Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)

Why was the Bill introduced in the upper House, thus necessitating this amendment? My understanding is that particularly controversial or detailed Bills may start in the upper House when it is necessary to bring specialist knowledge to amend their  detail. This Bill is neither controversial—we have had some points of controversy, but in broad terms it is not regarded as controversial—nor does it contain detail requiring expert knowledge. It seems strange that the Bill was introduced in the upper House, thus we find ourselves faced with this Government amendment. I look forward to the explanation.

Mike O'Brien (Minister of State (Health Services), Department of Health; North Warwickshire, Labour)

The explanation is simple—the objective of this Bill is to implement the review set out by my noble Friend Lord Darzi. He was able to lead the introduction of the Bill, which was a helpful way of ensuring the smooth passage of, as the Opposition have indicated, a broadly uncontroversial Bill. In the other place my noble Friend was in a position to set out the case in broad terms for the implementation of a review that he championed.

Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)

Could the Minister clarify where the ban on the display of tobacco appears in Lord Darzi’s review?

Mike O'Brien (Minister of State (Health Services), Department of Health; North Warwickshire, Labour)

There are some other issues that have also been included in the Bill, but most of my noble Friend’s key provisions and recommendations are included in the Bill and were led by him in the upper House. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend supports the provisions concerning tobacco.