Leading article: The smoke clears

Tuesday 14 February 2006 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

However far one believes that a ban on smoking in England should extend - and we argued all along that the market should decide - there can be no excuse for the abject muddle with which the Government presented its case in the weeks, days and hours before yesterday's vote.

Indeed, even when the debate was in progress, it was very hard to divine precisely where the Government stood. What with pubs serving food, pubs not serving food and the specificities of prisons and barracks, not to speak of the Health Secretary's coyness about the status of private clubs, it was a good job the Government had allowed a free vote. Even with a three-line whip, MPs might still have been confused about how they were supposed to vote.

So it is with some relief that we report the clear decision of MPs to opt for simplicity: a smoking ban that will include pubs, food and non-food, and private clubs. And Patricia Hewitt voted with the majority.

We doubt, though, whether a law was needed at all. There had been signs for a while that the market was deciding quite effectively by itself. More and more pubs and restaurants had banned smoking, under pressure from staff or customers. Once the Government had decided to legislate, however, should it really have been so hard?

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have already agreed their own bans. In Ireland and Italy, bans are already in effect. If these countries - with traditionally weaker governments and more ingrained smoking habits than our own - can ban smoking in all bars and restaurants, why was the whole process so complicated here?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in