Health Bill

I shall speak to the five amendments grouped in my name, Amendments Nos. 28 to 32 inclusive. As we move forward in our debates on the Bill, I very much hope that we will continue to bear in mind two precepts. The first precept is that in almost all situations, as I have previously remarked, there is a de minimis level of environmental tobacco smoke which, in public health terms, is not worth our worrying about. The second precept, which is quite closely related to the first, is that there is a difference between experiencing the unpleasant odour of stale tobacco smoke and inhaling the tobacco smoke of someone who is smoking. The smell of stale tobacco smoke is simply an unpleasant nuisance. Inhaling the smoke from a lit cigarette is quite another thing and, at least potentially, a public health issue. In Commons Standing Committee, the Minister, Caroline Flint, said about vehicles being used for business purposes by a single individual:"““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 maintains the definition of public transport or a vehicle used for a business purpose””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E; 13/12/05, col. 164.]" It is that proposal that I want to challenge through Amendment No. 28. Part of the rationale of what the Minister said appears to be that there ought to be no difference between the rules applied to buildings used as workplaces and those applied to vehicles used for work. I can just about reconcile myself to the argument about buildings. If a building or a room in a building is occupied by one individual and then by another individual on a shift basis, I can see that there might be a reasonable case for saying that the building or room should be smoke free. It is not a very strong argument but it is, at least, a fair case. Where, however, we are dealing with a vehicle—let us say the cab of a lorry—the case becomes much weaker. There is one notable feature about lorries as opposed to buildings—they move along. If you open the window of the cab or turn on the ventilation, you can change the environment very rapidly. Inhaling the small amount of ETS in a lorry cab after a smoker has been using it is not, I suggest, a cause for concern in a public health sense. It may be unpleasant to get into a driver’s cab with the smell of stale tobacco smoke lingering there, but, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that it is a risk to long-term health. The two things are very different and we must not let that simple point elude us. But there is another dimension to this as well, to which my noble friend referred. From the debates in another place it would seem that there may be a rather legalistic question of whether and when a vehicle is being used for private purposes as opposed to business purposes. Surely it would be a nonsense to say that if someone were driving a car for his own private use before handing it over to someone else for business use, he could smoke, whereas if he were driving it for business purposes he could not smoke. The status of hire cars gives rise to particular uncertainty. If a business hires a car for use by its employees, that car may be subject to both business and private use, although let us suppose that it is never used by more than one person at a time. In that kind of case, there may well be legitimate doubt about whether and when it should be smoke free because while the car is hired in the course of business it is not always used in the course of business. The scope for confusion, on the face of it at least, is considerable. But, when all is said and done, it is unnecessary. All we need to do is adopt the principle suggested in my amendment. I hope that the Minister will wish to reconsider that point. Much as we are always told whenever we debate Bills that the inclusion of any kind of list is inherently undesirable, it is difficult to resist the temptation to point out that this Bill is not short of lists. One appears in Clause 5(5). The danger of a list is that once you start listing you wonder where to stop. Lawyers who make it their business to interpret legislation are inclined to make capital out of the fact that one thing has been included in a list but something else has not—a phenomenon known, I believe, as expressio unius, exclusio alterius. I wonder why it was thought necessary to include a list at all in Clause 5(5) but, assuming there is a good reason, I have tabled Amendment No. 29, which seeks to overcome the problem of the list in what I believe is the conventionally accepted way. I have also tabled Amendment No. 30 as a means of asking the Minister why it is that some forms of transport have been included in the subsection but other quite obvious ones have not. The subsection refers to ““vessel””. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what kinds of vessels the Government have in mind. Are we talking only about boats that have enclosed cabins of some kind and are being used for business purposes? In the other place it was suggested that the term might only apply to boats and pleasure craft on inland waterways, although presumably not private pleasure craft. I was puzzled as to why it should not apply equally to boats on the open seas. Presumably if the Bill becomes law in its present form, someone sailing a boat beyond the limit of UK territorial waters would not then be subject to the provisions of Chapter 1 unless and until he came back within the territorial limit. Is that correct? Aircraft are also mentioned in the subsection. What will the rules be there? Will all civil aircraft other than those used privately be included in the regulations? If so, will they be subject to the no smoking laws only to the extent that they remain within English air space or on English soil? It seems rather extraordinary to think of the cabin crew ordering all passengers to extinguish their cigarettes simply because the aircraft is about to cross a line on a map. And how is this to be policed? If the captain of a commercial light aircraft containing half a dozen passengers allows them to light up the moment they are airborne, who is to stop him? I would be glad if the Minister could enlighten us on what is likely to happen regarding aircraft.