§ Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
1.50 am§ Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham)This debate is about three main issues: health, environmental protection and individual rights.
Not only is smoking dangerous to the health of non-smokers, but it is offensive in many other ways.
Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.That was said by King James I in 1604.it is a shocking thing, blowing smoke out of our mouths into other people's mouths, eyes and noses, and having the same done to us.That was said by Samuel Johnson in the 18th century.To bring us a little closer to the present, in 1986 the World Health Organisation said on the health question:
Passive smoking violates the right to health of non-smokers, who must be protected against this noxious form of environmental pollution.The problem is centuries old, and it is still with us.I do not seek a ban on smoking as such. If smokers want to kill themselves, that is up to them. But if people have to smoke, let them do it in a designated area so that it does not cause danger to, or interfere with, the comfort and rights of the majority—the two thirds of the adult population who do not smoke, and who have the right to breathe in safe and clean air.
Let me state clearly that there is no need to spend much time reciting in detail the evidence that passive smoking—that is, breathing in other people's tobacco smoke—kills non-smokers. It is just over three years since the Froggatt report was published. That report stated that passive smoking kills several hundred smokers—through lung cancer—each year in the United Kingdom. Since then, the Government have repeatedly accepted the findings of that report. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, then Minister for Health, said in May 1989:
We believe that passive smoking … leads to several hundred deaths a year … the environment is being polluted by those who smoke in public places."—[Official Report,8 May 1989; Vol, 152, c. 614–84.]Only recently, an excellent publication entitled "Passive Smoking—a Health Hazard" explained in detail the risks of passive smoking and recommended that action be taken to protect non-smokers. The report was drawn up by the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the British Heart Foundation and the National Asthma Campaign among others. The list comprises 48 bodies—virtually all the eminent health, medical and scientific bodies in the country. The foreword says:On the basis of a large body of research it can now be stated that passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers and serious respiratory illness in babies. Passive smoking may also cause chronic middle-ear disease in children, and recent studies suggest an association between breathing other people's tobacco smoke and heart disease. In addition, passive smoking can aggravate existing illnesses such as asthma … risks of passive smoking are greater than those posed by any other indoor manmade pollutant released into the general environment. This information places a responsibility on employers, who need to safeguard the health of their employees; on those responsible for managing buildings and transport used by the public (and especially1063those used by children); and on the Government. which has an overall duty to protect public health. Passive smoking is a hazard to health that can be prevented.In gist, passive smoking is breathing in other people's tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke is a cocktail of about 5,000 different chemicals, including carcinogens, irritants and poisonous gases. Smokers inhale the chemicals direct into their bodies as what is called mainstream smoke. Tobacco smoke in the air is about one fifth mainstream smoke, exhaled by smokers. A massive 85 per cent. is what is called sidestream smoke, which comes from the end of cigarettes or cigars between puffs. Sidestream smoke contains higher concentrations of many poisonous chemicals than does mainstream smoke. The collective results of more than 20 studies show that non-smokers living with smokers are between 10 and 30 per cent. more likely to get lung cancer than people living with others who are non-smokers.Tellingly, if such a contaminant were incorporated into a new product today, it would he immediately banned. The effects on infants of parents who smoke—pregnant mothers in particular—are now well documented and I do not intend to list them in detail.
Only tobacco companies deny the overwhelming evidence on passive smoking. That is not surprising. They have the most to lose from the increasing number of restrictions on where and when people can smoke. The stakes for such companies are, indeed, enormous. The president of the tobacco multinational R. J. Reynolds has said of the anti-smoking measures:
If they cause every smoker to smoke just one less cigarette a day, our company will stand to lose $92 million in sales annually.But they are not winning their battle, I am glad to say. In February this year, an Australian court ruled that the tobacco industry was not telling the truth by placing full-page newspaper advertisements which denied that there was any evidence of harm from passive smoking.Almost everyone now accepts that passive smoking is a health hazard and that to smoke in public is downright anti-social. It is perhaps that anti-social aspect that makes many people very angry about being forced to breathe in other people's smoke. It is simply unpleasant and unacceptable to go home reeking of tobacco smoke after sitting in a restaurant, pub or some other public place. Why should the majority have to put up with it?
Some would have us believe that, if we attempted to restrict smoking, we would at the same time restrict smokers' liberty. But one man's liberty is another man's poison. If we are to talk about liberty and rights, I, as a Conservative, believe in the right not to be forced to breathe polluted air. After all, I am doing harm to no one by seeking clean air. But those who smoke fill the air with a cocktail of chemicals including ammonia, benzine, cyanide and formaldehyde.
As a non-smoker, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not doing you any harm. If I smoke in your presence and near to you, I am endangering your health and I do not believe that I have the right to do that. Nor does anyone have the right to endanger anyone else's health.
I am pleased to say that many smokers accept the need for restrictions on smoking. A survey for the Consumers Association magazine Which Way to health? found a majority in favour of restrictions on smoking in all public places, such as public buildings, transport, shops, eating places and places of entertainment, except pubs. That majority included a large number of smokers. We are 1064 beginning to see a shift towards the smoke-free society that 1 predicted in my previous Adjournment debate on this subject in January 1990.
Many United Kingdom employers, including Ford and the Metropolitan police, have introduced written policies on smoking. Public transport in London, with the exception of black cabs, is now smoke-free, following the ban on smoking on London buses introduced in February. That example is being followed in many other cities. Many airlines are introducing no-smoking rules, following the example of Air UK and Air Canada, which have banned smoking on all flights.
I was alarmed to find that the air on board a plane is recycled. That means that the little air nozzle above my head—which I always turned on for fresh air—pumps out carcinogens from the smoking to the non-smoking section. Surely that is proof enough that ventilation will not adequately deal with tobacco smoke. Indeed, one reason why legislation is needed is that voluntary methods, such as better air conditioning and ventilation, offer no solution to the problem.
The most effective air conditioning system can filter out nearly all smoke particles, but the gases will pass through the filters. Therefore, filtered smoky air recirculated by air conditioning will still contain poisonous and carcinogenic gases. A study carried out by Birmingham university reported on the concept of building sickness and the effects created among office workers of itchy eyes, stuffy noses and dry throats. Good air conditioning systems wholly filter the air, but they recirculate 80 to 90 per cent. of it, bringing the rest in from outside. Consequently, most office air will be recirculated many times before being replaced. The dilution of smoke in the air is therefore very low. Meeting the necessary standards may result in complaints about draughts and will certainly make buildings much more expensive to run.
Applying an effective system to whole buildings would be prohibitively expensive and still would not protect people sitting near smokers from the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. As the report on passive smoking concluded:
Improved ventilation would not provide adequate safeguards against exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.I congratulate the Department of Health on making clear statements that passive smoking does kill, but I press the Government to do even more. We are dealing with a significant health hazard. Passive smoking causes lung cancer as well as having a serious effect on the health of asthmatics and on young children in particular.The Government have until now relied on airline operators, employers and others who control public places to take steps voluntarily to protect non-smokers' health, but those measures will go only as far as the tobacco industry will allow. We do not rely on voluntary measures to protect people from other hazards, such as asbestos or chemicals like formaldehyde in the air. Thanks to recent legislation, we do not rely on voluntary measures alone to ensure that our streets are kept clear of litter which is a public nuisance and not, like passive smoking, a health risk. We should not, therefore, rely on voluntary measures to ensure that our air is kept free from tobacco smoke.
The Government must agree that it makes sense and would be a popular move to introduce legislation making non-smoking the norm in society. That does not mean 1065 banning smoking outright, as I made clear at the beginning of my comments, but it means giving precedence to the rights of the non-smoking majority.
One argument that we constantly hear against using legislation is that bans are unenforceable, yet such legislation works. The Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—all modern, western countries—have national or local laws that protect non-smokers. I have witnessed them in action—in New York of all places. Despite its being the last place on earth where one would expect people to accept any rules regarding personal behaviour, New Yorkers have responded readily. I am pleased to say that one cannot walk into any restaurant without being offered a seat at a non-smoking table.
In this country I know that laws on smoking would be welcomed and enforced. By making the protection of non-smokers a legal requirement, we would find a willing audience. Many employers and restaurant owners have stated that they would like to introduce smoking restrictions, but that they would prefer the Government to take a lead by making non-smoking a requirement under the law.
On the question of workplace practice, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires employers to provide a safe environment, free from risk to health and adequate for the welfare of employees. Under the Act, it is the duty of employers to do everything that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. In criminal law, by virtue of section 2(2)(e) of the legislation, employers must ensure that the working environment is safe, but the provision has no teeth when it comes to the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Measures have been introduced on the grounds of safety and hygiene rather than to avoid the health risks of passive smoking.
In this country there are, in effect, no legal restrictions on smoking to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke. Yet such measures are widespread throughout the civilised world—in the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, Spain, Belgium and recently Ireland, to name just a few countries. Despite that, however, some progress cannot be prevented. Last year, a social security tribunal ruled that one woman's asthma attacks, brought on by environmental tobacco smoke at work, should be classed as an industrial accident and she was awarded a disability pension.
I am sure that getting legislation is just a matter of time. Events are moving our way. Until then, I want to help the Government take steps to protect non-smokers now. Therefore, I suggest a five-point plan which should be adopted as soon as possible. Each point can be carried out quickly and easily, and each would take us closer to making non-smoking the norm.
First, each Government Department should be given 12 months to introduce a formal written policy on smoking. That policy should make no smoking the norm in all Government buildings and should allow smoking only in separate, designated smoking areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could take the lead, as his Department is most aware of the hazards of passive smoking.
1066 Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment could take active steps towards complying with the terms of the European Community mixed resolution of 18 July 1989. It calls on member states to protect non-smokers' health and to report progress on doing so by July of this year.
Thirdly, the Health and Safety Executive can be instructed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to implement an active programme for employers and employees which ensures that, not only are the hazards of passive smoking widely publicised, but that a smoking policy to deal with the problem is forcefully advocated. I suggest that the Health and Safety Executive should be set a target of ensuring that more than half of all United Kingdom employers have a proper smoking policy within two years.
Fourthly, the House should set an example to the nation by returning to the Smoking Rooms. Those used to be—it was before my time—the only places where smoking was allowed but, sadly, that considerate practice is now ignored. We would send a clear signal to non-smokers and smokers alike if we accepted that one Member of Parliament should not pollute another.
Finally and most important, the Government should support the Bill that I shall introduce tomorrow. It will amend the existing Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to give every employee the right to a smoke-free working environment. It is a simple measure and will not force employers to adopt a particular policy. They will have the right to choose which policy would be best for them, but any employee who was exposed to tobacco smoke would have the backing of the law in getting a smoke-free working environment. Employers would no longer be able to ignore the pleas of non-smoking employees for smoke-free air.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will take note of each of those five points. I believe that they will be widely welcomed and acted upon, given the chance. There is no greater form of indoor air pollution than other people's tobacco smoke, and moves to deal with the problem will be met with strong support and relief from the vast majority of people.
§ 2.7 am
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) for allowing me to say a few words at this unearthly hour in the morning. I would not have dreamt of staying up this late if I did not wholeheartedly support what he has said. He made a cracking speech, and it is a great shame that more people did not hear it.
My hon. Friend said that the polluter must be sharply reminded that smoking is damaging, dangerous and unacceptable to other people. There is also a carrot: those who administer and organise public places such as restaurants, hotels and cafes should realise that, if they provided smoking-free areas, they would attract more non-smokers. Many people like me refrain from going to restaurants and cafes because they cannot stand the inconsiderate smoker who puffs smoke into their faces. As a result, restaurants and cafes suffer.
Surely the market force argument speaks even louder. Those who complain about the increased costs of running a business would have an easy way forward if they banned smoking other than in defined areas. They would find that 1067 their business would increase and prosper. That must be the best way to decrease the number of people who smoke in public places. It is up to the operators to realise that the market force argument would prove the case.
My hon. Friend's robust and determined attempts to reduce the imposition of smokers on non-smokers were preceded many years ago by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who took a most unpopular line in trying to stop people smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has carried on that magnificent work and I hope that, in future, the House will have an opportunity to say that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Acton were the early fathers who changed the law so that people who find smoking in public places offensive will be able to thank them for their sterling work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham on the wonderful example that he has given to us tonight.
§ 2.9 am
§ The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on seeking the opportunity to raise a subject of great concern to us all, and certainly to those of us who want to improve the health of the nation. I share my hon. Friend's deep concern about the damage that smoking can do to people's health. It is the greatest cause of preventable disease in the United Kingdom and is responsible for more than 100,000 premature deaths each year. We have made progress in reducing the prevalence of smoking, but we are not complacent. I welcome the opportunity that is provided by the debate to carry forward the issues of concern for us all, and certainly for my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), even at this unearthly hour. My hon. Friend's consistent concern and championship of the cause have, I believe, helped to change public opinion.
There has been a dramatic shift in the way in which smoking is perceived in Britain and in the areas in which smoking is regarded as unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Hex ham identified many of those areas, which include public transport, British Airways, Air UK, London Regional Transport and the workplace as a whole, in which many more firms introduced non-smoking policies during 1990. I know that the Action on Smoking and Health consultancy, which is available to those who are thinking of establishing smoke-free policies at work, has received about 200 requests for its services. I pay tribute to the work that is undertaken by ASH. I am pleased to say that the Government are able to fund it to the tune of about £241,000. It has done much to press the issue and bring it to the public's attention.
In setting out his five-point plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to the steps that are being taken by several Government Departments. It is the intention of those of us within the Department of Health to achieve a smoke-free environment by agreement with the work force. The new buildings that are being planned in Leeds are intended to be smoke-free. During the time that I have been a Minister—over 18 months—many more no-smoking signs have been erected in public places. We shall shortly be producing renewed guidance for smoke-free policies in hospitals. We have commissioned an independent consultant, who has already produced a 1068 draft. We shall be consulting within the service shortly before making the guidance widely available. I hope that many others will follow our example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham will know that the Department of the Environment will soon be producing guidance on smoking in public places, as envisaged by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am pleased that my hon. Friend identified the document that we recently helped to fund called "Passive Smoking: A Health Hazard". It was produced by the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research fund. That is authoritative information on a subject that is of great concern and importance to us all.
In his five-point plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to the mixed resolution and the request of the EC for information about the implementation of the directive. I assure him that we shall be providing that information as soon as the Commission formally requests it. We are fully confident that the progress that we have made will be equal to, or ahead of, that of other countries that are carrying forward the work.
My hon. Friend's suggestion of Smoking Rooms in this place is one that he should take up with the House authorities. He will understand that the matter is not entirely for me. I certainly wish him well. I shall watch the progress of my hon. Friend's Bill with care to see how it develops. There can be no doubt that the contribution of my hon. Friend, with the forthright remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, who speaks so powerfully about the market forces that I believe have substantially but subtly led to changes over many years, have led to developments over the years which no one, whether at work, at business, at play or at home, can afford to underestimate.
Although the figures have come down significantly—we have had one of the greatest falls in the prevalence of smoking among the countries of the EC—we remain concerned about the amount of smoking among women, particularly young women. That is why one of the first steps that I took on becoming a Health Minister was to launch the teenage smoking campaign, and we have recently announced an initiative on the whole question of smoking by pregnant women. The effect of smoking not only on the mother but on the infant is incontrovertible. About one in 12 pregnant women still smokes, despite the evidence of the effect in terms of the low birth weight of the baby. That issue must be of great concern to us all.
Of every 1,000 young people smoking now, six will die on the roads, but 250 will die from the habit. Most will die from lung cancer, respiratory disease or heart disease. Many will die in middle age. So we must make discouraging smoking a high priority.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Hexham pointed out, our advisory independent scientific committee on smoking and health has made it clear that there is a 10 to 30 per cent. increase in the risk of contracting lung cancer for non-smokers who are habitually exposed to tobacco smoke. That issue must be addressed urgently.
There are economic advantages from having a no smoking policy at places of work and leisure, including lower cleaning and redecorating costs, reduced absenteeism—50 million working days are lost each year from smoking-related diseases—higher morale and a better corporate image.
The tide is clearly flowing in the right direction. The incidence of smoking is being reduced, and smoke-free 1069 provision is increasing. We must work with employers, managers and consumers to deliver a pleasant and healthy environment. Prevention is better than cure. As a Health Minister, I am involved in improving the services available to sick and disabled people. Smoking is unhealthy and unpleasant. It damages people's health, as the new label on cigarette packages makes only too clear.
§ Mr. SteenIs my hon. Friend saying that we should introduce legislation, and will she propose that the Government do so?
§ Mrs. BottomleyMy hon. Friend will know that the voluntary approach has had great success. Our reduction 1070 in the prevalence of smoking has been in the forefront among EC countries. Our action has been effective and powerful and has changed attitudes, understanding and, above all, behaviour. At places of work, in public places and in people's domestic lives generally, the speed with which no smoking policies have been adopted has been powerful and effective. We shall continue to use all the levers at our control—of persuasion and encouragement—enthusiastically to champion the cause that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has brought to the attention of the House today.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o'clock.