Health Bill

I support the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, in his opposition to the Question, to which I am signatory. Bearing in mind the very interesting exchange between him and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I suppose that I had better declare, as I think that I did on Second Reading, that, although a non-smoker, I am a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club. The fact that it accepts me, a non-smoker, as a member shows that it has great tolerance. I have always found that people who smoke are generally tolerant people. I cannot say the same for those people who are not smokers and are passionate anti-smokers. It has been quite clear in this Committee that they are not prepared to accept separation, which is a perfectly legitimate way to go, rather than a complete ban. Clause 4 is a Henry VIII clause. It will enable the Government to do virtually anything—to ban smoking virtually anywhere if the authority recommends it by order, except in people’s homes. That is going very far—indeed, too far. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would want to put some stop on the Government’s power to do virtually anything that they want. We have seen creeping legislation before. The authority will be under considerable pressure from the anti-smoking lobby to go further and further towards a complete ban on smoking. We all know what that will entail. That is the pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also cited some studies by organisations in the United States. Of course, it all stems from there. We are always getting all sorts of studies from there. None of them in fact supports this sort of legislation when they are examined in detail and the real implications are understood. I have been around this issue for a very long time and it seems to me that we have now reached the position where you are not allowed to die from anything other than smoking-related diseases. Virtually everything now is caused by tobacco smoke, apparently. I have a cutting from the Daily Mail of 1 May, whose headline reads,"““Passive smoking ‘makes children more disruptive’””." In my experience, the most disruptive children often come from very anti-smoking households. We have reached the absurd position in which it is said that passive smoking makes children more disruptive. That will ultimately be used by the anti-smoking lobby to try to get smoking banned in homes, too. I believe that Clause 4 impinges so far on the possible undermining of people’s rights that it ought not to be agreed to. Indeed, I am surprised that it was ever brought forward. If the highly respected and distinguished Lord Simon of Glaisdale were still alive and here, he would rip Clause 4 to pieces because it is the Henry VIII clause to end all clauses and ought not to be agreed by this Committee.