---

Health Bill

Before turning to the amendment, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to some information about the Scottish trade. He encouraged us to feel extremely sorry for publicans in Scotland. The Morning Advertiser of 20 April showed that almost half of the 50 Scottish licensees whom it surveyed had reported an increase in trade since the smoking ban came into force. In a poll of pubs across Scotland, 24 said that trade had improved following the introduction of the ban; 21 said that business remained unchanged; and only five reported sales as being down. So we should not be too discouraged by the effect of the ban on the licensed trade in Scotland. Amendment No. 7 would remove the power for the Government to define what ““enclosed”” and ““substantially enclosed”” mean in regulations. We propose using regulations for a number of reasons, but particularly because the definition is likely to be technical in nature. Moreover, it is important to maintain the flexibility to be able to amend the definition in future in the unlikely event that problems arise with the initial definition. This will be much easier if these definitions are in secondary legislation. Furthermore, the Bill allows for regulations pertaining to ““enclosed”” and ““substantially enclosed”” to be specified by the appropriate national authority. By including a definition in the Bill, we would preclude Wales from being able to define ““enclosed”” and ““substantially enclosed”” in a way that best suits its own circumstances. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with this approach. The definition used by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in Amendment No. 9 is, as he said, the same definition as is used in regulations—I stress ““regulations””—that were made under Scotland’s smoke-free legislation. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s intention is that definitions of ““enclosed”” and ““substantially enclosed”” under this Bill in general will follow those used in Scottish legislation. It is desirable to be consistent with Scotland in this respect, but, as I have said, it is more appropriate to do this in regulations rather than in the Bill. The noble Earl spoke about uncertainty in the licensed trade. My officials have met representatives of the pub trade on a regular basis. My understanding is that people in the licensed premises trade are aware of the Government’s intentions in relation to definitions of ““enclosed””. I accept that Amendment No. 8 includes important elements required to define ““enclosed”” and ““substantially enclosed””. However, I do not agree with the amendment in terms of the area of walls that would be necessary for premises to be considered to be substantially enclosed. The amendment proposes that a place should be considered substantially enclosed if it has a roof or ceiling and an opening, or aggregate openings, of less than 30 per cent of the area of the walls. I have explained that the Government intend to follow the Scottish model for this definition, which refers to less than 50 per cent of the area of the walls being open. I believe that this is preferable to ensure consistency with Scottish legislation. It also takes into account the comments that we received during the public consultation exercise that was undertaken last year, prior to the publication of the Health Bill. In addition, the 50 per cent measure is likely to be more easily understood than 30 per cent or any other percentage. Through Amendment No. 103, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, proposes that the first set of regulations to be made with respect to these definitions should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I wish to reassure the noble Earl that the Government will undertake a full public consultation on the draft regulations to be made under this Bill. These definitions will be part of that consultation. The definition will be technical in nature, and it is usual for such technical regulations to be subject to negative resolution procedure. Again, I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with this approach. I hope that, given these reassurances, the noble Earl and noble Lords will not wish to pursue the amendments.