The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet
Dean
Brown,
Mr. Nicholas
(Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend)
(Lab)
Flint,
Caroline
(Minister of State, Department of
Health)
Gidley,
Sandra
(Romsey)
(LD)
Heyes,
David
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
Holloway,
Mr. Adam
(Gravesham)
(Con)
Jenkin,
Mr. Bernard
(North Essex)
(Con)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Keeble,
Ms Sally
(Northampton, North)
(Lab)
McIsaac,
Shona
(Cleethorpes)
(Lab)
Meacher,
Mr. Michael
(Oldham, West and Royton)
(Lab)
Morley,
Mr. Elliot
(Scunthorpe)
(Lab)
Mullin,
Mr. Chris
(Sunderland, South)
(Lab)
Murrison,
Dr. Andrew
(Westbury)
(Con)
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
Ward,
Claire
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wright,
Mr. Anthony
(Great Yarmouth)
(Lab)
Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 26
February
2007
[Mrs.
Janet Dean
in the
Chair]
Draft Smoke-Free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Caroline Flint):
I beg to move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Smoke-Free (Exemptions and
Vehicles) Regulations
2007.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenientto
consider the draft Smoke-Free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts)
Regulations 2007 and the draft Children and Young Persons (Sale of
Tobacco etc.) Order
2007.
Dr.
Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): On a point of order,
Mrs. Dean. Will you confirm that we will be debating the
three orders
together?
The
Chairman:
I can confirm that the debate will cover all
three
motions.
Caroline
Flint:
Thank you for clarifying the position,
Mrs. Dean. The draft instruments are proposed under the
powers in part 1 of the Health Act 2006. I am delighted to introduce
them in Committee, as the subjects that they cover were discussed
extensively during the passage of the 2006 Act. I hope that the
Committee sees the logic in considering the instruments
together.
We had full
and constructive engagement in respect of the public consultation, and
I want to put on the record my thanks to all the organisations that
took part, particularly those that will be directly affected by the
smoke-free legislation, for their continuing help. We will hopefully
achieve a successful outcome later this year, when the regulations come
into force.
The
Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Order 2007 changes
the age of sale for tobacco products from 16 to 18 years of age by
amending the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It will also change
the signage requirements for retail premises to reflect that change in
age by amending the Children and Young Persons (Protection from
Tobacco)Act 1991. It is our intention that those provisions
will apply from 1 October 2007 in both England and
Wales.
I know that my
hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis)
and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir George
Young) will particularly welcome the measure, the powers for which
gained cross-party support when they were introduced on Report. I am
pleased to say that there was almost universal support for the increase
in the age of sale of tobacco to 18 years
old in response to consultation in the summer of 2006. It was agreed
that the measure will help to reduce the availability of tobacco to
young people and reinforce the dangers of smoking. What came back from
the consultation was the view that it would make it easier for
retailers to comply with the law. Current research shows that 70 per
cent. of young smokers buy from small shops, and those in that sector
felt that raising the age to 18 may help them in their endeavours to be
responsible
retailers.
I turn now
to the two sets of draft regulationsmade under powers in the
smoke-free legislation inthe Health Act 2006. The detailed
provisions withinthe regulations were subject to full
consultation in the second part of 2006. The drafts have been improved
and strengthened, based on the feedback that the Government received
from stakeholders and members of the public through the public
consultation
process.
The draft
Smoke-Free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 will apply only
to England. I shall first go through the limited exemptions to
smoke-free legislation and then move on to vehicles that
willhave to be smoke free. As I said during the passage of the
Health Act 2006, I want to make it clear that the Government propose
very few exemptions from the protection that the legislation will give
the public and employees. It is important to reiterate that smoke-free
legislation will not apply to private dwellings, apart from any part of
a dwelling that is used solely for work for more than one person or
where the public have
access.
Self-contained
residential accommodation for temporary or holiday use will also not be
required to be smoke-free under the legislation, although the manager
of the accommodation might choose to make it no smoking. It is
interesting that the organisations that have voluntarily decided to go
smoke free include hotels. The regulations deal only with premises that
would otherwise be required to be smoke free under the provisions of
the Health Act 2006. Exemptions are provided to allow managers to
designate specific rooms for smoking in the following types of
premises. Hotels, guest houses, inns, hostels and members clubs
may designate smoking bedrooms for the accommodation of guests or
members, but all other parts of the premises must be smoke free at all
times.
Dormitories and
other shared accommodation that is made available under separate
arrangements with the individuals who share it, such as that in youth
hostels, must be smoke free at all times. Care homes, hospitals and
prisons may designate either bedrooms or rooms to be used exclusively
for smoking for use by persons over the age of 18. Notwithstanding the
exemptions for prisons in the regulations, the Prison Service will
introduce stricter controls over smoking in prisons, which will apply
to public and private prisons. Those controls will come into being on 1
April. Under the regulations, all areas will be smoke free, with the
exemption of cells used solely by smokers. Under-18s establishments
will be entirely smoke free. I onceagain place on record my
thanks to those in thePrison Service who have helped to
provide more comprehensive coverage of the smoke-free provisions than
the Government originally intended, which was strengthened by the
consultation.
Residential mental health units
may designate either bedrooms or rooms to be used exclusively for
smoking for use by persons over the age of 18 until 1 July 2008 under
amendments to the initial proposals published by the Government last
year. The proposals in the regulations take into account the responses
from stakeholders received in the Department of Healths public
consultation last year. Kings Fund research from July 2006
shows that 70 per cent. of psychiatric patients smoke, and that 50 per
cent. of them arevery heavy smokers. We deliberated over the
issues surrounding mental health units for a considerable amount of
time. However, I felt that it was right to come down on the side of
moving the mental health sector away from an exemption as soon as
possible.
I am
heartened by the fact that many units are already smoke free. When I
visited a medium-secure mental health unit which treats women and young
people, I was pleased to find that it had already gone smoke free. That
shows what can be done, but in recognition of some of the changes that
will need to made, we have provided a sunset regulation that will last
until 1 July 2008 to allow any necessary modifications to be made for
people to go outside. I have been heartened by the engagement on that
particular
issue.
Offshore
installations may designate rooms to be used exclusively for
smoking.
Research and
testing facilities may designate rooms as non-smoke free only while
those rooms are being used for specified research and tests. I have
received some letters from teachers who are worried whether the measure
might affect some classroom experiments. I assure the Committee that
the provisions will allow legitimate experiments to take place, but
such experiments will have to fit with the regulations covering how
such types of rooms should be
used.
Specialist
tobacconist shops, about which we had considerable debate during the
passage of the 2006 Act, may allow people to sample cigars or pipe
tobacco on the shop premises. Smoking of any other product, including
cigarettes, will be prohibited. Under the regulations, any premises
that have designated rooms for smoking must meet a number of conditions
for smoking to be permitted. If all those conditions are not met, the
room would need to remain smoke free at all times. The conditions are
designed to protect people from second-hand smoke. They are universally
applicable, although they are not unduly onerous or
burdensome.
The
regulations also include an exemption for performers, an issue
discussed in the House of Commons and in the other place. Where the
artistic integrity of a performance makes it appropriate for a person
to smoke, the part of the premises in which that person performs will
not be required to be smoke free.
Sandra
Gidley (Romsey) (LD): On the whole, I find the exemptions
easy to understand and justify. However, I find what I can only
describe as the luvvies exemption difficult to justify.
There are products availableI have seen them used in school
playsthat are quite realistic substitutes for cigarettes. I
cannot see the need for an actor or actress to have the real McCoy, as
it were, on stage. Why is that being
allowed?
Caroline
Flint:
I have received various views on the issue, and I
was lobbied to extend the exemption to rehearsals, an invitation which
I declined. Despite the fact that I received information about how
important props are to acting and how important it is to have them in
rehearsals, I was not tempted down the route of allowing smoking in
rehearsals. Such issues require a judgment call. Scotland has decided
not to have any exemptions, but New York has exemptions for
performances. The reality is that we will keep the legislation under
review, and perhaps the exemptions will not be necessary in three
years time. It seemed to me that performances, of which I do
not think there are that many, could be allowed an exemption in such a
closely regulated and defined area, but we will be keeping that under
review to assess whether our judgment was right. Of course, we are
waiting to see what happens with the performance issue in Scotland,
too.
Even though the
regulations allow a limited number of exemptions, there is no
obligation on people in charge of premises to implement exemptions to
allow smoking on the premises. The regulations will also require
vehicles to be smoke free at all times if they are used either to
transport members of the public, whether for reward or hire, or in the
course of paid or voluntary work by more than one person as either a
driver or as a passenger, even if people use the vehicle for work at
different times of day or only
intermittently.
Importantly,
that reproduces the same level of protection for people in enclosed or
substantially enclosed workplaces and public places that are vehicles
as people will have in places that are not vehicles. Public or work
vehicles will not be required to be smoke free when conveying people if
the roof has been completely removed or stowed. So for those with a
nice sports convertible, there is that option. However, the vehicle
would be required to be smoke free, if the roof was in place. Under the
new law, a roof would include both a removable hard top as well as a
canvas or fabric cover. We were lobbied on that issue. I was not sure
how many convertible cars are used for work, but perhaps there are some
work cars that have such a feature, and they will not be covered by the
need to be smoke free.
Like private dwellings, private
vehicles will notbe covered by smoke-free legislation. Under
the regulations, a vehicle will not be required to be smoke free if it
is used primarily for the private purposes of a person who either owns
the vehicle or has a right to use the vehicle that is not restricted to
a particular journey. For example, if a group of parents car pool and
travel in a private car to run a sports activity, they would not be
covered by the requirement. However, if a charity or a school minibus
were used for such an activity, it would be covered by the smoke-free
legislation. The drafting of the regulations has been improved by
listening to the stakeholders who responded to the public consultation
run by the Department and by clarifying that private vehicles used only
occasionally for work purposes will not be required to be smoke
free.
Finally, the
draft Smoke-Free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007
specify the fine levels that have been set for the three smoke-free
offences outlined in the Health Act 2006 and willapply to both
England and Wales. The proposalsin the regulations have not
changed from the draft regulations that were consulted on last summer
or from what I set out on Report 12 months ago.
To recap, the offence relating
to the display of no-smoking signs is level 3 on the standard scale,
which is currently a £1,000 fine or a fixed penalty of
£200 discounted to £150 if the penalty is paid within 15
days from when the notice is issued. The offence of smoking in a
smoke-free place is level 1 on the standard scale, which is currently a
fine of £200 or a fixed penalty of £50 discounted to
£30. The offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free
place is level 4 on the standard scale, which is currently a fine of
£2,500, and there is no fixed penalty given for that offence.
The levels are fair and proportionate, and they reflect the advice that
was received from the Home Office and the responses to earlier
consultations that were held on smoke-free
legislation.
It is
clear that fines for the offences of failing to display appropriate
no-smoking signs and failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places
have to be sufficient to act as a deterrent. Enforcement authorities
will be working hard with businesses to help them understand and
properly implement smoke-free legislation in their premises in the
lead-up to 1 July.
The approach to enforcement
will be non-confrontational. The Government are encouraging people to
comply with the new laws from the outset, and if they comply, no
enforcement action, penalties or fines will be necessary. In the first
six months of the ban in Scotland, 210 fixed-penalty notices were
issued to individuals and 11 to businesses. It was not until January
that the first court conviction occurred for failure to display the
required no-smoking signage, which is heartening and helpful. If we
proceed well with the work of the next six months, we should be able to
limit the numbers who will fall foul of the regulations. Experience has
shown that most breaches are likely to occur in the first few months,
with a considerable falling off after
that.
Mr.
Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend)
(Lab): I think that my hon. Friends broad approach is
right. May I ask what guidance hasbeen given to enforcement
officers and planning departments in local authorities on what will
constitute outdoors in the case of hospitality outlets
such as country pubs and other such premises? Landlords of such
premises might reasonably try to find the most comfortable possible
place for customers who wish to smoke outside, and they might want to
provide a roof and perhaps some walls. However, there will have to be a
gap between the walls and the roof, so that the definition of
outdoors is fulfilled. How precise is the guidance, and
how much is being left to local authorities
discretion?
Caroline
Flint:
The guidance on what is defined asan
enclosed or a substantially enclosed place is pretty clear, and it is
based on how things work in Scotland. I thought that that would be
helpful in indicating the direction that is being taken, because people
can see
what has happened there. We have worked very closely with the various
local authority organisations and with the organisations that represent
environmental health officers, and training has been provided by those
organisations. Part of the engagement is about what happens at a local
level, but we have also mailed every business in the country directly
on the requirements that will be expected of them.
As I have said to my right hon.
Friend, one reason for choosing 1 July was to leave enough time for
businesses to engage, while permitting the regulations to go through.
We were conscious of the local elections, and we wanted to give
sufficient time for such questions to be asked at the local
level.
Experience in
Ireland, Scotland and other countries has shown that pubs and
restaurants have developed canopies outside their establishments, and
in some cases there was a bit of rush on patio heaters as well. We need
to ensure that people do not invest in outdoor structures that fall
foul of the legislation, which is why local engagement is important.
The website that we have already set up goes into great detail on such
issues, and we have asked businesses to register with it so that they
receive regular updates between now and 1
July.
Let me say to my
hon. Friends and to Opposition Members that anything they do to ensure
things go well on the ground will be appreciated. That applies to
contacts both with affected businesses and with local
authorities.
Mr.
Brown:
May I press a little further? Does the website
contain specific, objective guidance that sets out clearly what is and
is not permissible? If not, where can those objective criteria be
found?
Caroline
Flint:
All the guidance should be
available on the website. There is also a reference group with
representation from all the various industry organisations and
associations, which examines the information that we are providing so
that we have a sense whether the language is right and understandable.
All the information has been provided to colleagues in local
authorities and to the environmental health departments, and I am happy
to provide my right hon. Friend with the
details.
The local
authority co-ordinators of regulatory services will be providing
guidance for local authorities on implementation and enforcement.
However, the responsibility remains with premises managers to ensure
that they find out how the law will affect them. There is no reason why
anybody should not understand clearly what is required. If my right
hon. Friend is worried about a particular situation in his
constituency, he should let me know, but the guidance is as extensive
and transparent as one might wish. If anyone is not getting the
information, they should let me know. One business has contacted me at
my constituency to say that it has received two lots of information.
That might also happen, because of the lists available to
us.
Mr.
Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): The construction of
external shelters might require planning permission in many cases. One
local authority in my constituency has made clear its concerns that
that will lead to increased costs. I appreciate that the
Government have allocated some money for the
enforcement of smoke-free legislation, but the letter states
that
sadly, any fees
currently payable rarely recoup the actual cost of anything but the
very simplest of
applications.
Has the
Minister factored such extra planning costs into the compliance cost
assessment, or will the measures finish up as an increased burden on
the council tax
payer?
Caroline
Flint:
We had a long discussion about the moneys that we
will provide to local authoritiesfor enforcementI
think that the figure is between£29 million and
£30 million. We discussed that with the various organisations,
and the settlement was agreed. What we are doing now, before the
legislation comes into force, is making the exercise as seamless as
possible and ensuring that people are aware of what they do and do not
need to do. For example, we are providing all the signage from the
centre, so people will not have to go out and buy it
themselves.
As I have
said, our experience in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere is that things
have gone amazingly smoothly. In terms of logistics, coverage and
population, we are dealing with the largest exercise of its kind in the
world, but the Government feel that we have worked through the issues
with all our
stakeholders.
The
planning situation for some businesses may mean that they will have to
seek a revision of their planning conditions or a new planning
arrangement. Again, we listened to the voices of those, particularly in
the business community, who wanted a bit of extra time to determine
where that will be appropriate, but it will not be necessary for
everybody to have the time to follow that
through.
On the whole,
the feedback that I have heard from the business sectors affected,
local authorities and the professional organisations, which will be at
the forefront of implementation, is that they are pleased with how
things are proceeding and have no complaints so far. However, we will
have to monitor that as we move forward and as people become more
aware. We might need to focus particularly on small businesses to
encourage more awareness of how the arrangements will affect them. We
should not forget that a huge number of workplaces are already
smoke-free, so it will just be a question of other workplaces coming on
board.
Mr.
Jenkin:
The Minister has given a full answer, but not to
the specific point that I mentioned. Is the question of extra planning
costs included in the compliance cost assessment? Colchester borough
council expects to have to find an extra sum of money, which will have
to be paid by council tax payers because the Government have not
allocated money to cover the expense. Will she comment on that? Maybe
she thinks that that will be justifiable extra expenditure for local
taxpayers, but the measures will have an effect. It is not so much
workplaces as bars, pubs, restaurants and publicly used premises that
will apply to put up extra shelters, which will require planning
permission.
Caroline
Flint:
We agreed with the Local Government Association how
to proceed under the new burdens doctrine to prevent an increase in
council tax. We held extensive discussions with the LGA on the issue.
The money that we have provided is meant to
fund the costs of local implementation as well as enforcement. We
believe that local authorities will not be out of pocket in
implementing the new laws, and we have no evidence to suggest that they
will
be.
Sandra
Gidley:
I am somewhat confused by the argument advanced by
the hon. Member for North Essex. If businesses want a planning
application for some sort of hut for people to huddle in and smoke,
surely they will pay for that application and the costs will be covered
by the businesses themselves. I do not understand the argument about
the burden on the
taxpayer.
Caroline
Flint:
Yes; I am not sure whether the hon. Member for
North Essex has a specific problem in his constituency. As I have said,
we engaged strongly throughout the discussion on smoke-free legislation
even before the vote on 14 February last year with all our
stakeholders, particularly those on the front line. All in all, there
has been a sense of harmony in our
efforts.
When we voted
on 14 February last year, the final vote created more of a level
playing field than we first envisaged when we presented our proposals.
That has been widely welcomed by industry, because it will not create a
situation where one part of the community, for example clubs, will be
allowed to open but pubs will not, or where pubs with food will not be
exempt but pubs without food will. We created as much of a level
playing field as possible. In doing so, we have provided for a less
onerous regulatory impact than might have been the case. It is far less
complicated than our original proposals, for which I am incredibly
thankful.
Although
there might be some glitches along the way, if local authorities work
with those in their communities who will be affected, there should be
no reason why people should not be able to introduce smoke-free
legislation in a relatively straightforward and simple way. As the hon.
Lady has said, if someone seeks planning consent for a structure, they
might have to pay for it, but the funding that we have agreed will go
towards the costs of local implementation as well as of
enforcement.
Compliance
will be straightforward in most instances, consisting of displaying no
smoking signs, which we will provide, and taking necessary action to
ensure that people do not smoke in any enclosed or substantially
enclosed part of the premises. I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
4.57
pm
Dr.
Murrison:
Thank you, Mrs. Dean, for reminding
us that it would have been possible for us to spend four and a half
hours on the regulations if we had decided to take each of them
separatelyin truth, they hang together naturally. I shall be as
brief as I can. The Conservatives have no objection to the
regulationsindeed, we actively support at least one of
thembut I want to make one or two points and hear the
Ministers
answers.
I commend the
Ministers efforts to reduce smoking rates in this country. We
appear to have stalled somewhat in our progress, having reduced rates
by10 per cent. during the first decade of the previous
Government and by 3 per cent. during the first decade of this one, so I
understand the Ministers frustration. However, throughout the
consideration in Committee of the Health Act 2006, from which the
regulations fall, it was quite clear that we were talking about
reducing exposure to second-hand smokenot addressing a
nuisance, but trying to improve public health. However, the explanatory
notes indicate that things have been somewhat morphed. The notes talk
about an overall reduction in smoking as a beneficial consequence of
the regulations, which exist primarily to reduce exposure to
second-hand smoke. We must hope that they have that effect and that we
see a reduction in the amount of smoking among the general public as
well as the health benefits that will accrue from
them.
The Minister has
said that the implementation of similar regulations, plus a few others,
in Scotland resulted in about 250 fixed penalty notices. I am not quite
sure what that figure represents, but I have multiplied it up to see
what it might mean for the English population, which is that there
would be about 2,500 fixed penalty notices. The Minister is keen to
dismiss that outcome, but it is significant. I hope that the
regulations will come into force with a light touch and will not be
seen as draconian. I hope that, through education, there will be an
understanding of precisely what represents a smoke-free place, and that
there will not be too much anti-smoking zealotry or the introduction of
smoking police, both of which might annoy people rather than achieve
the objective that we all wanta reduction in smoking. We do not
want to vilify smokers if they want to smoke, although I think they are
hugely misguided. The understanding during passage of the Health Act
2006 was that if that is what people want to do at the end of the day,
and if it does not have an adverse impact on other people, they must be
allowed to get on with
it.
I am pleased that
the age for sale of tobacco willbe raised from 16 to 18, and
that the Minister acknowledged that the increase was something of a
joint effort between the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough
and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. I
remember dealing with the matter at some length in Committee. The
increase is sensibleit will equate the age for the sale of
alcohol with that for the sale of tobacco, which has to be right, and
it will make things a lot easier for
retailers.
What
assessment has the Minister made of the effect of the change on illicit
and marginal sales and on sales of cigarettes to children by outlets
other than shops? Shops will be easier to control by means of the
regulations, but I fear that illicit and non-shop sales will inevitably
increase as a result of the measure, although they are fairly small at
the momentthe Minister has said that they account for only 30
per cent. of current
sales.
I was slightly
surprised that failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place will be
a level 4 offence on the standard scale. That seems to be a peg or two
too high, and I am interested to know why the Minister has set it at
that level. The people who might ask others not to smoke may not be the
owners of the premisesthey might be fairly casual employees,
and
they might feel less willing to dissuade individuals from smoking than
one would hope, especially in a situation in which alcohol is being
consumed as well as tobacco. It seems a little harsh to put such a
burden on them, and I wonder whether the Minister can think of
mitigating circumstances that would get such people off the hook. I am
sure that none of us wants people in subordinate roles to feel that
they have to approach individuals who might become aggressive if asked
to desist from
smoking.
I was also a
little surprised at the apparent conflation of nursing homes and
prisons in the draft regulations on exemptions and vehicles. They seem
to be being treated together for the purposes of the regulations, which
should not be the case. Nursing homes are places where people live, but
they are places in which peoples liberties are nevertheless to
a greater or lesser extent restrictedperhaps not actively, but
de facto. We should ensure that peoples right to smoke if they
want to is protected, and it is wrong to deal with nursing homes in the
same breathif that is the right way to put itas
prisons. Prisons are not homes; they are places where people go to be
punished and to have their liberty
withdrawn.
I am
concerned that the inability to have mechanically closing doors in a
prison, unlike in a nursing home, might make it more difficult to
ensure that prisons in general are smoke-free places. If a person in a
cell can smoke, it might be more difficult to contain the smoke in
certain circumstances and in certain prisons than in a nursing home,
where mechanically closable doors are part of the standard
fittings.
The Minister
reassured me to some extent when she implied that it will be for the
governor of a prison to determine whether that prison is smoke-free,
but I hope that she will say a little about the discussions that she
might be having with the Home Office on its guidance to prison officers
on that point. Prisoners do not have the freedom that the rest of us
enjoy, and we have an obligation as the state into whose custody they
are passed to ensure that they come to no harm. Given the debate on
health inequalities and the fact that prisoners are among the most
unhealthy populations in this country, it is reasonable to give
guidance to prison governors along the lines that they should assume
that their prisons are smoke free, unless there are very good reasons
why they should not be. The Minister is nodding her head, so I trust
that she agrees with me on that
point.
I am a little
surprised about mental health units. In statutory terms, they are
something of a halfway house between nursing homes, which we have
discussed, and prisons. I had assumed that the units would be exempt
from the regulations. I should be interested to know what professional
advice the Minister has taken about such matters because many people in
mental health units are deeply distressed andto add to their
woesto be told that they will have their beloved cigarettes
removed from them might be counter-productive in some instances. I
expect that the hon. Lady has spoken to the Royal College of
Psychiatrists and received its agreement to the non-exemption. Such
matters are difficult for the college, because it is made up of both
psychiatrists and doctors, so their enthusiasm to reduce harmful
tobacco use might
influence their view. However, from my limited experience of such
matters, there could be problems with a few patients in mental health
units as a result of the regulations. I shall appreciate her comments
about that.
I wish to
make some observations about vehicles. We debated the matter at some
length in Committee. I am particularly concerned about white van man,
the classic bloke in his van who is wedded to his cigarette. What
effect will the regulations have on him, and, indeed, how will
authorities reasonably enforce them in such circumstances? I assume
that hire cars are included in the regulations, and I wonder whether it
is possible to have designated smoking hire cars, because there will be
people who want to smoke in vehicles. In respect of large hire fleets,
it might be reasonable for an individual to say that he wants a vehicle
in which he is permitted to smoke. However, nothing in the regulations
would allow that to
happen.
I am concerned
about cars and vehicles which are used habitually by one person but
which may be used by someone else on rare occasions. It seems from the
regulations that it would not be possible for such a vehicle to be used
by another, if it were used habitually by a smoker. Conversely, that
smoker would be forbidden from smoking in the vehicle, if there were a
vague possibility that it might be used by a
non-smoker.
My initial
thoughts were geared towards stopping exposure to second-hand smoke. It
is a bit mean to insist that every last trace or molecule of tobacco
smoke should be eschewed from a vehicle before a non-smoker can use it,
but the regulations seem to be saying that in connection with vehicles.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that, for many commercial
drivers, their vehicle is their home on wheelsindeed, some of
them sleep in their vehicles. We must be a little careful about
completely removing the liberties that they currently enjoy, if there
is no realistic prospect that their activity is having a deleterious
effect on the health of
others.
5.9
pm
Sandra
Gidley:
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long.
I welcome the legislation. It is heartening that the consultation
process seems to have been meaningfulwe do not always stand up
and say that in this place. It is quite rare to receive briefings from
people who have a long-standing interest in the subject and who feel
that nearly all of their concerns have been taken on board. I would
like to place on record my congratulations on achieving that. It is not
necessarily an easy subject. In some ways, the level playing field that
we have ended up with has made the passing of regulations that much
easier.
Many of the
points that I jotted down have already been covered by hon. Members. I
want briefly to mention the age limit. The increase to 18 is welcome,
but as we go about our everyday business, we all see many under-16s
smoking on street corners. Clearly, those under-16s can easily access
cigarettes. The hon. Member for Westbury has mentioned that only 30 per
cent. of cigarettes are sourced via an illegal mechanism, which
highlights the fact that 70 per cent. of them are accessed through the
corner shop or
another legitimate means of sale. Therefore, it is all very well to
increase the age limit, but we must do more to prevent sales to young
teenagers and possibly do more in school to get the message
across.
Dr.
Murrison:
How does the hon. Lady square what she is saying
about raising the age of sale to 18 withher partys
general thrust of making 16 the age of competence for young people?
Will she compare her attitude towards smoking with her partys
attitude towards
cannabis?
Sandra
Gidley:
We are not here to discuss cannabis. We are here
to discuss smoke-free legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman is
being mischievous, because we have never said that there should be a
blanket age for everything. I admit that we have wanted to reduce the
voting age, but there is a case for having different age limits for
different permissions. The hon. Gentleman does himself no favours by
trying to raise a totally irrelevant point.
If the Minister were to clarify
what else is being done to try to prevent under-age smoking, it would
be very welcome, because that is the only outstanding query that she
has not answered. I look forward to the day when the regulations come
into effect, because we will be able to enjoy smoke-free environments
without fear of any adverse
effects.
5.13
pm
Caroline
Flint:
I will try to cover all the relevant points
raised during this short but constructive debate. I will deal with the
points made by the hon. Members for Westbury and for Romsey concerning
the impact of the age change on the purchase of illicit cigarettes. We
do not think that there will be any significant knock-on effect on
illicit sales, and we are not aware of any evidence on that point from
Ireland, which has recently increased the limit from 16 to
18.
We know, however,
that children get their cigarettes from a variety of sources, not only
shops but friends and family. Street sellers are one source, but our
information indicates that only about 5 per cent. of young smokers have
bought cigarettes from street sellers, while a smaller number get them
from their parents. Therefore, we do not believe that that is a matter
of major concern, although it is concerning. It is wise for us to
monitor future surveys to identify and act on any changes that might
occur. Obviously we will study those countries that have increased the
age limit to 18I think that Spain and Malta have recently done
soand we will learn from some of their
experiences.
The hon.
Member for Romsey asked what elsewe are doing on young people.
We ran a joint consultation on raising the age for the sale of tobacco
and strengthening sanctions against retailers who persistently sell to
under-age children. Both measures gained great support in the
consultation responses, but measures to strengthen the sanctions would
mean looking for a primary legislative opportunity, and we shall be
looking for parliamentary time to deal with that matter in the future.
Despite the present arrangements, it appears on the basis of
responsible retailer schemes run by local authorities, in which
children often help by going into shops and attempting
to buy cigarettes, that some retailers persistently flout the law. We
shall return to that issue, which I wanted to raise because we
consulted on it during the
exercise.
On a wider
issue, which is linked to the point made by the hon. Member for
Westbury about the changes in smoking patterns, there is no doubt that
over generations, since the time years ago when the link between cancer
and smoking first reached public consciousness, there has been a
decline in smoking. As I said in last weeks public health
debate, although I shall not say anything to detract from the decline
in smoking under previous Administrations, I want the Committee to
reflect that the present position is good. The percentage of adults who
smoke is 24 per cent., and we think that the measures that we are
considering and other activity will further reduce the figure to about
21 per cent.
We
recognise that for all sorts of reasons smoking is still a strong
feature of some communities and families. That is where the job gets
harder, which goes for a host of public health areas including smoking,
diet and exercise. Many of my hon. Friends argued for the level playing
field, which the measures will introduce, because of the need to avoid
exacerbating a situation in which the well-off tend not to smoke while
the poorer tend to smoke to the detriment of their and their
families health.
Dr.
Murrison:
The Minister, if I may say so, is coming
dangerously close to agreeing with her right hon. Friend the Home
Secretary in his observation that one of the few pleasures open to
women on estates is smoking. I hope that she will not endorse those
remarks, will
she?
Caroline
Flint:
I am saying look at the evidence. That suggests
that people from routine and manual working backgrounds, as opposed to
those in professional and managerial jobs, tend to smoke more.
Therefore we must understand what is happening and why. Part of that is
to do with supporting the opportunities for every community to think
positively about health and how it is important to quality of life.
This Government have recognised the fact that health inequalities
exist, although the task of bridging the gap is difficult.
Inits 18 years in government, the hon.
Gentlemansparty refused even to mention the words
health
inequalities.
The
hon. Gentleman has mentioned the fine of up to £2,500. It is
clearly within the courts power to take into account the
circumstances in each case of failure to prevent smoking in a
smoke-free place. There was extensive debate about the matter in
Committee last year and the year before, which included discussion
about who will be responsible. First and foremost, managements are
responsible for the way in which their establishments are run. They
therefore need to train their staff and make them fully aware of the
obligation to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place.
I take on board the hon.
Gentlemans point about sizing up the numbers according to
population based on what has happened in Scotland. We are not starting
from scratch, because we have the experience of
Scotland and Ireland, which can only help us to be as effective as
possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to use common
sense, which is emphasised in the current training. As I have said, we
are looking for a non-confrontational approach to the enforcement of
the legislation so that we can take people with us. It is clear from
all the opinion polls taken since last years vote that there is
more public support for the legislation now, and that that support is
growing day by day. I think that we have to introduce measures that act
as a strong
deterrent.
On prisons,
I have been through the different areas in which we allowed or debated
exemptions. Designated rooms in prisons will not be required to have
self-closing doors for safety reasons, as I understand it. A
requirement for self-closing doors was suggested in the public
consultation, and I will be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with
more information on why it was not felt necessary. Last week, the
Prison Service published an order requiring all prisons to have a new
smoking policy implemented and enacted on 1 April. Area managers must
sign off the arrangements for each establishment in their area. Again,
that will engage the people who run both public and private prisons
with the issues to ensure that they understand their
responsibilities.
The
view that we have taken on mental health units was shared by
stakeholders including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Cancer
Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical
Association, the London assembly, and many of the NHS organisations
that responded to the consultation. A range of reasons why mental
health units should become smoke free in closed areas was given. First,
people with mental illness already face health inequalities. Secondly,
the stigma attached to mental illness might be exacerbated by
perpetuating smoking in mental health units. Thirdly, a culture of
smoking exists in a number of mental health units among both residents
and staff for all sorts of reasons. Some patients and staff who enter
mental health units as non-smokers leave as smokers, and we are
challenging that culture. As I have said, parts of the mental health
service have already established smoke-free policiesI visited
one such medium-secure unit only a short while ago. Fourthly, there
were concerns that smoking in mental health units may deter people from
wanting to work in the sector. The sector is important and we want to
attract people into it, so to disincentivise people for any reason is
the wrong way to go. We are aware that some mental health organisations
have concerns, which is why we have introduced a sunset clause and why
we are committed to working with those organisations over the next few
years to try to make the measures as effective as
possible.
On cars,
under the regulations a vehicle will not be required to be smoke free
if it is used primarily for the private purposes of the person who
either owns it or has a right to use it. That means that a leased car
provided to an employee under their contract or a rented car would not
have to be smoke free if it is used primarily for private purposes. I
hope that that goes some way to addressing the hon. Gentlemans
point. Rental vehicles will not be covered by the regulations, if they
are used for primarily private purposes.
Dr.
Murrison:
The Minister has not exactly hit upon the point
that I was trying to make. I can envisage a situation in which
commercial travellers, for example, might wish to smoke in their
vehicle, which they habitually hire through a large hire firm such as
Avis. It would be commercially reasonable, in that situation, for Avis
to say that it has, for example, two smoking cars that are reserved for
those who declare that they are going to smoke in the vehicle. However,
the statutory instruments make no provision for that as far as I am
aware, which seems slightly unfair.
Caroline
Flint:
We received some suggestions that rental cars
should be designated as smoking or smoke free. We felt that the market
would help to regulate itself, so that if a care hire firm wanted to
say that a part of its fleet is completely non-smoking, they could
engage with the issue on a contractual basis with either the company
leasing cars for its employees or the individual renting a car. I am
happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further information. We were
looking for a light-touch approach whereby if the market can deliver
and regulate itself, it
will.
Dr.
Murrison:
Is the Minister saying that Avis, for example,
would be able to designate cars in its fleet as smoking cars for the
purposes of those who declare that they want to smoke in the vehicles
that they hire? Those vehicles, of course, would not necessarily be on
long-term hire, but might be hired from time to time and would always
be hired by smokers. Is she saying that that facility would be
available?
Caroline
Flint:
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
As I understand it, an organisation such as Avis could do so if it
wished, but it would depend on what the vehicle was used for. If it was
used partly for employment but primarily for personal use, it could be
so designated, but we must be clear about vehicles used solely for work
as opposed to a hybrid of the two. I am trying, as I did on many
occasions when we debated the Health Act 2006, to think of a scenario
in which that might
happen.
I shall write
to follow up more specifically, but let us say for arguments
sake that a company wanted a fleet of vehicles but did not want to own
them itself, and entered into a contract with Avis or whoever for a
works vehicle in its purest sense. If that vehicle were used only for
work purposes, I think that the smoke-free legislation would have to
apply. There would not be a case for saying, These vans are
smoke free, and these vans are smoking. In certain
circumstances, as we know, some peoplecommercial sales
travellers, for exampleuse a car both for work
and as a private family car, in which case the legislation would not
apply. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further
detail.
We have had
quite a lot of discussion with all stakeholders and feel that we have
arrived at a happy place. Having said that, I remind the Committee that
the Government have committed to a review of the legislation. If
anything comes up in practice that we have not thought about, I am sure
that we can consider it then. I asked before coming here today whether
we have received any briefings from organisations about their worries,
which we have not. The issue has not generated a lot of post, but I
shall be happy to look into it and to write to the hon. Gentleman if
anything that I have said today is misleading or does not reflect the
consultation or our response to
it.
I hope that I have
covered the points raised. I welcome the opportunity to sign off the
regulations with hon. Members. The matter is not over, and it will not
be over on 1 July, but I feel that the legislation is good. On the
whole, we have tried to address the different concerns of those
directly affected. As has been said, the level playing field has made
the issue simpler, and I thank Parliament for that. I look forward to
what I hope will be seen in the language not of bans but of smoke free,
and as something that people can enjoy as we move to 1 July. I hope
that all Members will think about how they can celebrate the measures
on 23 March, which is the beginning ofthe 100-day countdown to
1 July, and consider opportunities in their constituencies to make
people aware of what will happen later in the
year.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Smoke-Free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations
2007.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Smoke-Free (Penalties and
Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007.[Caroline
Flint.]
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Children and Young Persons (Sale
of Tobacco etc.) Order 2007.[Caroline
Flint.]
Committee
rose at twenty-nine minutes pastFive
oclock.