Health Bill

As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, Amendment No. 35 seeks to time-limit requirements for no-smoking signs to a three-year sunset clause. The amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State could, through regulations made via the affirmative resolution procedure, continue the signage requirements for periods of up to 12 months. As I said on the earlier debate, we believe that under the Bill no-smoking signage will be important. I reiterate very briefly the three main reasons why that is so. First, it will inform the public and employees that they are in a smoke-free area, which will continue to be important, especially for people visiting England from abroad. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said about visitors, but I think that if we can make life easier for people with some clear signage in an area like this, it will make the lives of others easier as well. Secondly, I believe it will assist occupiers and those concerned in the management of premises by enabling them to point to evidence of a smoke-free requirement. That is likely to be particularly valuable should a dispute arise with someone on their premises. Being able to point to that signage makes it easier for people to resolve disputes. It cannot be beyond people’s knowledge and experience that disputes occasionally arise in a pub or a club. This is not an unknown phenomenon in this territory. Thirdly, it will be an indication to enforcement officers that premises are smoke-free and that any smoker in them ought reasonably to have known the fact. Therefore, signage is likely to be important in any enforcement cases against an individual who continues to smoke in a smoke-free place. For all these reasons, we think that no-smoking signage will be important into the future. Furthermore, the growing knowledge of a general smoke-free requirement of the public over time will not do away with the need for signs. The defences in the Bill, in particular the defence that a person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that he was in a smoke-free place, could come into play if signage was not displayed. In addition, potential confusion could exist for so long as some public and work premises are exempted from smoke-free legislation. It has been suggested that the need to avoid such confusion might be addressed by having signs where smoking is permitted. However, such an approach is likely to cause confusion, especially because in most countries which have introduced smoking restrictions, smoke-free areas are designated by no-smoking signs; and places where smoking will be permitted are likely to be outdoor spaces where erecting such signage would be difficult. While the amendment has been drafted in a way to reduce possible burdens associated with signage—and I understand the noble Earl’s points on that—the effect of the amendment might be otherwise, and I believe it could result in more confusion. If, with the passage of time, it becomes apparent that no smoking signs are themselves too intrusive, it would be possible to address the issue under the Bill as currently drafted by reducing requirements on the size or locations of signage through amendment of the regulations we are proposing in this area and which would be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. However, we do not believe it would be possible to do away with the signs altogether. In terms of communicating the policy so as to help people understand and operate within the terms of this new legislation, a sunset clause is not a viable and sensible way forward.