Health Bill

If we are debating clause stand part, we are questioning whether the clause in its entirety should stand part of the Bill. That is what we are debating, and in that case we are entitled to raise any measure that is covered by Clause 1. That is what ““stand part of the Bill”” means. I am very willing to get on if people would stop interrupting me, but I am going to have my say whether you like it or not, whether the Government like it or not, and whether or not the Minister wants me to sit down. As I and other Members have said, this Bill is the wrong vehicle for this sort of restriction of rights and freedoms of people to smoke in certain public places. Therefore, this clause has no place in it. We had quite a lot of debate about whether the Bill was necessary to prevent people like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, from being disturbed and, in his terms, ““poisoned”” by other people’s smoke. I must repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said: there is no reason why that should happen. It is perfectly possible to separate smokers and non-smokers in different rooms. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, shakes his head. He is perhaps not old enough to remember the time when we had smoking rooms in virtually every pub. That is what we are asking for now—that there should be smoking rooms. If people want to smoke, or be with smokers, they should simply go into those rooms. Provided that they are properly ventilated, that will not hurt anyone at all. It is possible to have separation. People simply do not accept that there is any other way than a total ban, when it is possible to respect everyone’s views, by separation. Why is it that the smoker is under such virulent and vicious attack? Why is it just the smoker? Why is it not vehicles? You do not have to worry about statistical evidence—there is actual evidence of 3,500 people being killed in this country by road vehicles, and 45,000 seriously injured. Another 55,000 are slightly injured. So why are we picking on smokers? Why should users of vehicles not be subject to the same restrictions as are proposed in this Bill? What about binge drinking? Binge drinking and alcoholism cause this country more distress and greater cost than anything else, yet there is no proposal to ban drinking in public places. People do not go home and beat up their wives and children because they have had a cigarette, but they do if they drink too much. Why are we picking on smokers alone? There are many worse things in society than smoking a cigarette or having to inhale other people’s smoke. If we are not careful we will be banning every damn thing. Whether the Minister and other Members of this Committee like it or not, this is an important issue, and it is going to be discussed.