Clause 3 - Exemptions
Health Bill
4:15 pm
George Young (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Illsley, and the Committee, for not being here for the beginning of the debate on these important issues. I was chairing a Select Committee sitting next door.
The clause deals with exemptions. The position that I took on Second Reading was that there should not be any exemptions, as they represent a fatal flaw in the Bill. I shall not rehearse those arguments, but I note that of the 21 interventions in that debate from Government Members, 18 expressed some impatience—I put it no stronger than that—with the Government's progress towards a smoke-free environment. It remains to be seen how many of those 18 are represented in the Committee. It may be that the responsibility of articulating that view falls on the slender shoulders of Opposition Members.
I start from the position that there should not be any exemptions, but my amendment would give an element of compromise by putting a two-year cap on the exemption period, so that there would be, if not quite a sunset clause, a stubbing-out clause on smoking in public premises. I understand that there is not an enormous gap between my position with the amendment and that of the Secretary of State, who said on BBC's ''Sunday AM'' programme on 27 November:
''I have said several times before, I think it is only a matter of time before we get to a total ban.''
According to a report of a Labour party meeting—to which, obviously, I was not privy—by Matthew Tempest on 29 November:
''The health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, tonight held out an olive branch to critics of the government's partial ban on smoking in pubs, hinting that the prohibition could apply to all pubs by 2010.''
If one adds two years to the inception date of the Bill, which is likely to be 2007, my amendment would mean that the exemptions would have to stop by 2009—merely one year ahead of the timetable suggested by the Secretary of State. If we are to come to a satisfactory compromise and avoid a confrontation on Report, the Committee should consider agreeing to a settlement close to that proposed in my amendment or in the other amendments in the group.
If it is, indeed, only a matter of time before we get to a total ban, I do not see much advantage in leaving a period of uncertainty ahead for the industry and the health lobby. When the Minister replies, will she confirm that it is Government policy that it is only a matter of time before we get to a total ban? That might not be wonderful news for the Secretary of State for Defence, but it would at least produce some clarity of purpose and intention regarding Government policy on health. It would also be in the industry's interests to have some certainty about when the end of exemptions will be. The two-year extension to exemptions that I propose would give the industry some certainty and time to plan for the transition to a smoke-free environment, rather than leaving a further period of uncertainty, which is the current position with the time scale of two or three years followed by a review with an uncertain outcome.
I recognise that there may need to be consequential amendments to my amendment if one is to restore to the Bill the sensible exemptions in, for example, subsection (2)(a). Subsection (2)(b) is the particular object of my amendment to knock out the exemption for licensed premises.
This is a consensual bridge-building amendment that seeks to get the Government out of a difficulty in which they find themselves. I hope that the Minister will reply in the same spirit to my genuine attempt to solve the Government's problems and difficulties.