Health Bill

This is a wrap-up speech; I apologise for using the wrong words. Everything hinges on the harm that smoking does to non-smokers. It is not about the harm smoking does to smokers—on that there is no real dispute. But the question of the danger to non-smokers is the key.That is an essential part of how you would approach the matter from a liberal background. You do not have any right to object and stop me doing something unless I am doing you harm. The fact that what I do may cause you irritation or disquiet or even some distress does not give you the right to stop me doing it unless you are doing me harm. Whether you are doing me harm or not is a scientific issue; it depends partly on the medical evidence in this case, and partly on statistical evidence. That is why the Government have to make the argument in this form. I am absolutely sure that the majority of the medical profession and many others would like a total ban on smoking, not on the grounds of the harm it does to non-smokers but on the grounds of the harm it does to smokers. That is the basic agenda, but it cannot be openly avowed—not if you have any vestige of liberal principle. So it has to be done this way. Therefore, there is an interest among all people who want a ban on smoking because of the harm it does to smokers to exaggerate the harm it does to non-smokers. I am not an epidemiologist but I know a little about statistics. I assert that the harm wrought by passive smoking to the lungs, the heart and other vital organs is statistically negligible. It is not something that would have any statistical significance outside the context of this particularly heated debate. Therefore, I believe that Dr K Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemotosis Research Foundation states the true position:"““The hard evidence for any deleterious effect of second-hand smoke is so tenuous and equivocal, that similar evidence would not be seriously considered, let alone published, in any other field of medicine””." Against that, we have Ministers and parliamentary committees shouting figures from the rooftops. Patricia Hewitt says that premature deaths from passive smoking number thousands every year. The House of Commons Select Committee on Health refers to 12,000 extra deaths. Yet the eminent epidemiologist, Sir Richard Peto, said that it was impossible to quantify the figures. I was there—he was giving that evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. I pressed him repeatedly to name a figure, and he said, ““I can’t do it””. He said, ““I feel there must be some effect, but I cannot quantify that effect””. That is in contrast to the repeated government statements that the effect is quantifiably sufficiently great to justify a sledgehammer measure—not to justify accommodation for non-smokers in public buildings, not to justify separating them and not to justify all the measures that are already in train, but to justify a total ban. I do not believe that the harm that passive smoking might cause can in any way justify this measure—that is, criminalising all smoking in any public space. The most that it could justify is measures to provide non-smokers with smoke-free environments for work or recreation, preferably by voluntary arrangements backed by regulation and licensing. Most of those are already in train. Therefore, I assert that this is a disproportionate response to the harm done by passive smoking, and it is a disproportionate response that arises because the real object of the measure is to reduce the harm to smokers. That is the position that has been taken by all the columnists, opinion-formers and legislators who have consistently shown a concern for personal liberty. I accuse the Government of not showing a due concern for personal liberty. You can cite opinion polls and surveys which point to rapidly shifting opinion, but what sort of argument is that? The opinion can shift in another way in the next six months. You cannot use those sorts of fluctuating figures as a defence, and, in any event, that misses out the point of principle. Lots of things that people might want to do are profoundly illiberal, but the fact that they want to do them is no justification for any government who believe in any kind of liberalism to go along with it. My position in this debate is a concern for personal liberty and that is why I do not want this clause to go forward.