---

Health Bill

I support my noble friend in the thrust of his argument. Clause 4 allows Ministers to extend the scope of the smoke-free regulations so that they would apply to any location at all so long as they are satisfied that,"““persons present there would be likely to be exposed to smoke””." I find the wording a little worrying. We all understand the logic of making enclosed, or substantially enclosed, workplaces and licensed premises smoke-free because if they were not, there would be the potential for non-smokers present in those places to be subjected to significant amounts of tobacco smoke for prolonged periods. Clause 4, however, seems to give Ministers carte blanche to declare that just about anywhere you care to name poses a risk to public health because of the likely presence of smoke—not significant quantities of smoke, but simply smoke. When we were debating the amendment on theatrical productions, I suggested that there is such a thing as a de minimis level of environmental tobacco smoke and that where tiny quantities of smoke are present, we do not need to exercise ourselves unduly about it in a public health sense. By extension here, the presence or likely presence of small quantities of smoke should not, I believe, be enough to justify the exercise of ministerial powers under Clause 4. The odd thing about Clause 4, though, is that it strongly suggests that this is exactly what could happen. Subsection (2) says:"““The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed””." In other words, it would be possible for Ministers to designate anywhere in the big outdoors as smoke-free. Where would it all end? It is an important question, because I sometimes think that we are in danger of forgetting the basis on which SCOTH came to its conclusion about the risks and dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. The studies that it analysed were all to do with significant and prolonged exposure to ETS on the part of non-smokers living with smokers. Beyond those sorts of study, we have to be honest. None of us has any idea of how risky or safe passive smoking is. We do not know the point at which ETS ceases to be de minimis and becomes a hazard to long-term health. The only basis on which the Government have seen fit to legislate now is that SCOTH has been unequivocal about the risks of prolonged and significant exposure to ETS. We have to be very careful about granting Ministers the power to initiate regulatory creep without the scientific evidence to back it up. Unless and until there is such scientific evidence, it seems to me that the powers in the clause, taken literally, are unreasonably wide.