Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has had his say, and I feel sure that he will say it again as often as is necessary.

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell me whether the withdrawal of funding for the Healthy Futures programme in the north-west and Public Health Action in the south-west is likely to help or hinder us meeting the smoking cessation targets in the tobacco control programme?

Standards

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I shall not detain the House long, because all the relevant arguments and background material are set out in the Committee on Standards’ report and in the memorandum from the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that accompanied it.

The investigation started under Kathryn Hudson, as the Leader of the House said, and both commissioners did a meticulous job of investigating this matter over many months. They point out that the process could have been considerably shorter if Mr Paisley had been more co-operative initially, though the current commissioner is careful to point out that in the later stages of her inquiry, Mr Paisley showed a greater sense of urgency and was proactive in putting together costings for his visits to Sri Lanka.

It is those visits that were at the heart of our inquiry. Mr Paisley made three visits to that country in 2013, all of them paid for by the Sri Lankan Government. The first two visits, in March/April and July 2013, also involved members of Mr Paisley’s family—five family members on the first visit, and three on the second visit. At that time, the threshold above which a visit had to be registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests was £660. It is still not firmly established how much the two earlier visits in 2013 cost, but Mr Paisley, who initially argued for a cost in the area of £20,000, now accepts a figure of £50,000. In our view and that of the commissioner, it may have been much higher. The point is that the cost massively exceeded the threshold for registration, but Mr Paisley did not register either visit.

Mr Paisley travelled again to Sri Lanka in November 2013, again at the expense of the Government there, to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo. On that occasion, he travelled without his family, and he did punctually declare the financial benefits he received.

In March 2014, Mr Paisley, along with other MPs, wrote to the Prime Minister to urge the British Government to change their foreign policy towards Sri Lanka by withdrawing their stated support for a UN resolution setting up an international investigation into human rights abuses. In this letter, he did not declare any of the financial benefits he and his family had received from the Sri Lankan Government in the previous 12 months.

The commissioner found that Mr Paisley was in breach of the rules relating to registration in respect of the two earlier visits in 2013. He accepts this. She also found that he breached the rules by not making a declaration in his letter to the Prime Minister and, most seriously of all, that he breached the rule against paid advocacy in that letter by lobbying the British Government to confer an exclusive benefit on a foreign Government from which he and his family had accepted financial benefits within 12 months of having received them. Mr Paisley disputed these findings of the commissioner. On his failure to declare, the commissioner points out that his arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the rules. We share the commissioner’s view, and we concluded that Mr Paisley was in breach of the rules of declaration.

On paid advocacy, the situation is slightly more complicated, but we and the commissioner both came to a clear decision. Mr Paisley argues that he did not breach the paid advocacy rule on two grounds. The first is that the rule, as it stood in 2014, prohibits advocacy that seeks to confer benefit exclusively on a body outside Parliament from which Members have received a financial benefit. Mr Paisley claims that his letter to the Prime Minister was not seeking to confer a benefit exclusively upon Sri Lanka in that the British Government stood to benefit too because they

“would not have had to pay for the internationalisation of the internal political affairs of another country through the auspices of the UN.”

We were not persuaded by this argument. We point out that, in diplomatic terms, the UK would arguably have suffered at least as much as it gained by withdrawing its publicly announced support from an initiative aimed at promoting international human rights observance. In financial terms, Mr Paisley supplied no evidence to support his view that this shift in policy would have saved money for the UK Government. We think that it is entirely reasonable to interpret his letter to the Prime Minister as seeking to confer a benefit exclusively on the Sri Lankan Government.

Mr Paisley’s other argument arises from an apparent inconsistency in the guidance provided in 2014 on the paid advocacy rule. The Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests drew our attention to this matter, which had not been raised in the commissioner’s original memorandum. We thought it only fair to share the information with Mr Paisley, and offer him the opportunity to submit further evidence addressing this point. He has done so, and we have carefully considered it.

I should mention that we and the commissioner have been careful throughout this investigation to assess Mr Paisley’s conduct against the rules and the guidance that actually applied back in 2013 and 2014, taking no account of any subsequent modifications that are not relevant to the case. Although we acknowledge that there was indeed inconsistent guidance in 2014—the House has subsequently put that right—we are clear that this does not exonerate Mr Paisley from breaching the paid advocacy rule. We set out our reasons in paragraph 27 of the report, but I will mention just the first reason because it is decisive in itself. Even if one accepts Mr Paisley’s interpretation of the rule, rather than that of successive commissioners, it would only exempt Mr Paisley’s own visit to Sri Lanka from the application of the rule; it would not exempt those of his family, which represent a significant financial benefit received by Mr Paisley.

We were therefore in no doubt that the commissioner was right to find that Mr Paisley breached the rules in respect of registration, declaration and paid advocacy. In assessing a suitable sanction, we considered what might be taken to be mitigating and aggravating factors. Mitigating factors are Mr Paisley’s apology for failing to register, his recent activity in analysing the likely costs of the visit, and his acceptance that he needed a “far greater understanding” of the rules. Aggravating factors are the scale of the unregistered, undeclared hospitality received by him and his family, grounds for thinking that the failures to register were, to use the commissioner’s words, “not inadvertent”, and his delays in dealing with the commissioner in the early stages of her inquiry.

Taking these factors into account, we concluded that Mr Paisley had committed serious misconduct, and that his actions

“were of a nature to bring the House of Commons into disrepute”,

which is a further breach of the code of conduct. Because we regard this as an especially serious case, we have recommended that Mr Paisley be suspended from the service of the House for a period of 30 sitting days, starting on 4 September 2018.

The motion before the House today makes separate provision for the withdrawal of Mr Paisley’s salary, and I should say a word or two by way of explanation about that. The intention of the Committee was that Mr Paisley should be suspended from the service of the House for 30 days, and that he should forfeit his parliamentary salary for an equivalent period—that is, also 30 days. However, I have been advised that the effect of simply suspending him for 30 sitting days without making separate provision for his salary is likely to be that he will automatically forfeit that salary for a period longer than 30 days, because of the inclusion of non-sitting days in the overall period of suspension. That was not the Committee’s intention. In retrospect, we could have been clearer about that in the wording of our report. I am therefore grateful to the Leader of the House for having acceded to my request to table today’s motion in a form that makes clear the Committee’s intention and avoids any ambiguity over the period of time for which Mr Paisley’s salary will be withdrawn.

We also recommend that Mr Paisley should register the benefits he received from the Sri Lankan government, which will be italicised in the Register to indicate that they are a late entry.

Finally, I should mention that the lay members of the Committee played a full and active part in the drawing up of the Committee’s report, which they are in full agreement with.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

The House has agreed to the motion in the name of the Leader of the House to suspend the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 sitting days. Under the terms of section 5 of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, I am now required to write to the relevant electoral officer, informing him or her that a Member has met one of the conditions that make the Member subject to a recall petition under that Act, namely that, following a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons has ordered the suspension of the Member from the service of the House for a period of 10 sitting days or more.

Any recall petition will be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act by that electoral officer. For those who take a keen interest in these matters—I am partly taking the time to state all this because it is the first occasion upon which I have been required so to act—I would add that the electoral officer has 10 working days to set up and open the petition for signature, or longer if it is not practicable to do it within that time. If the petition achieves the necessary number of signatures—at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors in that constituency—in the specified period of six weeks, the electoral officer notifies me and the seat is made vacant from the date of that notification.

I hope that explanation is helpful to the House. This is a regrettable state of affairs, but I thank the Leader of the House for what she said in moving the motion and I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), the Chair of the Standards Committee, for briefing the House in the way that he has done.

Business of the House

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did make a ruling that people who were late for business questions should not be standing.

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Ten seconds.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the situation is. If a Member is late, that Member should not be standing at business questions. I have the very highest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I—[Interruption.] Order. I made a ruling that if Members are not on time—if they are late for business questions—they should not seek to be called. There will be other opportunities for Members to be called. We have a very heavy load of business and somebody has to judge whether the rule has been observed or not. Manifestly, in several cases it has not been. Most people who were late have accepted that they should not contribute today. They may contribute on other occasions or later in the day, but not at business questions. I cannot see what is complicated about it.

Points of Order

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving the right hon. Gentleman up. He is too precious to waste at an early point in our proceedings.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), which I entirely support, Mr Speaker. This is a major announcement affecting my constituency and many others. It is not an HS2 recommendation; it is a Government decision on a previous recommendation. The Government have always come to the House before with an oral statement. While we can ask for an urgent question tomorrow, by that time there will have been public debate on the matter. This House should have the first opportunity to debate it.

Community Pharmacies

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party pharmacy group. In February this year, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said there would be an impact assessment. In answer to a parliamentary question I tabled last week and the Minister answered, you also said that an impact assessment will be published, so that it would inform the final decision. Can the Minister tell us when that will be published? Will it be shared with representatives of community pharmacists?

[Mr Speaker]

I did not say anything about any impact assessment, but the Minister might have done for all I know. I have a feeling we are about to learn about it.

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

It is clear that the Government are in a very difficult position, hence the Minister’s attack on Opposition Front and Back Benchers. I have to say that, from my experience of nine years on the General Medical Council, I do not recognise the various descriptions of the doctors’ profession that the Government have given over the past few weeks, including as being radicalised. We all know that this dispute should and will be settled not by imposition but by negotiations around a table. It seems to me that instead of using, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, rhetoric that has fired this up, Ministers would do much better to react to what the BMA said yesterday, which is that it wants

“to end this dispute through talks”.

Why do the Government not get on with it, keep us out of it and just do what people expect them to do?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that this is an urgent question, not a debate under Standing Order No. 24 or a series of speeches? There seems to be predilection among colleagues to preface whatever question they ultimately arrive at with an essay first. A number of Members say, “Oh, I have to say this.” No, Members do not have to say anything; they have to ask a question, preferably briefly. That is all we want to hear.

Junior Doctors Contracts

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must advise the House that, so far, we have got through eight questioners in 14 minutes, which, by the standards of the House operating at its best, is poor, so we need to do better. That means shorter questions and, frankly, rather pithier answers.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I had a further email on this subject from a doctor in my constituency this morning. He thanked me for forwarding replies from the Department, although he did say that they were disappointing. He said that the BMA had proposed a contract that met the Government’s cost-neutral requirements, but that it had been rejected. Is that true?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but demand is so high. Last but not least, I call Kevin Barron.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The 6% cut in the pharmacy budget will come in in October—halfway through the next financial year. Will the Minister tell us what the percentage cut will be in a full financial year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Sir Kevin Barron.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give us an update on the proposed licensing of e-cigarettes by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency? Does her Department believe that e-cigarettes could be used in smoking cessation programmes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 May about the possible involvement of Lynton Crosby in public health matters. I raised his failure to reply on 19 June at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and again during the summer Adjournment debate on 18 July. I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This question will be heard with some courtesy, which is what I expect in the case of all questions. That is very simple and very straightforward.

[Mr Barron]

I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters. Why will this Prime Minister not do so?

Office for Fair Access

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and I hope that that House will be courteous enough to allow me to do so.

[Mr Barron]

When a Select Committee reaches a conclusion on an overtly party political basis, it is easy for the Executive to ignore it, and the Committee should not be used in this way. Is the Secretary of State concerned that people seeking such appointments in the future will not want to put themselves through the machine that has been set against Les Ebdon in the past few months, in the media and elsewhere, and that we will end up with a second XI batting for Britain, not a first XI?

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the Secretary of State began his statement should not expect to be called?

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State must know that the biggest threat to the stability of the national health service is the introduction of competition law into clinical services. Will the clause that says that the mergers of NHS trusts will be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission be removed from the Bill?

Registration of Members’ Financial Interests

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

I will not say whether I agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I will bring all points made in the debate to the Committee’s attention, and we will decide on that basis whether to look into these matters.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I note that he has referred to matters that are in motion 3. I make no complaint about that, but it leads me to think that, for the purposes of his speech, he is conflating the two separate motions. As I say, I make no complaint about that. No request was made that the motions be taken together, but if it is for the convenience of the House, the Chair is very happy that they be taken together. [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] I get the impression that that is the position. I am grateful. So we shall also consider the following:

That—

(1) this House agrees with the recommendations in the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges of Session 2008-09, on All-Party Groups (HC 920); and

(2) accordingly the resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989 and 29 July 1998, be further amended by leaving out paragraph 3 and inserting:—

“3. Groups whose membership:

• is open to all Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, and

• includes at least 20 Members (each of whom must be a Member of the House of Commons or House of Lords), comprising: at least 10 Members who are from the same political party as the Government, and at least 10 who are not from the Government’s party (of whom at least six must be from the main opposition party), and

• includes at least one officer who is a Member of the House of Commons be required to register the following information on the Register of All-Party Groups:

(a) The full title of the group. If persons other than Members of the Commons or Lords are allowed full membership (i.e. voting rights) the term ‘Associate Parliamentary Group’ must be included in the group’s title. If such persons are not allowed full membership the term ‘All-Party Parliamentary Group’ must be included instead. The rest of the group’s title should simply reflect the group’s subject so that the latter is obvious from its title alone.

(b) A brief summary of the group’s main purpose.

(c) The names of the group’s officers. At least one officer must be an MP; each of the other officers must be a Member of the House of Commons or House of Lords.

(d) The names of exactly 20 qualifying Members (each of whom must be a Member of the House of Commons or Lords), comprising: 10 Members who are from the same political party as the Government, and 10 who are not from the Government’s party (of which at least six must be from the main opposition party).

(e) The contact details of the group’s registered contact, who must be both an officer of the group and a Member of the House of Commons, and is the person ultimately responsible for the group’s compliance with the rules of the House.

(f) Any relevant gainful occupation of staff to the group who hold a parliamentary pass (relevant gainful occupation means any occupation that is advantaged by the privileged access afforded by the pass).

(g) The source and extent of any financial benefit (e.g. donations) and the source and nature of any non-financial material benefit (e.g. provision of goods or services) received by the group from a single source outside Parliament, if the value of the benefit equals or exceeds the financial threshold for registration (currently £1,500) in a calendar year. Once the group has made that initial registration, any further donation received from the same source in the same calendar year should be registered if its value exceeds £500.

(h) The website address of any organisation registered as the group’s secretariat.

(i) If a consultancy is registered as the group’s secretariat, the names and website of the consultancy plus the name of any client of theirs who is specifically paying the consultancy to act as the secretariat must also be registered. The consultancy must either publish on its website its full client list or agree to provide such a list on request, otherwise it is not allowed to act as the group’s secretariat.

(ii) If a charity or not-for-profit organisation is registered as the group’s secretariat, the former’s name and website must also be registered. The charity or not-for-profit organisation must agree to make available on request a list citing any commercial company which has donated either as a single sum or cumulatively more than £5,000 in the course of the 12 months prior to the month in which the request is made, otherwise it is not allowed to act as the group’s secretariat.

(i) The address of the group’s website, if it has its own website.

(j) The date of the group’s inaugural election of officers and of any Annual General Meeting held thereafter.

(k) Affiliation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, if the group is affiliated to either or both.”

I call Mr Kevin Barron, dealing with the two motions.

[Mr Barron]

I now turn to the report on all-party groups, published in July 2009. The proposals set out in the report are a package, most of them originally recommended by the previous Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, to whom I pay tribute. In summary, the proposed changes will require each group to register the website address of any organisation acting as its secretariat, where the secretarial assistance is more than £1,500 a year; in the case of a charity providing such support, require the charity to make available on request a list of commercial donors who have donated more than £5,000 to it in the previous 12 months; in the case of a consultancy providing such support, require the consultancy to publish on its website its full client list or provide such a list on request; require groups to register their website address; require groups to include on their website details of their sponsors and providers of secretarial services; and require each group to nominate an MP, who must also be an officer of the group, to act as the main point of contact for the group and also as the person who is ultimately responsible for ensuring its compliance with the rules.

In my view, those are sensible tidying-up changes that will increase public confidence in the Register of All-party Groups. The Committee’s report also proposes tightening the rules for the registration of all-party groups by aligning them with those for inclusion on the separate approved list maintained by the Commissioner’s office. This means that groups will no longer qualify for inclusion on the register unless they comply with the more extensive requirements of the approved list, such as the need to provide the names of 20 qualifying Members.

Taken as a whole, the changes should improve the scheme’s operations, providing clearer rules for those running the groups and those compiling the register, and greater transparency and ease of use for those who wish to consult the register.

Points of Order

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I have no knowledge of when a statement is to be made, and I do not want to become involved in hypothetical questions. I am not aware of the disclosure to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but as the whole House—including Ministers—is aware, when decisions have been made they must first be announced to the House.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that there is a huge amount of speculation in the press today following yesterday’s court hearing involving the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Mr Illsley) and whether he could now be expelled from the House. May I ask you to clarify whether the matter remains sub judice—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have got the gist of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise. I can advise him and the House that the matter in question is sub judice until the point at which the judicial process as a whole has been completed. That is established, and there are precedents for it. I hope that what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House is helpful.

[Mr Barron]

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no “further to that point of order”.

[Mr Barron]

No motion will be accepted—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no further point to be made. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and I make no complaint about that, but I feel that I have given a clear indication to the House of what the position is.

Public Houses and Private Members’ Clubs (Smoking) Bill

Debate between Kevin Barron and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I oppose the Bill. The same argument was put to the House not so many years ago in a debate that resulted in the current legislation. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was right to say that the original legislation, proposed by the then Labour Government, did not provide for a comprehensive ban in areas of all public houses or private members’ clubs. In 2005 the Select Committee on Health, which I chaired, conducted a detailed inquiry into the issues before the Bill that became the Health Act 2006 had completed its passage. When it had done so, the amendments that had been tabled were put to the vote. Labour Members were eventually given a free vote, as, I understand, were Opposition Members.

Let me give the House a flavour of the results of that vote. The hon. Gentleman described this as a contentious issue. The result of the vote on clause stand part, as amended—there had been an attempt to remove the amendment—was 452 Ayes and 127 Noes. At no time did any Member trying to defend the hon. Gentleman’s position manage to persuade more than 200 Members into the Lobby. It followed a great tradition that in the other place, shortly after the votes in February 2006, Lord Tebbit rose to defend the Labour party manifesto of 2005. At the time some of us, although we had stood on that manifesto, thought it was nonsense from the point of view of public health.

In the same year that the House made that decision, Spain implemented a smoking ban exempting small bars and restaurants. The law was not seen as a success, and as a result of public dissatisfaction with the exemptions the Spanish Government have proposed to extend the ban to all pubs and restaurants, although they are considering an exemption for private smokers’ clubs. An evaluation of the Spanish law found that levels of second-hand smoke were reduced only in bars where smoking was prohibited by law, and that

“Most hospitality workers continue to be exposed to very high levels of SHS”—

that is, second-hand smoke.

That was the issue then, and it is still the issue today: people who work in the leisure sector are exposed to people’s life-threatening habits. It was the issue in 2006, when the original legislation went through the House, and it remains the issue today. Unless bars contain NHS operating theatres with doors that are rarely opened, it will never be possible to avoid the effect of Bills such as this on workers. Evaluations of other partial bans have found limited evidence of health gain, and they are believed to aggravate health inequalities.

I remind Government Members that they have just fought and won a general election criticising the then Labour Government for not ending health inequalities in this country. I agree: they did not do away with health inequalities, and some 50% of health inequalities are created by tobacco use. If Members on the Government Benches are going to continue saying what they said when in opposition, this Bill is the last measure I would expect their Front-Bench team to support, because health inequalities are writ large in tobacco use in this country.

An Australian study of 2004 found that no-smoking areas in licensed premises contained as many tobacco toxins as smoking areas. Even in clubs with completely separate no-smoking rooms there was no material reduction in the levels of harmful toxins in the air. Ventilation systems in smoking areas in rooms that are not fully segregated will not protect people in non-smoking areas. The Select Committee on Health—an all-party Committee, I might add—came to that conclusion. It is also the finding of research by D. Kotzias and others at the European Commission Joint Research Centre. We cannot isolate smoking in smoking rooms and think it has no effect elsewhere. That will not work, and it is the reason why the original Health Bill put before the House in 2005 was changed in the House in 2006.

Let us look at the health gains, because that is what this is about. It is not about leisure; it is about the health of the public. Hospitality industry workers have benefited most from the UK legislation. Evaluation of the Spanish partial ban found that the law had failed to protect them significantly. The most notable health gain for members of the public is the fall in the number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction. Researchers at the university of Bath have calculated that there has been a 5% drop in the number of heart attacks in England, attributable to smoke-free legislation. The figure was higher for Scotland and it was measured within 12 months of the ban coming into force—as Members will know, the ban was introduced earlier in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Similar reductions have been observed in other jurisdictions with a comprehensive ban, including New York, Ireland and Italy. Indeed, the Health Committee went to Ireland when taking evidence for our report.

It has also been suggested that having more people smoking out on the street might increase young people’s perception that smoking is a normal adult activity and so increase the number of under-age smokers. In fact, international research shows that smoking bans are associated with reducing smoking among teenage boys in particular, possibly because it is seen as less normal. This topic has been debated in the House throughout the decades during which I have been a Member, and I have frequently argued for legislation to de-normalise smoking.

Some 50% of people who smoke will die a premature death, as well as having suffered from various diseases and all the other burdens they will carry throughout their life—and that taxpayers will carry for the rest of their lives in having to treat these people in the NHS. It is sometimes argued that we must recognise that smokers put money into the Treasury as opposed to looking at the ill health that is suffered as a result of tobacco use. That is a ridiculous argument.

It was claimed at the time of the Health Bill that banning smoking in pubs would displace smoking into the home, thereby increasing children’s exposure. The reverse has been true. The proportion of homes in England where smoking is prohibited throughout has increased to 79% and children’s exposure has fallen because of that. I have not got the figures to hand, but recently—within the past 12 months—research has found a link between cot death and smoking. That affects young children who do not have anything directly to do with cigarettes, but who are exposed to them through passive smoking. It is irresponsible for any Member to stand up in this House and say we should reverse this measure which has led to such great health gains in this country.

Support for smoke-free legislation in England has risen to more then 80% of adults, many of them smokers themselves who agree that this legislation is right. Support has risen fastest among smokers, half of whom support the legislation as it stands. Most smokers believe the law has been good for their health, good for the health of the public and good for the health of most workers.

There is an issue with the effect on business. I have looked at all the evidence and I must say that trying to introduce smoke-free rooms ventilated to the level that would be necessary would have a negative effect on business; there is no way that will benefit businesses.

Let me finish by discussing the issue of trusting the people. This morning, I found the following words on the hon. Member for Bury North’s website—he has a blog and people post things on it. He said that we should trust the people, and these are the comments of someone called Jim:

“Mr Nuttall, I am a tory voter and a pub landlord, you are so wrong on this and I suggest you use your common sense to drop this headline catching cause.

The smoking ban was one of the few things labour got right in their last reign.”

I dispute that, to some extent. He continued:

“To even suggest undoing it in this manner brings yourself and the party into disrepute. As a landlord my biggest fear about the smoking ban was the proposal you are advocating. In my humble opinion it will create an unfair playing field, that panders to the weak and stupid.

Many people because of the ban have given up smoking, myself included, I do not want to go back to the days of smoky pubs, the blanket ban has worked. My business is proof, I am still trading and making a living”.

I shall not read out the rest, but there are many other comments on the hon. Gentleman’s blog, including some from nurses in his constituency. One of them says that they wished he had put this proposal in his manifesto when he stood for election in May, because they may have then had a different view about the Conservative candidate. I would like to oppose this Bill. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) has been in the House for five years, so I feel sure that he is keenly conscious of the fact that there are two speeches on these occasions and no more.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).