Health Bill

My Lords, I am quite content to rely on Hansard when the time comes and see whether it was four days or 15 minutes in a different context. I will certainly look at that. Four days is pretty hyperbolic in my book. The BMA’s 2002 report concluded that there are at least 1,000 preventable deaths every year as a result of passive smoking. The side effects include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, middle ear disease and asthma attacks. We have heard that both the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing support a complete ban in enclosed public spaces and we on these Benches agree. Alone among the parties, we included that in our manifesto at last year’s general election. A partial smoking ban would have continued to leave workers at risk of the effects of second-hand smoke. That is why we welcome Part 1 as it left the other place. If an exemption had been left in place for pubs not serving food, pubs currently serving food might well have stopped that facility if so doing would have allowed them to qualify as exempt. Various noble Lords have waxed lyrical on the virtues of licensed clubs. Exempting licensed clubs—there are some 20,000 of them—would have driven a coach and horses through the Bill. Why should workers in pubs be entitled to be protected but not those in private licensed clubs? I see no logic in exempting licensed clubs. A further advantage of a total ban is that as lower-paid workers such as bar staff are exposed to higher levels of second-hand smoke than other workers it will help to reduce health inequalities. Furthermore, under the previous provisions, 45 per cent of the pubs in the most deprived areas would have been exempt compared to 14 per cent in the least deprived. There are strong issues in addressing health inequalities derived from Part 1 as well. Having visited Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, mentioned, I am convinced that the issue of compliance and enforcement will not loom large. If Ireland can enforce the law and publicans and others can ply in the way that they do to a large extent, then, frankly, in England, Scotland and Wales we will be able to do the same. I turn to ventilation systems, which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned. While removing the smell of smoke, they cannot effectively remove the harmful chemicals in smoke. Recent research from Australia has shown that designated no-smoking areas in hospitality venues provide at best partial protection and at worst no protection at all against the effects of second-hand smoke. Ventilation is not affected and any smoking indoors will continue to pollute the air. Indeed, the paper’s summary says that tornado-like qualities of ventilation are needed to have any effect. To rely on ventilation as a panacea is relying on something that is not a reality. It is even clear that a ban on workplace smoking, including pubs and clubs, is popular, as the YouGov poll taken last December showed. The arguments for a total ban are founded on health and safety grounds, as many noble Lords have made clear. For reasons of protection of the workforce and fellow residents or inmates, I also favour a complete ban on smoking in care homes and prisons. I hope that during Committee we will be considering that matter, which was also mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Rendell and Lady Masham. I also wholeheartedly take on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. We cannot simply airbrush out of our artistic culture the fact that over many years people have smoked; whether it is represented on the stage, in films or in other forms of art. On these Benches we are sympathetic to that point, particularly in my role as a DCMS spokesman; I am only here on loan, as my noble friend made clear. This is a basic health and safety issue. A smoke-free environment should be the norm where non-smokers work. They should have the freedom to work in an environment free of damaging substances. That is where I believe that the freedom issue lies; not in the freedom to smoke in the presence of others, but being free of other people’s smoke that can damage one’s health. The Government do not and should not seek to legislate over individuals’ smoking habits in their own homes. By the way, noble Lords who said that there would not be displacement were entirely right. None of the evidence demonstrates that there will be displacement as a result of a public smoking ban. It is the Government’s role to provide a safe environment in enclosed spaces in the public sphere and where people work. In addition to the immediate effect on employees and customers, there are of course wider benefits to be reaped in banning smoking. Such a ban would clearly help to reduce smoking in the population at large. That can only be a good thing. No-smoking laws have been shown to support smokers to quit. In Ireland, a survey by the National Smokers’ Quitline service revealed that about 10,000 smokers reported that they had reduced their consumption since the ban came into force. According to the Irish Revenue Commissioners, cigarette sales fell by nearly 16 per cent in the first six months of the ban. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, will have views on those facts, but they are the facts that I have to hand. Similarly, in New York City there are now an estimated 200,000 fewer smokers than when a ban was introduced in 2002—a 15 per cent decrease. Smoke-free laws have also reduced smoking rates across all population groups. Surely a similar effect in England would be good news for the nation’s health. As we have heard, the Government’s own estimates suggest that a smoking ban would encourage some 600,000 to 700,000 people to give up smoking. Crucially, research by the Chief Medical Officer has shown that fewer young people would take up smoking if their workplace was smoke free, possibly reducing smoking rates by a third among the 300,000 16 year-olds who start work each year. Opponents have raised spurious economic figures to show the damage to the hospitality sector, but if we take the Irish experience, which is close to what we expect ours to be, the volume of sales in beer, wine, spirits and food in pubs rose by 5.3 per cent in the year to last October, and the value of sales by 4.2 per cent; which reverses a longstanding decline in sales of those products in previous years. The same is true in New York according to the New York City authorities. In fact, estimates by the Chief Medical Officer are that a ban could benefit the British economy by up to £2.7 billion; an impressive figure. Finally, we should note the words of the BMA’s head of science and ethics, Dr Vivienne Nathanson:"““The medical profession is united in its calls for a total ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces. Recent research reports that second-hand smoke kills 30 people each day. The situation in New York, Ireland and other cities and countries that have gone smoke-free show that these policies do not harm business, they do not cost jobs. The policies are popular, they encourage people to quit and they protect health and save lives. What possible argument is there for not implementing a total ban?””." The Bill also has the benefit of bringing England in line with Scotland, which has passed legislation introducing a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places that will come into force on 26 March. The Welsh Assembly also last year voted for a complete workplace ban. I hope that England will follow that example and I wholeheartedly support Part 1.