The hon. Gentleman’s comment gives rise to the interesting point that enforcement will be difficult if what is being smoked effectively has to be inspected. Some environmental health officers argue that if we stick strictly to addressing tobacco products, people could always claim that they were smoking something else, which would mean that an investigation of what was being smoked would be required. A broader definition of smoking could thus make enforcement action easier.
The exemption for private members’ clubs also makes no sense. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) accepted, that exemption will increase health inequalities. Again, we must ask why the health and welfare of people working in private members’ clubs is less important than that of other people? What can the Minister say about the danger of ““The Rose and Crown”” becoming a private members’ club, which would allow people to circumvent the ban by becoming members of ““The Rose and Crown””? It would not be beyond the wit of a landlord to circumvent the ban by setting up a membership scheme. How can a ban that is full of exemptions that allow it to be circumvented so easily be worth the paper that it is printed on?
Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Steve Webb
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c178 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:18:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281323
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281323
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281323