 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Health Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Stanton, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 23 June 2009(Afternoon)[Robert Key in the Chair]Health Bill [Lords]Schedule 3NHS
and other health appointments:
suspension 4
pm Mr.
Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): I beg to move amendment
31, in
schedule 3, page 48, line 10, leave
out from ‘so’ to the end of line
12. I
am pleased to be back under your chairmanship, Mr. Key. We
will try to make as much progress as we managed this morning, when we
rattled
along. Amendment
31 again refers to the suspension of Monitor’s executives. The
Secretary of State will not be obliged to undertake a review of
suspensions until three months have elapsed from the time of
suspension, and the amendment would remove that obligatory delay while
preserving the opportunity for review. Why was that apparently
arbitrary period chosen? Given, as I have said before, that suspended
non-executives are unlikely to have recourse to the courts, surely they
should be allowed a review as soon as is practicably
possible.
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Mike
O'Brien): We wanted to allow reasonable time for
investigations to take place; it is as simple as that. Investigations
may be concluded more quickly, but, depending on the circumstances,
they make take longer. The Secretary of State would not want to be in a
position whereby he was unable properly and fairly to conduct a review
of the suspension if requested to do so in an unrealistically short
time. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(2) The
amendments made by this Schedule apply to a condition occurring at any
time in the person’s appointment which satisfies the Secretary
of State as a condition for
suspension.’. Here
we arrive at the exciting point about paragraph 19,
establishing that the changes here are retrospective in that they
impact on anyone appointed at the time the Act comes into force,
regardless of when they were appointed. This is a probing amendment to
find out whether the legislation will operate retrospectively on
grounds for a suspension that may have arisen in the past but may no
longer be present, or will suspension be an option only on grounds for
suspension that arise
after this legislation comes into force? The related question is whether
the Minister currently has any non-executives in his sights for when
the provision comes into
force.
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: The transitional provision in paragraph 19
as drafted ensures that the measures will apply to persons appointed at
any time. This already enables us to investigate any issues or
allegations about events that happened in relation to persons appointed
at any time prior to the Act coming into force. In answer to the final
question, I have no one in my sights at the
moment.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: That clears up the question about the
retrospective provisions, and clearly there is nobody in the
Minister’s sights. The slight question that survives, which
perhaps the Minister could pick up at a later point, is whether the
actual grounds for suspension need to have arisen before the
legislation in order not to be caught or whether they can be caught
retrospectively. Does the Minister want to intervene on that
point?
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: My understanding is that this enables us to
deal with any issue that arises at any stage, whether retrospective or
not. That seems to be the basis on which we are proceeding. If there is
anything different, I will write to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I am most grateful. I think the important
point on the record is that there is a degree of retrospection that
needs to be well understood by everybody who might be affected by it.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
3 agreed
to. Clause
20 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 21Prohibition
of tobacco displays
etc Mike
Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): I beg to move amendment
89, in
clause 21, page 24, line 16, leave
out
‘requested’. The
Committee will realise that we have reached a clause that, to be frank,
is controversial. There are many different views across the House about
how a product that is legal in this country can be sold while, at the
same time—and I say this from a personal perspective—we
cut the number of people, especially the young, who take up smoking and
continue to smoke.
I was a
member of the Health Committee when we looked carefully at evidence
relating to the legislation to ban smoking in public places. I began
that evidence session feeling very sceptical about banning smoking
selectively. By the end of it, on the basis of the evidence, I was a
signatory, with other hon. Members of the Committee, to the idea of a
total ban on smoking in public places. It is probably obvious that I
have no side with the tobacco industry. I would be happy if everybody
ceased smoking tomorrow morning. It would be great for their health and
great for the NHS, but probably not so great for the
Treasury.
With that in
mind, I emphasise the term “evidence based”. I have said
to the organisations lobbying brilliantly on behalf of this legislation
that my concern is not that I want fewer people to
smoke—particularly children—and to have access to
tobacco. That is a no-brainer for everybody, I am sure. It is that I
wonder whether the legislation will work and whether it is too onerous
on legal organisations that sell tobacco as part of their income
stream.
I also wonder
whether the legislation would provide more of a driver for the black
market. Currently, at least one in five cigarettes is either
counterfeit or sold on the black market with no duty paid and no one
taking the slightest bit of interest in the age of the person buying
that product. Age is something that I believe newsagents, tobacconists
and clubs should take notice of, and in most cases they do.
That said, I
will not press any of the matters related to tobacco to a vote in
Committee. That is a matter for the whole House to decide on. Her
Majesty’s Opposition will have a free vote, so they can express
their personal views. I hope that the Government take a similar view,
as, to be fair, they did on the legislation to ban smoking in public,
when we had a free
vote. This
is a probing amendment, which deals with the prohibition of tobacco
displays. I said earlier that I doubt not the Government’s
intentions, which I think are honourable, but the evidence base behind
the provision. It is, perhaps, a bit early to use some of the evidence
that the Minister has sent out in her letters—today, for
instance. That, sadly, has left no option for her to be open-minded, as
we all were about the previous legislation. Instead, it is dismissive
of evidence counter to that being used by the
Government. Amendment
89 seeks to provoke the debate on the statutory definition of a
requested display. For people who sell tobacco on their premises, what
that means is of great concern; they want to know when and if they are
breaking the law. “Requested display” relates to
retailers and staff as set out in the Bill, but it is very vague. It
needs to be defined, I am sure the Minister will agree. It needs a bit
more tweaking, even if the legislation is passed, so that people have
confidence that their display is not breaking the law under new section
7B.
An individual
who wants to see the legal product that they are going to buy may have
a child with them in the shop. Under the clause, is it going to be
illegal for them to see the product? I hate to think that we will have
a situation where mums and dads who, sadly, still smoke leave Johnny or
Mary outside the door unaccompanied while they go in and purchase their
cigarettes. It will not always be possible for people to accompany the
children while their parents are in the shop purchasing their
cigarettes, which are a legal product. My point is that the
parents—and the tobacconists—will be concerned about
whether they are breaking the law if an under-18 is with them during
that purchase. That needs to be set out and defined carefully, because,
if we are not careful, people may unintentionally break the law or put
their children at
risk. Someone
may, for instance, ask to see a new brand at a tobacco kiosk in the
middle of a large supermarket with significant footfall. If the new
brand is presented to them before they purchase and a minor walks past,
will that be an offence under the Bill? Under the wording at present,
it appears that it will. People will commit an
offence unintentionally, and the effect on the proprietor will be
onerous, whether it be a large supermarket or a smaller corner
shop. There
is a whole debate to be had as to whether it is physically possible for
someone who is the only person working in a shop at a particular moment
to know what is happening out of their eyeshot when someone asks to see
a product. Shoplifting is a real problem for small businesses, and the
Association of Convenience Stores asked me to look into
that. The
arguments about the content of the amendment are for the Floor of the
House. What I am trying to probe with my comments now is what is
actually an offence in respect of a requested display. It is difficult
to see from the wording of the Bill exactly what is an
offence. Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I thoroughly appreciate the
attitude taken by Conservative Front-Bench Members on how to deal with
this issue. It is such a big topic for parties, and people within
parties, that it is probably best discussed largely on the Floor of the
House. Therefore, fewer amendments will be put to the vote during
debates in Committee. In fact, there are variations within parties and
even within health teams. One of the reasons I am on this Bill is that
I reduced the variation that might otherwise have occurred if other
personnel had been put on
it. When
the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, the argument was
largely about secondary or passive smoking, and the rights of people
not to be affected by other people’s smoke, but I think that
there was a sub-text to it. I was well aware of a definite attempt to
marginalise smoking as an activity. That is what the legislation
succeeded in doing, and I do not think that it was necessarily a bad
thing, but it would be more honest when people are presenting their
argument to do so in precisely those terms. The more that smoking is
seen as a rather strange activity that people engage in in little
huddles outside buildings on cold days, the less people will smoke, the
better public health will be, and the less cost there will be for the
NHS. This
clause and successive clauses largely set out the possibility of
regulation that is justified by the suggestion that we can stop
children smoking by altering displays, or that we can stop people who
have given up smoking restarting. Evidence has been amassed to that
effect, but, as the hon. Gentleman just said, there is evidence moving
in both directions. Frankly, some of it looks a bit flaky; at any rate,
it is
inconclusive. I
do not think that one buys cigarettes on impulse. Someone might walk
into a service station and suddenly buy a packet of crisps, a chocolate
bar or a drink they had not expected to buy, but they would not
suddenly come out with cigarettes, not having previously intended to go
in there for that precise purpose. I think that the public health
arguments are not as honestly or as plainly put
here. That
being said, the definition of “requested display” as an
entity in law is a little obscure to me. I share some of the
reservations of Conservative Front-Bench Members about it and would
support the
amendment.
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Gillian Merron):
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Key.
I
thank hon. Members for their comments because it is helpful to probe
the intent behind the clause, and certainly the considerations that
have been put are useful. Perhaps I could clarify that the amendment,
if passed, would allow retailers openly to display tobacco to all
adults, which of course is not the intention of the Bill. It would also
require shops either to create separate adult-only areas just to
display tobacco or to remove tobacco displays entirely. I am seriously
concerned that that would put small shops at a serious competitive
disadvantage. They would be far less able to afford to create such
areas, whereas supermarkets and superstores would have no such problem.
Even if we put aside the competitive disadvantage, the amendment would
ignore the second and important part of our policy, which has perhaps
not been aired, but which is to support those who already smoke but
want to
quit. 4.15
pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 25 June 2009 |