ONE of the trickiest Cabinet Committees I ever chaired was about bans on smoking, in pubs, restaurants, and all other enclosed public spaces.

Our 2005 manifesto had said that pubs not serving food would be free to choose whether to be smoke-free or allow smoking in some rooms.

Health Ministers wanted to go further. The issue was whether an outright ban would be enforceable.

These Ministers won the day. The effect of the ban has been remarkable.

The law has been widely observed, with just a tiny number prosecutions.

Now, the debate has moved on — to whether smoking in cars should be banned if a child is present.

After a lively debate on Monday the Commons decided, in a free vote, by 376 to 107, to bring in a ban. (No East Lancashire MP voted against).

The ban won’t happen straightaway. There’ll be consultation about how the regulations should be framed. But come in it will.

“If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take”, was how one opponent of the change put it. I don’t dismiss this argument.

Parliament should not interfere with people’s freedoms without good reason.

But children in a car who have to inhale the smoke of adults in the vehicle don’t have any choice.

Their lungs are even less able to cope than an adult’s. Passive smoking by children causes tens of thousands of cases of respiratory tract infections, middle ear disease, wheeze and asthma each year. A single cigarette in a car can create concentrations of smoke up to 11 times greater than those in a smoky pub of old.

Will the ban work? I think so. Experience has shown that people comply with sensible measures to protect their safety without the need for over-zealous enforcement. That’s what happened with seat belts and smoking in public places. I reckon it will happen with this too. Not least since a poll (by YouGov) last year suggested that 85 per cent of smokers already refuse to smoke in cars with children present.