Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Naseby (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health Bill.


Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 8:"Page 3, line 25, at end insert—" ““(   )   The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is not exercisable so as to specify any place or description of place where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we know that Clause 4 enables the making of,"““regulations designating as smoke-free any place . . . that is not smoke-free under””," Clause 2, subject only to the national authority being,"““satisfied that, without the designation, persons present there would be likely to be exposed to smoke””." Responding to amendments to this proviso in Grand Committee, the Minister undertook to come back on Report with an amendment raising the threshold for using the power, which he has done. However, it is still arguable that Clause 4 could enable smoking to be prohibited in an individual’s home, which is not a work or public place but, in terms of Clause 4(1), is not,"““smoke-free under section 2””." It is well known that banning smoking in the home is an objective of the most ardent anti-smoking activists. Indeed, we heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he falls into that category. So regardless of the formal expressions of the right to a private life expressed in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is in any event subject to the UK’s continued adoption of the convention and—this is important—to the right not being claimed to be overridden by health reasons, it would be preferable to put beyond any doubt the fact that regulations made under Clause 4 may not designate an individuals’ home or accommodation as smoke-free. In Grand Committee, the Minister said:"““Premises that are to be exempt will remain exempt indefinitely””." Unfortunately, he went on to say,"““but we will review the legislation, including exemptions, after three years””.—[Official Report, 24/4/06; col.GC22.]" Can the Minister tonight be absolutely crystal clear to the House that everyone’s home will be exempt indefinitely? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c578-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Clubs Buildings Health hazards Exemptions Licensed premises Public places Passive smoking Working conditions Restaurants Smoking Ventilation
Legislation
Health Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk