Valentine's Day 2006 should go down in history as the day in which the country's MPs showed they really cared about Britain and its health.

The historic decision to ban smoking in public places will save more lives and do more to improve the health of the nation than any keep fit campaign could hope to achieve.

It is not a case of nanny state - it is a case of a Government attending to its most important duty, the welfare of its citizens.

The previous proposal in which premises which did not serve food were exempt from the ban was a nonsense. I know of an award winning real ale pub which doesn't serve food and decided to ban smoking after concerns for the health of staff. Within a few months they had to reverse the decision because one third of their trade went elsewhere. For a ban to work there must be no exceptions. And that includes MPs themselves.

It is bizarre that House of Commons bars will be exempt from the ban as they are classed as part of a royal palace. There must be a way in which the ban can be applied to the Palace of Westminster because otherwise it will be seen as one law for the law makers and another for the public.

But aside from this anomaly, the ban should be welcomed. I appreciate it will be difficult for many smokers to accept. It will mean changes in the way they conduct their lives and it is understandable some will feel resentment that a pleasure they have enjoyed for years is going to be illegal.

But this move should not be seen as simply aimed at the smokers of today. It is a positive move to stop future generations repeating the mistakes of the past. Cigarette advertising has been banned, health and death warnings printed on packets and numerous campaigns have highlighted the dangers. But still thousands of teenagers every year take up smoking.

Now we will remove the subliminal advertising cigarettes receive whenever people light up in public places, the notion that it's OK and grown up. Those trying to give up will not be faced with the lure of tobacco whenever they go out socially.

To smokers I would say, if you could turn back the clock so that you had never become addicted would you do so? Would you rather your children didn't smoke?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then perhaps smokers can appreciate why this step had to be taken.

Of course now we have the side issue of will taxes have to rise to replace the predicted loss of revenue to the exchequer from cigarettes sales? It's even been suggested the NHS may suffer because the tax from cigarettes keeps it going. Well, if revenue to the exchequer from cigarettes does fall it is a price worth paying. It would be the clearest indication that the policy is achieving what it set out to do - to reduce smoking.

And the resources that would be freed up in the long term from not having to deal with the affects of smoking should result in massive savings for the NHS. Staff and resources can be devoted to further research and treatment of leukaemia, naturally occurring cancers and other illnesses, rather than dealing with self-induced conditions.

MPs are often criticised for getting things wrong, but this week they got a big decision right and should be applauded.