Health Bill

Here we are again, after a weekend of exposure to passive smoking, not least in the case of my good self, but I can report that I think I am in good health, having spent three days at Lords. On a serious note, it was interesting to see how that sporting venue handles smoking as of today, particularly in the area in front of the pavilion. If one sits with one’s back to the pavilion, the left-hand side is no smoking and the right-hand side is smoking. That seems a sensible approach to a challenge. There needs to be a sensible solution for open spaces in general, otherwise I do not see how the authorities who will impose orders and fines can have a sensible approach. This clause deals with levels of fines for the offences of smoking, permitted smoking, failure to display the required signs and obstructing an enforcement officer. I think that even the Minister would agree that, understandably, in the outside world the provisions of the Bill have substantially changed between when they were put out for consultation in June 2005 and the Report stage of the Bill in another place in February 2006. That is no different in relation to the level of fines. In June 2005, the Department of Health proposed that the fine on summary conviction would be up to level 1, which was then £200. However, Ministers indicated to us in an earlier sitting that the intention is to set the level as up to—the Minister was clear in making that point—£2,500. What worried me was that he said that it was on the advice of the Home Office, on whose track record in recent months I would not place too much reliance if I were in his shoes. That dramatic change from £200 to £2,500 reinforces the argument that the level of fines should be on the face of the Bill and should not be set by regulations. I shall make a further plea. I am sure the Minister has up-to-date information on what is happening in Scotland. As I understand it, compliance there has been pretty good. That probably does not surprise any of us who have taken an in-depth interest in the Bill because compliance in Norway—I thank the department for getting me that report—was also very high. Therefore, if Scotland believes that level 1 is sufficient, I cannot think why we need a higher level in England. Can we not just take the evidence from two countries that have gone through the process and stick with what they found, without introducing draconian fines? This is an important clause; we want people to comply voluntarily, so it is carrot rather than stick. Against that background, the Minister may be able to give us news on the level of fines. Maybe there has been a rethink, or maybe there has not. I shall resist Clause 8 standing part.