Celebrating 20 Years Since Parliament Voted to Introduce Indoor Smokefree Legislation

On 14^th February 2006 the Commons passed an amendment to Health Bill which created comprehensive smokefree legislation in England. The law passed on free vote, with cross party support and has been hailed as one of the greatest public health achievements of this century so far. 

To mark 20 years since the vote we have asked for reflections from those who were MPs at the time and those who campaigned for change. 

When ASH began campaigning for legislation to prohibit smoking in enclosed public places it seemed an impossible dream, with both Government and Opposition parties viewing it as an extreme and unacceptable solution. Less than two years later the legislation passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, with all parties claiming this as a victory and a major step forward for public health in the twenty first century.

Convinced by the evidence of harm from secondhand smoke put on parliamentary record by the Health Select Committee, and the strength of public support, Parliament made its voice count and passed the legislation on a free vote, an outcome all Parties now claim as a victory.  As a result, subsequent generations are growing up free from the unpleasant and unhealthy stench of cigarette smoke which used to pervade our public spaces. Youth smoking has subsequently declined dramatically, revolutionising public policy and allowing the smokefree generation legislation, shortly to pass on to the statute books, to become a reality.

Twenty years ago, on St Valentine’s Day 2006, the House of Commons took a decisive step to protect the public from the harms of smoking in enclosed public places. As a Conservative MP, I spoke and voted in favour of smokefree legislation - as did many others -not in spite of my political principles, but because of them.

At the time, some argued that backing the ban was somehow un-Conservative. I rejected that argument then, and I do so now. Conservatism has always been about responsibility as well as freedom: balancing individual choice with the right of others to live and work without avoidable harm. That was the principle behind Conservative support for compulsory seat belts and crash helmets, and the Clean Air Act. It was the principle that guided my vote in 2006.

The smokefree legislation sent a clear signal that while people may choose to smoke, Parliament would act to protect non-smokers from its harms. The proposed Smokefree Generation legislation is rooted in exactly the same logic. It does not criminalise smoking; it simply prevents the next generation from being recruited into addiction by an industry that profits from harm.

Supporting this measure would be every bit as Conservative as voting for smokefree public places was twenty years ago: pragmatic, evidence-based, and firmly on the side of public health, personal responsibility and a healthier future for Britain.

Few pieces of legislation deliver such immediate and lasting benefits to public health as the smokefree law has. Twenty years on, the Commons vote to make workplaces and public places smokefree remains one of the proudest moments of my parliamentary career. It showed how real change happens: when civil society, expert voices and committed backbenchers work together to create the political space for progress.

I had entered Parliament only the year before, as a backbench MP from the North East. In our region, organisations like Fresh played a vital role. Alongside the wider Smokefree Action Coalition, they ensured that MPs like me had the evidence, expertise and confidence we needed ahead of that crucial vote. Their work mattered. It helped cut through fear and misinformation and grounded the debate in the lived reality of people’s health.

At the time, some colleagues – particularly on the Labour benches – voiced genuine concerns about the impact on working men’s clubs and other institutions, especially in the North of England. At the time, I could already see how times were changing and that venues were adapting. Instead, what has become clear is that the communities people worried most about are the ones who have benefited most: from protection against second-hand smoke for staff, from healthier workplaces, and from falling smoking rates.

The transformation in the North East tells its own story. Twenty years ago, we had the highest smoking rates in the country. Today, we are just below the national average, and I am delighted that the region has achieved the biggest drop in overall smoking rates of any region. Smokefree legislation did not achieve this alone, but it played a critical role in shifting norms, protecting workers, and making quitting more achievable.

It is also worth remembering that these laws were strengthened and championed from the backbenches, reinforcing the action taken by the Labour government of the day. That matters, because it reminds us that progress is often driven by persistence, collaboration and courage from across Parliament.

I am proud that, twenty years on, it is a Labour government that is building on that legacy and bringing forward new legislation to extend protections and prevent harm from smoking. The smokefree vote showed what is possible when we put public health first.  Its legacy continues to save lives, and it is one we should never take for granted.

I know how much support there is for ending our biggest cause of cancer and preventing local families being robbed of their loved ones, and so I look forward to a totally smokefree future.

Ahead of the crunch vote on the 14^th February 2006 I played an active role during the committee stage of the Health Bill, where the smoke-free provisions were among the most hotly contested parts of the legislation. At this stage the smokefree clause contained significant exemptions about which I was uneasy. In particular the exemptions for pubs not serving food and for private members’ clubs struck me as significant loopholes that would undermine the whole premise of the legislation. For me, this was never about telling people how to live their lives; it was about protecting workers from second-hand smoke. Employees in the hospitality sector had a right to health protection at work and the majority of customers who did not smoke also needed protection.

During committee, I kept returning to two linked concerns: health and practicality. I questioned whether a partial ban could ever be justified on health grounds and warned that exemptions risked concentrating smoking in certain venues, potentially increasing harm to staff and customers.

It was not until we reached the vote in the final moments of the Commons stages of the Bill on 14^th February that this damaging loophole was removed by MPs, defeating the government.  We gave England a smokefree law of which we could be proud. Now, on the twentieth anniversary of that vote it is striking how uncontroversial that decision has become. What once provoked fierce opposition is now seen as a basic, common-sense public health protection, which has stood the test of time. I am proud to have played a part in that change and pleased with the outcome, because it shows that Parliament can take tough decisions – and that getting them right can make a lasting difference.

Twenty years ago, on 14 February 2006, Parliament took a decisive step by voting for comprehensive smokefree legislation. I supported that vote without hesitation. At the time, there were claims, from the Liberal Democrat benches and beyond, that restricting smoking in public places was an assault on freedom. In truth, it was a profoundly liberal act, as history has borne out. It is nearly impossible to imagine going back to a time when people were allowed to endanger of the health of others, particularly workers, through smoking inside. I cannot imagine that even colleagues who voted against the restrictions then would be in favour of repealing them now.

Smokefree legislation was about protecting people from harm caused by others, and from the grip of addiction itself. Second hand smoke is not a matter of personal choice for the worker behind the bar or the child in a public space. Nor is addiction simply an expression of free will. A liberal society has a responsibility to act where the freedom of one person causes serious harm to another, and where powerful commercial interests profit from dependency and ill health.

Two decades on, we must continue to maintain the momentum started in 2006. Since then, rates of smoking have tumbled but vulnerable groups continue to be left behind in the race to be smokefree. The burden of smoking falls disproportionately on the most disadvantaged in our society. It is particularly shocking that the persistent and substantial gap in life expectancy for people with mental health conditions is driven in part by very high rates of smoking. Not nearly enough is done to help those with mental ill health to stop smoking,

The smokefree vote showed that bold, evidence-based action can shift norms, save lives, and command public support. We should be proud of that legacy and determined to build on it.

Twenty years on, I still remember how pivotal the vote on smokefree legislation felt. As Chair of the Health Select Committee, my responsibility was simple but weighty: to follow the evidence and to make sure Parliament did the same. The science on second-hand smoke was unequivocal. It was harming workers and the public every day, and partial measures would never have delivered the protection people deserved.

 As a Committee we took a very close interest in this issue. We visited Ireland to see their legislation in practice. It revealed that comprehensive smokefree laws were workable even in the sociable Temple Bar district of Dublin where hospitality continued to boom, and smokers were happy to take their smoke outside. When the Government proposed exemptions for some pubs and clubs, the Committee looked closely at the consequences. We concluded they were unfair, unworkable and illogical. Creating different rules for different venues would have distorted competition, entrenched health inequalities and left many workers unprotected. I believed then, and still do now, that public health legislation has to be clear, comprehensive and fair.

 Looking back after 20 years of smokefree public places, Parliament played a decisive role in securing this lasting change from the work of the Health Select Committee to the voices of backbench MPs through the APPG on Smoking and Health and those across the House that formed an unusual cross-party alliance. The free vote in February 2006 was a defining moment. MPs from all parties came together, not because it was politically easy, but because it was right. Parliament listened to the evidence, to the medical profession and to the growing public support for change and voted for a change that continues to benefit public health to this day.

Twenty years on, I still remember how uneasy I felt during the debates on smokefree legislation – not because the issue was complex, but because the solution being proposed was so timid.

 At the time, what troubled me most was the idea of a partial ban. Exemptions for certain pubs or private members’ clubs were presented as a pragmatic compromise, but in truth they were neither fair nor workable. You cannot meaningfully protect public health while deciding that some workers deserve protection and others do not. That, to me, was the worst possible outcome.

 I believed then, as I do now, that legislation should be honest about its purpose. If we accept the evidence on the harms of second-hand smoke, we have a responsibility to act decisively. Anything less simply entrenches inequality and confusion and undermines respect for the law itself.

 The free vote in 2006 was a rare moment when Parliament rose above party lines and listened to the evidence. Supporting comprehensive smokefree legislation was not about restricting personal choice; it was about protecting people – particularly those who had no choice at all about the environments in which they worked.

 Looking back, the success of smokefree legislation speaks for itself. It reminds us that being bold in the service of public health is not only justified, but necessary.