Health Bill

I start by thanking the Minister for providing the report on the experience in Norway. It made interesting reading and I shall be referring to it again later. I imagine that the Minister has read it as well. It is interesting to note in passing at this stage that Italy, Sweden and British Columbia allow smoking rooms, and those are just the countries where this survey was carried out. It is highly relevant to Clause 4 because it is the last to consider the restrictions on where people may smoke, other than in relation to vehicles and signage and so on, which are perhaps smaller issues. As we have had a break between Sittings, I remind the Committee that Clause 4 enables regulations to be made that designate additional smoke-free places that are not covered by Clause 2. The only proviso is that, without being so designated,"““persons present there would be likely to be exposed to smoke””." In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill it is envisaged that,"““sports stadia and other outdoor areas, such as public transport facilities that are not covered within clause 2, or entrances or exits to public buildings or workplaces””," might be so designated. In essence, Clause 4 enables any place or description of place not being enclosed or substantially enclosed to be made smoke-free—dare I say it?—once again by regulation. So far as I can see, the only proviso stated in the Bill is at subsection (3), which says that persons present in the places designated,"““would be likely to be exposed to smoke””." Frankly, that proviso is virtually meaningless as it gives no idea of how current or future Ministers—we congratulate the noble Lord on keeping his present role—will choose to determine whether to designate certain descriptions of places as smoke-free. But we have some guidance. In Committee in another place, the Minister stated that it would not be the intention to use Clause 4 in trivial situations. Again, the Explanatory Notes state that those,"““will be places or areas where the appropriate national authority consider that there is risk of harm from second-hand smoke due to, for example, the inevitable close grouping of people . . . Examples . . . might include, if need be, sports stadia””," and so on, as I mentioned earlier. My concern about the Bill is that there are far too many qualifications. This is a major Bill; it is not a minor amending Bill. These are not the regulations, and there appear to be far too many qualifications. In the Explanatory Notes, the words ““if need be”” appear twice, including a reference to the risk of harm from second-hand smoke. But it should be pointed out that, so far as we are aware, there is not an iota of scientific evidence of exposure in open-air spaces presenting a risk of harm. It might be irritating or inconvenient—people might not like it—but, given that I am getting reasonably good at finding scientific evidence, I have yet to discover any scientific evidence on this aspect of the Bill. To be fair to the Minister, he has said that he is convinced of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke in enclosed places. But even if the risk he claims is there, it is very small and uncertain. He cannot possibly claim—well, I hope not—that the risk could be anything like the same, or have any significance at all, in largely open-air places. Making any such open places smoke-free is less, if anything, to do with risk of harm and much more to do with a knee-jerk reaction from those who are totally anti-tobacco and anti-smokers and want to see smoking outlawed everywhere. That is a reasonable stance to take if people are of that particular ilk; looking across the Room, I can see one noble Lord who is of that ilk, I think, and I think he would claim that he was. In summary, the clause is highly unsatisfactory. Either it needs to be much more specific about the extent of the exposure to smoke that Ministers consider is required to make a place smoke-free—phrases such as ““risk of harm”” and ““if need be”” are simply not good enough guides for any primary legislation—or, if Ministers intend to designate places smoke-free that are not enclosed or substantially enclosed, then Clause 2 should be amended. If that is the strategy, I hope that it will happen on Report. Clause 2 should be amended to make provision for such places. A blank cheque should not be sought through Clause 4. I said that I would refer only briefly to Norway, but I did a little more checking. Its legislation is clear, blunt and authoritative. It does not contain phrases such as ““risk of harm”” and ““if need be””. If the Scandinavians can do it, why on earth can’t we be as clear and objective? At the end of the day, it is the general public and those who are responsible for these areas of hospitality, for want of a generic word, who have to know exactly what it is all about. We must not produce a Bill that leaves us in doubt. So it is a question of either/or, and if the Government have no such intentions, Clause 4 should be dropped from the Bill altogether.