Health Bill

We expect that smoke-free legislation will be self-enforcing. Based on international experience of implementing smoke-free legislation, including that of the Republic of Ireland, we expect the number of prosecutions in the first few years of implementing the legislation to be low and that enforcement officers will turn to prosecution only in cases where a supportive approach is needed to encourage compliance where compliance has failed. For the offence of failing to display no-smoking signs under Clause 6(1), any person who occupies, or is concerned in the management of, smoke-free premises will be held responsible. In practical terms, we envisage that these will be people with primary responsibility. Clause 6 also ensures that no-smoking signs will designate the smoke-free areas in premises, additional smoke-free places and vehicles. We do not intend our requirements to result in an over-abundance of signs but signage will allow clear communications with smokers so that they are sure about where smoking is not permitted and, therefore, where a smoker may be breaking the law if he or she smokes. Signs will also make it clear to non-smokers where they can expect to enjoy a smoke-free environment. Experience in other countries has shown that no-smoking signs are a crucial part of implementing and enforcing smoke-free legislation. That is the context. Amendment No. 33, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken, seeks, as he says, to clarify the wording of Clause 6(2). Amendment No. 40 seeks to make the same change to Clause 8(2). I believe that the existing text in both clauses is unambiguous, which will come as no surprise to the noble Earl. Although the amendments probably would work—I am not denying that they would—I am not persuaded at this stage that they would represent any improvement to the current drafting of the Bill. I am prepared to look again at the drafting as a mark of my high regard for the noble Earl’s drafting skills in this area. We have debated on a number of Bills in the past and I am happy to look again at the wording with officials and parliamentary counsel to see whether we can make any movement that would help him in this regard—but I make no promises. As to Amendment No. 104, I have listened to the arguments for moving to the affirmative resolution procedure in the first set of regulations. Under subsection (2), the appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for a duty to display no-smoking signage in additional smoke-free places and vehicles in a way which complies with the requirements set out in the regulations. They will also specify the persons or descriptions of persons on whom the duty to display the sign is to be placed. We envisage a light touch in this area but the regulations are likely to be highly detailed and technical. That is why we thought the negative resolution procedure was appropriate in this case. The regulations will, of course, be subject to full public consultation, where industry and others will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with the approach we were adopting. On balance, I do not consider that these details would be of sufficient interest to Parliament to warrant taking the affirmative resolution route for the regulations. Therefore, on this particular issue, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Earl.