MPs ready to order total smoking ban

David Ottewell and Amanda Crook

February 14, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (14) | Previous | Next

A BIG majority of Greater Manchester MPs are set to vote today for a complete ban on smoking in public places.

Eighteen of 23 MPs who disclosed their intentions in an exclusive Manchester Evening News poll said they would definitely or probably opt for the all-out ban.

If that pattern were repeated across the Commons, plans to exempt either pubs that don't serve food or private members' clubs would fall.

The news has sparked jubilation among anti-smoking campaigners across the region.

Pat Karney, director of Smoke Free Greater Manchester said: "We are on course to make smoking history."

MPs have been given a free vote on the issue and will choose between three options: a total ban on smoking in pubs and private clubs; a ban in pubs but not private clubs; and the original government plan exempting clubs and pubs which do not serve food.

Momentum behind a total ban has been gathering pace and even the licensed trade - which favoured self-regulation instead of any formal ban - says exempting private clubs would be the worst option as it would cost them customers.

Exemption

The M.E.N found a majority of Labour MPs and all Liberal Democrat MPs across Greater Manchester were preparing to vote for the all-out ban.

Labour supporters of the blanket ban include ex-minister Beverley Hughes (Trafford), David Heyes (Ashton), Ivan Lewis (Bury South), David Chaytor (Bury North), Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton), Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish), Barbara Keeley (Worsley), Neil Turner (Wigan), Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central), Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) and Ian Stewart (Eccles).

Home Office minister Paul Goggins said he was "inclined towards an outright ban" but would wait until the debate to make a final decision - a position shared with licensing minister James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde) and Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer. Those favouring an exemption for private members' clubs include Brian Iddon (Bolton South East), David Crausby (Bolton North East) and Ann Coffey (Stockport).

Mr Crausby said: "I believe both my parents died from smoking but I don't like to over-legislate. We should try to persuade people to change their behaviour." Dr Iddon admitted he would vote for an all-out ban if the proposal to exempt private clubs failed.

Phil Woolas, Labour's leader of the House of Commons and MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, said he was in favour of a phased ban.

Home Office minister Andy Burnham (Leigh) is currently undecided.

Ian McCartney (Makerfield) refused to say, while Gerald Kaufman (Manchester Gorton) and ministers Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears did not respond.

All of Greater Manchester's Liberal Democrat MPs confirmed they would be voting for the all-out ban.

Mark Hunter (Stockport) said: "There is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking harms people who do not smoke."

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) said the decision would "improve the health of the nation" and cut smoking rates, while John Leech (Manchester Withington) said: "The government's plans would see some workers being protected from passive smoking but would leave others breathing in harmful tobacco smoke at work."

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove), the party's chief whip, confirmed he favoured the all-out ban.

The sole Conservative MP in Greater Manchester, Graham Brady (Sale West and Altrincham) said he would NOT vote for the all-ban but was undecided between the other options.

Where do you stand on the smoking debate? Have your say below.

| Submit Comments | Comments (14) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 14 and replies | View All

Doug, Manchester (14/02/2006 at 10:48)

Well Graham Brady's chicken stance on this important issue probably gives an indication of why he is in a minority of one, politically speaking.

lee doggod, london (14/02/2006 at 13:05)

in all the pubs I ahve been in not one smoker has asked me if its alright to smoke sitting beside me.

Ban it now

Viv, Oldham (14/02/2006 at 13:05)

its about time mp's made the right decision to protect those of us who take care of ourselves and lead a healthy lifestyle. Why should non smokers have to risk the harmful effects of passive smoking just to have a social life. The sooner smoking is banned from ALL public placed the better.

Bill Warren, Northenden (14/02/2006 at 13:25)

I have an open question for the politicians of this country, will this "total" ban include all bars and restaurants in the houses of Lords and Commons I bet not, because these so called politicians are only in it for themseleves and you can bet your lives suitable measures will be taken to make each and every one of them happy, hypocrites!

We await your prompt reply!

bernie, trafford (14/02/2006 at 13:29)

Golly there's a surprise neither Ruth Skelly nor Hazel Snears would comment on how they voted why? A pair of just about the most incompetent ministers in Westminster living off the fat of the taxpayer neither forced to use either the schools they are messing up or the underfunded police force they have created. Until these people are forced to queue in line with the great unwashed they will offer no comment answers. Who do they think they are a private members club is just that PRIVATE if they want to allow smoking they should be able to I am a non-smoker myself but how dare I dictate that someone at a private club cannot smoke themselves to death and as for bar staff get real they choose to work behind a bar. As for restaurants no smoking is the only way why should I have to ingest arsenic and nicotine with every mouthful of food. Funnily enough this ban will NEVER extend to the members club at the house of commons. Do they think we are all illiterate serfs roll on the next election.

Bob, Manchester (14/02/2006 at 14:27)

This is just silly, and it's down to inconsiderate smokers who light up in packed restaurants and sit on the bus wafting smoke everywhere, but a complete ban is not the way to go, all it will do is bury long-term smokers in their home, ruining their own and their children's health even more. If more people had respect for one-another we wouldn't even have this issue. It should be the root of human decency that the government should be fixing, not simply forcing the addicted to their isolated dens.

Kyla, Manchester (14/02/2006 at 14:38)

Too right Viv. A total ban needs to be approved, and then implemented with immediate effect. It's been too long coming already. Someone said recently a partial ban would be like having a no-peeing area in a public swimming pool. A rather effective metaphor if you ask me. Smokers should go kill themselves at home, and keep the hell out of our airspace.

Clare, Manchester (14/02/2006 at 16:55)

I agree that a total ban should be in place.
I am a smoker but would have no problem with not being allowed to smoke in public places. I find that if I am not allowed to smoke then it doesnt bother me. It wont stop me going to pubs and restaurants. The one thing we should be aware of though is that the effect may be that a lot of people just pack in smoking. In this instance taxes are sure to rise to take into account the millions of pounds lost. The tax on cigarettes is extortionate and therefore someones going to have to subsidise it.

Dave, Tarragona Spain (14/02/2006 at 18:46)

Spain,like England, has been brainwashed by the European dictators but Spain has been a bit more crafty. Instead of having a total ban in bars, they put notices on the outside doors stating whether the bar is a 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' bar.This gives people a choice whether to use the bar or not --- something the English are not allowed to have.Thanks to the two anglophobic Scotsmen running England (Blair & Brown) who have achieved what Robert the Bruce,Mel Gibson & Bonny Prince Charlie failed to do; the destruction of England.Incidentally I do not smoke.

Cystic Fibrosis sufferer, Manchester (14/02/2006 at 23:45)

WEHEY THEY FINALLY DID IT!!!! I CAN NOW HAVE A SOCIAL LIFE AGAIN WITHOUT GETTING ILL EVERY TIME I BREATHE IN THAT DISGUSTING SMOKE!!!! AT LEAST LABOUR HAVE DONE ONE THING RIGHT IN 10 YEARS

Robert, Gravesend, kent (15/02/2006 at 06:10)

Now this government has deceided on our behavior and lifestyle, maybe they can concentrate on important issues like violence and murder ( can we ban that now)

Tom, Ex-pat Manc in USA (15/02/2006 at 07:42)

Even as a smoker I would not object to a ban in restaurants, as even I prefer eating without smoke.
But a ban in pubs etc is ridiculous. Non-smokers have it all their way & if you are bothered about your health so much, what on earth are you doing in a pub anyway? Bringing this in when 24 hour drinking has just been introduced is stupid. A ban has made little impact in New York & all it does is eradicate citizens rights. I fail to see why there can't be smoking & non-smoking establishments - people's tolerance is just diminishing by the day. I am aware that inconsiderate smokers make some of us look bad, but the government is happy taking the huge taxes of us every time we buy cigarettes yet we can't go out & smoke them anywhere - its hypocritical & stupid.

Kay, Manchester (15/02/2006 at 11:05)

Last night I went out for a meal with my partner. As it was Valentine's Day, a lot of people were in the restaurant, paying a considerable amount of money for what was essentially great food. Unfortunately, as per usual, a minority of self-centred smokers were ruining things for everyone else by lighting up and poisoning the room with their foul-smelling carcinogens. Just because they have incinerated their own taste buds, they think it gives them the right to ruin everyone else's enjoyment of flavours and aromas. The non-smoking customers may as well have gone in there, put their credit cards on the table, and set fire to them. There was just one man in the restaurant who declined the ash tray provided, and went outside to spare his dining companions his smoke, and he was conspicuous in his thoughtful actions. If only all smokers were as considerate! So many Nicotine addicts have absolutely no regard for the comfort or health of others. I am therefore absolutely over the moon that the government has finally come to its senses and taken radical action to forcibly remove these morons from the airspace of the majority of decent sensitive people. Anti-ban protestors can weep and wail and drag out the same tired whining clich??s about 'Nanny States,' 'Big Brother' and 'infringement of civil liberties' all they want, but they only have themselves to blame. If, like the thoughtful man at the restaurant last night, they had behaved in a considerate manner towards non-smokers in the first place, the government wouldn't have had to take such drastic steps. If people can't be considerate of others of their own volition, then they have to be forced into it. Tough luck. Whinging self-pitying smokers will not find much sympathy among the vast majority of the population. It's only a shame that now they'll stay at home and inflict their poisons upon family members instead.

Doug, Manchester (15/02/2006 at 11:36)

Some anti-ban protestors have made the usual tired old comment about the impact of reduced tax revenue on the decreased sale of cigarettes. Anyone with half a brain however, will understand that this loss will be balanced by the subsequent reduced drain on the NHS in the treatment of smoking-related illnesses. Also, someone made the obtuse comment that if non-smokers are so concerned about their health, why do they go to pubs? What a puerile thing to say. It's not as if popping into your local now and again for a pint, or the odd glass or two of wine makes you an alcoholic - in fact, scientific evidence states that alcohol taken in moderation is actually beneficial to health. Perhaps this person's comment speaks more about the writer's own issues with addictive behaviour than the non-smokers he is so irrationally attacking. Not everyone who visits a pub drinks to excess. Some people even go to pubs and have soft drinks. You may as well say 'why go to restaurants?' because over-eating leads to obesity, and all it's related illnesses. Ridiculous. The preservation of good health, in relation to self-inflicted disease, is primarily about common sense, moderation and self-control - concepts, of course, that the more vociferous element of the smoking population will be unacquainted with.

()

Report

News