Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 December 2005.

Health Bill - Standing Committee E

Clause 4 - Additional smoke-free places

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I will not detain the Committee, other than to recap and make some final remarks on the clause.

I must say that I have been a bit disappointed by the Minister’s response so far, because this is an important clause that gives the Secretary of State extensive powers. We have explained throughout that we are a little worried about the powers given by regulation to the current Secretary of State and her successors.

The insertion of “significant amounts of” before the word “smoke” in subsection (3) would have been helpful because it would have made it clear that we were not talking about trivial exposure. I think we have probably done to death, so to speak, the concept of exposure to trivial amounts of smoke, and I have made my position clear. If we are talking about public health—as I certainly am—we need to discard what one might call nuisance or trivial exposure to tobacco smoke. The purpose of my amendment was to underscore public health and discard nuisance and amenity, which although important have no place in a Bill such as this—as I suspect most people in the country, being of a libertarian frame of mind, would agree. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to entertain my reasonable suggestion.

The clause gives the Secretary of State considerable powers. I trust that the right hon. Lady and her successors will use those powers wisely, but we will certainly be keeping a close eye on the use of the authority given to them under the clause.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Before I call the Minister, let me make it clear that I should be grateful if hon. Members who want to catch my eye would spring to their feet, because I will then be able to see clearly who wants to speak. It is good for the circulation and it makes life easier for me.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Thank you, Lady Winterton. I am looking forward to a constructive and productive week ahead.

Clause 4 will allow regulations to be made to designate additional smoke-free places and the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free. That is important, because although the thrust of the Bill is substantially to make workplaces and public places smoke-free, it emerged from the consultation and from other representations that there might be places that did not fit neatly into the definitions of “enclosed” or “substantially enclosed”, in respect of which flexibility to regulate should be available.

We have already discussed the sort of places that could be covered by regulation, setting out, for example, when a football ground or open-air concert venue is to be smoke-free. Such criteria may be based on the density of the audience or on the type of entertainment. Entrances to buildings have also been brought to our attention. People have voiced concerns about walking through a cloud of smoke on their way into a building.

I do, however, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), and it is not the Government’s intention to pursue trivial matters. That is why we have made it clear in the clause that the regulations may provide for places to be smoke-free only in the circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a) to (d). The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution, and there will also be consultation on the draft regulations.

I hope that I have clarified the thinking behind the clause and that the Committee will support it.

Clause 5 - Vehicles

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

We wish to change just one word of the Bill. I have discovered that irony does not work in print, so I had better not say that the rest of the Bill is perfect because I do not wish to be misunderstood. We wish to change “may” to “shall”. In the context of smoking bans in vehicles, we suggest that, in clause 5(1), rather than stating that authorities may make regulations, we make it a duty on them to do so.

It may be that we misunderstand the meaning of “may”, but we want enclosed public places to be smoke-free, and many vehicles will be more enclosed than areas that are, for example, only 51 per cent. enclosed. Therefore, smoking in an enclosed carriage or vehicle is potentially far more injurious to the health of members of the public or employees who work in those environments. By inserting “shall” instead of “may”, we hope to rule out a situation in which the relevant national authority does not make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free. In other words, the ban would not be complete if such regulations were not forthcoming. Essentially, we wish to place a duty on the relevant national authority, which includes this place in the case of England, to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.

We want clarity on whether the Government were trying to allow for the possibility that relevant national authorities may not make regulations by using “may” rather than “shall”.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I hope that my intentions will be made plainer this time. I suspect that the Minister will say that the parliamentary draftsmen have insisted on using “may”, but I follow the argument made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). We have said throughout our deliberations that far too many powers are granted under regulation by the Bill, and that we would like to see more written into the Bill itself. However, we are quite clearly not going to get that. It would be good to hear what the Minister had in mind for the regulations that she may—or will—introduce, under the powers that she will have as a result of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister—as she has at other times during our proceedings—set out the situations that she sees as being the subject of regulation.

So while we are not going to get too hung up on “may” or “shall”, we certainly understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

This, of course, is the first amendment of a group within this clause, so we will have further discussion about the intention—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I think that the Minister may be slightly confused. This is an amendment on its own, not part of a group.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I was referring to the fact that there are further amendments that apply to this clause, and that we will, therefore, have further discussions as the debate continues on types of vehicles, and so forth. I do not necessarily wish to have the debates on the further amendments during discussion of this one, which covers a technical point. I do not wish to steal anyone’s thunder in relation to further amendments to clause 5.

The hon. Member for Westbury was correct to say that when I saw the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northavon I asked officials what the significant reason was for using “may” rather than “shall”. I shall give a technical answer to that and at the same time try to elaborate a little more on the intention behind the clause.

Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales power to make regulations providing for smoke-free vehicles. We intend that public vehicles and vehicles for work use will be smoke-free. We believe that that will provide consistency with the protection from second-hand smoke in substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. The regulations will set out the descriptions of the vehicles that are to be smoke-free and the circumstances and specified areas in which they are to be smoke-free. Vehicles used at a place of work such as taxis, delivery vans, post vans, buses and trains will be smoke-free unless they are for the sole use of the owner-driver. As I said earlier, I am sure that there will be more discussion on that when we come to later groups of amendments.

Whereas the clause provides a power to make such regulations, the amendment would place on us a duty to do so. I understand that it is normal practice to confer powers to make regulations in order to leave us some discretion as to when we introduce them, but I assure the hon. Member for Northavon that we intend to use the power to introduce regulations for smoke-free vehicles.

On a drafting point, advice from counsel is that if we were to say “shall” rather than “may”, we would also need to specify a deadline for the regulations to be made, which the amendment does not provide. If the purpose of the amendment is to seek clarity about our intention, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about that intention.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I do not know whether I am reassured by that reply or not. I take the Minister at her word when she says that the Government intend to introduce the necessary regulations, which is the main thing that we are concerned about. I can only speculate on whether, if the amendment had said, “The regulations shall be brought in at the same time as the coming into force of the Bill” or something like that, the Minister would have accepted it. However, given that it appears to be incomplete, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, after ‘vehicles’, insert

‘used for the carriage of the public for payment.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after second ‘vehicle’, insert

‘used for the transport of the public.’.

No. 78, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after second ‘vehicle’, insert

‘used for the carriage of children, the public and for persons in the course of their employment’.

No. 51, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after ‘train’, insert ‘bus, coach’.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Amendments Nos. 9, 8 and 78 have been tabled to tease out the difference between private and public space, a theme that has run throughout our deliberations. The Bill appears to give the Secretary of State powers to institute a blanket ban on smoking in anything to do with transportation, and we must consider how that applies to private transport.

Most people would regard their cars as their own personal space. Certainly the way in which people drive suggests that that is the case, in London particularly. Whether that is a reasonable proposition or not, I think that most people would see a clear difference between smoking in their cars and smoking, for example, in a train or bus. We can perhaps discuss the public health implications of somebody driving and smoking at the same time. I would hazard a guess that the chances of people killing themselves or others because they are distracted by their wretched cigarette are probably greater than the chances of doing themselves damage from inhaling the smoke, but that is perhaps a secondary issue. The fact is that there is a distinction between private vehicles and public vehicles, although it is not clear cut. In a private vehicle, a person may expose others to their smoke and perhaps we should consider that. In a sense, the matter is analogous to smoking in one’s own home. If people are not harming others through their actions, it should be seen in the same light. I can see how one could argue that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it allows a ban on smoking in one’s own home, but we understand that exemptions will be made under clause 3.

In a similar vein, we expect that the blanket ban on smoking in all forms of transportation to be subject to exemptions, and I hope that the Minister will make explicit what those exemptions will be. I am sure that they will include private vehicles, which are an extension of an individual’s private space.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that his amendment is too tightly drawn even for his own wishes? For example, if an employer provides transport for employees at no cost to them, that would not be caught by the amendment, but I expect the hon. Gentleman would want there to be a ban in such a situation. If a school bus were provided to take children to school for free with an adult escort, we would not want that adult to smoke in front of the children, but he or she would not be caught by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and because he is eagle-eyed he will probably have spotted that amendment Nos. 8 and 78 are very similar. Amendment No. 78 is slightly better because it contains a reference to children. I am grateful to him for bringing up that point because another theme of our argument has been that children are in a special category and should be particularly protected from the ill effects of tobacco smoke, not only because it is bad for their health, but—probably more important in terms of public health—because it sends them the wrong message. We shall return to that point when we discuss a couple of new clauses tabled by my colleagues.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). In a sense, amendment No. 78, which was tabled after amendment No. 8, is an updated version and would deal with some of his concerns. The amendments are intended to set it on record that there is a clear difference between public and private. I am sure that the Minister intends that there should be such a distinction and I suspect that when she responds, she will make that distinction plain. The only purpose of my amendments is to act as a prompt for the Minister to make that distinction clear in order that we have some written record—although not binding because it will simply be recorded in Hansard—that the Minister’s intention is not to introduce regulations at a later date that will ban smoking in all forms of transport. I cannot believe that that is her intention.

I have several concerns about the clause, but I hope that you will grant a clause stand part debate, Lady Winterton, so perhaps it would be appropriate if I left my further remarks until then.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

My understanding of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Westbury is that the three amendments are different permutations—A, B or C—or different ways of expressing an understandable view that he would not want the clause to prohibit smoking in private vehicles. I have some sympathy with that point. As the hon. Member for Stafford said in an intervention, the reference to payment in amendment No. 9 is not the right test. With regard to the harm done by passive smoking, just as it does not matter where food is served, it does not matter whether one pays for the journey or not. That seems to be a red herring.

Amendment No. 8 offers a general description of “transport of the public”, whereas amendment No. 78 refers to:

“children, the public and for persons in the course of their employment”.

As the hon. Member for Westbury acknowledges, the latter formulation is better than the former. I suspect that adding the word “children” is for effect, as children are part of the public. Even so, there would be no harm in adding it. I broadly agree with the thrust of what he said, which is that we want to be clear about what comes within the scope of the clause.

My question is about privately hired coaches. My parents are active members of an organisation called the University of the Third Age. One of the things that they do all the time is go on coach trips. They regularly hire a coach. If it is a private transaction—a private hire of a coach—can the members decide whether they want to smoke, as member of private clubs can? That would worry me, as the coach driver is an employee who would be exposed to smoke. My parents do not smoke, but their friends do. We could go on to debate whether it would be all right if the window were open and so on, but, in principle, a coach driver in such circumstances ought to have some protection. We worry about bar staff in an enclosed place. Yes, the driver can open a window, but perhaps he cannot if it is a rainy, horrible day. One can think of all sorts of arguments along those lines.

Therefore, simply saying “the public” or

“persons in the course of their employment”

does not cover all circumstances. The purpose of the coach trip is to convey not the coach driver but the passengers. I am worried that the coach driver would not be covered by amendment No. 78. It is not a works bus, but I am not clear what the implication is.

Our amendment No. 51 simply takes the list of examples in the clause and chucks in a few more, to use a technical term. We have added buses and coaches to

“train, vessel, aircraft and hovercraft”.

Can the Minister explain what a vessel is? Does “vessel” imply sea-going? I am slightly confused by that. I also wonder about the omissions. Do buses and coaches already come under some other legislation? Are we to take that as read?

Lists of examples worry me. We had them in a previous clause, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) pointed out the need to be consistent and have all the examples or none of them. They do not add anything to the Bill. The same thing applies in this clause. I suppose the argument is that one could put something in the Bill and some quibbling lawyer—no disrespect to the hon. Member for Stafford—could come along and say that it was obvious that “vehicle” did not mean train, but one could have understood it to mean trains. Putting something in a Bill pre-empts that kind of thing. However, if we are going to do that, the list should be very long. We have already dealt with submarines. Amendment No. 51 would add buses and coaches.

I wonder what the basis was for deciding which things would be included and which would not. Our amendment adds a few things. The Minister may say, “Yes, it’s a fair cop. We should have put them in,” and, for the first time ever, I would have contributed words to the law of the land.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would restrict the vehicles that must be smoke-free to those that are used by the public. To be absolutely clear, regulations made under clause 5 will provide for smoke-free business and public transport. I said on amendment No. 52 that vehicles for business and public use should be smoke-free. We believe that that will provide consistency with the protection from second-hand smoke in enclosed and substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 and 9, as they would restrict the intention behind the clause.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow at such an early stage. Would businesses that deliver goods be included? What about travelling salesmen? Would it be the Minister’s intention to include sole operators—individuals travelling around in vehicles—and prevent them from smoking? I suspect not.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I indicated earlier, if a vehicle is for sole use, it would be down to the individual, but if the vehicle were used by others in the business—perhaps a workmate or someone who works for the individual—it should be smoke-free. In fact, I am pleased to say that the Road Haulage Association stated in response to the consultation this summer that

“most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles”.

It also said that it had

“no objections to the main aim of the policy, to make virtually enclosed workplaces smoke free”.

I felt reassured that that organisation appreciated the need to encourage smoke-free policies, particularly in lorries and trucks. The cabs of lorries will be smoke-free unless they are for the sole use of an owner-driver. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s examples, I imagine that the same logic would apply in other circumstances in which someone is the sole owner-driver but uses their car to go about their business.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister uses the phrase “owner-driver”. Does that mean that, if a lorry is driven by one person exclusively, but not owned by that person, it would be covered by the ban? If there are two individuals in the lorry—a driver and his mate—who both smoke, are they both not allowed to smoke because there are two of them? Are we talking about banning smoking all the time, or is the ban time-limited? A vehicle will probably have a change of usage. One week, one individual may drive it; next week, two people may drive it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In those circumstances, we will look to employers to ensure that the vehicle is smoke-free. The problem arises when different employees use the vehicle; when somebody goes off shift and somebody else enters the vehicle. I will think about what he has said, but my inclination is that where a vehicle may be shared with other workers—not necessarily at the same time—the vehicle should be maintained as smoke-free if it fits the definition of public transport or a vehicle used for a business purpose.

Even if someone vacates a vehicle, smoke can linger and may affect those travelling later. We could get into a lot of complicated situations. We might have to start defining how long the cab should be vacant and whether it should be cleaned before another person uses it. I am not of a mind to increase the regulatory burden on businesses in that respect. As I have said, the Road Haulage Association has made constructive comments about smoke-free policies in its vehicles, in relation to vehicles that may be driven by smokers or non-smokers at one time or another.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

We have opened up quite a fruitful line of debate. Vehicles are pretty unique in that the ventilation tends to be extremely good. Cleansing the internal atmosphere of the cab of a lorry can be straightforward. One either winds down the window, or puts the ventilation on and completely changes the environment. One might be left with a horrible yellowing of the vehicle and a slight smell, which is unpleasant and a nuisance. I suspect that the Minister is touching on concerns related to nuisance and amenity, rather than public health. I would be grateful if she would explain why we cannot ensure the health of subsequent users of a vehicle that has been used by a smoker by means of adequate ventilation or winding down the window.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Winding down the window may depend on the temperature outside and whether it is raining or snowing. We cannot conclusively say that just winding down the window will help people to deal with the smoke in the cab of a lorry. We are pursuing a smoke-free policy for certain vehicles for the same reasons as we are applying the policy to buildings. It is a combination of the health imperative and the fact that we are talking about environments in which people work. Given the comments that have been made during the consultation period, I do not believe that the policy that we are pursuing goes against the grain for organisations for which employing people to drive vehicles is their bread and butter. I believe that the policy has been welcomed. We believe that a vehicle that is passed from one employee to another should be smoke-free.

If we apply the Opposition’s logic to rooms as opposed to vehicles, an employee who is a smoker who works in a particular office where someone else will come along to work a different shift could be told, “You can smoke while you’re there on your own, but when somebody else comes in for their shift, there is no smoking.” If we started to draw those lines, all sorts of management issues could arise, which would require unnecessary and burdensome regulation to define the point between the smoker working there and the non-smoker coming on to his work roster. Would one expect an employee to fumigate or clean a vehicle? It is not as simple as winding down a window.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Just for clarity, is the Minister saying that a commercial vehicle owned by a business or an organisation, whether or not it passes from employee to employee, would be a smoke-free environment? I am thinking of employees who smoke and drive a lorry, van or other vehicle all day. One person whom I know smokes and drives a lorry all day. Under this provision, he will no longer be allowed to smoke in that vehicle. He is in it for eight hours a day and, while he is there, the environment in the vehicle is his, not his organisation’s. Is the Minister now saying that second-hand smoke has a residual effect that causes harm? Is she saying that if somebody has smoked in a vehicle and somebody else gets into it at some stage, there will be residual effects from the driver’s smoking? That would take us into a new category.

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, we are trying to define work space. Someone who works in a smoke-free building can avail themselves of opportunities to go outside the building to have a cigarette. By the same token, someone who is driving a car or a truck can avail himself of a break in which he can smoke.

I am not an expert in this area, but I suggest that lorry drivers are encouraged to take breaks from driving to maintain their safety standards and avoid getting tired. As lorry drivers and others are encouraged to take breaks, they have an opportunity to have a cigarette at the same time, if they wish. Therefore, we are not applying a different rule to this group of workers from the one that we are applying to workers in other enclosed spaces. If we were to follow the arguments made by the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and for Westbury, we would establish an unnecessary distinction between working spaces.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire here. We are talking about a work space. While there are some limited exemptions in the Bill, I am not prepared to support an exemption in this respect. However, I must make it clear that we are not talking about private car space. The hon. Member for Westbury gave an example earlier about car sharing and pooling. If someone with a private car offers friends a lift into work, no payment is exchanged, so it is not a business transaction. Therefore it is for those people to decide whether to accept a lift.

The hon. Member for Northavon gave an example of private hire car use. If a driver was employed to drive the minibus for the hon. Gentleman’s parents’ organisation, I should expect the vehicle to be non-smoking. The exception would be where people hire a rental car for their own purposes. I think that I am right in saying that private vehicles rented without a driver have not been included in Ireland’s smoking ban. That approach is also being taken in Scotland. We view a private car that is hired without a driver as being closer to a private car than a vehicle in which someone is working. That example would resemble some exemptions that we have looked at for hotel rooms or rental cottages in which smoking may be allowed.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister touched on the point that I wanted to raise, but, if I may correct her, I have not yet mentioned car sharing and car pooling. She has, however, anticipated what I may mention later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Illsley.

I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify what she means by hire cars. Her initial comments suggest that, if they are being used for business use, cars should be subject to a ban, but if they are for personal use they should not be. However, cars can be hired for business purposes. I suspect that if one were to go to Avis or another car rental company, they would say that the majority of cars are hired for business purposes. Would the Minister’s ban cover such usage or would car hire across the board be subject to an exemption?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will reflect, outside the Committee, on what the hon. Gentleman has said about hiring cars for business use. My understanding is that, should an individual hire a private vehicle without a driver, that would constitute private use. Individuals may hire a vehicle to get to work or because their car has broken down. A travelling salesperson may need to get to the other side of the country. A company may need to get one of its personnel from one end of the country to the other. He or she wants to drive, but the company car has packed up, so a private vehicle is hired.

In the broadest sense, one could say that that car is being used for work. However, we would view that as private use for a set period. No driver or chauffeur is employed to transport that person from one place to another. Therefore, I still think it is down to the individuals who hire a private vehicle to decide whether they want to smoke in the car, provided they have not employed a driver. That is in line, as far as I understand, with provisions in Ireland and with the approach taken in Scotland.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I know that we are getting into the minutiae, but this is important. The example of hire cars serves to expand on a more general case. For example, a company hires a car for its employees’ use over a prolonged period. It is intended that it will largely be used by one individual. However, because the individual does not own the car, other employees use it from time to time. What would happen in that situation? One could argue from what the Minister has said that that is not a private car; it is not owned by anyone, and it is being hired by a company for the use of an individual, who, for the purposes of this argument, is a smoker. However, that car could be used at some point by someone else. How would the legislation work in such a case?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

If a company hired cars as part of its ongoing business, that would fall on the side of business use, rather than private use. Therefore, those cars should be smoke-free. In the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, a company hires a fleet of vehicles as an integral part of running its business, rather than as a one-off. In those circumstances, that use would fall within the business definition that we will be attempting to determine through regulation. It is important to raise these scenarios in Committee, and we must work through the issues in order to make the draft regulations clear.

We are clear that we must make provision for public transport and business use. I am unsure at the moment whether the hon. Member for Westbury supports smoke-free policies that apply to business use.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

A general issue has been raised during this discussion. I am not sure what the Government’s factual position is. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked whether it was the Government’s position that being in a place where smoking had taken place was a health hazard. We heard the example of someone using a car after a smoker had used it. Do the Government have a clear position on that matter, and does that underlie their approach? Does it depend how long a person is in a place where someone has been smoking? Has scientific advice been given to the Government on that matter?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank the hon. Member for Northavon for raising that point. Early in our deliberations, we discussed ventilation. There was common acceptance by all hon. Members that, although one might get rid of the visible evidence of smoke, carcinogens can remain in the air. Therefore, the evidence suggests a continuing effect. The time that one spends in that atmosphere will also have an effect, so it is hard to set a completely prescriptive standard.

Part and parcel of this debate is the Government’s determination to work with what we know about effects on health, but also to address a cultural shift to a smoke-free environment, rather than a smoking environment with smoke-free exceptions. Not only the health evidence, about which we have learned more over a number of decades, but public requests for further regulation have been important to our decisions. Given what we have said about other working environments that will be covered by a total ban, it would be illogical if we were to create a different environment for vehicles that are part of a working and business environment.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister is being ever so good, but, as she has acknowledged, this is an important debate, which is showing up a slight flaw in this part of the Bill. I had assumed that the measure was being driven by the need to promote public health, especially in relation to second-hand smoke. If I understood the Minister correctly, her thesis is that it would be too difficult under regulation to deal with the concerns that other hon. Members and I have raised in respect of the use of vehicles. The Minister unfortunately picked up on my reference to winding down the window, but it is easy to change the environment in a vehicle; it can be done very quickly. In London, however, that environment would be dreadful because of the muck in the streets, which one notices when driving into the capital.

As it is easy to change the environment in a vehicle quickly, it is an ideal place for allowing people who smoke and then people who do not smoke to work. Presumably, the Minister acknowledges that, yet she insists for totemic reasons that the complex matter of the change of usage of vehicles cannot be accommodated in regulations—it is easier just to say, “No smoking in here.” Will the Minister give the matter further thought, because it seems wrong to insist on a blanket ban when it is not informed by the need to protect public health from second-hand smoke directly? More particularly, my point is about the totemic, “You must not smoke” provision, which the Minister believes will influence people’s behaviour.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was last given a lift by someone who had been smoking but stopped when he got in the car because he was a non-smoker. I assure him that just winding down the window does not make the car smoke-free. In the vehicles that we are discussing, the issue would be whether to wind down the window, open the doors, use a vacuum cleaner—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is murmuring from a sedentary position.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I am grateful to be invited to intervene by the Minister. She is touching on an important point; when she gets into a vehicle that has been used by a smoker—assuming that the smoker has not been puffing away for a little while—she will notice a very unpleasant smell. If the car has been used by a smoker for any length of time, she will also notice that the car is yellow and rather manky. That is what the Minister is picking up on, but if she is saying that that implies that there is a danger to a person who accepts a lift from a smoker, she must cite the evidence on which she is relying and confound me. I think that she is saying that she objects to the smell, but the smell does not necessarily imply that there is smoke that is likely to be injurious to the person’s health.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think the evidence is that smoke persists. Let us think of some real-life scenarios. Someone may have smoked in their truck for five hours on the way to a depot. There may be a fast turn-around and the truck may be taken out of the depot by another driver, who may be a non-smoker. I am not convinced that it is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. After that turn-around, the person who is expected to drive that vehicle—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to say something, I will give way to him, but if he just wants to interrupt, I will not.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I am sorry; I must stop chuntering. The Minister was right to pick me up on it. The hon. Lady is hypothesising, but she does not appear to have any evidence. I would expect her to say that trials had been done in lorry cabs after someone had been smoking for five hours, that she could cite the evidence that had been accrued and that that was why the Government were insisting on the measure.

So far, the Minister has told me what she thinks, but she has given me no evidence, which is what we need.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, as I said, we recognise that smoke persists and the evidence that we use is provided by those who warn us of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Even when the visible evidence of smoke disappears, the carcinogens can be left in the air. That is one of the reasons why we do not intend to allow smoking in pubs at one point in the day and not allow it at another point.

Let me give another example. A security guard may work alone for a shift in a small cabin. Even though he opens the window, are we saying that he should be allowed to smoke because he is alone in that room for an eight-hour shift? The worker who does the next eight-hour shift has to work in that environment. I do not think that it is appropriate to allow that. The same logic should be applied to cabs.

As I said earlier, the Road Haulage Association has advised that

“most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles”.

I presume that that is because the RHA recognises the health issues and also the issues of comfort, which are an important part of this topic, too. I am pleased to say that a number of firms have voluntarily taken action in this area. We intend to apply the same rationale to vehicles as we apply to enclosed environments—to buildings.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister clarify where the evidence comes from? She said the evidence came from those who provided information, but can she be more precise about the evidence that residual smoke actually does harm? I am an ex-smoker, and I believe that it is easy rapidly to change the atmosphere in a car, particularly in modern vehicles. It is not just a matter of opening the windows; the air-conditioning or the ventilation systems can be used, so that a clean environment can be made inside a car.

If the Minister is going to be so prescriptive as to ban smoking in vehicles, we need the evidence to justify doing that, and it needs to be hard evidence. We have only just reached the point at which the case has been made that passive smoking harms. How do we get to the point at which there is residual harm from passive smoking? There must be evidence to back that up.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, funnily enough, evidence for that was cited by the hon. Member for Westbury earlier in the debate; there are dangers from second-hand smoke, whether or not someone is in the room at the time the smoke is being produced. We know that 95 per cent. of deaths from second-hand smoking occur in the home. That happens even where parents smoke in one room and not another, because smoke drifts and the carcinogens in smoke can be retained within a room’s atmosphere.

I am happy to write to hon. Members about where we get the information on this from. The chief medical officer has been mentioned; he is in favour of a total ban. People have been asking us why we have not accepted that. In fact, we have accepted a great deal of evidence from the CMO, but there are other people who must also be listened to.

A number of studies have been carried out on deaths caused by second-hand smoking in the workplace. I find it interesting that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raises this topic. Earlier in our discussions, she seemed to be inclined towards a total ban, but she now seems to be saying that she does not believe that people working in shared vehicles should have the same opportunity to be in a smoke-free environment as employees working in a shared building or hut.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I want to correct that. I am in favour of either a total ban or no ban. What I am not in favour of is the dog’s dinner that we have in part 1 of the Bill. It is a mish-mash.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, I am glad that that has been clarified. I suppose that that is why we are the party for progress and the Conservative party is not.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister allow me?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is easy to sit on the fence and, while acknowledging the dangers of smoking, to be prepared to vote against a Bill that proposes a ban which, even if it is not a total ban, will extensively open up the opportunity for people to live and work in a smoke-free atmosphere. I find that logic totally cock-eyed. I think it stands in the way of progress; it is not a progressive measure.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The view is shared by at least 58 of the Minister’s colleagues who appear to have signed an early-day motion to that effect.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have more respect for those colleagues than for the hon. Lady’s position. As I have said, I totally understand; the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has the same view about a total ban. Although the provisions may not be all that they want, people who aspire to a total ban such as Cancer Research UK, ASH, the Royal College of Physicians and the local authorities, do not argue against introducing them. There is a world of difference between them and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and perhaps Opposition Front-Bench Members, who say that they want a total ban or nothing at all. That does not stack up.

The hon. Lady says that she is a nurse, and I respect that, but can she cite a medical organisation that says that if we cannot have a total ban they want nothing at all? I do not think that she will find one, because they recognise that the Bill is a huge step forward.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I think that we should get away from Second Reading and come back to the amendment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley. I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunities later to discuss—

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, I will not.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I want to help the Minister.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, I do not think that I need the hon. Gentleman’s help.

Amendment No. 51 would include buses and coaches in the smoke-free provisions. The list of vehicles is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide examples. I understand that those examples were put down because they are not the usual ones in the mix. I also asked why buses and coaches were not included in the list. I want to make it clear that any vehicle open to the public will be smoke-free. It is sometimes difficult in the here and now to think about what vehicle could exist down the line that would not fit into the usual categories. It is partly a safety mechanism so that we are not caught out later on. The vast majority of public transport is already smoke-free.

We will not accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon partly because we do not want to fall into the trap of adding more examples to the Bill, because they are meant only to be examples. I will think a little more about the issue of buses and coaches. Although I do not want to fall into the trap of adding things only to have someone say, “What about this one?”, I will reflect a little on what the hon. Gentleman has said.

A question was asked about vessels. My understanding, and I am not an expert on boats and so on, is that the provision is meant to cover those vessels that may be used on lakes and rivers. Of course, that covers quite a range—off the top of my head, it includes barges, dinghies and boats; it is clear that I am not particularly a sailing person.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister has cited some riparian examples. Is it her intention then that “vessel” should refer merely to craft on rivers or lakes, or does she mean the open seas as well?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Of course, there are situations on the open seas to which the provision would apply. That is why we will get into some of the issues of UK jurisdiction. I understand that the provision is meant primarily to deal with inland situations, but it could apply elsewhere. I am happy to find more information for the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

It is an important point; it is not merely semantics. A lot of vessels sail on both open seas and inland waters, so it is difficult to make a distinction between inland vessels and those on the high seas, so to speak. If we are to cite “vessel”, although we are not sure whether we need to do so, given the Minister’s previous remarks, she needs to be clear about what she means.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I said, I gave examples of types, not an exhaustive list. In regulations we would want to make it clearer what types of vehicles we were talking about, and how they would apply. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important to be clear about what would be permissible for vessels on inland waterways, rather than the sea. We have been working through some ideas about what policies should apply when people are in UK waters, rather than when they leave them. We have been considering those matters by looking at what has happened in Ireland, and thinking about our responsibilities in the devolved Administrations.

I understand that the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 extends to internal waters, territorial sea and international waters. We shall deal with a group of amendments of my own shortly.

Amendment No. 78 would ensure that every type of vehicle used for the carriage of children, the public and persons in the course of their work would be smoke-free. Although all business and public transport will be smoke-free, the regulations may exempt classes of vehicles, such as private and rental cars and vans—vehicles for private use. We cannot ensure that children travelling in private cars will not be exposed to smoke, despite our efforts to inform the public about the dangers of second-hand smoke. This is about choosing health.

One of our surveys earlier this year showed that one third of parents still smoked in front of children in their own car. However, as with homes, although we would encourage parents not to smoke in private cars with children present, we should not prescribe that in legislation, so we do not support the amendment. However, it is fair to say, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, that as public transport and business vehicles will be smoke-free, children and adults will benefit from that policy, as they will from our ban on smoking in most workplaces and public places. To refer back to an earlier discussion, that will have an enormous impact on the environment in which children play, visit and travel in their everyday lives.

Vehicles used as a place of work such as taxis, delivery vans, post vans, buses and trains will be smoke-free, unless they are for the sole use of the owner-driver. It is necessary to ensure that we have the same logical approach to vehicles as workplaces and public places as we have to buildings.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I was not expecting to spend so much time on this group of amendments. We have had a more provocative debate than I expected, which is a good thing. The Minister said that she would think about one or two things that we have discussed. It is evident from her remarks that some shades of grey have been highlighted by this set of amendments, so I am pleased that she has undertaken to give the matter further thought.

There is great scope for confusion and a degree of unfairness. This group of amendments has highlighted the difference between public health measures, measures designed to educate the public and those that are designed to remove a nuisance or improve amenity. Those three things have come together in this group, particularly the unique capacity for changing the environment in vehicles. I do not accept what the Minister says, and I am sure that she feels she is skating on thin ice too.

I have a suggestion. The Minister would not let me intervene at one stage, which is understandable as she has been more than generous during the debate on this group of amendments. I was going to suggest that she might ask the Transport Research Laboratory, if she has not already done so, whether it has any facts and figures on the environment within vehicles. If they do not, perhaps she might commission some simple straightforward studies to establish the persistence of second-hand smoke in vehicles—and how it can be expunged from them through the simple expedient of briefly switching on the ventilation. Then the Minister could come back and say that she had some evidence-based regulations based on the persistence of smoke that may be harmful to people entering vehicles after a smoker. That would be very useful, and we should all stand here, shout hurrah and support those regulations—because they were based on evidence.

It is absolutely not our intention to expose employees to other people’s second-hand smoke. However, we would like some evidence on which to base the regulations. The Bill gives Ministers powers to make bucketloads of regulations; we are naturally cautious about giving powers to the Secretary of State, and would want any regulations that emerge to be based on good reason and good evidence. Everything we do these days in medicine seems to be evidence-based, and rightly so, but the Minister appears to have no evidence for suggesting that regulation should pan out as she describes.

I commend the Transport Research Laboratory to the Minister. I am no expert on transport issues, but from my dealings with it, it would seem well equipped to offer the Minister the advice that she needs. I am a little surprised if Ministers have not consulted the TRL already—although I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister has done that. If she can say so, my mind will be more at ease.

We have dealt with vessels in this set of amendments, but not yet touched upon pleasure craft. I am accustomed to taking my holidays, from time to time, in a fine pleasure craft on the Norfolk broads. I wonder how the promised regulations might pan out for pleasure craft—which, if taken beyond Great Yarmouth, can become craft on the open sea; hence my earlier interest.

I, for one, do not particularly want to take a pleasure craft over from someone who has been smoking all the previous week, but I fully accept that once I have been up and down a broad once or twice, all the smoke that may have been in the craft is likely to have been expunged. I would not appreciate the yellow ceilings and the persistent smell of second-hand tobacco, but I doubt whether that nuisance would be a public health issue affecting my family or me. It might reduce my enjoyment of that pleasure craft and that holiday, but that is a separate issue—as we have said several times in the Committee.

The amendments touch upon hire cars. Again, there is some confusion about hire for business or pleasure use, and hiring by large employers whose employees may use cars solo, or on occasion share them. The Minister attributed to me remarks about car sharing and pooling, but I have not actually made those remarks yet; we can come to them at a later stage. The Minister has made some useful remarks, and has proved uncharacteristically willing to go away and think about some elements of this matter. In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘()The power to make regulations under this section is not exercisable in relation to—

(a)any ship or hovercraft in relation to which regulations could be made under section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) (safety and health on ships), including that section as applied by any Order in Council under section 1(1)(h) of the Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59), or

(b)persons on any such ship or hovercraft.

()In section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21), at the end add—

(a)for the appointment by the Secretary of State of persons to enforce the smoking provisions (whether in respect of ships generally or for any particular case or purpose), and for the removal of any person so appointed,

(b)for such persons (if they are not surveyors of ships appointed under section 256) to have the powers of such surveyors for the purposes of their enforcement functions,

(c)for any such persons to have, for the purposes of their enforcement functions, powers corresponding to those which authorised officers have under paragraphs 2(b) to (e), 3 and 4, as read with paragraphs 5 and 9, of Schedule 2 to the Health Act 2006 (which confers powers of entry, etc., on authorised officers of enforcement authorities in relation to the enforcement of the provisions of that Act in relation to smoking),

(d)in relation to an offence of smoking in a place where smoking is prohibited under the smoking provisions, for purposes corresponding to those of section 8 of and Schedule 1 to the Health Act 2006 (which provide for the giving by authorised officers of penalty notices in respect of such an offence).

In this subsection, “smoking” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.” ’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to debate Government amendment No. 73.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

This is the first Committee on which I have served with the hon. Member for Westbury, but I think that I can safely say that in all the Committees that I have served on—and because I have been at the Home Office, I have probably served on somewhat more than he has—I always try to be open to discussion and contribution. It is always worth knowing where people are coming from with their amendments, but I am also always keen to show where the dividing lines are in policy between the Government and the Opposition.

Amendment No. 72 restricts the power to make regulations on smoke-free conditions for vessels and hovercraft under clause 5. It provides the power to extend regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that the Secretary of State for Transport may make smoke-free provision for vessels. That will be equivalent to the provisions that will be introduced by part 1 of and schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. Amendment No. 73 excludes from the definition of “premises” navigable offshore installations.

These are technical amendments. We have decided that the smoke-free provisions of the Bill should be amended so that they do not duplicate provision that the Secretary of State for Transport may make by regulations under section 85 of the 1995 Act. The Secretary of State may make such provision for ships, hovercraft and, while they are being navigated to their sites, offshore installations. I understand that the Secretary of State is willing to make smoke-free provision for vessels throughout UK waters by such regulations. To enable that to happen, the 1995 Act requires amendment so that, in particular, fixed penalty procedures may apply to smokers who contravene smoking restrictions. It is therefore desired to amend part 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply duplicate provision for England and Wales that may be made under section 85 of the 1995 Act. That Act can be amended so that regulations under it can make smoke-free provision equivalent to that in part 1 of and schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. As I said, the amendment is technical; it does not change our intention.

With regard to consultation on issues relating to vehicles, I should say that the Department for Transport is just one of the Departments that we have consulted on the measures and asked for their views on how the legislation should apply.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister’s comments are reassuring. She rattled through her brief on the amendments and gave us assurances that they do not introduce anything particularly exciting or novel, and of course I trust her implicitly, so that must be the case. That said, will she confirm that the Secretary of State for Transport will make regulations that mirror the regulations that she intends to introduce? Perhaps she could also give us assurances about the timing of them. It seems sensible to ensure that regulations relating to the things for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible tally pretty well with the measures for which the Secretary of State for Health is responsible.

We covered the difficult question of submarines at an earlier stage. I was not here at the time, which was a great pity, because I would have enjoyed that bit. It would be interesting to know what other measures the Minister thinks might be duplicated by regulations that she is minded to introduce in future. I am thinking particularly of the areas that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. It would be helpful to have assurances that, as with the Secretary of State for Transport, those areas will be covered in a timely way by the Secretary of State for Defence.

I always get confused about the difference between the status of offshore installations when they are being towed to their intended destinations and when they are in situ. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s understanding of how these regulations and others will affect life on board an offshore installation. Particularly given the sad events of the past few days, we are all reminded of the combustibility of such installations. Many of us are quite surprised that smoking should be allowed on them in any case, but equally we must accept that they are home for people, sometimes for many weeks. I suspect that they are a special case in terms of permitting smoking, as Her Majesty’s ships and submarines are, but it would be useful if the Minister commented on how she thinks the smoking ban will affect offshore installations that are in situ.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to follow up my hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly as regards the personal responsibilities of respective Secretaries of State. The divisions in the Cabinet before the Bill was presented to the House were extremely well publicised, to the slight discomfort of the Government, and recognised by the Secretary of State for Health on Second Reading. Could the Minister tell us precisely where the Secretary of State for Transport’s assurance has come from? Does it come as a personal minute from him? I assume that different Cabinet Ministers are likely to bring different perspectives to this matter.

It is fairly clear that if the current Secretary of State for Defence, who lists both Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Health among his bewildering range of former posts, were in charge of implementing the regulations he would be rather disinclined to do so. We all know on what side of the argument he sat on the debate in Cabinet. Could the Minister explain precisely how personal her assurance was from the Secretary of State for Transport? Was it directly from him, or was it from representatives in his Department?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will deal with the last point first. The Bill on Second Reading represented the collective decision of the Cabinet—the collective will of the Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Transport. Therefore, this is the Bill that we are all supporting, even though some people may have had different views before reaching this point. There has been consultation between officials in each Department on the Government amendments and about how the measures affect different Departments, what legislation is already on the statute books, and so on. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and other members of the Committee that I would not have tabled them unless I felt that they had the Secretary of State’s support and that the Secretary of State supported the measures in the Bill on smoke-free areas.

The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned timing. It is our assumption that the Secretary of State for Transport will mirror regulations and timing will be consistent with the Department of Health regulations. We hope that at the same time as regulations on substantially enclosed public places are brought forth, similar regulations will be brought forth on vehicles of one form or another. We will be working to ensure that these all come together.

On oil rigs, as we said in earlier discussions, just like Ireland and Scotland in their deliberations, we have had to weigh up the issues that arise where a place is both a person’s residence from which he cannot easily escape and his workplace. Clearly there are overriding health and safety issues involved in stepping outside the enclosed space on to an oil rig or the deck of a ship. That is why we are working to create smoke-free environments indoors on these installations, recognising that for obvious reasons people cannot simply step outdoors.

We are in discussion with the Ministry of Defence about some of the detailed policy issues that are peculiar to the forces. We are looking at how the policy and exemptions would work in a military context. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence recognises the need to replicate in a service context the aim of the policy as it applies to a civilian situation. The discussions are ongoing. The MOD is also considering its own policies on the health of its work force, and I must say that it has been very engaged in some of our discussions and very helpful. In fact, many services have already considered some of the issues that we are addressing under this legislation, which is to be welcomed.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister say exactly at what stage her discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence are and whether they are leading to smoke-free ships and submarines? A very good argument could be made for such a situation. My experience is that trying to persuade sailors in particular to give up smoking is exceptionally difficult, and I would be fascinated to know what stage her discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence have reached.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We acknowledge that sailors could be at sea for some time and that the opportunity to go to an entirely smoke-free area on a ship or a submarine could be limited, so we are using our discussions with colleagues in the MOD and listening to the views of those in the Navy to see how we might make this work. We will not necessarily pursue the option of submarines or ships that are entirely smoke-free, but we are considering ways of allowing people to smoke within the confines of those vessels while allowing those who do not smoke to enjoy their leisure time on board without being in a smoky atmosphere. I cannot add any more at this stage. As I said, we are working through the issue in discussions, which have been constructive and realistic so far.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

This is obviously a subject in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westbury and I have some expertise. As a former surgeon commander with a keen interest in public health, he may have a rather different perspective from others in the chain of command. Will the Minister tell us when she expects to be able to publish the results of her discussions with the MOD, presumably in the form of regulations and preferably in draft so that we may have the chance to examine them informally before they are presented to the House?

I suggest that it should be left to the chain of command in the military to decide the matter, as there are often particular operational circumstances to take into account. My hon. Friend is an expert on matters at sea, but as we know from Northern Ireland as it has been and Iraq as it is, serving on operations and training for operations present very particular problems when trying to protect the rights of smokers and non-smokers, particularly if people live on operations for a long time and those operations become their home.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. As he may know, I have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I had a limited but very enlightening time in Iraq and in Canada with the Army. I believe that a relative of the hon. Gentleman was the commander, although I am not sure whether he is still there.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

He has moved on.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have some experience of what it is like to be far away from home and living in pretty rough circumstances on active operations or, for that matter, on training. That is what the Canadian experience is all about. I cannot tell the Committee exactly where we are up to, but I will update myself and report back on the latest situation if that will be helpful.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury, I understand that if an installation is in situ, responsibility for it falls under this Bill and its regulations, and if it is being towed, it is covered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I think that I have offered hon. Members explanations and assurances on the issues that they have raised during the debate. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the Government amendments.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 38, at end add—

‘(4)Regulations shall provide for prescribed vehicles to be smoke-free wherever a journey does not end under the jurisdiction of the same national authority as the national authority in which it began.’.

In the context of bans on smoking in vehicles, this is a probing amendment about what might loosely be called cross-border journeys. There are two sorts of journey about which I should be interested in the Minister’s clarification. I discussed the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who is unable to be with us at the moment because he is speaking in a debate about children’s hospices in Westminster Hall. He, as a Welshman serving Bristol, and I, as the Member who has the two Severn bridges in his constituency, have some interest in the English-Welsh dimension.

On the assumption that the Welsh ban, such as it is, is likely to be more comprehensive than the English one—I do not know whether that is true of vehicles, because I do not know what the regulations will be—there is the possibility of a disjunction. I know relatively little about the English-Scottish border, but it seems very likely that the Scottish ban will be more comprehensive than the English one. That prompts me to ask what will happen when vehicles cross the boundaries between areas that have different rules on bans.

Our amendment suggests that somebody has to arbitrate. If a journey starts in, say, Chepstow and finishes in my constituency or in Bristol, will the rules that matter be those that apply where the journey starts or those in force where it ends—or those that obtain where it is at any given moment? If there is any inconsistency between the English and Welsh regulations, will people have to stub out their cigarettes as they go across the Severn bridge—that is not actually a border, but the Committee will understand what I mean—or, indeed, will they suddenly light up as soon as they are clear of Welsh airspace? What will apply on cross-border journeys?

One set of issues arises with coaches, another on ferries, and so on. We have discussed ships, but I am thinking of the example of a ferry that sails from England to the Irish Republic, where there is a fairly comprehensive ban. What would be the procedure and, again, is there a point at which one is in international waters and the rules are different? I am rather hazy about the situation. The Committee might regard this as a minor issue, but people will make journeys from one place to another in which the rules are different, and I want to know what will happen.

The intention of our amendment—I do not know whether this would be its effect—was to point out that, because there are subsidiary authorities within the United Kingdom and we cannot say that one takes precedence over the other, the rules of the national authority in which the journey began should apply. There has to be some basis for determining which set of rules should apply, and we suggest that one. As we have not seen the regulations we do not know whether they will be consistent with regulations about vehicle journeys in different parts of the UK. There is every chance that they will not be, so some sort of priority setting will be required, and the amendment seeks to find out what it will be.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

This is an interesting amendment. The hon. Member for Northavon is right to highlight the difficulty that the devolved settlement has thrown up on this matter, as it has on a myriad of other things. I am not too clear whether his intention is purely to limit the provision to the United Kingdom or whether it has to do with wider jurisdictions. If the latter is the case, I suspect that he is likely to find that it falls foul of international law.

This is a related point. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s party is in favour of liberalising the use of cannabis in private places, so it is an intriguing conundrum whether his proposal extends to private vehicles. Perhaps he will now or at some future time clarify whether it applies to that particular element of smoking. He is trying to hit smoking on the head, but apparently that does not extend to cannabis. Does his proposal apply specifically to smoking cannabis in vehicles? If it does, perhaps he might like to think through the consequences of that particular part of liberalisation.

Essentially, I suspect that this has to do with a legalistic matter and that the Minister will probably say that it is a matter for the devolved settlement and that those of us who are foolish enough to smoke will stub out cigarettes when crossing the Severn bridge.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Obviously, our intention is to expect all public and business transport to remain smoke-free while in England. As I understand it, the same policy is being pursued by Scotland, and the Welsh are interested in pursuing a similar one. At the end of our deliberations and if the legislation goes through, this should be a seamless area of policy.

Having said that, it is difficult to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon because of the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury: this could apply beyond the UK. That would raise the question of who would be responsible if somebody went to Belgium or France and did something against the laws that we have here. We are talking about smoking, but we could be talking about speeding or other offences. It is an offence to use drugs while driving; there are offences to deal with that. Testing for drugs is being developed further and further.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Of course it is an offence to use drugs while driving. I was thinking, for example, of passengers who might be using substances in the vehicle or people doing so when the car is not under way. There are all sorts of permutations.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, so I am sure that he is aware of the impact of inhaling cannabis smoke—but we will save that discussion for another day.

It is appropriate that we recognise that vehicles adhere to the legislation of the jurisdiction in which they are travelling. That applies when they are in England and once they have left England. A coach or train crossing from England to Scotland would be abiding by Scottish law once it had passed into Scotland. The hon. Member for Northavon will be aware that GNER has decided that its trains will be smoke-free. To be fair, our legislation and the Scottish legislation is having an impact on how public transport operators are defining their services. The Bill is best left as it is, without the amendment, which would cause confusion about the Government’s role in determining regulations in Scotland and Wales. It potentially complicates matters involving travelling by public transport or vehicles further afield.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The Minister is therefore saying that regulations in Scotland, Wales and England will probably be the same, but if they are not the question is where the vehicle happens to be—that if there were any difference, there might or might not be lighting up at the border. Would the Minister envisage that a ferry to the Republic of Ireland from England would be subject to whatever the English rule might be as long as it was in English territorial waters? Then, if the rules were different in different territories, there could be an announcement saying, “We’re out of English waters” or, conversely, “We’re entering English waters; you can now light up”—or whatever. It is quite conceivable that the rules will be different in England and in the Republic of Ireland or France or wherever. Is the Minister essentially saying that the boundary is English territorial waters, and that that will determine, potentially, whether people can smoke?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

These are the discussions that we are working through. Those who cross territorial waters constantly have to navigate their way round which jurisdiction they are in. That applies on this issue, too. As I said, ferries will be made subject to regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act. We are still in discussion with the Scottish Executive about what would apply in the waters around Scotland. I am not trying to fob off the Committee; those are some of the issues that we are working through to determine the best outcomes.

The hon. Gentleman gave us some scenarios and asked how someone would know whether they were across the border. I can, for the most part, assure the Committee that we do not envisage having border controls or checking people as they cross. As I said in our discussions on other parts of the Bill, a huge amount of this is about public and self-enforcement and creating a different culture in which smoking is restricted as part of the way in which we live our lives. Clearly, if someone is caught or a complaint is made, depending on the rules and laws of the jurisdiction concerned, they could find themselves liable for a fixed penalty notice or prosecution. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. My understanding is that the Minister is saying that the issue should not be a problem because the regulations will probably be consistent. To the extent that the regulations will vary, it will matter where someone is; then, the criterion would be where someone was when they did the action. One can imagine a scenario in which someone lights up, and a person says, “I’m sure we passed a border sign”, and someone else disputes it; then there might be some discussion about which country they were in. However, I am reassured by the suggestion that the regulations will be consistent. Likewise, on ferries there are presumably other regulations, not just smoking ones, that have to be applied according to national rules in some places and international ones in others. I also accept that the amendment probably does not achieve what we intended, so that is two reasons to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I call Dr. Murrison.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Well anticipated, Mr. Illsley; I had hardly moved a muscle when you called me.

I shall try to be as brief as possible, as the Minister will be glad to hear. We have had a good debate on the clause. Vehicles are clearly important, and we must of course cover them in the Bill. As ever, our concerns have to do with regulations and giving the Secretary of State all sorts of powers to do pretty well whatever she, or her successors, might wish. We would prefer there to be more in the Bill.

In our discussion, we identified one or two areas to which the Minister, by her own admission, needs to give a little more thought to improve the Bill. We have had some difficulty over definitions, and we wondered why trains, vessels, aircraft and hovercraft were included but not other forms of transportation, notably buses. I would have thought that buses would be the first category that Ministers would put in, particularly given their stated ambitions—so far unfulfilled—to reduce health inequalities. Surely target groups use buses more than hovercraft or aircraft, yet the Minister has chosen to cite aircraft, hovercraft, vessels—we are not entirely clear what vessels are—and trains. We have to be a little bit clearer about what we mean by vessel. I am pleased that the Minister has given us some explanation of what she understands that term to mean, but I am still slightly confused about how I will fare next time with my motor cruiser on the Norfolk broads, and how I will be fixed with respect to that craft or vessel being smoking or non-smoking when the legislation comes into force in a few months’ time. My rather pathetic little example might be indicative of other examples that may entertain lawyers in years to come.

I hope that the Minister will look at that area a little more closely in collaboration with the Transport Research Laboratory to find out how to make the regulations that will result from the Bill slightly more evidence based. I am surprised that she has not referred to any evidence to support the assertions that she has made during debate on the clause, so I hope that she will give the matter more thought.

It seems to me that it would be quite straightforward to ask for some studies to be done to determine how quickly air can be cleared from, for example, the cabs of lorries. If the Minister can do that, and comes back with evidence that that is too difficult and takes too long, we will be enthusiastic in our support for her measures on public health grounds. My party has made it clear that we support the element of the legislation that relates to workplaces, and vehicles are no different in that respect.

More thought needs to be given to the status of vehicles that are hired for the purposes of employment use. The Minister has indicated that that is so. I think that she said that some further thought would be given to that specific case, as to others that we have identified during our deliberations this morning. That is to the good.

Our aim in considering this legislation must be to try to keep as much away from lawyers—with due respect to the hon. Member for Stafford and his colleagues—as we can. We must make sure that the legislation and the regulations that arise from it are as watertight as possible, so that we do not provide a bean feast for the legal profession, who will otherwise chance upon things such as my pleasure cruiser on the Norfolk broads and will make lots of money at the expense of all concerned.

It is incumbent on the Minister to look closely at the examples that I and other hon. Members have raised in this discussion and elsewhere, to ensure that we cover, as far as we can, the possible grey areas, and areas in which there is some debate about the meaning, as articulated in the Bill and in subsequent regulations.

The Minister may find herself at some future point drawing up the regulations and being responsible for them. I hope that she will then remember the hours that she spent in the Committee with all this helpful advice winging around and, if we can get something in her mind about the way to craft those regulations to ensure that they are not likely to prove difficult in courts of law, that is all to the good. We will, in that case, have done our job quite well.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining offshore installations to me. However, I am still unclear as to how the Secretary of State for Defence will approach the area for which he is now responsible. We must assume that, given his previously stated position, he will be reluctant to insist on bans within his area of responsibility. If I were a smoker in the army, navy or air force, I do not think that I would be too worried about my horrible habit being curtailed too quickly, because I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be reluctant to ban smoking in defence settings. That issue concerns the public health of the men and women of our armed forces, but equally I take account of the Minister’s comments about having to respect the fact that their workplace is often also where they live. That highlights the conflict in the Bill between the rights of individuals, particularly in what might be regarded as their private space, and the need to promote public health. It is like the seatbelt conundrum—do we legislate for people’s own good or respect their right to be competent individuals and to make choices for themselves? This is slightly different because we are talking about an activity that impinges directly on other people. In the armed forces, people are not trivially or casually exposed, but may be in close proximity to second-hand smoke. I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister is prepared to consider this matter and to try to reconcile the libertarian view with public health considerations.

I shall wrap up there, Mr. Illsley. I said that I would be brief, and the hour is long. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have had an interesting debate. There are some issues on which the Committee would like more information, which I shall endeavour to provide. The hon. Member for Westbury spoke about his pleasure cruise. In such a situation, the rules would apply in the same way as with the hire of a private vehicle. If the hon. Gentleman hired a vehicle for private use by his family and did not engage an employee to drive the vehicle, a similar provision to what we discussed in relation to the hospitality industry and hotel rooms and cottages would apply. We are specifically considering public transport and vehicles used for businesses. We believe that the same parameters for the ban on smoking in workplaces should apply to workplaces that happen to be a moving vehicle.

I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about our work with the Ministry of Defence. On his point about the difficulty for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we should not lose sight of the fact that my right hon. Friends the Defence Secretary and the Health Secretary have both worked to introduce legislation to ban smoking for the first time in a variety of public and work spaces. In his previous role as Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was the instrument behind the “Choosing Health” White Paper, and therefore set in motion the process that brought us to where we are today. We are saying for the first time that voluntary regulation is not enough and that we need legislation to restrict smoking. I do not think that anyone can take that away from him.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will have the opportunity later to raise further points.

I take this opportunity to correct something that I said vis-à-vis installations in situ and being towed. I should have said that installations and movable structures moving under their own power are covered under merchant shipping legislation. I understand that if they need to be towed, they are not ships and would therefore be covered by regulations made under this Bill. I hope that I have clarified matters for the Committee. I have learned a lot about merchant shipping legislation, and have certainly thought more about such situations than I ever had before. I wanted to clarify that because I did not want to feel that I had misled the Committee in any way. With installations that are being towed, the installation would not come under merchant shipping legislation, but the vehicle towing it obviously would be. I hope that that is clear to everyone, and that the Committee will support the clause, which further shows the Government’s intention to provide, in legislation, for more public places and workplaces to be smoke-free.

Clause 6 - No-smoking signs

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, leave out from ‘he’ to end of line 30 and insert

‘took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence not to commit the offence’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

On the assumption that there will be a whole or partial ban in various sorts of premises, the way in which that is indicated to those who work there or are customers there is important. I suspect that we shall come to the wider issues of signage later, but the amendments deal with the basis on which somebody charged with failing to ensure that signs are displayed can offer a defence.

To follow the logic of that, subsection (6) sets out the circumstances in which a person charged with an offence under subsection (5) can offer a defence. Subsection (5) says that it is an offence to fail to comply with the duty in subsection (1), and subsection (1) explains that the duty is

“to make sure that no-smoking signs complying with the requirements of this section are displayed ... in accordance with the requirements of this section.”

Therefore, the offence is failing to ensure that proper signage is displayed.

Amendment No. 49 deals with the fairly convoluted formulation of subsection (6), which sets out the basis on which people can offer a defence, such as

“he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know”.

The amendment offers a much simpler formulation. It takes out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and simply says:

“took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence not to commit the offence.”

That seems to us to be a simple and all-embracing way to put it.

I looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill, which suggest various instances in which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) might be appropriate. Paragraph (a) says that it is a defence if someone could not reasonably have been expected to know that the premises were smoke-free. The example given is where there is a dispute about what wholly or partially enclosed means. My understanding is that we are talking about proprietors, whose duty it is to put up signs; we are not talking about punters—customers—smoking where they should not. We are talking about the failure of owners, proprietors, managers and so on to make sure that there are signs.

I find the paragraph a bit odd, in the sense that premises do not change much. One could imagine a marginal case in which the proprietor thought that a percentage threshold in the regulations was about 49 per cent. and the inspector thought that it was 51 per cent. They may be the sort of circumstance that the Government have in mind here, but it seems to us an unnecessarily convoluted way of putting it. That sort of case would be caught under our formulation, which deals with whether reasonable precautions were taken and due diligence shown. There is nothing in that kind of example that does not fall within our simple formulation.

The same is true of subsection (6)(b), which says that a proprietor could not reasonably have known that no-smoking signs were not being displayed. The example given in the explanatory notes is where the signs have been vandalised. In other words, the proprietor, acting in good faith, has put the signs up and somebody has come along and pulled them down; he did not know that and could not reasonably have been expected to know that. Again, that seems to me to come under the scope of due diligence. One might reasonably expect a proprietor to put the signs up and check from time to time that they are still there, so again I do not see why we need this complex formulation.

I am also a little confused about paragraph (c). The explanatory note suggests that while it might be a fair cop to say, “The vandals have just taken the sign down”, to say six months later, “They took it down six months ago,” would not be. We want the clause to provide a simple principle that will be applied if action is taken, and the principle of due diligence and reasonable precaution seems to us to be preferable, simpler and widely used elsewhere.

Linked with amendment No. 49 is amendment No. 50, which removes subsection (7). As I understand it, subsection (7) is about the burden of proof. It seems to say what one would expect. In other words, if someone says, “It wasn’t reasonable for me to have known about this because the vandals took the sign down last night and I haven’t been round yet”, subsection (7) says that the court will accept that unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not the case. I simply assumed that the court had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the proprietor or landlord was innocent until proven guilty.

We propose to remove subsection (7) so that the Minister will tell us what it adds to the stock of human knowledge. What does it add to the procedure? What does it gain us? As ever, we want simplification and briefer legislation. Our amendment would achieve that, and we look forward to the Committee accepting it.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

On the face of it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment seems reasonable. I am a little concerned, however, that it will clobber proprietors. I wonder what consultations he undertook before tabling his amendments with those whose business it is to run licensed premises, who might be quaking at the thought of the amendments being accepted because of the prospect of their suddenly becoming criminals.

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be introducing an unwarranted level of ambiguity and to be trying to remove a defence that individuals might rely on. I am thinking of large operators, who are responsible for a number of sites. With the best will in the world, it will be extremely difficult for them to police the signs erected all over the place as a result of the legislation. Once again, we have to consider the fact that we might give lawyers a field day.

I know where the hon. Member for Northavon is coming from. He is pursuing his vehemently anti-smoking line, but probably to the nth degree. This is the first time I shall be complimentary about the Bill. It attempts, in a reasonable way, to provide a defence for people acting in good faith to comply with the legislation. Imposing penalties on operators while removing that defence, which is reasonably elegantly laid out in the Bill, seems unhelpful and will almost certainly upset proprietors, particularly those of licensed premises and those who work remotely, perhaps managing a number of premises. They would be quite concerned about the amendments were the Committee to accept them.

The hon. Gentleman says that he has tabled an amendment that would delete subsection (7) in order to tease the Minister on what it would mean were it removed. It is all very well to say that—we all do it—but he knows full well that it would remove the defence on which individuals might reasonably rely. Members of my party would be reluctant to see that subsection removed, and I am sure that the Minister is about to tell us why it should remain.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As has been said, subsection (6) sets out the defences available when a person is accused of not complying with a requirement to display no- smoking signs in smoke-free premises, additional smoke-free places under clause 4 and smoke-free vehicles. When there is an offence we clearly have to be mindful of a person’s opportunity to have a defence. We have discussed the clause with our legal advisers and the Home Office with regard to these offences, which include a person not knowing or not being reasonably expected to know that he or she was not complying with the requirements set out in regulations. Ireland has gone for a total ban and there have been very few prosecutions, which is encouraging from the outset. I am hopeful that the same will apply in England. That said, we need to have some offences to cover breaches of the law. We need to engage with that in relation to the risk consequences and what the defence will be.

Amendment No. 49 would change the defence to having taken

“all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence”.

Lawyers have advised me—I am not a lawyer—that that could allow a slightly broader range of defences, or, in other words, make it a little easier to defend oneself against prosecution for the offence. However, I suppose that one can speak to lots of different lawyers and they will supply lots of different viewpoints. In reality, the difference is small. Subsection (6)(c) already provides a general defence that on other grounds it was reasonable for a person not to comply.

We decided on the defences in subsection (6) to ensure that defences were available if a person genuinely did not know that he was not complying with the requirements. I am sure that we can think of different scenarios. Someone who worked in an establishment might not have been informed that they should check the notices every day. A defence could be that a notice had fallen down but the person was not aware of it. However, the prosecution could then look at the notice and say, “Well, even though it did fall down, it did not comply with the regulations,” so there would be a defence for one aspect but not the other. We want to ensure the greatest possible chance of a successful prosecution where an offence has been committed. I feel satisfied that the subsection achieves that aim so I am not persuaded of the case for revising the defences.

Subsection (7) specifies that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt whether an offence has been committed under clause 6 where a person provides evidence to support a defence. My understanding is that that is in line with offences under other health legislation. If the hon. Member for Northavon is interested, I would be pleased to give him examples of those areas, but I have not got them to hand at the moment. That was one of the issues in applying the clause in this way.

Amendment No. 50 would remove subsection (7). That would make it less clear what burden of proof the prosecution had to discharge. It is important for everyone’s sake that that is made plain in the Bill. If the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, all the defendant has to do is give some evidence. He does not have to prove the evidence. The provisions are fit for purpose, but, as I have said before, I hope that prosecutions of this kind will be few and far between, based on the success in other countries and presumably in other jurisdictions of the UK.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Naturally, none of us wants lots of prosecutions. Will the Minister comment on the point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the local landlord, or the senior manager of the region? That has some implications for who provides the defence and who could reasonably be expected to have done what. Will she clarify who will be in the dock?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Subsection (1) states:

“It is the duty of any person who occupies or is concerned in the management of smoke-free premises to make sure that no-smoking signs”

comply with the requirements. I suggest that that is not necessarily the licensee. It could be someone managing an establishment or someone who, in their job description, has responsibility for ensuring that certain aspects of running the premises are carried out. For example, in other areas of legislation, responsibilities relating to the sale of alcohol are set out. Those responsibilities could apply to the owner or manager of the premises, but they could also apply to the bar staff. That is my interpretation, but I am happy to follow it up to ensure that I am correct.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Member for Westbury accused me of wanting to impose draconian penalties on the nation’s landlords, but the Minister now accuses me of being soft on errant landlords. Perhaps that means that I have got it right. It certainly was not our intention substantively to alter the severity or otherwise of the penalties. From what the Minister said, the difference between our formulation and the Government’s is slight. I prefer ours, but that may be a matter of taste.

I am puzzled by subsection (7). Although I am not a lawyer, it seems that the default position is not that one is innocent until proven guilty—that the onus is not on the prosecution to prove that what one says is not so. I am surprised that it has to be spelt out each and every time that an offence is created. One ought to be able to say, “The prosecution has to prove it, guv’nor.” It surprises me, but perhaps that is the way of the world. I am surprised that it has to be spelt out; if that is so, we will have to leave it in the Bill.

As I said, my preference is for the formulation in amendment No. 49. However, it is a fairly marginal difference, and we certainly do not intend to lessen the penalty for a failure to display those signs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 36, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 37 and insert

‘level 1 on the standard scale’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

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

No. 63, in clause 7, page 5, line 14, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 15 and insert

‘level 1 on the standard scale’.

No. 64, in clause 9, page 6, line 6, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 7 and insert

‘level 1 on the standard scale’.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

This is a straightforward set of amendments; I shall not detain the Committee.

The Bill pretty well gives the Secretary of State the ability to set the penalty for offences under clause 6. In other parts of the Bill, the point on the standard scale to which offences are pegged is set out explicitly. The purpose of the amendments is not to be didactic about the level at which the offences should be pegged on the standard scale—we suggest level 1—but to press the Minister to include in the Bill the point on the standard scale at which it is appropriate that those offences should rest. It seems inappropriate that the House should allow the Secretary of State to set the level of the offence. Given that the level is clearly established elsewhere in the Bill, it seems appropriate that clause 6 should do the same.

The amendments suggest that the clause be altered to reflect level 1 on the standard scale. They are not meant to suggest that level 1 is necessarily where it should be, but rather to press the Minister to make clear in the Bill where she feels it is appropriate for the offence to rest, having regard to proportionality and ensuring that other offences are not degraded by virtue of pegging the offence at an inappropriately high level. That is what we intend. I would be grateful if the Minister would say why a level is not stipulated in the Bill, and perhaps consider whether it would be appropriate to do so, particularly as clause 6 seems exceptional in that its offences do not come with what I might call a tag to show the penalty that should accrue to those who offend.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are designed to specify in the Bill the fine levels for the offences of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places, smoking in a smoke-free place and failing to display no-smoking signs in smoke-free premises.

We conducted a consultation over the summer in which one question was about the level of fines. We proposed a fixed penalty of £50 for the offence of smoking in smoke-free places. On a summary conviction for the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free premises and the offence of failing to comply with signage requirements, we said that we intended to prescribe in regulations a fine up to level 1, which is at present up to £200. We intend that the regulations will prescribe a fixed penalty of £50 for the offence of smoking in smoke-free premises. That is the same amount as for the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated place. The next level of penalty is £80, which covers offences such as behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is not appropriate to put the smoking offence in that category. The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he agrees. We accept that the appropriate fine for a smoker who did not pay a FPN would be a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

That said, a large number of respondents to the consultation felt that the penalty amounts were too low, particularly in relation to the offences of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places and failing to display no-smoking signs in smoke-free places. Comparisons were made with the €3,000 fine in Ireland. The point was made that if fines were too low and there was no escalation for repeat offences, some businesses might prefer to pay fines as a business cost to secure revenue from smokers.

In the light of that, we have been in further discussions with the Home Office on the appropriate fine levels for those two offences. The Home Office has advised us that it feels that the fine for the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free premises should be at a higher level. I am considering that advice in some detail and I will set out our final intentions on Report. Based on what has come forward quite recently from the Departments, I am considering the matter further. It is important to show that we are serious about where the ban will apply. People running establishments will need to be mindful of that. As I have said, I hope that the need for prosecution will be such that prosecutions are few and far between.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the Minister be clear about what she will do on Report? There is a feeling among Opposition Members that the maximum limit on the scale of the penalties should appear in the primary legislation; it should not be left to regulation to impose that maximum limit. Does the Minister propose to return on Report, having finished her consideration in the Department, and to amend the Bill, which would be the preferred course of action, or is she saying that she will simply make an announcement? We may not reach this matter on Report. I am sure that she will find a way to get it on the record, but we may have limited time. Can she explain whether she will give a verbal assurance or place the maximum limit in the Bill?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am not minded to place it in the Bill, because in line with other areas in which penalties apply, there are issues about the flexibility to make changes based on experience. I do not want to set a precedent in this area that would not necessarily apply to other areas in which regulations are used. In terms of discussion in the House, these matters would form part of an affirmative resolution process.

On the other point made by the hon. Member for Reigate, about what happens if there is not enough time on Report, I am actively considering the issue. I shall reflect on what has been said and on what I can achieve by way of a clearer steer on where we are going with it. I hope that that will suffice for now. I do not want the matter to be left for Report, as this part of the Bill might not be reached and people would not have another chance to discuss it. As I said, the issue will be subject to draft regulations, at which time wider views will be expressed, and to the affirmative resolution procedure.

It is my wish—and everybody’s wish, I am sure—that the measures in the Bill will be self-enforcing, and that there will be little need for prosecution. Having said that, we must be serious about the proposals and, clearly, we should not leave loopholes for people to take advantage of, or allow repeat offences for which there can be no taking into account the fact that the offending involves more than one mistake—a repeat offender situation. It is important that the fines reflect that. As I said, I am considering what came out of the consultation, and discussing the appropriate level of fine with the Home Office.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

We have had a useful debate. The Minister admits that she does not expect a raft of prosecutions under clause 6, but that is slightly at odds with the notion that we should not peg the offence at a particular level. Indeed, the likelihood of offences is related to the point at which one pegs the penalty. I hope that that is the case, otherwise it would make a mockery of our justice system. There is a disconnect somewhere that we will have to explore at a later stage.

I am grateful to the Minister, up to a point, for the reassurance that she has given, although I believe that the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate are well founded. Overall, this is a rather small part of the Bill, so I am not inclined to detain the Committee on it too long or to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, we have identified an area that needs further work, and I am pleased that the Minister will think about it. We must get the proportionality right. I believe that most people would say that level 2 is probably inappropriate for this offence, on the basis of the description that the Minister gave of level 2 offences.

I also hesitate to support the Minister’s contention that there would be a perverse incentive at level 1 for people simply to take the fine on the chin and say, “It’s cheaper than providing adequate signage.” The Minister said that she does not expect many cases to be brought for the offence, and I also suspect that that will be the case. It would be extraordinary for a company or a licensee to go to the trouble of turning up in court, with all that that means in local publicity and so on, in order to circumvent the expense of providing signage. In summary, I agree with the Minister that repeat offences must be dealt with seriously. We have no doubt that that would be the case, given what is in the Bill.

I am not prepared at this stage to press the matter. I hope that we will reach this part of the Bill on Report and have time to debate it, and that the Minister will come back with some answers as to why she cannot peg the penalty at the appropriate level. On reflection, and given the Minister’s description, that would seem to be level 1. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I think that this is the appropriate point at which to ask a general question about the clause, which creates a duty to display no-smoking signs. The clause makes sense in the narrow context of the Bill, but a rather awkward issue arises if one stands back and puts the Bill into perspective.

The Bill is a stage on a journey, at the beginning of which smoking was the majority activity and was permitted everywhere. At the end of the journey is a presumption that smoking is not a permitted activity and that non-smoking is the norm. We are moving down that path, and as we do so, we preclude smoking as an activity from more and more places. It therefore makes sense to indicate where smoking is banned as one goes down that path.

There comes a point, however, when the see-saw begins to tilt and non-smoking is the presumed activity. At the moment, it seems that the clause will be there for ever and a day, whereas I want there to be smoking signs. In other words, I want there to be a presumption that one cannot smoke anywhere, and that signs are put up in the minority of places in which smoking is still permitted, thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence. It appears that we cannot change the terms of trade or the centre of gravity without primary legislation to change the clause.

It is illegal to perform many activities in public, but there are no signs that say so. I remember signs in France that said, “Défense de Cracher”, which means no spitting. There are no such signs in this country; they are not needed. Will the Minister say at what point we have reached the critical stage where we do not need no-smoking signs because non-smoking is the norm, and where we need instead signs that say “Smoking”? When we have reached that paradise, which I hope will not be too far in the future, will we need primary legislation to amend the clause by deleting the “No” at the beginning of the title of the clause so that it reads “Smoking signs”? Is there another way around this that does not enshrine in legislation the fact that no smoking is the protected activity and that allows us to take that step forward?

It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little about the stage at which no smoking is the norm and we do not need all these signs that will pop up everywhere.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I reinforce my right hon. Friend’s views. Stocksigns, a company in my constituency that makes signs, enjoyed a rare bonanza when the fire regulations insisted on a vast increase in fire exit signs and the rest, and I realise that the mouths will be watering at the prospect of the regulations being enforced if that means that we are to identify every place in the country as a no-smoking area and if a duty is to be laid on establishments everywhere that are non-smoking, which will be a significant majority of establishments of one form or another.

I can only say that unnecessary, bossy signs are a disagreeable part of the environment, and I sincerely hope that the Government will include a sunset clause in the regulations when they introduce them. It should not take very long to reach the tipping point that my right hon. Friend mentioned if, as he says, the Bill and this measure are another stage on the journey that he described. We are quite near that tipping point already, and no-smoking signs will be unnecessary very shortly. I therefore hope that a sunset clause will appear in the regulations.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) are absolutely right that we risk the clutter of yet more signs, and although I do not want to deprive my hon. Friend’s constituents the business that appears to be coming their way, allowing for smoking signs rather than non-smoking signs would be a sensible way ahead. I am very sure that outside bodies that deal with sensitive sites in particular would also be interested in that—

Health Bill - Standing Committee E

Clause 6 - No-smoking signs

4.5 pm

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

What a pleasure it is to see you, Mr. Illsley. Before lunch, I was in the middle of summing up my remarks on clause 6, which has to do with signage. I was saying how much sense there was in proposals that, rather than having no-smoking signs, we should have smoking signs. Given the direction in which we are going, in the fullness of time smoking will be the exception, having once, sadly, been the rule. That being so, it will be better to have smoking signs where that exceptional activity is permitted, rather than no-smoking signs, which—we would hope—will be largely redundant.

Of course, there would be cost implications, although signs are relatively cheap. I recall the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that there is the possibility that in creating this legislation we are assisting not only lawyers but signmakers. If they have any sense, they will be watching our deliberations very closely in the expectation of producing lots of signs in the not-too-distant future. That is not, in itself, a bad thing, but it will be a good thing to reduce the burden on those who operate premises by minimising the amount of signage that is required. There are other good reasons for minimising signage, including the fact that signs tend to clutter a place. We are all aware of highway clutter—in my case, I pass signs about this, that or the other every five minutes all the way down to the west country. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends have been exercised by that, especially the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is particularly concerned about roadside clutter.

However, it is a more general point. We seem to be erecting more and more signs wherever we go, so surely it is a good thing to minimise that, especially in sensitive areas, which places open to the public often are. I am thinking particularly of historic and listed buildings. It would be good to have as few ugly signs intruding on our enjoyment of those places as possible.

The trouble with signs is that if we institute a new range, that will lessen the significance of those that we have already. At the moment, we have helpful signs telling us where to go and so on, safety signs, exit signs, and signs telling us what to do to maximise our chances of having an incident-free visit. We are at risk of going into information overload. By having smoking rather than no-smoking signs, we will improve signage in general, ensure that we do not dilute the existing messages, particularly the important ones relating to health and safety, and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses that will have to display signs and, importantly, police them.

The Bill places an obligation on individuals to ensure that there is adequate signage. If we can keep that as simple as possible, that has to be a good thing. Later in our consideration of the Bill, remarks on keeping things simple, made by the Local Government Association, will probably be mentioned. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment that is taken, pretty well verbatim—correction, verbatim—from a suggestion made in an LGA paper, which was sent to all members of the Committee, stating that it was worried about the complexity of some of the arrangements. By keeping matters as simple as possible we will at least satisfy the LGA and, I suspect, many others.

I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the helpful suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), which is sound good sense. Let us please have smoking signs rather than non-smoking signs.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Before I enter into discussions about signage—whether signs should say smoking or non-smoking, for example—I want to repeat that I am considering the issue of fines, based on consultation.

I sought advice during the break about who would be liable in respect of the offence of not displaying signs and so on, a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). I was pleased to have had an opportunity to think about that matter and to discuss it with officials. We would not necessarily target ordinary bar staff, but people who have a position of responsibility in a bar; that could be the licensee, the manager or someone who is given additional responsibilities over and above serving in the bar or cleaning it.

I have some sympathy with the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire about signs. I asked questions about that issue when we drew up and received responses to the consultation document in the summer and when we discussed the drafting of the Bill. In an ideal world, the presumption would be that everywhere was non-smoking unless there was a sign stating that smoking was allowed. It would be nice to believe that that would happen, as it would be the easiest option. Unfortunately, we do not live in that ideal world.

As part of my deliberations, I discussed what happens in other countries and as far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—the countries that have introduced restrictions, even those such as Ireland and some states in America that have a total ban, still make provision for the focus to be on non-smoking, rather than smoking, signs. That is partly because of the defence issue—people should know that they are entering a non-smoking environment. We are at the start of a legislative process in defining, in law, those places that should be non-smoking. In the debate on this clause we are discussing the defences available to people to argue that they were unaware that they were in a non-smoking or smoke-free establishment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The purpose of a Committee stage is to reflect on the Bill. Having listened to the debate, I think that we are in danger of getting the proposal wrong. Surely, the duty should be on the smoker to establish that smoking is permitted. Will the entire country be splattered with signs pointing out that it is not permitted? The responsibility should lie with the smoker. There should be no defence for a smoker who lights up in a place where smoking is not permitted, because smokers should take care to establish that smoking is allowed before they light up.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should reflect on the fact that we are legislating for the first time to make it an offence, perhaps with a fixed penalty notice, for a person to smoke in a non-smoking environment. There are some real problems with people being able to say that they were not aware that it was a non-smoking establishment. As for splattering the country with signs, we are looking for a relatively light touch.

I take on board what the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said about listed buildings and so on, and the fact that we should be sensitive about signage. We should also be sensitive to the fact that many of the establishments that now operate voluntary no-smoking policies already have no-smoking or smoke-free signs; we want to be mindful of that and how any new system of signage builds on or links with it. We certainly are not looking to overburden establishments with no-smoking signs. As I said, we have a record of what other countries have done. Some of them have restrictions and have since gone for a total ban. Indeed, Ireland has gone for a total ban, but it still believes that is it right to have no-smoking signs.

The other aspect is the message that signage sends out. It is quite positive that adults and young people should see no-smoking signs in places where they are active, or visiting or working, rather than seeing smoking signs all over the place. The no-smoking sign sends out a visible message that is clearly understood. If we were to move to smoking signs, however, the question is where they should be placed. We have been speaking of places where people will be able to smoke. For instance, should we have signs outside every pub saying that you can smoke outside but not inside?

All sorts of issues will be raised if we clutter with signs those areas where people cannot smoke. I would ask hon. Members to pause for thought if they were thinking of moving to a regime of smoking signs, as a huge number of places would be cluttered with signs. If we did not have no-smoking signs, the reverse would be to have smoking signs.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

The Minister is making a good case for clause 6, as it is at the point of inception of a new regime and the creation of the criminal offence of smoking in a public place. I am minded to be persuaded by her argument. My concern is that if, in a few years’ time, we have successfully changed the climate and non-smoking becomes the norm, we will need primary legislation to remove clause 6. If we do make substantial progress, is there a better way of dealing with clause 6 than having to make fresh primary legislation?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, I am sure that future Governments will be able to make time to deal with such issues through primary legislation. We have already said that we intend to monitor the legislation from day one and to review it within three years. If it was thought that we could move to an environment where smoke-free or no-smoking signs were not necessary, I am sure that an opportunity would present itself.

A number of other countries have extensive restrictions and bans in place. For example, although California has a smoking prevalence of 15 per cent., it still has no-smoking signs for establishments that are smoke-free. Such signs will have a role as the legislation comes into effect and for the foreseeable future.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that she will review the issue after a period to be defined and that she might then be minded to change the signage from “No Smoking” to “Smoking”? That is extraordinary.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Well, that is the implication of her remarks. Why is she talking about reviewing matters? What purpose will the review have?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, I said that for the reasons that I outlined, we should have a presumption in favour of no-smoking signs, rather than signs that define smoking areas, as has been suggested. I have outlined the reasons why and, as with everything, we shall have to see how the legislation comes into force. However, for the foreseeable future—to be honest, that is quite a long time—there will still be a need for no-smoking signs. That has been the experience in countries that have legislated to restrict or ban smoking in all public places.

I am certainly not suggesting that we expect to change this around; we want to take a light-touch approach to these signs and to work with the grain of existing measures, given that several establishments have already voluntarily become smoke-free or have smoking restrictions. We also want to take into account what is appropriate in different types of building and the different language requirements in England and Wales.

Signage is important for another reason. London is a major tourist attraction, and it is important to make clear to tourists what the laws of the land are and how they should be applied.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister’s last point is reasonable, but her argument about signage might be driven by a degree of expediency, if I may say so. I thought that the Bill was all about not smoking and I can think of no better way of getting that message across than saying that there will be no smoking unless an area has a notice saying, “Smoking”. That is a clear public health message, and I wonder whether we are having no-smoking rather than smoking signs because the Cabinet and Ministers have difficulty with a ban on smoking, which will be unpopular with some sectors of the community.

I ask the Minister to give the matter further thought, because my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has made a sensible point. The more I think about it, the more I feel that having smoking rather than no-smoking signs would send a firm public health message, because there would be a ban on smoking unless it were explicitly stated that one may smoke in an area.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is becoming rather silly, if I may say so. Not having signage could result in enforcement difficulties in premises that have to be smoke-free under the law. It would be nice to believe that we could pass a law in this place and that everybody out there would simply be aware of it and carry it round with them, but we are talking about a real shift from voluntary restrictions and bans to restrictions and bans that are enshrined in legislation. If somebody does not abide by that law, they will commit an offence, and I am thinking particularly of members of the public who go into a place and start to smoke a cigarette.

However much I might like to believe that we will one day live in a world in which nobody smokes—we would all hope for that, but it is a long way off—an individual has the right to be warned that they might be committing an offence. All the countries that have sought to restrict or ban smoking have felt that it is part and parcel of good compliance and enforcement to alert individuals as to the status of the establishment that they entering to give them a reasonable opportunity not to commit an offence under the law. That is important. The signage that we will discuss in regulations should not be over-burdensome. It should not spoil buildings. But we should also recognise the need to have those places that are smoke-free defined as such.

In many respects, as a firm message of health, I personally would rather see more signs saying “No smoking” than be confronted by signs saying “Smoking allowed”. I hope that hon. Members will support the clause. There are certain issues relating to the fines that I will take away to think about. I will come back to the Committee on them in due course.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. I do not want to pre-empt what you are about to say, but you will be aware that we are now encountering a series of clauses to which no amendments have been tabled. There was some uncertainty earlier about the procedure. May I, through you, encourage the Minister to initiate each of the debates with some words on the clause stand part issue? It would make our proceedings more efficient if we could avoid uncertainty about who kicks off.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am grateful for that point of order. I can only call those who rise to try to catch my eye. I am sure that the Minister will have heard that request, but I am bound by procedure.

Clause 7 - Offence of smoking in smoke-free place

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

It is a pleasure to be of service to the Liberal Democrats to ensure that there is a debate on clause stand part. Clause 7 introduces the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place. I welcome that. The Minister said in an earlier debate that she did not envisage a raft of prosecutions. I hope that she is right. I hope that this will be self-enforcing. But it would be helpful if she could tell us a little about the experience overseas where this offence has been created. Has there been a raft of prosecutions or has it on the whole been self-enforcing?

It might also help if the Minister would tell us what the experience has been in this country where there has been an offence of smoking in a smoke-free place, such as on public transport. Has this been self-enforcing or have there been problems in enforcing it? I seem to remember a few years ago when Connex trains made the whole of its fleet smoke-free that a number of people, none the less, insisted on smoking. How was that resolved? Were there prosecutions?

Finally, in subsection (3) there is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2). It would be helpful to know whether that defence is compatible with the defences that exist in those cases where it is already an offence to smoke, for example on the train. In other words, is there some case law that underpins subsections (3) and (4) based on the experience in this country or has the Department branched out and created what in its view is a defence, which may or may not be the same as the defences that can currently be exercised by those who smoke on an aircraft or a train?

I hope that this has enabled the Liberal Democrats to assemble some coherent thoughts on clause stand part. I welcome the clause. It is a step in the right direction but it would be helpful to have some reassurance that this will not cause enormous difficulties in the way that it is enforced.

Dr. Murrisonrose—

Stephen Williams (Bristol, West) (LD) rose—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I call Dr. Murrison.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I was rather hoping to heighten the Liberal Democrats’ discomfiture by coming in at the end to give them more time to marshal their thoughts—a need evidenced by their cunning point of order. Self-enforcement is very important. I hope that the Minister will tell us to what extent she believes the measure will be self-enforcing. The Local Government Association is certainly concerned. It is greatly exercised by the question of who will deal with enforcement in relation to the offences under the Act. Its briefing, which I hope all members of the Committee have read and inwardly digested, states that it hopes—I think it expects—that the measure will be largely self-enforcing, and that it therefore hopes that the burden on its members will be minimised. However, we are not sure about that, and the best litmus test will be what happens in other countries, to which the Minister referred extensively in her earlier remarks.

It would be useful to know which countries the Minister has benchmarked us with, and particularly—I suspect that we shall deal with this on later clauses—what the cost was. We expect her to be able to tell us at some point where the money will come from. Given the likelihood of increases in council tax, I hope that she will tell us that the money will be found from pockets other than those of our hard-pressed constituents. We look forward to hearing news about that, perhaps under later clauses, but some remarks at this juncture about self-enforcement, to assuage the concerns of the Local Government Association, would be most welcome.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Mr. Williams, you were pipped at the post a minute ago, but I have pleasure in calling you now.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Thank you, Lady Winterton.

I, too, want to discuss subsection (3). I wonder what the defences might be. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the topic. I imagine that not seeing the signs would not be accepted, but perhaps someone might say, by way of a defence, if the matter went as far as court, or if they were challenged by an enforcement officer or someone else, “I was in a pub with which I was not familiar and I did not see anyone eating.”

I know that the big thrust of the Bill is to distinguish between pubs where someone can have a meal and those where they cannot. However, if, for example, I went on holiday to Cheshire, and went into one of the splendid establishments in Congleton, I should not necessarily know whether it had a menu or offered food. At this time in the afternoon, one would not normally expect to see anyone having a meal in any pub in the country. If someone lit up next to me, I should not necessarily have the confidence to say, “Do you know it is illegal to smoke in this pub?” unless I had checked for the right signs in the right places or asked the landlord whether there was a menu for evening or lunchtime food to satisfy myself that I was in a pub where, even though meals were not being served at the time, I could challenge the person and say, “Please put your cigarette out. You are breaking the law.”

Self-enforcement has been mentioned a couple of times. Surely self-enforcement or self-policing of the Bill would be much easier with a total ban in all public houses, so that a non-smoker would have the confidence to challenge anyone they saw smoking and tell them that they were breaking the law, thus putting social pressure on them. Equally, things would work the other way round. There might be small-scale smoking tourism. In Bristol, people might go from one ward where all the pubs had a smoking ban to a pub where they might think smoking continued to be allowed. How would a smoker be able to light up with confidence? A clear demarcation would be easier.

Subsection (5) refers to a fine to be set by the Secretary of State in future regulations. What is the current thinking on that? What sort of fine for smoking in a public place might one typically expect to be offered on a fixed penalty notice?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

To deal with the last point first, as I said in an earlier debate, we are considering a fine of £50 for someone who enters a smoke-free establishment and is issued with a fixed penalty notice for lighting up. We decided on that sum because the next level of fine is £80, which, as we discussed with our Home Office colleagues, is the level of fine for situations in which individuals cause harassment, distress or upset. We thought that that might not be appropriate in this instance.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank the Minister for that clarification about the sum. Presumably that would for a first offence. Is it intended that a record of such fines will be kept? I admit that I am not sure of the normal legal practice with fixed penalty notices, but if someone were to go to another pub a few weeks later and light up again, would they get the same fixed penalty, or will there be a sliding scale?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

At this stage, we are talking about a set fixed penalty.

I shall say a little more about prosecutions in other jurisdictions. On the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I understand—I do not have the figures on me—that there have been few prosecutions for people lighting up in smoke-free areas on trains and so on. When trains, tubes and buses became smoke-free, some people decided to ignore that move; what contributed to the success of the move in the medium and long term was the fact that relevant staff took up those issues, and the will of passengers who would not tolerate it. That has worked pretty well.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister is generous in giving way. To what extent will enforcement officers have discretion with fixed penalty notices? There is a great barrage of defences written into the Bill—probably correctly so—that a person who has lit up could probably marshal, if they had the wit to do so, and fire at the enforcement officer, who will, presumably, be busily writing out the enforcement notice. To what extent will an enforcement officer be able to use his or her discretion before pinning an enforcement notice on the smoker?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Obviously, an enforcement officer has to assess a situation at any given time in relation to the circumstances. For someone not to accept a fixed penalty notice, they would have to make their case in court. I expect that, as with fixed penalty notices for other matters, people will opt for fixed penalty notices when they know that they have been caught red-handed. Clearly, there has to be a defence in law.

We discussed some examples in an earlier sitting, at which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) was not present. One example is a situation in which a person goes into an establishment in which the signage is not apparent and unwittingly lights up just as a local enforcement officer happens to be entering the establishment. There are lots of possible scenarios. The defence is meant to be a safeguard, but, as I said, that is why signage is important, so that people do not light up and smoke when they should not and so that they realise that the place that they are entering is smoke-free.

I was asked about the number of fines and prosecutions. I understand that in Ireland there were 28 court prosecutions before the end of May 2005, none of which were prosecutions of a smoker alone. They were all of owners who allowed smoking, or of owners and smokers where smoking occurred. Therefore, there have been few prosecutions given the extensiveness of the legislation, but there have been examples in which the enforcement authorities thought it right to take cases forward. Such cases have very much been focused on owners who allow smoking and have been about their responsibilities to uphold the law.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the Minister consider this point? I hope that there will be few prosecutions, but it would be extremely unfortunate if the clause gave an effective defence to people who say, “I simply didn’t see the sign; I didn’t know,” and the few prosecutions that then occurred began to establish a whole series of causes that people could use as a defence. If, as I suggested in the earlier debate, the duty was on the smoker to establish the defence, it would mean that in the few prosecutions that were brought there would be a much greater certainty of no successful defence being able to be brought under the clause. The public health message would therefore be put over much more clearly. However, if there are a few unsuccessful prosecutions because of the defence offered by the clause, we might find that there is a problem.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

As I have said, I understand that that has not been a problem elsewhere—Ireland is a good example. The defence for someone charged with smoking in a non-smoking area is that he has

“to show that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that it was a smoke-free place.”

If a defendant wishes to rely on that defence, they must provide the evidence that supports it. For example, such a defence could arise if no-smoking signs had been removed or obscured. Another aspect concerns the reaction of a person who has started smoking in a smoke-free place to being asked to stop smoking by the proprietor or the landlord. There are different aspects related to any individual case that might arise.

It is difficult to imagine all the scenarios that might arise. However, there has to be a defence in law for individuals, as well as the scope for prosecution. I accept that often there is a fine balance to be established, but that is why we have the law and the recourse to the decision of the courts.

Fixed penalty notices have been a feature of our environment in recent times, because they are a speedier way for someone to acknowledge what they have done, and do not require going to court. They have worked very well in a number of circumstances. In some respects, they are a short, sharp shock for individuals, particularly in circumstances in which the game is up, and they know that that is the case. That is the way in which we should proceed.

The level of enforcement is likely to be light. There will be issues in the early days of the legislation as it comes into effect and as the regulations come into force. We need to discuss those issues with local authorities and with those who will be charged with enforcement. That is one of the reasons why we are engaged in discussions with them about enforcement and why we have been engaged in discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the costs of enforcement and our Department funding that.

As I said before, based on the voluntary situation at the moment, and on what we know of other countries that have introduced legislation—the most recent of those being Ireland—we do not believe that there will be a huge number of fines and prosecutions. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has identified that as one of the issues that that we will need to monitor from day one, to see how the regulations are used in practice, what the implications are for enforcement, whether the legislation is clear, the level of prosecutions, and the level of self-enforcement.

There are plenty of examples of offences—such as dropping litter, or using a mobile phone while driving a car—for which we pass laws because we think that that is the right thing to do. We recognise that there has to be an offence and therefore a defence in law, but we also recognise that—with those two examples in particular—we expect the public to support the law and to do their bit to enforce it by self-enforcement and in the context of their friends and families. I hope that hon. Members will support the clause.

Clause 8 - Fixed penalties for offence of smoking in smoke-free place

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Clause 8 continues the theme of offences and deals with fixed penalties for the offence of smoking in smoke-free places. The clause is closely aligned to schedule 1. I have a series of points and questions that I should like to put to the Minister, some of which have already been touched on. The clauses in this part of the Bill seem to merge into one another. If I am repetitive, I apologise. That is probably indicative of my discomfort with some of the remarks made.

I want to know more about enforcement officers. I am a little concerned about them, not least about their welfare. The Local Government Association, which represents the organisations that will employ those officers, is also concerned about that. We have discussed public health, and it can mean all sorts of things. I am very worried about the safety of enforcement officers, and I hope that the Minister will address that. They will put themselves in the line of fire in the course of the work that they will be expected to do. They may find themselves in situations in which one could expect tempers to be a little raw and in which one might expect trouble. I am not sure whether enforcement officers will much welcome the new duties that will be placed on them by the Bill, but we shall see.

It will be interesting to hear how the Minister expects fixed penalty notices to work. Does she expect teams of enforcement officers to circulate around licensed premises, seeking out smokers and licensees who are flouting the law, and handing out penalty notices? Does she expect existing enforcement officers—mainly environmental health officers—to perform those duties as an extra bolt-on job? Alternatively, will the enforcement officers rely merely on tip-offs from the public? It would be useful to get an idea of the scale of the operation. No doubt she will want to refer to the experience of other countries.

We have not entirely dealt with the problem of repeat offenders. Does it matter how many fixed penalty notices a person clocks up, or will it be £50 a time? I suspect that there will be some who regard that as a risk worth taking, especially if they enjoy a cigarette and are minded to pay £50, which, in some people’s minds, especially in wealthy parts of London, is not a great deal. They may spend considerably more than that on a night out, and may habitually flout the law and be quite happy to pay £50. They may even keep that amount in their back pockets, ready to pay the fine if an enforcement officer chances upon them, which will not happen very often, unless the Minister intends to embark on a wholesale recruitment campaign.

We are worried about training for enforcement officers. The LGA is much exercised about how that will take place. It is a complex new area and a departure from the usual work of environmental health officers. The LGA points out that fixed penalty notices are not part of the weft and warp of the work of environmental health officers, and that they will require considerable training before they are expected to go forth and pin enforcement notices on people. It will be interesting to know what thought the Minister has given to that and what cost will be involved in that training. I seek assurance that that money will be found centrally and will not be an added burden on our hard-pressed council tax payers who, in my area and in the areas represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends, already face substantial hikes in the not too distant future. Such things, of course, mean that the charges go up and it is something over which poor old councils have no control.

I hope that the Minister has recognised the need to train environmental health officers and others who are expected to enforce the provision, that she has costed it and that she is prepared to find a sum of money from the centre that will allow councils or whoever to do the necessary training. It would also be useful to know a little more about how individuals will physically pay the penalty. We remember with some affection the Prime Minister’s notion that fixed penalty notices could be discharged by marching people off to a hole in a wall, where they would put their plastic in, take out fifty quid and give it to the constable. That did not last very long. I imagine that the Minister does not have that scheme in mind, but it will be useful to know what she does.

It will also be useful to know about identification. As I understand it, enforcement officers will march into establishments, spot someone smoking in a corner and say, “You’re nicked, mate, here’s your enforcement notice.” They will probably ask who he is, write it down and keep a receipt. That is all very well in the context of road traffic offences, because it is possible to find out who the person is—assuming that the car is not stolen—by phoning up the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. It will give chapter and verse on who the owner is, which gives a hold on the person.

That is not the case with enforcement notices in pubs. If I had one of those notices, I could say, “I’m Joe Bloggs and I live in Grimsby.” A notice would be written out in the name of Joe Bloggs from Grimsby, handed to me, and I would go on my way rejoicing. I would be highly unlikely to cough up the fifty quid by return of post and I would get away with it. I am sure that the Minister will have thought about how we confirm the identity of those who are subject to enforcement notices.

That is especially important because we are discussing a self-selected population. Far be it from me to say that people who smoke are more likely to commit offences than anyone else, but we are talking about people who have gone into a pub, ignored the notices and are, therefore, perhaps a little more likely than us to give a false identity in order to get away with not paying the £50 fine. With repeat offenders that is particularly important because after they have done it once, assuming that they can think up sufficient names to give the enforcement officer without including Mickey Mouse, they can potentially get away with it time and time again.

This seems so obvious that I suspect the Minister will have thought about it and, in the regulations that she will put before us at some point, will have a way of determining identity for enforcement officers. Otherwise, the provision stands at risk of becoming a laughing stock. That is important. I know she is thinking about fixed penalty notices for traffic offences, which is when they are most commonly used.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Well, it will be useful to know what model she is using. Fixed penalty notices for traffic offences are where most people come across such fines, and it is then easy to determine who the individual is for the reasons that I have described. However, in this case, that does not seem to apply in the same way. There is less of a lever on who the person is and it will be far more difficult to determine and verify that. How will the Minister get around that?

Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of the cost of the fixed penalty notices. I am sure that she has some idea of the total cost of the system, and I suspect also that she has benchmarked the system that she will propose against those that apply in other countries. I hope so. Perhaps she can give us an idea of the cost of the infrastructure that will be necessary to introduce fixed penalty notices.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The hon. Gentleman has covered rather well the ground on which I would have touched, and I shall not repeat anything that he has said. The one thing that he did not mention was paragraph 14 of schedule 1, which is activated by the clause. It refers to the rights of somebody who is issued with a fixed penalty notice to elect a trial instead of paying the fine immediately. If somebody were to elect a trial, and they were to be found guilty of the offence of smoking in a public place, with no reasonable defence—such as not having seen the signs—what would be the penalty? Would it be the original fixed penalty or, as I understand is often the case when somebody elects to go to court, might the magistrate or judge impose a higher fine or another type of sentence as a deterrent?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that if a series of fixed penalty notices is issued, the person who issues each notice has no idea about the record of the recipient—in effect, it will always be a first offence. In court, presumably, a judge might have regard to the fact that somebody is a serial offender, and might reflect that in sentencing. Might that discourage people from going down that track?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. He builds on the idea that we should like some thoughts from the Minister as to what a judge or magistrate would consider to be an appropriate fine or community-based sentence in such circumstances.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have had a helpful discussion. Speaking as a constituency MP, I remind the Committee that fixed penalty notices are used in a variety of situations, such as for drinking alcohol in certain circumstances. I was pleased to see recently in one of my local papers that fixed penalty notices had been issued to people, including children, who had been dropping litter in the street. That is all part and parcel of the Government’s effort to tackle antisocial behaviour and to find a means of dealing with it in a reasonable but practical way that does not tie up the courts with activities that most of us would agree are unhelpful for communities. We are not setting a precedent in using fixed penalty notices.

Of course there is the risk that people will give misleading information about their identities. Police officers, community support officers and environmental health officers have to deal with that all the time. Clearly, part of the process will be to ask for evidence of identity. That is nothing new and enforcement officers will have to be trained to deal with it. They know how to do it in other circumstances and, therefore, even though this is about smoking, they will apply their experience to it as they would in other situations.

Some specific questions were asked about the cost of enforcement.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I shall, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, because I do not really want to take additional questions while I am still answering earlier ones.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister said that enforcement officers are familiar with fixed penalty notices. However, will she note the comments of the Local Government Association? [Interruption.] The Minister sighs, but—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am not. I am breathing. It is hot.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Well, the hon. Lady is breathing very heavily.

It is important that the Minister notes the comments of the LGA. It says:

“fixed penalty notices are not a matter that typically local authority enforcement staff are familiar with.”

That is fairly categoric. Clearly, the LGA feels that it is an issue, and I think that the Minister is being a little dismissive in saying that EHOs or enforcement officers are familiar with the process because they pin enforcement notices on people like litter. That is certainly not my constituency experience. Her comments suggest that she is being complacent.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am certainly not being complacent, because we are still in active discussion with the bodies that represent environmental health officers and others in local government on the issues of training—I shall answer those points shortly—and enforcement costs. It is fair to say, more and more, that within our communities—certainly in Doncaster—local government and different branches of a local authority work with others in partnership to bear down on antisocial behaviour. That work could be in the form of community support officers or neighbourhood wardens and looking at ways in which different approaches can be used to tackle some of the antisocial behaviour that we see in our communities—not only that carried out by children, but importantly, that carried out by adults.

In that context, I do not think that the debate is unusual. It may be unusual for individual EHOs to have been involved and potentially tasked with the issuing of fixed penalty notices, but the discussion about safer communities tackling the antisocial behaviour that constitutes a degrading of our environment is something that I am sure that local environmental health officers are only too well aware of as a result of their job and working in partnership with others who have a role in supporting the quality of the environment in our communities. That could be affected by fly-tipping, abandoned cars, graffiti or litter. We have an excellent project in Doncaster called the FLAG—fighting litter, abandoned cars and graffiti—scheme, which is marshalling the support of people across the authority with community first officers to tackle some of the abuses that are linked to fly-tipping, abandoned cars, graffiti and so forth. We shall be discussing that with different organisations.

In the partial regulatory impact assessment, we have estimated the annual cost of enforcement as between £7 million and £20 million. That was based on estimates provided by consultants acting on behalf of the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services—LACORS. We have listened to them, and the figures were based on their assessment. They, too, will find it difficult, until the law is brought in, to determine an absolutely precise amount. We are looking, with the Local Government Association and LACORS, at how best to support local authorities to ensure that they get the appropriate amount to fund them to take on their new responsibility. That includes discussing staff training needs, and who will do the training and who will pay for it. We anticipate—this is recognised by the officers that will be affected by the legislation, as well as the local authorities—that there will be initial training costs, and a peak of enforcement costs in the first year or so. I hope that thereafter costs will diminish as smoke-free becomes more of the norm. We will agree a final funding amount to ensure that the local authorities have the proper resources to enforce the legislation. How local authorities go about the business of enforcement is partly for them to determine.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I could see that the Minister was about to move on from the issue of who is going to pay for enforcement, and she says that the cost is between £7 million and £20 million. Can she confirm that that sum will be met out of the existing Department of Health budget? If so, what is the opportunity cost? What will the Department of Health not be doing that it would have been doing, had it not been faced with that £7 million to £20 million cost?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Well, of course, in introducing this Bill, we have undertaken the partial RIA and have had to make our case across government. The measures will come into force in summer 2007, so it is not appropriate to answer that question, because we are talking about future costs. However, we are taking the issue into account and I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as we have assured colleagues in other Departments and the associations, that we are working to ensure that we can fund appropriately the work in this area.

It would be difficult and ridiculous for me to prescribe from the centre how each local authority, working with its environmental health officers, should go about enforcing the legislation. We are not giving local authorities a prescriptive model whereby a certain number of environmental health officers must be out on the streets at a given time of day, checking on who might be committing offences. It is for local authorities to take such decisions.

We want, however, to set up a national compliance line, mirroring arrangements in Ireland and, I understand, Scotland, to allow the public to report incidences of the law being broken. That service will aim to offer additional support for building and maintaining compliance with the legislation. In those circumstances, all complaints will be passed to the appropriate local enforcement agencies. That will be especially useful in identifying and acting to stop deliberate and repeated flouting of the legislation in specific enclosed public places. Obviously, the clause will also act as an indicator of compliance.

I imagine that in a number of circumstances, common sense will prevail, so if someone walks into an establishment and attempts to smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe, the people running the establishment will ask the person to desist. Doing things on a voluntary basis seems to work well on most occasions, and I do not have a huge concern that that will not work similarly well in future. Clearly, however, if someone did not desist from smoking, having been asked to do so, the people in the establishment would obviously want to see further action or would call for advice and support from the relevant section of the local authority.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry to persist with the question of the financial effects, but it seems perfectly proper to ask and to answer now the question of how the funding mechanism will work if enforcement costs fall on local authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that will be achieved by way of an additional specific grant from the Department of Health or a PES—public expenditure survey—transfer between the Department of Health and the ODPM and whether we are talking about an addition to local authorities’ formula grant. Has a mechanism been decided on? By extension, presumably the Department of Health, when considering budgets for 2006–07, is already contemplating how what we are discussing is to be provided for and whether it has implications for other measures inside the Department.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We are still in discussion with the Local Government Association and other organisations on the level of funding and the process whereby funding would be provided. Clearly, we will not seek to have the legislation enforced unless that is resolved. We have given that commitment to those organisations and to other Departments in seeking their support for the Bill.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

Were the enforcement to be not for the ban that the Government propose but for a more comprehensive ban on smoking in public places, would the enforcement costs be greater or less?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

If I recall the RIA correctly, the enforcement costs were said to be less if there were a total ban, but there would still be enforcement costs, because people could still flout the law. Certain establishments, even under a total ban, would seek to circumvent the law in one way or another.

As I have said, there have been just under 30 prosecutions in Ireland. That is a small number, given the size of Ireland, but my understanding is that those prosecutions relate more to establishments that have tried to circumvent or have ignored the law. It would be fair to say that those prosecutions and the levels of fines issued against those establishments made it clear that breaking the law would not be tolerated. It is also to be hoped that they have acted as a deterrent. Up until the end of May 2005, there had been 28 court prosecutions.

A number of questions were asked about individuals who smoke in smoke-free places. The hon. Member for Bristol, West asked whether the fine that would be issued to someone who appeared in court would be confined to £50. My understanding is that, if someone were to appear in court, the fine could be up to level 1, for which the fine is £200. In those circumstances, the court could take into account evidence that it was not a first offence.

I suggest, however—I do not know in what circles the hon. Member for Westbury moves—that for most people out on a Thursday or Friday night a £50 fine is a bit of a risk. People do not necessarily have £50 in their back pocket to pay a fixed penalty notice for the pleasure of lighting up a cigarette. I might be wrong about that, but people do not necessarily have that sort of money to burn—or to smoke. Fifty pounds is a significant amount. I hope that, in many circumstances, the situation will not come to that. People who make a mistake will be asked to put out the cigarette or to leave, and that will be the end of the matter. That would be a common-sense approach to take. If it becomes more of a problem, fixed penalty notices will be issued or people may have to attend court.

I hope that I have answered the question from the hon. Member for Bristol, West. We must continue our discussions on enforcement. Enforcement officers will have to produce their written authority if required. That is an important safeguard for individuals, who will not agree to a fixed penalty notice if someone simply tells them to pay it. The enforcement officer must produce identification.

Likewise, I think I am right in saying that people will have 29 days to pay. If a person accepts and pays a fixed penalty notice, he or she will not get a criminal record. That is a further deterrent to people who seek to go to court, perhaps to waste the court’s time. As well as receiving a fine, they will have a criminal record as a result of that court appearance. I hope that the clause will add to the mix of carrots and sticks to encourage people not to smoke in smoke-free places. It also makes clear the consequences should they do so.

As I have said, fixed penalties must be covered in the legislation, but it is my heartfelt hope that, as has happened in other countries and drawing on our experience of voluntary smoke-free places, many of the provisions will not be used in practice.

Clause 9 - Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Clause 9 establishes the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places. It could be called the “bang on the nose” clause, because it introduces the possibility of verbal or physical violence being visited on those whose job it is to run licensed premises.

When we discussed the level of management to which the proposal might apply the Minister gave us some comfort by saying that the person who had the potential to commit the offence of not having prevented smoking on the premises must be sufficiently high in the management chain for responsibility reasonably to be pinned upon them. However, the Minister was not sufficiently categorical, so if she will forgive me I will labour the point.

Many people who work in the sector are not particularly well paid. When they take on the job they do not expect to be given much management responsibility because that is not what they sign up to. Yet many of them are given high-falluting titles that suggest that they may have some sort of management function—I suppose the classic example would be the McDonald’s restaurants, where everyone is called an assistant manager. In practice, that means very little, but it implies that the person has some sort of management function and responsibility. Under the Bill, it is possible that individuals who are, in truth, at a very lowly level in an organisation will be blamed for having failed to stop somebody smoking, or at least interviewed about it. That would introduce a whole new angle on those jobs, which is not entirely appropriate.

I hope that the Minister can make it reasonably clear for the record how she expects the offence to work in practice and thereby protect people at the grass roots of the licensed trade and the hospitality sector from any possibility of being charged because they failed to tell someone to put their cigarette out. We should always remember that we are not talking about a normal situation, but situations in which a reasonable amount of alcohol may have been consumed, which may lead to more violence and a greater likelihood that, if challenged, an individual will react in an adverse fashion. By creating the offence, we potentially put people at risk.

We discussed the potential for enforcement officers to be at risk, but I suspect that as, regrettably, we now have 24-hour licensing, most of them will operate throughout the day, perhaps at lunchtime and probably earlier in the evening, rather than later which is when trouble tends to arise. There is a potential for inflammatory and difficult situations to arise in which junior, and perhaps quite young, people may be put at risk. It would be useful if the Minister commented on that matter and gave the Committee some assurance that those people will be protected.

It would be useful to discuss in which situations, other than those involving the licensed trade, the Minister thinks it would be appropriate for individuals to advise those who are smoking that they must put out their cigarettes. I am most concerned about the licensed trade but I suspect that other sectors will be involved, too. We do not want a Cambodian situation, in which we are all expected to tell others to act in a particular way for fear of being censured ourselves.

I am therefore concerned about the provisions, as is the LGA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. With that in mind, it would be great if the Minister gave us a little reassurance that the offence created by clause 9 will not be used to criminalise those right at the bottom of an organisation’s management chain and that responsibility will be pinned at an appropriately high level in that chain.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I shall develop my hon. Friend’s point in relation to subsection (3), which makes it clear that the person whose job it is to ensure that a place is smoke-free can, in certain circumstances, commit an offence. My concern is not with the people right at the bottom of the management chain, but with those right at the top.

For the sake of argument, let us take the Palace of Westminster. These are premises in which people work and I am not aware that we exempted the Palace from the provisions of clause 2. There is therefore a duty on somebody who

“controls or is concerned in the management of smoke-free premises to cause a person smoking there to stop smoking”

in the Palace of Westminster. The Palace is largely smoke-free, and so it should be. The Aye Lobby and the No Lobby are also smoke-free premises, and one should not to smoke in them. I am happy to say that when I vote with my party, which is 99 per cent. of the time, I do not see anybody smoking. More recently, however, I have voted with Government Members, who have needed the support of Conservative Members from time to time, and I have seen people smoking. I have not bothered to do anything about that, because it would be churlish so to do, but as I understand subsection (3), the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk or somebody else would be failing in their duty if they did not stop people smoking in the Lobby. The person who is smoking might not be charged with an offence, but the person whose job it is to ensure that the premises are smoke-free—this would apply anywhere, not only in the Palace of Westminster—commits an offence if he does not discharge that responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said that it might be quite difficult for people to enforce the provision, but they will none the less commit an offence, and the clause goes on to specify what sort of offence that might be. It would be helpful if the Minister reassured us that she has thought the provision through, that it is in line with existing legislation for places where smoking is already banned, such as on railways, airlines and buses, and that it is broadly in line with the responsibilities that other countries have placed on management when introducing provisions such as those in clause 9.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I have a couple of observations to make. The tenor of Conservative Members’ remarks was that the clause could be too severe, particularly in relation to junior members of staff. I share the view that we do not want new, inexperienced junior members of staff to be put in a difficult position or to be unduly penalised. I therefore hope that the Minister will repeat the comments that she made at the start of the sitting, when she said that that is not what the clause means in terms of management and responsibility.

However, there is a contrary argument. Some suggest that the penalty is not severe enough and that it should be more severe. The rationale for that view is that in the Bill the manager of a premises who fails to prevent smoking is liable for a penalty of up to £200, whereas the maximum penalty in the Irish Republic is £2,000 and there is also a power to close the premises for three months, which is clearly very serious. The question is how seriously do we want licensees, landlords and managers to take the responsibilities in the clause?

We shall come to other enforcement issues, but there will clearly not be many enforcers and they will not be present much of the time, so the chances of being caught are pretty slim. My philosophy of criminal justice—I am sure that you have been dying to hear it, Lady Winterton—is that it is the fear of being caught, not the penalty, that is critical to ensuring compliance. In the present case, however, there is a low likelihood of being caught, because there are few officers who have to cover a lot of ground, perhaps late at night, so people will know that there are times when they will get away with the offence. If we combine a low likelihood of their getting caught with the fact that the penalty will be a couple of hundreds pound at the most, it makes me wonder whether the action to cope with the offence is sufficiently serious. Just as we want smokers and potential smokers to be subject to a cultural shift, so we want managers to be subject to a cultural shift so that the offence of breaching clause 9 provisions is taken seriously and the punishment is not regarded as a token slap on the wrist so that people feel that they can commit the offence again.

As for the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I worry less about the Division Lobbies in the Commons than about other premises because few enforcement officers will be allowed to carry a sword to enforce the law. Royal palaces are probably excluded from the Bill anyway, so that is not a particular concern. In ordinary circumstances, however, I am worried that little enforcement will take place.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am about to finish by saying that if the fine is a slap on the wrist, we might not achieve the cultural shift that we want.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Members of the Committee will be aware that, from Easter this year, virtually all parts of the House of Commons were designated smoke-free. The palace is Crown property, so it is not covered by legislation. That said, if the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire finds himself in that position again, I am sure that the Serjeant-at-Arms would be willing to send a letter to all MPs reminding them of the non-smoking areas in the House of Commons. I hope that that might be enough to encourage compliance with the rules under which we are asked to work.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury. Let us imagine that we are in a public place such as a supermarket, a small shop, a café or restaurant, a pub or even a leisure centre and someone comes into the building, perhaps worse the wear for drink, and makes a nuisance of himself. He might not be under the influence of anything, but he is making a nuisance of himself. Dropping litter, vandalising parts of the building and smoking in a smoke-free establishment are challenges that are faced daily by people who work in such environments and they must be dealt with in different ways. Organisations such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have a campaign in respect of violence and abuse towards shop staff, which I very much welcome and commend. It is the reason why it has been engaged with the Government on anti-social behaviour issues.

I am not complacent about problems faced by employees who have to deal with the public in bars and elsewhere. They might have to ask a person to desist from doing something or to curtail a certain activity. Clearly, it should be a company’s policy to advise its staff on the action that they should take and on where they should seek advice and support—even from security staff—to deal with situations when it is likely that the person in question will not go away quietly.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister has given us some examples of situations in which there may be potential problems, such as when people are violent or the worse for wear because of alcohol. Does she accept that some people naturally appear to be aggressive and intimidating? That might be a cause for someone to back off. People are different: some are assertive, some are not. What assessment can be made of both the person committing under an offence under the Bill and the person who is smoking? To what extent will subsection (4)(c) be a defence if the offender, the smoker, is a big intimidating individual and the person who would be criminalised under the clause is not particularly assertive?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I think that I said that in my opening remarks that there may be occasions when someone under the influence of anything can act aggressively. Another factor is that we come in all shapes and sizes, and people who may look as if they could be aggressive turn out not to be and others who may look as meek as lambs can turn nasty if asked to desist from doing something. Employees who deal with the public have to face such situations every day, but we do not suggest that people should put themselves in danger when trying to ensure good order. That is important.

As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Northavon, the responsibility lies mainly with those who control or manage smoke-free premises. It would be a defence for a defendant to show that he had taken reasonable steps to stop a person smoking—that he had requested a person to stop smoking, but the person simply continued—or that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that a contravention had occurred. A person could be given false information by an employee; or a scenario could occur in which a friend of the employee’s—I hope it would not happen—decided to look away and not pass on information to the employer, but another customer decided to refer the matter to the local authority. In such situations, the manager might be held to account for something of which he was not aware, but he could not be held responsible for it. I can think of other examples. For instance, staff sometimes have to give priority to other legal duties. For example, while a shoplifting episode or something else is happening in a store—perhaps someone is having a heart attack—the staff dealing with that situation could fairly claim in defence that they could not at the same time handle the fact that someone had walked in with a cigarette. In such situations, one has to apply common sense.

The hon. Member for Westbury spoke about alcohol, but there will be exemptions for bars that do not serve food. That will give those who want a drink the option to have a cigarette at the same time. It is not necessarily the case that people have no choice: they have the choice of going somewhere else. It is fair to say that choice could help to dampen concerns about aggressive individuals being asked to smoke elsewhere. That is an important point to make, because the hon. Gentleman made a lot about the mix of alcohol and smoking in bars and the fact that it might be a problem to tell someone who had had a drink that they could not smoke. We have discussed at length the fact that we are exempting bars that serve only alcohol, so there is a choice. Smoking is not totally cut out. I hope that I have covered all the points made by the hon. Member for Westbury.

As for the points made by the hon. Member for Northavon, I said earlier that I was still considering the question of deterrence. Part of our consultation dealt with those who control or manage establishments. The view was expressed that the fines should be higher and I am reflecting on that. I must also take account some of the other questions raised about the fine. A fine of up to £200 is proposed; that is the amount on which we consulted. I would be very interested to hear the views of members of the Committee—if they do not want to say now, they can let me know informally—on whether it is sufficient, especially as some may feel that it is a price worth paying given the takings on Friday and Saturday nights. That is a valid point. If we think of the thousands of pounds that can be made over the weekend in some licensed establishments, it may seem that it is worth risking some of the fines. I am thinking about that.

I am also thinking about repeat offences. I would prefer there to be few repeat offences. I hope that offenders will realise the error of their ways, decide that the fine is not a price worth paying, and deal with the issue themselves. Again, I would welcome the views of others on that, either in Committee or outside it. I hope that the Committee will let clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Enforcement

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in clause 10, page 6, line 15, at end insert—

‘()In making regulations for the purposes of this Part, the appropriate national authority shall consult with organisations representing those enforcing this legislation.’.

We continue with the subject of offences, but are moving on to enforcement. As the Committee will be aware, the clause deals with which national authorities have responsibility for enforcement and to whom those responsibilities may be delegated. There is talk of an authorised officer doing the enforcement.

The purpose of the amendment is to stress to the Minister that we are keen for regulations on how enforcement should take place to be drawn up in close co-operation with, as the amendment says,

“organisations representing those enforcing this legislation.”

We have in mind groups such as the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Local Government Association—the front-line staff with the expertise from which we hope the Government will benefit. We had an exchange in which the Minister said that her instinct is that those people know all about fixed penalty notices. That was the tenor of her remarks. The response was that the associations have said that their people do not do that kind of thing and that this is new territory for them.

A number of issues are involved. I shall try not to repeat what has been said, but clearly some of it is germane to why we need to listen to organisations, certainly on safety. Let us imagine a crowded pub—we are getting slightly obsessed with pubs, but this is an obvious example—where people are fairly well oiled and more than one person is smoking. In a way, if there is just a lone smoker, enforcement is not so much trouble, because there will be much more peer pressure. However, it will be harder to approach a group of smokers, so in such a case we should assume that there would be not one environmental health officer, but two or more.

As I understand the clause, environmental health officers do not necessarily have police powers, such as the power of arrest or power to demand identification, but it would be helpful if we were slightly clearer about that. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health is concerned that a spot fine will be ineffective

“unless it is linked to police powers to require the production of identification, detain and if necessary arrest offenders.”

It is referring to the risks to enforcement staff. Clearly, we do not want to put enforcement staff in a dangerous position, so I hope that when organisations make representations to the Minister, the Government take account of them.

In parentheses, I should say that when the amendment says, “shall consult with”, implicit is “and shall take notice of what they say”, but I do not think that we will be able to include that in the Bill. There are precedents in relation to the smoking ban issue in which consultations were held but notice was not taken of the results. We want the Government to listen to, and act on, what the organisations say. We are highlighting concerns about safety and shortages of enforcement officers.

A recent survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has revealed a national shortage of some 700 environmental health professionals throughout England, Wales and Scotland. Presumably, several hundred more will be required to enforce the legislation, so the question is where those people will come from.

I do not imagine that people will queue up to reply to an advertisement for people willing to spend their Friday nights going into crowded pubs, approaching drunks and asking them to put out their cigarettes or giving them fixed penalty notices. I support the legislation, but the Government will have to learn more from what the people on the front line are saying if they are going to get this right and enforce it effectively.

I appreciate that there is time before the regulations are introduced, as the amendment implies, but I would be grateful for any assurance from the Minister that she will listen to the professional institutes now. Given the shortage of environmental professionals, we need to train new people to do these jobs, which clearly will take a long time, so the sooner the Government listen and act on the recommendations of those professional bodies, the better.

We have not yet got to the bottom of the issue of enforcement officers asking for proof of identity, as we assume they will have to do. As I said, the CIEH has said that its enforcement officers need those powers. I do not know what pubs you go into, Lady Winterton, but many of the people I go to pubs with do not carry identity. They may have a credit card with their name on it, or a driving licence, although obviously we encourage people not to drink and drive, or they may not. Until the happy day arrives when the Government require us to produce an ID card when we buy a drink, it is not clear how enforcement will work.

What is an environmental health officer meant to do if he asks the name of someone who is smoking and that person comes up with a name but cannot prove it? Car drivers, for example, have to produce documents, so the car is a fixed reference point from which to determine a driver’s identity, as we have discussed. In the case of an individual, however, the amendment probes the question of how confrontational the environmental health officer will have to be in such circumstances. If someone gives an implausible identity, will the officer have to ask for proof? What are the powers to do that? The professional bodies have strong views that I hope the Minister will take into account.

I am aware of the broader debate to be had on the clause as a whole, so I shall not persist with my argument. I hope that the Minister will assure us that she already has plans to listen to what the professional bodies are saying and to take action to deal with the very serious shortage of people to enforce the legislation.

I have another point to make in parenthesis. Mention has already been made of the public being able to ring a number and report a smoker. How far will the work of the professionals who must enforce the provision be reactive and involve going to a known problem area to deal with problems and report them? In which case, will they have sufficient numbers to overcome those problems and how far will this be proactive, involving touring the bars and pubs to see what they can find, which is a very different model of enforcement?

Again, I hope that the Minister will listen to what the professional bodies believe to be the most effective way of enforcing the legislation, which I want enforcing just as much as she does.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I call the hon. Member for Westbury, who has almost stood up.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I believe that I made my intentions clear this time, unlike on previous occasions when I may have been a little more subtle.

There is a great deal of sense in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon. It is clear that Ministers have not adequately explored the implications of the Bill with various interested organisations, otherwise the Local Government Association, for example, would not have volunteered the fact that its members’ employees are not at all familiar with fixed penalty notices. It was quite explicit about that. We might already have ironed out some of these issues if the Minister had consulted the LGA, the CIEH and the Health and Safety Executive a little more fully. I mention the HSE because the guidance notes do not restrict the definition of enforcement officers to environmental health officers. I am a little confused about who might be considered enforcement officers, even at this stage.

A number of organisations are potential consultees, and I hope the Minister will approach them before she makes any regulations. The amendment’s purpose is to reinforce in her mind the need to consult such organisations before she takes the regulations further.

That is all I want to say at this juncture. I am aware that we may, if we are very lucky, have a clause stand part debate, during which I would like to explore the clause a little further. I support the hon. Member for Northavon, whose point is extremely well made. It is regrettable that the amendment is necessary. It seems, given the representations on the Bill that we have received from various organisations, that, arguably, we have got off on the wrong foot, as it has been suggested that Ministers have not consulted as well as they should. They would be well advised to do better in future. With that in mind, I am inclined to support the hon. Gentleman.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The discussions are ongoing, and I have made that quite clear. There will be draft regulations, which I shall ensure are informed by discussions and consulted on before being subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure. There is no suggestion that all the issues have been resolved. Some areas have to be considered further, and details of those have to be provided.

When I mentioned fixed penalty notices, I was not suggesting that environmental health officers have the necessary experience in issuing them. However, I find it hard to believe that in our environment—with regard to local government and the steps taken to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities—environmental health officers, trading standards officers, community support officers and those working for councils in partnership with the police and others are unaware of fixed penalty notices as a means of curtailing inappropriate activity in the community.

I hope that, as part of the discussions with the relevant organisations, there might be a debate with those within and outside councils on how fixed penalties are applied in the community. That might be helpful and give an indication of the issues and problems, as well as the opportunities, that fixed penalty notices provide.

I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon, but it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill because we have already agreed to do this. Indeed, we are already doing it. That is one reason why we deferred to the independent consultants used by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health when it devised a range of estimates of what the costs may be—between £7 million and £20 million. That shows that we continue to listen to those who can support us in this area.

Consultations will continue to take place. A number of issues have been raised by hon. Members relating to points made in the briefing by the LGA and others. I will ensure that officials deal with those points and that they form the substance of continuing discussions with those organisations. As I have said, we all desire the draft regulations to be informed by those consultations and we will give a further opportunity for consultation once they are published.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Will the Minister reassure me on this point? Clearly, representations have already been made and discussions have taken place, but my point is that I am not convinced that enough notice has been taken of what has been said. Given that organisations have already raised the point about the shortage of people to do the job, what are the Government doing about that?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

On the surface, it is difficult to raise an issue about the shortage of people to do a job when it has not yet been determined how much work will be involved. It is common sense to recognise that in other jurisdictions where restrictions or bans have been brought into force the experience is that enforcement has not been as necessary as people might have thought.

There has been huge self-enforcement and compliance, and it is difficult to determine at this stage how many extra environmental health officers, trading standards officers or others may be necessary to enforce the legislation. A common-sense approach is important. In the lead up to the enforcement of the legislation, it is important that, within local communities, there are discussions with establishments that will be obliged to be smoke free as to their responsibilities under the law, where they can go for extra advice and how to sort out the signage. There should be discussions in local communities about how best to enforce the legislation.

On the point about compliance, I have to admit that some activity will be reactive, but, to be honest, I would suggest that quite often environmental health officers and others react to information that they are provided with in order to ascertain whether an establishment is flouting the law in an ongoing way. They have to deal with that in all sorts of areas—this will be just one of them.

In the same way, trading standards officers often have to respond to information and intelligence provided about selling cigarettes, alcohol or glue—and in the future, with the legislation that is coming in, knives—to those who are under age. That is nothing new, so I do not think that some of the points are particularly well made. However, I can assure the Committee that I will ensure that all the points are discussed. We may not agree with some organisations all the time, but that is part of the consultation process. We want to ensure that the Bill works and is effective, because it is in no one’s interest to have ineffective legislation.

On the point about identification, paragraph 2(e) of schedule 2 sets out the requirement for an individual to give information to an enforcement officer. Not giving correct information may be an offence. My advice is that that deals with the point about the provision of a name and address. I will seek further assurance on that and also take the time to look at how it applies in other circumstances, when fixed penalty notices are used for other reasons but operate in a similar framework. However, my understanding is that that provision basically provides that power or influence to an enforcement officer.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I accept that paragraph 2(e) of schedule 2 appears to give enforcement officers the power to ask for the information, but what will happen if the individual says that they cannot prove who they are? What is meant to happen then?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Again, that issue will have to be considered. The enforcement officer may want to ask the publican or others, if the person in question is with a group, whether they can confirm who the person is. I imagine that that is not the only time that we will be confronted with a situation in which people want to find a way to get around having to declare their identity to those who have a right to ask for it. Those issues must be thought through.

We need to be clear about the powers of the environmental health officer, or somebody else who may be designated to undertake the role, and take advice and find out what would happen in the other circumstances that, for different reasons, apply just as well. There may be other circumstances involving police officers, rather than environmental health officers, who may find that someone says, “I’m Bert Bloggs, but I can’t prove who I am.” We must have discussions with people about how they deal with such matters and, in doing so, ensure that the powers are proportionate and reflect the individual citizen’s rights under the law.

I hope that, given my assurances about the ongoing discussion on enforcement, the consultation in relation to draft regulations and the affirmative resolution procedure, the hon. Member for Northavon will withdraw his amendment and we can move on to the clause stand part debate.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am only partially reassured by the Minister. I do not doubt for a moment her good faith, or that discussions have happened, and I do not even doubt that further discussions will take place, but I do not get a strong sense from her response, and some of her comments earlier this afternoon, that the Government understand that “consult” means “consult, take account of and act on”, not merely “be in the same room as”. A lot of issues need ironing out.

The Minister implied—I hope this is not an unfair paraphrase—that the law is not coming in for a couple of years so the Government cannot know how many environmental health officers will be needed. Given that it takes six years to train a dentist, an environmental health officer cannot be generated overnight. Forward planning is needed. The professional organisations we are talking about are saying that now, but the Government are saying, “That is years down the track and it is absurd to talk about it now.” There is a disjunction.

Likewise, we all know what a fixed penalty notice is, but the professional bodies are saying something stronger—that they have no experience of dealing with them. The Minister seems to think that that is not a problem, because someone else in the council hands out fixed penalty notices, so environmental health officers should just talk to them. That response is complacent and the effectiveness of the ban that we Liberal Democrats want may be undermined if the Government are not obligated to listen and learn from the professional bodies.

I will not withdraw the amendment, because I wish to test the view of the Committee.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

We are somewhat concerned about the implications of clause 10(4) and we seek clarification from the Minister of what she means by it. It seems that she wants to abrogate the powers that would be given to the enforcement authority under certain circumstances and give them to the national authority. We want to know what those circumstances might be. We understand that they will apply to a set of cases or situations, or on an individual basis. That leads me to think that she might wish to use subsection (4) if, for example, a local authority was not enforcing the legislation in a way the Government felt appropriate.

We have heard about resources being handed down from the Department of Health—between £7 million and £20 million—to local government to carry out this work. As we understand it, that will not be ring-fenced. Therefore, the Government might take the view that they need to have a handle on how the money is being used and whether it is being used to enforce the legislation. How will they do that? How will the national authority have that handle on enforcement authorities—on local government?

The Minister may say that that is how the Government intend to do things. This could be simply the big stick. If not much enforcement was going on, however, the national authority might decide that it needed to take the powers. If that is the case, perhaps she would let us know. What measures will she take to audit the enforcement action taken by local authorities? That is obviously linked with this matter, and presumably Ministers will be interested in that.

The Minister more or less said that all this will be reviewed at some point. Presumably one of the things that she will examine is the enforcement activity that is occurring so that she can ensure that local authorities are enforcing, rather than using the money for other things.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

This may not have any bearing on the matter, but although subsection (4) gives the national authority—meaning the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly—the ability to act as its own enforcement authority, as far as I can see, the clause does not require such enforcement activity to be undertaken by a person who has qualifications as prescribed by the regulations. Subsections (5) and (6) relate to the “authorised officer” of an enforcement authority but would not bite on persons acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a good point. No doubt the Minister will try to establish who in the national authority, in the circumstances referred to in subsection (4), would be entrusted with taking enforcement action, local government presumably having failed in some way. It is not at all clear what those circumstances would be. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to give us some sort of clue.

I am concerned about something else. We understand that a sum of money will be handed to local government for the purposes of enforcing the legislation, and we have identified after a fashion where that money is coming from, but the risk is that local government, faced with the demands that we know it labours under, will use the money for something else. It would be interesting to know where in the great scheme of spending priorities the Minister feels this will lie.

I can think of all sorts of pressing things that exercise my environmental health department. I am in constant dialogue with my local authority. I regularly raise things relating to noise and such issues with the chief executive of my district council. Environmental health officers spend a great deal of their time addressing issues at the behest of people such as myself and other members of the general public. A great deal of their time is spent on firefighting: responding to various concerns raised by individuals. That, inevitably, is where all the money will end up being spent. My worry is that it will all be rusticated to local government and spent on other things. We might not get much enforcement or it might be done in a piecemeal way.

The Minister presumably has some idea how much enforcement there should be. I know that it is difficult to assess, because enforcement will vary from area to area, but she has so far refused to say how many extra environmental health officers or enforcement officers she envisages being employed, where they will come from and how we will train them. She really needs an indicative figure for enforcement activity so that she has an idea how many officers will be required, but she has so far given no idea what that figure might be. Clearly, one cannot be precise, and we do not expect her to be, because the Bill will not be enforced for some time yet. Nevertheless, she must—at least, she should—have some idea of the figure given the assessment that enforcement will cost between £7 million and £20 million. Admittedly, that assessment is rather wide, but the Minister must have made some calculations to come up even with that. Staff costs will be the cost driver and must translate into the number of environmental health officers or enforcement officers she envisages being employed to carry out the work. I therefore ask her to be a little more specific and particularly to address subsection (4), which deserves some explanation.

The Local Government Association is clearly very concerned, and the Liberal Democrat amendment, which I think was taken verbatim from the one suggested in the briefing note with which we were all provided, underscores the association’s worries. The LGA talks about clarity and the fact that things that are clear are easier to enforce, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said. The association makes a plea for clarity and says that greater clarity would lessen the burden on its members and make the provisions largely a matter of self-regulation—a subject that we discussed earlier. The Minister has more or less admitted that had we erased the distinction between food and non-food, as the Opposition proposed, the Bill would have been not only better, but far easier to enforce. The light touch to which she referred would then have been appropriate and all that was necessary to enforce the measure.

The LGA is concerned about better regulation and mentions the Hampton review of March 2005. To what extent has the review been factored in? How much thought has the Minister given it in the context of clause 10? We have covered fixed-penalty notices reasonably exhaustively, but they are important. The LGA, which is right at the front on this issue, is clearly of the view that FPNs, as the Minister put it, are new to its members, who employ environmental health officers. That is what the association says, and we must take it at face value. There will clearly have to be something of a culture change so that environmental health officers and enforcement officers are comfortable with the measure and particularly with FPNs. I am worried about the implications for enforcement officers of pinning FPNs to individuals, and the hon. Member for Northavon was correct to note that they will be putting themselves in the line of fire. We assume that more enforcement officers will be required to enforce the legislation. It would be remarkable were that not to be the case. We know from constituency experience that there are often difficulties with environmental health departments. It is difficult to get an EHO to investigate a complaint about noise or whatever, or to survey the hospitality sector in our constituencies to ensure, for example, that food safety is of a proper standard.

Where will all the EHOs come from, especially as we are changing the job spec somewhat? Although I suspect that EHOs are used to confronting individuals from time to time, to challenging people’s behaviour and to giving people bad news, I doubt whether many are welcome visitors to premises. Nevertheless, clause 10 moves them up a league, because they will, according to the Bill, be expected to face down difficult situations in tandem with those who will be responsible for the day-to-day management of premises.

One not only expects to recruit more EHOs in a fairly tight time frame but to change dramatically the nature of the job. It would be good to hear that the Minister has adequately thought that through. Is she content that she has consulted sufficiently with organisations such as the Charted Institute of Environmental Health and the Local Government Association to ensure that the legislation is as accurate and watertight as possible?

Will the Minister speak about the new burdens doctrine, with which she will be familiar? To what extent will local government not be involved in funding any new costs? That is the intention of the doctrine, but it appears that, despite the moneys been volunteered in the guidance, there is a risk that that £7 million to £20 million may be a little on the light side, if it is to be enforced properly and if I have read subsection (4) correctly. Indeed, subsection (4) leaves it more or less up to the Secretary of State to determine any duty imposed. If the national authority insists on the increase in enforcement that that relatively small sum of money will allow, the cost will apply to our council tax payers at a time when many constituents are heartily fed up with a tax that has rocketed so much since 1997. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to clarifying subsection (4).

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will attempt to answer several points raised in the debate. On the number of enforcement staff that we estimate will be required in order to enforce the legislation, I refer hon. Members to page 53 of the explanatory notes:

“It is proposed that local enforcement officers dealing with smoke-free enclosed public places and workplaces. Based on consultation response we estimate this might be between 220 and 318 enforcement staff initially, tailing off as legislation becomes embedded.”

I hope that that indicates that we take seriously views expressed by different organisations, just as we have taken on board their independent comments on the different costs. We shall continue to discuss how the legislation will work in practice and how the funding should follow. Of course, monitoring raises issues. We must evaluate the Bill’s success in practice, and one way to do that may be the number of prosecutions. A high number will suggest non-compliance and raise the question whether we should do more to alert the public to the legal state of play. A low number would presumably be some indication of a high level of self-enforcement.

In the early stages we shall, like other countries, set up a national compliance line, by which organisations and individuals will give us information and intelligence about compliance with the law. We shall also engage in continuing discussions with organisations that represent the enforcement authorities, local authorities and the people who will carry out enforcement duties about how the measure works in practice. That is important and would be an essential part of the process, regardless of whether we imposed a total ban or allowed exemptions. Ireland has had to do the same thing as part and parcel of establishing how the law works.

It is wrong to suggest that the discussions under our proposals would not happen under a total ban, with no exemptions. We should still, in that case, have had to follow up matters of signage and enforcement, including appropriate fines for individuals or those who run establishments. We should, regardless, have needed conversations about which bodies should become enforcement authorities and the implications for their work load. It is wrong to suggest that those discussions result only from the approach in the Bill.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister is being very good. I am grateful for the figure of 220 to 318, which I should have read for myself, but I am intrigued to know where those folk will come from, as I understand that being an environmental health officer is a graduate profession and that considerable post-graduate experience is required to qualify. As the Bill’s enforcement provisions will come into force in 2007, it seems that there will, at the crucial early stage that the Minister mentioned, which is also mentioned in the guidance notes, not be sufficient trained EHOs to do the work. What will we do about that?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Those matters are part of the discussions, but also part of the way in which local authorities work in partnerships on environmental health issues. It is intended that enforcement officers will in practice be mainly local authority environmental health officers, but others such as trading standards officers or those responsible for health and safety may be appropriate according to local circumstances. That is an aspect of the discussion that we need to engage in, and in part it will be influenced by the structuring of different local authorities and how they work together.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am curious. Was the Secretary of State’s decision that the provisions would be put into force in summer 2007 and not 2008 made after discussion with the Local Government Association or the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I stand to be corrected, as I am relying on memory, but I think that many responses to the consultation—I think some were from local government—wanted the timetable brought forward. I shall check, but many organisations that wanted a total ban also thought that the date should be brought forward. There is clearly work to be done, and we shall have an opportunity to discuss the issues in full as the Bill and the draft regulations pass through Parliament.

I remind the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that although we seem to have concentrated on licensed premises, a great deal of the Bill is concerned with non-licensed public places, to which a total ban will apply. They include cafés, shopping malls and other areas in which enforcement will be required. Our earlier proposal was that a later date should apply to licensed premises, but that has been presented slightly differently in the Bill. We want to work with people in good faith, and it is my understanding from the Local Government Association and those who represent environmental health officers that there was a desire for the Government to legislate. It is not, therefore, the case that individuals and organisations did not want the measures, albeit some of them might have wanted a total ban. Rather, they consider the issue important for environmental health and for the health and culture of the communities in which they work. There are clearly many issues to be sorted out, and we shall endeavour to do that.

The Hampton review, to which the hon. Member for Westbury referred, is considering simplifying inspection enforcement by establishing a new enforcement officer role and a single visit to deal with a range of enforcement issues. One aspect of that is to think about any dual relationship between those working in trading standards and the environmental health officer role. We are considering the issues involved in risk-based inspection. I think that I was frank about the fact that many people who work with the public, whether in the private or the public sector, in an accident and emergency department, in Woolworth’s, in a café, in a pub or on the council tax counter of a local authority, constantly have to review the way in which they deal with people for whom they might not be providing good news, or whom they might be asking to desist from an activity. We should all appreciate that such things have to be considered by those who encounter the public.

That is one reason why we are discussing the training necessary for people who are to carry out that role in relation to smoking. I do not say that there will not be instances in which people become aggressive, but I have found, as, no doubt, have other Committee members, that often, even in an environment that is not non-smoking, somebody who is smoking can be asked politely to do so in another area or not to do so at all. For the most part the voluntary agreement has worked pretty well for a number of years.

On enforcement, and looking at the risk while simplifying the role, we are aiming to see whether a useful way can be found for the work to be spread among a range of enforcement officers. While it is intended that enforcement officers will be mainly local authority environmental health officers, others could play a role as well.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to subsection (4). My understanding is that it is to be used as a reserve power that might be exercised in a particularly difficult case or when the national authority is not satisfied with the action taken by the enforcement authorities. That sounds pretty tough in that we will have to specify the circumstances in which it will apply. However, I understand that there are similar powers under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Clearly, lawyers advising the Government about Bills have suggested that a fall-back power will sometimes be needed if the designated enforcement agency is not carrying out its role.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I may have interrupted the Minister prematurely, but I hope that she will give us some examples, because at the moment she is asking us to accept at face value her assurance that there is some precedent relating to the Tobacco Advertising Act. We need some concrete examples. We are simple folk who need a pen picture of the kind of circumstances in which a national authority might take to itself the powers that it has given to local government.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That might happen, I suppose, if there was sufficient evidence to suggest that people were getting away with not enforcing the law or that smokers were not abiding by it. I will seek further guidance, but I presume that the measure will apply in circumstances in which it becomes apparent that an enforcement agency is failing in its duty to act appropriately. As I said, hypothetical situations that spring to mind are those in which evidence has been given—through complaints, for example—that prosecutions are not being undertaken or that people have raised issues that have not been followed up, or in which an enforcement agency refuses to act, even given evidence of abuse of the law, which I doubt would happen. I reiterate that the clause gives similar powers to those given in other legislation, particularly in relation to tobacco advertising and promotion. I shall seek to find out more about that and will write to the hon. Gentleman on this issue, if he agrees to that.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I should be interested to know more. When the Minister writes, will she let me know what qualifications the individuals who will exercise the authority, having taken it from the local government bodies that were meant to exercise it, will have? I am afraid that we are no further forward after the Minister’s comments. I simply do not envisage a situation in which subsection (4) will be necessary. Will she let me know in her letter what qualifications those who would exercise the power from the centre in this hypothetical situation, which I hope that she will describe rather better in her letter, will have?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I confirm what I said earlier—it is pleasing to know I was right—which is that in the consultation the Trading Standards Institute, the local government association and other organisations concerned with representing environmental health all suggested bringing forward the date to spring or summer 2007. I acknowledge what some of those organisations said about enforcement and preparation, but that did not seem to get in the way of their feeling that the legislation should be brought forward. There is a willingness to work to make it a success.

Other examples regarding enforcement authorities are situations in which such authorities consistently fail to enforce, or in which particular companies or industries refuse to comply and it is too difficult for single enforcement authorities to deal with those matters.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry to hold the Minister up. I am sure that she will be able to describe to us how the measure will work when she has had the chance to think about it, but there is a possible difficulty with the fact that enforcement authorities might be both local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. The circumstances that she described might not be encompassed within any one enforcement authority or small group of local authorities, but it might be perfectly reasonable to use the power to transfer the case to the HSE. We are not sure that it is necessary in all those circumstances to have this reserve power, as other mechanisms are available.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will seek guidance on that, and am happy to write to hon. Members about it. Part of the objective of Bills and regulations is to cover our bases for eventualities that we hope will not occur but for which we must be prepared. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee as to our continuing dialogue about enforcement. Our best example are those countries that already restrict or ban smoking. Their enforcement costs have been pretty limited and the arrangements have worked well. We will be looking at training for individuals, whoever they may be. Clearly, if someone has not been trained to issue a fixed-penalty notice, we would want to ensure that he has the appropriate training along with those other individuals who have currently been given those powers in the communities we represent.

Clause 11 - Obstruction etc. of officers

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I hope that I am making my intentions more and more apparent and springing to my feet with greater and greater alacrity, despite the fact that we are nearly finished.

The clause is reasonably straightforward. It concerns the obstruction of officers, which we have dealt with to some extent. We are all worried about the possible effects of the Bill on those who are entrusted with its enforcement. That point is worth restating. My only other point is a question about subsection (4). Again, it brings us back to where we peg the offence on the standard scale. It is set at level 3. Can the Minister justify that, because it is fairly high? We do not seem to be talking necessarily about visiting physical violence on people, but merely being obstructive and, in other words, not being helpful. Some explanation of that would be helpful.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

The offence has been set at that level because it is in line with advice from the Home Office about other occasions when people obstruct the course of justice and refuse to comply by providing information. It is as straightforward as that. While I accept that we are not necessarily talking about a violent situation—although some comments have suggested that a huge amount of violence will be encountered in trying to enforce the Bill—regardless of an offence, whether it is violent or not, to obstruct the course of justice is a serious matter. We should therefore have parity with the levels that apply to the offence in other circumstances, particularly when someone is trying, in good faith, to carry out their responsibilities under the law.

Clause 12 - Interpretation and territorial sea

New Clause 2 - Age of sale

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Sale of tobacco—

‘In section 7(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), leave out ‘sixteen’ and insert ‘eighteen’.’.

Amendment No. 71, in title, line 2, after ‘vehicles’, insert

‘to make provision in relation to the sale of tobacco’.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

This appears to be the last debate on this part the Bill. It is important because it deals with a subject that we have not touched on so far. I am conscious in moving the new clause that I am treading all over the flower beds so carefully prepared by the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). I pay tribute to his work. I reread his speech on 18 October when he introduced his ten-minute Bill. He may want to draw on the material that he deployed then. He also touched on the subject on Second Reading.

The new clause would give the Government the powers to raise the minimum legal age for buying cigarettes from 16 to, probably, 18. It would achieve that by allowing them to issue regulations under the Bill that amend the legal age for buying cigarettes specified in the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. The new clause differs from the hon. Gentleman’s, which is more prescriptive. He would move the age to 18 and do so now, while mine would permit the Government to raise the minimum legal age at a later date to whichever age they might choose. If it were left to me it would be a higher age than is likely to emerge from the Government.

I said on Second Reading that what the tobacco industry fears is not so much price increases and health warnings, useful though they are, but statements from society that smoking is an unacceptable habit in a public place and that tobacco is a product that it is illegal to sell and consume in certain circumstances. Those are more effective steps to the non-smoking paradise that I mentioned.

Raising the legal buying age would be a modestly useful measure that might have some impact on teenage smoking rates. However, it should not be a substitute for a comprehensive piece of legislation that ends smoking in all workplaces and enclosed public places. I am slightly suspicious that the Government have chosen to trial the proposal in a way that was clearly designed to distract attention from the difficulties that they faced with the exemptions in clause 3.

Last Thursday, just before the Committee voted on the exemption for pubs that do not sell food, the Minister announced that there would be a consultation on whether to raise the legal age for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18. That was an astonishingly timely initiative, which went beyond what she said on the subject only on 29 November in reply to the debate on Second Reading. She said that the consultation on increasing the age limit for cigarettes and other tobacco products would be carried out next year. Clearly, if that consultation is to be meaningful, she will need powers in the Bill to change the age if that is what the result of the consultation indicates. My new clause helpfully provides that opportunity.

In response to the announcement, the Press Association said last week:

“The move follows reports that the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, was considering backing a Labour backbench plan to ban the sale of cigarettes to under-18s, bringing the law in line with alcohol sales. This would also bring Britain into line with other European Union countries and the US.”

It then quoted what was said in the press release:

“We will consider carefully the results of that consultation before making a final decision”

and continued

“Her comments came during the committee stage of the health bill, which will impose a partial smoking ban in public places—with pubs that do not serve food and private members’ clubs exempt from the ban. Doctors’ leaders, anti-smoking groups and many backbench MPs have described the partial ban as ‘half measures’. The pressure group Action on Smoking and Health described the idea of increasing the age limit for tobacco sales as a ‘cynical’ measure to appease backbench MPs who want the government to introduce a total ban on people lighting up in public places.”

I would never accuse the Government of anything so devious.

The new clause is a complementary measure, not an alternative to a ban. The Government must not seek to use it as a bargaining counter to avoid a ban in pubs that do not sell food. Survey evidence from the Office for National Statistics shows that in 2004, 9,000 11 to 15-year-olds and 21 per cent. of 15-year-olds—26 per cent. of girls and 16 per cent. of boys—smoked regularly. That is despite the fact that the legal buying age is 16. In 1998, the Government set a target to reduce the prevalence of regular smoking among young people aged 11 to 15 from a base line of 13 per cent. in 1996 to 11 per cent. by 2005 and 9 per cent. or less by 2010. The proportion of 16 to 19-year-olds who smoke is currently 26 per cent. About 450 children start smoking every day. More than 80 per cent. of smokers took up the habit as teenagers.

There is some evidence that increasing the legal buying age may discourage young people from starting to smoke. The island of Guernsey raised the age for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18 in the late 1990s. Other measures were also introduced to tackle smoking, including a targeted education programme in schools and higher taxes on cigarettes. Smoking rates among young people on the island have halved since 1997 and only 19 per cent. of adults smoke. Joanne Staples, co-ordinator of the Guernsey Adolescent Smoke-free Project—GASP—has been quoted as saying that raising the age limit has made it more difficult for children to buy cigarettes, which is what one would expect.

However, Guernsey is a small island, where the enforcement of such age restrictions is relatively straightforward. Enforcement across England and Wales would be more challenging. In 2004–05, trading standards services prosecuted 117 retailers for selling cigarettes to children aged under 16. The retailers received penalties ranging from only a conditional discharge to fines of up to £1,000. Many more received cautions. If the Government smile on my new clause—I bring up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury—will they give local authorities the resources that they need for trading standards officers to enforce a new law? Will the penalties for breaching the law match the seriousness of the offence?

Although raising the legal buying age may be useful, the most effective way to get young people not to smoke is to persuade adults to quit. Young people generally start to smoke because they regard it as an adult activity. Putting the equivalent of an 18 certificate on cigarettes obviously will not have much impact in persuading them to the contrary. That is why a workplace smoking law that is truly comprehensive will have more effect than raising the legal buying age. As we have heard, children are three times as likely to smoke if both their parents smoke. Parents’ approval or disapproval of the habit is also a significant factor.

When the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough catches your eye, Lady Winterton, he will draw parallels with the Gambling Act 2005, under which some gaming machines will now be restricted to the over-18s, and the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which raises to 18 the age at which airguns and some knives can be sold. I am sure that he will also give the views of the Trading Standards Institute, which wants the age limit for the sale of cigarettes to be raised to 18.

I know that the Committee is anxious to make progress. I simply say in conclusion that new clause 2 should be supported because it would enable the Government to conduct a meaningful consultation on youth smoking and, after that consultation, to raise the legal age at a future date without primary legislation.

Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and for not stealing all my thunder.

It is important to present the Committee with the background as to why I think that we should consider accepting new clause 7, in particular. I welcome the Government’s initiative last week in announcing a consultation on the possibility of raising the age from 16 to 18. I certainly do not view that as a cynical ploy. When I read the White Paper “Choosing Health” when it was first published last November, I thought that there was a glaring omission in the chapter dealing with anti-smoking measures because there was no mention of a consultation on raising the age as part of the White Paper process.

Having discovered that, I submitted a question to the then Public Health Minister, Melanie Johnson, who is unfortunately no longer a Member of the House, and I received a reply on 7 December. My question was:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether proposals to raise the minimum age of sale in retail premises from 16 to 18 years for cigarettes are included in the White Paper consultation process.”

Her response was:

“There are no plans to increase the minimum age of sales of tobacco from 16 to 18. We are not aware of any evidence that such a change would have a significant impact in reducing smoking rates in children and young people.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 495W.]

I thought that that was a glaring omission and I was very disappointed with the response.

I was so disappointed that, on 13 December last year, I tabled early-day motion 380 on the minimum age of sale for tobacco, which read as follows:

“That this House asks the Government to give serious consideration to raising the minimum age of sales of tobacco from 16 to 18 years as part of its consultation process on the White Paper, Choosing Health.”

I am pleased to say that that motion attracted 62 signatures in the last Parliament, from Members in all parties. I re-tabled that early-day motion in the new Parliament as early-day motion 276 on 25 May and so far it has attracted the signatures of 55 Members. I hope that Members who have not signed it will take the opportunity to do so tomorrow. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has already referred to my excellent ten-minute Bill of 18 October, in which I proposed to raise the age of sale from 16 to 18 for tobacco products.

As I have already said, I was very disappointed with the original response. One of the main reasons for that was the statement of the Department that there was no evidence to show that raising the age had made a difference. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the example from Guernsey that I cited in my ten-minute Bill. By 2003, it was established in Guernsey that raising the age cut the rate by some 50 per cent. To me, that is compelling evidence that we ought to have considered such a measure in the Bill. We have already mentioned the fact that other European countries have raised the age, including Ireland. I understand that next year Scotland might raise the age of sale from 16 to 18. On that theme, I received an e-mail from Pamela M. Crowe, a Member of the House of Keys in the Isle of Man. She said:

“I introduced a Bill to raise the age of the sale to tobacco to 18 years 6 years ago, the legislation has worked very well as a provision for proof of age cards was included. Trading standards officers enforced the law.”

Such a measure was also implemented on the island of Jersey last year.

The measure enjoys popular support. When discussing earlier clauses, the Minister mentioned the health survey conducted by the BBC in 2004, which I quoted in my ten-minute Bill. The survey found that 80 per cent. of the people in this country support the measure, particularly young people in the 18-to-24 age category. When the issue was highlighted in the press recently, the BBC and Sky News conducted two telephone polls on the matter, and the measure was supported by 88 per cent. and 89 per cent. of respondents respectively.

The measure enjoys popular support. The Trading Standards Institute has passed a resolution to agree to the measure at its last two annual conferences. I have had numerous e-mails and letters of support from various health professionals. I shall briefly quote from two of them. The first is from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which covers my constituency and that of the Minister. It is dated 27 October 2005 and is from Emyr Jones, the consultant physician. It reads:

“Dear Mr. Ennis,

Raising minimum age for legal cigarettes purchase.

I understand from a recent story in the news media that you are sponsoring a parliamentary motion aimed at increasing the minimum legal age for the purchase of cigarettes and other smoking related material.

I am writing as Medical Director of your local NHS Foundation Trust to indicate that you have the full support of this Trust, and of the clinicians in this Trust, who provide care for the victims of cigarette smoking related disease. We applaud your initiative and hope that it will be successful.

Together with the measures that the Government is currently taking to protect the health and safety of employees, by banning smoking in public places, we would hope that the measures that you are sponsoring will contribute to the continuing alienation of smokers and the unacceptability of this pernicious habit.”

That is not my choice of words.

The second letter is from my other local health trust, the Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. It is from the medical director, David Hicks. He writes:

“Dear Mr. Ennis,

I am writing as Medical Director at Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to strongly support your forthcoming proposal to the house under the “10 minute rule”. I understand that the intention of your proposed bill to the House of Commons is to increase the age of legal smoking from 16 to 18 years.

I have consulted my colleagues at the Trust and in particular those working in Respiratory Medicine.

As healthcare professionals and respiratory physicians the devastation caused by tobacco is all too apparent. The British Thoracic Society ... has issued a position statement on tobacco in September 2004”—

which was also before the White Paper was published—

“and this includes the proposal ‘to raise the minimum age of cigarette purchase to 18, without any incremental stages’ .... May I wish you the best of success with your bill which could herald a signal change in public health across the country.”

My proposal not only has the support of the people and the health professionals, but the support of the press. I have with me a copy of the South Yorkshire Times—an excellent newspaper that covers my constituency and that of the Minister. The headline in the October 27 edition reads, “Backing for Bill to raise smoking age”. The subsequent article begins:

“The South Yorkshire Times today formally backed Mexborough and Barnsley East MP Jeff Ennis in his bid to raise the minimum smoking age to 18.”

The paper also went so far as to place petitions for signature, not only in their head offices, but in the shops in my constituency and that of the Minister. In the not-too-distant future, I hope to present that petition on the Floor of the House. In that context, I single out the campaigning journalist from the South Yorkshire Times, Mr. Lee Siggs. For the benefit of Hansard, that is spelled “Siggs” not “Cigs”. Such things could not be made up.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the support that she has given me since she took on her ministerial job. I had a number of formal and informal meetings with her on this issue, long before we reached the debate on Second Reading.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case in support of the principle underlying new clauses 2 and 7. However, I am not yet clear about his position. Does he support new clause 2, which would put into primary legislation the opportunity for Ministers to implement such a measure in the light of consultation, or does he wish us to proceed with new clause 7, on the basis that there is good evidence and substantial public support for such a measure and not, as far as I am aware, any countervailing evidence or public opposition that should inhibit us from doing so?

Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)

Like the rest of the Committee, I am waiting to hear the Minister’s response to my contribution and that of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, because both new clauses are worthy of consideration by the Committee.

I certainly welcome the public consultation process that the Minister announced, and I am sure that it is not an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass, as some people might suggest, or a cynical ploy. However, I would like assurances about the process. The announcement said that the consultation would be next year, but how long does the Minister expect it to last? When does she expect it to start? Will it be at the beginning of the year or next November or December? If the measure enjoys popular support, as I am sure that it will once we have been out to consultation, when and how does she envisage it becoming law? Will it be brought in with the Bill or in some other legal framework?

Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 15 December at Nine o’clock.