Smoking in Public Places (Hansard, 8 May 1989)

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the procedure under which we shall debate the motion. The motion is much more fundamental and important than may at first seem apparent, because it represents a significant change in Government policy.
The motion announces that, on all Euro-nanny smoking matters, the Government now intend suddenly to fall back on a most welcome voluntary approach, and to declare that such matters are no longer within the competence of the EEC.
On 14 November 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor as Under-Secretary of State for Health—introduced an EEC directive on tobacco products whose intention was to relabel all tobacco cartons in this country, on the ground that it was a thoroughly good thing that the EEC should attempt to reduce people's smoking activities and to stop them smoking. So from compulsion on 14 November we have moved to voluntarism on 8 March.
That change is welcome, but I understand that the House has only 15 minutes to debate the motion before the procedural axe falls. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health should come to the House to explain the difference between the policy of 14 November and that being adopted today and also to make it clear that something of considerable significance is occurring in our relations with the EEC.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Although the procedural axe will fall at 7 o'clock, we shall return to the motion after private business has been dealt with. The hon. Gentleman's other points can be raised during the debate.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a proposal before the House from the EEC in the name of Lord Cockfield, its former Commissioner, stating that the Government should, to conform with the Single European Act, reduce cigarette tax. The motion now before the House aims at reducing smoking, but according to the Department of Health, the EEC proposals would, because of reduced taxation, serve to increase it. My understanding of parliamentary rules is that the House cannot consider conflicting proposals. I wonder whether that rule applies also to the EEC proposal instructing the Government to reduce taxation on cigarettes. Do the restrictions placed on normal parliamentary debate apply to EEC proposals?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Nothing in the motion before the House is against parliamentary rules. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue his line of argument, he should do so in debate, after the motion has been moved.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman)
I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft 610 Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area. Smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom today. Ninety per cent. of all lung cancer deaths, 20 per cent. of all deaths due to coronary heart disease and 90 per cent. of all deaths caused by bronchitis are associated with smoking. Smoking during pregnancy may now be the single most important cause of late foetal death and leads to reduced birth weight and increased perinatal mortality. It is likely that giving up smoking is the single most important thing that smokers can do to improve their health. The Government actively discourage smoking and have an extensive public education programme run by the Health Education Authority.
Most smokers take up regular smoking before the age of 18, and it has been estimated that of the 250 million children and teenagers now living in the European region of the World Health Organisation between 30 and 40 million will be killed in later life by tobacco. It is obviously crucial to reach young people of school age and help them to resist the pressure to start smoking. In January the Prime Minister launched a three-year campaign to reduce the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This campaign will be run jointly by the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health and will cost the Department £2 milion each year for the next three years. The campaign will use the mass media—including TV, radio and magazines—to influence teenage children, and it will also seek the support of a wide range of national and local organisations, including schools, local education authorities, health authorities, Action on Smoking and Health and leading health charities.
This debate gives members a valuable opportunity to consider the draft EC recommendation on smoking in public places which will come to the Council of Ministers on 16 May. The purpose of the recommendation is to exhort member states to make progress in providing smoke-free areas in enclosed premises to which the public have access. The Government wholeheartedly support that aim. Our approach of encouraging the provision of smoke-free areas has met with a good deal of success, and I would very much like that to continue. However, it is very important that we do not allow the Commission to use the recommendation as a means to extend its competence. That is why, as I will explain shortly, the United Kingdom has proposed that we should replace the recommendation with a mixed resolution. I shall describe what is meant by that in a moment.

§ Mr. Aitken
As my hon. Friend is dealing with the issue of extending the competence of the EC, will he now deal with the point that I raised in my point of order a few moments ago? Her Majesty's Government were all in favour of extending that competence to deal with compulsory anti-smoking directives a few months ago. Why has there been a complete change of heart tonight? Why are the Government now in favour only of the voluntary approach to curbing excessive smoking?
I know that occupants of my hon. Friend's office seem to have a rather high casualty rate nowadays, so I advise him to choose his words carefully. Nevertheless, the ambivalence needs to be clarified.

§ Mr. Freeman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will 611 be able to amplify his point, but I shall try to address it in the few remarks that I intend to make in opening the debate. If I am able—with your permission—to reply at the end, I may expand on them then.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Freeman
I should like to make progress.

§ Mr. Marlow
If I intervene at this stage, I dare say that my hon. Friend will be able to make even swifter progress.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the competence of the Community with regard to this issue, as, I am sure, are most right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend is aware of the existence of the scrap of paper called the Single European Act, which states that the Community—I presume that that includes my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—was Moved by the will … to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union". If my right hon. Friend has signed a treaty to move us towards European union, does that not mean that this measure is a proper measure to be decided at European level, and that therefore Europe should have competence? How can my hon. Friend say that Europe does not have competence when our right hon. Friend has signed this turbid and unpleasant document?

§ Mr. Freeman
First, we argue that the changes made by the European Commission in the text of the document that we have before us are acceptable, in the sense that the document does not recommend legislation but would enable Her Majesty's Government to continue with their programme of encouraging individuals, authorities and other bodies to operate a voluntary code limiting or banning smoking in certain parts of public places. Secondly, we argue that under the treaty the Commission has no power in public health matters. I hope that I have made that crystal clear.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I appreciate my hon. Friend's courtesy in giving way. One thing that we would love to know is what the Government can do if they take the view that the measure is beyond the competence of the EC, but the majority of Ministers decide to approve it. Is there anything that we can do to stop it from coming into effect? Some of us are very worried about that. Have we any powers to stop it unless we can persuade all the member states unanimously that the EC is not competent?

§ Mr. Freeman
A unanimous decision is required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If my hon. Friends will permit me to develop my remarks, I shall demonstrate that a mixed resolution or recommendation combines the elements of a matter within the general competence of the Council and those of a decision reached by the various Ministers present, outside the treaty of Rome, if they believe that it is in the interests of all the nations involved. I shall be arguing that in the case of public health matters, which are separate from environmental matters, the writ of the treaty does not run, and we resist the general priciple that the Commission should seek to extend its powers in this regard.
It may be helpful if I set out some of the background. There has been much concern in recent years about the 612 risks of "secondary" or "passive" smoking, and that is the underlying motivation behind the recommendation. The Government accept the findings of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which concluded that there was a 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers who are habitually exposed to tobacco smoke. That could account for several hundred deaths each year. There is also a risk of increased respiratory disease in children, and in pregnant women the development of the foetus may be damaged. Tobacco smoke can also cause considerable irritation to the eyes and throat.
Public awareness about the risks of passive smoking has increased public demand for the provision of smoke-free areas. Generally, smokers and non-smokers alike consider it right that smoke-free areas should, if at all possible, be available in public places. The Government actively encourage the implementation of smoking policies and welcome the increasing introduction of smoke-free zones in public places such as cinemas, shops, restaurants and public transport.

§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)
Why, then, have the Government done nothing to introduce no-smoking areas in pubs? Is the Minister aware that the House approved my ten-minute Bill providing that there should be non-smoking areas in pubs, yet the previous Health Minister—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—actively resisted any demand for action? Why are pubs the one area in which the Government refuse to try to enforce such a requirement?

§ Mr. Freeman
We argue that in the case of restaurants, pubs and aeroplanes—the hon. Gentleman will remember a recent debate in the House on banning smoking in aeroplanes—it is for the publican, the restaurateur, the airline or whatever authority is involved to decide. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is already legislation relating to transport: London Underground has banned smoking, which it is able to do under its byelaws—not, I should add, for reasons of public health, but for reasons of public safety. There is a considerable difference between legislation to protect the public safety and legislation to protect the public health.

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
My hon. Friend has outlined the dangers of passive smoking. On what evidence does he make his statement? Does it come from his Department, or can it be hearsay?

§ Mr. Freeman
I was hoping to come to that point shortly, but I shall deal with it directly to help my hon. Friend. We believe that passive smoking—that is, the inhalation of the cigarette smoke of others in public and, indeed, private places—leads to several hundred deaths a year. We believe that the incidence and possible incidence of cancer, particularly lung cancer, is increased, especially for those who are regularly exposed to smoking by others. That is not the conclusion of Ministers or other politicians; it is based on the advice of the chief medical officer.
We believe that in general voluntary policies are the best way to proceed, because such policies—being produced in response to consumer or employee demand—will cater for the needs of both smokers and non-smokers, and can be tailored more easily to individual areas and workplaces. We believe that such voluntary and 613 local action is preferable to a national legislated ban. As I have said before, where banning smoking is necessary for safety or hygiene we have not hesitated to introduce legislation, and under existing legislation London Underground has banned smoking for safety reasons.
The EC draft recommendation that we are considering tonight originates from the Europe Against Cancer action plan. Hon. Members may have seen the proposal as originally put forward by the Commission. The explanatory memorandum describes the amendments that have been made to the original proposal. As it now stands, the draft recommendation calls on member states to work towards a ban on smoking in enclosed premises open to the public and on public transport. This may be done through legislation or by other means, including voluntary means, which is the approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
The recommendation also calls for clearly defined areas to be set aside for smokers both in enclosed public places and on public transport—especially where long journeys might be involved. The recommendation is based on the treaty of Rome as a whole, not on any one article, which means that unaminity among member states is required if the measure is to be adopted.

§ Mr. Marlow
My hon. Friend said earlier that the European Community does not have competence with regard to—