---

Health Bill

My Lords, I was so taken aback by the support for the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I almost dozed off. I apologise. Amendment No. 5 would reinstate the possibility of exempting membership clubs from the smoke-free provisions, as a number of noble Lords have said. I have to remind noble Lords that the issue of whether or not private members clubs should be exempt from the smoke-provisions was the subject of a free vote at the Report stage in the other place. The clear view that was expressed there was that private members clubs—and, of course, other licensed premises—should be treated in the same way as other public places and workplaces. On the first vote, the majority in favour of extending the ban to membership clubs was 200; on the second vote on whether the ban should extend to membership clubs and all other licensed premises the majority grew to 284. In short, the House of Commons took the view that the legislation should go further than the position in the Labour Party’s manifesto in the interests of the public health. I am not trying to disguise that fact. That was the decision that was taken in the other place. It is the Government’s firm view that that was the right decision, both in terms of public health and in reflecting public opinion. A number of noble Lords have referred to the issue of why the situation changed. My noble friend Lord Faulkner cited the change in public opinion reflected in the post-election consultation. We have always said as a government that we would listen to public opinion on the smoke-free provisions in the Bill. That is why we offered a public consultation after the election. Our original proposals offered a balance between minimising the risk to workers and non-smokers whilst retaining some places for smoking. However, as I said earlier, we listened to many different views inside and outside Parliament and the growing opinion in England in support of a more comprehensive set of measures. At the time when the Labour Party’s manifesto was drafted, public support for smoke-free pubs and bars was not as strong in England as to warrant comprehensive legislation. It was, as I think a number of noble Lords have said, both today and at the Committee stage, about 50 per cent in favour of a ban. A large majority of the population in England now support a law to make pubs and bars entirely smoke free. While only about half the population supported entirely smoke-free pubs and bars in England April-May 2004, in under two years—that is, by the end of 2005—that proportion of support for a complete ban had risen to two-thirds and looked as though it was continuing to rise. It shows great credit that the Government are prepared to listen to that changing mood on something which a number of noble Lords in this House have said is about culture. The culture of public attitude is changing on this issue. I accept that it may not be changing in one or two places in this House quite as quickly as public opinion, but it is changing in this particular area. The other place voted to create a level playing field in the hospitality sector both in economic terms and, importantly—as a number of noble Lords have said—in terms of protecting the health of workers and patrons. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made clear, this amendment would create unfair competition for a large section of the hospitality industry. All pubs, bars and restaurants would have to become smoke-free, while the membership club next door could continue to permit smoking. Private clubs with bars frequently compete with pubs in their local area. It is understandable then that the pub trade is strongly opposed to this amendment. In an editorial on 26 January, the Morning Advertiser—the newspaper of the pub industry—recommended that,"““the 20,000 members clubs in England and Wales must operate on the same lines as our pubs. If they do not, the Government will have created an explosive situation that could tear communities apart in many regions of the country. The trade must now switch its focus to persuading the Government that only a total ban is fair””." The amendment would also result in disparities in protection from second-hand smoke for workers or patrons in membership clubs compared with those in other hospitality venues. Work in a membership club is similar, if not identical, to work in other hospitality venues. That is the reality of the position in most clubs, as a number of noble Lords have correctly identified. Yet this amendment would mean that a person working behind the bar in a membership club would be expected to breathe hazardous second-hand smoke while a person working behind the bar in a pub would be protected under the law. That is the situation that we would create if we passed this amendment. I know which side of the argument I and the rest of the Government want to stand on. In a press notice on 27 October 2005, the British Institute of Innkeeping stated that the pub trade,"““strongly opposes the proposal that members’ clubs are exempt from the ban. If the basis for banning smoking is to protect staff working in licensed premises, those working in members’ clubs deserve the same protection. Allowing smoking in members’ clubs would lead to a migration of drinkers from local pubs into the members’ clubs, which could essentially become smoking clubs. This loss of custom to small licensed premises could drive them out of business””." That is the industry and not some nanny state speaking on these issues. The Bill will ensure a level playing field for the hospitality industry, equal protection from harm for all workers in the hospitality industry and consistency with smoke-free legislation in Scotland. A bit of consistency in that area is no bad thing.