Health Bill

I feel that I should respond briefly. It pains me greatly to have to disagree with my noble friend, but I put on record that the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats does not support my noble friend Lord Steel’s amendment. That is precisely for the reasons that I was vigorously shaking my head when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was speaking about the possibility of separation and the ability to provide smoke-free areas alongside areas where people were entitled to smoke. At the core of this is the fact that ventilation systems are not shown to be adequate to protect employees and those who do not wish to experience other people’s smoke. They are not adequate, and they have been demonstrated not to be adequate. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who is always very keen on references, as is the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the research. The research was carried out by Mr Kotzias and others at the European Commission Joint Research Centre’s INDOORTRON facility. They concluded that,"““changes in ventilation rates simulating conditions expected in many residential and commercial environments during smoking do not have a significant influence on the air concentration levels of ETS constituents, e.g. CO2 NOx, aromatic compounds, nicotine . . . This suggests that efforts to reduce ETS originated indoor air pollution through higher ventilation rates in buildings, including residential areas and hospitality venues, would not lead to a meaningful improvement in indoor air quality.””" All that goes to show is the fact that it is not possible to produce adequate ventilation. My noble friend Lord Steel uses the word ““adequate”” in his amendment. The problem is that there is no such thing as adequate ventilation that can protect those workers and those who are sitting in, for instance, the smoke-free area of the restaurant, from other people’s smoke. That is the essence of it. For that reason, the Front Bench of my party supports the current formulation in the Bill.