Covid-19 Update

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I look at all these sorts of reports, as does the team at the Department, constantly to try to learn. Given that this is an unprecedented situation, all health authorities across the UK, whether here or in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast, are constantly talking and trying to make sure that all the insights that can be gained can be applied. One example is that we now have contact tracing in the UK reaching over 90% of contacts. That is due to hard work and improvement, learning the insights from each other about how we can make systems better.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House in thanking my right hon. Friend and his team for all their hard work over the course of this year to combat this dreadful virus, and also for updating the House on a regular basis on what action is being taken. May I give him the opportunity to reiterate the key message as we approach Christmas: that anyone who shows any signs of having the virus must get a test and, if it is positive, must self-isolate and not mix and mingle with people, so we can cut down on the spread of this dreadful virus? People must think twice before they mix with elderly relatives if they have been in contact with anyone who has had this dreadful virus.

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with every word my hon. Friend has just said. Over this Christmas period, I hope that people will, yes, take a moment to have some relaxation, especially given what a tough year it has been, and have the chance to see loved ones, but do so carefully, knowing that one in three people who have this disease does not know that they have it because they have no symptoms. Anybody can be inadvertently passing it on to a vulnerable loved one, so they need to be very, very careful. To reiterate, it is in the best interests of everybody, their loved ones and their community to get a test at the first sign of symptoms—testing is now very, very widely available right across the country—and if the test is positive or if they are contacted by NHS Test and Trace because they are a contact, to isolate and do so not just because they have to but because it is the right thing to do to isolate fully and properly.

Finally, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend in wanting to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole of your team and all the staff of the House for supporting me in the many times I have had to come to the House this year and, in what has been an incredibly difficult year for the House as well as for the nation, for all the work they have done to support us in keeping our democracy going all the way through this, no matter how bad it got.

DHSC Answers to Written Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Harrow East with Bob Blackman and see if his replies have landed.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can my hon. Friend also look at the quality and at the repeat questions that have to be asked to clarify the answers that are given to written parliamentary questions? In my case, I have had to submit often detailed letters to Ministers because WPQs basically do not supply the information required. Some that are now coming back after six months of waiting have been about, for example, offers to supply PPE to the national health service and people who have had tests but not actually got the results—and I could go further. The reality is that the quality of the answers to WPQs as well as the quantity have not been good enough, so will he look at those two aspects, please?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who landed his question very effectively. He is absolutely right to talk about the balance between speed and accuracy. In some cases where the issue is complex, a letter may be more appropriate for getting detailed information, rather than the short factual response to a parliamentary question. Sometimes the delay can be because Ministers—this goes to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—on reading the question and the answer, and looking at it as a constituency MP as well, may realise that they want to send it back for redraft because it does not answer an hon. Member’s question. That can cause delays, but we endeavour to provide accurate answers as swiftly as we can.

Coronavirus Regulations: Assisted Deaths Abroad

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady draws a distinction between those who have a terminal illness and the broader issue of suicide, which is an important part of this debate. I respect her sincerely held views. The exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Lady exemplifies why it is right that Parliament debates and decides on these matters.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a British Medical Association survey of its members on assisted suicide and euthanasia found that 83% of those involved in providing palliative care—those who have the most experience of dealing with people at the end of their lives—would oppose any legalisation of euthanasia, and that 84% declared that they would be unwilling to participate in any such activity? Surely we should be guided, in many ways, by the professionals in this regard.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes another important contribution to this debate. There is inevitably a discussion within the medical profession about this important question. That should be taken into account, alongside the views, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, of faith leaders, the public and those who face terminal disease, as Parliament debates this subject.

Covid-19 Update

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have a testing prioritisation board which takes into account the order of priorities within testing. Of course, as testing expands it means we will be able to use it for more things, including in schools. I look forward to being able to make that progress just as soon as we make the expansion even bigger.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

London as a whole is going into tier 2 as a result of the infection rate being at an average level of 97, but, as my right hon. Friend will be well aware, the actual levels of transmission in different London boroughs are widely different. Will he set out what criteria will now be used for London to go from tier 2 to tier 1? Will it be the case that every London borough has to come down below a given rate before that can happen? Otherwise, we will have the position whereby this short-term period could extend for many months. Will he therefore set out what criteria will be used to get us down to tier 1?

[Matt Hancock]

I want the time that London is in tier 2 to be as short as possible. The best way we can achieve that is by us all pulling together and following the level 2 rules. In terms of exiting from level 2, the cross-party London group set out a very clear set of criteria on the need to go up a level, including reaching 100 per 100,000 cases on average across London, which we are just about to breach. It is now working with us on what the exit might look like. I totally agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of setting that out to give people the motivation that, if we all pull together and sort this out, we will get out of these measures and people can live their normal lives a bit more.

Covid-19 Update

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Responding to a pandemic is an enormously challenging task. Thankfully, it is a massive team effort, and it is one in which the whole country can be engaged because we all have a part to play.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

London consists of 32 boroughs plus the City of London and covers a population of around 8 million people. We are told that infection rates are going up in each of the London boroughs, but some are much higher than others. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider, when he needs to introduce lockdown procedures, doing so on a borough-by-borough basis and not inflicting unnecessary restrictions on the whole of London, which would be counterproductive in terms of delivering downward pressure on the increased case load. It would potentially bring the economy to a halt and affect the way Parliament works.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Getting the right geography for any particular action is an important and difficult consideration. Last week’s example, when we took two of the Teesside boroughs into local action but not the other three, demonstrates that we are absolutely prepared to do as my hon. Friend wishes for London. On the other hand, on the same day we took the whole of the Liverpool city region into the same measures, because that was what was appropriate there. We have to take into account travel patterns and socialising patterns, as well as the pure data from the epidemiology and the number of cases, but it is absolutely something that we look at because we want to minimise the number of restrictions that are in place, subject to the need to keep the virus under control.

Coronavirus Response

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have spoken about that in this House. It is absolutely true that during the peak of the crisis the Department was working incredibly hard and absolutely flat out, and we are now working hard to catch up on our correspondence.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

As part of the reopening of pubs, cafés and restaurants, they are being encouraged to open in the open air. That has implications for people who do not smoke. I understand that the Government will issue guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs, restaurants and cafés. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will be consulted on those proposals, that they will be issued before Parliament rises, and that they will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny?

[Matt Hancock]

I can certainly confirm that we will be consulted on those proposals as they are brought forward. I have not yet seen them. I know that work is ongoing, and I think that they are incredibly important. It is important that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend, who have a long and proud history of fighting smoking and the consequences of it on people’s health—not only the health of smokers but of others—can ensure that those considerations are brought to bear as we bring the proposals forward. He knows what I think.

Social Distancing: 2 Metre Rule

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

Well, it is nice to see the hon. Gentleman, who shadowed the team I was in when I was a Justice Minister, but I have to say that it is unsurprising that his tone remains the same. We are doing the right thing at the right time. We are, of course, always seeking to learn lessons, and we are willing to take advice and listen to the scientific and economic advice and evidence. That is what we are doing with this review. Surely he would welcome our taking the appropriate advice and then considering our decisions on that basis.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

The current scientific advice says that the risks of transmission are far less in the open air than in enclosed spaces. Clearly, the position now should be that the Government need to look at reducing the social distancing rules when people are in the open air, while potentially keeping the advice strong when people are in enclosed spaces. That is clearly important for the hospitality industry, where beer gardens and restaurants with external areas where people can sit outside could restart. Clearly at the moment, with a 2 metre rule in place, they will be unable to. Will my hon. Friend look at the scientific evidence to see if we could actually have two sorts of guidance, one for when people are in enclosed spaces and one for when people are in the open air?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that this is not simply a binary choice, as there are many other factors that play a part, as other Members have alluded to—be it the length of time that one is in close contact with someone, the distance, and also whether it is inside or outside. Those are exactly the sort of considerations that those conducting the review under Simon Case will be considering.

Covid-19

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The public health budget is going up and pharmacists are an incredibly important part of the NHS family.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The people most seriously at risk are those with underlying conditions. Will the public health agenda being published promote how people can minimise those conditions—for example, by giving up smoking and leading a healthier life—so that we can minimise the number of serious cases that are seen by the NHS?

[Matt Hancock]

That is absolutely right. It is abundantly clear from the research into previous coronaviruses that smoking makes the impact of a coronavirus worse.

Coronavirus

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading the work with the supermarkets now, so I will ensure that it gets that message and takes that up.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The vast majority of people who contract the disease will be able to self- isolate and recover at home. A small number of cases will need hospitalisation, and as the number of people who are infected increases, so could serious cases. Would my right hon. Friend say that people who have to be hospitalised will have to be isolated, and what plans are there then to increase the number of beds that will be available in hospitals on isolation units?

[Matt Hancock]

We are increasing the number of beds, and, by moving away from some of the elective activity, making more beds available. However, I want to pick my hon. Friend up on one thing: as and when this virus becomes widespread, isolation becomes less important than ventilation. The normal flu procedures are that keeping several people who all have the same flu in one room—in one ward—is absolutely fine, because they cannot infect one another because they all have the same disease. Isolation is vital in the contain phase. It is still important in delay, but as we get through to mitigating the impact, the need for isolation facilities is less important.

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Let me begin by thanking Mr Speaker for allowing me to hold this debate, and thanking the Government and all those who contributed to the previous debate for enabling us to have a long Adjournment debate to which other Members can contribute. I trust that you will be able to recognise them when they rise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The United Kingdom has been a world leader in tobacco control for many years, and we have made great progress in reducing smoking rates. The latest figures show that adult smoking has declined to a low of 14.4% in England and 14.7% in the UK as a whole. However, as we celebrate International Women’s Day on Sunday, it is fair to say that the one target on which we have been extremely challenged is persuading pregnant women to stop smoking. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us on other measures that the Government will take to encourage that. It is equally fair to say that the health inequalities that exist across the UK are exacerbated by the number of people on low incomes who continue to smoke.

The Government have consistently implemented a comprehensive approach to tobacco control, from the point of sale display ban and the prohibition on smoking in cars with children to standardised tobacco packaging. All those measures have helped to drive down smoking rates and discourage young people from starting to smoke. Last month, yet again, the UK was rated best in Europe for our comprehensive tobacco control strategy, and as we have now left the European Union, we want no backsliding from that performance. The welcome ambition set in last year’s prevention Green Paper is to end smoking in England by 2030. It requires us to build on that comprehensive strategy, and to go further in reducing smoking prevalence. At this point, I must declare my interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.

Last week it was revealed that the tobacco industry is attempting to undermine this comprehensive approach. Leaked documents that appeared in The Guardian—not a publication that I normally read—and in the “Dispatches” programme showed that Philip Morris International, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, is attempting to buy influence by offering no less than £1 billion over 10 years in return for a relaxing of the current advertising ban on its heated tobacco products, enabling it to market its new IQOS tobacco product in cinemas, online, and at the point of sale.

This latest cynical attempt by Philip Morris International to influence UK health policies follows attempts that it made in 2018 to partner with NHS trusts. On that occasion, the then Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said:

“Our aim to make our NHS—and our next generation—smoke-free must be completely separate from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.”

He went on to say:

“Philip Morris International will be well aware that its actions are entirely inappropriate and we will be contacting all NHS trusts to remind them of their obligations.”

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will echo our hon. Friend’s words and restate the Government’s commitment to protecting public health from

“commercial and other vested interests of tobacco companies”,

in line with the UK’s obligation under article 5.3 of the framework convention on tobacco control.

Last week it was also announced in new projections from Cancer Research UK, which does such brilliant work in not only combating the evils of cancer but highlighting ways in which people can avoid it, that unless we speed up the rate of change, we will not hit the Government’s smoke-free ambition by 2030 but in 2037—seven years later—which will mean many more avoidable deaths. Funding is needed to deliver the further action that will help to ensure that we achieve a smoke-free 2030, and the APPG on smoking and health has said in its last two reports that that funding should come from legislation forcing the tobacco industry to pay for the damage that its products do, in line with our obligations under the framework convention on tobacco control. This “polluter pays” approach is used by the United States, which raises a fixed sum from tobacco manufacturers to fund its tobacco control activity. I hope that proposal will be included in the Government’s response to consultation on the prevention Green Paper, “Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s”, which we keenly anticipate.

The tobacco industry has a long history of subverting regulations design to protect public health. To prevent this, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control states:

“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”

This includes rejecting all partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements with the tobacco industry. However, leaked papers revealed last week show yet another attempt by Philip Morris International to subvert public health policies. It proposes setting up a tobacco transition fund, which would provide £1 billion over 10 years in return for the lifting of laws restricting e-cigarette advertising and a loosening of the ban on advertising of its heated tobacco products. This deal is an attempt by Philip Morris to ensure that it is able to promote its new heated tobacco product, IQOS, in countries where the cigarette market is shrinking, such as the UK.

Philip Morris insists that IQOS is aimed at adult smokers, but the US Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is just as addictive as smoking. In other words, it will be as easy to get addicted to, and just as difficult to quit, IQOS as smoking. The evidence is that more than two thirds of those who try smoking go on to become daily smokers, and on average, smokers try to quit 30 times before succeeding. Relaxing the advertising restrictions on heated tobacco products, as proposed by Philip Morris, would enable advertising of IQOS to reach children and young people, ensuring future consumers of its products even while smoking rates decline.

It is not only Philip Morris International that is attempting to buy influence with Governments; other tobacco companies are doing so. In 2018, The Observer revealed that British American Tobacco, despite being aware that article 5.3 of the WHO framework convention applies to local authorities, had been attempting to partner with councils. The UK Government have been independently assessed as being the Government who are most successful in resisting tobacco industry interference and living up to their article 5.3 obligations, yet the industry continues to try to find new ways to get a seat at the table, and the tobacco transition fund is just the latest attempt, with a bribe of £1 billion attached.

Will the Minister restate the Government’s commitment to protecting our public health policies from the interests of tobacco companies, in line with our legal obligations as a party to the WHO’s tobacco control policy? Will she further ensure that her colleagues in Government are aware of the UK’s legal obligations not to partner or enter into agreements with the tobacco industry?

The prevention Green Paper acknowledges, on tobacco control, that reaching the smoke-free 2030 target will be “extremely challenging”. This was highlighted last week, in projections published by Cancer Research UK, which showed that at the current rate of progress, we will not meet our 5% smoke-free ambition until 2037. That is largely due to inequalities, as I mentioned. While the least deprived communities in England will reach the 5% target by 2025, the most deprived communities are not projected to reach smoke-free until the mid-2040s—a 20-year difference, and of course, a great number of lives unnecessarily lost. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will mention that in his contribution.

That difference in smoking prevalence translates into substantial health inequalities, with smoking being the leading cause of the nine-year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor. Reducing smoking rates will make the single largest contribution to achieving the Government’s ageing society grand challenge, and further action is desperately needed to address this inequalities gap. Reducing the uptake and prevalence of smoking among young people will be key to achieving a smoke-free generation. Smoking rates among young people have declined rapidly in recent years, but there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case without further action from the Government. The sad reality is that 280 children take up smoking every day in England. This provides a strong case for further action. Interventions such as public education campaigns, enforcement of age-of-sale regulations and greater tax rises—yes, a Tory is calling for extra tax rises—are effective in reducing youth uptake, but sustainable funding is needed to achieve this.

The Government were due to respond to the prevention Green Paper consultation on 6 January. Two months on, a response setting out further proposals to increase the rate of decline in smoking prevalence is urgently needed. I know that we have had a Government reshuffle, but I am glad that the Minister survived it. I think that this is probably her first response to a debate on smoking, but I hope that she can set out some of the plans she has to achieve this aim.

The range of measures that I hope the Government are considering are set out in a wonderful document named “Roadmap to a Smokefree 2030”, which was endorsed by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health and by 68 other organisations. We will be launching the document in Parliament on 28 April 2020, and I extend an invitation to my hon. Friend the Minister to attend that event, where I hope she will address us as well. I hope that she will tell us this evening when we can expect the Government’s response, and that the response will set out the “further proposals” outlined in the Green Paper to drive down smoking prevalence and ensure that we reach a smoke-free Britain in 2030.

If tobacco manufacturers are offering to give the Government £1 billion as part of a corporate social responsibility public relations exercise, the industry clearly has the money to pay for the tobacco control measures that are needed to mitigate the harm that it causes. The all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health has advocated for the application of the “polluter pays” principle, making the industry pay for the damage that its products do. As the Green Paper highlighted, the US and France have both adopted this approach to funding tobacco control. The mechanism to raise revenue from tobacco manufacturers could be established based on the powers set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 that are already used for the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

Such a fund could pay for the evidence-based measures needed to achieve a smoke-free 2030. Those measures could include—this list is not exclusive—public education campaigns. Funding for these campaigns has consistently decreased. In 2019, for example, there was no TV advertising for the Stoptober campaign, and this year there was no January health harms campaign to encourage smokers to make a new year’s resolution to attempt to quit smoking. Providing a source of revenue for local tobacco control measures, including enforcement activity and the provision of support to smokers seeking to quit, would also definitely help. Funding for trading standards has fallen substantially in recent years, from £213 million in 2010 to £124 million in 2016. The National Audit Office estimates that the number of full-time equivalent trading standards staff has decreased by 56% in seven years.

We could also have regional tobacco control programmes. In the five years from 2012 to 2017, areas with a regional programme had an average percentage point decline of 5.1, compared with 4 in the rest of the country, yet funding for those programmes has been cut as the public health grant allocations to local authorities have reduced. Establishing an initiative such as a smoke-free 2030 fund is also popular, with 72% of the public supporting making tobacco manufacturers pay a levy or licence fee to the Government for measures to help smokers to quit and to prevent youth uptake.

Given the urgent need to increase the rate of decline in smoking prevalence and the further measures needed to achieve that, will the Government commit to consult on legislation to create a smoke-free 2030 fund? Given that we have the Budget next week, will the Minister lobby our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce such a fund?

Further measurers could be taken. The prevention Green Paper made the commitment:

“Further proposals for moving towards a smoke-free 2030 will be set out at a later date.”

In the absence of a response to the Green Paper consultation, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that her Department is working on the proposals and that they include the measures set out in the APPG’s report “Delivering the vision of a ‘Smokefree Generation’”, which I am sure she has read.

Reducing the affordability of tobacco is highly effective in reducing smoking rates and can be achieved through a combination of tax increases and enforcement activity to reduce the size of the illicit market. We know that affordability has the most impact on those who are the most price sensitive: young people and poorer smokers—cheap and illicit tobacco is disproportionately bought by poorer smokers. Reducing affordability will encourage people to quit smoking.

Next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out his first Budget. I hope to hear that the tax escalator on manufactured cigarettes will be reintroduced for this Parliament. The escalator should be increased from 2% to 5% above inflation, to help pay for the measures to combat smoking. I also hope to see a further increase for hand-rolled tobacco, because the price differential between manufactured cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco means that people, particularly those on lower incomes, are more likely to hand-roll, and obviously they would continue to do so rather than quit. An additional tax increase above inflation would avoid that.

Since 2000, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has implemented a well-funded and effective strategy that has reduced the size of the illicit market, but the UK has now ratified the illicit trade protocol of the framework convention on tobacco control and implemented tracking and tracing of cigarettes under the requirements of the tobacco products directive. I am sure that Ministers agree that, now that we have left the European Union, it is an appropriate time for HMRC to review and refresh that strategy, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that in her response.

As I said at the start of my speech, the ambition to end smoking in England by 2030 is laudable and I strongly endorse it—as, I trust, do the majority of Members—but there are clear risks that we will not achieve that without further action and sustained funding. The latest attempts by Philip Morris International to influence Government health policies and to roll back current regulation show once again that the industry cannot be trusted, and the Government must continue to uphold our strong commitment to article 5.3.

Philip Morris International’s proposal to provide £1 billion over 10 years shows that the tobacco industry clearly has the money to pay for the harm it causes. The public support making the industry pay through legislation to create a fund that would be used to support existing smokers to quit and to prevent uptake among young people. There is clearly an urgent need for the Government to set out further proposals to help us reach a smoke-free England by 2030, and I hope that today the Minister will confirm that we can expect the imminent publication of the Government’s response to the prevention Green Paper consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and, yes, I will. There is a need to be smarter with what we do. As was stated, we will achieve the target in some communities, but not in others, so refocusing on where we have the problem must be part of the strategy. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman appreciate, I do not want to pre-empt what we publish in the Green Paper.

I acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the report by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, which I have read and which sets out the group’s recommendations, including on the smoke-free 2030 fund. I assure them that the Department will speak to Her Majesty’s Treasury to discuss possible financial levers to support our smoke-free ambitions. However, I also expect that both of them—and particularly my hon. Friend, who is indefatigable in his lobbying on this matter—will lobby the Chancellor themselves.

Across the country, people are tackling the harms of tobacco every single day. During a recent visit to Tameside Hospital, I witnessed at first hand the commitment and dedication of healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of an innovative approach to reducing smoking in pregnancy. While the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was speaking, I was reflecting on the fact that many of the things that he was saying about his own constituency were very similar to those in this particular project. The prevalence within their local community to start with was much higher than average, and the people who were starting to smoke as a habit were of a much younger age. Therefore, by the time these young women were pregnant, they had been smoking for a longer period of time, making cessation more difficult. The project was thoughtful and holistic in terms of the agencies that it used, and the way that it wrapped around the young pregnant women. It actually reached out into their families, encouraging partners, mothers and other family members to support them. That gave the young women a great deal of motivation. I spoke to one young father who had not yet managed to quit his habit, but he had taken many of the messages on board, was not smoking in their home, and was actually attempting to change his behaviour for the long-term benefit of his future’s baby’s health.

This is a particular passion of mine. I believe that we give both people a much better, healthy start if we can tackle pregnant mums as a particular cohort, because, obviously, we not only help the mother, but, as my hon. Friend has said, help the future health of the baby and ensure that a health compromised by smoking in pregnancy is not something that then follows them through their lifetime. I spoke to those mums and partners about how using a joined-up approach could work and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman would talk to me further about the matter.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to this undoubted health challenge and also for what she said about pregnant young women. It is not the case that these young women who are found to be pregnant are automatically routed to smoking cessation services yet—neither are their partners. It is, in the long-term, an NHS plan to do that. Given what my hon. Friend has said and that she has seen the success of the trials, will she try to bring that plan forward so that we actually give every pregnant woman who smokes the opportunity to be seen by smoking cessation services? In that way they can not only understand what they should do and how they can quit, but see the damage that they are causing to their unborn child as a result of continuing to smoke.

[Jo Churchill]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I am speaking with my officials all the time about how we can make programmes such as this more effective and ensure that they reach out, but they have to be part of a comprehensive programme. We have to understand how we can best help communities most challenged by smoking, who fall outside the 2025 target; we need to pay attention to the detail if we are to address their 20-year trajectory. I would be delighted to have a further conversation on that matter with my hon. Friend at some point in the future.

I wish to assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to build on the success of work so far to sustain our global efforts to tackle the tobacco epidemic and work towards England becoming smoke-free by 2030. I can also assure him that I am committed to seeing more individuals receive help so that they can successfully quit the habit.

[Bob Blackman]

Before the Minister sits down, let me counsel her that one of her predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), was asked during his first outing at the Dispatch Box in Health questions when the prevention Green Paper would be published, and—to the consternation of his officials—he announced, “This month”. Therefore, if the Minister would do us the honour of saying when we will get the response to the Green Paper, I am sure—to the consternation of her officials—we would get some urgent action.