Health Bill |
|
Caroline Flint: We have had, as part of the consultation, some discussion with those concerned with stately homes, and there will be provision to cover those venues. When the public are visiting, they will be smoke-free. As we were discussing earlier this week
We are considering all possible angles on how the legislation will be developed. I hope that I have not given the impression that we are not thinking about what is happening in different countries, with total or partial bans, to help us in our deliberations. We are exchanging information about stately homes, TV plays and films where smoking may be a factor in the play or programme, as well as a number of other scenarios. Fortunately, we have some examples to consider and compare. As with most things, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, and different individuals take different approaches. For example, I understand that Ireland, in the first instance, did not define smoking so as to include herbal cigarettes, and there has been a problem with clarifying that. We have tried to make that clear in the earlier clauses. Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way? Caroline Flint: I will make a little progress first, then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I shall begin with new clause 1, and then we shall have a wider stand part debate. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Westbury does not intend to press the clause. He made that clear, but said that he thought that it was an opportunity to congratulate organisations that had sought to reduce smoking in their workplaces, and in some cases, had gone completely smoke-free. Throughout the proceedings I have acknowledged that too. However, we published a Paper in 1998 called “Smoking Kills”, which looked at self-regulation. Although there has been progress, I am afraid that when we undertook the White Paper “Choosing Health”, what came out of the extensive consultation was the view that voluntary approaches were not enough, and that there was a public appetite for legislating to quicken the pace of change. That is what we are attempting to do with the Bill. 3.30 pm New clause 1, in many respects, reflects Conservative party policy—I think that that is the case, although I acknowledge that there will be a free vote on the issue. I refer the hon. Member for Westbury to what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said about his party’s policy, which was that
I emphasise that phrase—
Column Number: 147 My interpretation of that is that if a Conservative Administration had been elected in 2005, it would have waited another three years to ascertain whether voluntary change had an impact, including on some aspects of new clause 1—those to do with children, employees and the public. The comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire send the strong signal that his party had no intention of legislating for a total ban in a huge number of places. One of the words he used was “reduction”. That leaves it open for there to have been options for ventilation and smoking rooms under a Conservative Administration, in the places where we are advocating a total ban. Dr. Murrison: Is the Minister saying that the contents of the Bill will come into effect on the day that it receives Royal Assent? I do not think that that will be the case; in fact, she might like to tell us what timetable the industry will have to work within in respect of providing smoke-free premises. Caroline Flint: I think that we have made it clear that we have brought forward the timetable for major implementation in these areas to summer 2007, although I hasten to add that we wish the NHS and Government Departments to do that much earlier. Something else is unclear in the statement of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. He talks about waiting three years and then introducing legislation, but he does not make it clear when the legislation would come into force following that. It would be interesting to get further information on that. Was he suggesting that the Conservative party would introduce a total ban within three years of 2005 if self-regulation did not work? The hon. Gentleman did not make that clear, and I am certain that it is not clear to Conservative Members on the Back Benches or to party members outside this place. Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way? Caroline Flint: I will make a little progress, if I may. I acknowledge and appreciate the work that employers have done. However, even in 2004 only just over half the population reported their workplace as being completely smoke-free. Knowing what we now know about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and given rapidly changing public attitudes, we have decided that we can no longer depend in some areas on ineffective voluntary action to protect public health. Therefore, we feel it is now right to move in the direction of having smoke-free provisions. These measures are a huge step forward for public health. Clause 3 exemptions enable regulations to be made that specify the premises in which smoking will be permitted, but we have no intention of making exemptions for premises that have implemented a voluntary prohibition of smoking. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon about complexity in respect of total ban areas where there are voluntary bans and making exemptions for workplaces and public places. We have heard a great deal about how our food/non-food differentiation
I do not believe that there is any appetite for new clause 1 in enforcement agencies and local government or among organisations such as ASH, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians and the British Medical Association, which the hon. Member for Westbury has cited many times. Those organisations and others, while recognising that the Bill takes us forward, would like a total ban. I believe that they would see the new clause as a dilution of the total-ban elements of the Bill. Dr. Murrison: Does the Minister not agree that all the organisations that she has cited would support amendment No. 1? Caroline Flint: No, I am not convinced of that. Amendment No. 1 deals with the food/non-food question. I understand what those organisations have said, but even if the amendment proceeded, that would not disallow us from differentiating in regulations between food and non-food premises. The amendment would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman intends. New clause 1 would be a retrograde step. The proposed criteria could be quite difficult to understand, and time has moved on. The new clause would not deliver the real change of smoke-free public places, which is our aim, so I urge the Committee to reject it. We have had a long discussion on clause 3 stand part and I shall not repeat what I said about the reasons why we came to our position, but the fact is that we took into account both health and choice. I will say more about the enforcement side, because hon. Members have referred to that and it is something of which we are also mindful. I shall be frank, because there is no point in being otherwise: in many respects, a total ban offers a simpler option in terms of cost and enforcement. It would be daft of me to suggest otherwise, because the regulatory impact assessment clearly shows that the costs of such a ban are less. Our proposals create a situation that involves more regulation, but that is one reason why the Department of Health has been in consultation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and bodies such as the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health about assurances on covering the additional costs caused by enforcement. Column Number: 149 This is one of those areas in which public support to lessen the burden in respect of enforcement is very important. Let us consider other matters on which Government and local government seek public support, such as litter, dog fouling and even mobile phone use, for which there are laws and byelaws. To a greater extent, those provisions are implemented in the sense that the public do not want to see litter or dog fouling and they understand the importance of the provisions on mobile phone use. What we cannot provide is an army of people constantly out watching and picking up litter and so on, although the measures that the Government have taken to tackle antisocial behaviour and to help community support officers to challenge some of those antisocial practices—measures opposed by the Liberal Democrats—have been a step forward. In that area, voluntary bans have been successful because they have been in line with public opinion and have been self-enforcing. Restrictions or bans introduced in other countries have worked; there have been few prosecutions because the public have signed up to the measures. In our discussions with other Departments and organisations, and in the partial RIA, we acknowledge that there may be costs, but we need to quantify and support them. Appropriate regulation will lead to enforcement costs. To that end, I do not support the imposition of ventilation standards by regulation and some of the other measures suggested in new clause 1, as they would increase the burden on those who enforce the law. We will have the opportunity to tackle some of the issues dealt with in the clause in relation to food/non-food, and we will obviously have further discussion on premises and the area around the bar. However, we should not forget that clause 3(2)(a) deals also with prisons, adult hospices, mental health institutions and other places where a degree of smoking will be permitted. We shall have to discuss how to manage that, because people’s concerns will differ from one category to another. We have had a good debate. I hope that everyone whose name appears on the amendment paper has had the chance to air their views. I ask the Committee to support clause 3. Dr. Murrison: Having heard the Minister, I shall not press new clause 1 to a Division. However, given the strength of opinion expressed on Second Reading, we will seek to divide the Committee on clause stand part. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4. [Division No. 2] AYES Butler, Ms. DawnEnnis, Jeff Flint, Caroline Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Joyce, Eric Kennedy, Jane Kidney, Mr. David Merron, Gillian Reed, Mr. Jamie
NOES Column Number: 150 Blunt, Mr. Crispin Dorries, Mrs. Nadine Murrison, Dr. Andrew Young, Sir George Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 Additional smoke-free places 3.45 pmDr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, after ‘to’, insert ‘significant amounts of’’. This is a simple amendment. I hope that it will attract the support of the Committee. It would erase an ambiguity in subsection (3). As it stands, it seems that the power to create additional smoke-free places—the Secretary of State may ordain them by regulation, a subject that we have discussed several times today—will allow her to impose restrictions on any place where there might be smoke or the possibility of exposure to smoke. As several hon. Members have been at pains to explain, smoke can mean many things. In the context of this Bill it is fairly tightly defined as something that is smoked, which is by and large tobacco products. The question is: when does it become harmful to health? We simply do not know the answer. We can make an educated guess that trivial amounts of smoke will probably be a nuisance to us. To a greater or lesser extent, people who do not smoke find it an irritation, but it will not be harmful to health. It is important to make it clear that if we are giving the Secretary of State powers to impose restrictions and introduce additional smoke-free places, we are talking only about places where there are significant amounts of smoke, and that this is not carte blanche to insist on additional smoke-free places wherever she has a yen to. The Minister will probably say that “significant” has to be defined. That is true. A definition would have to be constructed. I am not a parliamentary draftsman so I am ill-equipped to do so, but I think that common usage would hold that significant means something other than casual or trivial, or exposure to smoke en passant. I hope that the Minister will accept that the clause gives the Secretary of State fairly sweeping powers to determine pretty well anywhere that she likes to be smoke-free, for whatever reason, at some point in the future. The insertion of “significant amounts of” would limit that power and ensure that she legislated by bringing in regulations geared towards improving public health, rather than for the purposes of amenity or courtesy. As I have said before, desirable though some may feel that to be, I do not think that it should be a subject for a Bill of this sort. The amendment is kindly meant. I think that it would improve the Bill and tighten an ambiguity. I am sure that the Minister does not want to gather to herself unreasonable regulatory powers. Inserting those words would restrict her right hon. Friend’s
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend’s amendment would qualify subsection (3), which gives the appropriate authorities powers to designate additional smoke-free places, by inserting the words “significant amounts of”. Earlier this morning, in the context of the debate on children, the Minister said that under the Bill a whole range of public places that children frequented would be smoke-free. She mentioned shopping malls, cafés and leisure centres, but she did not mention football stadiums. I am sure that the Minister is a regular at the Earth stadium, Belle Vue road, the home of Doncaster Rovers. Of course that is now an all-seater stadium, and it is a place to which a large number of children go. I want to see whether we can press the Minister on the notes to clause 4, which say that examples of additional places that might be designated include:
Many football grounds are now covered. In the old days they were all exposed and one had to stand. Now they are all-seater. Families often go half an hour before kick-off to be in their places. They will be there for 90 minutes plus half time, and at certain games they will be there for extra time. A child could be seated next to a chain smoker, with little opportunity to escape or to move. Therefore, I would argue that under subsection (3), if amended, they would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain whether she plans to use her powers under the Bill to designate football stadiums. We had a brief debate on Tuesday about stations and termini. I think that the Minister said that in Scotland stations, such as Edinburgh Waverley, could be designated. It would be helpful if she would tell us whether Waterloo and Paddington stations, which are enclosed termini, are likely to be so designated. I think that she said that that was subject to consultation. It would be helpful to know whether in Scotland they are going to be designated, and whether there is a possibility that in England they will not be. This is an appropriate time for the Minister to clarify where she is heading, if she can. Stephen Williams: I find the amendment curious. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Westbury said and I did not understand what he meant by “significant amounts of” smoke. If my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon were still in his place and I were to light up—leaving aside the fact that you would reprimand me, Lady Winterton—the amount of smoke would be significant to him, but by the time it had dissipated, even in this enclosed space, it would probably be insignificant by the time it reached the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I find some
Dr. Murrison: In a timely way, I will seek to do that. Such a situation would be forbidden in this Room under this legislation, and correctly so. But if that happened in a bus shelter or outside the foyer of a hospital—we are all familiar with that scenario—or in a stadium, the matter would be more contestable. People will be exposed to smoke, as we are when we walk down the street—I can inform the hon. Gentleman of that. Ambient smoke is always present. In the amendment, I am trying to promote the notion that the smoke needs to be significant, or we might end up with a blanket ban because it could be claimed that everybody is exposed in one way or another to smoke. Technically such a claim would be correct, but the smoke would not be significant in public health terms. Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further explanation. I am not sure whether I am any the wiser, although I understand his examples, which, to some extent, match the examples in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Remarks have been made from several parts of the Room during our proceedings to the effect that as it is, the Bill is a charter for lawyers. If we do not have a tight definition of “significant”, we will simply add to the bonanza of fees that lawyers could earn from it. Dr. Murrison: I made it clear that I am not a parliamentary draftsman and that I will seek advice on the best form of words. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if we do not include the amendment, again, lawyers might have a beanfeast, because they could say that somebody walking down the Embankment was exposed to smoke? Were we not to be specific and restrict the zeal of a future Secretary of State in making regulations, we could fall into precisely the trap that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified. Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The specific circumstances need to be identified by the Minister. Perhaps she will do that in her reply to his remarks and mine. Subsection (4)(a) contains the phrase “in specified circumstances”. Perhaps examples could be put on the record as to what those should be. Caroline Flint: I support the spirit of what the hon. Member for Westbury intends in the amendment but, as has been outlined by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, there is uncertainty about the helpfulness of adding that form of wording to the clause. Will it take us many steps forward? We do not think this is about levels per se, but about harm. We refer in the explanatory notes to the
which will be part of the assessment. Therefore, I do not think that the word “significant” adds anything meaningful to the Bill. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Westbury that I take on board his point that we should not be trivial in our application of the measures. Column Number: 153 Part of the reason why we drafted paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (4) is that the regulations must consider those areas, and when they are produced in draft they will give a clearer view of the circumstances, times, conditions and areas in which they should be applied. In answer to the inquiries about where the provisions might apply, they might apply to stadiums—whether football or otherwise—and they could take into account issues such as the ability of spectators to move around and remove themselves from smoke. That is one of the issues, and it would be part of any assessment. I am glad that I have the opportunity to say something about railway stations, because I wanted to mention this earlier but did not get round to it. A number of railway stations or terminals are pretty much enclosed before people get to the platform. Based on our definition of “enclosed or substantially enclosed”, I imagine a lot of railway stations and termini would fall under that category. Having said that, there are also platforms that are completely open, on which people can decide where they want to stand. That might raise a different issue. Similarly, the subject of bus stops came up during the consultation. If someone is waiting for a bus and it is raining, and there is a shelter at the bus stop, there are only so many places they can go without getting wet. One of the reasons why we have not included all those examples in the Bill is that they are just that—a few examples. If we had more time, we could think of many more. These are the sort of issues that we should have a better look at once the legislation has come into force, to determine whether there are other areas to which the smoke-free policy should apply. Column Number: 154 I hope that the hon. Member for Westbury is reassured by what I said about the application not being trivial. Subsection (4)(a) to (d) puts the onus on the draft regulations to be clear about how and in what circumstances the assessment would be applied. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Dr. Murrison: I would never accuse the Minister of being trivial, and what she has said on the record perhaps gives a little more meaning to her intentions regarding the clause. I am slightly perplexed about railway termini; I feel that an open platform might give more exposure to expired tobacco smoke than one of our vast termini. Waterloo station—where I hope to be in just a few minutes’ time—is a cavernous open space with a great draught going through it. I suspect my exposure to tobacco smoke there would be rather less than it would if I were standing at one of the small stations in my constituency. This is not quite as simple as the Minister pretends to make out, which is why I insisted on occupational exposure standards, maximum exposure limits and so forth earlier in the debate. However, I shall not go on. Suffice it to say that the Minister has given me some reassurance, and with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Four o’clock till Tuesday 13 December at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 12 December 2005 |