---

Smoke-free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007

Like the noble Earl, I intend to resist the temptation to go over the debates that we had during the passage of the Health Bill. I also congratulate my noble friend and the Government on producing what is now a coherent and what will be an immensely popular policy when the new regulations come into force on 1 July. It is one of those rare occasions when public mood and government policy are wholly in tune. The experience that we will have in England is the experience that has already occurred in all those countries that have gone smoke free before us. The noble Baroness has referred to Ireland, and the noble Lord has referred to Scotland. Until lunchtime today, I was travelling back from New Zealand, which went entirely smoke free in 2004. The opposition to the Bill in New Zealand was probably stronger than it was in any part of the British Isles. There was a fear that businesses would suffer and that there would be considerable reluctance on the part of native New Zealanders to observe it. That has not been the case. The law is rigorously enforced in New Zealand, not by armies of inspectors, but by the pressure of the public just saying to people, ““Excuse me, you cannot smoke here””. In none of the places where smoke-free legislation applied in New Zealand was there any hint that people were flouting it. In the hotel bedrooms, there are rather fierce notices saying that the room is non-smoking, and if you smoke they will clean the room and charge you a supplementary amount for doing so. A number of hotels that I was staying in had notices to that effect. I think that these regulations are fine. I was a little unhappy about one or two of the exemptions that were included, but I understood why they were. My one question to my noble friend is whether there will be an opportunity in perhaps two or three years’ time to review these regulations to see whether it is necessary, for example, to allow West End theatre productions to continue with smoking on the stage. I do not think that we should have made that concession; it has not been made elsewhere. But, as I say, I do not want to carp or cavil. I regret also that the legislation will not apply to areas where substantial numbers of people congregate but that are technically in the open air. I amthinking particularly of sports stadiums that are in the open and not covered. The inconvenience and unpleasantness caused by tobacco smoke from smokers around one in a stadium is very substantial. Happily, the Football League is going entirely smoke-free off its own bat from next season. I hope that the other leagues in England and Scotland will follow. The same applies to railway stations and bus stations where large numbers of people congregate. Those places are technically not enclosed but people can suffer great inconvenience and possibly have their health damaged as a result of breathing in second-hand smoke. As I say, however, I believe that this is another chapter on what is going to be a very successful policy. I commend my noble friend on introducing it.