---

Health Bill

My Lords, this amendment broadly brings the Bill back to the Government’s original position, as set out in their consultation document of 20 June 2005—almost exactly a year ago today. Members of the licensing trade believe that the original scheme was less inimical to their profitability and viability and less inimical to the well-being of their customers, 45 per cent of whom apparently smoke to a greater or lesser degree, than the altered formula in the Bill. Why did the Government change their mind? A clue to the Government’s reasoning emerged in Grand Committee on 24 April, when the Minister extolled the desirability of ensuring ““consistency with Scottish legislation””. Why should there be such consistency? After all, just a few moments earlier the Minister had spoken of the desirability of allowing the Welsh to make their own decision on what precisely constitutes ““enclosed”” and ““partially enclosed”” spaces. Why are the English, alone in the United Kingdom, treated in such a cavalier fashion by this Government, or, perhaps I should say more accurately, in such a Cromwellian fashion? If the Government are unwilling to accept this amendment, will they, as an alternative, consider accepting my Amendment No. 46—we are likely to come to it next Monday—which provides for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? Technical though they may be, too much is at stake both in terms of the continued viability of many licensed premises and the comfort and well-being of literally millions of their customers to allow these regulations to be nodded through under the negative procedure.