Health Bill

I turn first to Amendment No. 37. I should say to the noble Earl that my understanding of the way in which we write legislation in this country is that it is usual to specify what actually constitutes an offence and not to specify what does not constitute an offence. His amendment, in a sense, seeks to specify what does not constitute an offence, which would be a slightly unusual way of legislating. In Clause 8, the Bill describes the offence of smoking in a smoke-free place. For an offence to take place, an individual must be found to have been smoking in one of the following three places: first, in a premises, on the basis that it is smoke-free by virtue of Clauses 2 and 3, including the requirement that the premises are either enclosed or substantially enclosed; secondly, in a place, on the basis that it is smoke free by virtue of Clause 4; and, thirdly, in a vehicle, on the basis that it is smoke-free by virtue of Clause 5. If a person does not smoke in any one of these places, no offence will have been committed, even if the smoke happens to drift into a smoke-free place. So the act of committing the offence has to take place in one of the places which have been designated as smoke-free. I suggest to the noble Earl, as gently as I can, that Amendment No. 37 is not necessary because the provision is clear. Turning to Amendment No. 38, I do not believe that any improvement would be gained by accepting the amendment. I draw the noble Earl’s attention to Clause 7(2), which makes it clear that we are talking about people who smoke in a smoke-free place. As I said earlier, I am often an admirer and a fan of the noble Earl’s improvements in drafting—and normally I would be prepared to consider this—but I do not think the amendment is necessary. If I may gently chide him, ““therein”” is a slightly antique term and parliamentary counsel believe that ““there”” is adequate in the circumstances, particularly as accompanied by Clause 7(2). So I suggest that we do not pursue these two amendments.