Health Bill

That is a bit better. As I say, I was startled by the original figure, which I must have misheard. Even so, it is £2 million that various trades will have to meet. Once again, I find it ironical that restaurants and pubs, particularly pubs, will have to display signs against smoking, presumably of all sorts and sizes as laid down by regulation. However, there will be nothing to warn against binge drinking. The most dangerous drug use in this country is not smoking, not even the smoking of cannabis; it is drinking. Alcohol causes more deaths, more danger, more murders, and more beatings of wives and children than anything else. Yet the only signs we will put up in pubs—we will not have a sign saying, ““Don’t drink too much. You might stab someone outside the pub””—will say ““No Smoking””. It seems that we have our priorities entirely wrong. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is the Minister for Health. I am quite sure that he will be able to confirm that the illnesses and injuries caused by drinking are very serious indeed, probably outweighing those caused by tobacco use—and not only to the drinker’s family but also to people out in the street who may be mugged, killed or badly injured through beatings, stabbings and so forth. Yet here we are putting up signs in the places where the most dangerous drug is sold that say ““No Smoking””. I do not drink very much, or at least not alcohol, and I am not opposed to moderate and reasonable drinking. We should also be reasonable in relation to smoking, but we are not being reasonable in the Bill. I know the Minister is bored to death with the fact that I keep saying that there is an alternative, that of separation. You would not then need the signage because you would be separating them. You would be doing what is reasonable in a democracy—making provision both for the majority and the minority. That is good government. What is proposed is bad government. I confess that I was not able to take down the figures the Minister gave regarding fines, and then the debate finished. I was a bit slow on my feet. There is a fixed penalty notice of £50 for smoking. If the person pays, there is no prosecution and the sum could be discounted to £30 if payment is made within 15 days. However, if he ignores a sign, he is liable to a fixed penalty fine of £200 but not necessarily taken to court, and the sum could be discounted to £130 if the fine is paid within 15 days. If someone smokes in a non-smoking area, he is guilty of smoking in a non-smoking area as well as guilty of ignoring the signage. Is he liable for two offences or just one? How will it be determined which one is to be imposed? I may be entirely wrong, but I think it is an important point. My other point relates to the quite inordinate fine level of £2,500. That will not be a fixed penalty; I do not know whether it will be an arrestable offence; it may very well be, under certain circumstances. If somebody makes a complaint that the publican or whoever else is not enforcing the law, the police could be called and the publican arrested. Will he have his fingerprints and DNA taken? These are important points which we will have to consider. If the Minister could give me an answer about the level of the fines, I would be grateful.