---

Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 17:"Page 2, line 39, at end insert—" ““( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where— (a) a place is being used for the purpose of performing a work of performance-art (including in particular a drama, opera, ballet, dance or show) to an audience or of rehearsing such a performance; or (b) a place is being used as a studio or set for the purpose of recording (whether cinematically or by video) or rehearsing such a performance; and (c) the artistic integrity of the work being performed or rehearsed would be vitiated or significantly impaired if any person performing or rehearsing the work were otherwise prevented from smoking by reason of section 2; the place in question shall not be treated as smoke-free during and for the purpose of such a performance or rehearsal.”” The noble Earl said: Whether we are in favour of smoking restrictions or whether we are against them, I hope that most of us would agree that in terms of long-term health risks there is such a thing as a de minimis level of environmental tobacco smoke about which we do not need to become greatly exercised. That is so even within the terms of the Bill itself. Clause 8, for example, says that where someone in charge of smoke-free premises becomes aware of a person who is smoking, he must take steps to get that person to stop smoking. It does not say that if someone in a smoke-free place is found to be smoking, everyone should be evacuated from the room and allowed back only when there has been a complete change of air. The Bill is not designed or intended to protect us from exposure to smoke in any quantity, however tiny; it is intended only to protect us from smoke in significant quantities. We therefore have to keep a sense of proportion in looking at the Bill’s provisions. One important area where a sense of proportion should apply is that of theatrical productions. Many plays in the standard theatrical repertoire would be rendered artistically impossible—indeed, risible—if the actors were prevented by law from smoking when performing in them. In some plays, smoking is required by the text: for example, in all plays by Ibsen, except one; in almost all plays by Noël Coward; in all plays by Simon Gray; and, perhaps most notably, in John Osborne’s ““Look Back in Anger””. That seminal British post-war play simply could not be performed without Jimmy Porter being able to smoke a pipe. The same principle applies to any drama involving a historical character for whom smoking was such a well-known characteristic as to be almost inseparable from the person. A recent example of this was the Royal Shakespeare Company production of ““Tynan””, a one-man show with Corin Redgrave about Kenneth Tynan. It is worth saying that there is a legal issue here: in the case of any play in copyright—that is, any play whose author is alive or died less than 75 years ago—the text cannot be changed without express authorisation of the playwright or his estate. The amendment that I have tabled attempts to address this issue, along with that of cinema and television productions, which are analogous. It also says that rehearsals of a production, as well as actual performances, should be subject to the exemption. The professional advice that I have received is that it is extremely important for rehearsals to be fully exempted as much as the actual performances. If anyone here is worried about that, I say again that we need to keep a sense of proportion about what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. I am not saying that there should be a free-for-all in this area. There are many plays in which it would be wilfully perverse for the actors to smoke: the plays of Shakespeare, for example, or Greek drama. If a director were to make a case for the actors to smoke in a production of ““A Midsummer Night’s Dream””, the case would have to be exceptionally good, and personally I cannot imagine what it might be. I am not suggesting that the Bill should allow for maverick or perverse artistic direction. At the same time, there are plays in which smoking is commonly implied by the text and is routinely included in the production. I am distinguishing here between those plays that I mentioned earlier where smoking is actually required by the text and plays where it is perhaps implied. The opening scene of the opera ““Carmen”” is set outside a cigarette factory, and in every production that I have seen at least some of the female chorus, who are the factory working girls, are seen to smoke, including Carmen herself. That is a particular and rather obvious case, but one could also point to almost any play set in a contemporary social setting and written between 1900 and 1970—plays by Bernard Shaw, perhaps, but also by many others, including Harold Pinter. Current examples of smoking on the London stage include ““Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”” and, notably, ““Billy Elliott””. From an artistic and social perspective, ““Billy Elliott”” is extremely relevant, because the striking miner’s family from which Billy comes continues to smoke despite everything that happens, and that fact tells the audience something that it needs to know about life in a Durham mining village. I simply do not think that we should be in the business of making life difficult or impossible for those who, for perfectly good and genuine reasons, want to perform drama authentically and well. It does not matter whether a production is professional or amateur, or whether it is performed at the National Theatre or in the local village hall; the principle, to my mind, is the same. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the case that I have tried to make. I genuinely believe that it is important. I beg to move.