Health Bill

I begin by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the brisk way in which he moved his amendment, which I thought was a model for all of us. I assure him that the Bill will not prevent him enjoying a cigar but, I am afraid, not in an enclosed public place. Amendment No. 5, as I understand it, paves the way for Amendment No. 10. This seeks to allow premises that serve food to continue to allow smoking if certain conditions are fulfilled. The scope of the new clause is wide: it would allow smoking not only in pubs that serve food but also in cafés, restaurants and canteen. In fact, absolutely anywhere that served any food could be exempted. As far as the Government are concerned, allowing smoking in premises that serve food has never been an option. It was not put forward in the Labour Party manifesto and it was not offered as an option in the free vote on Report in the other place. I recognise that the noble Lord has tried to put certain safeguards in place in his new clause. However, I am not persuaded that these would really protect workers or the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. There is very clear evidence that ventilation does not provide any realistic solution to eliminating the health risks associated with second-hand smoke. There is also the conclusion of the Health Select Committee of the other place in its report Smoking in Public Places. Furthermore, any requirement for ventilation would be significantly costly and, considering the lack of effectiveness, an unjustifiable burden for business. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—or whatever name he is currently trading under—cited a very interesting piece of research by D Kotzias and others at the European Commission Joint Research Centre’s INDOORTRON facility. I will not repeat the quotations and evidence that he produced from that other than to say that he could have included another sentence right at the end of the conclusions, which reads as follows:"““Moreover the results show that ‘wind tunnel’ like rates or other high rates of dilution ventilation would be expected to be required to achieve pollutant levels close to ambient air limit values””." I suggest that the noble Lord might not be enjoying his cigar very much in the middle of a wind tunnel, which is where we would be with the kind of ventilation requirements that would be necessary. The new clause proposes that no employee is required to work in a smoking area. I ask the Committee to consider whether this is really practical and whether it would be fair to ask employees to make this choice if, for example, they felt that their job would be at risk if they refused. That would put too many people at risk from second-hand smoke, and I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded not to press his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke to Amendment No. 18, which would reinstate the possibility of exempting licensed premises and membership clubs from the smoke-free provisions. As your Lordships know, on Report in the other place, the Government facilitated a free vote on exactly how far the smoke-free legislation should extend. We put forward three options for the other place to consider and vote upon. The first was to keep the original position of exempting private members’ clubs and pubs which did not serve food. The second was to extend the legislation to all pubs, but keep an exception for private members’ clubs. The third was to extend the legislation to all pubs and private members’ clubs. Members in the other place voted overwhelmingly for the third option, including 47 Conservatives and 47 Liberal Democrats. I believe that we in this Committee should respect that decision and not seek to overturn the will of the House of Commons on this. That was the right decision, made in terms of public health and public opinion, and I urge the Committee to uphold it.