---

Health Bill

If the noble Lord had declared that interest on his first opportunity to speak—to the best of my knowledge, this is the first occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has spoken on this issue—or if he had spoken on previous issues, I would withdraw my comment. Only he can confirm whether this is the first occasion on which he has spoken. I have always declared on first issue any interests that I have declared. Perhaps we can move on. The question of private members’ clubs boils down to two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that it was a competitive issue with the big boys, but noble colleagues will know that to say that the big pub chains cannot cope with little members’ clubs is not the real world. They more than cope with little members’ clubs—even with big members’ clubs. We can put that issue aside. However, I need to speak to two other issues in moving the amendment. The first is the employee dimension. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Walton, and, I sense, others are now shifting the emphasis of the anti-private members’ clubs argument to the undermining of employees’ health. That did not appear to affect Government Ministers until Report stage in the House of Commons, but, overnight, presumably as a result of a strike of lightning, it became the issue. But the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit, Lord Monson, and Lord Stoddart, were right, as anyone who thinks about it would be: nothing has changed in the conditions of those who work in our clubs. Even if the Bill becomes law in its present form, there will no change for the many clubs which already have a no-smoking policy. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a club does not have a no-smoking policy. There would be annual vote on it, which, as I have made clear, is entirely acceptable. It would be quite possible for those employees who wish to do so then to opt in if they so wished. If they did not, they may have to find other employment. But, the truth is, as my experience shows, the vast majority of them will opt in. We do not know; we have not done a poll. Nobody has done a survey of the views of employees. No survey of employees in this House was done. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that they were not consulted in any depth. If this was the key issue, why has there not been any in-depth, quantitative research among the employees of members’ clubs as to what their wishes and feelings are? That would be the logical way to go forward rather than just striking-out members’ clubs, allegedly on the grounds of the protection of health. That seems to me to be the first issue. The second issue concerns the clubs themselves, which were hoodwinked by the Government. I am not saying that the Government absolutely consciously hoodwinked them, because the Minister in the other place—and presumably, therefore, the Government—had made it clear to all clubs up and down the country that they were to be exempt. So of course they did not petition. Of course they did not make representations—why should they? Why should they waste the Government’s time? They trusted the Government—the Government put it in their manifesto and in their speeches—and yet, at the end of the day, of course, the clubs were ratted on. They were ratted on and chucked out unceremoniously. It is important that we should debate this issue in your Lordships’ House. The Government may well be right that the employees of private members’ clubs all want them to be non-smoking, but we do not know that. Secondly, I think it is incumbent upon Members of Parliament to consult the private members’ clubs in their constituencies, I hope that, for their sakes, they are now doing so. I hope they will make the results of their consultations clear to your Lordships’ House so that when we come to debate this issue on Report—and we will debate it on Report—we can do so on the basis of knowing the real attitude of the clubs. The throwing out of their exemption out came as a bolt from the blue and this will be their first chance to make their position clear. When we get to Report stage, it will be an opportunity, in my judgment, for more sense to prevail. Perhaps I may double-check something with the Minister. It is my understanding that he said that because there had been a free vote in the other place there would be a free vote in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point.