Health Bill

I am aware of that and I withdraw the point about Wales. I was about to say that New Zealand became a smoke-free zone on 10 December 2004. Dr. Tricia Briscoe, chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, commented that that country’s"““experience shows that introducing smoke-free legislation makes people more aware about the health impacts of second-hand smoke. And the legislation is popular. Polls now show that 9 out of 10 New Zealanders support the right to work in a smoke-free environment.””" Dr. William Glasson, federal president of the Australian Medical Association said:"““The Australian experience shows that when workplaces are smoke-free, families are more likely to have smoke-free homes. The proportion of family homes with smoking restrictions more than doubled in 8 years. That means that fewer children are at risk from chest and ear infections, asthma and cot death.””" I hope that that supports the argument advanced earlier by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Environmental tobacco smoke is also detrimental in terms of the economic effect that it has on businesses due to loss of productivity from sick days and increased insurance due to fire risk. Effects on businesses have often been cited as a reason not to pursue a smoking ban, but evidence from countries that have become smoke-free show positive, not negative, effects on businesses. In New York, receipts in bars and restaurants increased by nearly 9 per cent. in the first year of going smoke-free and reports in the Republic of Ireland suggest that there were no negative effects on sales in bars and restaurants. In fact, many more non-smokers are now going out to restaurants and bars. Research found that air quality in pubs in the Irish Republic improved significantly in the first year after the introduction of the smoking ban. According to the findings, the level of carbon monoxide among non-smoking bar workers fell by up to 45 per cent. Among ex-smokers, the levels dropped by 36 per cent. These are compelling figures, as I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree. Studies also show that smoke-free workplaces encourage smokers to quit or reduce consumption—hence addressing a major cause of ill health. The fall in tobacco sales in the Republic of Ireland provides further evidence of that. Dr. James Reilly, president of the Irish Medical Organisation, has stated:"““Over 7,000 smokers gave up in the 6 months before the law came into force. The new law has encouraged many more smokers to quit—as is evident in the continuing drop in tobacco sales—and they say that they are less likely to start again because their workplaces and social venues are smoke-free.””" The Republic of Ireland introduced legislation in March 2004 to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces. That has proved to be very successful and highly popular, and no major compliance problems have been encountered. Useful lessons could be learned from that approach. The key to success in the Irish Republic was a clear policy, an effective public information campaign outlining the rationale and clear enforcement laws. The health and economic evidence is clear and there is widespread support for such a policy. I urge the Government to ensure that any ban is total. That will protect the health of all workers and tackle a major cause of ill health by providing environments that encourage smokers to quit or reduce their consumption. Partial bans rarely work. They please no one in the end. As my dear mother taught me long ago, ““If you stand in the middle of the road, you’ll get knocked down.”” The partial ban is morally wrong: it should be a comprehensive ban. Just as extending opening hours for drinking alcohol is morally wrong, all we will succeed in doing is to fill more hospital beds.