House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 May 1990

Part II

Exempt Places

1. Premises in respect of which a justices licence to sell intoxicating liquors by retail for consumption on the premises (other than a Part IV licence within the meaning of the Licensing Act 1964) is in the force.

2. Shops used wholly or mainly for the sale of tobacco and smokers requisites.

3. Those parts of hotels, inns and similar establishments, used for the purposes of accommodation, designated as smoking areas.'.

Sir George Young : I regret that my enthusiasm not to miss catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, led me to lean forward in my seat a moment or two earlier than I should have done.

New clause 59 seeks to ban smoking in public places.

The welcome debate on environmental issues which has gathered pace over recent months and much of which is focused on this Bill has had two consequences. First, it has raised public awareness on environmental matters, and, with it, public expectations ; secondly, it has shown the breadth of the environmental debate and also the length of the environmental frontier patrolled so ably by my hon. Friend the Minister.

9 pm

The new clause is a product of these two factors : growing awareness and rising expectations, on the one hand, and the range of areas where progress can be made, on the other. It seeks to protect the public from one particular type of pollution, tobacco smoke, and to respond to the changing mood on smoking generally. It is, I believe, the first time that passive smoking has been debated as an environmental issue rather than as a health one, and it starts from the principle that non-smoking should be the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, with special provision for smokers, rather than vice versa.

I hope that no one in the debate will claim that tobacco smoke is not a pollutant. It is the major pollutant in indoor air. Given the welcome progress that my hon. Friend had made in removing pollutants from outside air, this needs to be accompanied by progress inside, where, after all, most of us spend most of our time.

Mr. Hunter : I am not so concerned with pollution as with prejudice. My old grandfather was born and bred in Liverpool a hundred years ago. He did not like Roman Catholics--he was prejudiced--and his great vendetta in life as a Protestant from Liverpool was against Catholics. I am a non- apologising consumer of nicotine and tobacco. I love my pipe. I refuse to be prejudiced in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) continues to propound his thesis.

Column 1122

Sir George Young : I hope that my hon. Friend will see a distinction between being prejudiced against Catholics, and totally overlooking all the medical and scientific advice which shows that passive smoking is dangerous.

I quote briefly from the fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which refers to the number of deaths caused by passive smoking :

"It might however amount to several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom, a small but not negligible proportion."

I am sure that my hon. Friend's grandfather never said that the Catholics in Liverpool killed people. We are here talking about something which is different in concept from the prejudices of what I am sure was a very distinguished old man.

I hope also that no one will claim that this is not a suitable matter for legislation. The Government have already legislated on atmospheric pollution and on public nuisances such as litter, which after all harms no one's health. Tobacco smoke is airborne litter, but bad for one's health as well.

It is not just the case, in the immortal words of Frank Sinatra, that smoke gets in your eyes. Smoke gets in your hair. Smoke gets in your clothes. My hon. Friend's pipe smoke gets in my mouth. People who suffer from asthma and other bronchial infections have their illnesses aggravated by smoke-- either raw smoke from the tips of burning cigarettes or, to use the jargon, recycled smoke exhaled by my hon. Friend and others. Others find that smoke irritates their nose and throat and aggravates coughs. The numbers exposed to this nuisance are huge.

This debate is about the fairly basic entitlement to breathe air unpolluted by unpleasant fall-out of an activity increasingly realised to be both dangerous and anti-social. Public opinion surveys show that the steps proposed are supported not just by the non-smoking majority, but by the smoking minority. Asked what their reaction was to the proposition that, in general, people who do not smoke should have the right to work in air free of tobacco smoke, 86 per cent. of non-smokers assented, as did 81 per cent. of smokers. Eighty-nine per cent. of smokers agreed that all restaurants should provide no-smoking areas--something which I hope the Services Committee will consider in respect of the restaurants and cafeterias in the House, particularly in respect of Annie's Bar.

In today's papers I see that just such a measure as I propose was introduced yesterday in the Republic of Ireland ; and similar measures already exist in the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Norway and Spain.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : I wonder if the hon. Member would care to propose a no-drinking area in Annie's Bar as well?

Sir George Young : Since, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you enjoy, I believe, both the activities that have been mentioned, you would rule me out of order if I attempted to extend new clause 59 beyond smoking. I mention in passing the example that Ministers can set in their own Departments by making sure, for example, that the atmosphere at 2 Marsham street is pure. I remember, during my tenure at Marsham street, banning smoking in the lifts. All went well until my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) joined the Department, when the "no smoking" signs mysteriously disappeared. I hope that my hon.

Column 1123

Friend will tell me that, following my right hon. Friend's departure for the Department of Trade and Industry, those signs have been reinstated and that his Department has an effective policy for its own offices.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my hon. Friend remember that, when we all thought that he was an excellent Minister in the Department of the Environment, he went to Sweden and got carried away--not far enough, as it turned out--and said that he hoped that one day smoking would be only between consenting adults in private as though it were somewhat worse than adultery in public? People like my hon. Friend wish to impose on everyone their wonderful sanctified piety and say that nothing with which they do not agree should be allowed to take place in public. That is not Conservatism but left-wing socialism.

Sir George Young : What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does with his pipe in private is his business.

Mr. Hunter : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young : May I finish my point? I note that two honourable pipe-smoking Friends are anxious to interrupt. What my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak does in public, imposing his foul-smelling pipe on those who happen to walk behind him, is different. I do not mind if he smokes his pipe at home. If he smokes it in a public place he imposes his prejudices on other people. My new clause seeks to insulate people from his anti-social activities.

Mr. Hunter : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young : I am anxious to make progress, because I suspect that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

I hope that the Department of the Environment will at least issue guidelines to proprietors of public places on how to deal with the issue, perhaps working through environmental health officers. I accept that progress is being made on a voluntary basis. For example, the Department of Social Security office in my constituency has a smoke-free waiting area and the waiting room at Ealing Broadway station is now a smoke-free zone. Progress is being made in taxis and in some hotels and offices. But it is slow and sporadic.

One of the roles of the House of Commons is to reflect the shift in public opinion on social issues. There has been a shift in the role of the dog in our society, which we debated on Tuesday and to which the Government have responded. There has been a shift in public opinion on smoking, too. No one is about to ask that smoking be banned. But some of us will ask the Government to protect the most basic liberty to which our constituents are entitled--the right to breathe unpolluted air. We do that in this new clause which, in a nutshell, bans smoking in a public place except in a designated smoking area.

Mr. Crowther : I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be so foolish as to approve this ill-conceived new clause. Nevertheless, a few words need to be said to

Column 1124

tone down the extremism of the anti-smoking campaign which has now reached an almost unbelievable pitch of hysteria.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has studied the matter in detail. If so, he must know that there is as much evidence against his arguments about the dangers of so-called passive smoking as there is for it. I do not intend to go through all the evidence, but I have looked into it in some detail and I shall quote some of it.

The hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his argument the report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. I think that he was referring to the report published in March 1988. Certainly, that is the most widely publicised report on which so many of the anti-tobacco campaigners have depended. They seem to have depended on it without reading it in full or even fully understanding it. The report was not based on any independent research. It merely aggregated several carefully selected previously published studies. The report admitted :

"None of the studies can be accepted as unequivocal."

That was said by the very people whom the hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his new clause.

The committee did not include other studies in its report. It admitted that other studies tended to show that there was no danger or risk whatever to non-smokers from so-called passive smoking. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mention those matters in that same report when he quoted it in support of his new clause. The report, which is now widely believed to be scientific truth, is nothing more than an expression of opinion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : It is twaddle.

Mr. Crowther : Yes, but it is couched in scientific language. A symposium was held in Austria in May 1988 on environmental tobacco smoke, ETS. It was organised by Mr. G. Lehnert and Mr. E. Wynder. I am sure that the hon. Member for Acton is familiar with the symposium's report as he is such an expert in this matter. The statement issued at the end of that symposium said :

"A causal relationship between ETS and illness cannot be established

There is no positive evidence that cancer and other illnesses are caused by passive smoking."

The professor of medicine at the George Washington university in the United States, Professor Witorsch, wrote in the New Zealand "Medical Journal" of November 1986 :

"A thorough and critical examination of the relevant literature fails to provide compelling evidence that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke produces adverse chronic health effects."

A group of scientists in New York carried out an interesting study of air samples taken from 26 office buildings and 48 restaurants. The House will be interested to learn that they concluded that a typical New York non- smoker would have to work for 450 uninterrupted hours in an office or dine continuously for 400 hours in order to be exposed to the nicotine equivalent of one cigarette. That is the extent of so-called passive smoking.

The hon. Member for Acton says that tobacco is the major pollutant, but that is not so. Far more contaminants in the air in most buildings are derived from factors other than tobacco smoke, and the sick building syndrome is extremely serious. Fungal and bacterial spores exist in the

Column 1125

air and all kinds of chemical poisons are released from furniture, carpets and goodness knows what else. A lot more study of that syndrome needs to be done.

The trouble is that smoke is visible and therefore gets the blame, but all the other nasty things are ignored. Those other pollutants affect people's eyes, and a runny nose and a sore throat often have nothing to do with tobacco smoke, but are caused by those other poisonous substances. The trouble is that most of our buildings are not properly air conditioned and my goodness we know that better than anyone.

Mr. Hunter : The hon. Gentleman does not speak for Labour colleagues alone. Will he accept my invitation to join me after the debate is over for a good pipe and a chat when we can pursue the argument?

Mr. Crowther : I should be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation so long as it is over a pint.

Far more attention needs to be paid to other causes of air pollution and air contamination rather than paying attention to the hysterical attitude that has been adopted in recent times towards tobacco smoke. Because one can see smoke it is assumed that it is the cause of the problem, but, in most cases, the cause is quite different. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this matter in due course.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I am happy to say that I speak as a pipe smoker. I know that there are hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who look upon that as something worse than a venal sin. I accept that to some people smoking is irritating. But would some people, who have a pious nonsensical attitude towards smokers, accept that smokers have a right to express the huge irritation they feel when, as soon as they light up in a room, even the size of the Chamber, people immediately go into paroxysms of coughing as though they were being laid open to mustard gas.

It is true that smoking is not necessarily good for one. I do not think that drinking is, and I am not sure whether sex is. I am certainly not sure whether jogging is. One of the few times I have ever laughed at someone else's misfortune was when the man who wrote the definitive book on jogging was found dead in a ditch after he had jogged.

9.15 pm

In a modern society it is fair for restaurants to have non-smoking areas, and I agree that aircraft, buses and trains should have such areas. But what many people who are getting more and more cranky about smoking do not realise is that many of us who smoke are willing to accept that when we go into a non-smoking carriage we should not abuse people. If a smoker accidentally goes into a non-smoking carriage and forgets, and someone tells him that it is a non-smoking carriage, he does not reply in language that we used to be told could not be used in the House, but immediately desists from smoking. In a fair and sensible society there must be a basis of give and take. It is sensible not to smoke in a theatre. I like going to theatres, particularly concerts. In a concert hall any smoker realises that it is sensible to have no smoking in the auditorium because there are musicians and singers. Those of us who smoke are not trying to force some change in the law so that we can smoke wherever we want.

Column 1126

When we talk about pollution in society, it is often put down to cars or smoking ; aircraft, which fly over all our houses, are not mentioned. It is likely that the greatest pollutants in this world are aircraft. If we take what people who are against smoking say to its logical conclusion, we should immediately ground aircraft because the great pollutants are cars and aircraft.

Sir George Young : We made it absolutely clear that we are not banning smoking. We have asked those who smoke to confine it to private places or to designated areas in public places.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, and bearing in mind his wonderful speech in Sweden, what he wants us to do would make us act as though we were doing something furtive and always blow our smoke up the chimney so that no one else can smell it.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly described what all the cranks who want to stop us exercising our freedom want us to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton pedals away like billy-o on his bicycle, getting eggs thrown at his wife and not even wanting to get the muck out of her hair because he thinks it will be good for it. His poor wife rushes about the countryside on a tandem, sucking in carbon monoxide, and aircraft and car fumes, but then my hon. Friend says that if his wonderful wife sits in a restaurant for 45 minutes she will be on the path to death and lung cancer. A bigger load of nonsense was never heard. Even with the wealth of my hon. Friend--it is a legend to us all--he would have to feed her in that restaurant night and day for 115 years before she came to any harm. Those who are against us exercising our freedom are saying no more than, "We don't like smoking." Well, I do not like some of the nonsense on television, or some of the colours that people wear--

Sir George Young : Turn if off then.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : We live in a society in which we cannot turn anything off. I hope that this House, which is meant to be a bastion of freedom, will reflect the need for non-smokers, in the name of justice, to be as tolerant towards us as we are towards them. If we accept the measure before the House, we shall set man against brother and wife against husband. Happily, in my house we all smoke. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, who comes from a family with an honourable tradition of toleration, to show some of the tolerance that his family have shown for generations.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I want to make two simple points in response to what was in part a light-hearted but in part serious bid for tolerance towards smokers.

First, what should the presumption be? Surely it should be that we should have as pollution-free an environment as possible. People can opt out of that, but potentially harmful activities should not be allowed to take place in public--

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : We want a friendly society.

Mr. Hughes : Of course we do, and public places that permit smoking should allow a place in which smokers can opt out and smoke with other smokers.

Secondly, the evidence of the damage that smoking causes is becoming more apparent. I shall not go into the arguments about passive smoking, but it is now generally

Column 1127

accepted that smoking causes deaths. We should therefore educate the next generation to be more healthy ; such education will include teaching people about the dangers of activities that pose a risk to their health. They are of course free to choose thereafter, but we should teach children how to avoid smoking.

We can never legislate against sin or against weakness but we should legislate to encourage people to do what is best, without banning activities in which those who want to opt out of the norm wish to indulge.

Mr. Hunter : Last year, when I successfully piloted my private Member's measure, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill, through the House, the Liberal Democrats did not argue in this way. They were happy to leave aside issues of tobacco smoking, so there is an inconsistency between the hon. Gentleman's argument now and that advanced by his party last year.

Mr. Hughes : I do not want to be taken down that road. The Bill was limited and we supported it. This new clause is specifically about smoking. It is interesting to note that it was selected whereas the one on CFCs was not. Those who want to smoke pipes, cigarettes or cigars must have the freedom to do so with others in certain areas in public, and to do so in private, but we should surely aim at the best possible environment, and smokers must accept that smoking does harm. They should take the risk themselves but not impose it on the rest of us.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Although we are being light-hearted, this is a serious debate. Although my wife and I both smoke--I more heavily than she- -we bribed our children not to smoke, so I agree that you should not encourage smoking. My son still does not smoke, but my daughter does. You who are against the freedom of smokers should agree that as long as we do not try to lead people to the devil there is something to be said for the freedom of the individual, who should not be blackmailed, bludgeoned or made to feel guilty--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not keep bringing me into these matters.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman might think that he needs you in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Of course I accept that the hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that Parliament would wish to make social outcasts of people who engage in an activity which, like drinking and other activities, it is correct that they should have a right as adults to choose to do. However, there is a difference from the other examples that the hon. Gentleman cited. Activities such as drinking and watching television do not necessarily have an effect on other people. Of course the person who drinks and is then sick over somebody causes a problem, but there is no such problem for those who can hold their drink.

It is possible to turn off the television and to deal with other potential pollutants, but one cannot deal with people who are smoking except by going somewhere else. Why should it be presumed that those who wish to take the healthier option by not smoking should have to move away to find their private secret corner? The presumption should be the other way and those who choose to engage

Column 1128

in an activity in which they are perfectly entitled to engage, even though it is potentially harmful to them and to others, should have to withdraw to do so, thereby keeping the healthier majority happy.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : Much of the debate has been misconceived, in that those who wish to smoke have drawn parallels with drinking. But nobody forces drink down somebody else's throat. The debate is about the alleged right of people who wish to smoke to compel other people to breathe in the smoke when they do not wish to do so.

Once upon a time there were separate smoking rooms. Let us look at a clearer and nearer analogy. When imprisoned suffragettes refused to take food there was considerable debate, including in Parliament, about whether they should be forcibly fed. But that was to save their lives. It was not because somebody else enjoyed doing it. In the Palace of Westminster smoking is prohibited in the Chamber, in public sessions of Select Committees and in Standing Committee. Except for that, it is impossible for hon. Members to escape from other people's smoke that they do not wish to breathe in. That applies whether they are in the Corridors, in the Library- -except for one room--in the Dining Room, in Select Committees in deliberative session, travelling to take evidence away from the House in buses or taxis taking Members of the Select Committee, or in party committees.

Hon. Members who do not wish to breathe in smoke are forced to do so by the minority who wish to be at liberty to pour smoke into the air. That is what the question is about. It is not about the right of those who wish to smoke to do so, but about the right of the minority who wish to smoke to force other people to breathe it in when they do not wish to do so.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for whom I have a great affection and respect, referred to nicotine, but it is not nicotine that does most of the damage to passive smokers ; it is the tars. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who opened the debate, referred to deaths from cancer as a result of passive smoking. Probably far more serious are the deaths from asthma, which is very much an increasing manifestation.

The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham was logically defective in that he pointed to other undeniable sources of atmospheric pollution as a reason for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke. The case for not forcing people to breathe in fungus spores or the fumes given off by furniture or carpets is a strong one, but it is not a case for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke when they do not want to do so.

Mr. Crowther : The hon. Gentleman will recall that nicotine was specifically referred to in only only one of the studies that I mentioned. All the others spoke about health in general terms and looked at factors other than nicotine, such as tar content. Only the New York study referred to nicotine and I do not want that to be assumed to be the case in all the studies about which I spoke. We are all forced to breathe in the carbon dioxide that other people have breathed out. We do not notice it, but that is similarly polluting the air.

Column 1129

9.30 pm

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : People cannot help breathing out carbon dioxide, but they can help breathing out smoke which they force other people who do not want to to breathe in. The one is unavoidable and the other is not.

The new clause and the amendment are not about preventing people who wish to from smoking, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was inaccurate when he said that his daughter did not smoke. If she shares her father's house, she has to smoke, like it or not. She is merely a passive smoker rather than an active smoker. Her medical history later in life is likely to be less favourable as a result of her parents' habit--

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : --whether they like it or not, than if she were not living in a household where she had to breathe in the smoke. Her medical history will not be representative of somebody who will be exposed to tobacco smoke. It will be representative of somebody who is compelled to breathe in the smoke while she lives in her parents' house. I cannot see how she can possibly avoid it. This debate is about the right of people who want to exercise a pleasure--there is no reason why they should not exercise it as mature people--in circumstances where they do not force people who do not wish to do so to breathe it in.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : I am a non-smoker and am broadly in agreement with the new clause, but it does not define "public place". For example, what about a racecourse or a football ground?

Mr. Simon Hughes : It says "enclosed".

Mr. Wareing : What is "enclosed"? A football ground could be defined as "enclosed" and so could a racecourse. That deficiency must be remedied. Although I am in favour of the principle behind the new clause, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) should look at it again and define it more clearly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : Amendment No. 327 deals with "Smoking in Public Places". If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will find considerable elucidation of new clause 59. If it were in any way defective, there are later opportunities for correction. This is the right Bill and the right time for incorporating this measure, even though, as is often the case, it may need refinement at a later stage, including in the other place.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : The issue is not the danger about which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke, but the simple one that I do not like smokers. I do not like the smell of smoke, which makes my eyes water and my clothes smell and causes me to lose my voice. The smoking sections on British Rail are so open to the non-smoking section that, as I travel up and down to Devon, this dreadful smell of smoke has progressively worked its way into my throat and, as a result, over the last week, I have progressively lost my voice. I unwisely spent an hour in the Members' Smoking Room this afternoon and that virtually finished it off.

I see no reason why I should be subjected to the tobacco smoke from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont- Dark). I remind

Column 1130

my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak of a short exchange we had in the Harcourt Room a few months ago when I was entertaining some guests. It was lunchtime, about 1.30 pm, and the table at which my hon. Friend was sitting was, as it were, lighting up. I remonstrated with him. I told him that I did not want to smell the smoke of all the smokers at that table. I explained that I did not want all the food that my friends and I were enjoying to be ruined by the dreadful smell of the pipe smoke of my hon. Friend or that of his guests. My hon. Friend was extremely understanding of my plight, although slightly resentful of my intervention. He properly advised the people at his table that it might be prudent not to incur the wrath of such an articulate campaigner as myself on anti-smoking. I am glad to say that everyone at the table, including my hon. Friend, extinguished his pipe or cigarette. We have had a continuation of that discussion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I shall remind my hon. Friend of what I said. When my hon. Friend intervened, I told my friends, "I'm sorry, but this man is a bit of a crank about smoking. Rather than have trouble with someone who is going to get tired and emotional about it, and as we have almost finished our meal, let's let this nut have his way and we shall go outside." Those were the very words that I used.

Mr. Steen : My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the intolerance and indifference of some to others in this place. He has shown that pipe smokers and cigarette smokers have no idea of the discomfort that it may cause to others. That, of course, applies also to cigar smokers. My hon. Friend has shown that he has no idea of the anger, irritation and discomfort that he creates by his pipe smoking. The aim of the new clause is to make the nation realise that we who support it have nothing against pipe or cigarette smokers. In public places, however, they must not impose their smoke on the increasing mass of people who do not want to smoke. I am not concerned for the moment about the health risk, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred. That is an important issue that we can debate on another occasion.

The real issue is that I do not want to smell the smoke that comes from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak, for example. I see no reason why, in a dining room in this place or in a restaurant elsewhere, I should have to suffer the smell of smoke. Most Members of this place are not as intolerant as my hon. Friend and not so insensitive of the wishes of the nation. I am sure that most people would not support his line.

My hon. Friend and others should be allowed to smoke wherever they like in their own homes. If they want their clothes, their children's clothes, the upholstery of their furniture and their cars to smell, that is their choice and they are entitled to have that smell. If that is their wish, let them have that nasty smell around them. They have no right, however, to expect the public to make way for them if the majority do not want it.

It is argued that smoking should be an exception, and that the presumption should be that of non-smokers. Hon. Members should be allowed to smoke in public places, but not at the inconvenience of others. The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak shows the intolerance of smokers. I hope that the House, with the help of the Minister, will ensure that the vast majority of people who

Column 1131

believe that smoking is dangerous, bad for health and most unpleasant for those who do not like it, will have the right to choose to avoid smoke.

The new clause is brilliantly drafted, as we would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). The House should give it a fair wind.

Next Section

Home Page