Draft Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Ali, Rushanara (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
† Berger, Luciana (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
† Burstow, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
† Carmichael, Neil (Stroud) (Con)
† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)
† Ellison, Jane (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health)
† Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)
† Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con)
† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
† Lancaster, Mark (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Luff, Sir Peter (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Raynsford, Mr Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
† Ruffley, Mr David (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Williams, Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
David Slater, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 4 February 2015
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Draft Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015
8.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am pleased that we are debating the regulations, the aim of which is to protect children from the harms of second-hand smoke in private vehicles. Smoke-free legislation was introduced in England and Wales in 2007 to protect employees and the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in public places, work premises and vehicles. The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the Health Act 2006 to give the Secretary of State regulation-making powers to make private vehicles smoke-free places when carrying children under the age of 18.
As hon. Members are aware, second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard. Every time someone breathes in second-hand smoke, they inhale over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are highly toxic; more than 50 are known to cause cancer. There is no safe level of exposure—direct or indirect. Second-hand smoke is a real and substantial threat to child health, causing a variety of adverse health effects including increased susceptibility to lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, worsening of asthma, middle-ear disease, decreased lung function and sudden infant death syndrome. Children are more vulnerable to second-hand smoke exposure in vehicles as they breathe more rapidly and inhale more pollutants than adults.
A significant number of children say that they are exposed to second-hand smoke in private vehicles. In 2012, 26% of 11 to 15-year-olds reported being exposed to second-hand smoke in their family’s car and about 30% in someone else’s car. We estimate that approximately 3 million children in England are exposed to second-hand smoke in their family car.
Since we debated this legislation the first time and the primary legislation last year, I have made a point—I do not know whether other Members have done so—of asking all children I encounter in school visits throughout my constituency about the issue. I have asked for a show of hands from children who have been in a vehicle with someone smoking and questioned how they felt about it. I rather wish I had asked earlier because the results and feedback about how unpleasant they found it were quite extraordinary. I even had the happy experience of seeing one little seven-year-old get up and do a dance around the classroom when she heard about this legislation because her asthma was so bad when she was in a car with someone smoking, which happened to her regularly.
Research shows that smoking in vehicles can result in the build-up of high levels of second-hand smoke, which can persist even when windows are open or a ventilation system is used. Many children feel unable to ask someone to stop smoking when travelling in a car. Research shows that over a third of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles do not feel able to ask the person smoking to stop, because they are frightened or embarrassed.
Children are less able than adults to exert their choice to leave a private vehicle or to make adults stop smoking. We have listened to children and are bringing in legislation that they want. The Government are committed to protecting children from the harms associated with smoking and many hon. Members have expressed support for ending smoking in vehicles carrying children.
Today is world cancer day. We all woke up to the headlines that one in two of us will get cancer although, thankfully, reports said that there was a great deal that we could do to prevent it and that it was not an inevitability. The information was particularly set in the context of lifestyle factors, of which, still, a dominant one is smoking.
The regulations extend the existing smoke-free legislation by setting out the circumstances when private vehicles are smoke-free. Specifically, they amend the current regulations that make public vehicles and work vehicles smoke-free so that all road vehicles that are not already smoke-free will be smoke-free places when they are enclosed and a person under 18 is present in the vehicle. As with the existing smoke-free legislation, the regulations do not apply to ships, hovercraft and aircraft, as they are covered under different legislation, or to motor homes, camper vans and caravans when they are being used as a home because the policy aim is for the regulations to apply to vehicles, not homes. The regulations make it an offence to smoke, and for a driver to fail to prevent smoking, in a private vehicle with someone under the age of 18 present.
Hon. Members will be aware that smoke-free legislation is a devolved matter, and it will ultimately be for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to decide whether they want to introduce similar measures. However, I can inform the House that the Welsh Government have consulted on similar provisions and that there is legislation before the Scottish Parliament that appears to seek to introduce similar provisions. I can also assure the House that we will endeavour to work with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations on those and other measures to co-ordinate our approach where possible.
I turn now to the details of enforcement of the regulations. The regulations introduce a fixed penalty notice for the offence of failing to prevent someone smoking in a private vehicle. That is to make the penalties for both offences proportionate. Currently, for existing smoke-free premises and vehicles, the offence falls to the owner or manager of a business and can be dealt with only in court. We feel that an FPN is more appropriate for drivers of private vehicles.
Anyone who smokes in a smoke-free private vehicle will be guilty of an offence regardless of their age, which is consistent with existing smoke-free legislation. The offence of failing to prevent smoking would apply to the driver of the vehicle in all instances, including provisional licence holders, although there is a defence for the driver to have taken reasonable steps to cause
the person to stop smoking. That might be in the context of a very young driver with a senior adult in the family smoking, and they have made every effort to prevent it. There is a defence there and we have also given some discretion to enforcement officers. The fixed penalty notice will be £50 for both offences.As I just mentioned, enforcement officers will use their discretion in deciding whether to issue warnings, fixed penalty notices or whether to refer an alleged offence directly to court. Local authorities enforce the existing smoke-free laws. The regulations add police forces as enforcement authorities for smoke-free private vehicles because, unlike local authorities, they are able to request that a vehicle stops if they suspect that an offence is being committed.
The regulations were drafted following discussions with the police and others to provide for effective enforcement. The police have confirmed that they will enforce these regulations just as they enforce other laws. It is for individual police forces to decide on how enforcement will be carried out locally. The police have advised that this can be taken forward by local police officers in conjunction with their wider functions on road safety; for example, when running an operation to check compliance with the laws on seatbelts or child car seats.
The police would also check for anyone smoking or discuss the offences with the driver if there was tobacco in the car. I would remind hon. Members that, as with the existing smoke-free regulations, we will measure the success of the proposed regulations not by the number of enforcement actions that are taken, but rather by how behaviour, attitudes and health outcomes change over time. I am particularly conscious of that because smoking is ever more concentrated in some of our more deprived communities. It is not the intention to fine heavily in more deprived communities; we want to drive behaviour change.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): I agree with the Minister. A lot of people think I am just after chasing fines around the country, but that is not the case. This is about educating people that they should not do this, and the dangers that result if they do. I welcome that line of argument.
Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to his extensive efforts in this area of legislation. He has been championing this cause for some time in a distinguished fashion. I will move on to public health education in a moment.
Local authorities would also be able to enforce the proposed regulations, and there will be an important role for local authority regulatory officers in working jointly with police on local enforcement activities, as well as continuing their efforts to build compliance for smoke-free legislation generally.
Environmental health officers have considerable experience in enforcing the existing smoke-free laws. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has told us that using fixed penalty notices has proved to be an effective method of enforcement and has confirmed the useful work that local authorities can do to promote compliance. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we have included a statutory duty to review the
regulations within five years of them coming into force. We thought it a good idea to look at how they are working.Turning to the issue we touched on briefly of social marketing and public awareness, the Government had long argued, before introducing this legislation, that there was a huge role for health education for a number of reasons. I consider it very important that, in addition to the regulations, Public Health England continues its work to encourage voluntary action to protect children from the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke. Previous marketing campaigns have been shown to be very effective and have made significant inroads, but we want to drive that change further and faster.
A hard-hitting marketing campaign aimed at encouraging smokers to stop and think before smoking in front of children, whether in the home or the car, will start next week, from 9 February. I have also asked Public Health England to develop a campaign to raise awareness of the new regulations in advance of them coming into force, should Parliament approve them. Those campaigns are intended to help bring about the desired behaviour change and to complement the regulations.
The regulations would come into force on 1 October 2015. I considered the issue of common commencement dates, but I believe that April would be too soon to allow for sufficient training of enforcement officers and to raise public awareness of the regulations. I am also conscious that it would fall in the period before the election when Government communications are restricted, which we expect to be at the end of March. I think that 1 October is the common-sense date for the regulations to come into force.
I know that Members were concerned in previous debates that this measure is a step too far into the private space of individuals and that we should not be regulating in this area. It is important to remember that it is already widely recognised and accepted that we need rules relating to how people use their cars, such as the need to wear a seat belt or not to drive while using a mobile phone. The regulations are about protecting children from the known harms of second-hand smoke in cars. They are evidence-based and targeted, and they are not about reducing adults’ ability to make their own choices.
The regulations form part of a comprehensive approach to tobacco control. As part of a package of measures, we have introduced other legislation which, for example, makes it illegal for adults to buy or attempt to buy tobacco for anyone under the age of 18. Today, as I mentioned, is world cancer day, and these measures will be an important step towards protecting children from the harms of second-hand smoke. The regulations are an important part of our tobacco control strategy and I commend them to the Committee.
9.7 am
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): Today we have an opportunity to pass secondary legislation to ban smoking in cars with children present, putting us within touching distance of a precious victory for children.
At the outset of my remarks, I would like to remind the Committee that we are here today because of colleagues in the other place who successfully made the case for these provisions when debating the Children and Families
Bill. I would particularly like to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who tabled the original amendment to ban smoking in cars with children present. We then had a successful debate in this place, with 376 voting in favour and just 107 voting against. I would like to thank everyone who has campaigned for such a measure, especially the British Lung Foundation and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North.The regulations will make it a criminal offence to smoke in a private vehicle with someone present who is under 18. The measure will protect children from the health harms associated with exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles, will encourage smokers to protect children from second-hand smoke and, in time, will lead to a reduction in children’s health conditions caused by exposure to second-hand smoke. That can surely only be a good thing.
According to the British Lung Foundation, nearly half a million children are exposed to potentially toxic levels of smoke in cars every single week. A single cigarette in a car can create concentrations of smoke many times greater than those in a smoky pub of old. Banning smoking in vehicles with children present will help to protect them from the misery of smoking-related diseases that include cancer, asthma and emphysema, to name just a few. That is all the more pertinent on world cancer day.
If the health and tragic human costs were not justification enough, it is estimated that treating children for the effects of passive smoking costs our national health service some £23 million every single year. The proposal has the overwhelming support of our royal colleges, our health experts and leading authorities on public health from across the country. I recall that around this time last year, when the House was debating whether to grant the power to introduce these regulations, a letter was published in the British Medical Journal which was signed by more than 700 health experts and urged MPs to back the ban.
The support of health professionals is shared by public and Parliament alike. I was pleased to read in the Government’s response to their consultation on the draft regulations that 78% of those who responded supported them. This echoes the YouGov polling, which has shown that the measure enjoys the support of up to 80% of the public. It is also important to note that the ban has the strong support of road users.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): On a point of clarification—I am reading the notes on the consultation—the 78% was about the draft regulations. Is it true that the consultation did not ask whether people supported the policy?
Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have just mentioned the YouGov polling that asked the wider public about the specific measure, which enjoyed the support of 80% of the public. It is important for the Committee to note that. The AA reported a Populus poll that it conducted in August last year, which showed that 70% of its members were in support of the regulations. We must not lose sight of the fact that the intentions behind the regulations
have already been endorsed by Parliament; we voted overwhelmingly in favour of granting the Government the power to introduce them.A year is a long time, and I am sure Members will be reassured that we finally have the opportunity to debate the secondary regulations today. I am delighted that the Minister has said that the ban will be in place by October 2015 should the Committee agree to the regulations this morning.
It is also important to note that when the Opposition proposed this measure, it was not intended as a stand-alone policy, but as part of a package of amendments aimed at tackling tobacco-related harm, including introducing the standardised packaging of tobacco. I welcome the Minister’s announcement a couple of weeks ago that the Government will introduce those regulations before the end of this Parliament, but we have not yet seen them. In light of the time remaining in this Parliament, will the Minister update the Committee on where things are with the regulations on the standardised packaging of tobacco?
I am aware of the important questions that were raised during the Government’s consultation on the draft regulations, including on enforcement and implementation: whether the ban should apply to under-18s and how they would affect mobile homes and caravans. The Minister has addressed the first point, but will she expand a little more on the specific point about mobile homes and caravans?
Having listened to the Minister, I am satisfied that the Government have addressed the concerns in their consultation response and that the regulations before us today will do the job that Parliament intended. Sadly, there remains a minority of opinion that considers such a ban to be an infringement of liberty. Such voices decried the ban on smoking in public places, and, before that, opposed the ban on smoking on planes, in cinemas and on public transport.
Richard Fuller: There are voices who supported that legislation, but who feel that this legislation may not be enforceable. Does the hon. Lady think that there may be a difference in the issue here because of enforceability?
Luciana Berger: I have had an opportunity to speak to various people who think it is enforceable. Part of the challenge is that people do not know that they should not be exposing children to smoking in cars. Introducing the law today strengthens our ability to change public attitudes. That is significant. Exercises have been done that have not reached the full effect that they should have done. We still have too many children exposed to smoking in cars and its effects, so it is important that we take an additional step to address that very serious issue.
Alex Cunningham: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, as the Minister does, that the issue is a matter of education. As for enforcement, my hon. Friend and the Minister are perhaps too young to remember the introduction of seat belts in cars. People said the legislation would never be enforced and would never work, whereas the vast majority of people—I think over 98%—complied, so the British people do comply with the law. They just need a little persuading at times.
Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I looked at the figures for what happened pre and post the introduction of the law on seat belts. Around 20% of the public wore a seat belt before the law, and it jumped to over 90% after the law was introduced, so such laws can have a massive impact.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): I, too, was going to make a point about seat belts. Just because something is difficult to enforce does not mean that we should not legislate for it. Undoubtedly, there will be challenges initially in making sure this becomes a reality, but it is too important not to do it. When something is so important, we should do everything within our power to make it happen. I welcome the Minister introducing this measure today for that reason, among many others.
Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; he makes a valid point.
Again, I come back to the point that having spoken to police officers, not only in my constituency but in other parts of the country, I know that they believe this is a measure they can enforce. With each step forward, public opinion has shifted and now these messages are widely accepted as normal. I am in no doubt that if this ban on smoking in cars with children is enacted, very few people would want to reverse it.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): On that wider point about public interest and awareness, does the hon. Lady agree that this welcome measure will encourage people to think more sensibly and more responsibly about how they deal with their own health and other people’s health?
Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and what he described could be a consequence of introducing this legislation today. It has many benefits, which I have outlined in my remarks, and I sincerely hope that we will introduce it today.
It is important to note that if adults wish to smoke when children are not present in a vehicle, that is their choice. However, what we are debating this morning is not a question of adult choice but a question of child protection. We know beyond doubt that passive smoking in an enclosed space can do serious harm to a person’s health, and that hundreds of thousands of children are being subjected to passive smoking in a car every single week. Today, we have an opportunity to do something about that. The question we must ask ourselves is not, “Should we?”, but “How could we possibly not?”
This is a simple, straightforward measure for young people who largely do not have a choice or a voice. I have been struck by the number of young people I have met in my local primary and secondary schools who really welcome this measure and are delighted that we are proceeding with it. In Liverpool, we have a project called the D-MYST project, which involves young people campaigning against smoking, and they think this measure is important. I have also been struck by the messages that I received, including a number of letters from children across the country, when we first debated this issue. In 20 years’ time, I am sure that those children will wonder how smoking in cars was ever allowed in the first place.
Before I conclude, I will just read out three of those messages, because it is important that we listen to the voices of children. Millie, who is 11, wrote to me and said:
“When I walk past someone smoking in the streets, I instantly hold my breath but…it is even worse when you are trapped in a car.”
“I think smoking should be banned in cars because it will set a bad example, cause health problems and most kids don’t have a choice.”
“I think you should ban smoking in cars because it is affecting children and children never get a say in what’s going on.”
Today we have an opportunity to show those children, and thousands more across the country who are affected by passive smoking in cars, that their voices have been heard. I sincerely hope that the Committee approves these regulations and that we press ahead without delay to ensure that smoking in cars with children present becomes a thing of the past.
9.18 am
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): I rise to support the regulations, to underline a couple of points and to put a question to the Minister.
My first point is to acknowledge the cross-party efforts that have been made in both Houses to secure the measure that we are considering today. I say that in my role as the chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, which has campaigned, tirelessly and collectively, to secure this measure and other important steps about tobacco control during this Parliament.
It is our duty to keep in mind that when we are talking about the health, welfare and well-being of children and young people, we have a higher obligation; there is a different test when it comes to the protection and safeguarding of children from harm, and that is reflected in the decision made by the Government to proceed with these regulations and bring them to us in this Committee today.
Like other Members who have already spoken, I have had the pleasure of receiving many primary school groups that have visited the Commons during my time in the House, and when those groups, school councils and others come to talk to me and ask me questions, invariably smoking will come up. It is an issue that is firmly in the minds of children and young people; they think that more should be done about it. Therefore, it is a great delight that today we are considering this regulation, because it takes an important early step.
The point that has already been made about the impact of setting a law in a circumstance where there may be some doubt about its enforceability is an important one. In other areas, not least the enforcement of seat belt laws, the fact that we had the law and reinforced it with social marketing dramatically drove up compliance and responsibility. The combination of those two things is important, but it is necessary to have the law to underpin it. That is why we should support the regulations. We live in a largely law-abiding society, which will want to follow the law that we are enacting through the regulations.
Social marketing is powerful, and there have been compelling adverts about passive smoking in cars. That leads me to my question for the Minister about social
marketing. The television campaigns are fantastic and incredibly powerful. Will the Minister inform us—either today or by asking Public Health England to write to us—what other channels will be used to ensure that the messages get across to all the groups that we need to reach? It would be useful to know what the plans are.No single tobacco control measure will dramatically change the picture, but with this one we are taking an important step in the right direction by further de-normalising smoking as a behaviour, by removing children from exposure to that behaviour and by ensuring that they do not have to breathe in its consequences. Before the end of this Parliament, I hope that the Minister’s welcome recent undertaking to give Parliament a vote on the regulations concerning standardised packaging will be realised. It would be helpful for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee if the Minister could confirm the time scale for that, so that we are clear when those regulations will be laid before Parliament and the House will have the chance to vote on them. With that, I welcome the regulations that we are debating.
9.22 am
Alex Cunningham: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I welcome the regulations. It has been a long haul since my ten-minute rule Bill in June four years ago, and it has been nearly three years since Lord Ribeiro passed his successful private Member’s Bill to the Commons, where it failed because of a lack of parliamentary time. The necessary changes were made to the Children and Families Bill in 2014, which was good news, but I remind the Committee that the Commons did not originally support the amendments.
Life will be better and healthier for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children and young people thanks to the eventual overwhelming vote to introduce the ban on smoking in cars with children present. Some may choose to continue the fight against the new law on the basis of civil liberties—others have mentioned this—or the human rights of the individual. To them, I say simply that I agree that it is a matter of liberties and rights, but they should be applied first to the children who suffer intolerable concentrated levels of smoke in cars. The Minister’s story of her seven-year-old constituent in Battersea dancing around the room at the news of the introduction of the law is testament to the need for it.
It would be easy to rehearse all the arguments again, but we are well past that stage, so I will turn to the regulations. I am content, but only for now. I look forward to the day when the Minister can also be persuaded that smoking in caravans and motor caravans that serve as accommodation is almost equally dangerous to children, because they are in a confined space. I have a caravan and I tour it all over Europe. Why smoke in a caravan when the outside world is two steps away? I suppose it is easy for most children in such situations to escape into the fresh air, but the concentration of smoke remains a health issue, albeit for much smaller numbers of children.
Richard Fuller: I was just listening to the hon. Gentleman talk about people smoking in caravans when they could take two steps and go outside. Why does he think that parents make that choice, and why does he think that it is the Government’s responsibility to interfere?
Alex Cunningham: I do not know why parents make that choice. Perhaps they do not have an understanding of the real dangers posed by concentrated smoke in an enclosed area. That is why I welcome what the Minister has said about the education programme, television advertising and all the positive initiatives to increase understanding and help parents realise that they are putting their children and themselves at risk.
I would like to thank the British Lung Foundation, which first discussed this with me nearly five years ago. I also thank the noble Lords who first amended the Children and Families Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for backing the measures early on. Thanks are due also to the Minister who persuaded her colleagues that this new law was essential for the protection of so many children, which helped to lead to the overwhelming vote in the House.
9.25 am
Bill Esterson: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I want to add my thanks and congratulations to all Members for the work that they have done, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North for his private Member’s Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for the work that she has done. I would also like to thank Government Members, in particular the Minister, for the way in which she has clearly supported this approach from the outset.
I was on the Children and Families Bill Committee, as was the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, and I had my name on the amendment to achieve this change in the Commons. I was disappointed that the proposal did not get support at that stage, but delighted when the Lords were able to make an amendment. I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman voted in favour at that point—
Bill Esterson —but hopefully he is going to tell me now.
Paul Burstow: I would just point out that the hon. Gentleman and I served on the Care Bill Committee, not the Children and Families Bill Committee.
Bill Esterson: I apologise. Memory has a wonderful way of playing tricks. I absolve the right hon. Gentleman of all responsibility for not supporting the measure at that stage. It was a shame that it did not go through at that point, but I am glad it did later.
The hon. Member for Bedford asked whether it was the Government’s responsibility to enforce this measure. The answer is absolutely it is. If the Government are not
there to protect children, then who is? That is why this is different from what applies to the behaviour of adults, and why it is so important.During that Children and Families Bill Committee, Ministers on a number of occasions made clear their support for the paramountcy principle of putting children first. This measure is very much in that spirit and in line with that principle. Children do not have the power or choice. They are not usually in a position to stand up to adults and protect themselves. At every opportunity we should do all we can to protect children. Children’s lungs cannot process smoke like those of adults and they are not in a position to make that point to protect themselves.
I welcome the measure and congratulate all Members who have been involved in bringing it forward. There are challenges ahead in raising public awareness. I am pleased with what the Minister proposed and I am really impressed at how quickly she intends to bring forward an awareness campaign next week. I would ask her to come back and say how she envisages enforcement, because that can be quite problematic. I would be interested in her thoughts on how identification and enforcement will work, particularly early on, until awareness has been raised and public pressure brought to bear, as with seat belts, and it becomes far less socially acceptable than it sadly is at the moment.
While I am on the subject of other measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about plain packaging. I look forward to the answer on that. As we are also talking about child protection, the Minister knows that I have been involved in a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy. Perhaps she could also update me on the chief medical officer’s review and how close it is to publication. If she cannot do so today, perhaps she could write to me on the subject. I welcome what the Minister has brought forward today and look forward to her response to the debate.
9.29 am
Richard Fuller: I rise to speak because we have heard speech after speech in favour of the regulations, reflecting, if I may say so, a cosy consensus among politicians that they know best how people should lead their lives. That is something that, as a Conservative and someone who believes in freedom, I always want to check. I want to ensure that we have a balance and that we have taken into account all the thoughts and ideas about this. I therefore want to ask some questions on behalf of those who may have concerns about the regulations.
As a young child, I used to sit in my car asking my parents not to smoke when they smoked. Usually—and happily—they complied. I did not need a fixed penalty notice to do that. I was perhaps a bit exceptional as a child in my annoying behaviour towards my parents, but it was certainly a circumstance where change could happen. Times may have moved on—it is a long time since I was a child—and there is perhaps now a need for legislation.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. She has been busy this week. She is, I have to say, an incredibly effective Minister. When things need to be put on to the statute book, she is as effective as Lewis Hamilton at moving things quickly. However, I have
some questions. I have listened to the responses—there are people on this Committee who have a lot more experience in dealing with the rights and wrongs of legislation on smoking than I do, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—but the fundamental question is: are we reaching the point where smoking is so bad that we should just ban it? Perhaps it is better to look at a future where smoking is completely banned, rather than, because we will not ban smoking, trying to find situation after situation where we can criminalise or penalise behaviour.Of course, there is a good reason why the Government will not ban smoking: they get a lot of money from people who smoke. We put that money into our calculations and work out whether we are getting more in tax revenues from smoking than we pay for the consequences of smoking. That might be fair. There might be a question about excise duty and how we charge one for the other. Questions have been raised in the debate about what happens next, but why are we not asking the fundamental question about whether smoking should be banned?
Alex Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman done any study of the effect on the health service of people who smoke and the tremendous cost directly related to diseases caused by smoking? Has he considered the considerable saving for the Exchequer if we reduced the amount of smoking in this country?
Richard Fuller: I am very grateful for that intervention; the hon. Gentleman has reinforced my point. There are bigger questions here; however, we are not confronting them. As he said, those costs are significant. I do not have the calculations to hand, but if that is true, why are we trimming around the edges of this core question rather than saying that smoking itself should be banned? In society, there are limits to the nudging effect on human behaviour which is so beloved by some politicians these days and which we try to promote, through a series of petty criminalisations here or a fine there, as we restrict people’s freedoms. There are limits to that where the Government really ought to stand up and say, “This is right and this is wrong. Now the rules are clear, let’s move forward on that basis.”
Let me turn to the question of further child protection, which has been mentioned a number of times. There are issues of child protection. As I said in my opening remarks, I had such an issue myself when I was young. However, there are other aspects of parents’ responsibility for their children where we might say that there is a role for Government. Fatty foods are bad for children. Should we bring forward legislation on that? Fizzy drinks can be seen as bad for children. Should we bring forward legislation on those? In a society where we believe that Government should be nudging people, trying to find little ways around and not setting clear rules one way or the other, we are giving freer rein to Government to criminalise or penalise people’s behaviours— most importantly, the behaviour of a parent towards their child—rather than limiting the encroachment of Government.
I obviously believe that parents should be primarily responsible for their children. I was interested in the comment made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central: “If the Government are not there to protect children,
then who is?” Of course, he is right: there are circumstances where parents do not treat their children correctly. We have to understand that the responsibility for children rests with their parents, not with the Government, and that we should be promoting parental responsibility. I worry that by penalising and sending enforcement into the responsibility of a parent for a child, we are intruding too far into that relationship.The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the fact that there will be education alongside the rule, so I ask her: what would be so wrong about educating parents first, without the threat of a penalty? Surely if it is good and people are responsive to education—it was mentioned earlier that education changed behaviour—why not use that first, rather than seeking to penalise a parent’s responsibility for their child from the start?
I am worried about the idea of whether it is right or wrong to be a smoker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said that the measure is part of de-normalising smoking. I know that has a broader context than the one we are discussing, but smokers are normal. It is not abnormal to smoke. Smoking may be a behaviour choice that I would not take up and that we, as a group, may think is not right, but it is not illegal or abnormal. If the thesis—the underlying drive—behind this and other pieces of legislation is to see things that are normal as not normal, where on earth are we heading with the role of Government in our society?
The legislation might not, in itself, be seen as coming down to a fundamental question of liberty and I do not necessarily want to draw it as such, but behind it there are aspects of what a free society and the role of Government are which ought to bring us to question each incremental step we take. I say that because we are living in an era of massive Government over-reach. Despite the tremendous efforts of the coalition Government in restoring growth in the economy, we, as a Government, are still living beyond our means. We are spending money that we do not have, promising people things that perhaps we cannot afford, and now we are extending Government into roles such as trying to check whether people are smoking in cars or caravans.
Just imagine this, Mrs Brooke: you are driving your car, and perhaps your child or grandchild is with you. Someone stops you and says, “You’re smoking.” I do not know whether you smoke, Mrs Brooke, but let us say that in this case you were smoking. Someone at your car says, “This person is under age. I am going to give you a fixed penalty notice.” Would you say, “But he is 19.”? What would happen then? Does that individual have to carry an identity card to prove that they are over 18? With this statutory instrument we are empowering enforcement officials to stop people going about their daily business when there is no reason whatever for that to happen, and to go around caravan parks telling people to step 2 feet outside so that they can smoke.
I am not a smoker. I do not want to be a smoker. I do not think that people should smoke. I want to live in a society where we are as smoke-free as we possibly can be, but I want to live in a free society. I want us to have the freedom to do good things, smart things and silly things. So, on behalf of people who may do those silly things, such as smoking with their children in the vehicle, I would like the Government to reconsider this measure.
9.39 am
Jane Ellison: I will try to respond to some of those points. It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, a very old and good friend, who admitted—like most of us in the Committee, other than the shadow Minister, perhaps—to remembering some of the seat belt adverts.
I do not have a date for the Committee on standardised packaging. Draft regulations will be laid at an appropriate time in the current Parliament. I remind hon. Members that we are still within the EU standstill period, during which regulations cannot be made. We recognised in responses to the consultation that the provisions relating to caravans will be particularly relevant to Gypsies and Travellers. We want children in those communities to have the same protections when they are in private vehicles. However, the regulations are not intended to regulate smoking in people’s homes. They include exemptions so that the offences do not apply when a caravan or motor caravan is being used as living accommodation. I accept that those are relatively fine distinctions, but we are trying to be responsive to points put to us through the consultation.
A number of Members raised enforcement, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. I will come back to some of his wider points at the end of my speech. The regulations were drafted following discussions with the police and others to provide for effective enforcement. The police have confirmed that they will enforce the regulations just as they enforce other laws.
Before I looked into the figures I was unaware that the police enforce some of the existing laws within cars to a greater extent than is publicly understood. In 2012, more than 90,000 fixed penalty notices were issued for mobile phone offences. We expect considerably fewer FPNs to be issued in relation to this measure, and have estimated 2,100 a year. For reasons given earlier, we are not looking to drive maximum use of FPNs; it is in large part about driving behaviour change. Members might be interested to know that more than 115,000 FPNs were issued for seat belt offences in 2012.
The hon. Member for Stockton North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam asked about the awareness campaigns. They have been effective. When I first assumed this role we were still balancing whether to rely only on education or whether we needed the law as well. As a Conservative, I weighed those in the balance. The issue comes down to this. For children who continue to be harmed by second-hand smoke in vehicles it is obvious that behaviour change is not happening fast enough, and may reach a point where it does not happen at all in some sections of society. It is therefore important to accelerate that behaviour change, protect those children and reduce a health inequality—there is a widening gap between health-harming behaviour in some parts of society and less harmful behaviour in other parts. That is where legislation plays a critical role.
That approach will be very much backed by work on education. I have mentioned the campaign that begins next week. I have been in discussions over a long period with Public Health England since we first anticipated the legislation to ensure that there is lots of energy behind the campaign in the lead-up to October. There is the happy coincidence of the school period and other
opportunities that Public Health England will use to frame the marketing work. It will be multi-channel. Public Health England has run some top-class, award-winning, multi-channel social-marketing campaigns in recent times. We will seek to use all the available channels for this campaign.October is by recent tradition “Stoptober”: many people use it as an attempt to quit smoking. It is worth reminding colleagues that the majority of smokers want to quit. That is a unique factor, and it makes the campaign different from others. I can confirm that there will be multi-channel work, but I am more than happy to write with more detail to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam about the nature of the social awareness campaigns, which will be comprehensive and energetic.
I think I have touched on the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North about motor homes and caravans. I note his point, but that is obviously not the intention. We have made it clear that the regulations do not apply to motor homes, camper vans and caravans. We do not want to discriminate against people who live in caravans. There might be some article 8 issues about limits on how things can be applied to someone’s home.
We consulted on the detail of the regulations, not the principle, because Parliament voted on primary legislation on the principle of the changes. It was a technical consultation, in response to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. There were 201 responses to the consultation. The majority were from organisations that included health organisations and local authorities. My hon. Friend cited figures in support of the measure. Local authorities and local tobacco control alliances made up the biggest proportion of organisations that responded, and there were some responses from members of the public who had mixed views on the draft regulations.
I completely understand the point about enforceability. That is why there has been debate over a period of time, but the police have confirmed that they can enforce the regulations, and local authorities have considerable experience in smoke-free legislation. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made his speech. He has never been one for cosy consensus in the years I have known him. He is right to challenge us to make sure we are thinking hard about these things, so I will take his points head-on. In many of the things that we debate in this House, we balance rights and responsibilities and we look at the extent of our freedoms. In this case, the majority of Members have come to the conclusion that the rights of children to travel in smoke-free vehicles should be balanced against the rights of adults to smoke in vehicles.
As a Conservative, I understand the general points that my hon. Friend makes. However, it is a case of scale for me. As an aside, I represent the only British resident still left in Guantanamo Bay. The fact that someone has been held for 13 years without charge or trial is a fundamental freedom denied, and I have fought passionately on that issue for five years. If I am
honest, I feel less strongly about the freedom of an adult to smoke in a car with their child. I guess it is a question of where one draws the line. It is important to challenge Government when making legislation, but I do not think that we are drawing the line in an unreasonable place, particularly given that most smokers want to quit.Such challenges are often rightly made in debates. Why not a total ban? The truth is that millions of smokers are addicted. Many studies over long periods of time have made the assessment that a total ban would be too much and would probably be ineffective. It is better to support people in giving up smoking, and even better to encourage children not to take it up in the first place. I agree that phrases like “de-normalisation” smack of big state. In a health context, one can feel slightly guilty about using such phrases, but it is about trying to encourage a smoke-free generation. That is what we want. The phrase is really about children not taking up smoking in the first place. It is a part of the jigsaw: not restricting the overall right of adults to smoke, but wishing sincerely that children do not begin to smoke.
We know much more now than we did when many of the people dying of lung cancer today took up smoking. Lung cancer has recently overtaken breast cancer as the main cause of death for women. That has been put down to women taking up smoking in the ’70s when not much was known about the harmful effects of cigarettes and tobacco. We know a lot more now than we did then, and that is one reason why we want to take this step to further protect children and to encourage speed of change so that children do not start to smoke in the first place, they do not see people smoke around them and they are not exposed to smoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford raised a legitimate question: if we do this today, what will be next? That will be for other Ministers and another Parliament to look at. Tobacco is a uniquely regulated product. He cited sugary food and drinks. Uniquely, there is no good amount of tobacco that one can consume. One can actually give guidelines about sensible amounts of alcohol to drink or sugar to consume, but tobacco is unique in that respect. There is no good amount of tobacco to consume and, for that reason, it is regulated in a unique way across the world.
I hope that that answers the “slippery slope” concern that my hon. Friend expressed. I thank him for his challenge, and I thank all members of the Committee for the good questions they have asked. I think that I have answered them all in broad terms, and I have noted concerns to which I need to respond in a bit more detail, such as the social marketing campaign.
That the Committee has considered the draft Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015.