Health Bill

We are getting very near the end of this part of the Bill. This is an important clause. It is concerned with interpretation and provides definitions applying to this part other than for smoking, the meaning of which is given in Clause 1. The most important definitions and meanings in the Bill are absent from this clause. Instead, as we have learnt to our dismay right the way through the Bill, they are left to be determined in regulations. In the time that I have been in the two Houses I cannot think of too many Bills where definitions are left to regulations. That is not a usual procedure and it is certainly not a healthy one. If a Bill provides powers to make regulations, as this Bill does, it should set clear parameters for those regulations by providing essential definitions. As it stands, the Bill fails in that regard. Those essential definitions themselves are left to regulations. I imagine that the Minister will say that there will be consultation on them, but it would be far better to have them upfront at the beginning, so Parliament itself could debate the issue rather than leaving it to consultation. As matters stand there is a danger of uncertainty and confusion arising. It leads one to ask why Part 1 does not simply comprise one clause making all enclosed and substantially enclosed work and public places smoke-free and allowing Ministers to make regulations exempting premises of any description. That is virtually what the Government are asking for in the Bill, except only in regard to exemptions for licensed premises and genuine membership clubs. This is a serious issue. I hope that on Report the Government will think again. I understand why, in the Government’s eyes, regulations may well be the appropriate way forward in other areas, but in this case the definitions ought to be in the Bill.