The House of Lords continued its debate of the Government's Health Bill yesterday with several peers expressing concern about the 'open-ended' definitions in the legislation.
They called on the Government to clearly define which areas would be covered by smoke-free legislation and ensure that extending the legislation to new areas could not be done too easily.
Lord Naseby and the Earl of Liverpool were among those who said the current wording of the bill in relation to 'enclosed and open air public places' needed firming up.
The Earl of Liverpool raised concerns that unless the wording was more definite you could end up with smoking being banned from pub beer gardens as well.
He said: "I am concerned that Clause 4 is far too draconian. It states 'the place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed' - so you could end up in a situation where a beer garden could fall within this restrictive clause. What could this lead to? It could lead to a completely totalitarian banning of smoking everywhere. I think that is the point."
Tory Peer Lord Naseby told the committee in the Moses Room of the House of Lords: "We are dealing with a piece of primary legislation which has got to be enforced - so these vague statements are not helpful."
He added: "We must not produce a bill which leaves us in doubt. We must get this right so people in the hospitality industry can be clear."
Labour peer Lord Faulkner didn't mention beer gardens but said: "We expect some open air areas, which are open to the public, such as sports stadia, to be smoke free."
To comment on this or any other story email us by clicking this link
Robert Feal-Martinez, 09/05/2006What stood out this time was that the anti-smokers pro-ban Lords were losing the arguement. This was evident when Lord Faulkener accused Lord Naseby of misleading the committee. Lord Faulkener was forced to withdraw the suggestion. This is a classic tactic which is used time and again to discredit any opposition. Far from the BII believing we should move on there is all to fight for.
Mandy Vincent, 09/05/2006Well it is great that some Lords are trying to fight this, shame the publicans-apart from a few are not fighting harder for Ventilation for those who would like to give a choice to their customers. If this ban goes through without ventilation, then I will only be going to pubs with non-smoking hubby during the summer months. You who do not want to fight it and want to go smoke free, that is your choice. But for those who are going to be forced into it are you fighting hard enough.
If ventilation is good enough for workers in hazardous factory jobs ect. Then it must be good enough in pubs who wish to go down that route work surely. When you have to start putting scales inside the doors and turning cuddly people away because believe me that is already coming. DO NOT count on me for any support will you.