A few weeks back I returned home late at night. As I opened the taxi door a fox strutted across the drive without a care in the world. In my merry frame of mind I made a mental note to call out the Northcourt Avenue Hunt next morning.

By the time I got to the swimming pool first thing I had remembered that Parliament had banned hunting with dogs. I would have to live and let live after all.

I doubt if the hounds and their undesirable masters would have made it to the University area, and fox hunting always seemed a pretty lame method of vermin control anyway, but as a politician I was never able to raise any enthusiasm for banning hunting. However; many of my colleagues were unreasonably passionate about doing so. I remember a debate on prohibiting hunting on Berkshire County Council land when I was genuinely worried that Pete Ruhemann (a man for whom I have immeasurable respect) would spontaneously combust.

At every level of politics endless requests to support the banning of this that or the other go with the territory. If you can’t actually vote to ‘ban it’ yourself, then you are asked to sign the petition, write the letter, move the resolution, join the campaign or whatever else. I can recall being asked to help ban, among other things: hunting, hand guns, fishing, fireworks, landmines, chewing gum, raves, bull bars and “Brown Sugar” by the Rolling Stones (really, I’m not making that up!).

It is all too tempting for politicians to call for whatever to be ‘banned’. It gets an easy headline for starters and makes it look as if you are ‘doing something’. You are sure to find enough zealots, puritans or party-poopers that will support your cause. That’s fine if you go in for knee-jerk reactions to the latest moral panic or enjoy playing to the gallery, but I think that people should be free to do as they wish so long as it doesn’t damage others – so live and let live. Even in many cases when harm to others clearly exists,  ‘banning it’ proves impractical and makes for poor law. Sincere politicians who understand this don’t really mean ‘ban’, they mean ‘make life more difficult for the scumbags’.

Despite all that, the one ban I support with enthusiasm is the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places.

It is a ban we need. The health evidence is overwhelming. The rights of those who work for their living in pubs, clubs and restaurants deserve respect. Almost all former smokers I’ve talked to say that the hardest thing after giving up was going for a drink in a smoke filled pub. As experience in Ireland, Scotland and Wales shows, it is practical and enforceable. In the Reading bars that implemented early signs were encouraging; few seemed to mind, good times were still being had.

It is a ban that came about the right way. It was not the decision of Government, but of Parliament on a free vote across party lines (majorities of 453 to 125 and 384 to 184 on the most important questions). The Reading MPs, Martin Salter and Rob Wilson, both voted for the ban. The evidence suggests that the public approves.

It is a ban that should be respected. In our democracy, whatever our right to protest, we should respect the will of Parliament as it reflects consensus in society.

It is a ban that points the right direction. It doesn’t ban smoking. ‘Do what you like in your own home, but behave considerately in public’, sounds like a good principle to me. We can all think of something we would ban – I’d outlaw the dreary tunes of Coldplay – but I’ll settle for not having them in my house.