Health Bill

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. He put his finger on the point: those who do not wish to smoke should not suffer from second-hand smoke, but those who wish to smoke should be allowed to. That is the essence of what we are talking about. I declare an interest as a proud member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club, although I smoke neither pipes nor cigars. Like my noble friend Lord Naseby, I wish to concentrate on Part 1 of the Bill, particularly Clause 3, which deals with private membership clubs. Clause 3 gives the illustrative example of homes and places of permanent or temporary living accommodation, including hotels, care homes—as the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, mentioned—and prisons, as places that may be exempted by regulation. As an aside, I can see a farcical situation developing in prisons, where the prisoners concerned can smoke, as they are exempted. But what about the prison warders? That is their place of work. Are they allowed to smoke? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. Clause 3 continues specifically to prohibit the exemption of premises having a premises licence or club premises certificate under the Licensing Act 2003, which includes of course pubs, bars and private membership clubs. There is a special case for genuine private membership clubs. The licensing regime recognises that genuine membership clubs are significantly different from licensed premises. There is a technicality on the two different types of licensing, but I will not bore your Lordships or take up their time on that one. As my noble friend Lord Naseby rightly said, clubs holding a club premises certificate—that is the difference between a normal licensing certificate and one that affects clubs—are run by their members, who choose freely to associate with each other. They are run principally for the benefit of their members, and under their rules there is accountability to the members of the club who determine how the club is managed and operated. Surely a private institution like that can make up its own mind. No one is obliging anybody to become a member of such a club, but if you are a member of a club why can’t you indulge in smoking if you so wish? I have done quite a lot of trawling of press reports. I do not normally rely that much on what the gentlemen of the press say, so I have tried to give as wide a spectrum on this as I could. I shall quote extracts in no particular order. There was an interesting comment on 19 February from the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in the Mail on Sunday:"““MPs think they have the right to stop us smoking, if we wish to do so, on private premises in the company of friends . . . It is an invasion of private freedom; it is an abuse of power of Parliament, none the better for being carried on a free vote of the House of Commons. They use their free vote to take away our personal freedom””." I then found one in the Yorkshire Post—not exactly the same as the Mail on Sunday—of 15 February:"““The smoking ban agreed last night is an illiberal piece of legislation that severely restricts freedoms of choice and the rights of publicans and club owners to run their businesses as they see fit””." Then from the Sun—normally a periodical or newspaper that I would have thought supported the present Government:"““We always knew New Labour were a bunch of control freaks. Now, with this ludicrous and unnecessary smoking ban, they stand as out-and-out fascists””." Switching slightly now, in political terms, to the Times—or maybe not switching; I do not know which way the Times leans nowadays—of 16 February:"““The pettiness of this official persecution of smokers (who are not prevented from paying a lot of tax) can hardly be exaggerated.””" My final quote is from the Daily Mirror, again not known to be a supporter of this side of the House, whose correspondent said:"““What riles me is that as part of this government’s manifesto, the deal was a partial ban. They lied. Secondly, we, the British public, have laid down, rolled over and allowed our liberty to be taken away””." I would now like to concentrate on that last point: the manifesto. Again, my noble friend Lord Naseby has done a great service in bringing that to the fore. Let me just quote the relevant sentence in the Labour Party manifesto and then elaborate slightly on that. The manifesto said:"““In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free.””" The Government have been increasingly praying in aid their election manifesto. As recently as two days ago the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House, in a slightly testy 10 minutes just after Question Time, prayed in aid with relevance to the reform of this House. That is not the point, but the subject matter is. The point that I submit is that she said:"““My Lords, government policy on House of Lords reform was set out in a manifesto on which this Government won an election last year””." In the space of 10 minutes, she used that argument three times. The last of them, chronologically, was:"““The Government’s policy on House of Lords reform remains as set out in our manifesto last year””.—[Official Report, Lords, 27/2/06; cols. 11-13.]" The Government cannot have it both ways. I suggest that there is a certain amount of cherry-picking going on here. When it suits, the manifesto is called in aid; when it does not suit, it seems to be torn up. Other noble Lords may have got the letter that I received this morning. It is on the subject of ID cards, which indeed is coming back to your Lordships’ House next Monday, if I remember correctly. It is nothing to do with this Bill at all, but with the point of the manifesto:"““I believe that Tony Blair and his Government, by stating in their manifesto that ID cards would be voluntary, have created a sense of apathy among the general public, myself included””." I repeat: either the manifesto is adhered to or it is not, and it was made very clear in the Government’s manifesto in May last year that private clubs would be exempted. I certainly will be supporting my noble friend Lord Naseby, if he sees fit to put down an amendment on that subject. Just one final comment: it is a personal one and to me rather surprising. My wife is vehemently anti-smoking. She hates my smoking and tells me so on numerous occasions. But when the ban on private clubs was passed in another place some 10 days ago, she went incandescent with rage and said, ““How dare they invade the right of private individuals to do what they want on their own premises?”” I give that as one illustration and I do not believe that it will be unique.