Health Bill

No, says the noble Lord, but he does not know the press and he certainly does not know the health lobby. But at least we have now established that it is not 600,000 people dying from passive smoking, although the noble Baroness clearly thought it was, otherwise she would not have said it—or perhaps she was not listening properly and she wished it was. But, either way, let us move on. I am not sure whether the Minister was totally clear on the saving to the NHS. I am not sure whether he said £100 million or £100,000 million, but perhaps he could clarify that in his winding-up speech, as he has already given the figure. If he would be kind enough to say what the savings to the NHS actually are, we would take that at face value, and it would help the debate. I conclude by saying that as someone who has taken an interest in this subject, I will listen to objective science, but I am not willing to listen to science with a twist on it. Noble Lords who are scientific need to recognise that science is not always totally accurate—and I have given two examples. If government policy is taken to its logical point, the Government should be banning smoking—but they know that they cannot do that because 25 per cent of people want to smoke. Furthermore, what possible trust can people have in the Government when they state one thing in their manifesto and then go and do almost the opposite in reality?