Actually, I am with the hon. Gentleman. I said that we had three objectives, the first of which was that non-smokers should not be exposed to second-hand smoke. The second applies wherever children are present, so if a private members club wants to admit children, it should have to choose whether to do that or whether to allow second-hand smoke. It should not be able to do both.
I want to speak about other aspects of the Bill as well as smoking, so I shall finish talking about this issue now. The Government know perfectly well not only that there is no evidence to support their supposition, but that 90 per cent. of the 57,000 responses to the consultation opposed their partial ban and wanted something more comprehensive, in many cases, or something more voluntary, in other cases. People on both sides of the argument regard the Government’s proposal as the worst outcome. Astonishingly, when appearing before the Health Committee last week, even the chief medical officer made it clear that in terms of health inequalities this is the worst outcome—worse than no ban at all.
Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lansley
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c167 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:17:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281291
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281291
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281291