Mr.
Robertson: For the sake of the record, I did not say that
there should be a total ban; I think I said that there should be no
ban. A ban would, however, be
consistent.
Mrs.
Robinson: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman also said that if
there were a ban, it should be a total ban. I regret that we are on
opposite sides of the argument today, and like him, I hope that it is
only on this occasion.
When we refer to public places,
we should include areas where people gather, such as bus shelters,
train station platforms and sports grounds. The Government should
consider those and other areas. I hope that an indirect effect of the
legislation is that smoking, which has been considered fashionable, is
denormalised. There
is no reason why psychiatric patients should be treated differently
from non-psychiatric patients. The research review by Lawn and Pols,
published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
last year, showed that the introduction of smoking bans in
psychiatric in-patient settings is possible, but it must be part of a
carefully planned process involving all parties. Where a facility
serves as a patient’s home, such as a palliative care home, it
is reasonable to allow them to smoke, as long as no risk is
posed to those who work there. It is important to remember the need to
protect non-smoking psychiatric patients. Exempting psychiatric
hospitals would not protect psychiatric patients, who already
experience many health inequalities, as the Northern Ireland
Office’s “Investing for Health” strategy has
recognised. There
are prisons that have gone smoke-free. For example, Ashfield young
offenders institute in south Gloucestershire, which accepts young
people between 15 and 18 years old who are on remand or who have been
sentenced, introduced a smoke-free policy in February 2005. Smoking by
young offenders and staff is not permitted, and all tobacco-related
products are
banned. Mr.
David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): Prison is also a home,
because when one is in prison for several months or years, the only
place in which one can reside is one’s cell. In many cases in
Scotland, prisoners are in their cells for 21 hours a day. If we are
allowed to smoke in our houses, we should surely be allowed to smoke in
prison.
Mrs.
Robinson: There are times in a prison’s regime when
prisoners are free to walk out in the yards, so they would be
adequately catered for. The introduction of a smoking ban is painful,
but people will, I hope, gradually be weaned off the need for the weed.
If prisoners continue to smoke, however, they will have the right to
smoke outside during their free time in the yards. The British
Medical Journal published a letter to its editor about the
experience of smoke-free prisons in the United States. It
said: “At
admission to a smoke-free jail, our patients have repeatedly reported
very little difficulty with stopping tobacco use”.
On penalties,
the greatest deterrents should focus on those who are responsible for
the premises. The penalties suggested in the draft order place the
responsibility heavily on facility managers rather than owners, but
compliance is likely to be enhanced if responsibility is placed firmly
at the owner’s door. Fixed penalties are less effective than
prosecution and fines, which is regrettable. In British Columbia, for
example, fixed penalty notices have proved ineffective, and strangely
enough, they are not used in the Irish
Republic. I welcome
the order in general, and I hope that further progress will be made
towards a comprehensive
ban.
2.55
pm
Paul
Goggins: May I say to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who
describes himself as a lonely battler, that all views are respected in
this place. However, the consensus has shifted in a clear and marked
way, as has been illustrated by the tenor of our debate. He also
described himself as a considerate smoker. I am sure that he is, and
that he thinks of other people when he is smoking. However, the scale
of the devastation caused by smoking in Northern Ireland is such that
we have to act. We cannot allow consideration to rule the day, or we
will not see the improvements that are needed, given that every year
2,300 people lose their lives as a result of smoking—at the cost
to the health service of £30 million or more—and an
estimated 278 people die from secondary smoking. The casualties are
huge, and we need to move up a gear in a determined way, hence this
order today. In fact,
the hon. Gentleman underlined my argument by emphasising the fact that
the proportion of the population that smokes in Northern Ireland is
greater than that in the rest of the United Kingdom, so the need for
action is all the greater. He also mentioned prisons, as did one or two
other hon. Members. It is worth pointing out that, whereas in Northern
Ireland as a whole about one in four adults smokes, two thirds of
prisoners do—indeed, four out of five female prisoners smoke, so
it is a big issue for the Prison Service, not least in terms of order
and control. The director general of the Prison Service has expressed
to me the fear that a ban on smoking covered by this order would
present his officers with difficulties in terms of dealing with
contraband. In my discussions with him, I have said that if the prisons
are to be exempted from the order, it should remain our objective to
ensure that smoke is not inflicted in a secondary way on other
prisoners or on the work force, and we should do everything that we can
to reduce the dreadful number of people in prison who smoke. In due
course, we will bring forward a policy on reducing smoking in prisons.
Whatever anyone’s view might be on this order, I think that
everybody would accept that.
Mr.
Robertson: Will the Minister accept that that is
extraordinarily inconsistent? If it is possible to protect prison
warders from smoke, why is it not possible to protect bar
staff?
Paul
Goggins: I do not think that it is inconsistent. It is
just a consideration of the fact that life inside a prison is complex
and challenging. I would prefer that we deal with this using prison
rules to empower prison officers to implement smoke-free spaces in
cells, shared space and other areas. That would be the most effective
way of doing it given the high rate of smoking among prisoners and some
of the other difficulties in maintaining order and control that arise.
I would not be happy to exempt prisons if we were to do nothing else.
However, I am content that, by developing prison rules and policy
and by introducing many more smoking cessation programmes in prisons, we
can achieve the same objective in a way that will be
effective. Let me
turn to a point that the hon. Gentleman made twice, in his intervention
and in his speech. He has uncovered something that we need to go away
and do more work on. My officials advise me that the figure of
£6.2 million in the explanatory notes might be a misprint; it
might be supposed to be £5.2 million. I need to check that,
because if it is wrong it needs to be put right. Of course, an estimate
has been made of the impact of the policy in terms not only of reducing
smoking in public places but of the beneficial impact of reducing
smoking still further. Clearly, it will also reduce the money coming in
to the Exchequer. I shall clarify the figure, and will write to the
hon. Gentleman to give him the detail that he seeks as to how the
figure was
calculated. The hon.
Gentleman questioned some of the evidence about second-hand smoking. I
disagree with him; there is substantial evidence. There is a long list
of organisations that support my side of the argument. I shall not name
them all, but they include the World Health Organisation and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer. One could debate how much
impact second-hand smoking might have, but it undeniably has some
impact, and any impact will reduce quality of life and lead to an
increase in the number of
deaths.
Mr.
Hamilton: I agree with the Opposition spokesman. However,
I shall vote with the Government on this contradictory matter. We
encourage people to stop smoking, and I have no problem with that, but
we still allow mothers to take their children to school in the car;
they drive with the windows up and pick up other kids on the way. We
should encourage people not to drive and smoke at the same
time.
Paul
Goggins: We should do everything we can whatever our
role—whether politician or health professional—to
encourage people to behave safely. Whether reducing the amount that
people smoke, getting them to give up smoking or to drive
sensibly—all those things should be encouraged. I hope that they
will be. None the less, the argument that I advance still
holds.
Orders in
Council have been mentioned by all who spoke in the debate. We
acknowledge that there are real concerns about Orders in Council, and
we have been considering ways to improve the system. I cannot confirm
any detailed plans. Indeed, we have no hard and fast plans at the
moment. We have said that if we fail to achieve a devolved
Administration by 24 November, we will quickly introduce measures to
make direct rule more accountable. I gather from
their comments that hon. Members are pleased about that. However, none
of us should take our eye off the ball; we should be working for the
return of the devolved Administration. That is what we must focus upon;
other issues are secondary.
I welcome the
support of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid).
He questioned introducing some of the measures through regulation. That
happens with a great deal of legislation, as it helps us to achieve the
fine detail. Some of that detail leads to change. The hon. Member for
Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) gave a
good example of such a change when she spoke of the possibility of
sports stadiums being included in the list of places where people
should not be allowed to smoke. They may not be included in the first
round of regulations, but a devolved Assembly might want to include it
after consultation. The Assembly would be able to do that rather more
easily because regulations are already in place. It is practical and
sensible that we lay down the main principles in legislation, and deal
with the fine detail through regulation. The hon. Lady underlined the
clear support in Northern Ireland for the change. I was pleased that
70,000 people submitted responses, and 91 per cent. of them were in
favour of a comprehensive ban. She spoke about psychiatric units and
prisons. We should have the same objective there, but we need to
respect and work with the difficult situations in which the staff there
have to operate. Our objective should be to create smoke-free
environments where damage is not
done.
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): Surely it is
possible for the Departments responsible for the prisons and
psychiatric hospitals to provide the various alternatives, such as
chewing gum or patches, for people who are grossly addicted and who are
trapped in their addiction. Surely it should be possible, without
exposing staff and others to cigarette smoke, to provide such
substitutes on a fairly free basis to those who are stuck. Would that
be
possible?
Paul
Goggins: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is something that
we already do, and we will seek to achieve more, ensuring that people
are helped from their addiction to tobacco. Since the turn of the
millennium, we have invested about £7 million in smoking
cessation services in Northern Ireland. As part of the package of
measures we will be introducing, £1.5 million will be made
available, which will include funding for nicotine replacement therapy.
So I hope that my hon. Friend and others feel reassured. This is not
just about preventing people from doing something by passing
legislation, but encouraging and supporting them to change their
habits. I think that the hon. Member for Strangford made it clear that
this is about social change and reducing damage inflicted on other
people, and I think that the majority of the Committee support
that.
Mr.
Hamilton: Will the Minister explain what to me is a major
contradiction? Over the last few years, the fag run—as it is
commonly called—has developed. People buy a
cheap flight to anywhere in Europe, buy up to 3,000 cigarettes and
bring them back to the UK. That is true also of Northern Ireland.
Surely, that should be stopped because it encourages people to buy in
bulk and then bring the goods back to the UK, including to Northern
Ireland.
Paul
Goggins: Whether through ignorance or naivety, that is the
first that I have heard of such activity. It concerns me a great deal
and I am happy to look into it. We should not sanction the use of
cigarettes as an inducement, whether to travel abroad or to do anything
else. Cigarettes are deeply harmful, cost lives and, in the case of
secondary smoking, the lives of people occupying the same space as
smokers.
That is why we feel so strongly that our approach is right and that the
order is the right piece of legislation for Northern
Ireland.
Mr.
Robertson: May I go back to the revenue issue? The
Minister said that he would write to me with clarification of the
figures and the way in which they were calculated. We have sat in
Committee many times when the Government have said that they have to
introduce, for example, water charges and rates reform in order to
provide the revenue for public services in Northern Ireland. If that
figure is found to be grossly underestimated, will the Government make
up that Northern Ireland revenue or will services have to be
cut?
Paul
Goggins: All that was said in the document—whether
the figure was £5.2 million or £6.2 million—is
that when the order is put into operation, people will begin to smoke
less and so less money will enter the Government’s coffers. So
we will have to make certain choices. Equally, of course, less money
will be spent on the health service because fewer people will be coming
forward with smoking-related illnesses. There are swings and
roundabouts, but I think that we are heading in the right
direction.
Mr.
Robertson: That is a false premise. On the
Government’s figures—I quoted them earlier—the
cost to the NHS is less than a quarter of the tax take. I accepted that
one cannot measure people’s health simply by money, but there
could be a considerable loss to the Exchequer. Will the Government make
up that shortfall in Northern Ireland or
not?
| 
