Health Bill

A large part of England, anyway. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said that employers and employees are working gradually to provide smoke-free workplaces. The truth is that employers are now moving to insist on smoke-free workplaces because they fear litigation. Whether or not we pass the Bill, employers are receiving a growing weight of advice that they could face some serious class actions in the future, because they failed to provide their workers with a smoke-free environment. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is not in his place, has mentioned prison officers. We have a duty of care to prison officers and prisoners, regardless of whether we pass this legislation, and future Governments may face serious litigation by them. I support the Bill, although it does not go far enough. I am deeply disappointed that it contains exemptions that will muddy the waters, that will not provide clarity and precision, but will provide the chemistry for division, argument and lack of enforcement. The burden of enforcement will be placed on bar owners and bartenders, whereas the ban in the Irish Republic has been enforced by peer pressure. The Minister’s notes state, ““Keep repeating the mantra, ‘It’s in the manifesto.’”” It will not wash. This is a good Bill, and I shall join the overwhelming majority of hon. Members in supporting it tonight because we want a ban. However, the manifesto did not say, ““Thus far and no further.”” Does the Minister want me to conduct an audit of the policies that have not been implemented, although they were included in the manifestos on which we have stood, and the policies which have been implemented even though they were not in a manifesto? The Bill is in line with the manifesto, but so are my hon. Friends who are calling for a comprehensive and immediate ban along the lines of the policy introduced in the laboratory conditions provided for us by the Irish Republic, where the ban has worked. I represent quite a poor, working-class area, which has the highest indices of heart disease, respiratory complaints, diabetes and asthma. I resent it when hon. Members who represent constituencies where a ban will be implemented because of devolution tell me that a different duty of care will apply to my working-class constituents. I should have thought that a Labour Government would not want the West Lothian question to be raised, and I did not raise it—other hon. Members raised it by interfering in the health care of my constituents and of others in England. I believe that there is a majority in this House for a comprehensive ban. A week and a half ago, the Government were comprehensively defeated—they persuaded me to join them in the Lobby, which I rather regret now. They are not reading the political tea leaves because there is a majority in this House for a complete ban, but if they want to go down to a further defeat, that is their decision. When the Secretary of State discussed the Bill, she said that she was proud to introduce it. She should be proud because, as she said, when the Bill goes through—flawed as it is—hundreds, nay thousands, of people will live longer as a consequence. Why would she allow it to be spoiled or diminished by not introducing a total ban on smoking in public places? Libertarians say that people have the right to choose. I believe in full knowledge and full consent. However, in this case, we cannot provide full consent. We will have a ban in pubs, but not in working class clubs. Young children are entitled to go into those clubs, and they do. We need to recognise that fact. The Secretary of State says that the ban will apply not only in the bar area but in other areas. That is nonsense, because it cannot be defined. There is bound to be argument and avoidance based on that fudge. I hope that the Government will have the humility and common sense to reconsider the one area that has aggravated many Members on both sides of the House, but particularly among their Labour colleagues, who welcome the Bill and are proud to support it but see it flawed by sheer cussedness. The problem is that—