The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Efford,
Clive
(Eltham)
(Lab)
Flint,
Caroline
(Minister of State, Department of
Health)
Gidley,
Sandra
(Romsey)
(LD)
Iddon,
Dr. Brian
(Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
Kirkbride,
Miss Julie
(Bromsgrove)
(Con)
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
McIsaac,
Shona
(Cleethorpes)
(Lab)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
Milburn,
Mr. Alan
(Darlington)
(Lab)
Murrison,
Dr. Andrew
(Westbury)
(Con)
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
Vaz,
Keith
(Leicester, East)
(Lab)
Ward,
Claire
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wright,
Mr. Iain
(Hartlepool)
(Lab)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 21
June
2007
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007
2.30
pm
Dr.
Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007 (S.I.
2007, No. 923).
I
would like to make a few points about an argument that we rehearsed in
Committee. The Minister knows our objections to the fact that we are
expected to have signage that will proscribe smoking, rather than
signage that would allow smoking in those few areas where it will be
permitted under the Health Act 2006. I do not intend to rehearse the
arguments because the Minister is aware of our concerns, but I want to
press her, even at this late stage, on why she feels it necessary to
have no-smoking signs. She has several international examples, which
she will no doubt show us, and presumably they will be plastered all
over the country as of 10 days time.
We are
particularly concerned about certain locations that have traditionally
been smoke-free. Organisations have written to us to say that they are
concerned about what they believe is a heavy-handed and burdensome way
to proceed, and I cite places of worship in particular. I am not sure
about you, Mr. Williams, but the last time I saw someone
light up in a church was a very long time ago. The whole idea of
someone puffing away in the pews is, frankly, ridiculous. A number of
clergy have made that point, and they are unhappy that they will have
to put up no-smoking signs on their premises.
We are
concerned about excessive signage in many contextsfor example,
countryside clutterand we should be particularly sensitive
about important structures, such as churches, and how they might be
defaced by excessive signage. It may seem a small point, but to many
people it is a matter of great concern. For example, the Second Church
Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart
Bell), agreed that the requirement on cathedrals and churches to affix
no-smoking signs to doors was lunacy. The Dean of
Southwark said that it would be ridiculous to place no-smoking signs on
his churchs magnificent doorway, which has been locked for 500
years. However, as the door is theoretically a means by which people
might gain access to the church, he will have to put a no-smoking sign
over it or around it. The Bishop of Fulham said that the new rules are
stark, staring
mad.
Keith
Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman has
mentioned a number of churches, but there are other religions and
places of worship in the United Kingdom. Surely his argument applies to
them
also. My constituency has 35 Hindu temples, five Sikh gurdwaras and 38
mosques. Will not the regulations apply to them
also?
Dr.
Murrison:
The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I
introduced my comments by referring to places of worship. The
regulations are not confined to any particular
faith.
Clive
Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman tell the
Committee what he thinks might happen if the Church of England did not
put up signs on historic buildings throughout the country? What does he
think might happen if it did not comply with the
regulations?
Dr.
Murrison:
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying
to say. It is generally accepted that people do not smoke in church. I
cannot remember a single instance of somebody having smoked in a
church. To put up a sign saying, You must not smoke
here is a bit like having one that says, You must not
murder anybody here or, You must not rob this
church; it seems completely
redundant.
Clive
Efford:
SorryI probably did not word my first
question clearly enough. The issue is not what will happen to somebody
if they light a fag in an abbey or some other historic building, but
what the owners of those buildings fear will happen to them if they do
not put up a no-smoking sign. Have they set that out for the hon.
Gentleman in their letters to
him?
Dr.
Murrison:
But the regulations will oblige those people to
put up no-smoking signs; they will be obliged to comply with the
regulations. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what she
means by the soft touch on enforcement that we heard about.
Making a law means that it has
to be applied. It is no good saying, Well, we are going to turn
a blind eye to it, or, We are going to apply a soft
touch, unless we define what that soft touch will be. I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening, because he has put his
finger right on the issue. It is all very well for us to have
reassurances that a soft touch will be appliedthe implication
almost being that enforcement officers will not be that interested in
churches. However, there will be test cases. The important thing about
the Committee stage of the Health Bill was trying to flesh out exactly
what Ministers intentions were, so that we did not provide some
sort of beanfeast for lawyers.
It is perfectly likely that to
make a particular point, some of those who are very against smoking
will want to look around places of worship, for example, to find
examples of where there is no signage. It is no good just saying,
If you dont have a sign up, so what? We have
heard that posters might go up in church entrancesa sort of
downplaying of the amount of signage that there may be. There comes a
point when we have to ask why we are obliging places of
worshipchurches, for exampleto do that at all. Surely
it is sensible to accept that there are public places where people know
that they should not smoke. Surely that is the important
thing.
The general point is that, given
that there will be a presumption that people will not be allowed to
smoke in public places, we should simply have notification of where,
exceptionally, people may smoke. Surely that is right; it would be far
less burdensome and far more informative.
There is an interesting
exception for which one must have signagerailway platforms. I
understand that for those, the issue is in hand through byelaws.
Railway platforms can be enclosed, semi-enclosed or open. My
understanding is that train companies have decided that platforms will
be smoke-free. It is right that they should put up no-smoking signs. A
lot of people would view those public places as being open, not
enclosed, so they could be forgiven for thinking that they were allowed
to smoke there, although they would not be under the byelaws. In such
circumstances, it would clearly be necessary to put up a no-smoking
signfor public information and to ensure that people did not
unwittingly
transgress.
Dr.
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I agree; I have
not seen anybody smoking inside a place of worship, but I have
certainly seen them smoking on the premises. All large cathedrals have
cloisters and cafĂ(c)s, and there are already no-smoking signs in
those places. However, the hon. Gentleman is labouring his point. What
is the difference between there being in future a sign at the entrance
stating that there should be no smoking on the premises, and having one
now in a
cafĂ(c)?
Dr.
Murrison:
The hon. Gentleman makes a particular point. Of
course there are cathedrals with cloisters and places of refreshment,
where the normal rules would apply. However, we are talking
specificallyI am, at leastabout places of worship. Such
places are not for entertainment or tourism; they are churches, of
which there are thousands throughout the country. Under the
regulations, they will have to put up no-smoking signs. That is
somewhat redundant. I hope that the Minister will give assurances that
the measure will be applied extremely lightly to such places. I am
exercised not specifically about churches, but about places where it is
generally held that people do not smoke. If she gives those assurances,
I shall be content.
What I have heard from Minister
so far is that there will perhaps be a requirement to have a portable
notice on a notice board or a poster. The impact of such a requirement
will be fairly small, so why do we need it? It seems superfluous in the
context of what we are trying to do: to prevent people from smoking in
areas where previously they might have felt that it was okay to do
so.
Shona
McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab):I am listening to the hon.
Gentlemans argument and according to it, it seems almost as
though this is being done in isolation, irrespective of what has
happened in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland. They have brought in no-smoking legislation. Their public
buildings, including historic buildings and churches, have these signs
and there does not seem to have been a problem, so why is he making
such a fuss today?
Dr.
Murrison:
To answer the hon. Ladys point, I shall
cite Barry Gray, who is chair of the international
technical committee that deals with signage. As she may know, his
committee is particularly exercised about health and safety and the
associated signage. I cite his remarks because the regulations
apparently do not fulfil International Organization for Standardization
guidelines, for reasons that the Minister will doubtless explain
shortly.
Mr. Gray
says:
We
dont understand why the government wanted to make the changes,
and plastering the signs over all these buildings is just
overkill.
He
continues:
Evidence
suggests that people switch off when there is information overload.
What if someone tunes out after seeing three signs that are irrelevant
and misses the fourth one that is extremely
important?
Mr.
Gray is worried that there may be so many signs in a particular
location that people do not pay attention to the important ones. His
contention is that it is redundant to put no-smoking signs up where
people already know that smoking is not allowed, and that doing so may
obscure the important health and safety messages that he is principally
concerned about. Such messages are vital to peoples well-being.
I think that that answers the hon. Ladys point, although she
may wish to come back on it. Clearly, the ISO is concerned about
this.
Shona
McIsaac:
The point that I was trying to get the hon.
Gentleman to address was that legislation that has been introduced in
other parts of the country does not appear to have caused this hoo-hah.
Why does he think that England is
different?
Dr.
Murrison:
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. I do
not say that the appearance of these signs will be the end of the
world. Clearly, it will not be, although a certain cost will be
involved, as will irritation on the part of those who will be expected
to enforce the signs. The sky will not fall in, but given that we are
in the business of making laws for this country that serve its people
as well as possibleand given that we are dealing with British
monuments, churches, places of worship and so onit is surely
right that we make the arrangements as good as possible.
I am not sure whether the hon.
Lady is saying that it is necessary to put no-smoking signs in areas
where, through custom and practice, it is clear that smoking is not
allowed. If she is, I would say to her that an element of redundancy is
involved and that many people will say, That is bad
law. This approach calls many of the things that we do and
parts of otherwise laudable legislation into question, because it
imposes something that appears to be somewhat silly and
unnecessary.
There is
not a huge amount of difference between the hon. Lady and me on this
pointat least, I hope that there is not. I am certainly not
suggesting that the whole edifice of the no-smoking clauses in
the 2006 Act will collapse if these things are plastered all
over monuments. I am suggesting, ever so gently, that it would be nice
if they were not.
Mr. Grays
points, which are important because he deals with health and safety,
are germane to that argument. In mitigation, I am pleased that the
Minister
has said that the matter will be reviewed after three years, and I think
that she is going to say that she wants to reinforce the no-smoking
message through posters and so on. Perhaps at the three-year point she
will look back and say that people now have it in their heads that
there is to be no smoking anywhere in public placesmore or
lessand that the regulations can be further relaxed, or even
repealed.
If the
Minister is able to say something along those lines, I shall be a
little more content. My party has traditionally favoured the idea of a
sunset clauseparties in opposition tend to do soand it
sounds to me as though we are part of the way towards reviewing
formally in three years time where we are with this measure.
Then, we will be able to decide whether we can revoke it or amend it,
so that those who are concerned about excessive signage can be
pacified.
While we
are focusing on and devoting a lot of time to signs, we should be
giving attention to some other matters. I am particularly upset that
quit smoking campaigns in England have taken a bit of a
bashing. We hope that the no-smoking clauses in the 2006 Act will
reduce smoking. However, there will be those who require
assistanceif the measure is successful, more people will need
to access the relevant servicesyet almost half the primary care
trusts across England have cut their budgets for stop
smoking services, which is regrettable. Although that is not
strictly to do with the subject at hand, I hope that the Minister will
comment on it in passing.
In the Health Bill Committee,
the Minister talked about the enforcement of no smoking and the
associated signage. It will be good to hear what advice she is issuing
to local authorities about how they should enforce the measure. I hope
that we are to have central guidance, because, given that a large
number of local authorities are being expected to enforce the
legislation from 1 July, there is a strong possibility of a degree of
cross-border inconsistency. That will be very damaging. What is being
done to ensure that local authorities are given some form of unified
advice as to how they must enforce the measure?
This is all about information,
and the Minister has a variety of posters in front of her; no doubt we
will have a look at them shortly. What is she doing about informing
those whose first language is not necessarily English, and the
partially sighted? She has set up a smoke-free England ministerial
reference group to bring together various stakeholders and those with
an interest in the matter. To what extent has that forum influenced
todays debate, how has it guided the smoke-free signage
regulationsif at alland how often has it met since the
Health Bill passed through Parliament?
I should like to persuade the
Minister to think very carefully about the extent to which and how the
measure will be enforced. Can she assure me that at the three-year
point, we will have a proper review, with the potential to revoke the
regulations or to amend them substantially? I am looking for a
comprehensive review in three years time, which I hope will
allow for the possibility of a sunset clause at that
point.
2.50
pm
Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Williams. We seem to be seeing
rather a lot of each other these days, having both served on the Mental
Health Bill Committee.
There were
significant arguments over the primary legislation and some serious
arguments have been thrown up today. When people were discussing that
legislation, I always thought it slightly disingenuous of them to
pretend that it was entirely about passive smoking, because the subtext
was surely the public health benefits of diminished opportunities to
smoke. There is an element of state paternalism there, which it is not
worth revisiting now. It is worth pointing it out, however,
particularly if one includes among the growing number of human rights
an individuals inalienable right to indulge in whatever harmful
addiction they choose. I do not think that it is an inalienable right,
but it is an issue nevertheless.
We had
parallel arguments a long time ago with regard to safety belts and so
on. For me, such issues are relatively easy to resolve. I simply
contrast my mother, whom I saw the other day and who is fit and healthy
in her 81st year, with her twin sister, who has been dead for a quarter
of a century. One smoked and the other did not. I think of my
aunts children, whom I do not think would object to some
effective disincentives to smoke. Research shows that 81 per cent. of
the population approve of the legislation and the public places ban. In
years to come, I suspect that people will wonderas in Bob
Newharts Walter Raleigh sketchwhy people thought that
it was a good idea to put dried leaves in their mouths and light them,
and why anybody thought that it was a practice worth
defending.
To delay
the implementing of the legislation, which is what we are talking about
here, is to delay its effects, which are thoroughly benign and very
important. One must have a good reason for delaying
it.
Dr.
Murrison:
On a point of clarification, the intention of my
partys approach is not to delay the legislation. We are
concerned about the nature of the signage regulations
themselves; there is no ulterior
motive.
Dr.
Pugh:
The Minister must clarify what the effect would be
of the official Oppositions endeavours. The primary legislation
specifies that as a consequence of it, there must be signage in a
public place. It has been argued that some of that signage is
undesirable.
Two
questions must be answered. First, are there undesirable consequences?
Secondly, even if there are, are they sufficiently undesirable to merit
any delay or further complexity? As I understand the argument, where
signs are thought to be undesirable, two grounds are given: they are
intrusive, and they are unnecessary. Sometimes, both points are argued.
The intrusiveness argument is weakest, because the signs are
smallA5 sizeand need only be in an entrance, not on a
door. Moreover, they vie there with other associated clutter, even in
churches, such as rules of admission, reminders about dress, postcards,
places for brollies, notices about phones and so on. Church porches are
not particularly tidy in my experience. The signs need not be attached
to the holy water stoop, nailed to the altar piece or put
around the statue of the Virgin Mary. They can put in the porch
relatively discreetly.
More plausibly, it is argued
that, even if signs are not intrusive, they are simply not necessary.
Formally speaking, that is not the case; they are required by the law.
There is a history of appeals with regard to most laws for which
notices do not exist. We need think only of traffic enforcement and the
ingenious lengths to which people go to avoid a fine by pointing out
that a sign is defective or in the wrong place, or that the yellow
lines are not there, to see the perils of not having signage if we are
serious about enforcement. Parking is quite a good analogy because,
like smoking, it can be done in some places but not in others. It is
not always self-evident where it can be done, which is part of the
reason why we get parking fines from time to time. It is behaviour that
requires discretion and judgment.
That still leaves in place the
strongest argument presented so far, which the hon. Member for Westbury
echoed a few minutes ago. The argument is that essentially, we are
prohibiting what does not happen. In places such as churches, for
instance, people generally do not smoke. There is a limited aesthetic
loss to acknowledgewe do not need an extra signto no
appreciable benefit. That argument was well put by Matthew Parris in
The Times, who pointed out that we cannot and do not put up
signs prohibiting generally what we would not think of doing or do not
do. I have great respect for Matthew Parris, whose benign wit has been
a good reason to buy The Times in the past, but there are flaws
in that argument. I speak as someone who may have been in more church
porches than some of the people who advance it.
There is a significant
minorityI can cite individualsof tobacco-addicted
churchgoers. I must saythey are priests. No, they do not light
up during services, but that does not mean that they do not light up on
church premises. I accept that there are rather fewer in nonconformist
Churches, but I have certainly found in the high Anglican tradition a
fair number of people with serious tobacco addictions that they
satisfyeven, from time to time, on the
premises.
A large
percentage of the population do not attend church often. They go to
weddings, christenings and funerals, and many of them go at no other
time. It might surprise some hon. Members to learn that in some of the
rawer inner-city parts of England, the protocol regarding behaviour in
church is relatively unfamiliar. People simply do not have a clear idea
of how to behave and what can and cannot be done in church. I know that
churches themselvesperhaps they accept itare not
formally arguing against the legislation. Smoking is discretionary
behaviour. It is tolerable in some places and at some times, and not
others. The kinds of behaviour about which we do not post signs are
those that are illegal at all times or, generally speaking, the object
of some moral taboo. We do not have signs for those types of behaviour
for quite good reasons, but smoking is neither of them.
A further argument is that if
we have exemptions, how will we deal with them? At the moment, we have
a broad definition of enclosed public spaces. I think that we all know
what that means. If we are to vary that, we must decide what is in and
what is out and figure out, once the rules have been drawn up, how to
apply them clearly and transparently on a local basis. In
considering even the word church, we must bear it in
mind that there are house churches and community churches. The word
churchthis is not a puncovers a
multitude of sins. It can mean a range of places, quite apart from the
standard Gothic building with spire.
The added difficulty is that if
we have criteria for exemption, although I am not sure what they might
look like, they would have to be based on second-guessing the natural
history and behaviour of the attendees. What will we do as that changes
over time or varies? It is easy to base criteria on the category of a
building, but not so easy to take into account the likely behaviour of
the people who use
it.
We must accept
that law-making, and even law enforcement, are relatively rough arts.
They should respond to circumstances. The hon. Member for Westbury made
a valid pointthere should be a sunset clause and an examination
of what happens. I recall that when I was a child, there were signs on
buses, always on the upper deck, that said no spitting.
They seem to have gone. I can only suppose that it is because at one
timeperhaps in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and
60speople spat on buses all the time, but they no
longer do
so.
Usually,
the only form of passive smoking that occurs in churches is the
inhalation of incense. I am not sure whether that will be covered by
the legislation, but I have always regarded the inhalation of incense
as an entirely healthy process. I am told that it slows down the
breathing rate and produces an element of serenity, with no
complications. However, we must ask ourselves what the true effect is
of quibbling about a relatively tiny signdoing so might
complicate the rapid implementation of the most important public health
legislation for decadesgiven that the relatively religious
Irish seem to have no problem with such legislation
whatsoever.
3
pm
Clive
Efford:
I shall be brief. I am slightly bemused as to why
we are here. I think not that there might be a problem with people who
own historic buildings having concerns about signage clutter, but that
the Opposition are guilty of chasing a press release and taking matters
a bit too far. As the hon. Member for Southport said, it seems a
relatively minor issue; if the Archbishop of Canterbury and my hon.
Friend the Minister had had a quiet fag outside the Department of
Health, they might have sorted things out, without the Committee
needing to sit
today.
Paragraph 76 of
the explanatory memorandum states:
The approach to
enforcement will be non-confrontational, focused on raising awareness
and understanding to ensure compliance, and enforcement officers will
work closely with local businesses to build compliance through
education, advice and support. We expect that enforcement action will
be considered only when efforts to encourage compliance have failed.
Any enforcement action that is taken will be fair, proportional and
consistent. Enforcement inspections will be based on risk and, where
possible, combined with other regulatory inspections to reduce burdens
on business.
It
therefore seems to me that there is a way forward in the regulations:
if someone genuinely has a concern about signage and compliance, there
is an option to
discuss it with the enforcement officer. Rather than reading his press
release, the hon. Member for Westbury should have studied the
regulations and the memorandums that accompany the proposal, in which
case we would not have wasted public money, as we are doing
today.
Anne
Main (St. Albans) (Con): I am a great believer in the
maxim, If it aint broke, dont fix it. I
draw the hon. Gentlemans attention to the aim of the proposal
as given in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the explanatory memorandum.
Paragraph 19 states:
In addition, there will
be a reduction in overall smoking due to more places being
smoke-free.
Paragraph 20
states:
Overall,
the total benefit in reduced
smoking
is that there
will be smoke-free public places. That said, unless the
hon. Gentleman has figures to support the assertion that people smoke
in churches now, he will not achieve that aim by putting up signs in
those places. That is the premise of Conservative Members. There is no
reason to introduce legislation that applies to places where people do
not smoke now. Putting up signs is therefore
pointless.
Clive
Efford:
I would not disagree with that. The Minister will
correct me if I am wrong, but I understand from the paragraph that I
have just read out that there is leeway for discussion and a sensible
approach to how enforcement should take place. Enforcement inspections
will be based on risk. That suggests to me that if an area is
risk-free, enforcement officers will not go round saying, You
must put a sign here, here and here. They will take a
reasonable approach, based on the risk and on the likelihood of someone
smoking.
The
memorandum, which I have read only briefly, states that the cost burden
on businesses should be minimised. No one is suggesting that an
enormous number of signs should be put up. I suspect that the cost of
having this Committee amounts to more than the cost of the signs that
the hon. Member for Westbury is concerned
about.
Dr.
Murrison:
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not think we
should be questioning the Governments regulations. Does he
agree that it is very important that local authorities, which will be
expected to enforce the proposal, be issued with clear guidance about
what the Government want them to do in enforcing it? It is not
acceptable for a local authority on one side of a boundary to do one
thing, and anotherperhaps a particular enforcement
officerto take a different view ever so slightly further down
the line. One problem is that the guidance does not appear to have been
sufficiently clear-cut. For the hon. Gentlemans information,
that is one reason why we have taken up his Thursday
afternoon.
Clive
Efford:
The hon. Gentleman is not taking up my Thursday
afternoon; I would be busy on other matters even if I were not in
Committee. It is not a question of saying that we should not be
questioning these measures; rather, the hon. Gentleman is guilty of
believing his own press release and taking it too
far.
Dr.
Murrison:
What press
release?
Clive
Efford:
This issue was debated on the
Today programme as a bit of a joke item a few weeks
ago. It has been taken far too far. The hon. Gentleman is also
suggesting that every single area of responsibility for local
authorities is interpreted within each local government boundary in
exactly the same way. He must have enough experience of local
government services to know that that is not true. One can even get
different local authority planning decisions on identical planning
issues. His party often says that we regulate far too much. Is he
honestly suggesting now that we should regulate to the point that there
is no freedom and no interpretation at local level? People would get
into more difficulty if that were the
case.
The regulations
are very flexible indeed and allow people to take an approach
appropriate to the situation being assessed. In the case of an historic
building with a lot of historic artefacts to which structural damage
could be done, there is enough leeway within these memorandums to allow
an enforcement officer to take action appropriate to those
circumstances. The enforcement officer would not be forced to put up a
plethora of signs throughout an historic building. Nothing in the
provisions suggests that an enforcement officer would be forced to do
that.
Dr.
Murrison:
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the
outcome of the Governments publicity campaign in advance of 1
July has been to establish that, to all intents and purposes, there
will be no smoking in enclosed public spaces, with one or two very
specific exceptions that I hope we will revisit later, such as smoking
in prison cells? So that message should be well and truly fixed in
peoples minds, without the need for a great raft of signage
covering the land from 1 July. That is the point. Does he not therefore
agree that the three-year review pointor sunset pointis
particularly important, so that we can at least review what has
happened and abolish the provision if
necessary?
Clive
Efford:
If I thought that the situation that the hon.
Gentleman describes was going to happen, I would accept his point, but
I do not think that will. These regulations are sensible enough to
allow an approach to be taken that is appropriate to each particular
circumstance, and any enforcement officer who reads them will be able
to take appropriate action. I really do think that the Opposition are
guilty of over-egging and overstating this issue, and creating a great
deal of alarm where there should be
none.
3.7
pm
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Caroline Flint):
This is an interesting debate, because if one were new to discussion of
this subject, one would think that we had not discussed these issues
before. In fact, in December 2005, when we were dealing with the
relevant clauses in the Health Billin particular, clause 6,
which was about no-smoking signswe had an extensive debate. In
that debate, many of the points made by the hon. Member for Westbury
today were answered. I must say to him, with regard to his own
situation, that ignorance is no defence. We had this discussion at that
time. We
went through a number of issues about the three-year review, which I
will come to shortly. In the meantime, of course, information that is
available on the website, online and in the guidance packs, including
the explanatory memorandum that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham
rightly referred to, has answered, in many respects, the question about
the approach that we are taking to the issues of both signage and
enforcement.
In fact,
the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), at
the Committee stage of the Health Bill, with regard to the affirmative
procedure,
said:
I would
not insist on that in respect of the order-making power in clause 6,
which defines where signs must be displayed and so
on.[Official Report, Standing Committee
E,
6 December 2005; c.
60.]
Why is
that important? It is important because usually, if there is an issue
where it is thought that there needs to be more debate, there is a
request for an affirmative procedure in this House. In fact, I agreed
that we should have an affirmative procedure applied to certain aspects
of the Bill and we duly had a debate in Committee on those issues. On
this particular issue, the Oppositions Front-Bench spokesman
acknowledged that it was unnecessary to seek that procedure. Therefore
we have in the legislation the requirement for signage and the
regulations, after consultation, which I shall come on to, just try to
outline how it will be
applied.
Dr.
Iddon:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, of the 26
bishops in the House of Lords, none has objected in the same way that
the hon. Member for Westbury has objected
today?
Caroline
Flint:
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It is
not for me to advise the bishops in the other place of the appropriate
time to voice their concerns. However, a debate on such legislation has
taken place in both Houses and there was not one murmurI am
happy to be corrected if I am wrongfrom the bishops about
signage.
In fact, we
have done a bit of mystery shopping in churches and cathedrals for the
signage position. The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the Bishop
of Southwark. At that place of worship, not only are there displayed at
the entrances signs dealing with things that cannot be done, such as
no drinking or no mobile phones, but
there is a sign saying, We accept Visa. It is therefore
clearly the case that examples of signage can be found in many heritage
buildings and places of
worship.
The hon.
Member for Westbury asked why we do not have signs about not killing
people. Over the centuries, there have been a few violent offences in
places of
worship.
Clive
Efford:
Thomas À
Becket.
When I met a
representative of the Tourism Alliance for breakfast the other morning,
I was asked why we do not have signs saying, You must not
commit murder. Well, committing murder is not location
specific. To commit murder in any place is against the law. Similarly,
I have received letters asking why we do not have signs saying,
You cannot use heroin here. It is against the
law to use heroin in any place, too. The signage has been proposed
because we are making it an offence for the first time to smoke in
certain places, while it is legal in other places including
peoples homes and outdoor
spaces.
Anne
Main:
I hope that the Minister can answer my question
simply. It is not meant to be facetious. Will she say whether the
signage will cover structures such as marquees, scout tents and the
like, which may be open to the public for perhaps long or short
periods?
Caroline
Flint:
Yes. An enclosed
space[
Interruption.] The hon. Lady was not a member of
the Committee that discussed the Health Bill, so she might like to look
at the record. In fact, many members of the Conservative party,
including the hon. Member for Westbury voted in favour of the
legislation. The regulations will apply to an area where there is a
roof, sides and when it is substantially enclosed. I refer her to the
Department of Health website so that she can update her knowledge. As
public representatives, it is important that people understand the law
for which they voted. I do not know how she voted in the free vote on
14 February, but we can always look
back.
Mr.
Zac Goldsmith is a person who likes to say how we can be greener in our
everyday lives. He is advising the Conservative party on what policies
it can take on board to protect the environment. He is a Conservative
candidate for Richmond Parka member of the new breed of
Conservative candidates. He is clearly unhappy about the smoking
legislation and intends not to comply with the law. To paraphrase him,
he said to a Sunday newspaper that he will smoke wherever he wants and
that he has no intention of complying with the law. The hon. Member for
St. Albans and her hon. Friends might want to think about that, because
I thought that politicians were meant to be law makers, not law
breakers.
The
Chairman:
Order. That has nothing to do with the issue of
signs.
Caroline
Flint:
Mr. Williams, it is important
that we know how people are approaching the law on such matters,
particularly when they intend to be elected as law
makers.
The
Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007 have been well drafted. They set
out a reasonable and proportionate approach to detailing how the
no-smoking requirement set out in primary legislation should work. When
we discussed such matters during the Health Bill proceedings, all
things being equal, my preferred option would have been to have no
signs. It would be an ideal situation. However, we have to be mindful
when creating an offence and, based on advice from lawyers in other
countries, such as Ireland and Scotland and further afield in
California and New York, experience shows that signage has to be used
when changing the law in such a way. In part, it is to give individuals
who may regularly go to places where they have been allowed to smoke,
but will not be after 1 July, the defence in that such matters had not
been clearly brought to their attention.
As I said in the debate, and on
many occasions since, there is an opportunity as part of our review to
look at whether aspects such as signage are necessary in future. I hope
that there will be a day when it is unnecessary, but it is important
when we are changing the law and there are offences attached to
peoples behaviour that were not there before, that we have to
be clear about that. We have tried to minimise bureaucracy and to
introduce flexibility as to how the signage regulations will be
applied.
The regulations were laid in
March this year. As I said before, I think that we have gone over much
of the ground that we covered during the passage of the Bill. There
seems to be a misperception that the situation in England is somehow
unusual due to the signage requirements required by the Health Act 2006
and Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007. The simple fact is that we are
following in the footsteps of many other jurisdictions that have
introduced smoke-free legislation. We require, as one of the basic
measures to support the smooth implementation of the smoke-free law in
this country, that all smoke-free premises and vehicles display
no-smoking signs. No-smoking signs are required under smoke-free laws
in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Republic of
Ireland, New Zealand, and many states in Australia and the United
States. I mentioned New York earlier.
Many
jurisdictions have much more onerous requirements for signs than those
that we are proposing for England. For example, Scottish smoke-free
regulations requireI am happy for colleagues to look at these
laterlarger no-smoking signs to be displayed. Hon. Members can
compare those to the size that we are proposing. Those regulations also
insist that the signs display the name of the person to whom complaints
about smoking incidents can be made. We know from experience in other
countries that no-smoking signs are an essential element of successful
smoke-free legislation for a number of reasons. Signs will clearly
communicate to smokers that from 1 July, they will be breaking the law
if they smoke. They will be important for people visiting England from
abroad, or where there might be some confusion about the smoke-free
status of premises, such as substantially enclosed premises. Signs will
assist occupiers and those concerned with the management of premises by
enabling them to point to evidence of the smoke-free requirement, which
is likely to be valuable if a dispute arises with someone on those
premises.
Signs will
be also be an indication to enforcement officers that premises are
smoke-free and that any smoker in those premises ought reasonably to
have known that. Signage is an important aspect of any enforcement case
against an individual who smokes in a smoke-free place. On enforcement,
my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham clearly pointed out that we are
trying to take a common-sense approach to the matter. My experience of
visiting Scotland and Ireland was that enforcement officers were proud
when they could say that there had been no prosecutions in relation to
smoking. The backbone of the training that we provided is a
common-sense approach. We hope that engagement, compliance and
reasonableness will be built into the process.
In
England, we are dealing with many more businesses than was the case in
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. We are
dealing with many more local authorities. However, that is the cultural
ethos towards which we are working. Having said that, we will clearly
have to deal with places where a risk assessment on smoking will take
place to see whether it is flouted, or people want to make a point in a
destructive way. The enforcement officers will be looking locally at
such places that are at
risk.
Churches,
listed buildings and heritage buildings are required to look at the
signage that they require. There is no power in the Health Act for the
Government to exempt certain premises that must be smoke-free from the
legal requirement to display no-smoking signs. However, no-smoking
signs may de designed and displayed in a way that fits with the
dĂ(c)cor of premises, as long as the minimum requirements set out
in regulations are met. The signs need to be in a
prominent position, but they do not have to be stuck on the front door.
They can be mobile; they do not have to be permanently mounted on the
building. A sign could be put on a movable stand. For example,
Westminster abbey has movable stands saying, No photography in
this building. The dĂ(c)cor or colour of the signs could
fit in with the style of the building itself. Officials in the
Department have had discussions with various organisations that
represent heritage buildings, churches and so on to get that point
across.
Dr.
Murrison:
The Minister says that the signs may be in a
dĂ(c)cor or colour that is appropriate to the buildings concerned.
However, these signs are fairly formulaic. Could she describe more
fully the kind of colours and dĂ(c)cor in which they might be
decked out in different circumstances?
[
Interruption.
] The Minister sighs, but this is
quite an important point. It is important that we know how she
envisages these things looking. She should understand that ISO requires
a certain form of prohibition notice, for example. What she seems to be
suggesting is rather different.
Caroline
Flint:
I shall not be drawn into trying to speculate on
all the different situations. For example, there will be situations
when people might want to use brass. They might want to have the sign
in National Trust colours. We could consider any number of
combinations. The fact is that guidance is available. These things can
best be discussed locally and best adjudicated in line with local
circumstances and
means.
The signs have
to be at least A5 size. They have to display the no-smoking symbol and
use characters that can be easily read by persons using the entrance
saying No smoking: it is against the law to smoke in these
premises. Those three features are required, but the signs can
be in whatever colour and font people want and made of any
material.
Clive
Efford:
I want to clarify one point. There could actually
be no sign at all. If premises could demonstrate that there was no risk
and a local enforcement officer accepted that, would it absolutely
necessary for those premises to have a sign? The regulations suggest
that it would
not.
Caroline
Flint:
Signage is required, otherwise exemptions would be
built in. No Conservative Member tabled an amendment that would have
exempted any premises
when we discussed the matter in Committee. There will be a risk
assessment; this is about being sensible. I do not imagine that local
government officers will become regular church worshipers just to check
whether any signs are up. They probably have other fish to fry in
places where people more commonly
smoke.
We have tried
through the regulations and the consultation to be very flexible. My
hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and the hon. Member for Southport
should consider how we might start to make an exemption. We think of a
church or a place of worship as a place where services are held.
However, those buildings often include offices in which people are
working. There are often halls with facilities for entertaining and
meeting parishioners. How could we decide which place of worship and
what parts of a place of worship would be exempt from no-smoking signs?
We would get ourselves tied up in
knots.
The reality is
that because the legislation is clear and provides a level playing
field, it has been positively received by businesses and others. They
recognise that the fact that it has few exemptions makes it a lot
easier to apply. We have to be sensible about this. There was plenty of
opportunity for the Opposition to raise this matter before, so I have
to question why they are doing so
today.
I
want to say a little bit more about the role of local authorities. It
is up to each local council in its role as the enforcement authority to
take a view on what would constitute satisfactory signage. That is best
done locally in line with the regulations. We have engaged at length
with leaders of the business community and local government throughout
the process of developing the legislation. I can say with some
certainty that a lack of clarity on requirements for the signs would be
viewed as entirely unhelpful. With the simple, clear and
straightforward regulations that the Government have made, there will
be no room for the development of inconsistent and burdensome
requirements that differ between local authority areas. We need clear,
sensible arrangements that businesses and the public can
understand.
There are
no powers in the Act for Ministers to make regulations to exempt
certain types of smoke-free premises from the requirement to display
signs, whether they are places of worship, historic buildings or
workplaces that are already smoke-free. If we were to go along with the
Conservatives suggestion, signage would still be required under
the regulations, but there would be a free-for-all on how it would be
applied. The regulations provide the framework under which the
signage rules should be applied. I do not know what the Conservatives
think they would achieve by getting rid of the regulations underpinning
the requirement in the
Act.
Dr.
Murrison:
Will the Minister say to what extent it would be
a defence for somebody who lit up in an enclosed public space, where,
for whatever reason, there was not a signit might have fallen
downto say that that amounted to mitigating
circumstances?
Caroline
Flint:
Such matters would have to be discussed locally.
Let us imagine what would happen if a sign fell off and someone
inadvertently lit up. Perhaps someone would say,
Sorry, youre not allowed to smoke in here,
and the other person might say, I didnt see the
sign. They would then reply, Sorry, its fallen
off. Well just put it back, and the other person would
say, Thanks, I wont smoke. For goodness
sake!
If there was
evidence that an employer was wilfully encouraging people to smoke on
the premises, such as complaints from others, including perhaps even
staff who wanted to work in a smoke-free atmosphere and did not think
that their employer was supporting them in that endeavour, the
situation that would have to be looked at locally and the relevant
parties would be brought together. I hopeI have no reason to
think otherwisethat in most situations there will be a
conversation and the local environmental health officer will engage
with the situation and sort it out. Given what has happened in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelandand, before that, in
Irelandwe have no reason to believe that any of the problems
that the hon. Member for Westbury mentioned will
arise.
I give credit
to the English people and Englandthe place where we
liveand say that we can master and implement this as
efficiently and positively as other countries have done. I feel sad
that the hon. Gentleman thinks that somehow we in England are not quite
up to that
task.
Dr.
Murrison:
The Minister must calm down. I am trying to work
out what the situation should be in certain circumstances that will
arise. There will be a presumption of no smoking in enclosed public
spaces as of 1 July. People will not be able to smoke in such
circumstances. However, the Minister is asking the Committee to approve
signage that, if it were not there for whatever reason, might be cited
as mitigation by a person who was challenged for smoking in such a
space. To what extent might that be a mitigating circumstance? The
insistence on having this signage could lead to it being used as
mitigation when that would be unreasonable, given the general
presumption that people will not smoke in enclosed public spaces. I
think that that is a reasonable point to put to the
Minister.
Caroline
Flint:
The law says where smoking will not be allowed in
future and mentions the spaces where it will not be allowed. However,
we are moving from smoking not being illegal, before 1 July, and people
have got used to smoking in certain places. We are doing everything we
can to build public awareness about 1 July being the date on which the
legislation comes into force. We have done a huge amount of work with
businesses and organisations of all shapes and sizes to provide them
with guidance and information. That activity has been backed up by
local support. With our advertising campaign, we have seen a greater
awareness among the public of 1 July. Even given all that, we must be
mindful that there might still be situations in which someone goes to a
place that they go to regularly and decides to have a cigarette. Such
instances would be best handled at local level. If a person is
informed, Sorry, Tom or Sorry, Susan,
its the 1st of July and its smoke free, one would
hopewe have past situations from which to learnthat Tom
or Susan would say, Sorry about that, I forgot, and
that that would be the end of the story. If someone wanted to cause
mischief, there might be further action, but a lot of things can be
done in those situations without bringing prosecutions.
We discussed extensively in
Committee a situation in which a person caught smoking puts forward the
defence in court that there was no signage or that the ban was in its
early days. They could put up such a defence in law, but whether they
will be successful is another
matter.
Dr.
Pugh:
I fully accept the Ministers point that, in
the first instance, the law needs to administered like the law of the
Medes and the Persianswithout any clear exceptions given.
However, there will be a period of consultation following the law, and
there are residual niggles and some dissatisfaction about it. The hon.
Member for Westbury suggested that there should be a sunset clause. Any
such clause should be preceded by consultation. Once the fact that
people do not smoke in public places is well established among the
population, and when there is clarity on the regulations, which may
come in a few years, there will be an opportunity to make the
regulations more sophisticated and sensitive, hence the suggestion of a
sunset clause. Does the Minister rule that
out?
Caroline
Flint:
As far as I am aware, it is not within the bounds
of our current position to introduce a sunset clause. Such a clause
would have to have been in the primary legislation. Nobody voted
against the measure or tabled an amendment. We also had a free vote in
the House of Commons on 14 February 2006, at which point hon. Members
could have tabled amendments. I have said before that these measures
could be reviewed, and it will be possible to amend the primary
legislation.
Coming
back to the point on legal defence, the Health Act 2006
states:
It is
a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to
show that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected
to know, that it was a smoke-free
place.
We included that
measure because we had to be reasonable about people recognising the
change in the law. As far as I am aware, nobody objected, so I question
why we have to re-run a debate that we have had before.
We consulted on the framework
for signage. Three quarters of consultation respondents were broadly
supported the proposals for no-smoking signs. We changed the
regulations from the initial proposals following the consultation to
reflect stakeholders suggestions on how sign requirements could
be improved. The changes included relaxing signage requirements that
all public entrances to smoke-free premises require an A5 sign.
However, provided that a smoke-free building has one such sign,
entrances such as those used only by staff must only have a sign
displaying the international no-smoking symbol.
Other changes
to the initial proposals include requiring only the display of the
international no-smoking sign at entrances to smoke-free premises that
are within other smoke-free premises, such as a cafĂ(c) within a
shopping centre or bar, and, on suggestions made by the hospitality
industry, removing the requirements for premises that have an exemption
for designated rooms to display no-smoking signs with different
wording. As I indicated
earlier, we looked at reducing the size of signs, so we took on board a
lot of the points made in the consultation. We have also provided free
signage to many businesses up and down the country.
The Government have made a huge
effort. We have learned from the experiences of Scotland and the
Republic of Ireland. Our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland were
similarly informed when they were devising regulations. We are now in a
situation in which, as far as possible, we have used flexibility and
common sense, and have taken on board the points that have been made
about smaller sizes and how we could be flexible about how signs will
look in certain places. However, I completely disagree with the emotive
comments of the hon. Member for Westbury. He said at least six times
that we would be plastering signs all over the place. That does not
help the debate. I wonder what the Opposition hope to gain from saying
that; it certainly calls into question their so-called support for
smoke-free legislation.
I hope that I have covered most
of the relevant points raised during the debate. I will happily to
write to hon. Members if I have missed anything. I hope that the
Committee agrees that the regulations are well-considered, sensible and
flexible.
3.35
pm
Dr.
Murrison:
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but not
for the way in which she made them. I make it very clear that we do not
oppose the non-smoking clauses of the Health Act 2006. That is
absolutely not the case. Our record in Committee will have borne that
out. I resent that last remark.
What we have is a presumption
that places will be smoke-free as from 1 July. I do not think there
should be any doubt in peoples minds about that. What we have
in the regulations is an intention to put
lotsis that term sufficiently unemotive for the
Minister?of posters in places where, through custom and
practice, people know full well that they should not smoke. That is our
principal objection.
Another problemthe
Minister did not address the matteris the precise nature of the
guidance and training that will be given to local authorities, so that
they can consistently and across borders ensure that things are the
same more or less wherever one goes. I note the Ministers
comments about the international experience, but the grey area is
potentially a lawyers bean feast. As with all regulations, that
must be eschewed as far as possible.
The Minister said that we are
simply following practice in other countries, but she did not say that
the signs are not ISO-approved, even in the form that she described.
She then went on to discuss how we might deviate from them even
further. She spoke of wood and brass, and various colours. She also
mentioned the National Trust, but red does not feature very much in the
NTs colour scheme, so I presume that it will use shades of
green. The signs will look very different, wherever one goes. The
question is, how effective are they likely to be? That is particularly
so, given that from 1 July everywhere will be
smoke-free.
Caroline
Flint:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned ISO signs. There is a
wide range of differently designed no-smoking symbols. The ISO sign is
one of them. In
the publics mind, the symbol of a burning cigarette within a red
circle with a red bar across it means No smoking,
regardless of whether the cigarette points to the left or the right, or
is on the diagonal or horizontal. That is clear in most peoples
minds. I do not understand the importance of the point that the hon.
Gentleman makes.
Dr.
Murrison:
Mr. Gray, the chairman of the
relevant ISO committee, clearly did not agree with the Minister. He
also made the further point, which I will not rehash, that it may very
well conflict with other
slightly more important and relevant signage in public places. However,
there is no point in going further down that road.
We maintain
that the order is largely redundant. We have concerns about
enforcement, and the burdens being put on local authorities, given the
lack of guidance. We are delighted, however, that it will be reviewed
after three years. We look forward to doing so.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007
(S.I. 2007, No.
923).
Committee
rose at nineteen minutes to Four
o'clock.