodus.

I have tried to be very frank about the distinction between food and non-food, which we believed that the public were ready to accept in legislation.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

What about the consultation?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am coming to that. The consultation in the summer was, as I said, one part of our deliberations. I respect the sincerely held views of people who took part in the consultation, but it involved many organisations and individual groups that were very clear about their expectation or desire for a total ban. The number of responses was based on their campaigning for such a ban. We acknowledge their views, but we must set them against the attitudinal surveys of members of the public. There is an imbalance between the views of those who responded to that consultation, and the views of the public sought through other means. Governments take those views as soundings on where they feel public policy should move. The Government lead, but still reflect public opinion. Smoking is not an illegal activity, and we must take the public with us. Our view is that the legislation, which represents a total ban with exemptions, sets us on a journey to seek to win further public support in the future. The Bill is one way in which we can take the public with us.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I shall not bore the Committee by quoting myself, but the Minister keeps talking about the Opposition not having wanted to put any provisions into legislation. I refer her to the Official Report of 29 November 2005, column 161, which records my words clearly setting out what we proposed. We shall return to the concept of a self-regulatory solution, backed up by legislation, in subsequent debates. We made it perfectly clear before the election that we were contemplating legislation.

The Minister has not disputed the fact that the regulatory impact assessment suggests that Government policy would have half the benefits of a comprehensive ban in terms of reduced mortality from exposure to second-hand smoke. However, the Government do not illustrate how that reduced mortality will be distributed, and the exacerbation of health inequalities that would result. If I understand the chief medical officer’s argument against the Government proposals, it is essentially that not only do they not deliver the maximum health benefits, but, in so far as the benefits are substantially less than they might otherwise be, the loss of benefit is disproportionately concentrated in poorer and more deprived areas where the mortality and morbidity rates are highest. How does that weigh with the Minister? She has not mentioned the objective of reducing health inequality; we know that that is getting worse, if anything. Where does that figure in her thinking?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Of course that is an important matter. I have learned over the last six months that we must look closer and in more detail at why more affluent, better off and better educated people are more likely to follow health information. We must grapple with that fact in order to close the gap. There has been some significant good work in some of our poorest communities on smoking, including the availability for pregnant mums to access services to help them give up smoking, and work through Sure Start. However, there is much more to be done; there is no doubt about that.

The overall rate of smoking prevalence for manual workers has come down to about 31 per cent., compared to 27 per cent. for non-manual workers. That shows a significant shift, but there is, of course, more to be done. We recognise that tackling health inequalities is not done through one policy, but through a series of policies.

To tackle health inequality we must tackle poverty, access to employment, access to quality housing, and access to an environment in which people have aspirations for themselves and their families. That is at the heart of addressing health inequalities, and that is why I am in the Labour party. Alongside that is the recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. We must bear down on what is preventing people from coming forward.

“Your health, your care, your say” asks, particularly in those poorer communities, why health services are not accessed in the same way as in more affluent areas. Are they fit for purpose and reaching need? Examining some of our spearhead primary care trust areas, it is quite interesting to see the impact that, for example, Sheffield has had in certain areas of health inequality compared with others. We can all learn from that. It is important to have a package of measures.

Dr. Murrisonrose—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Before I take another intervention, I wish to say how pleased I am that the number of homes in which smoking is banned in increasing. It has risen from a reported 45 per cent. in June 2003 to 58 per cent. in June 2005. That is to be welcomed. It underpins the strong message in choosing our health. Ultimately, it is about people choosing health for themselves, as much as it depends on legislation or intervention by the Government or others.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I am pleased that the hon. Lady joined the Labour party to reduce inequalities—but by that measure, clearly her membership has failed, because health inequalities are becoming worse. Does she understand that making the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not will heighten health inequalities in both relative and absolute terms? Smoking dens will be created, especially in least well-off areas. Surely she understands that.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Tackling health inequalities involves a range of measures. That is why, under the Bill, more places where people from deprived communities both live and work will be covered than ever before. Statistics show that there are more workplaces that are currently smoke-free in middle-class professional areas than in manual working areas.

I take the point about pubs that do not serve food. We have said that we shall monitor and review the situation. People, especially workers in manual professions, a huge swathe of bar workers whom I would incorporate into the group that we are discussing, and those who work elsewhere in the hospitality industry, will be protected for the first time. They will be able to work in an environment without smoke, or be protected at the bar as they have never been protected before. That is a step forward in dealing with health inequalities. We are clear about what we are saying here. On Second Reading the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tried to claim that his proposals were the same as ours.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

No I did not.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

They are close to ours—I am just looking at the Hansard report of those proceedings. The hon. Gentleman referred to self-regulation followed possibly by legislation. He was not clear about how for how long he would continue to allow self-regulation.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Yes I was.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will make matters clear.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

On Second Reading I said:

“As we made clear before the election, we would have included provisions in a public health Bill to enforce a reduction in smoking in circumstances in which a self-regulatory solution had not been effective in three years.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 161.]

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That underpins an amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. It suggests that if there were a Conservative Government, we would have a system under which with voluntary bans would be allowed to continue. When we discuss that amendment I shall explain why we shall not accept it. It would not help to move the agenda forward. It would raise more questions about how to determine whether someone had self-regulated to a proper extent to reduce smoking environments, as well as a lot of issues in connection with regulations—but we shall come to that when we deal with the amendment.

Now I want to say a little about clause 1 and our definition of smoking, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Northavon. The definition of smoking covers being in possession of tobacco, substances that include tobacco or other substances that are alight. That means that the Bill will cover non-tobacco cigarettes, such as herbal cigarettes, and that being in possession of any sort of lit substance—for example, smoking a hookah pipe—would be classified as smoking. We have included non-tobacco products following consultation responses, which pointed to published evidence of the harmful emissions from non-tobacco cigarettes. I think that that was provided by Action on Smoking and Health.

We also received consultation responses that recommended widening the definition to allow easier enforcement. With a narrow definition involving only tobacco, there is a risk that smokers will claim that their cigarette is herbal, which would result in dispute and practical enforcement problems for both the owner of the premises and the enforcement officers. That has been a problem in Ireland, which did not have such a definition to start with. We do not want enforcement officers to have to send cigarettes for testing, at a cost disproportionate to the offence, or altercations between members of the public, or premises owners and members of the public, over whether a cigarette is tobacco or herbal based. I hope that I have answered questions sufficiently. I will follow up in writing some of the points raised this morning.

Clause 2 - Smoke-free premises

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘provided that the part of the premises that is open to the public or (as the case may be) used as a place of work is segregated from the remaining premises to standards that the appropriate national authority may specify in regulations.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

‘provided that any area of a premises that is provided as not smoke-free at any time shall not share floor space unsegregated by a wall or door with any area that is smoke-free at the same time.’.

No. 48, in clause 3, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

‘(c)requirements for segregation of smoking and non-smoking areas, provision and maintenance of ventilation systems, and restrictions on deployment of staff in smoking areas.’.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

This group of amendments touches on the issue of separation and segregation. As I said in my opening remarks, now that there is not to be a total ban, there will be parts of premises and categories of buildings where some smoking is allowed, which might be adjacent to areas in which smoking is not allowed. Therefore, we must consider how the distinction between smoking and non-smoking areas should be drawn, how to ensure that smoke in smoking areas is not detrimental to non-smoking areas, and how they should be separated.

Amendment No. 40 would amend clause 2(3), which concerns premises that are described in the explanatory notes as

“someone’s home as well as their workplace”,

such as someone’s home in which music lessons are given or from which financial services are offered.

Subsection (3) seems to say that areas into which the public may come or in which they are served will be smoke-free, but that other parts of the premises do not have to be smoke-free. Suppose that music lessons are given—or some other service is provided—in the front room of a house; that does not mean that the person who owns the house or provides the service from home cannot smoke in the kitchen. Amendment No. 40 is about the distinction between two parts of the same premises. Is it sufficient to say, “We provide music lessons in the front of the house, so there is no reason why we shouldn’t smoke in the back of the house,” considering that if the smoke travels it will be detrimental to people using the public place, which is a workplace, at the front of the house? What are the dividing lines? How are such places to be cordoned off?

On the theme of music lessons, I play the oboe in my spare time. My oboe teacher was a pipe smoker, and the small practice rooms in our school were constantly full of pipe smoke, although the teacher never smoked while I was in there. That probably was not an ideal environment in which to teach a pupil to play a wind instrument.

We are talking about a situation in which smoke from another part of the house or premises could waft in to where people are having a lesson or receiving a service. What segregation should there be? The amendment suggests that there should be some standard to determine that set down by the appropriate national authority. Clearly, circumstances will differ in private houses, but we want to avoid a situation in which the letter of the law is followed so that there is no smoking in the immediate place in which the service is provided, yet there is smoking elsewhere on the premises, which, because of the inadequate segregation, is detrimental to the public and anyone else who works in that environment.That is the thinking behind the amendment. [Interruption.] Excuse me; that is not a smoker’s cough, I assure you, Mr. Illsley.

Amendments Nos. 46 and 48, which would amend clause 3, concern similar issues. Amendment No. 46 is also about segregation, but in relation to pubs and similar environments. The amendment provides that areas designated as smoke-free should be substantially separated by a wall, door, or similar. Relevant issues that we touched on briefly in our previous discussion include the 1m-from-the-bar rule.

The Secretary of State said on 26 October that

“smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere ... We shall consult further on the best method to achieve this, including on discrete smoking rooms or areas to protect staff.”

The amendment shows that whatever may come out of the process, we do not think that an arbitrary distance with no physical separation achieves the goal. I accept the Minister’s point that custom and practice—good form, decent employers, people who do not want their bar staff to have someone puffing a cigarette straight in their face—might have come up with the standard of one metre, but I hope that the Minister will accept that there is no health basis for it. Smoke circulates; the second that somebody opens the door to come into the pub, smoke wafts around. It is hard to say that a separation by distance will achieve the public health and safety goal that should be the purpose of the legislation. If the Government insist that there should be areas where smoking is permitted—we remain of the view that there should not—they should be clearly separated by some physical barrier.

I shall now move to amendment No. 48. There will continue to be places where workers will be exposed to second-hand smoke; the non-food pub is a classic example of that—albeit not within a metre of the bar. To say that people who work there will be thrown to the wolves might sound slightly hysterical, and I would never want to do that, but essentially they will be abandoned beyond the existing health and safety legislation. Workers in private clubs will, essentially, have to lump it. The amendment says that that is not good enough. If the Government insist on some workers still being subject to second-hand smoke, we should none the less beef up the health and safety protection that they get. We suggest that even for them, there should be restrictions on the

“deployment of staff in smoking areas.”

One possibility is that the Government will come up with a “smoking carriages” idea: in pubs that do not serve food, smoking will be permitted in sealed rooms. But who has to work in those sealed rooms? Will cleaning staff have to go in? Will bar staff have to take the drinks away? What happens if a fight breaks out? Who will have to go in then?

Amendment 48 asks for clear restrictions so that workers know what they do and do not have to do in terms of deployment to smoking areas. Essentially, they are being asked to go into an unhealthy environment. It is not good enough to say that that will be done by negotiation with the employer. In the past I have given the example of Sunday trading, when people may have a theoretical right not to be forced to do something, but when the individual employee, relative to their employer, can be in a vulnerable position. If the Government were to say that the remaining workers have no protection beyond the existing health and safety rules, that would be unsatisfactory.

So our third amendment would set out in clause 3 requirements for segregation and ventilation. As I understand it, the ventilation required to get rid of all the particulates would be something of a whirlwind, which is not credible. There should at least be some regulation so that if staff have to go in and clean, or take glasses away, they know where they stand. If this is a Health Bill about the health of workers, they need enforceable rights. They need to know where they stand, what they can be reasonably expected to do and how often. It is not a private matter or a free collective bargaining issue. It is about their health and safety, and we believe that the amendment would provide the opportunity to protect workers who have otherwise been neglected by the Bill.

I will now draw together the threads of the three amendments. Our focus is on concepts of separation and segregation in the imperfect world that the Government want to take us to. We want to deal with the fact that smoke drifts, and that a 1 m exclusion zone, or anything else of that kind, will not work. We want to give the workers who will, residually, still suffer from the Government’s timidity some rights to protect their health.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

There was a great deal of sense in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I am not usually kind to the Liberal Democrats—he has probably noted that—but on this occasion he has made a useful contribution and opened up an important debate. It is a debate on which the Minister has failed. We are considering a workplace. In general we are concerned, with respect to workplaces, about occupational exposure standards, airborne contaminants and the levels of those that are regarded as safe, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is keen on that issue and he will return to it in his amendments.

We are dealing with a workplace that appears to be poorly regulated in comparison with other workplaces, and it is appropriate for us to consider that and decide how we might improve the occupational health of the people who work there. I declare an interest in that before I was elected to this place I was a consultant occupational physician. As I read the Bill, I was staggered by the lack of consideration that the Minister has given to what would be regarded, in an occupational setting, as frankly minimal standards in the matter of what it is or is not reasonable to expose workers to.

We have heard nothing from the Minister about COSHH or about occupational exposure standards. The debate about segregation—physical segregation and segregation by time of exposure, distance and ventilation—seems not to have been considered by the Minister at all; or, if it has, that has been merely en passant. In particular I am concerned that the Minister has not adequately explored the question of ventilation and that perhaps it has not been considered among the possible exemptions of which she gives examples. She might consider ventilation for clubs, for example, that might be exempted under the regulations. Perhaps we might also have occupational exposure standards for tobacco smoke to protect workers in those places.

I am alarmed by the poverty of imagination and the Minister’s ability to ignore, in the Bill, normal occupational hygiene measures and language. It is almost as if the Minister is telling us that we are dealing with a workplace, but that it is not quite a workplace in the normally accepted way of thinking. If she went to any industrial complex she would find occupational hygienists measuring air flow, airborne contamination and the rest of it to the nth degree, yet there is no reference to those practices in the Bill.

I urge the Minister to think seriously about bars and clubs as workplaces rather than just giving us polemic about protecting workers’ rights. I urge her to consider how proper workplace standards might be applied to people who work in those pubs and clubs. If she did that, she would, I think, come up with a very different Bill, which would, for example, mention such things as the Health and Safety Executive, COSHH and occupational exposure standards. There is nothing in the Bill about them and no reference, even in the guidance notes, to any of them, although they are the weft and warp of normal occupational hygiene. She has ignored them and all that we have are illogicalities. No serious thought is given to how to separate workers from a potentially noxious substance. There is the 1 m from the bar rule, but we know—the Minister has admitted—that it has no basis in fact. There is no evidence base for it. It has been plucked out of the air.

There is a reference to smoking at the bar. I suppose that we can understand that someone who does not smoke and who is serving behind the bar might find that offensive so, anecdotally, there is a reason for specifying smoking at the bar in the Bill or the guidance, but there is no evidence. No one has gone out and done any serious measurements relating to exposure to tobacco smoke which would inform the Bill; everything is anecdotal. We should not be legislating on the back of anecdote. We need to legislate on the basis of evidence, but there is a poverty of evidence in the Bill so I hope very much that the Minister will take a more serious look at the issue. Perhaps we could have rather less polemic and rather more evidence. If she provides that, we will end up with a Bill that is considerably better than the current one.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Clause 2(3) covers premises that are only partly public and workplaces, for example, where services that the public use are housed in someone’s private residence. The example of a music teacher was given. Another example might be a GP who has his surgery in his home, or a pub where the tenants live on the premises. In respect of those examples, subsection (3) provides that any area of the property to which the public have access will have to be smoke-free. As was outlined and as is clear in the Bill, smoking will still be allowed in private areas of the premises, as the Bill is concerned only with public places and workplaces.

I understand the intention behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon, but I am concerned about putting those measures in the Bill. One effect of amendment No. 40 would be to require public smoke-free areas of the premises to be segregated from the private areas of the premises if smoking was ever to take place in the private areas. I understand that the provision the hon. Gentleman is challenging us to move towards has not been felt to be absolutely necessary in Scotland or Ireland. Although I acknowledge his point, there are issues for people who use their private premises as a workplace regarding the responsibility on them for ensuring that the public have access only to smoke-free areas. The amendment would provide a power to make regulations specifying the requirements for that segregation. I do not believe that that is a matter on which we should legislate in the Bill. It is up to the individuals living in the private spaces to decide how they will fulfil their obligation under the Bill to ensure that the public areas of the premises are smoke-free.

There are so many different examples that we could give in relation to smoke-free places, whether partially or wholly, that we could find ourselves in a difficult situation, trying to cover all bases in the Bill. The provision in the Bill for regulations will give us a chance to produce draft regulations, discuss the issues and approve the regulations at a later date. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and intention, but specific requirements for segregation, as outlined in the amendment, would be over- burdensome on this occasion.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The Minister will notice that amendment No. 40 does precisely what she has said should be done: it would not put in the Bill provision for precisely how things would work, but would give the national authority the power to make regulations. If we do not make regulations, presumably the issue will be decided by the courts and we will have a situation in which someone says, “I teach in the front end of my very big front room, which is smoke-free. I smoke occasionally at the far end of my front room, but that’s such a long way away that I am not breaching the rules.” Surely if we do not specify matters in regulations systematically, they will be decided ad hoc in the courts.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The intention is clear from what we are saying about places to which the public have access being smoke-free. It would be incredibly burdensome to go into greater detail on buildings that are part private and part public, a few examples of which have been cited. We might specify to someone, for example, whether they should have double doors, what sort of doors they should have and so on. There are balances to be struck. Obviously, hon. Members will raise issues in Committee and I shall reflect on them outside Committee, but I am not convinced at the present time. I understand that, in both Ireland and Scotland, the proposed measure was felt to be unnecessary; it was felt unnecessary to be more prescriptive.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does the Minister agree that if she treated places in which people might be exposed as workplaces, the dilemma to which she refers would be avoided? Surely that is the crux of the matter.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will try to cover all the contributions that have been made, and if I do not I shall be happy for hon. Members to intervene. However, I shall be grateful if hon. Members will give me a chance to answer their points rather than constantly repeating them. The point made by the hon. Member for Westbury applies in different ways to all the amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Northavon. Rather than both of us repeating ourselves, I shall come to them in due course.

On amendment No. 46, clause 3(3) sets out in detail how we might regulate to provide for exemptions from the prohibition on smoking in closed public places and workplaces. They might apply to whole premises or to areas of premises, and the exemptions will apply only if specific conditions are met. We will set out those conditions in regulations. Amendment No. 46 is an attempt to specify in the Bill the sort of conditions that we have clearly said, both during the consultation process and when introducing the Bill, that we intend to put into regulations.

In many respects, particularly in relation to clause 3, we have put headline issues into the Bill to show intent—to help people to understand what the Bill is all about. The regulations will have to deal with the wide variety of ways in which the law might be interpreted. That is why regulation-making powers will be an important part of the next stage of the process. When drawing up and consulting on the regulations, we shall consider carefully the underlying point made by the hon. Member for Northavon in relation to amendment No. 46. As we have made clear previously and as he highlighted, smoking rooms may be one way of delivering in regulations the commitment that we have made to prohibit smoking in the bar areas of exempted premises. However, I do not feel that we should deal with that in detail in the Bill. I hope that he will allow us to complete our consultation and propose draft regulations with a view to making it clear how the protection of bar areas should be enforced.

Clause 3(4) sets out examples of the sorts of conditions that may be considered when setting out the circumstances in which premises or areas of premises are not smoke-free. We have given the examples of restrictions on what is sold or consumed in such premises or areas of premises apart from alcohol, and the designation of smoking rooms. Amendment No. 48 would add to that list of conditions. In particular, it would add the segregation of smoking and non-smoking areas, ventilation requirements and restrictions on staff in smoking areas. Again, although I understand the intention of the amendment, I am not sure that it is helpful to put into the Bill all the possible considerations that will go towards forming the regulations on exemptions.

We will have an opportunity to discuss whether the listed criteria are exhaustive or too narrow. We believe that the way in which the clause is drafted makes the key considerations sufficiently clear. For example, there are further amendments concerning ventilation. There is a huge debate to be had on the contribution of ventilation, and on what it extracts from the air and what it leaves behind. If we were to go down that route, how prescriptive should we be about what sort of ventilation should be provided? So far, having heard the many views on the subject, we think that we have gone in the right direction.

The hon. Member for Westbury expressed disappointment that the Bill does not focus more on health and safety, and he referred to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, which apply to substances that are generated by some work activities. The Bill is neither employment legislation nor health and safety at work legislation. We have been clear about that, both in terms of the outcome of the “Choosing Health” White Paper and in our consultation over the summer. The Bill intends to reduce the number of places in which smoking can occur. Employees should have the same rights with their employers under employment and health and safety legislation as they currently have. That is proper and should be applied regardless of whether a workplace is smoke-free or allows limited smoking.

This morning, some of the focus has been on bar workers. There are other situations to debate—for example, when people go to give services in somebody’s home. I do not think anybody is saying that a pensioner who smoked would have to introduce ventilation or give up smoking before a service—either a home help or something else—that they needed was provided. There would have to be a way to handle such a situation.

As far as I am aware, many employers in the public sector, and some in the private sector—we could be talking about someone coming to read the gas meter— would expect that smoking would not take place in front of the worker when they visited premises. That raises—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will just finish the point, which was about different workplaces and the complexities involved. Our main aim in this Bill is to legislate to improve access to choice about the places in which people can work and socialise in a smoke-free atmosphere.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Clause 2(2) is about premises that are used as a place of work. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there is a difference between places that are open to the public, which are smoke-free to that extent and for that period of time, and premises used as a place of work, which are smoke-free to that extent but all the time. The provision includes the phrase:

“They are smoke-free all the time.”

I am not quite sure what that means. Does it mean all the time that they are a place of work or all the time for ever? Where is the boundary? If a plumber and his mate come to work in my bathroom, it is a place of work for them and more than one person is involved. I hope that my bathroom would always be smoke-free, but that is not the point. Does that turn my home into a place that must be smoke-free all the time that they are there or smoke-free for ever?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

To draw a distinction, we are dealing with situations involving a public place or a workplace. I made a point about where services come into someone’s home. We are not defining the person’s home as a workplace. The hon. Member for Westbury raised points about employees and access to smoke-free environments. We are legislating in relation to workplaces. As I understand it, where part of a premises is a workplace, that should be smoke-free—I will clarify this, if necessary—and a workplace should be smoke-free at all times. The provision does not include situations where people invite a plumber in to do some work in their home.

Appropriately, this is a public health Bill that reflects public opinion as well as health evidence. It is not primarily a narrow worker-protection matter. We are aiming to increase substantially the number of smoke-free public places and workplaces. As I said, I am not sure whether using ventilation or air-quality standards for workers would contribute to that. Therefore, on this occasion, I cannot agree to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon. However, I listened to what he said and some of his points will form part of our decisions and deliberations in bringing forward the draft regulations.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful for the Minister’s sympathetic tone and for the fact that she recognises some of the issues raised in the amendments. Our discussions this morning have already helped me in one important respect: I have noticed something that I failed to notice on Second Reading, which is that the Bill that provides for smoke-free public places does not at any point define “smoke-free”. That is a pretty central problem because, to develop the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, if a home is used as a workplace and we agree that the bit that is used to serve the public has to be smoke-free—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

That means no smoke.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

But does that mean no smoke ever? Does it mean that, as soon as somebody has smoked there once, one assesses the residual particulates and says, “There is still some damage to be done, so it is not smoke-free”? If it is adjoining and not segregated from somewhere else in the house where there is a chain smoker puffing away like billy-oh and someone opens the door and it all wafts in, is that still smoke-free? If the Government and the regulations do not decide what the definitions are, the courts will and that is always the second best solution. If we in this House have a view about those matters, we should be defining them now, rather than leaving them, literally, as a grey area for someone else to intervene on.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

To assist the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that we spent rather a long time on clause 1, which deals with what “smoke-free” means. Clause 1(2) specifies that it has to have something to do with smoking about it.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Yes, but it does not say when. It says “smoke-free” means that one cannot be

“in possession of lit tobacco”.

However, let us think about the ban on pubs that serve food: if they serve food at lunchtime but not in the evening, one still cannot smoke there. The point, presumably, is that smoking in the evening will affect the smoke-free status at lunchtime. There is a temporal aspect to this: it is not just that one cannot do it at the time, but that there is a knock-on effect for the future from smoking at some point of time. It is not intended to be a nit-picking point, but a fundamental one. If we think that passive smoking is deleterious to people’s health, it does not have to be passive smoking in somebody’s face; it could be at a distance or at a different time in the same place. At present, it is unclear what is prohibited and what is not. That is why we want some things on the face of the Bill, as the amendments suggest.

The Minister said on amendment No. 46 that some of the issues that we have raised will be brought up in regulations, and that is welcome, but what we are trying to do is to rule things out from the start. One of the things that we want to rule out from the start is the idea of distance as an adequate protection against second-hand smoke. Beyond extreme examples, if we are talking about credible premises and say that a few more metres is enough, given the circulation of air and smoke, a distance-based criterion for exclusion is a non-runner. That is what we were trying to do with amendment No. 46.

On amendment No. 48, the Minister said that clause 3 has examples of the main themes for the Government. However, the rights of workers are fundamental, as the Bill is about protecting the worker’s health. The Government can say that they have included the big things, such as food and private clubs, but that they will deal with workers’ health in regulations. The Minister essentially said—she will correct me if I am wrong—that workers who continue to face smoking environments because of the Government’s exemptions will have no additional protection beyond existing health and safety legislation.

Caroline Flintindicated dissent.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Let me re-phrase that. The Minister seemed to imply that that was in some sense sufficient for those workers and that they would get no more protection than that. If we have decided that other workers need more protection because we are doing their health harm, I cannot see how it is sufficient not to put in the Bill something that guarantees those workers’ safety. In many ways, the workers who are still going to be exposed to second-hand smoke after the Bill is enacted are in the worst position of all. We ought to worry about those people and not just say, “We’re helping some people, so blow the rest.” There should be something quite explicit, up front in the Bill to guarantee the rights of the workers who are still going to be exposed. That is our concern.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that insisting on occupational exposure standards would do just that and put people who work in bars on the same footing as somebody who works in any other workplace?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Indeed; it is all to the good, to the extent that there are existing standards off the shelf that will do the job, so what we are requesting becomes all the more reasonable—and we on these Benches are always reasonable.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Before we conclude this debate, I have to say that I am worried, as is often the case, that we are starting to expose things but that we will move on and find it difficult even to refer back.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have not established the position in relation to people’s homes that are treated as places of work for a period? What happens then? It is fairly straightforward that if those places are open to the public, they are smoke-free to the extent that they are open to the public, either geographically or in time. Where they are places of work, it is clear that they are smoke-free to the extent that they are places of work geographically, and the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are designed to try to clarify that to a greater extent. However, that has rather exposed the sentence:

“They are smoke-free all the time.”

The hon. Gentleman and I do not understand what “all the time” means. Does it mean all the time that people are in a place of work, or all the time beyond that point—through the night, the weekend, the rest of the year or the rest of eternity? When does it stop?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Gentleman highlights an ambiguity. I presume that it is not just the time when a premises is in use.

If hon. Members can imagine going into a waiting room in a doctor’s home and nobody was smoking there at the time but a chain-smoker had been there all through the night, they might feel that the spirit of the Bill had not been fulfilled. I presume that the provision works over time, as well.

On the hon. Gentleman’s issue of the plumber in his bathroom—whom I am sure we will get to know better as the weeks go by—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

And his mate.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Indeed.

My understanding is the other way round. None of that falls within the scope of the Bill. It is the hon. Gentleman’s house, not a premises that is open to the public. If I am getting it wrong, I am sure that the Minister will come back to us.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will try to be helpful.

The exemptions proposed in clause 3(2)(a) specify the sort of places where smoking can continue. The exemptions include

“premises where a person has his home”,

so it will depend partly on, for example, whether a separate room in the home is used only for music lessons or as a doctor’s surgery. If that were so, it would be smoke-free. Hon. Members are moving towards dealing with a family room where lessons occasionally take place. In those situations, we would not expect a total ban to apply. However, that is an important point and we will look at when we draft regulations.

This is about a proportionate response. It raises the issue of all the different ways in which someone can have a home and a workplace. In some cases—for example, a general practitioner’s surgery—it will be obvious what the workplace is and what it is used for. People do not have their Sunday lunch in the surgery. However, that is different from a music teacher offering piano lessons or, in the hon. Gentleman’s case, oboe lessons, in their front room.

I will reflect on the issue. I think that there is a point, but it is about being proportionate, which is something that we should cover in regulations.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful for that.

This group of amendments has raised some valuable issues and has, therefore, contributed healthily to our deliberations. I shall not divide the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert

‘provided that any area of premises which is more than one half enclosed shall not be defined other than as enclosed or substantially enclosed.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 69, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert

‘having regard to the excess health risk conferred on an individual by virtue of the enclosure.’.

No. 45, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert

‘provided that no employee of such a club or of any business or organisation providing goods or services to that club shall enter any area of the club that is enclosed or substantially enclosed at any time that such premises are specified not to be smoke-free.’.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I feel that the Committee has not benefited enough from my voice this morning.

Two different sets of issues are raised by amendments Nos. 41 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and me, and by amendment No. 69, tabled by the Conservatives. With amendment No. 41 we are moving on to enclosed and substantially enclosed public places. Clearly that is an important definitional issue. I hope that when the Minister responds to this group of amendments we will get much clearer idea of the Government’s thinking on how this will be implemented.

We have to get our heads around what the percentage threshold used to define “substantially enclosed” should be. Those of us who want a comprehensive ban want it to be at the lower end of the scale, and those who want a fairly limited ban want it to be at the higher end of the scale. If we say that something is substantially enclosed only if it is 70 per cent. enclosed, many fairly enclosed public places would still allow smoking. If the threshold is 50 per cent., more places would be brought in.

My broad understanding is that in the Irish case the threshold is half. If half of an area is enclosed, it qualifies as substantially enclosed and therefore falls within the scope of the legislation. Indications from the Government are that they would be looking more towards a 70 per cent. threshold. I am a little bit hazy as to how one defines percentages in this context. Are we talking about the floor area or the volume? That is far from straightforward, so this is a probing amendment to try to ascertain the Government’s thinking.

Essentially, we want to avoid loopholes. One could imagine a veranda area of a pub which, if the threshold was set fairly high and two panes of glass were removed, would fall outside the scope of the ban and people could still smoke there. Whatever threshold is chosen, there will be arbitrary lines of that sort. Clearly, we would want the spirit of the legislation to be observed, which must mean public areas that have a significant character of being enclosed. That for me has the feel of more than half rather than more than two thirds. This is obviously subjective.

We have talked a little about the evidence base. The whole debate is about something that is relatively new. Comprehensive bans do not go back much further than the late ’90s, certainly in places such as California. But there have been partial bans going back a lot further than that. What evidence will the Government use to determine the sorts of threshold that they want to use to define “substantially enclosed”? Clearly there will be a lot of concern in the pub and entertainment industry. They will want clarity. Whatever figure we choose, they will want something that is clearly defined. I hope that the Minister will give us some answers that will tell the people who will have to make preparations to implement the Bill what they have to do. That is the nub of amendment No. 41.

Amendment No. 45 relates to a different set of issues and to people who work in private clubs. We are concerned about the workers—I am sounding like a real old leftie—and the requirement for them to enter enclosed or substantially enclosed places when those premises are not smoke-free. All these debates interact with each other. In a private club with a semi-enclosed area, will the bar staff, cleaners or whoever have to go in there while people are smoking? Obviously we would prefer workers in private clubs to be completely protected, but if they are not to be protected, should they not at the very least be protected from “in your face” second-hand smoke?

We hold to the view that there is a much bigger longer-term danger of general exposure. But clearly, going in while people are smoking is key. I guess that the link with the idea of semi-enclosed public places is that if there is a draught, some openness or some ventilation, over time the impact of second-hand smoke might be diminished by the fact that the place would not be 100 per cent. enclosed. We want to protect workers when they would be most exposed, which is when people are actually smoking. I accept that these are two slightly different sets of issues.

To sum up, we are trying to get a clear definition of “substantially enclosed”, which we would like to be much more comprehensive than the Government envisage, and we are trying to ensure that workers in private clubs who are going to be exposed to second-hand smoke are not exposed to it at the point at which it will do the most damage.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

This is an interesting group of amendments. It is particularly interesting that amendment No. 45 is grouped with amendments Nos. 69 and 41, because it introduces a new range of issues relating to private membership clubs.

However, I would like to direct my remarks chiefly to amendment No. 69, tabled in my name and those of my party colleagues. Its purpose is to underscore the need to insist on an evidence base for the provisions of a Health Bill. The guiding star for my hon. Friends and me has been this question: how will the Bill improve people’s health? We are not as interested in nuisance, amenity or courtesy, because although those matters are important, this is a Health Bill, and we believe that they should be dealt with in other legislation.

What we want to focus on above all is the impact on health of both second-hand smoke and smoking in general. Amendment No. 69 insists that when we define what is enclosed and what is not, we ask how it will affect public health, based on the evidence available to us.

We are intrigued by amendment No. 41, and we agree that there is considerable ambiguity; indeed, ambiguity runs through the Bill. A lot is left to the imagination, but that has to do with the Bill’s structure and the fact that much will be contained in regulations, the contents of which we are not certain about.

We need more clarification of what is in the Minister’s mind when she talks about “enclosed” and “substantially enclosed”. We share the dismay of the hon. Member for Northavon that the Bill does not contain something a little more specific that gives us some clue what is in the Minister’s mind. In the guidance notes and elsewhere, she has referred to examples of stadiums to which regulations may apply. That touches again on the distinction between public health issues and amenity or nuisance issues. I underscore the fact that we believe that such matters should be determined by considerations of improving public health, rather than of nuisance or amenity.

It is difficult for us to see how smoking in a stadium would have a significant impact on an individual who happened to be there for a while. It clearly would not, except under very specific circumstances; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to one or two of them. We also need to consider what a bus shelter is. It is substantially enclosed, but it is not clear whether people waiting for a bus in the rain would be prevented from smoking in a bus shelter.

If I am not careful I will trespass on the ground of the former Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Secretary of State for Defence, and his interpretation of the legislation and where the Government should be going. Far be it from me to encourage divisions between Ministers, but his philosophy on this issue is profoundly different from that of the present Secretary of State for Health.

I would like some clarification about what is enclosed, what is not enclosed and what is substantially enclosed. I accept the Minister’s argument that it would be inappropriate to put down chapter and verse to the nth degree; that would be impossible. However, the Bill leaves far too many questions unanswered. I entirely share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon that it will be a bean feast for lawyers. I look around the room, Mr. Illsley, and I see no lawyers, so I can be as mean as I like about them. They will be eyeing up the Bill with anticipation, and we must do what we can to deprive them of whatever livelihood they might derive from it.

Amendment No. 45 touches on a new range of concerns to do with private membership clubs. We would draw a distinction between public and private space. To some extent, I accept the Minister’s concern that the Bill is a compromise between the desire to improve public health and the desire to maintain individuals’ right to do as they wish. However, those two meet on the question of private membership clubs, which are dealt with in clause 3. Such clubs are not public spaces but, I submit, an extension of private space. None the less, we must consider work-related matters. People work there, and my comments on occupational exposure standards, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Health and Safety Executive and the rest still pertain to private membership clubs. Nevertheless, they are distinctly different from pubs that serve food—and, indeed, those that do not. In that context, it is right that they should be considered slightly separately.

We also have to consider what is trivial exposure. That is where I probably disagree with the hon. Member for Northavon, although the amendment is well made. The Minister cited the example of someone being called into a smoking room—perhaps because of an altercation—who had not been habitually exposed to such an environment. Unless that person had an unusual medical complaint, that could be regarded as a relatively trivial exposure, but I am not sure whether the Minister intends such trivial exposure to be covered by the Bill.

Similarly, the amendment would remove the possibility of those working in private membership clubs being exposed to tobacco smoke. That is a purist way of looking at things, and I am not sure that it has any grounding in evidence. I accept that it is unpleasant to go into a room full of smokers—it is not something that I would want to do—but workers should have an element of choice. Those who work in private membership clubs, or in the hospitality sector in general, are less likely to have an aversion to tobacco smoke, but that does not mean, as has been said before, that we should not give them protection from second-hand smoke. However, when we are considering relatively trivial exposure to second-hand smoke, it is practically and realistically germane to the argument.

A conflict arises between the need to protect public health and protecting the occupational health of employees. The question is where to draw the line. Insisting that nobody, under any circumstances, should come within a million miles of a whiff of tobacco smoke is unrealistic. I am not entirely convinced of the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. However, measures can be taken, such as insisting on proper ventilation, even in private membership clubs. That would get round some of the concerns that he rightly expressed.

If we can put in place measures that would reduce occupational exposure to smoke to an acceptable level, even in private membership clubs, which I maintain should be exempt, that would be a positive thing. However, I see nothing in the Bill that would enable that to happen, or make it more likely. I insist that proper occupational exposure standards for people who work in environments where there will be exposure to second-hand smoke would be a positive way forward. It would improve the occupational health of people in the hospitality industry overall, and in the context of the amendment, it would improve the occupational health of people who work in private membership clubs.

I suspect that that suggestion might make me terribly unpopular with a range of private membership clubs, such as working men’s clubs and even Conservative clubs, so I must be a little careful about how far I take it. However, most people would accept that reducing employees’ occupational exposure is a good thing. I am concerned that nothing in the Bill makes reference to the part that ventilation and engineering can play in reducing occupational exposure in the categories that the Minister is minded to exempt by regulation.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

In order to tease out what is meant by the words “substantially enclosed”, I invite the Minister to take an imaginary journey with me from Paddington station, heading west. I should say that Paddington station is substantially enclosed. It has a train shed covering the entire station concourse. Every platform has a roof over it. However, it has, of course, a big opening at the front to enable the trains to come in, and quite a large opening on to the ramp at the hotel end, to allow people to exit to get taxis or go on to the highway. Is that substantially enclosed under the Bill?

At my constituency destination of Bristol Temple Meads the station is partially covered by a roof. Platform No. 3, the main platform, has a complete roof over it, but all the other platforms are just traditional platforms. Under the Bill, would the entirety of Bristol Temple Meads be a substantially enclosed, smoke-free public place or not? If I were to go through the Severn tunnel to Cardiff central station I should find that it had no roof over it at all. It just has traditional platforms. Would it be substantially enclosed or not? Will we, under the Bill, have to carry out an assessment of every railway station to see whether it is substantially enclosed under the regulations?

The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned stadiums. If I were watching either Bristol rugby club or Bristol Rovers football club at the Memorial stadium in my constituency, and people were smoking around me, I might, because of the wind blowing about in the stadium, still be covered in cigarette smoke and still have to breathe it in, whether or not there was a roof. However, the Millennium stadium in Cardiff has a retractable roof. If it is over the stadium, the stadium is clearly completely enclosed by any definition, but if it is open it is not at all enclosed. There will be many anomalies under the Bill, even between railway stations and different types of stadiums, and people could drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Will the Minister give some commonly understood examples of what she thinks would be a substantially enclosed public space falling within the Bill, and what would be the opposite?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, West about train stations is interesting, because one of the reasons for making King’s Cross station smoke-free had nothing to do with health; the reason was safety, after the King’s Cross fire. Voluntary measures have been undertaken for a variety of reasons.

Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for Northavon and for Westbury, I should mention that the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, West was quite helpful. It made it clear that it would be difficult to specify in the Bill the different scenarios and buildings. To be fair, that has proved the same in Ireland and Scotland, which is why we will consult on draft regulations and on how we can add detail about smoke-free areas through regulations. There are several factors to take into account. Exposure is one, and another is the building itself, including matters such as its size and the size of openings. We are not trying to be difficult but, even in Ireland, where there is a total ban in certain areas and there are exemptions in others, there have been complications with definitions. So that we do not become tied up in a bureaucratic tangle, such matters are best dealt with through regulations.

Amendments Nos. 41 and 69 would add further qualifications to those set out under subsection (5), which gives regulation-making powers to define “enclosed” and “substantially enclosed”. That is a matter on which we consulted during the summer. People voiced different opinions and we are thinking about what they said. I hope that what I have to say next will clearly set out to the hon. Member for Northavon where we should move through regulation.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman tried to do by restricting the definition of “enclosed” or “substantially enclosed”, so that a definition in the regulations could not specify a figure below a half. Rather than putting such matters in the Bill, I believe that they will be properly dealt with in regulations. The amendment would put an arbitrary limit on the definition.

When we consulted in the summer, we proposed a definition that was based on south Australian legislation that used a measurement of 70 per cent., but included the roof and wall area in that calculation. Worries were expressed about that definition during the consultation. There was also an uncertain view about what else we should be doing. However, while I cannot in principle accept the amendment for the reasons that I have outlined, I am minded to follow the definition drawn up for regulations under Scottish legislation. That would set “substantially enclosed” as when openings had an area less than half the area that constituted the perimeter. I am inclined down that route at the moment. We are still discussing the issues and we will publish draft regulations.

I turn now to amendment No. 45. I shall come back to amendment No. 69. I agree with several points made by the hon. Member for Westbury about amendment No. 45. It would create a situation in which people working in membership clubs and workers providing goods or services to those clubs were not allowed to go into areas where people were smoking. Such a rule would have consequences, for example, if there was an altercation or something else happened that the club staff had to attend to. If a fight broke out or a person was selling drugs on the premises, it would be ridiculous to prevent staff from taking action in line with their other duties and responsibilities because smoking was taking place in an area.

A decision to prohibit exposure to smoking in the bar area applies equally to private membership clubs. Such matters will therefore form part of our consultation. The hon. Member for Westbury asked what more could do to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke in those areas where smoking is not completely banned. We should deal with protection around the bar area by regulation. I am not sure that the amendment is helpful.

Amendment No. 69 suggests that, in drawing up definitions of “enclosed” and “substantially enclosed”, we should have

“regard to the excess health risk conferred on an individual by virtue of the enclosure.”

I am not sure whether it was the intention of the hon. Member for Westbury, but the amendment seems to suggest that there might be a threshold of excess health risk from second-hand smoke that could allow smoking to continue in enclosed premises and that the level of risk could be monitored under the regulations.

On several occasions, the hon. Gentleman has referred to an air quality standard that should be met, or a ventilation standard. I am not convinced that either of those options offers meaningful protection from second-hand smoke. Neither am I convinced that it is helpful, considering the direction in which we are moving in relation to smoke-free places, to come up with an arbitrary or debated conclusion on what is an adequate level of ventilation. There are many different views on that. No one is saying to private members’ clubs, nightclubs or pubs that serve only drink that they should not have ventilation on their premises. It is appropriate that they should decide that; it is not for us to try to define or regulate such matters in the Bill.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I just want to clarify something. The purpose of my amendment is to impress on Ministers the need to base their definition in this matter on public health grounds and the evidence base, rather than on considerations—such as nuisance or amenity—of the sort that might be influencing the Liberal Democrats’ thinking when they talk about Paddington station or stadiums in Cardiff.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I said earlier, in bringing forward the Bill we considered evidence from several sources, including evidence on the dangers to people’s health of exposure to second-hand smoke. At this point, we as a Government feel that we can act on what people told us, which was to restrict smoking in more public places and workplaces. That is the intention of the Bill. It is not a narrowly defined piece of health and safety legislation. We have been clear about that. It is about increasing people’s opportunities to work and socialise in more smoke-free environments. Every worker who does not work in a smoke-free environment will be better protected when the legislation is passed. Even organisations that support a total ban recognise that the Bill takes us forward a step, and that it will reduce the number of deaths and illnesses caused by second-hand smoke.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

This has been a fruitful discussion. It is helpful to get some indication from the Minister of her latest thinking. We are heartened that there is some indication of a drift from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. Although that is not a firm commitment, we see it as a move in the right direction that is in the spirit of our amendment, so we welcome that.

I move briefly to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend Member for Bristol, West. We are not asking for a schedule 93 to the Bill containing a list of train stations, but we want to know what we are legislating for. We want to know whether public places such as Paddington station will be caught by the Bill. It is hard to assess whether one supports a measure if one has little feel for what will come within its scope. We are not asking for chapter and verse in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will give us more of a feel in later sittings of the scope of what we are talking about, recognising that the fine detail will come later.

On the issue of private clubs, I accept the Minister’s point that we cannot completely stop workers from ever going into a smoky environment. What we are driving at with the amendment is whether they have to do so routinely as a condition of employment, although I accept that that is not fully conveyed by the drafting of the amendment.

The hon. Member for Westbury makes a good point with amendment No. 69 about assessing the extent of exemptions and interventions against some health benefit criteria. The Minister keeps telling us that this is not a narrow health and safety Bill, but a lot of me wishes that this bit of it were, as that would keep us focused and would get rid of some of the arbitrary exemptions. We have made some progress and have heard about some encouraging developments from the Minister, so we will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Standing Committee E

Clause 2 - Smoke-free premises

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (8).

I will not detain the Committee for long. This is a probing amendment, which would remove voluntary work from the clause. I have proposed it because I am concerned about people doing voluntary work in, for example, a village hall. We have heard a lot about village halls in the past few months in connection with the Licensing Act, and they are close to my heart.

I am thinking about the volunteer participating in a village fete who is smoking, believing himself not to be in a workplace, in his own time, and who is thus exposing those around him to what one might call a trivial level of tobacco smoke. I do not believe that it is the Minister's intention to criminalise that kind of activity. I would also point out that those who have gainful employment are one thing, but volunteers are in a different league.

I do not want to belittle the valuable contribution that volunteers make to our society—quite the reverse. Nevertheless, they have a degree of control over what they do that those whose livelihoods depend on what they are doing arguably do not. Therefore, I consider that the two classes of activity fall into different categories, yet the Bill lumps them together. I should be grateful for the Minister's reflection on that. Although I do not intend to press the point, it would be helpful if the Minister would agree that the two categories are different and should be dealt with differently.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said that this was a probing amendment, because we were puzzled about the intention behind it. There are many circumstances in which voluntary workers come into contact with the public—I am thinking of the charity shops that operate all over my constituency, and no doubt in those of all other hon. Members. I recently opened the Christmas card charity shop in my constituency. That is run entirely by volunteers in a church hall. If this amendment were to be agreed, I assume that it would be acceptable for the volunteers there to smoke, although they are in contact with the public in an entirely enclosed space. Charity concerts and fund-raising events would also be covered by the exemption if the amendment were accepted.

Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) mentioned his oboe lessons. If he were giving an oboe recital—I do not know whether he is still capable of such things—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to proceed on an erroneous assumption. Although the amendment would remove voluntary work from the definition of work, the situations in his illustrations would not be exempt, because they involve events or premises that are open to the public. They would still be required to be smoke-free because they are open to the public.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I am grateful for that clarification, and I shall not pursue my hon. Friend and his oboe. Let me give another example, on which it would be interesting to hear the Minister's clarification of the Government's position. Another event that I attended recently was the opening of what is to be the homeless hostel in the centre of Bristol. Homeless people will be able to spend Christmas and the period up to the new year there. That is run entirely by volunteers, but most of the people in the hostel will want to smoke. It is in an enclosed space, and it is run by volunteers. When the Government included voluntary work in the definition of work, did they think through—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is moving to another example; although the amendment would not itself exclude such a hostel, such hostels are likely to be excluded by virtue of the exemptions in clause 3(2)(a), as they are places where people have their home, albeit temporarily.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me ask the Minister to say whether, when the Government included voluntary work in the definition, they had considered all aspects of voluntary work. By the very nature of their work, volunteers come into contact with people who habitually smoke. Running a homeless hostel would seem to be a good example. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on how people running such hostels would be affected by the Bill.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

A question arises as a result of this short debate about where volunteers work. Stafford, like many places, has a council for voluntary services, and volunteers and workers paid by voluntary organisations work together. I would expect the Bill to make those premises smoke-free for the benefit of all who work there, including the volunteers.

This morning's example of the plumber working in someone's bathroom makes me think of all the volunteers who go to people's homes—for instance, those from Home-Start and Age Concern, which provide house-sitting services. I would expect those homes not to be considered places of work; otherwise everyone's home would become an obligatory smoke-free area. That is a different point from the one raised by the amendment, but it is nevertheless important.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I think the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. We are all familiar with political party work. During the last election for the county council division of Melbourn, which happily, we won from the Liberal Democrats, my party had its committee rooms in my house. Did it become a place of work under the Bill while people were working there voluntarily? We are trying to find where the boundary lies between work space and private space, and I would cite the elephant test: we look at it, and we know what it is. In this case, the test is whether people are working. Work is often defined by the fact that people are paid, but not always. Trying to discover whether something is an elephant will sometimes be extremely difficult.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would not expect the Bill to create smoke-free zones in every home simply because volunteers might sometimes work there. Perhaps the Minister can assure us about that.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have had an interesting discussion. The Bill clearly covers public places. We would expect some of the places mentioned in the examples—village halls and so forth—to be smoke free because they are places where the public go, perhaps when gathering to prepare for the Christmas fete.

Clause 2(8) includes a specific reference to voluntary work because we want to ensure that workplaces in which volunteers are part and parcel of an organisation's work force are not exempted simply because voluntary workers are present. A good example might be a charity that asks volunteers to come in once a week to stuff envelopes; we would not want such a workplace to have different rules for the volunteers.

As I said before, the Bill will make a substantial number of workplaces and public spaces and buildings smoke-free for the first time. I hope that I have explained why we reject the amendment. It would differentiate between volunteer workers and paid workers in one workplace, and that is not right.

As for the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), we are clearly not in the business to make smoking in people's homes illegal.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, we should reflect the fact that an individual's private space—for example, in a homeless hostel that serves as a place of residence for individuals—may be recognised in the exemptions. We are discussing how we recognise permanent or temporary residence in relation to such institutions, as well as mental health institutions, prisons and so forth. At the same time, we recognise that even in a homeless hostel, the communal areas could still be smoke-free and should be covered by our proposals.

For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment and I ask the hon. Member for Westbury to withdraw it.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

This has been a fruitful line of discussion, as we seek to tease out what is public and private and what constitutes trivial as opposed to habitual exposure to tobacco smoke. However, I would see volunteering as different from one's occupation, and I am sure that on reflection, the Minister would agree. Nevertheless, given her words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I do not want to delay the Committee, because we have already discussed several of the issues that arise on the clause. However, I want to register one question, although the Minister has already kindly undertaken to think about it. We are developing our understanding of how the Bill works, so perhaps I can characterise what we understand to be the position, and the Minister can tell us whether we are wrong.

Essentially, somewhere that is open to the public will be smoke-free. There are obviously exemptions, which we shall discuss in relation to licensed premises and clubs. With a place of work, there may be a presumption that it is smoke-free, but subsequent exemptions—particularly those for

''premises where a person has his home''—

would override that presumption.

I hope that the Minister agrees that that is broadly what the Bill is intended to do, but what degree of work is being undertaken, and by whom? That governs whether a home, by virtue of its also being a place of work, might none the less be required to be smoke-free. We cannot say that the two are simply segregated, and that various activities sometimes happen in the same space, at different times and to different degrees. I am not entirely clear how those specific illustrations will be dealt with. From our point of view—or rather, I should say my point of view—we are in the business of trying to ensure that the Bill does not excessively intervene in people's use of their own private space.

If the general presumption is that a place of work is smoke-free unless it is someone's home, that person's decision is likely to take precedence. I might tell my plumber and his mate that they cannot smoke in my home—indeed, that is the most likely thing to happen. Equally, if I have no problem with them smoking and I want them to smoke, that is my decision in my private space. We simply need to be clear at this stage that although there will inevitably be specific difficult issues with the definition, we are dealing with a hierarchy of decision making.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question about the plumber's mate. If their workplace, all day and every day, is bathrooms across the land, does the plumber's mate have the right to a smoke-free working environment?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is asking me for the answers. My personal view is that if the plumber is acting as the employer of his mate, he may have a responsibility to his employee not to smoke. However, the plumber cannot decide for himself whether he can smoke in someone's private home; that is a decision for the owner. I am attempting to establish clearly—unless the Minister tells me otherwise—that there is a general hierarchy, but with some difficult exceptions. We must be clear that those are exceptions rather than the rule.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is important that we have the opportunity to air these issues in Committee. This is a question of what is proportionate and practical, but there is a hierarchy in some areas, especially when a residence is partially used as a workplace or when people provide a service in a private residence. Those are the two areas on which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire sought clarification. I shall expand a little on our discussions before lunch to give an idea of where we are going.

A number of scenarios must be examined with regard to regulations and guidance rather than the Bill. Let us return to the example of the music teacher mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon. If the oboe lessons took place in a dedicated teaching room, and that was the sole purpose of that room, within a private house, my inclination is that it should be smoke-free at all times. That should not be an issue, because the room is a defined space. That is like the GP's surgery in this morning's discussion, in which consultation rooms or the reception area are defined spaces only for that use, not for other domestic activities. If, however, lessons took place in the music teacher's living room, I would expect the room to be smoke-free only while the lessons are taking place. That would be a sensible and proportionate scenario.

Moreover, common sense must be used by the public when choosing to buy services from someone who provides services at home. The customer has the choice to opt for the pipe-smoking oboe teacher referred to by the hon. Member for Northavon, or the non-smoking oboe teacher down the road, who also provides services from home. There must be a sensible common-sense approach.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I hope that this is not a difficult question. The Minister's reference to some of the examples raises the parallel question of whether a space is part of a premises treated as non-domestic for rateable valuation purposes. I wonder whether there is a way to link what we are doing to some pre-existing determination, rather than creating an entirely new mechanism.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will reflect on that question. We attempted to address some of the issues that were faced by other countries that have established restrictions and bans, and we examined how they proceeded. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said and return to that matter as we debate further clauses.

I was trying to deal with services provided at a property that includes domestic premises. The second example given by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is rather different, and relates to people coming to one's home to provide a service, and how the regulations might fit that situation. My inclination is to support what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said. In the situation described, the onus is on the person paying for the service to say whether they are happy for the plumber, or whoever, to smoke in their home. I think that the hon. Member for Northavon referred to plumbers in bathrooms throughout the land. Again, we must consider what is proportionate.

The hon. Member for Westbury referred to how long people might be exposed. When we come to clause 5, which relates to vehicles, hon. Members will see that we take a different tack in that regard. For example, the vehicles of plumbers and other tradespeople are almost like a movable office. We believe that there should be protection in that respect for the plumber's employees—the plumber's mate and so on.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. The case that I had in mind was a smoker who works on his own, probably from home, but who has throughout the day constant deliveries or people popping in and out in the course of running his business. Individually, each of those people has what I would regard as a trivial exposure to that person's smoke. Is the Minister saying that that chap has to stub out his cigarette every time someone knocks on his door? That seems to me to be a pedantic way for him to behave and I am sure that the exposure to the smoke would have no effect on the health of the person visiting him, unless they had a particular sort of medical condition. In the round, it would have no effect on their chances, for example, of succumbing to lung cancer.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is an interesting example. In respect of a home office where only one person works, my feeling is that it is up to that person whether it should be smoke-free. I will reflect further, though, on the issue of visitors. The scenario that I envisage is someone working from home. There may be the occasional call to the house, but there is not open access to members of the public. If there was such access, I would be more concerned about whether the place was smoke-free, but my inclination at this stage is that if only one person really uses the office and it is someone working from home, it is up to them whether it should be smoke-free. As I said, however, I will reflect further to ensure that the scenario described is covered, because of course someone who works from home could have clients and so on call on him. I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have outlined my inclination at this stage.

The clause takes us substantially further forward. It provides for enclosed and substantially enclosed premises to which the public have access to be smoke-free, unless specifically exempted by regulations. That will cover places such as shops, cinemas, leisure centres, museums and cafés in a way that they are not covered at present. The appropriate national authority will specify in regulations what ''enclosed'' and ''substantially enclosed'' mean. I have today given the Committee an indication of our thinking on those definitions. I am minded to follow the Scottish example, but we will consult on the definitions in due course to ensure that we get them right.

We intend that the regulations will cover all premises that are completely enclosed by walls and a roof, and premises that are mostly enclosed so that smoke cannot easily escape, such as an open-fronted café. The definition will include temporary structures such as marquees, provided that they fall under the definition of an enclosed or substantially enclosed public place or work space. That is important, too.

If more than one person uses the premises as a place of work, even if the people are not there at the same time, the premises will need to be smoke-free at all times. If members of the public have access to premises to receive goods or a service, those premises should be smoke-free as well. As I said, however, I will reflect on some of the comments made in Committee this afternoon. The provisions will also ensure that places such as those used by people working shifts—for example, a small, one-person cabin staffed by security guards—are smoke-free. It is important to recognise that.

There will be cases in which services that the public use are housed in someone's private residence. We had a good discussion about that this afternoon in which relevant issues and scenarios were presented. I hope, therefore that we can make progress on this clause. I am grateful to have had the chance to discuss and explore the relevant and sometimes difficult issues with which we will have to deal in regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Exemptions

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert—

'( ) No regulations shall be made that permit any premises not to be smoke-free despite section 2 for more than two years from the date that such regulations come into force.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 75, page 57, line 25, after 'section', insert '2 (5)'.

No. 3, in clause 75, page 57, line 25, after '4', insert '5'.

No. 4, in clause 75, page 57, line 25, leave out '6(8)' and insert '6'.

No. 68, in clause 75, page 57, line 45, at end add—

'(8) Any statutory instrument made under Part 1 of this Act will cease to have effect three years after it comes into force unless the instrument concerned has been laid before and approved for continuation by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 54, in clause 79, page 59, line 40, at end insert—

'(5A) Part 1 and sections 72 and 73 so far as relating to offences under that Part shall come into force in relation to England at noon on 1st January 2007;'.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Illsley, and the Committee, for not being here for the beginning of the debate on these important issues. I was chairing a Select Committee sitting next door.

The clause deals with exemptions. The position that I took on Second Reading was that there should not be any exemptions, as they represent a fatal flaw in the Bill. I shall not rehearse those arguments, but I note that of the 21 interventions in that debate from Government Members, 18 expressed some impatience—I put it no stronger than that—with the Government's progress towards a smoke-free environment. It remains to be seen how many of those 18 are represented in the Committee. It may be that the responsibility of articulating that view falls on the slender shoulders of Opposition Members.

I start from the position that there should not be any exemptions, but my amendment would give an element of compromise by putting a two-year cap on the exemption period, so that there would be, if not quite a sunset clause, a stubbing-out clause on smoking in public premises. I understand that there is not an enormous gap between my position with the amendment and that of the Secretary of State, who said on BBC's ''Sunday AM'' programme on 27 November:

''I have said several times before, I think it is only a matter of time before we get to a total ban.''

According to a report of a Labour party meeting—to which, obviously, I was not privy—by Matthew Tempest on 29 November:

''The health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, tonight held out an olive branch to critics of the government's partial ban on smoking in pubs, hinting that the prohibition could apply to all pubs by 2010.''

If one adds two years to the inception date of the Bill, which is likely to be 2007, my amendment would mean that the exemptions would have to stop by 2009—merely one year ahead of the timetable suggested by the Secretary of State. If we are to come to a satisfactory compromise and avoid a confrontation on Report, the Committee should consider agreeing to a settlement close to that proposed in my amendment or in the other amendments in the group.

If it is, indeed, only a matter of time before we get to a total ban, I do not see much advantage in leaving a period of uncertainty ahead for the industry and the health lobby. When the Minister replies, will she confirm that it is Government policy that it is only a matter of time before we get to a total ban? That might not be wonderful news for the Secretary of State for Defence, but it would at least produce some clarity of purpose and intention regarding Government policy on health. It would also be in the industry's interests to have some certainty about when the end of exemptions will be. The two-year extension to exemptions that I propose would give the industry some certainty and time to plan for the transition to a smoke-free environment, rather than leaving a further period of uncertainty, which is the current position with the time scale of two or three years followed by a review with an uncertain outcome.

I recognise that there may need to be consequential amendments to my amendment if one is to restore to the Bill the sensible exemptions in, for example, subsection (2)(a). Subsection (2)(b) is the particular object of my amendment to knock out the exemption for licensed premises.

This is a consensual bridge-building amendment that seeks to get the Government out of a difficulty in which they find themselves. I hope that the Minister will reply in the same spirit to my genuine attempt to solve the Government's problems and difficulties.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Just so we may be sure of my right hon. Friend's precise intention in amendment No. 57, may I ask whether he seeks to remove all exemptions so that the regulations are not renewable but are simply struck out after two years?

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

That is exactly what the impact would be, but as I said towards the end of my remarks, there would need to be a consequential amendment to retain the exemptions that we have just been talking about in, for example, subsection (2)(a). If the Government said that they were entirely happy with the removal of exemptions for licensed premises, for example, and possibly the exemption in subsection (2)(c), but that a consequence of accepting my amendment would be that another one was needed to restore the exemptions in subsection (2)(a), I would be entirely happy with that as an outcome of this debate.

I do not need to add any more to what I have said. I hope that I will elicit the consensual response to which I believe my amendment is entitled.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his clear expression of the purpose of his amendment. I confess that I do not agree that it would be desirable for it to be accepted, because it would remove the straightforward mechanism in clause 3 to set exemptions of the character that may be required. As he acknowledged, we agree that there may have to be exemptions; indeed, our debate on clause 2 tended to illustrate the nature of such exemptions.

If regulations were not made under clause 3, every time someone went home to work or the public visited that home, it would have to be treated as a smoke-free place where it would be an offence for anyone to smoke. I know that my right hon. Friend does not disagree that there would need to be consequential amendments, and I understand his point, but it would be simpler for us not to delete the power to make regulations that provide for exemptions and then have to reintroduce it in another form.

My right hon. Friend rightly says that he is aiming his target elsewhere, and that we will discuss later the nature of any exemptions that are appropriate. It would be more fruitful to focus on that. The amendments, as I see them, drive towards a separate set of issues. What will be the timetable for the use of regulations, of powers and of exemptions?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that his question is very valid. If the Government are aiming for a particular destination in 2010, should not they be clear about what precisely they are aiming for when they legislate in 2005? If they intend in 2009–10 to change substantially the basis on which all these measures are to be introduced, and they are already thinking about what they will do, it would be appropriate for them to put that into legislation now and for the intervening period to be regarded as a transitional one, rather than to legislate for one outcome while hinting to their Back Benchers and teasing them about what they will actually do in a year or two.

The Government may talk about what will happen in 2009–10, but the Opposition may be rather confident that we will be in a position to determine what happens in 2009–10 and thereafter rather more than the current Government are. I look forward to that very much. I will not go further down that path, Mr. Illsley; we shall enjoy the sunshine while it lasts.

Other amendments in the group also go to the question of what is intended, in terms of the life of exemptions, the life of the structure of regulation and enforcement that the Government are proposing in the first place, and the nature of the review process that the Government have hinted at but not made explicit.

My amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 68 relate to clause 75. We are debating clause 3, so it seems a bit premature to be talking about clause 75, but they are related in the sense that the impact of so much of this part of the Bill will be determined by regulations. They will deal with matters such as the definition of enclosed and substantially enclosed, which was the subject of a Liberal Democrat amendment. That debate illustrated the exact nature of those questions, which have been of considerable significance in the implementation of a smoking ban in Ireland, for example. As things stand, that is provided for in clause 2(5). Under clause 75(4)(a), the requirement for the affirmative procedure is limited to regulations made under clauses 3, 4, 6, 6(8), 7(5) and 9(6). It does not mention clause 2, yet as our debate on clause 2 shows, the definition of enclosed and substantially enclosed warrants the affirmative procedure, so that the matter is debated properly by this House when that power is exercised.

Amendment No. 3 relates to clause 5. We have not yet debated it, but the Minister has already illustrated the wide-ranging nature of the requirement on vehicles to be smoke-free. Presumably that will include not only vehicles used for carriage of the public, but vehicles used in the course of employment and perhaps vehicles that are carrying other people. The explanatory notes refer to cars being required to be smoke-free when a car-sharing scheme is in place. Those are wide-ranging additional powers that intervene in people's use of vehicles of all kinds, so it would be proper to have that power dealt with in regulations. Clause 5 contains almost nothing other than a statement at, at some point, the Government will decide which vehicles are to be smoke-free—cf later in brackets. If we are to produce legislation on the matter of smoke-free vehicles, it must go through the affirmative procedure.

The affirmative procedure is contemplated for regulations made under clause 6(8), which deals with the fine to be applied for a failure to display no-smoking signs. However, elsewhere clause 6 requires regulations to be made on the display of signs, and, particularly in subsection (2), the duties to be imposed on those who are responsible for premises in respect of managing smoke-free premises, displaying no-smoking signs and controlling the entry of persons who have to enter smoke-free premises. So far, there is nothing in clause 75 that suggests that those regulations, when made, will be the subject of the affirmative procedure. I feel quite strongly about that. If legislation is to be largely permissive and much of the structure has to be governed by regulations, those regulations should be based on an affirmative resolution.

I would be content if the Minister said that the regulations will be transferred to the affirmative procedure, at least the first time. That is not what I put in the amendment, but it is perfectly possible to say that the first time that regulations in respect of the powers are made, the affirmative procedure will be used. As we are all being consensual and congenial, I offer that as a positive suggestion that the Minister might embrace.

Amendment No. 68 relates to the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about amendment No. 57, but is different because it is not only about regulations made under clause 3. I propose that all regulations made under this part of the Bill will cease to have an effect three years after it comes into effect unless they are re-approved. That is, in effect, a requirement for a comprehensive review and legislative renewal of the provisions after three years.

I freely confess that there is a case for sunset clauses on some but not necessarily all of the regulations, but it seems simpler at this stage to move the amendment to discover the Government's intention. If the Government intend to have a review at a specific moment, I shall be content if they tell us what the boundary of that review will be and set out in the legislation the requirement that it will take place in a transparent way at a transparent moment with clear boundaries on what is to be reviewed—for example, exemptions and the like. We need some sort of sunset clause arrangement, because we are dealing with something that is likely to be difficult to enforce and comply with. There is bound to be a need for review and change at some point.

The Government have to do more than contemplate the need for such a review. They have expressly made it clear that they wish at some point to have a substantial review, leading towards a different set of parameters on the nature of the smoking ban, but we ought to know now when that will happen and there is no substitute for stating that in explicit terms in the Bill. I hope that the Government will do that, either in the form suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, or in something of a general sunset clause of the type that I propose.

As for amendment No. 54, to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) will no doubt speak in a moment, I am not persuaded that hastening the day to 1 January is necessarily the best approach. If one were in local government and contemplating the enforcement of the measures, one would not wish to do so on 1 January. I suspect that one would not want to do it in mid-winter, but that late spring or early summer would be more convenient times for the enforcement officers to start the process. More notice is needed than would be possible for 1 January 2007. Early summer 2007 is the earliest practical moment for all the requirements to have been communicated effectively to employers and premises managers, along with all the things they have to do to comply.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk)

I wish to focus on the comments made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. I broadly agree with the sentiments he expressed—I suspect that most of us do. He mentioned the Secretary of State for Defence, who probably feels the same way. However, the main thing is that one has to legislate with a high degree of consent. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he would rather have no exemptions, but if we legislated on that basis, the Bill would not work. There is insufficient consent to enable us to have no exemptions. The difficulty about setting a clear date in the future, whether it is two years or one and a half years—in effect, putting in a sunset clause—is that if we did not have the necessary degree of consent by then, the legislation would be equally unworkable at that point. I agree that at some stage in the future we want no one to be smoking in public places—no one to be smoking anywhere, frankly. However, the amendments would introduce a degree of inflexibility which would make the legislation essentially unworkable.

My primary concern is that—contrary to what most people argue—there is an issue of displacement. When I talk to my constituents who attend clubs that will be exempted under clause 3—frequently the least well off constituents—I am told by them, not by academic research, that if they are not able to smoke and drink in their clubs, they will simply smoke and drink at home more. Similar legislation has gone through the Scottish Parliament and people will flag up that there has been a great deal of debate and academic research related to it. However, when as a constituency MP I speak to members of such clubs, they tell me that they will drink at home as a consequence of being displaced.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting argument, but is it his thesis that although the legislation in Scotland has gone ahead without the consent to which he referred, it will work?

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk)

I hear the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, this would not be the first time that legislation has been different in Scotland and in England. The Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member implemented the poll tax, in effect, as a pilot in Scotland before it was implemented in England. I see no problem with legislation being different. I am in this Parliament to vote and speak on reserved matters, of which this is one, and my colleagues in Scotland are there to do the same for Scotland. I see no difficulty in there being two different legislative bases for action. However, the objective is the same in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.

Most people want to see the end of smoking in due course, but the key issue is whether there is workable legislation. I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and I accept the general principle that there needs to be a review at some point, but if we bind the Government's hands with a sunset clause, we could end up with unworkable legislation because there has not been enough education for there to be sufficient public consent.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I will first deal with amendment No. 57, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and with which we have some sympathy. We have heard the Secretary of State say both on Second Reading and in the many interviews that she has given to the media that it is only a matter of time before there is legislation in England similar to the legislation in Scotland about which the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) has just told us. The Government intend to introduce such legislation in Northern Ireland as well, and no doubt the Welsh Assembly will shortly introduce similar legislation in Wales. However, we are not clear what time frame the Government have in mind. When will they review the exemptions that they propose in the Bill?

It is a shame the Government cannot state clearly when they think people in England will have exactly the same public health legislation as the devolved legislative areas. That is important to business certainty, which has not yet been raised. One must assume that if this legislation is passed unamended and there are licensed premises and private members' clubs where smoking continues, the owners of those businesses or the trustees of the clubs may have to incur significant capital expenditure to bring their premises up to scratch—perhaps to create segregated rooms, if we go down that route, or to install new ventilation equipment. That could cost business in the UK quite a lot of money in capital expenditure. Some of that expenditure by small businesses will qualify for capital allowances, so there will also be a tax cost to the Treasury.

All businesses like to operate in a climate of certainty. If I ran a pub that did not serve food and, because I wanted smoking to continue in my premises, I spent quite a lot of money on installing ventilation equipment, I would want to know that the money would not prove to have been wasted two or three years later because of a Government decision that it was time for England to catch up with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and have a full ban. I would have to rip out all the ventilation equipment, take down the partition walls and remove all the sealed doors that had been installed, to comply with the new law.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk)

That is just a straightforward business judgment. A businessman can decide for or against doing that now. Surely it is not Liberal Democrat policy to make capital investment decisions for business. Would the hon. Gentleman not allow businesses to make decisions for themselves?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is a matter for the businesses concerned, but for most of my career before I came to the House I was an adviser to small businesses, so I know that what small business men want from Parliament is some certainty within which to operate, and at the moment the Bill is not clear. We have heard from the Secretary of State that in future all the exemptions will be reviewed and the matter will be brought before the House again with a view to removing some or all of them. However, we do not know when that will be, and perhaps not all the exemptions will be removed. If I were a businessman I would be wary of incurring significant capital expenditure to protect my employees and customers from the effects of second-hand smoke if I thought that there was a chance that in two or three years the object of that expenditure would be scrap—probably not even scrap; who would want to buy second-hand smoke extraction equipment? There would not be a market for it.

We generally agree with amendments Nos. 2 to 4, which were tabled by the Conservative spokesman as opposed to one of the Conservatives' esteemed Back Benchers. All the new provisions in the Bill should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. In the debate this morning I gave the Minister a simple example of different types of railway stations that may or may not be affected by the Bill and invited her to give us an idea of the Government's intention in respect of substantially enclosed public places, but she declined to give a clear response on an example that I thought would be quite easy to deal with. It is important that various examples be set out in the appropriate parliamentary forms, to be considered in depth in future.

Amendment No. 54, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, deals with when the regulations should come into force. We suggested noon on 1 January 2007 for a reason alluded to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, who is just leaving. To some extent we are legislating while public opinion is moving. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members feel that public opinion is not yet in favour a smoking ban in England. That is a timid political position. The experience in Ireland, about which I have read quite a lot recently, is that as the time at which the legislation would come into force approached, support for it grew and afterwards it grew even more. Now no one can really contemplate returning to a situation in which smoking in public places is tolerated. I understand that the smoking ban was the most popular development in Ireland in the period in question.

I am sure that all members of the Committee have friends who have tried to give up smoking. They will have taken particular opportunities and chosen particular times to do so, such as their or their partner's birthday or some other important anniversary, or the start of the new year, which is the usual time to make resolutions. As I have never smoked, my resolution will probably be to cut down on puddings, because one thing that I have done since I came to this place is eat more than I should and as the Liberal Democrats' public health spokesperson I am probably not setting a good example. Still, many of our friends have always said that their No. 1 new year's resolution is to give up smoking.

Bringing the Bill into force at a time when usually not much else is going on in the news provides a good opportunity. The media often thrash around for stories at that time of year. This is an opportunity for the Government to run a major campaign that will bring the public with us. We could suggest a resolution for 2007: ''If you want to improve your own health and the general public health of the country, make it your new year's resolution to give up smoking in 2007.'' We picked noon because it would be impractical to start at the turn of midnight 2006–07, which is likely to be the first time when the full extent of our new 24-hour licensing laws will be seen. Bar managers, the police and others will have other things on their minds at that point. However, by noon on new year's day, people will be thinking about what they can do to improve their health in the coming year, particularly if they are nursing a hangover from the night before. That would enable many members of the public to resolve positively on 1 January 2007 that the best thing that they can do for their health is give up smoking.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have had an interesting debate, and I shall try to deal with all the points that have been raised in relation to each of the amendments. Amendment No. 57 proposes that regulations made under clause 3 to allow premises not to be smoke free should not be in force for more than two years. My first comment to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire would be that exemptions also apply, in subsection (2)(a), to places that are essentially a person's home. I am sure that he would agree that it is not necessarily worth revisiting those issues. We have spoken about residential care homes, prisons and hotels. I hope that when we come to discuss the exemptions in those areas and the regulations that will cover them, we will all agree that they are common-sense measures. Every country that has either a full ban or a partial ban has exemptions, and I understand that Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland intend to seek similar exemptions.

We might wish to change some of the exemptions in future but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, I believe that putting a two-year time limit on regulations is not the best way to achieve that. It does not give us enough flexibility. If changes are deemed to be appropriate, they will be made when the time is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear on Second Reading when she said

''we intend to monitor the impact of the ban, with the exceptions, from day one and to complete that review within three years. As I said, the Bill provides for a complete ban, but exceptions can be made by regulation. If, in the light of that review and monitoring, the Government and Parliament decide that they no longer want some or all of those exceptions, it will not require further primary legislation. It would be a simple thing to change.''—[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 153.]

As has been said in this debate, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I introduced the legislation is that public opinion has moved on. It was clear from the ''Choosing Health'' White Paper that people wanted the Government to legislate in this area. The earlier document ''Smoking Kills'' advocated self-regulation, but we feel that although there are some good examples of self-regulation, there are not enough to justify continuing with that approach. That is why we have introduced this Bill.

Having said that, it is fair to record that opinion is changing. That is acknowledged by representatives of the hospitality sector, bars and pubs. While there is not currently a majority in favour of a complete ban in all licensed premises, it is clear that opinion is shifting and our measures will add to the appetite for change. However, it would not be right to tie ourselves to the limits outlined in the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 propose that regulations defining the terms enclosed and substantially enclosed and the regulations on smoke-free vehicles and no-smoking signs should be subject to the affirmative procedure. A judgment always has to be made on when the affirmative procedure is appropriate for statutory instruments. The Committee will see that we consider the affirmative procedure to be appropriate for the regulations providing for the exemptions to permit smoking in enclosed and substantially enclosed premises, the regulations that will extend smoke-free provision to other smoke-free places, and the regulations that will set the penalties.

The rationale behind our decision on which areas should be dealt with under the affirmative procedure and which under the negative procedure has been partly influenced by what parliamentary counsel told us about custom and practice. I understand that the negative procedure should be used when the regulations are technical and uncontroversial and can be dealt with adequately via detailed consultation. I remind the Committee that, even for measures taken under the negative procedure, we will consult as usual—and, I hope, achieve consensus.

I will reflect on what has been said and seek further counsel on the definition of enclosed and partially enclosed. I will also take on board and consider the proposition made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that we should have a one-off affirmative procedure in the first instance. I do not know whether that is allowed, but I shall seek guidance.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I can tell the Minister with some certainty that it is possible to use the affirmative procedure when regulations are first made and to use the negative procedure thereafter. By way of an offer, if it might help, I would not insist on that in respect of the order-making power in clause 6, which defines where signs must be displayed and so on. However, as the Minister might expect, I feel strongly about the definition of enclosed and substantially enclosed, not least because a number of other issues hang on it. I cannot for the life of me understand why the regulations relating to vehicles should be regarded as non-controversial. We may be involved in details, but I am sure that the subject of vehicles will give rise to controversy. If we can do what I suggest—at least the first time—on regulations relating to clause 5 and clause 2(5), that would satisfy me.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I said, we have had a useful debate and I will consider that proposal. I have a note telling me that lawyers advise that it would be possible for the first regulations to be made under the affirmative procedure and then to use the negative procedure.

Amendment No. 68 proposes that statutory instruments made under part 1 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure every three years. I assure the Committee that changes to the arrangements will be made only after appropriate consultation with interested parties. I am a little concerned that the amendment seems to be an over-burdensome process for changing what would sometimes be minor or technical policy details. However, in the spirit of our earlier discussions, I shall think about when the affirmative procedure should apply and the proposition that it should apply in the first instance with the measures subsequently being subject to the negative procedure.

Amendment No. 54 suggests that the smoke-free provisions should commence at noon on 1st January 2007. We have stated our intention that the legislation should come into force in summer 2007. The amendment would bring forward the date for general workplaces by approximately six months and for licensed premises by approximately 18 months from the dates proposed in ''Choosing Health''. I must tell the hon. Member for Bristol, West that although introducing such measures on 1 January of any year is an attractive idea, I am not persuaded. The total ban in Ireland has not meant that people have completely given up smoking—anybody who has visited Ireland will know that people now go out in front of pubs or into pub gardens to smoke.

We have thought about this issue, and both the industry and the anti-smoking lobby took a common-sense approach to it in our consultation over the summer. They said that their preferred time was in the spring or summer. As ASH said in its response,

''it would be easier to win public consent for the new legislation if on the day of introduction it did not require smokers to go and smoke outside in Winter weather.''

The proposed date will give people more time to prepare for the changes and will—if we have a good English summer—be more attractive to the public and those managing the transition in business.

On the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I hope that I can correct any misinterpretation. I have had a look at the explanatory notes, and our intention is certainly not that private car shares should be smoke-free. I do not think that the explanatory notes say otherwise, although I stand to be corrected. Our intention is that the provisions should apply to business and public transport vehicles, which would be smoke-free.

On that basis, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

This has been a good-humoured and helpful debate. I accept, as the Minister says, that amendment No. 57 is a bit of a blunderbuss, which knocks out all the exemptions and then has to put some of them back in. In dismissing my argument, however, the Minister has raised my hopes that she will not be able to deploy the same defence when we reach amendment No. 55, which is targeted specifically at licensed premises.

It was helpful to have on the record a commitment to have a three-year review, although that is not, of course, in the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that it is a matter of time before we have a total ban and that that is not subject to the outcome of the review? There is a potential inconsistency in saying on the one hand that a total ban is a matter of time—the Secretary of State said that it could all be over by 2010—and on the other hand that we will have a review after three years to look at the issue, because the outcome of that review might be that the Government do not want a total ban. It would be helpful if we could be told—not necessarily in this debate, but on the next group of amendments—whether this is a one-way street and it is simply a matter of time, or whether the issue is subject to an open-ended review that might come up with a different result.

I do not entirely accept the arguments about public opinion. A higher percentage of people smoke in Scotland than in England, but Scotland is going ahead at a faster pace than England, so I do not quite understand the ingenious argument that the hon. Member for Falkirk deployed regarding public opinion. Nobody has explained why England is on a slower track than other parts of the United Kingdom on this important public health measure. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The Minister was right to question whether the explanatory notes refer to a car chare scheme. I was wrong about that. I was recalling an extract from the Library research paper—I attach great weight to such research papers—which says that, under clause 5(2)(d),

''A private car used in a car share scheme would have to be smokefree during those times that other passengers are carried.''

The Library might be wrong about that, but it was the research paper that I was relying on. I have no doubt that we will clarify the issue when we come to it. Forgive me, Mr. Illsley, but I did not want to mislead the Committee.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out from beginning of line to 'premises' in line 33 and insert

'specified premises may be only those'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 74, in clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out 'Examples of'.

No. 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out 'the following' and insert 'paragraph (a)'.

No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, after 'hotels', insert 'hospitals'.

No. 37, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37.

No. 58, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert

'provided that such premises or specific areas of such premises shall be smoke-free whenever any person, for whom they are a place of work, is present.'.

No. 67, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

'(d) HM ships and submarines'.

No. 34, in clause 3, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

'(c) in the case of retail premises, conditions requiring that the premises are held solely for the sale of specialist tobacco products and requisites.'.

No. 39, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (5).

I call Steve Webb—sorry, Stephen Williams.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley. Believe me, there is scope for confusion even in our own party about that, particularly as we also represent fairly neighbouring constituencies.

This group of amendments deals with what is perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the Bill: the exemptions both for public houses that do not serve food and for private members clubs. Although I am a relatively new Member of Parliament, many who are more senior say that it is quite extraordinary to use, as in subsection (2), the word ''examples'' in legislation.

This is the second Standing Committee on which I have served since the election in May. The first considered the Finance Bill. That was a much fatter Bill with intricate detail that was sometimes hard to follow. I cannot imagine the Treasury solicitors allowing to pass out of their door a draft Bill that contained the word ''examples''. It is an open invitation to the lawyers, the tax profession, the accountants and many others who make their living out of finding holes in legislation. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said this morning, it will be a bonanza for lawyers who want to pick holes in the Bill, particularly as the licensed trade is particularly profitable at the moment and can afford to engage the finest legal minds in the country.

Amendment No. 37 would tighten the clause by deleting from subsection (2)

''(b) licensed premises,

(c) premises in respect of which a club premises certificate is in force.''

Most of the debate will be about licensed premises. The Minister included that subsection to allow for public houses and other premises that do not serve food. This is a puzzle. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation why the Government think that the fact that someone has a bowl of soup, a more substantial meal or no meal in front of them affects their ability to breathe in second-hand smoke. There is clearly no relationship in health terms between whether one has a meal while one is in a pub having a drink or not. If there is smoke in the pub while one is simply drinking, one will still have to inhale it.

The reason for having this exemption is much more to do with social rather than health matters. Yet the Bill is a health Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said on Second Reading last Tuesday that it was thought that the Bill would be entitled the health improvement Bill. The word ''improvement'' has been dropped. Surely the reason for dropping that word is that the Government are unable to prove, if this exemption for public houses that do not serve food is allowed to stand, that there will be an improvement in people's public health. We will be interested to hear the Minister explain why the Government think that the health of someone who is having a meal should be protected but not that of someone who has gone out in a social environment, but is not having a meal.

Then there is the question of employees who may work for the same pub chain. Some of the chain's outlets may offer a lunchtime menu and others may not. There will be a disparity between the conditions of employment of different employees of a large pub chain. In one part of the business, they will have full protection under the law because the pub in which they work serves food, but, in another part of the same business, employees in a pub where food is not served will have lesser protection. Those employees may be earning the same salary with the same holiday entitlement and identical conditions of employment, but, due to the exemption in the Bill, they will have different protection under the law. That is very strange.

My background before coming here, as well as being a tax consultant, included studying for a degree in social and economic history. I am rather pleased that we are in this room, Mr. Illsley, where, above your head, hangs a rather famous painting of Gladstone's first cabinet. My university dissertation concerned the chap who is in the middle of that painting, Henry Austin Bruce, the first Lord Aberdare, who was vice-president of the local government board, which was the precursor of the Department of Health. He is one of the Minister's predecessors. All of the legislation that he and subsequent Ministers produced to create advancements in public health have had universal benefits. We have never before treated members of the public or classes of employees within the same business differently. This is a very unusual precedent for the Government to set.

On club premises, the same arguments apply. If smoking is harmful, why is it any less so if one's income and employment derives from the fact that one is a bar tender in a private members' club instead of a public house in the same street in any town or city in the country? If one works in a public house, why are one's public health needs any different from colleagues who work in the ''Prince of Wales'' club down the road? We cannot see any reason to differentiate. If this legislation is designed to protect employees and the public, why would one's health needs be any different depending on the establishment in which one has a drink or a meal?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the exemption for private clubs might create a loophole whereby other licensed premises that the Bill is intended to cover might convert themselves into members' clubs in a tokenistic way? Is he concerned that, if we retain the exemption, the wider force of the Bill may not be as effective as we had hoped?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I can already think of many clubs where one can take out temporary membership for one evening for all sorts of reasons such as hiring a DVD or a video. It is already possible for clubs to operate a policy whereby one can become a temporary member to enjoy the benefits of full membership. I am sure that it is quite possible that the ''Prince of Wales''—to use the example that I just mentioned—may have a register on the bar where people can pay 50p to become a temporary member of the ''Prince of Wales'' club, as opposed to the former ''Prince of Wales'' pub, solely so that the premises can take advantage of the exemption proposed in clause 3(2)(c).

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said on Second Reading last Tuesday that he has already heard of a Cheltenham pub manager who has suggested in public that he proposes to do precisely that so that he can find a way around the legislation. That establishment has always had the character of a public house and has never had exclusive membership benefits. Its character will change solely so that it can circumvent this public health legislation.

Amendment No. 39 is simply a consequential measure if the exemptions are removed. I am sure that all of our constituents are puzzled as to why a Bill that purports to be a public health measure differentiates in these rather odd ways. They simply cannot understand why it makes a difference to the health of customers or employees whether one is eating a meal or whether one is in a private members' club, and the exemptions need to be removed.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I rise to speak briefly to amendment No. 74, which would delete ''Examples of''. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us an example of any other primary legislation that has the words ''examples of'' in it. I certainly remember when trying to get Bills through the House that Members tabled amendments giving specific examples of organisations whom they would like to be consulted. The briefing was quite firm that it would not be appropriate to put examples into primary legislation as that was redundant and would create undesirable precedents. It would be very helpful if the Minister could resolve the question of whether this has happened before by saying where I might look for the words ''examples of'' in primary legislation.

We are left with some procedural difficulties, as everything in subsection (2) is simply an example, and it appears that the final regulations could exempt any other categories of workplace or enclosed public place that the Government choose, whether or not they are listed in clause 2. In other words, the Bill is consistent with ending smoking in any, all or no groups of workplaces. It follows that it is not absolutely clear what will be the consequence of, for example, accepting amendment No. 55.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the Committee decided to delete subsection (2)(b) and thereby remove licensed premises from the examples that may be specified as an exemption, as that would only be an example and the Government can still exempt any category of workplace, whether or not it is listed. Would accepting amendment No. 55 have any impact at all? Indeed, how is it possible to amend the clause, given the way in which it is drafted?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Those of us who want a more comprehensive ban, as the right hon. Gentleman does, have wrestled with this issue. I hope that the Minister responding to his remarks will assure Members of the House that if they should express their view by means of these deletions but they do not want exemptions either for private clubs or for pubs that do not serve food, the Government will respect their wishes and not say, ''Ah, but technically we have only changed some examples. We can do it anyway.''

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

Clearly, given the range of views that have already been expressed and the strength with which some of them are held, it would be wholly unacceptable if there was no opportunity at all for those views to be expressed in a Division that had impact and was binding on the Government. This is a difficult part of the Bill to debate and seek to amend, because what I seek to amend is only an example.

Amendment No. 55 would delete from the exemptions in paragraphs (b) and (c). I described my last amendment in the previous group as something of a blunderbuss, but the combination of amendments Nos. 74 and 55 are much more finely targeted, as they leave in the exemptions in paragraph (a) and knock out the exemptions in paragraphs (b) and (c), subject to the qualification that I made a moment ago.

I shall not repeat the arguments that have been advanced for including premises that do not sell food in the ban on smoking. There is a strong argument for legislation that is simple, clear and easily understood, and for legislation that is easy to enforce. I am concerned about the health inequalities that will flow from the Bill, and I believe that employees are entitled to consistent protection in whatever licensed premises they work in.

I hope that the Minister is able to rebut the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bristol, West on Second Reading, which go to the heart of the Government's position that there is a logical distinction between premises that sell food and those that do not—a distinction that is not seen so clearly, to put it mildly, by those who have criticised the Bill.

Finally, may we have the assurance, for which we have asked repeatedly, that there will be an opportunity on Report, if not now, for a meaningful Division, so that the House can express its view on whether there should continue to be a distinction relating to licensed premises?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, but let me begin by expressing my sympathy with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire about amendment No. 74. The essence of what we are debating is that during the passage of the legislation we should be as specific as possible about the exemptions that Parliament proposes, rather than using language that implies that the premises mentioned are nothing more than illustrative examples. The phrase ''Examples of'' should be deleted.

If there is to be a legislative ban, we should have a debate here and, if necessary, on Report, the purpose of which would be to set the parameters for the exemptions that Parliament proposes. A number of us argue that there should be more exemptions rather than fewer at this stage; others argue for fewer rather than more. However, it is for Parliament to say in the first instance what the parameters are, rather than passing the legislation and the matter being wholly left over for a discussion at some later point when orders are brought before the House. We know that orders receive less time and less prominence and provide less opportunity for hon. Members to participate in discussions. I therefore entirely agree with amendment No. 74.

Amendment No. 6 would insert the word ''hospitals''. That seems entirely counter-intuitive. The last place we want there to be smoking is in the NHS. Indeed, by the end of next year, the NHS ought to be smoke-free; that is the intention. But, and it is an important ''but'', leaving aside the question whether the places mentioned are only examples, if we do not insert ''hospitals'', I am not sure what the situation would be in special hospitals and other places where people in effect live. I am talking about places that are undeniably hospitals, not hotels or care homes. I am not an expert on the relationship of smoking to courses of treatment or therapies for those with mental health problems, but from listening to those who do know about such matters, I have no doubt that the sudden interruption of people's ability to smoke can have significant adverse impacts on continuing therapy or on their ability to live in a residential environment in a hospital for a period while they are being treated.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow us to explore with the Minister the Government's intention in respect of mental health patients who are obviously resident in hospitals. In some cases, patients are being detained. That may well have an impact. The Government may intend that it should have some bearing on whether they can smoke, but I am not sure that I understand where in the Bill such an exemption would apply, if it were not to be inserted where we propose.

Amendment No. 67 relates to ships. We may be wrong on this amendment or perhaps we are trying to put it in the wrong place. It may be more appropriate in relation to vehicles as distinct from premises. Perhaps none of Her Majesty's ships constitutes premises unless it is land-based. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, who understands these things far better than I do, knows about Her Majesty's ships and submarines and thought that it would be extremely difficult if they were not exempted, so on his behalf I ask the Minister to let us know whether it is intended that those ships and submarines should be smoke-free. If not, where is the exemption intended to be placed?

Amendment No. 34 relates to specialist tobacconists. The Minister will recall that the matter of specialist tobacconists was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) on Second Reading, and I have separately received correspondence from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Such tobacconists are more likely to be found in central London than in most other places. They are very small in number but they have distinct requirements, and their view—I represent, rather than endorse them—is that in order to carry on their business, they have to enable their customers to use smoking requisites, such as pipes, on their premises. If that cannot happen, it will have a significant economic impact on that small number of businesses. The question is whether there is scope for an exemption for them. Those are the amendments for which I have responsibility.

However, I should like to say something about the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, which would remove licensed premises and those in respect of which a club premises certificate is in force. It is my view, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that we shall have a free vote on the matter, but also that it would be appropriate to take out either of those exemptions, although, as we shall discuss, not all licensed premises should be exempt by any means, and the circumstances in which licensed premises should be able to allow smoke should be closely circumscribed. It is not even my view that all clubs should be exempted. As we shall see when we come on to the next group of amendments, even clubs that admit children should not be able to have smoking in those premises while children are present.

However, as the Bill is drafted, if one wants to arrive at the compromise that I would support, it is necessary to have a general exemption for pub and club premises, if that were qualified substantially. I cannot endorse the view that we would delete licensed or club premises from the possible scope of exemptions.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

This is an interesting group of amendments, some of which seek to extend the list of examples of all the types of premises for which exemptions should be made. Others seek to narrow, and state in the Bill, the types of premises for which exemptions may be made.

Before I address each of the amendments, however, I should like to make a few comments. It is important to recognise the context of some of our discussions earlier today. I think that I am right in saying that, apart from Ireland—of course, Scotland is pursuing its own policy—pretty much every country in the world, including the United States, did not go for a full ban when they were considering restricting smoking in public places. On a general note, I can confidently say that in most countries—California, New York, Norway, and others, including those countries looking to restrict public smoking in public places, such as Italy and other EU countries—the tendency has been to go for banning smoking in workplaces, followed by banning in restaurants, followed by a final ban in bars that are licensed for drinking only. I do not feel in any way that our proposals are somehow an exception to the rule. All those other countries, including Australia and the United States, went through the same sort of deliberations that this Government are going through. That involved advancing the argument that we want to reduce the exposure to smoke, and in doing so, sending out a strong message about the dangers of second-hand smoke, while at the same time, recognising that smoking is not an illegal activity, and that choosing health is an important part of encouraging people to give up smoking.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

But was that the argument that the Secretary of State advanced to the Cabinet?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

There was a rounded discussion in the Government on all those different issues. Certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to what people said. She herself has said that she takes the view that, in future, a total ban is on the cards, that some of the exemptions will be reviewed within three years and that we will be monitoring and reviewing the legislation from day 1. She has also said that we had a clear commitment in our manifesto, which was based on one of the largest ever public consultation exercises in relation to public health.

To refer to a point that was made earlier about the 1 m-from-the-bar rule, I quote from a document produced by the Government of South Australia's Department of Health, which says:

''From 6 December 2004, smoking will not be permitted within one metre of service areas (such as bars and other counters) . . . This is part of an initiative by the State Government to make all enclosed venues completely smoke-free by 31 October 2007.

What will this do?

This law is aimed at increasing the comfort of employees and increasing the public's awareness of the negative effect that passive smoking has upon staff.''

Neither the Government nor the Department of Health is alone in seeking to advance that cause in way that is understood and supported.

As I have said on many occasions, one of the reasons why the voluntary ban has been so successful is that it is in tune with public opinion. This morning, in response to a point that had been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West—I cannot remember whether he was present for my response—I said that that is one of the reasons why I have never made a claim about health in relation to when people eat as opposed to when they do not eat. Again, my comment reflected a clear steer from the public about the areas in which they would prefer a smoke-free atmosphere. It is clear from the attitudinal surveys that have been carried out that the number of people—smokers and non-smokers—who want to eat in a smoke-free atmosphere is considerably higher than the number who support a complete ban in premises licensed just for drinking.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

That is the nub of the issue. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I put this bluntly, but the Government's delay will cost lives. That is the Government's own assessment—their own regulatory impact assessment says that more lives will be lost if the full ban is delayed. The Government say that a full ban is inevitable and that when such bans are introduced they are extremely popular and no one would ever turn the clock back. However, they seem unwilling to lead public opinion and their unwillingness to do so will cost lives. Is that not the case?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think that our proposals will save lives. There are lots of examples in which Governments could pass laws that could save lives by banning all sorts of activities that are not illegal. Each Government and each party in government has to make a choice about whether to take particular action. I believe that at this stage we have got the balance right.

Our proposals build on our previous actions. The Government have not been doing nothing. We have introduced more restrictions on, for example, tobacco advertising, and greater controls on the sale of cigarettes with the particular aim of protecting younger people. We have done more to ensure that our health service is a service for health and not just for sickness, by providing services on the NHS to help people give up smoking, and we will continue to do so. The provisions build on a pretty good record since 1997 in dealing with an issue about which previous Governments have not been inclined to do as much as we have done, despite the fact that similar evidence was available to them.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk)

The hon. Member for Northavon assumes that this is simply a matter of arithmetical calculation—that as soon as the legislation is passed it will be effective and we can start counting the saved lives. The objection to his argument is that such legislation would not be effective and that we will save more lives by passing effective legislation at the right time and not pretending that the moment that we pass ineffective legislation, we start saving lives. The point is that the premise is disputed.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be nice to think that passing legislation was the be-all and end-all, but we know that that is not true. A package of measures is needed to tackle health inequalities. As I said this morning, the biggest determinant of health inequalities is poverty—poverty of income, environment, aspirations and expectations. We are tackling that problem on a number of fronts across Government to challenge the status quo that has prevailed for generations.

Clause 3(1) gives the appropriate national authority the power to make exemptions in regulations for certain premises or specified areas of them to be smoke-free. It is necessary to leave that as a general power to make exemptions in order to fulfil our obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly article 8, which deals with the right to respect for private life. There will be a significant number of areas where it is necessary to introduce an exemption in order to ensure ECHR compatibility and that is why we have not attempted to list all such premises in the Bill. However, we have always been clear about what types of premises we intend to exempt.

Subsection (2) reinforces that by listing as examples three categories or descriptions of premises for which exemptions may be made. I cannot tell the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire whether the use of the term ''examples of'' is a new device, but the Bill has been prepared with the expert advice of our parliamentary counsel, and even if it has not been used before, that is no reason not to use it in this Bill. The thrust of his question is valid—in some respects, subsection (2) is not necessary. However, we thought it right to show the thrust of our policy on exemptions. Judging by today's discussions we need to address in greater depth the various areas of exemption and how exemptions will apply, and we will do that through regulations. We do not intend to stray beyond the three categories and we have made that clear through the inclusion of subsection (2), but we feel that there should be some flexibility in the clause to enable us to meet our ECHR obligations. In order to respond to unique and unusual circumstances, the drafting also future-proofs this important legislation by allowing us to adapt to changing circumstances.

I have been given examples of legislation in which examples are given, which is helpful. Section 42(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 states:

''Those regulations may, for example, provide for''

and section 90 of the Highways Act 1980,

''Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases as, for example, for road humps and highways of different descriptions.''

[Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear!''] I thank the officials for their speedy intervention to help our deliberations.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 67 would add to the list of examples of premises that may be exempt—amendment No. 6 would add hospitals and amendment No. 67 would add Her Majesty's ships and submarines. As I have explained, the power to make exemptions is not confined to the descriptions set out in subsection (2). Nevertheless, in the case of Her Majesty's ships and submarines the amendment is unnecessary because such premises would be exempt from the legislation. The provisions in part 1 do not bind the Crown and thus do not apply to submarines or to Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service ships. I can inform the Committee that we are in discussions with the Ministry of Defence on issues arising from this Bill. Those of us who are involved in some of the services' parliamentary schemes will know that considerable work has been done in the MOD on how smoke-free places can become part and parcel of its operations where that is appropriate. Discussions continue on that subject.

On hospitals, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, we have committed to a smoke-free NHS in advance of this legislation coming into force by the end of next year. The legislation will apply to the NHS, none the less. I am pleased to have had the opportunity in the past six months or so to visit two hospitals that have already gone smoke-free. I understand that a number of others are pursuing that path. Having said that, we have always acknowledged that it may be necessary to introduce certain exemptions for patients who are detained in hospital against their will and for whom the hospital is in reality their home. Such situations are already covered by the broad definition in clause 3(2)(a), so there is no need to add hospitals specifically to the list.

I would be a bit concerned about hospitals in the general sense being defined in the clause as open to exemption. We are discussing premises where there is a residential aspect or a detaining aspect under mental health legislation, which may lie partly on hospital grounds or be part of a hospital service. We are discussing with people in mental health services how the provisions should apply. Some people feel that where the service is a day service, for example, it should be smoke-free on the same basis as everywhere else, but that where there is a residential element—in some cases a residential element that does not even allow a person to leave the building—flexibility is needed.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Does the Minister agree that there is some difficulty in that where people are detained under the Mental Health Act they may be able to smoke, but when they submit themselves voluntarily to treatment they are not able to smoke? Far from either of us saying what the right approach would be, we need to be sure that there is some flexibility to allow the clinical circumstances of patients to be taken into account. There is an interaction between people's habituation and dependence on nicotine or tobacco on the one hand and their access to and compliance with therapy on the other. We have to be prepared for that.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is for those very reasons that we are consulting with mental health colleagues in the Department of Health and further afield. A number of submissions were provided as part of the consultation over the summer. That issue it demonstrates some of the complexities of legislating and why it is sometimes difficult to put all these issues on the face of the Bill.

Amendment No. 34 is designed ensure that an exemption for specialist tobacconists can be made. I have a number of letters on this issue. I assure the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that clause 3 already gives such a power under subsection (1) and there is therefore no need for the amendment. I have considered the measure and, subject to consultation and approval by the House, I am minded to include a specific exemption in regulations for specialist tobacconists. We have to be very clear about how we would define such premises. I have never been in one but I understand that people might visit one of that very small group of retailers to try out a pipe. The definition in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 is:

''A specialist tobacconist is a shop selling tobacco products by retail . . . more than half of whose sales on the premises in question derive from the sale of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories.''

I am sympathetic to the amendment, although I would not encourage anyone to take up smoking.

Amendments Nos. 44, 74, 55, 37 and 39 all seek to narrow, and in some cases fix on the face of the Bill, the types of premises for which exemptions may be made. Amendments Nos. 44 and 74 would both to limit the exemptions that may be made under subsections (1) to those premises that fall under the descriptions set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c). That is achieved by removing the reference to ''examples'' from the subsection. I have already explained why it is important to have flexibility about what exemptions can be made on ECHR grounds. The amendments would remove that important flexibility and the ability to respond to unusual circumstances. We will need to be able to respond as public opinion and common practice change. Under the law we demand testing facilities for tobacco products as a health and safety measure. In film and theatre, we have a role in deciding what should be allowed in the course of a production in which smoking might be part and parcel of the creative performance. There are some interesting cases in which we need flexibility.

Amendment No. 37 seeks to narrow further those places for which exemptions may be made to those that fall under 3(2)(a)—in other words only places that act as an individual's private dwelling or are clearly private space. People have views on our position on licensed premises. We do not have agreement on that point, so hon. Members can understand why I will not accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 39 is consequential. However, it would fail to achieve its desired effect because although only subsection (a) would remain, it would still be just an example of the type of place for which exemptions could be made. We feel that it is important that the broad thrust of our policy on exemptions should be on the face of the Bill.

Amendment No. 55 is intended to be considered alongside amendment No. 74 and the combined effect of the amendments would be to restrict—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Amendment No. 55 is intended to be considered alongside amendment No. 74. The combined effect of those amendments would be to restrict exemptions to only those premises that fell under the descriptions in subsection 2(a) to (c). Amendment No. 55 would ensure that the same exemptions would apply to all licensed premises and all membership clubs. Therefore, the flexibility to make differing exemptions for premises under clause 3(2)(a)—those that act as an individual's dwelling or that are clear private spaces—would remain intact.

I urge the Committee to reject the amendments. As we said in ''Choosing Health'', opinion on restricting or banning smoking in most public places and workplaces is strongly in favour of action. However, pubs and bars are viewed differently. Our policy reflects the views of the public whose support for smoke-free pubs is significantly lower than for other hospitality venues, such as restaurants and cafés. People view smoke and food differently from smoke and drink. As I said earlier, that is an approach that many countries that have introduced restrictions and bans have understood only too well.

As a result, we have concluded that the link to the preparation and serving of food is the fairest way of delivering our health and choice objectives. Therefore, I must urge the Committee to reject the combined effect of amendment Nos. 74 and 55. As for membership clubs, we believe that they should be able to choose whether to allow smoking or be smoke-free in recognition of the fact that they are private establishments run by the members for the members. Those clubs have always been treated differently from other licensed premises because they are non-profit-making organisations in which, ultimately, the members make the decisions.

There is specific licensing legislation that qualifies those clubs. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that it would be simple for licensed premises—or, for that matter, Blockbuster—to set themselves up in such a way as to be exempt from the legislation.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to maintain the exemption for membership clubs, but to restrict smoking to areas where no employee of the club is required to be present. I have already explained why we are treating membership clubs differently. At the end of day, it is for those clubs to decide whether to allow smoking and, if so, under what conditions. As we discussed earlier, even when smoking is allowed, it will sometimes be necessary for employees to enter a space that is defined as a smoking area. For those establishments that are exempt from the full ban, we are—in line with our manifesto—consulting on a way in which we can protect employees and reduce exposure to smoke around the bar area. Even so, there could still be situations when we would expect members of staff to enter a smoking area for reasons of common sense. For example, if a fight broke out and someone was the worse for wear due to drink, under other responsibilities as employees and licensees, staff would have to take action.

Our manifesto stated that, whatever the general status of a licensed premise, including membership clubs, we would look to protect bar staff by prohibiting smoking in the bar area. We are consulting on that and will consult fully on draft regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

In this group, there are amendments, on the one hand, to add to the list of examples of premises for which exemptions may be made and, on the other, to limit the type of premises for which exemptions may be made. In clause 3(2), we have made clear the type of premises for which we intend to make exemptions. I suggest that we have got the drafting exactly right and that we have struck the correct balance between making clear our intentions and leaving the flexibility to fulfil our European convention on human rights obligations and to respond to unique and unusual circumstances. As I have said before, this is a total-ban Bill with provision for exemptions to be made. That allows us, in secondary legislation, to come back and review the situation as the provisions of the legislation are put into practical implementation.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I shall sum up some of the points that have been raised in this wide-ranging discussion. I am glad that the officials were able to help the Minister by giving her examples from previous legislation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said earlier from a sedentary position, the Child Support Agency legislation is not a happy precedent. As a city and county councillor who often had to deal with residents' concerns about road humps, one-way systems and so on, I would say that legislation in that regard is not a particularly happy precedent either.

The Minister and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned health inequalities. The Minister talked about other public health measures that this Government and previous Governments have introduced, such as adverts and provision on the size of warnings on cigarette packets, but we have now had decades of anti-smoking legislation and we have got ourselves into a position in which some sections of the population have reduced their smoking habit to what is probably an irreducible minimum. For instance, the incidence of smoking in some wards in my city of Bristol can be as low as 12 per cent.; in other communities nearby, the incidence can be 50 per cent. Those decades of health warnings and increasingly high taxation have not had sufficient impact on certain sections of the population, and they tend to be those that are in poverty.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 95 per cent. of deaths from smoking are caused by smoking in the home? The logic of his argument is that we should ban smoking in the home. I am sure that he does not support that view and that he recognises that, to tackle these issues, we must have a package of measures, of which the Bill is one.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I certainly recognise that we need a package of measures, and this package would be a complete package if it included a full ban, rather than a ban that is run through with many exemptions.

The Minister said that people smoke in the home. I have said that many people resolve to give up smoking, perhaps on new year's day or on another anniversary—we have already had that discussion—but their resolution often falls at the first hurdle when they are in a social environment. If the social environment for smoking were taken away, the overall incidence of smoking would fall and therefore the incidence of smoking in the home and in front of children and non-smoking family members would obviously fall as well. That is an incidental benefit of a full ban, but none the less it is a benefit.

The health inequalities in this country suggest that high levels of taxation—in effect, a cigarette tax is a tax on the poor—and endless health warnings and adverts have not had the impact that we would like and that we need to consider firmer legislation, such as for a full ban, to help people in the relevant communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said that the consequence of not having a full ban would be lost lives. Perhaps at some future point residents of England will have the same protection as residents of Falkirk and other parts of Scotland, but for the time being they will not. Health inequalities will be perpetuated in the short term and there is a risk that they will be widened in the long term.

I asked the Minister—I am sure that she and her colleagues have been asked this many times—to tell us why she thinks that someone's having food in front of them alters the impact that smoke has on them. She could not give us a good public health reason.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have answered that question several times today. I have not said, and nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that that there is a difference purely on health grounds in terms of when a person is eating and exposed to smoke and when they are not eating. We have said that when we asked people about further Government legislation to restrict smoking in public places, they felt strongly that, based on choice, they wanted restrictions in areas where they were eating. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to continue to put words into my mouth. I think that I have been honest and up front about the provisions. The Bill is about health and choice.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

It appears that choice has triumphed over health in that particular example. The choice is whether one wants to be led by public opinion. I am sure that the quote from the Defence Secretary will go into political folklore—I believe that he was quoting his mother when he said that the only remaining working-class pleasure in some parts of Glasgow was the enjoyment of smoking. The Government should address the question of whether they want to take the advice and anecdotal opinions of focus groups and market research or whether they should follow the advice of their own chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, who has made it clear that for the Bill to have the maximum possible benefit, it should provide for a full rather than a partial ban.

I return briefly to the question of food. I do not want get into a discussion about binge drinking, but it is certainly beneficial for people's health to eat while they are drinking. An unforeseen consequence of the implementation of a partial ban may be that there will be an increase in binge drinking in certain establishments to which people will go to drink but will not have the opportunity to have a meal to absorb some of the drink.

The Minister said that we have to move with public opinion. She specifically mentioned California and other examples from around the world where anti-smoking legislation has been introduced in the past. As I understand it, the legislation in all those examples was introduced from the early 1990s onwards. We are now in 2005, and I think that public opinion in other parts of the world, and certainly in this country and in England in particular, has moved ahead. Why does she think that public opinion in Scotland, where a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition has been able to introduce a comprehensive ban from 26 March next year, or public opinion in the Republic of Ireland, is so different from public opinion in England? I would guess that if a comparison was made between the different nations of these isles—to use a historically neutral term—it would probably be found that support for a smoking ban is stronger in England than in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk)

There is no evidence at all that public opinion is any stronger or weaker in Scotland. The fact is that there has been a consultation in Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK, and the Scottish Executive have made their judgment based on that consultation. I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the UK Government should also make their own judgment. The question is how to respond to the consultation, not what the results of the consultation tell us.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

We will have to agree to differ on where we find opinion to be strongest for a full ban on smoking. However, there will be absurd cross-border incidents in the future. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has just returned to the Room because if, as we suspect, the Welsh Assembly goes for a full ban on smoking in Wales, that will lead to the absurd example of people who wish to smoke in pubs crossing just a mile over the border into his constituency of Northavon so that they can carry on doing so in England.

The Minister said that it is not a simple matter to set up a club. I am not a great expert on what, constitutionally, it takes for a premises to reconstitute itself as a club. However, I understand that all one needs is a rule book and a register of members to be put in place, which seems fairly straightforward to me. The Minister did not give us any evidence of why it was not a simple matter.

I also mentioned that the provisions will introduce unfair competition between different parts of the licensed trade—for example between a club and the ''Prince of Wales'' pub—which is surely not desirable.

The Minister said earlier that she thinks that the drafting of the Bill is ''exactly right''. I wrote those words down with astonishment when she said them. I doubt if anyone would agree with her. The House will have a full discussion of many of the issues that we have touched upon on Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

'( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall not provide for premises or areas of premises not to be smoke-free if they are premises or areas of premises to which children have access.'.

At no point does the Bill refer directly to the interests of children. The Minister said that the Bill was about health and choice, so let us start with health. I referred earlier to the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, but I did not say that one section of the report discusses the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on children. It refers to the World Health Organisation international consultation on second-hand smoke and child health in 1999. The committee stated that the WHO had found that second-hand smoke

''is a real and substantial threat to child health, causing a variety of adverse health effects including increased susceptibility to lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, worsening of asthma, middle ear disease, decreased lung function, and sudden infant death syndrome.''

My starting proposition is that, to avoid those risks, children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke.

We know that the exposure of children to second-hand smoke is most prevalent in the home. The Minister will agree that although we would like to reduce its prevalence generally, and thus secure the benefits of reducing the exposure of children to second-hand smoke, we should not use the Bill directly to prevent smoking in homes where children are present, even though that outcome may be desirable. That is a private choice to be made by parents about a private space for which they are responsible.

Notwithstanding the fact that we should not intrude into private space, the question raised by the amendment is whether we should try to ensure that, in all the circumstances in which premises might be smoke-free by virtue of part 1, exemptions should not be permitted in relation to those premises if they are premises to which children have access.

The Minister may tell me that the amendment is technically flawed. I accept that it depends on one's understanding of the structure of the Bill. If in clause 3 we remove any possibility of exemptions in relation to

''premises to which children have access'',

it might mean that we would remove the exemption for private homes. I do not think that that will be so, but I might have misunderstood how the Bill works. I understand it to mean that private homes are not places to which the prohibition applies unless they are places to which the public have access or are places of work. If that is so, the amendment would still have force. The question will be whether a prohibition applies by virtue of clauses 1 and 2. If, under the circumstances set out in the Bill, premises have to be smoke-free because the public have access or because they are places of work, clause 3 cannot be used to make them places in which smoking is permitted if children have access to them. That is my intention, but as is often the way, the amendment may not be structured in a way that would allow that to happen. I accept that. However, I have set out my proposition.

Whatever the views of the adults around them, it is not right for people to expose children to second-hand smoke. Parents in public places should be able to expect their children to be free of smoke. I have to confess that I do not smoke and pretty much nobody in my family smokes, so my children are not exposed to smoke unless they are in public places. In most of the public places to which I go, I do not expose my children to second-hand smoke if I can avoid it, but sometimes it seems unavoidable. That always irritates and offends me far more than my own exposure to second-hand smoke. If my view is any measure of public opinion, I attach more importance to protecting my children from second-hand smoke than to protecting myself. I confess to the Minister that I have not asked that question in opinion research and I do not know whether she has asked it or has seen the question come up. If it were asked, I would not be surprised if many members of the public shared my view that we should simply remove the possibility of exposing children to second-hand smoke in any public place.

That is the intention of the amendment. Before other members of the Committee chide me about it, I accept that to some extent it cuts across some of the other points that I might make. There is a compromise or balance to be struck. We have made it clear in what I said on Second Reading and what we said before the election that, notwithstanding that the balance would not require private clubs to be exempt, we were prepared to accept smoking rooms as long as there are places to which non-smokers have access and we were prepared to accept that premises to which children have access should not permit smoking. In the same way as non-smokers should be able to live in a smoke-free environment unless they choose to do otherwise, children should in all circumstances be able to live in a smoke-free environment.

The amendment would have a direct impact on clubs. We could not have clubs that both continued to allow smoking and allowed children to have access. Admittedly, there could be clubs with smoking rooms, but smoking rooms, whether in pubs or clubs, would clearly have to be rooms into which children were not allowed.

Although the amendment cuts across some of the exemptions and circumscribes them, I suspect that it might help the pub trade. If we proceed in the way proposed, it will have to contend with pubs being smoke-free to a substantial extent in circumstances where clubs are allowed greater flexibility. However, if clubs cannot at the same time be smoking establishments and offer access to children, that might give the many pubs whose commercial advantage lies in serving food and being places where families can go with children an offsetting commercial benefit compared to the private club.

That is the purpose of the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

On first reading, one has huge sympathy with the amendment, which deals with an important set of issues that are not covered by the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling it and sparking off this debate. He was refreshingly honest—I hope that this is the shape of the Conservative party to come—in admitting that, almost in one day, he is looking in two different directions at once, which is something that I find difficult to do myself.

In Ireland a direct effect of the full ban has been much less smoking: fewer people smoke, which must mean that fewer people smoke at home. Clearly there is an issue of displacement, but such has been the overall drop in smoking that it is inconceivable that fewer children in Irish homes are not subjected to second-hand smoke. Were the hon. Gentleman to adopt the more comprehensive ban strategy, his legitimate, proper concern for the welfare of children would be better achieved, because it would have the knock-on effect of reducing the overall incidence of smoking and would thereby lower rates of smoking at home without any need to interfere in the private space of parents, which he understandably does not want to do. The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about children, but he is missing an opportunity to benefit them by reducing overall smoking prevalence through a total ban. I urge him to reconsider his position on that matter.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question, for clarification, about enforcement and definitions of access. Is he talking about clubs? Clearly, he does not want people smoking when a child is in the room, but does he want to stop people smoking if there is ever a child in the room, even if there is not one currently in the room? I was slightly unclear about what he was saying. I accept that there is an issue about smoke-free rooms and so on, but the hon. Gentleman implied that if the clubs ever allowed children access, that would trigger an across-the-board prohibition of smoking. Is that what he is saying?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Certainly my intention is that if children have access to any part of a licensed premises or private club, it would be required to be smoke-free. There might be rooms, as there are in pubs, to which children do not have access, and in those circumstances the exemptions might continue to apply.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful for that. I suppose that that raises issues of signage and knowing what the club rules are. One can see enforcement complexities if a club has a general exemption, but some parts of it are not exempt. That is potentially messy. I would prefer the rule to be more clear cut, and I am sure that those who will have to enforce the law would prefer that, too.

In another context the hon. Gentleman would argue that a private club is a private space and that members choose to be members; clearly nobody forces anyone to be a member of a Conservative club, for example. If they choose to be members, they choose whatever arrangements that the club has agreed. Accordingly, if parents choose to bring their children in, have they not done so knowingly in an act of free choice in what the hon. Gentleman regards as a private space?

Is it not inconsistent to say that there should be an exemption for private members' clubs, because they are private spaces that can define their own rules, but then say that when it comes to children, the fact that the parents could take their child elsewhere, to a club that does not allow smoking, is irrelevant and we will stop them from having that choice?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that we should not be obliging people in private clubs to adopt one rule, because that is a matter of choice, but on this matter, he is saying that there should not be a choice, but an absolute rule. I do not object to the amendment, but it is inconsistent with his view that private clubs, as he frankly acknowledged, are a private space where different rules should apply.

Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock till Thursday 8 December at Nine o'clock.