THE Cabinet has decided to go down the illogical road to a partial smoking ban in public places, retreating from the total ban which they appeared to be supporting until last week.

A partial ban will be difficult to enforce and carries the risk of increasing health inequalities because pubs that do not serve food which will be exempt from the ban are often situated in areas of relative poor health.

The Secretary of State for Health had to defend her acquiescence with this Cabinet decision in front of the Health Committee.

It was well known that she had favoured a complete ban but she was angry when accused by one member of having been rolled over by other Cabinet members.

However she said: "I think it is only a matter of time before there is a complete ban." In a public session of the Health Committee inquiry into smoking in public places, Dr Richard Ashcroft, reader in biomedical ethics at Imperial College, London, told the committee that ethically to restrict someone's liberty is justified where harm is caused to others.

Thus arguments against the full ban that we are attacking people's liberty and freedom of choice do not hold water as there is incontrovertible evidence of harm from passive smoking.

On Tuesday night, I hosted a working dinner for representatives of the Royal College of Physicians to meet MPs from all parties for an open discussion about the problems facing the National Health Service.

One of my hobby horses, lack of continuity of care resulting from restrictions of working hours by the European Working Time Directive, was discussed and the college is trying to work out the best shift systems both for the care of patients and the well being of staff.

It was ironic that lack of medical leadership was discussed when we were with influential physicians who arguably should be offering more active leadership on the burning issue before the NHS which is the increasing rush to privatisation which risks destabilising the service.

Three of the speakers all described the risks to their services from the creaming off of routine activity to the private sector but so far, of the powerful professional health bodies, it appears to be only the Royal College of Nursing that is prepared to stand up to the Government over this issue.

In a debate on the breast cancer drug, Herceptin, I expressed disappointment that it had taken a woman's approach to the press to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Health Secretary.

Why had medical specialists, aware of the tremendous potential of this drug, not taken it upon themselves to fight for it for appropriate patients?

This appears to me to be another example of lack of medical leadership. Is this one reason why the Government knows it can do what it wishes with OUR NHS?