---

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

My Lords, I also wish to offer my congratulations to Liverpool City Council and the London local authorities who are promoting the Bills. I wish to concentrate my remarks on Liverpool. I do so because a great deal of my working life involved going back and forth from Liverpool on an almost daily basis, but also—perhaps more important—because my late mother-in-law was born on a Liverpool tram and was granted the freedom of the city of Liverpool. Until the 1970s, it was thought that only active smokers were at risk from developing cancers of the lung, heart disease and other smoke-related illnesses, but over the past two decades extensive research has proved the contrary and has shown beyond any doubt, it seems to me, that passive smoking can cause the same diseases. When someone smokes, a spiral goes up in the air; 85 per cent of smoke from a cigarette goes up in the air. In that smoke there is a lethal cocktail of over 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 50 of which are known to cause cancer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, ventilation is not the answer. A study by the Health and Safety Authority in Ireland in 2002 determined that ventilation did not reduce levels of second-hand smoke compounds. A view that has been reinforced by the BMA is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. It cannot be stated too often: non-smokers are at risk, whether they work alongside smokers or whether they go into social environments such as pubs and restaurants. Women and children face the greatest risk. An estimated 17,000 under-fives are hospitalised each year as a result of passive smoking. Although a European directive entitles expectant and new mothers to be protected against known health risks in the workplace, three in 10 pregnant women in the United Kingdom are exposed to second-hand smoke at work. Babies born to women so exposed, whether at home or in the workplace, are lighter than those born to women not exposed. Second-hand smoke also increases the risk of giving birth prematurely. One study found that mothers exposed daily to second-hand smoke had a 23 per cent increased risk of having a premature birth. The White Paper Choosing Health, which has been discussed, proposes a ban on smoking in public places other than pubs that do not sell food—so-called wet pubs. That argument is illogical and completely undermines the White Paper’s core aim of reducing inequality. That is not the case as it stands. I hope that the consultation taking place will result in a Bill that provides for a comprehensive smoke-free environment in the workplace. In the mean time, it is essential that we continue to pursue these Bills and provide the evidence behind the reasons for them. I wish to say why I think that the White Paper’s position is illogical and to look at a real situation. Let us look at two women friends, living in Liverpool, who do not have any option about where to work because they must fit their jobs around childcare arrangements and other family responsibilities. They both take jobs in pubs for a few hours each day—one in a pub that serves food and the other in a wet pub, of which there are many, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said. They both become pregnant. The health of the woman working in the pub that serves food will not be at risk, as she is protected, but her friend working in the wet pub is not protected. I see no fairness or logic in that argument. It is not acceptable for any worker in a non-food pub or private club to suffer the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. It cannot be stressed too often that it is not an anti-smoking campaign but a health and safety issue. It is about saving lives. Ending smoking in the workplace could save an estimated 5,000 lives each year. The prime concern must be the health consequences. We have also been told that there would be serious economic consequences for restaurateurs, pubs or whatever, but we must look at the other side of that equation. Smoking costs the NHS in Liverpool about £12.5 million each year. The economic cost to employers, as my noble friend said, works out at £28.5 million each year. Workers who smoke are more likely to be absent from work. Time is lost when workers take a smoke break in working hours. Moreover, employers who continue to allow smoking in the workplace risk claims of damages from employees exposed to second-hand smoke. I cite one case: a woman with asthma was awarded £17,000 in compensation against her former employer, who failed to stop smoking in her presence. In Ireland, publicans have recently reported no difficulty in implementation. Similarly, in Norway, the ban has had no negative impact. The same applies in other countries—including Malta, New Zealand and Italy, seven states in the USA, most of Canada and parts of Australia—that have introduced a complete ban. I support the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not in her place, about the importance of initiatives taken by local authorities. In my area of Brighton and Hove, we are looking at coming up with a similar Bill. Although that is good news, it would be even more welcome if the Government came up with a very similar Bill. I know that we have all received briefings opposing the ban from organisations that have a vested interest. I am more interested in the briefings that I have received from the British Lung Foundation, all the major cancer organisations, the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association and the RCN. It is for them that I wish the Bill success.