| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Health Bill
3.32 pm
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Health Bill has consented to place her Interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
- “( )
Subject to prescribed conditions, regulations under subsection (1)
shall provide that where a vehicle is being used by no more than one
person at a time, even if it is a place of work, it is not
smoke-free.”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly amended version of an amendment moved on Report by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Partly because of the lateness of the hour—it was after 9.30 pm—and partly because the Minister had pointed out a small, but significant drafting defect, the noble Earl decided not to press his amendment at that stage, while reserving the right to return to it at a later stage. In the end, he decided not to do so, which is why some of us have picked up the baton after altering one small, but significant, word in the drafting.
Perhaps I can explain. The Minister had argued that the original amendment was superfluous, since powers already existed in the Bill to enable the Government to relax slightly the very severe restrictions set out in Clause 5 if they chose ultimately to do so, at the time of the regulations being framed. This amendment therefore ensures that the restrictions in question will indeed be slightly relaxed so that it will no longer be illegal for people to smoke in vehicles used for business, provided that they are only occupied by one person at a time. Although, of course, companies, unincorporated businesses and partnerships would still have the freedom to impose their own restrictions if they so chose. The restrictions that remain in Clause 5 would still be very severe compared with the status quo or with the laws that prevail in continental Europe.
The Government seem to
be arguing that second-hand smoke is not only disagreeable—few
would quarrel with that—but also that it is one of the most
deadly poisons known to man and that it remains poisonous hours after
the last smoker has left the
4 July 2006 : Column 139
- “To say that there
is a potentially lethal health risk from someone getting into the cab
[of a lorry or tractor] after the previous driver has been smoking
there seems ... ridiculous. If there is any residual smoke
present, it will disappear rapidly ... there should be a
common-sense cut-off point in these
matters”.—[Official Report, 19/06/06; cols.
603-04.]
Despite that, the Government argue that, although employees in prisons, residential care homes and hotels will have no protection, all other employees must be protected from the slightest exposure at all costs. But, even on this basis, the law will be defective. An employed salesman, for example, who flies from London to Newcastle for a day, picking up a hire car from the airport, could well find that car reeking of the smoke from the previous occupant. The same could apply if he had to spend the night in a hotel room. Moreover, the clause does not confine its tentacles to employees. As I have pointed out at earlier stages, it will hit a partnership consisting of two people who may well be a husband and wife team, both of whom smoke and neither of whom has the slightest desire to be protected from each other. To quote the noble Earl, Lord Howe, once again, the Government are ignoring “reality and common sense”. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The implementation of Clause 5 reflects all that is wrong with the Bill because nowhere is the Government's response proportionate to the risk. It does not matter whether you look at the global situation or the fact that 25 per cent of the adults of this nation smoke and still want to smoke—no provision is made for them. The noble Lord mentioned passive smoking, but not once have the Government conceded an iota that the alleged death sentence from passive smoking is highly speculative and highly unlikely to happen.
In this case, the Minister rightly says that this is a mobile place of work and that, in this circumstance, drivers must snuff out their cigarettes. But the question that Parliament has to ask itself is: who is going to enforce this situation? Will it be the police? We know that the answer is that the police are not the least bit interested in enforcing this position—understandably, as we read daily in the press how stretched they are. Will it be the local authorities? I have spoken to my local authority and it is not in the least bit keen to take on this new burden.
The
conclusion—the Minister has not yet said this but it is the only
logical conclusion—is that we are going to have a whole host of
mobile community protection units, presumably on motorcycles and
mopeds, checking on whether those who are smoking in their cabs are
sole drivers. It is totally unworkable, and that is the problem with so
much of the Bill. The central thrust of the Bill is fine; it is the
unworkability of certain sections that, frankly, makes a mockery of
what this is all about. We all know what happens with seat belts in
taxis—no one fixes their seat belt in a taxi.
4 July 2006 : Column 140
Instead of slavishly following Scotland’s left-wing, do-good and frankly pretty useless Government, why can we not just for once take a close look at what they do all over the continent, find out which is the best procedure for this situation, and implement that? That seems a sensible way forward. That is why I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, and that he will not do what happened after Report. In the newspaper the next morning I read that we will have “no smoking” signs in every bus shelter in the United Kingdom, 98 per cent of which are open to the air. But perhaps the Minister was misreported. I very much support the noble Lord.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I take the opportunity afforded by this amendment—which I support because I think it is sensible—to make one short, final intervention in this debate, which has gone on for a long time. A number of colleagues—notably the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, across the Floor on the Labour Benches, to which we know he always shows great loyalty; the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who has just spoken from the Conservative Benches; and myself from the Liberal Back Benches, my Front Bench having given the Government unequivocal support—have consistently opposed the part of the Bill dealing with smoking, which I regard as draconian and repressive legislation quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably restricting freedom of choice.
None of us—including the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Monson—has denied that smokers, despite the pleasure that they derive from the habit, of which there has been little mention in the debate, face a risk of cancer. That is a fact that we accept. None of us has denied the right of non-smokers to enjoy smoke-free conditions in their workplace, in public places and on public transport—although bus shelters, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, may be slightly different. But I think that all of us continue to believe that the extent of damage to health from so-called passive smoking, difficult as it is to quantify and evaluate, is, in the terms of the Scottish legal verdict, non-proven. Nevertheless, our amendments have accepted that which we doubted, in the interests of seeking a fair and balanced solution. Separation, we have argued, provided both protection and choice. This has been uncompromisingly rejected with uncompromising zealotry—though the Minister is not really a typical zealot; it’s a bit out of character. But it is the same logic: the same logic that led to alcoholic prohibition in the United States and that led to the burning of shops which sold alcohol in Beirut. It is an intolerant logic and it is wrong.
4 July 2006 : Column 141
I know that the majority are against me and that those on my own Front Bench consider me politically incorrect and misguided. I do not care. I care about freedom.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monson. I could not agree more with him. It is the degree of inconsistency of the Government’s smoking policy—in that one is allowed to smoke in old people’s homes and in prisons but not elsewhere—that seems so extraordinary. I hope that the Minister will accept this very small amendment.
3.45 pm
Earl Howe: My Lords, having tabled a similar amendment at previous stages of the Bill, and having argued at some length in favour of it, I am more than happy to give this amendment my support for the reasons so eloquently expressed by other noble Lords.
The root premise of the Bill is that prolonged and substantial exposure to environmental tobacco smoke carries with it unacceptable risks to health. To say that the cab of a lorry in which a single driver has previously been smoking presents an unacceptable health risk to anyone subsequently getting into it seems absurd. No arguments have been advanced by the Government to persuade me that we should take that proposition seriously. Indeed, it seems to me that in this matter the Minister has relied much more on assertion and arbitrary demarcation lines than on sound science.
We have said before, and it is worth saying again, that this is not a Bill to protect the public from any quantity of environmental tobacco smoke, no matter how tiny. It is a Bill that attempts to address what one might call the larger picture. We are at risk of taking the Bill to unworkable extremes if we insist that a farm worker on his own in the cab of a tractor, or a company executive driving alone in a pool car, may not have a cigarette. The Government have made it clear that work vehicles that are only ever used by one person will not have to be smoke-free. How it will be possible in all cases for enforcement officers to distinguish that situation from the kind that I have just mentioned is not at all clear. I, for one, would argue that for the law to seek to make that distinction is pointless.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I want to make just three points to make the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench position clear. I do not regard my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, of whom I am very fond, as politically incorrect; he is just incorrect on this matter. As we have said in previous debates, residual smoke stays for a very long time. The level of danger which that poses to an individual who goes into a confined space, of which a car is one, may vary, partly on the condition of the person, such as whether he has an asthmatic condition which triggers it. Nevertheless, the smoke is present for some considerable time.
My
second point concerns the accusation—I think it was an
accusation—that the Scottish Executive, of whom the Liberal
Democrats are part, are do-gooders.
4 July 2006 : Column 142
My final point, which is the one that sways me, is that people at work often have to put up with other people's behaviour, such as other people’s smoke. They often feel that they are not in a position to challenge it, but they do not want it because it is unpleasant, irritating or damaging to their health.
For those three reasons, it is right for us to come down on the side of caution in this matter and to support a measure that will make life healthier and more pleasant for a great many people.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at first sight this amendment looks acceptable, but it is acceptable only in a superficial way. Although I can understand fully the arguments that have been posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Russell-Johnston, let us think, for example, of a hospital car transport service, where in between transporting patients to and from hospital the driver decides to have a smoke when he or she is alone. The car is then filled with smoke before the patient gets on board to be taken to or from the hospital.
Let us look at a taxi driver or a driver of a private hire vehicle who, between taking individuals from one place to another in the course of his or her work, fills that car with smoke. Let us think of a school bus driver who, having taken a group of children to school, fills the bus with smoke while driving back to the depot and picking up another group of schoolchildren to take them to school. It is possible to argue that the level of pollution remaining in those vehicles could well be below that likely to be hazardous to the individual, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe argued, but we cannot be certain that that is the case. I entirely agree with the view that if a vehicle is only ever used by one individual at work or at other times, it is perfectly acceptable for that individual to be able to smoke in that vehicle, but when it is also used to transport others, this amendment falls, and I would not support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is nothing in my amendment to prevent health or local education authorities making it a condition of employment that drivers of ambulances and school buses do not smoke when they are in their vehicles?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Lord is not going to reply to that, I shall say a few words on this amendment from the Spiritual Benches rather than the Labour Benches, and from the point of view of an independent Labour Member of this House rather than that of a Labour Member.
This is such a mild
amendment that I would have thought that the Government would try to
retrieve some of their reputation for authoritarianism by agreeing to
it. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, outlined the circumstances when it
might be used: when a car which might be used during the course of work
is then used out of work by the driver and perhaps his daughter, and
because it is a place of
4 July 2006 : Column 143
I believe that the whole Bill is lunatic in concept, but this amendment brings it into complete and utter disrepute. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept reasonable amendments. I do not smoke, and the reason I am opposing the Bill is because of its intolerance and its removal of personal freedoms that people have enjoyed for hundreds of years. That is why I and many others have been opposing the Bill—not because we are smokers or have an interest, but because we believe that smoking is legal and that people should not be harassed as they are being.
The Bill is supposed to be about protecting people from second-hand smoke. There is no real clinical evidence that second-hand smoke hurts anybody, but even assuming that it does in some way, the propositions that have been put forward throughout the Bill are to protect non-smokers’ health—and indeed, their inconvenience—and at the same time to protect the right of people to assemble in public places, if they wish, provided there is separation. I know that the amendment is not totally about separation, but I want to emphasise the fact that the opponents of the Bill have been trying to be fair to both sides of the argument. However, the Government and the anti-smoking lobby will not listen to what is reasonable under all circumstances in what is supposed to be a democratic country.
I should have thought that, this afternoon, the Government would at least say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, “We are prepared to make this tiny concession to you at the end of the Bill”, but judging by the look of the Minister, he has absolutely no intention to do so. He will stand by his extremist view that he has echoed throughout the passage of the Bill, the view that the House of Commons and the Government have supported—despite the fact that it was not a manifesto commitment—and that this House must accept it as it came from the House of Commons.
Frankly, I think—I believe—that this has been a wholly disreputable exercise in this House. Those people whose bigotry over a long period has demonised smokers and made them pariahs have based the Bill on junk science and are now allowing what is a most irrational measure to go through this House. I am thoroughly ashamed of this House and the House of Commons for what they are doing in the Bill.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it was certainly not my intention to intervene, but having been, I assume, one of the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refers as bigoted and a zealot on these matters, I think that I should come to the Government's defence and say that I very much hope that my noble friend has no intention of accepting the amendment.
References were made to
the science on second-hand smoke. The danger is that we will repeat
earlier debates on the Bill—indeed, Second Reading
debates—but I commend to the House the very latest report from
the United States Surgeon General, published last week,
4 July 2006 : Column 144
- “The
debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere
annoyance but a serious health
hazard”.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am sorry but I shall continue, if the noble Lord does not mind.
This attempt to imagine that we should exclude work vehicles, such as refuse vehicles where a gang of people may be at work and where people are coming and going all day long, because it is somehow safe if a couple of people smoke and it will not do any harm to the others is just absurd. The science does not support that point of view.
The Bill is about freedom—the freedom of people to enjoy clean air when they work. The sooner that we defeat the amendment and pass the rest of the Bill, the better.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate on the amendment, but I am so incensed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that, with the leave of the House, I must speak. He quoted a long spiel, which I am sure that he read accurately, but the significant point that he cited, which I heard very clearly, referred to indoor spaces. Is the noble Lord referring to a vehicle as an indoor space?
4 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, as someone who was described by one journalist as part of the anti-smoking Taliban, I suppose I should be quite pleased to be described by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, as a zealot behaving untypically. That is a kind of promotion really.
We have
accepted all reasonable amendments, if I may say so to the noble Lord,
Lord Stoddart, but we do not regard this amendment as one of those that
we should accept. We have examined the Government’s intentions
in this House in respect to smoke-free vehicles in much detail during
both the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Again I make it
absolutely clear that the Government have no intention to include
private vehicles—including rental vehicles for private
use—under smoke-free legislation. The Government will propose in
regulations that the only vehicles to be required to be smoke-free will
be those used for the transportation of members of the
4 July 2006 : Column 145
The Government have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been brought forward about smoke-free vehicles and remain entirely convinced that vehicles used for work purposes by more than one person, regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time, should be required to be smoke-free at all times. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put the point extremely well. The reasons for this are logical and simple: we wish to create consistency in the level of protection from second-hand smoke that this legislation would provide between people working in vehicles and those working in non-mobile workplaces.
Through this amendment, people could still be exposed to second-hand smoke. Some suggest that windows could be wound down to let in fresh air. Perhaps they could be—but how can an employee be assured that the person before him who had smoked in a work vehicle would let in fresh air? Indeed, what would happen when the smoking employee handed a vehicle over to a non-smoking employee at the end of a shift? Are the noble Lords who propose the amendment suggesting that there should be some time lag before the vehicle can be used again, to let the smoke clear? That would also require windows to be left open, which could present problems with security. What would be the cost to industry?
The noble Lords who tabled the amendment are suggesting that people who use a vehicle for work should be given less protection from the risks of second-hand smoke. I fail to see a single defensible reason why a person who uses a work vehicle should be at risk of exposure to hazardous second-hand smoke when an equivalent worker in a non-mobile workplace is protected from these proven health risks. I emphasise again that they are proven health risks.
I shall provide two examples to demonstrate my point. Let us look at a security guard who works alone on shift in a security cabin. At the end of his shift, another security guard takes over. If in this example the cabin was not required to be smoke-free at all times, smoking by the first security guard in the cabin would result in the second security guard being exposed to the health risks of second-hand smoke. For this reason, we have made it clear that the workplace needs to be smoke-free at all times.
Let us now look at a
driver working alone on shift in a delivery van, which is his
workplace. At the end of his shift, another driver takes over. If in
this example the van was not required to be smoke-free at all times,
smoking by the first driver could result in the second driver being
exposed to second-hand smoke, as there can be no guarantee that
second-hand smoke would have cleared entirely from the cabin. For this
reason, we have made it clear that the mobile workplace needs to be
smoke-free at all times. The
4 July 2006 : Column 146
We have examined exhaustively the scientific and medical evidence for this legislation. I recognise again, despite giving all the sources to a number of noble Lords, that we have failed to convince them. I shall not go through all the evidence again. People can read the sources in the reports of the Committee and Report stages.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner has drawn attention to the most recently published report—over 700 pages—by the United States Surgeon General. He examined in great detail the evidence and made a number of conclusions. He made it absolutely clear in those conclusions that second-hand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. That report confirms and adds to the extensive body of evidence of the health risks associated with second-hand smoke.
We also know that second-hand smoke, even in small quantities, is the second most common asthma trigger in the workplace. Asthma UK found that:
- “20 per cent of
people with asthma feel excluded from parts of their workplace because
other people smoke there. This inhibits their daily life as well as
opportunities for promotion and development”.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the incidence of asthma has increased and that at the same time the incidence of tobacco smoking has decreased? Explain that.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have to explain it. I have already explained that second-hand smoke is a trigger for asthma. That is all we need to know in the context of this Bill. Second-hand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. The WHO and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have both classified tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. We must remember that 85 per cent of second-hand smoke consists of invisible, odourless gases.
It is absolutely essential to retain the Bill as it is to protect people in their workplaces. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about Scotland. In Scotland all vehicles that are for use for work purposes by one or more persons must be smoke-free at all times. We have not modelled this piece of legislation on Scotland. We propose offering leeway for smoking in vehicles that are for the sole use of the driver and are not used for work purposes by anyone else as a driver or passenger. That is different in content from the Scottish position.
The Government’s intention on
smoke-free vehicles has been made absolutely clear. It is right to give
workers who share a vehicle that same protection from second-hand smoke
exposure as people who share other kinds of workplaces. I explain to
the
4 July 2006 : Column 147
One can see that the Government’s intention on smoke-free vehicles is entirely consistent with our approach towards smoke-free public places and workplaces. The amendment, as I believe I have made clear, would be totally unacceptable to the Government and could leave workers in vehicles at risk from the hazardous effects of second-hand smoke in the workplace, which is wrong in principle and wrong in practice when having regard to people’s health. The Government do not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment from almost all quarters of the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for reminding us that this part of the Bill will largely be unenforceable and, accordingly, will bring the law into contempt, which is surely not desirable. I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for reminding us of the value of fairness, surely a particular British virtue. But the Minister stands totally firm and unyielding, sadly but not surprisingly. I point out to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that if second-hand smoke in motor vehicles were as lethal as they claim it to be, I and my siblings would have been dead long before we reached our teens.
Alas, the sensible Dr Reid is no longer in the driving seat on this matter. The present incumbent seems to prefer a doctrinaire and unyielding position to flexibility and common sense. It is true that even if this amendment is agreed to, the Bill will remain much more severe and draconian than anything proposed in the Labour election manifesto. Still, even a minor move in the direction of genuine liberalism, as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnson, his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and by many noble Lords on other Benches in this House, is better than total illiberalism. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.11 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 198.
Ashcroft, L.
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Biffen, L.
Boothroyd, B.
Bowness, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Buscombe, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Cobbold, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
4 July 2006 : Column 148
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |