Health Bill

In my reply to the remarks on the amendment, I should begin by saying that I only ever saw Clement Davies once. I know that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones thinks that I am of some antiquity but my only claim to fame in that direction—which is perhaps rather controversial at the present time—is that I was the last holder of the Lloyd George Fund. That is the only part to which I will plead guilty. The Government have got to make a convincing case as to why smoking has to be compulsorily banned everywhere in the interests of health. This is a health Bill and I do not think they have made that case convincingly. I quite accept that people have a right to work in places that are smoke free and I accept that they have a right to go to public restaurants and bars and places that are smoke free—and my amendment provides for that—but I have yet to hear the argument as to why there has to be a total ban on those who wish to smoke. If we start down that path, why is there not going to be a total ban on alcohol? Why do we not go back to the days of prohibition? That would be a good health measure but it has not been proposed. I am certainly not convinced by the Government’s argument fundamentally against this series of amendments in principle. As to the point made by my noble friend about adequate ventilation, we are not talking about adequate ventilation for those who dislike smoking; we are talking about ventilation in smoking areas. Perhaps my mistake is to include the word ““inadequate””. I remember going to a music event in a pub in my former constituency where there was no ventilation at all. It was absolutely appalling. The windows were closed, the music was in a corner and people were puffing away. It was extremely unpleasant. All I am saying is that any smoking room should have ventilation. I do not pretend for a minute that it will protect people from smoke. After all, if they are in a smoking room they know that they will be exposed to smoke. That is the whole point. So we do not need to go into mechanical devices or wind tunnels or anything else; we are simply talking about smoking rooms having ventilation so that at least there is a minimal effect on the people there. I thought about the amendment before the final proceedings in the other place. I was astonished that at one point the Government were putting forward the option—in a Bill called the Health Bill—that you could have places where you could drink and smoke but you could not eat. I thought it was a very funny definition of ““health”” that we would have premises provided solely for the purposes of consuming alcohol and smoking. I think the other place was quite right to reject that option, but it was an option seriously put forward under this Bill by the Government. I thought it was quite remarkable. The noble Lord behind me was asking what I meant by ““physically separate””. I mean physically separate. We are all used to the fact that at present we are asked in restaurants, ““smoking or non-smoking table?”” but they are not necessarily physically separate, and the smoke wafts from one area into the other. I am just making it clear that that would not be acceptable under my proposed new clause. In other words, it has to be a separate room. Of course I entirely accept that if there is a connecting door there may be a certain amount of smoke going backwards and forwards, but I cannot believe that is a serious public health issue. What matters is that the facilities are separate. As for safeguarding employees, my recollection may be faulty but I seem to recall that when we were legislating in the other place on Sunday trading we had a similar reference to employees not being required on a Sunday under the Sunday trading laws. I simply followed that example, and believed that it could be a protection under employment legislation that no one should be forced to work in a room where smoking is taking place. That seems perfectly reasonable. The Minister kindly said that I was ““brisk”” in bringing forward the amendment, and I am brisk in replying to the debate. I think it is a sensible amendment. I am sorry it has not received wider support, but I am encouraged by the support it has received. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.