Health Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and perhaps I may single out for special gratitude the noble Lord, Lord Walton, whose helpful comments I value from his perspective as a very distinguished medic. I quite deliberately kept off the subject of cannabis for the reasons to which he alluded. I am also grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful reply. He mentioned that the consultation last year posed the question about substances other than tobacco. I sound a note of caution about placing too much value on the consultation answers on that particular issue, because I suspect that many of them were based more on the nuisance value of smoke than any particular health concern. We are not legislating against nuisance. Nor, I suggest, are we primarily legislating to discourage or reduce the prevalence of smoking. The only justification for a Bill of this kind is as a public health measure to protect non-smokers. One can argue about the validity or otherwise of the evidence, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. However, that is the primary justification for this Bill, which was why I was grateful for what the Minister told me about the findings, as recorded in a number of journals, on smoke from non-tobacco cigarettes. I shall go away and read those journal articles, because they are news to me. We should be grateful to the Minister for having cited them. In the light of what he said, there is nothing for me to do other than reflect on the issue before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.] On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?