Tobacco Smoking (Public Places and Workplaces) Bill [HL]
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I start by expressing my appreciation to noble Lords who have indicated their intention to take part in today's debate and by declaring an unpaid interest as a trustee of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.
The Bill is intended to protect employees and members of the public in England and Wales from the effects of second-hand smoke. Almost exactly 400 years ago, his late Majesty King James I of England and VI of Scotland issued a decree banning tobacco from his kingdom. He did so in these terms:
"Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and in the stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrific Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless".
This Bill does not quite do that because it is not an attempt to ban smoking. I believe in the liberal principle that we are all free to do as we choose, even if the behaviour we choose to indulge in causes us harm. But we should not forget that that principle comes at a very high price. In the case of smoking, 114,000 people die in the UK every year from smoking-related illnesses. That is a terrible toll of misery and destruction. If any smokers are encouraged to quit as a result of the Bill—there is good reason to believe that some will—I would of course be delighted.
Nevertheless, the liberal principle has clear limits. We are free to harm ourselves, but not to harm others, or as John Stuart Mill put it in his Essay on Liberty:
"Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people".
I shall briefly go through the provisions of the Bill.
I shall briefly go through the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 1 makes it unlawful to smoke in enclosed public places other than in a designated smoking area or in a place that is exempted under Part 2 of the schedule to the Bill. Enclosed workplaces are defined as public places for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 2 requires occupiers of public places to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with Clause 1.
Clause 4 gives employees protection from being required by their contracts of employment to work in a smoking area.
Clause 5 provides powers to make regulations. Such regulations may specify the requirements of smoking areas in public places, prohibit the designation of smoking areas in places specified in the regulations, require prescribed forms of consultation with employees on smoking and non-smoking areas and regulate signage, ventilation and air purification systems in public places. The clause gives the power to the Secretary of State in England and to the National Assembly in Wales to make regulations. Therefore, it encompasses the provisions of the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we shall debate later this afternoon.
Clause 7 gives the court the power to make orders to require occupants of public places to take specific steps to meet their duties under Clause 2.
Clause 8 gives local authorities the duty to enforce the legislation and to allow regulations to be made giving local authorities requisite powers to make such enforcement effective.
Clause 9 states that occupiers of public places cannot be prevented by any of the provisions of the Bill from prohibiting smoking throughout that place.
Clause 10 states that the Bill will bind the Crown and that Crown servants will be treated as employees for the purpose of legislation.
Clause 12 deals with the short title and commencement of the legislation and restricts its application to England and Wales only.
Part 1 of the schedule defines "public places" and Part 2 defines certain premises that are exempt from Clause 1 of the Bill.
The case for the Bill rests on the fact that smoking damages the health of third parties. That is a fact, whatever the tobacco industry and its allies may pretend. The scientific evidence on that point was confirmed by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, in July 2003 as well as by the heads of all of Britain's 13 Royal Colleges of medicine and by the Scottish CMO, Dr Mac Armstrong, in April 2004.
The fact that cigarette smoke is bad for your health should be a surprise to no one. A non-smoker exposed to other people's cigarettes breathes sidestream smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and mainstream smoke that has been inhaled and exhaled by the smoker. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, some of which have marked irritant properties and some 60 of which are known or suspected carcinogens—cancer causing substances.
Short-term exposure to second-hand smoke has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Thirty minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. A recent Department of Health survey for England shows that people who are exposed to other people's tobacco smoke for six or more hours a week are 50 per cent more likely than those who are not so exposed to develop asthma symptoms and breathlessness, coughing and wheezing. The National Asthma Campaign states that one in five people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplace where people smoke because of cigarette and other tobacco fumes. My noble friend Lord Simon is one such person. I find it extraordinary, as I am sure do many other noble Lords, that we have not yet made the Palace of Westminster a smoke-free place of work.
The British Medical Association has stated that passive smoking causes at least 1,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. The true figure is probably higher. By comparison, the total number of fatal accidents at work from all causes in the UK in 2002–03 was reported by the Health and Safety Executive as 226.
I apologise for spending so much time stating what many noble Lords may well consider the obvious, but I am afraid that not all the participants in this debate are prepared to accept the scientific realities. Take British American Tobacco, for example, which, in its latest annual report, stated:
"there is no convincing evidence that environmental tobacco smoke exposure genuinely increases the risk of non-smokers developing lung cancer or heart disease".
The tobacco industry spent 50 years covering up the evidence that smoking kills smokers and almost as long covering up the fact that nicotine is addictive. Now it is attempting to deny the truth that it harms non-smokers as well.
Many workplaces still permit smoking and they are generally in sectors with the highest levels of exposure and, therefore, the greatest health and safety risk. Many of them are operated by small firms and employ relatively low-paid staff. A survey published by ASH in April 1999 revealed that approximately 3 million people in the UK are still regularly exposed to second-hand smoke at work.
Workplace smoking is particularly common in the hospitality trades including restaurants, pubs and casinos. A recent compensation case involving casino worker, Mr Mickey Dunn, revealed that his employer handed out free cigarettes to customers to keep them at the gaming tables for as long as possible. In that context I commend my colleagues in all parties and in both Houses who served with me on the joint scrutiny committee on the draft gambling Bill for agreeing to include a recommendation in our report on limiting smoking in casinos in order to protect the health of employees.
The evidence is conclusive. Smoking is a serious workplace health and safety hazard. Usually, and rightly, such hazards are the subject of tight legal regulation. Yet current law in the UK provides wholly inadequate protection against the risks of second-hand smoke. Although second-hand smoke is a workplace carcinogen, it is not listed under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen may say something about the efforts that the TUC has made for action to be taken under the EU carcinogens directive. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. Some people have suggested that new legislation is not required because responsible employers will act on their own initiative. The hospitality industry has argued that a voluntary approach to smoking restrictions is preferable to legislation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Warner yesterday indicated from the Dispatch Box that the Government still had some faith in the so-called "Public Places Charter".
The charter group was set up by the industry to promote that voluntary action. The attempt has largely failed. Although the major chain, Pizza Hut, which is part of Whitbread, announced in August last year that it would go smoke-free, most other restaurant chains continue to permit smoking, including other parts of the Whitbread Group. The number of pubs banning smoking is less than 1 per cent of the total and may total fewer than 50 across the whole country.
The voluntary Public Places Charter is not an acceptable way forward as all the pub has to do to comply with it is to put a notice on the door which states, "Smoking throughout". There are many pubs within one mile of the Palace of Westminster which claim to comply with the charter by putting up such a notice.
Recently, the more far-sighted members of the hospitality trade have begun to talk about the need for clear national legislation, particularly in view of the Government's suggestion in their Big Conversation document that local authorities should be given new powers to act in their areas. I commend particularly the efforts that a number of local authorities are taking to introduce their own bans; for example, Liverpool is one of the foremost in doing so. This should not require a local initiative; it requires a nationwide initiative to address the problem.
That indeed is what Tim Martin, the founder of the pub chain Wetherspoons, said when backing nationwide legislation. He has introduced non-smoking in the pubs in the Wetherspoons chain. He is against local implementation because of the effect of competition. I believe though that he will be the first of many who will call for similar national legislation.
As noble Lords will know, a number of other countries and local jurisdictions have already acted to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places. They include Ireland, Norway, California, Massachusetts, much of Australia and the city of New York. There is no reliable evidence that smoking bans damage business; indeed, the reverse is the case. The BMJ journal, Tobacco Control, looked at 97 studies worldwide. All independent studies have found no negative impact on takings. Studies which did show a negative impact had tobacco industry backing and most used subjective measures.
Noble Lords will no doubt have seen dire predictions of disaster from the well-organised tobacco and hospitality lobbies in New York. Yet, the New York city finance commissioner, Martha Stark, recently revealed that the business tax take from the city's hospitality venues had increased by 12 per cent in the first nine months since the city's smoking ban took effect.
The smoking ban in Ireland has been introduced to general public support and is already well on the way to proving a great success. A very interesting letter appeared in the Irish Times of 19 April from Mr Pascal Rowenstock, who said:
"I don't wish to sound like the pub bore . . . but from what I have seen the smoking ban has been not only accepted by everyone (apart from the publicans and [a few] grouches) but actually embraced.
Smokers know that setting fire to a weed wrapped in saltpetER-laced paper and inhaling the smoke thereof is not in the best interest of health. I myself (a part-time 'pint' smoker) and many others I know do not mind making the small sacrifice of going outside rather than forcing others to share our vice. Not only do you find yourself cutting down . . . but you get to talk to people you might otherwise never have talked to, with the added bonus of having a perfect alibi to take leave of their company if it proves to have been a mistake".
I am sure noble Lords who are concerned about public health will join me in congratulating the Irish Health Minister Michael Martin and his colleagues on their political courage.
Smoking restrictions generally do not require intensive or costly enforcement. That has been the experience in Ireland and New York and of course on the London Underground and other UK public transport systems. The reason is that such restrictions are generally observed by popular consensus. They combine the power and advantages of the unfavourable sentiments and active interference noted by John Stuart Mill.
There is widespread support in the UK for similar action. The Office of National Statistics' report on Smoking related behaviour and attitudes 2002 found that,
"over four-fifths of those interviewed agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work (88%), in restaurants (88%) and in other public places such as banks and post offices (87%). A smaller percentage of respondents (54%) thought that smoking should be restricted in pubs".
The case for legislation to end smoking in the workplace was also given strong support by Derek Wanless in his recent report to the UK Government on public health. He suggested that an end to all smoking in the workplace could reduce smoking prevalence in the adult population by as much as 4 per cent from the current level of around 26 per cent. That would save many thousands of lives a year and is the single cheapest, simplest and most effective way of making a further major cut in the number of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking.
My Bill does not go as far as the Irish or New York legislation: it does not require all workplaces to be fully smoke-free, although I certainly hope that many would wish to choose that option. The Bill is virtually identical to one introduced in 1994 in another place by Tessa Jowell—now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—when she was a Back-Bench Member.
The similarities between the two Bills are not entirely a coincidence. My hope is that her government colleagues will acknowledge the failure of the voluntary approach and give the Bill a fair wind in this House, and then take it over in the other place as they did the with Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. My Bill can be described as a British compromise. It gives statutory force to the worthy aims of the charter group and ensures that they will be met in practice. It provides protection for employees and members of the public from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. It allows smokers the freedom to continue their habit, although I hope and believe that it will also help to persuade many of them that it is time to quit. The Bill is short and simple and, I believe, it would make a major contribution to solving one of the greatest public health challenges we now face. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
© Lords Hansard 23 April 2004