---

Health Bill

My Lords, the point is very simple. If I were allowed to continue with my peroration, I would be able to explain it to noble Lords. The point is simply that if there is more than one person sharing a vehicle, an employer would not necessarily know whether the second person was always going to be a smoker. The point here is that we are trying to protect people who are going to share that vehicle with another person who may be a smoker. We are trying to cut out the risk to the other person. The arguments are exactly the same in relation to other enclosed workplaces. It is just that the workplace is mobile in the case of a vehicle and not mobile in other circumstances. If I may be allowed to go on to develop the arguments further, smoking will be permitted in vehicles that are for the sole use of the driver and are not used for work purposes by anyone else, either as a driver or a passenger, as I said in Grand Committee. This is totally consistent with the provisions for places of work in Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill. A number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether or not people are at risk. Second-hand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 50 are known or suspected human carcinogens, including heavy metals and substances known to be reproductive toxins. The World Health Organisation has classified tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A human carcinogen, with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas in the same category. Most important, some 85 per cent of second-hand smoke consists of invisible, odourless gases—a fact that does not seem to be well recognised. We believe that we are being responsible in giving people protection against exposure to this. We believe that it is right to give workers who share a vehicle that same protection against second-hand smoke exposure as we are giving to people who share other sorts of workplaces. Noble Lords can see that the Government’s intentions with respect to smoke-free vehicles are entirely consistent with our approach towards smoke-free public places and workplaces. That is the essence of why we believe we need this clause. Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 10, because much of what I have been saying, as robustly as I can, has dealt with Amendment No. 11. While we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I also have to point out that it is completely unnecessary, as the effect of it could, if we so wished, be delivered under the current drafting. The amendment seeks to ensure that the regulations can make provision for a vehicle that is being used by no more than one person at a time to be smoke-free. While we do not agree with this proposition, the way in which Clause 1 is drafted already enables us to do that. Subsection (1) provides a power to make regulations providing for vehicles to be smoke-free, and subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that this power can be used to specify the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free. So although we do not agree with the intention behind the amendment, even if we did, it would be unnecessary. The reason why we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10 is quite simple. We know, for the reasons that I have explained, that second-hand smoke can linger, often for extended periods, in the enclosed space. We believe that giving people the protection that I have outlined is absolutely essential. I say again that we have no intention to require private vehicles to be smoke-free through this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a considerable number of points on enforcement. Let me be clear: enforcement requires signage. It will be for the owner of a vehicle used as a workplace by more than one person to ensure that signage is in place. It will therefore be clear, as signage is required, when smoking is not allowed. Enforcement is therefore, I would suggest, not as complex as I think the noble Lord has suggested. We know that where smoking has been banned in other countries there has been a good deal of compliance. I am not sure why we do not think that there may not be the same compliance when this legislation is on the statute book. As for transparency and consistency, it seems to the Government that treating vehicles in exactly the same away as other workplaces is entirely fair and proportionate.