---

Health Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It seems, from what he has said, that the answer to all problems of proscribed public behaviour lies in putting up signs. In my view, signs are a side issue in the context of maintaining standards of behaviour in many situations, although not in all. I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot envisage circumstances in which no-smoking signage can be done away with completely. I think those circumstances are easily imaginable. The great advantage of a sunset clause is that it forces Ministers to review the necessity and utility of a set of regulations, which can only be a good thing. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, may have a point: three years may not be long enough, but as she will see from my amendment, provision is made for Ministers to extend the regulations for a further period, so that possibility would not be cut off. I do not believe that the Minister addressed the points that I tried to make about proportionality and risk. We are not dealing with the kind of risk that attends at a petrol station, where one lit cigarette could mean catastrophe. Therefore, no-smoking signs are indispensable for health and safety reasons. Nor did he dispute the point that in most areas of the law, signage plays no part whatever, so why is it so vital here? I am not persuaded. Nevertheless, I shall reflect very carefully, as I always do, on what the Minister has said. In view of the hour, it is appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 [Offence of smoking in smoke-free place]: