TOBACCO POLICY SPECIAL
ment and say we were looking at how best to legislate. Sir Liam Donaldson exercised to the full the freedom he had as Chief Medi- cal Offi cer to speak his mind and constantly argued the case for a complete ban – as he had done before the election, to John Reid’s irritation. Caroline Flint, the new public health minister, reinforced health offi cials’ conviction that the only way to ensure we protected people from passive smoking was a complete ban. Medical evidence mounted about the damage done by passive smoking, contributing to heart disease as well as can- cer and lung ailments.
I tried, but failed, to reach agreement with colleagues in Cabinet Committee. Although that was highly unusual – and gave rise to some uncomfortable press coverage for a few days – it turned out to be the best so- lution to the problem, opening the way to a free vote in the House of Commons. Even at that late stage, we still had disagreements on the narrower issue of working men’s clubs and other private facilities, where we had also promised an exemption. I knew from the clubs in my own Leicester constitu- ency how important they felt smoking was to them; most felt that, if members couldn’t smoke, they would simply stop coming. I also knew from my own constituency club visits how thick the cloud of smoke was, even in the main hall where families with children congregated on Friday and Satur- day evenings.
The critical intervention on that issue came from Kevin Barron, by then Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Health, and a staunch supporter of the smoking
new law was implemented. England was no exception. By the time we got to the vote, the majority in favour of the ban was over- whelming – and, on the Labour side, only a handful of MPs voted in favour of the excep- tion for private clubs.
I have no doubt at all that the smoke-free law was the single most important thing we achieved for people’s health while I was Health Secretary. Even in the fi rst 12 months or so after implementation, evidence started to emerge of improvements in the health of bar staff and others who had routinely been exposed to second-hand smoke. Despite the occasional spasms of protest, support for the ban continued to mount as smokers who wanted to give up found it easier to do so – and everyone could enjoy an evening in a pub without coming home smelling of smoke.
ban. A former miner and NUM offi cial, he was crystal clear that if working men’s clubs were exempted, a large part of the health gain in working class constituencies like his own (and mine) would simply be lost … and in the process, private clubs would gain an unfair advantage over other licensed premises.
Every country that has gone smoke-free in enclosed public places has found that, as the legislation came nearer, support for it grew stronger – and continued to grow after the
I also have no doubt that the credit for the new law goes primarily to the medical pro- fession and the public health campaign- ers – notably ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) – who had argued the case against tobacco for decades. But it was Labour, in the devolved administrations as well as in England, that turned the campaign into leg- islation, taking on arguments from libertar- ians and the tobacco workers’ union alike. In decades to come, I believe it will be as sig- nifi cant in terms of lives saved as the law on seat-belts in the 1970s.
But the challenge now is to keep on reduc- ing the number of people smoking – and, critically, the number of young people tak- ing up smoking. An outright ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces was, I always felt, easy to justify simply on the principle of pro- tecting the public and, especially, employees from other people’s unwanted smoke. Per- suading people not to do something that is damaging only to themselves is much tough- er: it does indeed take persuasion, rather than legislation (although, of course, taxes, graphic health warnings and restrictions on packaging and display all have their part to play). But that is part of a much wider issue: how in a free society, can government and the health professions persuade all of us to take more responsibility for our own health and how can we create an environment that makes it easier for all of us to lead healthier lives? Faced with that challenge, the dif- fi culty of getting to the smoking ban looks mild indeed.
Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of State for Health from 2005 to 2007.
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@nationalhealthexecutive.com
national health executive Nov/Dec 11 | 19
Ali Catterall
Martin Deutsch
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100