Points of Order
Debate between Henry Smith and Bob Blackman(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I will indulge the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) further in a moment. I am perfectly clear about the position. There is a manifest incompatibility between the moving of motion 1 and the moving of motion 3, a point that has not been gainsaid by the Leader of the House. She has, in fact, explained that it was really a matter of prudent preparation, if I can put it that way, and contingency planning that the Government wanted to afford themselves what I would describe, without levity, as the backstop of motion 3 in the event that the circumstances warranted its deployment. The circumstances do not warrant its deployment, and therefore they resort, perfectly properly, to motion 1, which I rather anticipate, if we proceed in an orderly fashion, the Government will in due course move.
Of course, I always treat the hon. Gentleman with the very greatest of respect, like all Members. He is a serious authority on parliamentary procedure, and I will indulge him further in a moment, but not before I have heard other colleagues.
Cancer Strategy
Debate between Henry Smith and Bob Blackman(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
There are aspects of that with which I agree. The reality is that tobacco is the only product in the world, which, if used in the way that was intended, will kill us. Therefore, controlling it is vital.
We know as well that those with complex medical needs have the highest smoking rates. I am talking about people who are unemployed, who have mental health conditions, and who are in prison. I am also talking about the people whom I am championing at the moment—the homeless. All of them are much more likely to smoke than others, and they are also more likely to have the most health problems as a direct result. It is quite clear that the most disadvantaged members of society are more likely to smoke and therefore suffer cancer and other health-related problems as a result. Clearly, we need to take action. Quitting smoking reduces the likelihood of having cancer. It is also key that lungs can recover if one gives up smoking. We must encourage people to give up smoking and, more importantly, to try to prevent young people from ever starting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told us what happened to him as a five-year-old. I would not advocate that as a shock treatment. None the less, it is quite clear that stopping people starting to smoke is the best way forward, rather than trying to get them to give up later in life.
The recent report “Smoking Still Kills”, which was endorsed by no fewer than 129 organisations, recommended that, as a target, we should reduce adult smoking to less than 13% by 2020 and to 5% by 2035. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill): that is not ambitious enough. We should be going for a smoke-free Britain, or, rather, a smoke-free United Kingdom. I must get my phraseology correct.
To achieve that target, we need mass media campaigns, which the Department of Health has ceased. We need stop-smoking services to be encouraged, promoted and funded across the UK, and local authorities should enforce the necessary activities and to do their job. We know that mass media campaigns are extremely effective and cost- effective in prompting people to stop smoking and in discouraging young people from starting. In 2009 we had funding of just under £25 million for anti-smoking campaigns, but by 2015—last year—that had been reduced to £5.3 million. That is a false economy.
If we had much better funding for mass media campaigns, I am sure we could reduce the incidence of smoking far more. Equally, we know that stop-smoking services across the UK have been highly effective in reducing smoking rates. Smokers are up to four times more likely to quit if they have support from specialist groups and smoking services, compared to quitting cold. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse referred to when he gave up smoking, and he can remember the time and the date when he did so. Most people who have smoked in their adult lives have difficulty giving up and they need help and support. We should ensure that that is available.
The sad fact is that right across the UK smoking cessation services are either having their funding reduced or being closed altogether. That is extremely regrettable. I suggested to the Chancellor that by putting just 5p on a packet of 20 cigarettes and using that money to fund smoking cessation services we could provide all the money that is needed to continue smoking cessation services across the United Kingdom. That, to me, would be a very sensible investment indeed.
Funding for trading standards has fallen from £213 million in 2010 to £124 million now; the teams have been cut to the bone and the number of staff working in trading standards has been reduced radically. That means fewer local controls to target illicit tobacco in the way we should, to prevent some very nasty products from being used by people across the United Kingdom. That is a retrograde step. We need to invest in those services to make sure that we deliver better health outcomes.
We desperately need a new tobacco control plan and programme so that we can see the radical targets that are needed and the investment required across the United Kingdom. We should be setting out our stall—we want a smoke-free United Kingdom not by 2035 or beyond, but by 2020 or 2025. We can achieve it with the right programme. The key point is that if we deliver this plan, we will cut the rate of cancer deaths and the number of people suffering from cancer, which will reduce the burden on the national health service and allow us to take that money from the health service to use on the more difficult cancers that colleagues have mentioned. Those cancers are difficult to spot, difficult to treat and need specialist drugs and specialist treatments.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend is making the powerful point that if we reduce preventable cancers, we can redirect resources to the difficult cancers. It is a fact that more than 230,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from blood cancers. As in the case of pancreatic cancer, which the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned, if we could better treat those difficult cancers with those resources, we could go so much further.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, the priority has to be to eliminate what we can eliminate. If people smoke, they put themselves at risk of cancer—as I said, 14 different cancers are affected by smoking. If people stop smoking, it eliminates that risk. Equally, through diet, people can eliminate some of the risks. However, there are cancers that are not affected by smoking or diet. Therefore, if we can reuse resources and concentrate on the detection or treatment of the more difficult cancers, the health of the nation must be improved.
I bring my remarks to a close by saying that I hope we will get an answer in a few minutes to the question we are all asking: may we please have a date—with a day, a month and a year—when we will get the tobacco control plan?
Local Government Finance
Debate between Henry Smith and Bob Blackman(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which refers to another thing that took place under the Labour Government. In all those organisations, pay is determined from the top, so as chief executive pay has rocketed, so has senior pay, while the large numbers of people who work for local authorities and do a brilliant job are paid relatively small amounts of money. There is no doubt, however, that the pay of middle management and senior management exploded, and I applaud the Secretary of State’s decision to publish the figures so that the public can see what type of jobs are involved.
We also saw an explosion in the creation of non-jobs, each of which required administrative support, departments and offices, all of which are costs to the taxpayer, specifically the council tax payer. We had a multitude of different grant regimes and ring-fencing so that if local authorities wanted to take decisions, they could not. I therefore welcome the merger of the different grant regimes and the removal of ring-fencing, which allows for local decision making at the right sort of level.
What Labour did was not all bad. The decision to tell local authorities what level of funding they were getting for three years was a good thing because it allowed them to plan ahead. I hope that in future times the settlement from the Front Bench will be offered not just for three years but for four or five years so that there is certainty for local government in planning ahead.
Henry Smith
Does my hon. Friend think that as well as certainty in terms of the amounts received by local authorities, it is also important that there is transparency as regards the formula for the way that those settlements are decided?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend anticipates a matter that I was going to come to later. The outdated Barnett formula, which has transferred money to all parts of the country with no transparency whatsoever, must go and be replaced with a formula that delivers money on a fair and transparent basis that we can all see and understand. Even Lord Barnett himself cannot believe that his formula, which has existed for some 40 years, was not removed or transformed under 13 years of Labour Government, but they did not do it. That is one of the things that has to go.
We should deal with issues relating to the front-loading of reductions in expenditure. The reality is that the Government are having to deal with a deficit inherited from the Labour Government. We get maximum benefit from making public expenditure reductions early because we get four or five years-worth of reductions as a result. That is precisely the reason for doing it.