Health Bill

I was not proposing to engage in an auction of what else people might like to ban during the course of the Bill. The Bill has been drafted to capture the smoking of any substance, whether or not it contains tobacco. I can understand the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is trying to probe with his Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but, if we adopted them, they would require the Government to specify in regulations substances other than tobacco that would be covered by the legislation. I hope to convince him that we should not go along that path. Let me get out of the way the question of joss sticks, incense, chewing tobacco and snuff for those who have a predilection in these areas. Noble Lords can carry on chewing their tobacco or taking their snuff unimpeded by the Bill. Joss sticks cannot be smoked, so they are not covered by the Bill, and the same applies to incense. Turning to the noble Earl’s amendments, we believe that this kind of specification would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and would not help. We know that the majority of research has been conducted around the health risks associated with second-hand smoke from tobacco, but there are risks associated with other substances. In response to the consultation, ASH provided published references in relation to herbal cigarettes and peer- reviewed studies in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1990, The Lancet in 1999 and Tobacco Control in 2004, that suggested that tar and carbon monoxide levels were similar to, or higher than, tobacco cigarettes. I am very happy to give more details to the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee if they wish to explore those references. Asthma UK similarly raised concerns about the health impact on people with asthma should herbal second-hand smoke continue to be allowed. In the public consultation undertaken last year during the summer, the Government proposed restricting the Bill to cover only the smoking of tobacco or products that contain tobacco, and asked a specific question about whether the definition caused concern on the basis that non-tobacco substances were not included. The result of the public consultation saw around 90 per cent of respondents to the question suggest that the definition of smoking should be widened to include smoking of non-tobacco substances. The reasons most cited for widening the definition included, first, that limiting the legislation to only tobacco products would create a difficulty in enforcing legislation, such that a smoker might claim that his cigarette is non-tobacco—even if it is not—and so an additional burden is created on the enforcer, including a need for sampling, the cost of which may well be disproportionate to the offence. Secondly, non-tobacco smoke is still smoke and is, therefore, harmful—I have given some examples of that—in particular to those with asthma or respiratory complaints, and a nuisance at the very least. Thirdly, the legislation as proposed sends a mixed message about smoking and health. The inclusion of all smoking in this legislation will help to discourage smoking. Fourthly, it was also pointed out that the proposal leaves open the possibility for cigarette companies to develop addictive—nicotine-based—and possibly harmful cigarettes that do not contain tobacco. We believe that the definitions in Clause 1(2) are clear and respond to those points made during consultation. A list of substances in regulations would run the risk of becoming out of date or incomplete quickly, thereby creating anomalies or loopholes in the law. For all those reasons, the Government believe that Clause 1 as it is currently drafted is appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill, as currently drafted, also replicates the provisions in Scottish legislation. We think that consistency in this area is important. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the issue of cannabis. As the Bill is drafted, any individual, leaving aside other pieces of legislation, who smokes an illicit substance in a smoke-free place is likely also to be in the frame for smoking-free offences. We do not believe it would be beneficial to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but he raised the issue of being in possession. My understanding of what ““being in possession”” means is being in physical control of it, but I shall consult the draftsman and let him have further and better particulars concerning that issue.