---

Smoke-free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations with her customary clarity. We all remember the extensive debates on these matters during the passage of last year's Health Bill. I do not intend to use this occasion to stage a rerun of any of the issues of principle contained in it. However, one or two matters of detail arise from her speech on which I would appreciate clarification. I welcome one particular set of regulations, the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Order. Most of the impetus for the smoking restrictions contained in the Health Act originated from a wish to curb the incidence of second-hand tobacco smoke and the health effects of passive smoking, but Section 13 of the Act was insertedwith a view to bearing down directly on smoking prevalence. I am very pleased that the results of the consultation on this issue have enabled the Government to make the order, as it is important and potentially beneficial for the nation's health in the long term. On enforcement, research in the United States has shown that the more stringently and vigorously such regulation is enforced—I am talking now about the sale of tobacco to young people—the more likely it is that smoking rates among the young will fall. Of course, retail outlets are not the only places where children buy cigarettes. My worry is that illicit sources of tobacco will substitute for the sources that this order will close off. Are the Government’s predictions about reduced cigarette consumption a little on the optimistic side, given that the black market in smuggled cigarettes is difficult to police and given that the enforcement effort that is planned to back up these regulations does not look as though it will beall that energetic? It seems to me that effective enforcement in this area is likely to produce a greater health dividend than enforcement directed towards smoke-free premises, which to a large extent should be self-policing. For the sake of the retail trade, can the Government do anything to encourage the uptakeby young people of cards which demonstrate proofof age? Perhaps they could also encourage a consolidation of the various different card schemes so that retailers are in a much better position to know for certain that the prospective purchaser of a packet of cigarettes is not under age. I now move to the regulations covering exemptions and vehicles. There is one feature of these in particular that I was surprised to see. Regulation 10 contains an exemption for designated rooms in adult mental health units. However, the exemption is for12 months only. Can the Minister say why the Government have adopted a different approach towards mental health units from the one that they have taken, for example, towards prisons? Presumably they have consulted the relevant professional bodies on this issue. Is she satisfied that the special circumstances of mental health patients, many of whom find smoking to be therapeutic and a source of relaxation, have been taken fully into account? I am concerned that a complete ban in mental health establishments may prove difficult for patients and staff alike. Regulation 3 covers private accommodation. The exclusions in paragraph (2) do not seem to me to be comprehensive. There are exclusions for carers and domestic workers, builders and maintenance men who work in private dwellings. What about people who work in other capacities, such as carpet fitters and furniture delivery men? It does not seem to me that they fit into the definitions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). I should like to ask about performances. During our debates on the Bill, I was extremely grateful to the Government for agreeing to introduce an amendment exempting theatrical and other performances from the smoke-free regulations. There is a specific provision in Section 3(8) of the Act to cover not only performances but also rehearsals. However, the regulations before us appear to cover only performances. There is no mention of rehearsals, unless ““performance”” is taken to include rehearsal. Can the Minister say why that is? I should perhaps say that Equity and the Society of London Theatre, among others, have expressed their concern about this. I am sure I do not need to tell her that it is almost impossible to expect an actor to smoke during a performance on stage, especially if he or she is a non-smoker, unless they have previously been able to rehearse doing so. Regulation 9 covers research. Could the Minister tell me whether research that is specifically market-related is covered? I am thinking here of research conducted by a tobacco company designed to test consumer reaction to different brands. If that is not allowed for, why not? I was concerned to read recently that substantial sums of public money—£29.5 million—are to be made available to local authorities to fund the training and deployment of under-cover anti-smoking enforcement officers in pubs and clubs. We all recognise that these regulations have to be enforced, but this does look like a particularly heavy-handed and, frankly, over-zealous way of setting about it. Can the Minister comment on this? Can she also comment on the enforcement of the regulations in so far as they apply to vehicles? I find it difficult to imagine how it will be possible to tell whether a vehicle is being used for business or private purposes in any given situation; or indeed how effective policing will be possible at all. As regards the application of the regulations, what about hire cars, which have an inherently ambiguous status? Presumably there is nothing to prevent someone smoking in a hire car if he or she is using it for private purposes: but if he does smoke, will that render the car unusable by anyone else? Presumably not. To get round this problem, can she say whether car hire firms will be able to designate some vehicles in their fleets as smoke-free vehicles and some non-smoke-free? What about company pool cars which can be allocated to employees without restriction and may be used for private purposes as well as for business? If a user of a pool car smokes while driving it for private purposes, what are the implications of his doing so for other potential users of the car, or are there none? The Minister will gather from this that I do not find the wording of Regulation 11 to be wholly clear. Did I understand her correctly, that the exemption for private vehicles applies at all times irrespective of the use of the vehicle, even though the primary purpose of the use is private? I have a concern about the proposed fines. Naturally, I realise that the penalty levels quoted in the regulation are maxima and do not necessarily represent the likely average level of fine. However, why is the maximum fine for a licensee or pub owner for failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place as much as £2,500, when in Scotland the figure is only £250? What can be the justification for that? And why is there such a large difference between the maximum fine of £2,500 for a licensee in England for failing to prevent smoking and the maximum fine for a smoker, which is only £50, with a reduction to £30 if they pay soon? Finally, I should like to ask the Minister about litter. More and more smokers will be forced to smoke outside once these regulations come into force. What steps will the Government take to bring to the attention of employers their duty of care to ensure that littering does not occur outside places of work? Is the Minister aware that to place a small bin outside any listed building for cigarette ends—they are known as butt bins—requires planning permission? The result in many areas is that there are no bins at all, and the problem of littering is very considerable. Can anything be done to make it easier for the owners of listed buildings to put butt bins outside them? I hope the Minister will be able to shed light on these questions either today or, failing that, perhaps by letter.