Health Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned Sir Richard Doll. I distinctly remember hearing the late Sir Richard saying on the ““Today”” programme that he would not favour a ban on smoking in public places. We should keep that very much in mind in view of the fame that he has in relation to smoking. I must declare an interest because although I am not a smoker—I have not smoked for many years—I am a member of the Lords and Commons pipe and cigar smoking club. I find the company I keep there very congenial indeed. The second-hand smoke of the other members does not worry me one bit. Going home last night in my car, I was thinking about my life in politics. I have been in politics virtually all my life: I joined the Labour Party in 1947, which was a long time ago. I well remember the late Lord Shawcross, when he was Attorney-General, getting up in the House of Commons and saying, ““We are the masters now””. There was outrage at that statement because it was just after the war and people had memories of the master race. But it was not only that, because at that time the people who represented other people in the House of Commons believed that they were there not as masters of the people, but as the servants of the people. Elected representatives forget that at the country’s peril. I believe that that is what has happened in the House of Commons in relation to this Bill. The duty of elected representatives is to ensure justice and fairness to all citizens, even minorities. Indeed, we hear a lot from the present Government about safeguarding the rights of minorities, except, of course, smokers. If you are a minority smoker, then you are everybody’s bat and the order is to get rid of you as soon as possible, to get rid of the awful habit. That is not democracy; it is autocracy at its worst. I regret that the House of Commons rejected the just and fair way to deal with smoking in public places, which is separation to give consideration both to smokers and non-smokers, and instead used the most vicious authoritarianism and divisiveness to deal with the problem of so-called passive smoking. What about the manifesto commitment that was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Monson, and perhaps by other noble Lords as well? The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to what the Leader of the House said in relation to the future of this House two days ago. However, we have a more up-to-date comment than that. Yesterday, in the debate on Commons amendments to the Terrorism Bill, the House was told that it must abide by manifesto commitments. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said:"““the manifesto said:""‘we will introduce new laws to help catch and convict those involved in helping to plan terrorist activity or who glorify or condone acts of terror’.""I respectfully suggest that that could not have been clearer. We should demonstrate to our electorate that we take its views seriously””.—[Official Report, 28/02/06; col. 137.]" There could not be a clearer statement than that that the Government wish to honour their manifesto commitments—except, apparently, in respect of smoking because, as we have heard, the manifesto has not been adhered to. Yesterday, we were being told that we must honour manifesto commitments; today, we are being told to ignore a manifesto commitment. The Government cannot have it both ways. Of course, the Government think that they have got out of it by having a free vote, which is a government device to get around the manifesto. But every Labour Member of Parliament was bound by that manifesto. They went to the electorate on it and they fought the election on it, so they have the same duty as the Government to ensure that it is carried out. Labour MPs cannot ignore manifesto commitments with impunity while everybody else apparently has to comply with them to the letter. I am afraid that Britain becomes more like a one-party state every day when this sort of thing goes on. This legislation is being claimed as a measure to protect the health of people in areas where people smoke. All sorts of figures—we have heard some of them this afternoon—have been bandied about on the numbers involved. As has already been said today, in November last year, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, said that 54 people from the hospitality industry and 617 from other workplaces die in Britain every year from the effects of second-hand smoke. That is statistical evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, dealt very well with the statistical part of this matter this afternoon. He will be quoted all over the world, make no mistake about that. The figures that he gave were very significant and came from an expert source. However, no clinical evidence has been produced, only statistical evidence. We are still waiting for clinical evidence. The figures are simply estimates. Those figures pale into insignificance compared with the number of deaths from alcoholism. That number is many times greater—and I have not mentioned fights and killings outside public houses and the injuries that they cause, or wife and child beating. People who are interested in social affairs should consider the wives and children who are beaten up by drunks when they go home after drinking too much every Saturday night, and perhaps every night of the week. What about them? And, of course, there are the millions of days that are lost through overindulgence in alcohol and the damage that that does to the country’s economy. On the basis of actual harm, not simply of statistics—and it is actual harm; we know about the children and the wives who are beaten, and the people who are knifed outside the pubs—it would be more sensible to ban alcohol, rather than smoking, in public places. But, of course, no one would suggest that, would they? Well, not at the moment, although that time may come under this Government. If they can get away with a ban on smoking in public places, who knows where they will ban it next? The noble Baroness told us today what the next step is—a complete ban on smoking at home or wherever else. Just think of the problems that that would cause with policing and people interfering in people’s homes.