---

Health Bill

My Lords, I have to say, I am feeling quite heroic, having had two victories in the Division Lobby this afternoon. Whether I shall appear heroic to the noble Lord, I am not too sure. This grouping addresses amendments on no-smoking signs. Clause 6 ensures that no-smoking signs will designate smoke-free areas in premises, additional smoke-free places and vehicles. We do not intend for our requirements to result in an overabundance of signs, but signage will allow clear communication with smokers, so that it is clear to them where smoking is not permitted, and where they may therefore be breaking the law. The signs will also make it clear to non-smokers where they have a right to expect a smoke-free environment. Experience in other countries has shown that signs are a crucial part of implementing and enforcing smoke-free legislation. If we are introducing a new offence for smoking in a no-smoking area, or allowing someone to smoke in smoke-free premises, we must ensure that people know where they might be committing an offence. This might be especially important for foreign visitors, unfamiliar with our smoke-free laws. Signage, I understand, is required in Norway, Italy, Ireland and Scotland. But I am happy to make sure that full details are provided to the noble Lords and others. These amendments appear to demonstrate that the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Naseby, is concerned about the Government introducing unnecessary signage requirements. I stress that our intention is completely the opposite: we wish to make signage requirements as light-touch as possible. We do not want this to be a significant burden on businesses. Our plans for signage will be included in public consultation on regulations that will be published shortly. However, our broad intentions are that signs in smoke-free premises should include the international smoke-free sign and a brief message stating that the premises are smoke-free by law. We believe that clear wording on signs is necessary in premises as, for the first time, smoking will be prohibited by law in virtually all enclosed, and substantially enclosed, public places and workplaces. Some no-smoking signage currently exists in premises, but it is largely advisory. It is important to ensure that people know it will be against the law to smoke in these places. In vehicles, however, we do not think that the additional message will necessarily be needed, as it is already the norm for most public vehicles to be smoke-free, often by legislation. As I have said, signage provisions within the regulations will be subject to consultation shortly. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health wants to do everything it can to support businesses in the lead-up to implementation. We will make signs that meet regulatory requirements readily available free of charge. For example, we intend to provide these signs with guidance to businesses on implementing the legislation, to put downloadable copies on our website and to keep stocks to send out to businesses that request them. I would say that, by including powers to specify signage requirements in regulations, the requirements can be changed. There may be some point in time, once smoke-free legislation has firmly bedded in, when all that is needed on no-smoking signs is the internationally recognised no-smoking symbol. If we accept this amendment, however, we would lock this requirement on to the Bill, rather than providing the necessary flexibility to specify the most suitable signage. Given the importance of signage in communicating and enforcing smoke-free legislation, together with the benefits of maintaining regulatory flexibility in this area, the Government cannot accept these amendments. Although not heroic, it is a fair statement of why the Government believe we need signage to be provided for—in accordance with the regulations that we will be consulting on—on a light-touch basis and with as much help as we can give businesses.