Proceeding contribution from Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL].
Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]
My Lords, it falls to me to be the first person from these Benches to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, to our proceedings. He said that he was not sure about how we are so polite to each other. The best way to describe that is to say that he has now entered a fight with stilettos rather than clubs; feel for the rib and dig in. I am sure that he will quickly get the hang of it. This is one of those interesting debates in which already virtually everything that I thought about saying has been said in support of the Bills. It is a fact that ingesting second-hand or unused smoke from a cigarette still damages you, still smells bad, still irritates your eyes—and ultimately could kill. So what is the big difference? The difference is that you have not lit the cigarette and that you have not chosen to smoke. The case for the Bill is almost unanswerable. I can go on for a long time about how unacceptable it is for people to pass their habit, their drug addiction, on to somebody else. Remember, we are talking about an addiction. At the same time, I have a little sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I am just of the age group that was affected by smoking. It was still the case that a cigarette was a social tool; it was something that you were expected to do. Indeed, when it came to chatting up girls, it was said that you must smoke because you could offer a cigarette or a light. Smoking was integrated into our social background. I have a little sympathy for those who have been told to do something, and then the norm they have been trained to accept—the drug habit they have acquired—is removed. They are now told that smoking is bad, and they should not do it because they are affecting other people. But that is the only ground that I can see for not giving full support to the Bills. Indeed, there are really no grounds; it is just an excuse for people to oppose the Bill. We are going through a process that allows detailed scrutiny of the Bill and these things can be argued out for ever. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby—who is no longer in his seat—spoke about the vast cost of QCs. The vast cost to the NHS is a pretty handy come back to that. QCs will have to be paid only once or twice—I do not think we will get away with once—but if smoking continues we will pay for it through the tax bill for a long time. We must make sure these Bills go forward. They will really stop the ingestion of an addictive, damaging drug through smoking. I hope that this House will get the Bill through and will make sure it is a real kick to the Government to make sure that they follow it to its conclusion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c1549-50
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Staff Death Employment Diseases Health hazards Greater London Protection Public places Liverpool City Council Passive smoking Liverpool Tobacco Working conditions Smoking Public health
- Legislation
- Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill (HL) 2004/05 to 2005-06
- London Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill (HL) 2004/05 to 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-30 18:39:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263231
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263231
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263231