§ '(1) A person shall not smoke or carry lighted tobacco in a taxi or private hire vehicle where passengers are by means of a prescribed notice informed that smoking is prohibited.
§ (2) For the purposes of this section, "prescribed notice" means a notice or marking of such type and displayed in or on a taxi or private hire vehicle in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
§ (3) A passenger who contravenes subsection (1) may be required by the driver to leave a taxi or private hire vehicle and, where the passenger refuses to comply with that requirement, may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable.
§ (4) A person who—
- (a) contravenes subsection (1),
- (b) refuses to comply with a requirement made in accordance with subsection (3), or
- (c) resists lawful removal in accordance with that subsection, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level .3 on the standard scale.
§ (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment requiring certain hirings to be accepted, it shall be lawful for the driver of a taxi or private hire vehicle bearing a prescribed notice to refuse to carry a passenger who is smoking or carrying lighted tobacco.
§ (6) In this section—
§ "private hire vehicle" means a vehicle licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; and
§ "taxi" means a hackney carriage licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.'—[Mr. Brake.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
787§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—
§ Smoking in London taxis—
- '(1) A person shall not smoke or carry lighted tobacco in a taxi where passengers are by means of a prescribed notice informed that smoking is prohibited.
- (2) For the purposes of this section, "prescribed notice" means a notice or marking of such type and displayed in or on a taxi in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
- (3) A passenger who contravenes subsection (1) may be required by the driver to leave a taxi and, where the passenger refuses to comply with that requirement, may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable.
- (4) A person who—
- (a) contravenes subsection (1),
- (b) refuses to comply with a requirement made in accordance with subsection (3), or
- (c) resists lawful removal in accordance with that subsection,
§ is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
§ (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment requiring certain hirings to be accepted, it shall be lawful for the driver of a taxi bearing a prescribed notice to refuse to carry a passenger who is smoking or carrying lighted tobacco.
§ (6) In this section "taxi" means a hackney carriage licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.'.
§ Mr. BercowIt is a new clause.
§ Mr. BrakeHon. Members will no doubt ask, "Why is this new clause required?" The answer is that although cab drivers can choose to designate their cabs smoking or non-smoking vehicles, they have difficulty in enforcing the no smoking rule at present. Passengers are well aware that enforcement is impossible, and occasionally point that out to cab drivers who ask them not to smoke. I have met the Minister and I thank her for finding the time to discuss this important subject. I welcome the fact that she has restated her support, in principle, for a ban on smoking in cabs that are designated non-smoking vehicles by their drivers.
The timing of this debate could not be more appropriate, as I understand that the Secretary of State for Health spoke today about the importance of banning tobacco advertising. However, the right hon. Gentleman could be sending mixed messages, as he recently presented the rugby league Silk Cut trophy at Wembley. This new clause is about health and individual rights. It is about the health of taxi drivers and that of their non-smoking passengers. Before Opposition Members leap to their feet and question whether there are health implications for the non-smoking passenger who travels in a cab recently vacated by a smoking passenger, I cite the increased stress levels of that non-smoking passenger, if nothing else.
It is also a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers operate—
§ Mr. OttawayThe hon. Gentleman just said that a non-smoking passenger would suffer increased levels of 788 stress as a result of travelling in a cab in which the previous incumbent had been smoking. What does he mean by that?
§ Mr. BrakeI will explain; it is very simple. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a smoker and is not familiar with the anxiety or the stress that non-smokers experience when we encounter smokers from all walks of life.
It is a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers, who, in effect, operate out of their office, have the right to choose whether they want someone entering that office to smoke. The taxi driver should be able to choose and to take that decision. All hon. Members would agree that taxis should form part of the public transport system. Passengers on buses, trains and the tube are not allowed to smoke, so it seems entirely logical that the same rule should apply to cabs—which are part of the integrated transport system—if drivers choose to designate them no smoking vehicles. If the passenger needs a fix, he or she can always wait for another cab that is clearly designated a smoking cab.
This new clause is supported by several organisations, and I shall refer briefly to a couple of letters from them. One letter is from Irving Yass of London First, who says that he is very sorry that the
proposed amendment to the GLA Bill to allow taxi drivers to designate their cabs as 'non-smoking' has failedat that time
to gain endorsement from Ministers during the Committee Stage.The British Incoming Tour Operators Association writes:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the opportunity that exists to introduce an amendment that would enable taxi drivers to designate their taxis as non-smoking if they so wish.Unfortunately, that opportunity does not seem to exist in reality, but BITOA supports that in principle.The National Asthma Campaign is
pleased to confirm that the … Campaign is happy to officially support your proposed amendment to the Greater London Authority Billwhich would allow cab drivers to designate their cabs non-smoking cabs.
§ Mr. Simon HughesMy hon. Friend mentioned the National Asthma Campaign. I have had reports that some people who suffer from severe asthma open the door to get into a cab, realise that it has been filled with smoke by the passenger who has just left and decide not to take that cab. They may not subsequently get a cab for up to 25 minutes. Their use of public transport is inhibited and the cab driver loses the fare. The whole thing is to the disadvantage of many passengers and of drivers.
§ Mr. BrakeI agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made, which are confirmed in the letter from the National Asthma Campaign, which talks about tobacco smoke being a trigger—
§ Mr. Bercowrose—
§ Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)rose—
§ Mr. EffordCan you confirm to the House whether you are actually planning to ban smoking—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should use the third person form of address.
§ Mr. EffordI apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman planning to ban smoking entirely from the back of taxis, or is he planning to allow the taxi driver the opportunity to choose whether someone smokes in the back of his taxi?
§ Mr. BrakeI thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which enables me to clarify that, as I hoped I had made clear, we are talking about allowing cab drivers to designate their cab a non-smoking cab if that is what they want to do. Equally, if they decide that they want their cab to be a smoking cab, it is entirely down to them. That is the purpose of our new clause.
§ Mr. OttawayWill the hon. Gentleman look at the matter from the other direction? Does he consider that, if there is not a prescribed notice in the cab and the driver is smoking, the passenger should be permitted to ask the driver to stop smoking?
§ Mr. BrakeThat is an interesting point. I think the important principle is that the cab driver, who is running a business, should be able to choose whether his cab is a non-smoking or a smoking cab.
§ Mr. BercowWould the hon. Gentleman allow me?
§ Mr. OttawayBefore the hon. Gentleman continues, will he say what the answer is to the question that I asked him? If the driver is smoking, can the passenger ask him to stop smoking? It is a perfectly straightforward question. Yes or no will do as an answer.
§ Mr. BrakeI hope that the passengers would choose a non-smoking cab if they wanted a no-smoking environment, and I hope that cab drivers would respect that and would choose not to smoke.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonWe must help the hon. Gentleman in his quandary. I understand that, at present, a cab passenger may insist that a driver extinguishes a cigarette. The cab driver has no such power to require a passenger to extinguish a cigarette.
§ Mr. BrakeI thank the Minister for her intervention, which I hope has clarified the matter.
I expect the Minister—
§ Mr. Simon HughesWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. HughesI am not trying to deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but responding to the interventions by the professional over there—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford)—and the Minister. The issue, as my hon. Friend says, and as the new clause shows, is that there should be freedom to make the choice backed up by a sanction. At the moment, the cab driver may ask a 790 passenger not to smoke, but if the latter does not comply with that request, there is no sanction to ensure that he or she does so.
§ Mr. BercowWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. BercowWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. BercowWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should respect the customs of the House.
§ Mr. BrakeThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. I expect the Minister to outline clearly how and when she intends to address this critical issue. I understand the legislative difficulties involved, but it is of such importance that we require a strong statement from the Minister tonight.
§ Mr. OttawayI start by paying tribute to all taxi drivers, smoking and non-smoking, in the front and in the back. We are all deeply indebted to London cabbies.
Those who have travelled abroad and experienced cabs overseas will know what I mean when I say that we have the best cab service in the world. In my personal experience, a visitor to York is lucky to find a cab driver who not only knows where one wants to go, but speaks English. [HON. MEMBERS: "New York."] Did I say York? I meant New York, United States of America.
Nevertheless, I have reservations about the proposal. Smoking is a perfectly lawful occupation. In my judgment, it should be banned only if it affects others. May I tell my colleagues, in case they are hanging on my every word, that in the view of the Conservative party, this is a matter of conscience and they have a free vote. They may pick either side of this rather difficult argument, as was the position in Committee.
The matter is one for the individual to decide. I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that there is a passive smoking risk. If one is sitting next to someone on the underground and smoke is wafting past—[Interruption.] Very well, if one is sitting in a public place and smoke is wafting past, and one is inhaling it, there is a risk. [Interruption.] The Liberals are jeering in a rather anoraky way.
§ Mr. OttawayI give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI was trying to work out how long it must be since the hon. Gentleman was last on the underground for him to have had that experience.
791 On a more serious point, he must surely accept that there is a significant passive smoking risk. If one gets into a cab, which might be the only cab that comes for 20 minutes, and it is full of the smoke left by the last passenger, one has no choice but to be affected by it, and it cannot do one any good. The driver must have the right to say that he does not want that in his cab.
§ Mr. OttawayI have been on the underground several times in the past few weeks, and I have seen the appalling mess that the Government are getting into, but perhaps that is for tomorrow's debate. Not being a smoker, I have not had to observe whether smoking was permitted or not. It does not worry me very much whether someone is smoking. People who have given up tend to be more zealous about these matters.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that there is a risk from passive smoking. I say that there is no evidence to that effect. If one gets into a cab where someone has been smoking, there is no smoke billowing around. One has simply to open the windows. It is not a big deal.
The hon. Gentleman may be concerned about unpleasant smells. Will he ban fish and chips, or anything else that might create a smell, from the back of cabs? The Liberal Democrats are being far too sensitive.
§ Mr. BercowDoes my hon. Friend agree that the smog generated by the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) greatly exceeds anything that is likely to be generated by the smoking of a cigarette in a hansom cab? In proposing the new clause—this is a serious matter—the hon. Gentleman is intellectually confused to the extent that he still cannot give us a definitive answer about whether he believes that the owner of a taxi should have the absolute right, as the driver, to smoke in his own cab. Yea or nay—I think we should be told—[Interruption.].
§ Mr. OttawayI presume that my hon. Friend was addressing that question to me. The Minister came to the rescue of the Liberal Democrats, which is no surprise as they are coalition partners. I must confess that what the Minister said surprised me. She said that a passenger can legally oblige a taxi driver to put out his cigarette. It would be a great help if she could explain the source of that legislation.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonDoes the hon. Gentleman really need to know?
§ Mr. OttawayI do—it is an important point.
§ Ms JacksonI was about to say that I was stunned that the spokesperson for the official Opposition on transport for London clearly does not know what is happening on the tube and, apparently, knows less about legislation affecting taxi drivers. I am perfectly prepared to go through the long list of relevant legislation. I will quickly run through it now to find out where that provision is 792 listed, but it is the case that a passenger may insist on a driver not smoking but a driver may not insist on a passenger not smoking.
§ Mr. OttawayThat is helpful. Perhaps the Minister will have found the source in legislation by the end of the debate.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIs not the distinction this? The Liberal Democrats think that the driver can eject the smoking passenger. Given the Minister's hypothesis, is it not much harder for the passenger to eject the driver?
§ Mr. OttawayWe are getting into smog-filled territory, to borrow a pun from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The Liberal Democrats must also deal with odours. Are they saying that people who smell should not be allowed to stay in a taxi? Are they saying that people should not eat fish and chips in a taxi? There is no intellectual rationale for their new clauses.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe hon. Gentleman makes half-valid points. He must understand that we are discussing what is effectively a public transport service, although it is privately provided. Once the light is on, the prospective passenger has a right to use the cab. The question is whether the provider, like the provider of a pub or any other public place, should have the right to say that it should be smoke free. For the purposes of transport, the cab is a public place. That is the difference. The law on smoking is applied in other public places; it is not applied to fish and chips or smells, even though the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.
§ Mr. OttawayThe question is whether the back of a cab is a public place. It is the back of someone's vehicle. I do not think that it necessarily follows that the passenger is sharing the compartment with another member of the public. When one hires a cab, one hires it for oneself. One does not share it with anyone. I do not think that the Government propose to ban smoking in one's own house. It therefore does not follow that if one is on one's own in the back of a cab one should not be allowed to smoke—otherwise we are getting into the nanny state. The policy is interventionist in the worst possible way and should be avoided.
§ Mr. Edward DaveyDoes the hon. Gentleman realise that as a result of what he is saying a cab driver could lose his licence because he wants the cab to be a no smoking zone? That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position and it would infringe the liberties of the ordinary cab driver. The hon. Gentleman started his remarks by praising the cab drivers of our great city. He wants to take away their liberties, or at least restrict them to the restrictions allowed under the Conservative Government.
§ Mr. OttawayWhat absolute bilge. I have said nothing of the sort. All that I am asking is that the law that has prevailed for the past 100 years should be allowed to prevail for the next 100 years. The nanny-state, interventionist side of the Liberals is coming out in the worst possible way. They want to make smoking in the 793 back of a cab a criminal offence. They want people to be thrown out of taxis. Speaking personally, I do not agree with their proposal.
§ Mr. DaveyI shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman, who leads for the Conservatives, will say whether he really wants cab drivers to lose their livelihood because they want to be a no smoking zone.
§ Mr. OttawayThey have not lost their livelihood up to now, so why should they lose it in the future, unless we pass this ridiculous new clause?
The most sensible way for the House to proceed is to recognise that a sign asking people not to smoke should be generously respected. The Minister, who is uncharacteristically smiling, gave a pledge several months ago to introduce a new clause to ban smoking in taxis. When she was put on the spot by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, she backed off. She said that the clause as drafted would not achieve the desired result. The implication was that she would go away and have a look at it and come back to the House. As far as I am aware, she does not intend to accept the new clauses tonight, unless the reason why she is smiling is that she intends to surprise the House. I doubt it. If anyone has done a U-turn, it is the Minister. She has backed off. She made a pledge that she could not stand by and she has got herself into a bit of a jam.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI take one last opportunity to try to get the hon. Gentleman, whose philosophy on these matters I support, to understand that he is in a muddle. We are arguing that the driver should have the freedom to choose. We are not advocating the nanny state. We are not saying that drivers must choose not to allow smoking in their cab. Unless we have all misunderstood where the Conservative party has come from and is going, surely it must defend the freedom of people to choose whether to run a smoke-free business in their own vehicle.
§ Mr. OttawayThat is where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that a driver should have the discretion to decide whether someone should undertake a lawful activity. That is just a plain difference of opinion. For that reason, I personally will not support the new clause.
§ Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)We have reached the controversial issue in the Bill. The Liberals are anxious and stressed, and the Conservatives are planning to have a vote of conscience. For me, the debate is simple and straightforward. It is about the workplace and about the worker being able to work in a smoke-free environment. It is plain and simple. If the driver chooses to work in a smoke-free environment, he or she should be able to enforce that decision. This has gone on for far too long. Drivers are operating outside the law. They have polite notices in the cab—I had one in the back of my taxi—thanking people for not smoking, but if someone chooses to smoke and the driver finds that offensive and unacceptable, he cannot enforce the notice. Drivers are forced to suffer and become passive smokers. On a wet winter evening, they are not going to open the windows, believe me.
The Government have said that they want to consult further and that this is not the relevant vehicle for this measure. We have to accept the Government's position, 794 but I urge them to deal with the matter urgently and without further delay. There is a great deal of concern in the trade. Drivers are currently placed outside the law; the Government must tidy up the anomaly. Other forms of public transport are free from smoking and there is no reason why taxi drivers should not be able to choose whether anyone smokes in the back of their taxi.
9 pm
It is not just a question of the taxi driver's becoming a passive smoker; it is a question of his protecting the tools of his trade. High standards are set for London taxis. Smoking can damage the fabric of the inside of a taxi, and when the time comes for the annual overhaul, the Public Carriage Office will not pass a cab whose upholstery is damaged; yet the simple fact is that it is expensive to replace it. There are other factors involving the need to maintain standards relating to cleanliness in the back of taxis. For instance, the ceilings of taxis quickly become sooty as a result of smoke fumes. One of the most unpleasant tasks that I had to perform as a London taxi driver was cleaning out the ashtrays. As a non-smoker, I found having to dispose of other people's mess extremely unpleasant.
I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union has written to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—on the understanding that amendments would not be forthcoming from the Government—seeking further meetings involving representatives of the taxi trade. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us an undertaking in that regard because, as our debate has demonstrated, there is considerable concern about the issue. It should be dealt with, as a matter of urgency.
I have to say that I have reservations about making smoking in taxis a criminal offence, and would like to consider that further. For one thing, there is the issue of proof. If we are to introduce a law, it should be workable and enforceable. By the time a taxi driver reaches a police station in an attempt to eject a passenger who refuses to leave the taxi, if that person has just put out his cigarette, where is the proof? It will be the driver's word against the passenger's—and, if there is more than one passenger, the driver will be outvoted. We need a more moderate provision, allowing drivers to drive to the nearest police station—they know where they are—and then to seek the assistance of the police in ejecting the passenger.
If a passenger refuses to pay in such circumstances, it is up to the police to ensure that names and addresses are exchanged. That is my understanding of the regulations. It is then up to the taxi driver to institute a civil action for any inconvenience or loss of income caused. In such circumstances, small claims courts fine people heavily for messing taxi drivers around when those drivers have been pursuing their profession.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but not imposing criminal sanctions will not solve the problem. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman was the driver involved. He would have risked the damage to his upholstery and the smoke-filled cab. Driving to a police station three miles away in an attempt to get rid of someone who might not easily go would not get to the 795 bottom of the difficulty. I think that the criminal sanction is needed because without it, there is no solution if a passenger insists on lighting up in the back of a cab.
§ Mr. EffordI do not accept that. I think that, again, the issue of proof applies. Moreover, neither party will want to take a detour: both parties will want to go from A to B. That, surely, is the main sanction. I do not think that we need to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut; what we need to do is tidy up a situation in which many taxi drivers find themselves placed outside the law in an attempt to work in a smoke-free environment.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be further dialogue, and that she will undertake the consultation that the Government feel is necessary before they can legislate.
§ Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)I am grateful to my Front-Bench team for allowing Conservative Members freedom of choice. It is perhaps a slightly difficult and worrying situation, but I find myself in agreement with the thrust of the Liberal Democrats' new clauses. It is not because I am a non-smoker. From time to time, I hide away in the Smoking Room in this place, but I respect the view that was eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who should, after all, know what he is talking about. The fact that the vehicle is the workplace and, in many cases, the private property of the individual cab driver should give that driver and owner the right to choose whether his environment is non-smoking, or smoking.
I have some worries. I have a great worry about the difficulty of enforcement. I worry that the people who might light up when asked not to might be coming back from the pub or somewhere such as that.
§ Mr. BrakeDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to public transport, to a great extent, the smoking ban on the tube and buses is being enforced not actively, but because people know that they are not allowed to smoke? The vast majority of passengers observe the ban.
§ Mr. RandallTo some extent, I agree, although, on the tube, for example, there may be people who will smoke when alone in a carriage—when there are no other people there to tell them off, if you like, or to embarrass them. We do travel on the tube. We see people light up, particularly late at night. Despite the remonstrations of fellow passengers, they continue to do so. Normally, however, when other people are around, people do not light up. Of course, when we get to a station, there is the possibility of calling someone in.
I would be a little concerned about the situation getting somewhat out of hand and the possibility of violent attacks. However, taxi drivers themselves are asking for the measure and I am sure that they are aware of that possibility—I understand that it is the taxi and cab drivers and their professional organisations that are asking for the measure. It is long overdue.
I do not accept the view of some of my hon. Friends that the issue is freedom of choice for the passenger. As the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Eltham have said, it should be put the other way round. I am a 796 great believer in freedom of choice, but that must not impinge, as these things sometimes do, on other people's liberty or freedom of choice.
As I have said, the measure should be looked at and enshrined in law. Again, I have my doubts about the criminal offence side of it. I understand from what the hon. Member for Eltham said that he has already spoken to the Government and that the let-out excuse is that they will be looking at the matter further. I think that we shall continue to hear that. It would be a good thing if a marker were put down that the House respected the rights of individual drivers to choose.
I feel that, although in their hearts many Labour Members support the new clauses, they will be persuaded by their devotion to the Whips—they are without the benefit that Conservative Members have of freedom of choice on the matter—to vote against them.
§ Mr. Simon HughesMay I suggest an argument that the hon. Gentleman, with me, might make to Labour Members? In the new clauses, Liberal Democrat Members are attempting to persuade the House to support a policy that was, until recently, the Government's very own policy. Just recently, for some inexplicable reason, the Government backed away from that policy. I hope that that will persuade Labour Members to be true to old Labour policy, rather than the Government's new-found, rather inadequate substitute.
§ Mr. RandallI should not be greatly surprised to learn that Labour Members have had damascene conversions or changed their minds on specific issues. However, I should not hold out too much hope to the hon. Gentleman of Labour Members trooping through the Lobby to support the new clause.
As I said—bearing in mind the views of many of my hon. Friends on the issue—I find it somewhat worrying to be supporting the new clauses. However, I should also assure the House that I support them not because I am the only Conservative Member with a beard, but because they have great merit.
§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)Although I am not an expert on the matter or a parliamentary draftsman, and the new clauses may not fit into the Bill, I, too, have some sympathy for the objectives that the new clauses seek to accomplish.
I have a letter that was sent to the British Heart Foundation by the London Taxi Board, which represents the owners and drivers of London taxi cabs. Moreover Transport and General Workers Union—which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) mentioned in his brief speech—members comprise one of the board's sections.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will know, the London Taxi Board has been campaigning for the Bill to be amended so that taxi drivers will be able to designate their cabs as non-smoking. The board believes that such an ability
would allow drivers to work within a smoke-free environment and passengers to travel in a smoke-free cab should they so wish.The board is also right to say that such an ability would fit in with the Government's White Paper on smoking, which was published in December 1998. 797 The Health and Safety Executive is working on a code of practice on smoking in the workplace, which should provide even further direction on how we should address the issue.Some of the comments and laughter that greeted the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in moving the new clause were inappropriate, as hon. Members should be a bit more serious about the issue of people in enclosed work spaces having to be exposed to smoke. It is not true that passive smoking is not harmful, because good scientific evidence shows that it is. It may not be much of a problem for people like me to get into a cab that has recently been filled with smoke, but, if I were asthmatic, it might be a different kettle of fish. We should appreciate that such a smoky environment can quite easily trigger asthma attacks for those who are vulnerable to them.
The letter also deals with the board's proposal that cabs should be clearly marked as either smoking or non-smoking, so that customers might be provided with a choice. I do not think that such a provision would suggest the action of a nanny state, because we should have a choice in the matter. Many national pub chains now offer the choice of going to a public house and drinking in a smoke-free area, and restaurants in most major towns not only offer smoke-free areas, but may be entirely smoke free. As an individual, I choose to use those restaurants, rather than ones that allow smoking anywhere on the premises. Everyone agrees that there is an anomaly in current smoking policies, and that anomaly should be cleared up.
The board wrote to the British Heart Foundation seeking support for the consultation described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. May I ask her what stage that consultation has reached, and what mechanism a cabbie will be able to use to ensure that his or her workplace—the cab that he or she owns—is smoke free? Does provision of such a mechanism require primary legislation, or could it be dealt with by other means? I thought that the Bill dealt more with constitutional issues, and not with issues that have been dealt with in other parts of the public sector without primary legislation. There are many forms of public transport on which smoking is banned or severely restricted.
§ Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green)We should not overlook the fact that when someone hails a cab and the driver accepts them, it is no longer public transport; it is private transport and the passenger owns it for the trip. The same applies to hotels. We are told that taxis should be compared with public transport or other public places such as pubs, but that is not the essence of the situation with cabs. That does not mean that I am not sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying.
§ Mr. BarronI do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with that. I understand that the transport White Paper suggests that cabs are public transport.
I would like a sign on the front of a cab, not necessarily lit up, saying that it is a smoke-free cab. I would hail those cabs rather than ones that allow smoking.
§ Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)It comes as no surprise that the Government might support the dictatorial nature of the new clause. The fact that it was moved by 798 the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) merely proves that there is nothing liberal about the Liberal Democrats.
Surely hon. Members understand that such a matter should be decided by the new Greater London Authority, not by this House. What is the point of anyone in London voting for the Greater London Authority if it cannot even decide on how smoking bans should be enforced in cabs?
It is appropriate that different legislation should apply on such an issue in different parts of the country. Hon. Members may have read over the weekend, as I did, about an American tycoon who flew into this country on Concorde smoking a cigar, against the aircraft's regulations. Despite all the authority of British Airways, he could not be persuaded to put out his cigar. He appears to have breached some element of this country's legal code. British Airways has attempted to bring him to justice, but cannot lay a finger on him because he moves around the world so fast that he cannot be found to have the warrant served on him.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe hon. Gentleman's argument about leaving the issue to the Greater London Authority is superficially appealing, but I believe—I stand to be corrected—that it would not have the power to cover such matters without promoting a private Bill to introduce a new criminal sanction. If it had the authority to deal with the matter, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but as it has not, we have to make provision in primary legislation.
§ Mr. St. AubynA new clause should be inserted in the Bill to give the authority the power.
Many tourists visit London. It is patently absurd to suppose that the police in London would be able to catch up with those who breached the clause. There is not sufficient police time available, nor should there be. A law that could not be enforced against many of the people who use London cabs, but would be enforced against others who happened to be here all the time would be considered most unjust by many people. Regardless of whether we agree with the thinking behind the clause or sympathise with the plight of the poor London cabbie, we should reject the clause.
The London cab enjoys several privileges. If we park our car in the wrong place on a rank reserved for taxis, we are fined heavily. Taxi drivers who go to that rank agree to accept any customer who comes along. The clause would breach that important principle, elevating the situation of cab drivers beyond what they deserve.
I run a joinery business—in a non-executive capacity, these days. Sometimes in that business, people have to put up with dust and other problems. That is not a satisfying part of the job, but it is a part of the job. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) may not enjoy using a vacuum cleaner on the ash in the back of his cab, but that is tough, I am afraid. With that goes the pleasure of serving millions of Londoners, for which all of us are grateful to him. We hope that he continues to do so without the intrusive nature of this proposal.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonIf the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) runs a joinery business and provides his 799 employees with no protective clothing, he would be well advised to ask the Health and Safety Executive to examine his business.
§ Mr. St. AubynWill the Minister give way?
§ Ms JacksonNo.
§ Mr. St. AubynOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to attack a Member of this House and not to accept an immediate intervention from that Member?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a point of order. A point of debate was at issue, which seemed to lie outside the terms of the new clause.
§ Ms JacksonThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a very important issue, although one would not have known it if one had listened exclusively to the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Guildford. The speeches by my hon. Friends the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), were serious in their intent.
The Government support the principle of designating taxes as non-smoking vehicles. There has been no U-turn. On 29 July last year, in reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I said that the Government intended, when parliamentary time permitted
to propose a change in the law to enable licensed taxi drivers to designate their vehicles as 'non-smoking cabs'".—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 241.]The Government stand by that commitment. We also stand by what I said in Committee; that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such a measure.The widest-possible consultation must be carried out before we could consider proposing such legislation. I am pleased to announce—I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will be pleased—that the Government will be consulting on the issue. There is a clear need for consultation.
As we have heard from the speeches this evening, there are problems in terms of defining the evidence that will be needed. First, there is the taxi driver's legal obligation to take a hiring. A change to allow a non-smoking provision will mean that, for the first time, a taxi driver will be able to choose for whom he stops. That carries the risk of discrimination for reasons other than smoking.
There are also the practical problems of a non-smoking measure. How would a taxi driver deal with a passenger who lit up during a journey? Would the driver or a constable be able to evict the passenger? What if a passenger was evicted late at night, and was female or disabled and could not get home? Those are serious safety issues, which need to be looked at.
Fares would be a problem. Would the passenger pay up to the point when they were thrown out, or when they were taken to the nearest police station? How would the driver obtain the fare, if the passenger did not want to pay?
800 I have touched on the question of evidence. How could it be proved that a passenger had lit up inside a cab? A taxi is not like a bus or a train. If a driver headed for a police station, presumably, the passenger's first move would be to throw the cigarette out of the window.
Who should be responsible for designating a taxi as a non-smoking cab? Would it be the proprietor or, if they are not the same—as they are not in many cases—the driver? In the case of several drivers using one taxi in shifts, should it be possible to designate and de-designate the cab according to the driver?
Clearly, consultation will need to be wide. Obviously, the taxi trade, the local authorities, the licensing authorities, the police and judiciary and organisations concerned with safety, such as the Suzy Lamplugh trust, will all need to be consulted, and the results will have to be carefully considered.
§ Mr. Simon HughesWill the Minister give way?
§ Ms JacksonNo, I am very short of time.
I entirely understand and share the sympathy that has been expressed this evening by hon. Members.
It would be improper to introduce the provisions in this Bill, at this stage. The mayor would of course have the power to introduce private legislation for London, but we believe that a national measure would be right. The significance and complexity of the measure make thorough consultation essential, and I am glad to undertake that such consultation will be conducted.
§ Mr. HughesThe Minister said last July that the Government would legislate when legislative time was available, and we now have a Bill through which we could legislate, so why does she give us all these reasons why we cannot do so? What is the latest date by which the Government will legislate?
§ Ms JacksonThe Bill is specifically for London, and I have already said that the provisions suggested in the new clause should be consulted on nationally. We estimate that it will take three to four weeks to draft the consultation document. The guidelines on good government mean that the consultation period should be a minimum of eight weeks. I imagine that there will be a massive response, and we will clearly need to evaluate that. All that takes us about three months along the line. No one is in a position to prejudge what will be in the Queen's Speech, but I have given a categoric assurance that both I and the Government stand by previous statements and that there will be consultation shortly.
The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) share our view that cab drivers or owners should be able to designate their cabs as smoking or non-smoking, so people could still open the cab door and find smoky air inside. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the concerns of the National Asthma Association, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made the same point in relation to people with heart conditions. The new clause could not possibly cover the difficulties to which they drew attention, as the cab driver or owner would still have the choice. 801 I have touched on many of the difficulties that we perceive in any attempt to rush through such important legislation. I have given a clear commitment that the Government will legislate and that we will hold consultations on this vital issue as soon as possible. I therefore trust that the motion will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. BrakeI am pleased that the subject has generated such interest. I welcome the support of hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that it does their promotion prospects no harm. I have heard the Minister restating her concerns about drafting the legislation, but I consider the issue to be so important that, notwithstanding her genuine assurances that it will be tackled, I want to press the motion to a vote.
§ Mr. Ottawayrose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 293.
803| Division No. 164] | [9.29 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Keetch, Paul |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Ballard, Jackie | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Beth, Rt Hon A J | Randall, John |
| Brake, Tom | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Sanders, Adrian |
| Burnett, John | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies | Tyler, Paul |
| (NE Fife) | Willis, Phil |
| Feam, Ronnie | |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Mr. Edward Davey and |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | Dr. Jenny Tonge. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Brooke, Rt Hon Peter |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Allen, Graham | Burden, Richard |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Byers, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Austin, John | Cann, Jamie |
| Banks, Tony | Caplin, Ivor |
| Barnes, Harry | Casale, Roger |
| Barron, Kevin | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Beard, Nigel | Chapman, Sir Sydney |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | (Chipping Barnet) |
| Bell, Martin (Talton) | Clapham, Michael |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth |
| Bennett, Andrew F | (Rushcliffe) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Berry, Roger | Clelland, David |
| Best, Harold | Clwyd, Ann |
| Betts, Clive | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Blackman, Liz | Cohen, Harry |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Coleman, Iain |
| Blizzard, Bob | Colman, Tony |
| Boateng, Paul | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Borrow, David | Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Corbett, Robin |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Cousins, Jim |
| Cranston, Ross | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Crausby, David | Illsley, Eric |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Jamieson, David |
| Cummings, John | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Johnson Alan(Hull W & Hessle) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Dalyell, Tam | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jones, Helen(Warrington N) |
| Darvill, Keith | Jones, Ms Jenny |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jones, Dr Lynne(Selly Oak) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Denham, John | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Dismore, Andrew | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Dobbin, Jim | Keen, Alan(Feltham & Heston) |
| Doran, Frank | Keen Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Dowd, Jim | Kemp, Fraser |
| Drew, David | Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree) |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Khabra, Piara S |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Kindey, David |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | King, Andy(Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | King Ms Oona(Bethnal Green) |
| Efford, Clive | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Ennis, Jeff | Ladyman,Dr Stephen |
| Etherington, Bill | Lawrence,Ms Jackie |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Laxton, Bob |
| Fisher, Mark | Lepper, David |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Leslie, Chistopher |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Levitt, Tom |
| Flint, Caroline | Lewis, Ivan(Bury S) |
| Flynn, Paul | Lewis, Terry(Worsley) |
| Follett, Barbara | Linton, Martin |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Livingstone, Ken |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C) |
| Fyfe, Maria | Love, Andrew |
| Galloway, George | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Gapes, Mike | McCabe, Steve |
| Gardiner, Barry | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | McCartney, RtHon Ian |
| Gerrard, Neil | (Markerfied) |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | McDonnell, John |
| Godsiff, Roger | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Goggins, Paul | McNulty, Tony |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | McWalter, Tony |
| Gray, James | McWilliam, John |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Grocott, Bruce | Mallaber, Judy |
| Grogan, John | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Gunnell, John | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet | Martlew, Eric |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Maxton, John |
| Healey, John | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Meale, Alan |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Merron, Gillian |
| Heppell, John | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Hesford, Stephen | Miller, Andrew |
| Hewitt, Ms Patricia | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hill, Keith | Moffatt, Laura |
| Hinchliffe, David | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hodge, Ms Margaret | Morley, Elliot |
| Hoey, Kate | Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Hood, Jimmy | Mountford, Kali |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Mudie, George |
| Hope, Phil | Mullin, Chris |
| Howarth, Alan (Newport E) | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Olner, Bill |
| Hutton, John | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Ottaway, Richard | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Pearson, Ian | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Pendry, Tom | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Pickthall, Colin | Stott, Roger |
| Pike, Peter L | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Plaskitt, James | Stringer, Graham |
| Pollard, Kerry | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Pond, Chris | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | (Dewsbury) |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Taylor, Ms Dari(Stockton S) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strangford) |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Purchase, Ken | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Timms, Stephen |
| Radice, Giles | Tipping, Paddy |
| Rapson, Syd | Todd, Mark |
| Raynsford, Nick | Trickett, Jon |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Truswell, Paul |
| Robertson, Rt Hon George | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| (Hamilton S) | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Covtry NW) | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Rooker, Jeff | Twigg, Stephen(Enfield) |
| Ross, Ernie(Dundee W) | Vaz, Keith |
| Ruane, Chris | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Ruddock, Joan | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Wareing, Robert N |
| St Aubyn, Nick | Watts, David |
| Salter, Martin | White, Brian |
| Sawford, Phil | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Skinner, Dennis | (Swansea W) |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Wills, Michael |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Winnick, David |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine | Wise, Audrey |
| (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Wood, Mike |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Worthington, Tony |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Snape, Peter | |
| Soley, Clive | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Spellar, John | Mr. Greg Pope and |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Mr. Kevin Hughes. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.