Health Bill

I will be in brief. In the time available, I would like to make one or two points. Some hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington)—have spoken against the ban, but I would have to characterise their speeches as disingenuous. They all failed to address the issue of the work force—precisely the point of principle at stake in the Bill. When my right hon. Friend opened the debate, she was right to say that a point of principle was at stake. That, indeed, is the issue that is exercising many Labour Members. I carried out a survey in my constituency and the results were similar to those that emerged from the consultation that my right hon. Friend very properly instituted after the election. In my survey, too, 90 per cent. of people wanted a ban. Hon. Members will recognise that we receive more letters on certain subjects than on others. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I have received many letters on many issues during the past eight years and that a smoking ban is about the fourth most commonly raised with me. Many people have written to ask for a complete ban and I have to say that my sympathies lie with them. What is the point of principle? It is this: in a public health context, the Bill could be seen as a missed opportunity. It could help to transform people’s lifestyle, particularly that of younger people, in a way that we want. We want to help them to lose the habit of smoking. The Government have an opportunity to use the Bill to send out a message to protect the work force and bring about, as I say, an important cultural change. It has even happened in New York of all places. Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican—not on the socialist wing of American politics—introduced a smoking ban. Similar measures have also been introduced in California, Sweden, Ireland and Norway. I ask my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues to imagine that the House had legislated on clause 3 exemptions and stated that drinking and driving was illegal, but said, ““Well, after 2 am, it will not be, because there are not many cars on the road””. Imagine if we made seatbelts compulsory, except in cars whose drivers had more than 30 years’ experience and a clean licence. Another parallel—[Interruption.]—I ask the House to think of the principle behind it: imagine saying that children were not allowed to work in factories, save where the factory owner had children. Some kind of sensitivity may be built into that, but I would have to point out to my right hon. Friend that the illogicality behind such thinking is stark. Similarly, if we leave the current anomaly in the Bill, we will leave those not covered by the legislation to the harmful, smoke-filled environment. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have a difficult task in making her winding-up speech. I would like to assist her. I have with me a speech that was prepared earlier, but it is not my speech that I would like to offer her, it is the speech given by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) when he announced the decision on the total ban in Northern Ireland.