Health Bill

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is not in the Chamber. If congratulations are being offered on the outcome of the Bill’s principal measures on smoking, we must accept that they probably owe much to his work and leadership of the Health Committee. Whatever one’s view of the precise details of the final outcome, his approach was clearer and more decisive than any ever taken by the Government. I am surprised that the Secretary of State has claimed on Third Reading that she has implemented the Government’s manifesto because that is the one thing she has not done. On Second Reading, she quoted the part of the manifesto that said that the Government would legislate to ensure that"““all enclosed public places and work places other than licensed premises will be smoke-free . . . all restaurants will be smoke-free, all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free.””" She also expressly told us on Second Reading that the Government would consult on whether there should be smoking rooms in pubs—that has gone. She asserted that it was right to strike a balance and said:"““we have made the judgment that the right balance to strike is between banning smoking in virtually every enclosed public space and work space, and exempting the membership clubs and the licensed premises that do not serve food, in order to protect freedom of choice for that minority of people whom nobody is forcing to go into a pub that allows smoking””.—[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 156.]" Although we knew what was going to happen, the Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to tell the House how she was going to vote—if she knew at that stage—at the start of the debate on new clause 5. However, she and the Prime Minister have voted completely contrary to the exemptions that Ministers presented to the House three months ago. She may congratulate herself and her colleagues on their stewardship of the Bill, but the truth of the matter is that the House was taken in precisely the wrong direction on Second Reading. Additionally, a substantial amount of time was expended on the matter in Committee, although we all knew at that point that Ministers were on an impossible wicket. On Second Reading, the Conservatives pressed for a free vote, and it was quite obvious that it would have been better for the Government to abandon the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not. There are often mutual congratulations on Third Reading, and I shall offer mine in a minute, but I must tell the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health—the so-called public health Minister—that the Bill was not well handled. It was one of the most astonishingly badly handled Bills in recent years. It should not have been introduced in the form in which it was introduced, it should not have been pursued in that way, and even if it has produced a solution with which Parliament is happy, that was not by virtue of ministerial design. Ministers should therefore not accept congratulations. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is saying that my colleagues voted for a more comprehensive ban, I do not have a difficulty with that. She should perhaps remember that we made it clear on Second Reading that there would be a free vote on the express basis that Opposition Members had distinct views on the judgment that should be made. A free vote was not offered to Government Members. The Government should accept that there was a crass error on their part, for which they should apologise.