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.
Column Number: 198
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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Caroline Flint): 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
Column Number: 199
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.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): 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: 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.
4.15 pm
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
Column Number: 200
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.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): 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: 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.
Dr. Murrison: 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: No.
Dr. Murrison: Well, that is the implication of her remarks. Why is she talking about reviewing matters? What purpose will the review have?
Caroline Flint: 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.
Column Number: 201
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.
Dr. Murrison: 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: 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
Column Number: 202
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.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): 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.
The Chairman: 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
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir George Young: 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
Column Number: 203
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. Murrison rose—
Stephen Williams (Bristol, West) (LD) rose—
The Chairman: I call Dr. Murrison.
Dr. Murrison: 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.
4.30 pm
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.
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, you were pipped at the post a minute ago, but I have pleasure in calling you now.
Stephen Williams: 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
Column Number: 204
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: 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: 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: 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.
Column Number: 205
Dr. Murrison: 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: 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.
