Health Bill

In a moment. There are of course colleagues who, if pressed, would probably favour banning smoking per se altogether. I think that they would be wrong. There are certainly colleagues who believe that the law should not have been changed at all. They are entitled to that view, but I think that they, too, are wrong. The bulk of the argument today focused on variations on a theme of two main options, each of which was honourable, and between which we had to decide. The options were a partial ban, of one form or another, or a total ban. My view is that the Bill has been improved this afternoon because a partial ban would have been undesirable. A partial ban based on a distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not struck me as risible. It would certainly have been inequitable as between one employee and another, and it would unquestionably have been unfair to children. It would also have been a source of legal challenge, and it would demonstrably have been conducive to unfair competition between different outlets. That does not mean that it was a dishonourable proposal, but it would have had all sorts of hazardous consequences. Most Members, irrespective of party allegiance, believe that we have a duty to legislate in terms that are simple to understand, readily accepted as fair, and capable of straightforward enforcement, and I do not think that that proposal would have satisfied those criteria. The alternative approach was to introduce a partial ban of the type that characterised much of this afternoon’s debate, namely, a ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants, with the exception of private membership clubs. I could not for the life of me see a justification for the creation of that special, untouchable category of private membership club. We seemed to be facing an unholy alliance between the devotees of gentlemen’s clubs in and around St. James’s, and those who are dedicated to the continued privileges of their—