---

Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is, indeed, a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, and to congratulate him on behalf of the whole House on an extremely witty, but, dare I say, not totally uncontroversial maiden speech. In another life, the public perception of the noble Lord was, perhaps, as the leader of the Greater London Council for two years and/or as an eminent Minister for Sport. When I looked at the list of speakers and I saw that I was following the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, I thought, ““Lord Stratford . . . Lord Stratford? . . . Ah, Lord Stratford! I wonder why he took that title?””. Then I thought about sports Ministers and I wondered—dare   I say it—whether he had an inside track to the 2012 Olympics. Perhaps a lesser known but longer-lasting perception of the noble Lord—at least to date—is that of a man who is highly knowledgeable in and a great admirer of the arts. He was a long-time chairman of the Works of Art Committee in another place. I am advised on good authority that the noble Lord instigated the website on the considerable quantity and quality of that art in another place, thereby greatly increasing public access to it. If only for that—of course, it is not only for that reason—the noble Lord is to be congratulated most warmly. Although I do not believe that I shall agree with him that often, I genuinely hope that we will hear from him often in this House. I declare an interest as a loyal member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club, whose tie I am proud to wear this evening. My noble friend Lord Naseby has done the House a great service, because I have now crossed out the first four items to which I intended refer. However, I should mention a further effect of the Private Bills that I do not think he mentioned: they could have serious effects on competition, as a result of different provisions applying to businesses in adjacent or nearby local authority areas. In all other respects, I support what he said. The Government are bringing forward their Bill, and we should wait for that Bill, following the consultation. I wish to ask the Minister about one point of detail, which is illustrative of the Bill. I do not intend to be facetious. Clause 4(2) states that a ““place of work”” is described, among other things, as a ““vehicle””. That seems fine. Then, Clause 5 states that,"““Subject to subsection (2) below””—" to which I shall refer—"““smoking is prohibited in places of work””—" namely, vehicles—assuming that you work in a vehicle, in a borough. The clause continues:"““This section shall not apply to a place””—" namely, a vehicle—"““or a part of a place””—" still, namely, a part of a vehicle—"““that is wholly uncovered by any roof, ceiling or canopy, whether fixed or movable””." I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being facetious, but if a Bill is to mean what it states, and your place of work is in a car, presumably you cannot smoke in a convertible car if the hood is up, but you can if the hood is down. That is my reading of the clause. The two Bills are riddled with such inconsistencies. I have spoken on the subject previously and noble Lords will know perfectly well where I stand. I object most strongly to what I describe as the nanny state. I object most strongly to the reduction in personal freedom. I shall conclude by repeating the view of the Health and Safety Commission. It stated that, in its view it was not currently reasonably practical under health, safety and welfare law to ban smoking in all such workplaces—restaurants, pubs and so on—in some cases, because it would not be commercially viable and in others because it would interfere with personal freedoms. I object most strongly to both Bills.