Health Bill

I said before I made my remarks quoting that poll that it was a fast-changing situation. I was giving the noble Lord a poll from December 2005. The ONS poll to which he refers relates to 2004. I am arguing that the pace of change in public opinion is considerable, and that is reflected in the differences between those two polls. Given the health hazards associated with second-hand smoke, together with the strength of public opinion and the decisive vote in the other place on the virtues of comprehensive smoke-free legislation, the Government should not be expected to sit on their hands for nearly two and half years before implementing this important legislation. To accept Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 108 would mean that England would languish far behind other parts of the United Kingdom in protecting people from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. Scotland has already successfully introduced smoke-free legislation, and Wales and Northern Ireland are expected to implement their smoke-free provisions by the summer of next year. I have a good deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We know some elements of the hospitality industry are concerned about the potential impact that smoke-free legislation will have on their business and we can understand their apprehension. However, the experience in countries where smoke-free legislation has been introduced has shown that there has been very little demonstrable impact in economic terms on the hospitality industry. The Government have carefully evaluated that international evidence, and have every reason to expect that a similar pattern will emerge in England once smoke-free legislation has been implemented. Indeed, some argue that more people might be encouraged into venues such as pubs, clubs and restaurants if they are smoke-free, which will be good for business. I can mention, for example, that there were widespread reports last week of a rise in takings across the Scottish pub trade, including positive comments from Belhaven, the Scottish brewer and previous major opponent to the ban, which revealed a 9 per cent rise in sales volume for the year so far. Belhaven expects the ban to open up good opportunities in the future. I understand that the Federation of Small Businesses, in its recent survey of members, found that 25 per cent of business owners thought that a ban on smoking in public places would not adversely affect their business, compared with a much smaller proportion that did see a negative impact. That survey collected information from close to 19,000 small businesses across the United Kingdom. Together with the internationally derived evidence about the effectiveness of smoke-free legislation in protecting people from the health risks associated with second-hand smoke, there is no justifiable reason in our view to delay the implementation of smoke-free legislation any later than the summer of next year. I therefore do not intend to support the amendments in this grouping. I welcome the support given to this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I understand and welcome the sentiment behind Amendment No. 107, which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, have tabled. They clearly appreciate the importance of implementing smoke-free legislation as soon as practically possible. I also well understand why they have chosen national no-smoking day next year as the proposed start date. However, together with many stakeholders, the Government believe that the right time of the year to introduce this legislation is the summer. We have therefore stated our intention that this legislation should come into force in the summer of 2007. That brings forward the date for general workplaces by around six months and for licensed premises by around 18 months from that proposed in Choosing Health. Based on the experiences of other jurisdictions and the need to give people sufficient time to prepare for what I accept will be a major change to large areas of public and working life, we believe that this is the appropriate timing. As ASH pointed out in its response to the consultation,"““It would be easier to win public consent for the new legislation if on the day of introduction it did not require smokers to go and smoke outside in winter weather””." I hope that people will accept these explanations and not seek to press their amendments.