| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.54 pm
Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am proud to move the Bill's Third Reading. I particularly want to thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) who have done a superb job in piloting the Bill through Committee and much of the Report stage that we have just had. [Interruption.] Despite some of the sedentary comments by Opposition Members, I also pay tribute to Members on both sides who have adopted a positive and constructive attitude to the elements of a Bill that not only protects public health inside and outside hospital but will further improve the performance and efficiency of the national health service.
Of course, the main focus of our debate and of public attention has been on the Bill's smoking provisions. This evening, the House voted absolutely decisively to introduce a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1376
public places and workplaces, including all licensed premises and private members' clubs. We have therefore not only delivered on the manifesto promise to ban smoking in virtually all public places and workplaces on which we were elected 10 months ago but have gone additional steps further. That reflects the excellent debate that took place on the smoking provisions in which I and my hon. Friends, who genuinely believed, and always have, that the arguments about private members' clubs were finely balanced, have none the less voted for a complete ban, particularly in the interests of ensuring a level playing field between different businesses such as small pubs and members' clubs. I recognise that there will be some disappointment among at least some members of private clubs at the outcome of the vote, but I nevertheless believe that it was the right one.
The comprehensive ban for which the House has decisively voted will mean, over time, that some 600,000 people, beyond those who would have otherwise given up smoking, will be led to abandon it. The result of that and the protection that we are giving to people from second-hand smoking will be thousands of people's lives being saved and thousands of families being spared the grief of losing a loved one prematurely. That is why I think today's vote and the Bill will be seen as historic legislation on public health equivalent to, for instance, the legislation on seat belts of some decades ago.
I am also delighted that, although it was not debated this afternoon, we have taken power to raise the age for the purchase of tobacco from 16 to 18 following the consultation in which we engaged. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who has campaigned vigorously and effectively on that issue.
Other vital provisions include the statutory code of practice on MRSA and associated health care infections. It will be very widely welcomed not only by the public, who quite rightly expect every hospital to get down their MRSA and other infection rates, but by staff in both the NHS and the independent sector.
The Bill will also provide for much stronger management of controlled drugs in response to some of the shortcomings identified in the Shipman inquiry and will improve safeguards against the very small minority of people who would divert those drugs for personal abuse, financial gain or even, regrettably, for criminal purposes. It will also help us to continue improving and modernising NHS pharmacy services, ensuring, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, that we can continue expanding the services offered by our pharmacists and make them much more convenient to patients.
I was pleased to read the discussion in Committee during which the provision of ophthalmic services in England was praised. Although there was concern that the Bill would tamper with a service that is already excellent, I hope that hon. Members on both sides are reassured that by removing the restrictions on with whom a primary trust may contract to provide ophthalmic services the Bill will help to increase patient choice and thus continue to improve services. The new framework for ophthalmic
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1377
services will ensure that we will be able to provide enhanced services in the community of the kind that are often available at present only in hospitals. That will be in line with the direction that we have just spelled out in the White Paper.
Mr. Lansley: We did not have the opportunity to discuss general ophthalmic services on Report. Does the Secretary of State agree with the sentiments of amendment No. 17 that when primary care trusts use their powers to contract general ophthalmic services, they should maximise the choice available to patients? We want to ensure that PCTs will be able to continue to exercise choice on accessing services, so it would helpful if the Secretary of State said whether that is firmly her intention.
Ms Hewitt: I am happy to reassure the House that we want more choice for patients in ophthalmic and other medical services. We want the best possible services to be available in every community, with, of course, the best value for money.
The Bill has important provisions that give new powers to the counter-fraud service, which already does excellent work to ensure that taxpayers' money is used for the purpose for which hon. Members vote—better patient care. The Bill also responds to the Public Administration Committee's report on government by appointment and reconfirms our commitment to an independent appointments process.
The Bill is a major and historic step forward for public health. It will help us to continue to improve the national health service and will give patients and the public better, faster, more convenient and safer health care. The Bill was good, but it has been made even better by today's votes. I commend it to the House.
9.2 pm
Mr. Lansley: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is not in the Chamber. If congratulations are being offered on the outcome of the Bill's principal measures on smoking, we must accept that they probably owe much to his work and leadership of the Health Committee. Whatever one's view of the precise details of the final outcome, his approach was clearer and more decisive than any ever taken by the Government.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State has claimed on Third Reading that she has implemented the Government's manifesto because that is the one thing she has not done. On Second Reading, she quoted the part of the manifesto that said that the Government would legislate to ensure that
"all enclosed public places and work places other than licensed premises will be smoke-free . . . all restaurants will be smoke-free, all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free."
She also expressly told us on Second Reading that the Government would consult on whether there should be smoking rooms in pubs—that has gone. She asserted that it was right to strike a balance and said:
"we have made the judgment that the right balance to strike is between banning smoking in virtually every enclosed public space and work space, and exempting the membership clubs and the
- licensed premises that do not serve food, in order to protect freedom of choice for that minority of people whom nobody is forcing to go into a pub that allows smoking".—[Official Report, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 156.]
Although we knew what was going to happen, the Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to tell the House how she was going to vote—if she knew at that stage—at the start of the debate on new clause 5. However, she and the Prime Minister have voted completely contrary to the exemptions that Ministers presented to the House three months ago. She may congratulate herself and her colleagues on their stewardship of the Bill, but the truth of the matter is that the House was taken in precisely the wrong direction on Second Reading. Additionally, a substantial amount of time was expended on the matter in Committee, although we all knew at that point that Ministers were on an impossible wicket.
On Second Reading, the Conservatives pressed for a free vote, and it was quite obvious that it would have been better for the Government to abandon the distinction between pubs that serve food and those that do not. There are often mutual congratulations on Third Reading, and I shall offer mine in a minute, but I must tell the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health—the so-called public health Minister—that the Bill was not well handled. It was one of the most astonishingly badly handled Bills in recent years. It should not have been introduced in the form in which it was introduced, it should not have been pursued in that way, and even if it has produced a solution with which Parliament is happy, that was not by virtue of ministerial design. Ministers should therefore not accept congratulations. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is saying that my colleagues voted for a more comprehensive ban, I do not have a difficulty with that. She should perhaps remember that we made it clear on Second Reading that there would be a free vote on the express basis that Opposition Members had distinct views on the judgment that should be made. A free vote was not offered to Government Members. The Government should accept that there was a crass error on their part, for which they should apologise.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |