Health Bill

One of the delights about the Committee stage is that you can speak as many times as you like until the Committee gets fed up and decides that it should move on—although, as I understand that no votes are taken in Grand Committee, I do not know how we would arrive at that position. Of course I understand that we shall not be voting on this amendment. However, before we pass on and have the Minister’s reply, I want to comment on two points that have been made. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, raised the question of democracy. She said that what has happened with this Bill—the fact that there was a free vote on it and that Members of Parliament changed their minds from the manifesto commitment—is democratic. One of the great definitions of democracy is that it protects minorities. The Bill is patently undemocratic, because it does not protect minorities; it does not take into account both sides of the argument. According to the noble Baroness’s own definition, the Bill is undemocratic and disproportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in referring to the manifesto commitment, suggested that, because there was a free vote, the commitment did not apply. He and I have been around together for a long time; when I was the Member of Parliament for Swindon and he was the candidate in Devizes, I used to go out and support him. I used to speak for him in the hope that he would displace Charlie Morrison and come to the House of Commons. I think that it is a great pity that he did not. Nevertheless, he knows better than to suggest that a manifesto commitment is no longer a manifesto commitment if Members of the House of Commons decide differently. When you fight an election on a manifesto, it is not just the Government who agree with it—every candidate of that party agrees with it. Every Member of the House of Commons who voted against the provisions of that manifesto was going against the manifesto and letting their constituents down, because some of their constituents will have elected them on the basis of the Government’s reasonable approach to smoking in public places. For example, let us suppose that I was a candidate—as I often was—canvassing a publican and he said, ““What about this commitment on smoking? Can I rely on you to ensure that that and no further will be your policy and that is what you will vote for?”” I would say, ““That is what the manifesto says and that is what I will support””. The publican would probably say, ““Well, Mr Stoddart, under those circumstances, I will give you my vote””. Just because the Government then said, ““Well, chaps, you can have a free vote””, is it really moral that I should vote against what I had promised one of my constituents? Of course it isn’t. There is no extra morality in the Government applying a free vote, because every member of the governing party adhered to the manifesto. It is clear that there are different views about the Scottish ban. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, read out certain reports. I have a couple. One says that the takings of some Scottish pubs have crashed by 50 per cent since the smoking ban came into force nearly a fortnight ago, highlighting the potential impact of a ban south of the border. That comes from a piece by Jim Armitage in the Evening Standard, West End final, on 7 April 2006—very recent indeed. The report also refers to the Quarter Gill pub, whose manager said that takings were down by about 50 per cent. The Quarter Gill does not sell food and is on a street with a narrow pavement. The manager said:"““It’s been a disaster. Customers, especially our older ones, don’t want to stand outside in the cold with all the buses racing past. They’re scared of getting hurt. Many of our customers have been working outside all day. They think: ‘Why should I go to the pub and have to stand outside in the cold?’ . . . He claimed many other pub and bar managers in the city were suffering equally badly, but had been told by their bosses not to speak out publicly””." So there are obviously differing views between those of independent publicans and those in tied houses.