Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am deeply appreciative of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Dubs, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and the noble

9 Oct 2006 : Column 110

Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I am slightly less appreciative of those made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. They were a bit churlish because they showed support in some ways but in others not, and I genuinely think that some of the issues he raised were misplaced. There is widespread support for this and from a practical point of view I am absolutely certain that the introduction of this policy will be as successful as it has been not just elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the Republic, but also as far afield as New York.

In my brief introduction to the order—I am not going to take much longer over the wind-up—I have been reluctant to flood noble Lords with statistics, but a few are worth repeating. Some 74 per cent of adults in Northern Ireland do not smoke, leaving an estimated 330,000 smokers. It is reckoned that 14,000 people will give up as a result of the change. Currently there are around 2,300 deaths per year from smoking-related diseases, which is nearly 50 people a week. Expenditure by the NHS is running at around £44 million. Based on other evidence, it is estimated that around 60 deaths will be avoided as a direct result of the ban, both by people giving up and by not starting to smoke. So there are some clear benefits. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the question that will be asked in the future is why we took so long to do this.

My noble friend asked about the date the regulations will come into force. It is envisaged to be in April next year, although the exact date has not yet been decided. However, I am sure that the Minister will give us a date fairly soon. There is a choice of 30 days so I am not sure which one it will be.

Draft regulations are currently out for consultation. They will put meat on the bones of many of these issues. The consultation will close on 3 November and I do not want to pre-empt it. However, on prisons and hospitals, we have to take a pragmatic view. The director-general of the Prison Service is committed to following the spirit of the regulations in prisons, but one has to remember that people sometimes live and work in the same place and therefore one has to look at the issue from more than one perspective. I do accept the point made about hospitals and hospices. I think I mentioned before that at one time I spent a lot of time in the cancer ward of a hospital. Hidden away in that hospital was a room with a sign saying, “Smoking: cancer patients only”. There comes a time when you have got to be fairly pragmatic about some of these aspects of the issue.

The responses to the public consultation exercise show that an overwhelming majority are in favour of doing something within a ban, but there is not always a consensus about its particular aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a point about the minimum age for smoking. I do not want to start another debate, but I did mention that we want to leave it to locally elected politicians to decide this. I do not care what age is chosen, but if elected politicians in Northern Ireland decide on a minimum age at which tobacco can be purchased, that is their decision for which they will be accountable. I cannot think of a

9 Oct 2006 : Column 111

better way of doing it. We have therefore put a power in the regulations for the assembly to choose whatever age it considers appropriate for Northern Ireland. That kind of thing should not be set down by us here.

We are keen to see the results of the present consultation, and that is why we have not specified everything in the order. On the assertion that a smoking ban will mean that smokers will smoke more at home, I believe that in the end the message will get across that smoking is not a healthy thing either for smokers themselves or other people. It is difficult to legislate for that. Nevertheless, international experience provides no evidence to support the view that there will be more smoking at home. Information relating to New York, where the Smoke-Free Air Act was passed in March 2003, shows that between 2002 and 2004 exposure to second-hand smoke in New York homes dropped by more than one-third. I cannot believe that smokers here would operate any differently.

Another point in relation to what happens was contained in a report in Environmental Health News

9 Oct 2006 : Column 112

in July 2005, which suggested that the number of smoke-free homes in the Republic of Ireland had increased by 5 per cent in the year following the introduction of smoke-free legislation. So it may seem like an old wives’ tale but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the evidence is on my side.

The definitions of “enclosed” and “partially enclosed” set out in the regulations are currently subject to consultation and we will get them in due course. As I say, this is a two-stage process. The Government’s aim is not to penalise smokers but to protect the public and employees from exposure to second-hand smoke. It is clear from our point of view that there is widespread support across Northern Ireland and I am grateful for the overwhelming support that has been given to the order. I am fairly certain that the details—I shall not call them nitpicking—that were raised will be fully answered in the consultation on the current draft regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o’clock.