---

Health Bill

Clause 4 allows for regulations to be made that designate additional smoke-free places and the circumstances in which they will be smoke-free. These are places that will not be enclosed or substantially enclosed as defined by regulations under Clause 2. They will be places where there is a risk of harm from second-hand smoke due, for example, to the inevitable close grouping of people. Examples of these additional potential smoke-free places might be sports stadiums, bus shelters and entrances to public buildings or workplaces, but I stress that no such additional places have yet been identified or considered. I make it clear that we are talking only about places where there is a significant exposure to smoke. The option to make places smoke-free will be on the basis that specified conditions are satisfied in specified areas and circumstances or at specified times, or any combination of these. Regulations could set out criteria that would determine when a football ground, for example, is to be smoke-free. Such criteria may be based on the density of seating in the venue or the type of entertainment. In England, we intend to regulate the smoke-free enclosed or substantially enclosed places first. Once that is in place, there may well be a demand that we consider those places where people cannot avoid second-hand smoke, but that fall outside that definition, such as entrances to buildings. We will decide whether to use the power in this clause to regulate non-enclosed places should the need ever arise. This will be a consideration when the Welsh Assembly Government consult on their specific proposals for Wales. I assure Members of the Committee that regulations will be brought forward only as and when required. Regulations to specify additional smoke-free places are unlikely to be included in the draft regulations that will be subject to consultation shortly. In addition, any regulations will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On Amendment No. 24, as I have said, we intend to use this power only where we have identified a real risk of significant exposure to second-hand smoke. However, I do not believe I can accept this amendment. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in some of the remarks he made. I thought he was remarkably sprightly, having come along later in the proceedings after discharging his obligations in the Chamber. I wonder how we would determine what is avoidable exposure to smoke, and what is unavoidable. If it is truly unavoidable, how would this legislation prevent it? Secondly, I am also concerned about how we would define ““not intermittently””. Even if we were able to define it in regulations to everyone’s satisfaction, how would that then be monitored, and who would be expected to do it? I fear that this could be extremely burdensome and open to confusion and even abuse by those seeking to get round the law. Thirdly, there is a similar issue about how we define ““significant”” amounts of smoke and how that is then measured and monitored. All in all, while I understand the noble Lords’ aims, I do not think that adding these specifications to the Bill is practicable; it risks making this part of the legislation impossible to implement. Amendment No. 25 proposes specifying that a place can be designated an additional smoke-free place only if there is a risk of significant harm from smoke. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put his finger on the point. I reiterate that this is very much our intention, but putting it in the Bill could be unhelpful for the reasons I have already explained with regard to Amendment No. 24. I hope that, for these reasons, noble Lords will not wish to pursue the amendments.