Clause 6 - No-smoking signs
Health Bill
12:30 pm
Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Health; Westbury, Conservative)
On the face of it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment seems reasonable. I am a little concerned, however, that it will clobber proprietors. I wonder what consultations he undertook before tabling his amendments with those whose business it is to run licensed premises, who might be quaking at the thought of the amendments being accepted because of the prospect of their suddenly becoming criminals.
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be introducing an unwarranted level of ambiguity and to be trying to remove a defence that individuals might rely on. I am thinking of large operators, who are responsible for a number of sites. With the best will in the world, it will be extremely difficult for them to police the signs erected all over the place as a result of the legislation. Once again, we have to consider the fact that we might give lawyers a field day.
I know where the hon. Member for Northavon is coming from. He is pursuing his vehemently anti-smoking line, but probably to the nth degree. This is the first time I shall be complimentary about the Bill. It attempts, in a reasonable way, to provide a defence for people acting in good faith to comply with the legislation. Imposing penalties on operators while removing that defence, which is reasonably elegantly laid out in the Bill, seems unhelpful and will almost certainly upset proprietors, particularly those of licensed premises and those who work remotely, perhaps managing a number of premises. They would be quite concerned about the amendments were the Committee to accept them.
The hon. Gentleman says that he has tabled an amendment that would delete subsection (7) in order to tease the Minister on what it would mean were it removed. It is all very well to say that—we all do it—but he knows full well that it would remove the defence on which individuals might reasonably rely. Members of my party would be reluctant to see that subsection removed, and I am sure that the Minister is about to tell us why it should remain.