Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Caroline Flint (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health Bill.


Health Bill

I should like to be able to give a clear indication of the Government’s point of view following the consultation, and I will seek to make that as clear as possible for Members through a letter or some other appropriate medium. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11 are consequential amendments. On amendment No. 4, there was some concern in the other place that the power in clause 4 to make additional places smoke free was rather broad and could be used to make all sorts of places smoke free even where there was no significant risk of exposure to second-hand smoke. Given that we have consistently made it clear that we will use this power only to protect people where there is a significant risk of exposure to second-hand smoke, we had no objections to amendment No. 4, which raised the threshold for its use under the Bill. The amendment means that it would only be possible to make an additional place smoke free where ““in the authority’s opinion””—that of the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales—"““there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.””" That wording makes it clear that the power cannot be used in cases where exposure to second-hand smoke is unlikely or very limited. Amendment No. 36 makes any regulations to make vehicles smoke free under clause 5 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That issue was raised in Committee, where I said that I would be inclined to think about it. The Government tabled the amendment following the recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which noted that the power in clause 5 could potentially be used to make private vehicles smoke free. Although we have absolutely no intention of using the power in that way, the amendment provides further reassurance, as no regulations under the clause can now be made without the prior agreement of Parliament. On amendment No. 12, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) for championing this cause and to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for doing likewise. Hon. Members may recall that clause 30 was introduced on Report in the Commons, with cross-party support. It gives the Secretary of State the power to raise the minimum age for sales of tobacco products through secondary legislation by the affirmative resolution procedure. When introduced, it specified that the age limit could be changed only to an age not lower than 16 but did not specify an upper age limit. Concern was expressed in the other place that the clause could allow the minimum legal age for sales of tobacco products to be raised to 21. Although that has never been our intention, we were happy to table amendment No. 12, which specifies that the minimum age for sales of tobacco products cannot be higher than 18. I am sure that hon. Members know that public consultation on whether to use the power is under way. All the amendments in the group have improved the Bill and I commend them to hon. Members.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c180-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Codes of practice Age Fraud Hospitals Health hazards Drugs Infectious diseases NHS Motor vehicles Powers of entry Personal records Public places Passive smoking MRSA Performing arts Sales Young people Smoking
Legislation
Health Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk