Health Bill (Committee Stage) [second day] amendment no.20
Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) premises which are royal palaces, including premises occupied by the House of Lords and the House of Commons"
The noble Lord said:
In moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49, which is in my name. My main purpose is twofold—first, to ensure that the Palace of Westminster and other royal palaces are recognised as places of work, where the employers have a duty of care to everyone who visits or works there and, indeed, to set an example to the rest of the nation. I shall say more about that in a moment.
My second purpose is to give my noble friend the opportunity to confirm that all premises where the freehold is owned by the Crown, but are leased or occupied by others, are covered by the provisions of the Bill.
Perhaps I may clear up any confusion about the second point first. If Crown land were to be excluded from the smoke-free provisions of the Bill, a huge loophole would be created. Much of the West End of London, including most of Regent Street, and the Royal Parks come into that category. It is surely unimaginable that the restaurants, cafes and clubs whose premises are on Crown land should not be covered by the Bill.
I understand that the public information office of the Department of Health has already received a number of queries on this point. The response which has been given to Cancer Research UK—I quote directly from the spokesman—is that it is,
"almost sure that property owned by the Crown that is 'public'—used as a workplace, like property on Regent Street, or open for visit by the public—will be captured by the legislation and that provisions to this end will be written in to the regulations".
It would be immensely helpful if my noble friend could confirm that that is indeed the case and that the regulations will be drafted accordingly.
However, the same helpful person at the Department of Health also confirmed what we already know, that the Bill does not apply to the Houses of Parliament. My amendments therefore address that issue as well. That approach is in line with that followed with similar legislation and in the other place. The practice in the past has been for both Houses to choose to subject themselves voluntarily to restrictions of the same kind as those imposed on others by them. To do otherwise would be to lay us open to the charge of double standards.
A Written Answer from a then Lord Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, stated on 16 January 1995:
"United Kingdom health and safety legislation is not considered as applying to the Palace of Westminster . . . The Palace authorities do, however, try to comply fully with the relevant legislation as if it were binding on them in the same way as on the Crown".
Later that year, your Lordships' Offices Committee said it had agreed that,
"the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill now going through Parliament should apply to the House of Lords. This is in line with the Committee's policy that the House should move from voluntary compliance to statutory application in the case of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and the Committee's recent acceptance of the removal of Crown exemption from the Palace of Westminster in respect of planning and health and safety legislation".
The House of Commons Commission came to the same conclusion in its 17th annual report in the 1994–95 Session.
My amendments are wholly in line with that approach, and I hope that the Committee and the Government will agree to them. They also seek to clarify the important question of whether the Bill should apply to the Crown. My view is that it should, and that the Bill needs to say so explicitly.
There are opinions which support that, such as that of Lord Keith of Kinkel in the case of Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council in a 1990 judgment. He then stated:
"The modern authorities do not, in my opinion, require that any gloss should be placed upon that formulation of the principle. However, as the very nature of these appeals demonstrates, it is most desirable that Acts of Parliament should always state explicitly whether the Crown is intended to be bound by any, and if so which, of their provisions".
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me comfort on both those points.
My second purpose is to give my noble friend the opportunity to confirm that all premises where the freehold is owned by the Crown, but are leased or occupied by others, are covered by the provisions of the Bill.
Perhaps I may clear up any confusion about the second point first. If Crown land were to be excluded from the smoke-free provisions of the Bill, a huge loophole would be created. Much of the West End of London, including most of Regent Street, and the Royal Parks come into that category. It is surely unimaginable that the restaurants, cafes and clubs whose premises are on Crown land should not be covered by the Bill.
I understand that the public information office of the Department of Health has already received a number of queries on this point. The response which has been given to Cancer Research UK—I quote directly from the spokesman—is that it is,
"almost sure that property owned by the Crown that is 'public'—used as a workplace, like property on Regent Street, or open for visit by the public—will be captured by the legislation and that provisions to this end will be written in to the regulations".
It would be immensely helpful if my noble friend could confirm that that is indeed the case and that the regulations will be drafted accordingly.
However, the same helpful person at the Department of Health also confirmed what we already know, that the Bill does not apply to the Houses of Parliament. My amendments therefore address that issue as well. That approach is in line with that followed with similar legislation and in the other place. The practice in the past has been for both Houses to choose to subject themselves voluntarily to restrictions of the same kind as those imposed on others by them. To do otherwise would be to lay us open to the charge of double standards.
A Written Answer from a then Lord Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, stated on 16 January 1995:
"United Kingdom health and safety legislation is not considered as applying to the Palace of Westminster . . . The Palace authorities do, however, try to comply fully with the relevant legislation as if it were binding on them in the same way as on the Crown".
Later that year, your Lordships' Offices Committee said it had agreed that,
"the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill now going through Parliament should apply to the House of Lords. This is in line with the Committee's policy that the House should move from voluntary compliance to statutory application in the case of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and the Committee's recent acceptance of the removal of Crown exemption from the Palace of Westminster in respect of planning and health and safety legislation".
The House of Commons Commission came to the same conclusion in its 17th annual report in the 1994–95 Session.
My amendments are wholly in line with that approach, and I hope that the Committee and the Government will agree to them. They also seek to clarify the important question of whether the Bill should apply to the Crown. My view is that it should, and that the Bill needs to say so explicitly.
There are opinions which support that, such as that of Lord Keith of Kinkel in the case of Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council in a 1990 judgment. He then stated:
"The modern authorities do not, in my opinion, require that any gloss should be placed upon that formulation of the principle. However, as the very nature of these appeals demonstrates, it is most desirable that Acts of Parliament should always state explicitly whether the Crown is intended to be bound by any, and if so which, of their provisions".
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me comfort on both those points.
And winding up the debate:
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
My aim is not to spread or equalise misery, but to spread the pleasure of clean air and a smoke-free atmosphere, which we are about to bring about for the overwhelming majority of people at work. We should understand that the Bill is about providing for smoke-free workplaces. Either we legislate to cover ourselves, or we rely on the goodwill and intentions of the House authorities. I am completely reassured by what my noble friend has said about the attitude that we should be adopting in this House. It is clear that our House will follow the same practice that we are expecting others to follow and I am entirely satisfied with what he said about premises that are on Crown land.
With regard to the palaces, which caused concern to the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Monson, I imagine that Her Majesty will be reading our debates and will look at the Bill when it turns into an Act. I would be astonished if Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family do not seek to ensure that the law of the land is followed in their palaces by example, in the same way as we are doing for everyone else. This is the way that the overwhelming majority of countries are going and it is important that we set the best standards. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
© Lords Hansard 24 April 2006
© Lords Hansard 24 April 2006