Smoking debate: 'licensees are not the bad guys'

Speaking during the latest debate on the Health Bill, Earl Howe said the ban represented a "significant burden" on licensees, and described the planned £2,500 maximum fine for permitting smoking on the premises as "a very large sum of money indeed".

"We need to keep reminding ourselves that if we are looking for bad guys in this area, we should not pick on pub or club owners or hoteliers, or indeed business generally," he told the House.

"They are not the bad guys, yet under the Bill they will be liable to criminal penalties if they fail to stop a smoker from smoking on smoke-free premises, or if they fail to put up notices of the precise specification in their premises, even if no one in the place smokes or ever has done. Not surprisingly, the pub and hotel trade feels pretty sore about this."

Earl Howe said that there was no need for no-smoking signage to be displayed in pubs if a ban was to apply to virtually all enclosed public spaces - and that a "sunset" clause should be introduced in the legislation, allowing signs to be taken down after three years.

But Labour peer Lord Warner, representing the government, rejected the argument, claiming a lack of signage would result in confusion among pub customers. While over time the statutory signs could become smaller, he added "We do not believe it would be possible to do away with the signs altogether".

"In terms of communicating the policy so as to help people understand and operate within the terms of this new legislation, a sunset clause is not a viable and sensible way forward," he said.

Lord Warner also defended the size of the fines for people allowing smoking, claiming that responses to the Department of Health consultation on the issue last summer had indicated the original fines proposed for the offences were too low.

"The point was clearly made during that public consultation that if fines were too low, and if there was no escalation for repeat offences, some businesses might prefer to pay fines essentially as a business cost in order to secure revenue from smokers," he said. "I am confident that these increased fine levels will result in better compliance with smoke-free legislation, which of course will make enforcement easier."