Suicide Prevention

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to take part in the debate, which was so powerfully opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). I am grateful to colleagues for ensuring that suicide prevention remains at the top of our agenda.

As others have mentioned, yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day, so this debate is timely. Suicide is one of the biggest killers in this country. As other Members have touched on so well, behind every statistic is a friend, a mum, a cousin, a husband—each one loved by friends and family. Over the summer recess, I visited Bracknell Samaritans, where I saw for myself the extraordinary work that it does as part of a successful and growing national network. Its volunteers are there for people at their darkest moments, and we should never underestimate the number of lives that they save. I thank them for everything that they do in Bracknell and beyond.

Last year, I had the privilege of chairing a roundtable on autism and suicide prevention, organised by Autism Action. It shone a light on the disproportionate effect that suicide has on those with autism. According to the National Autistic Society, 66% of autistic adults have experienced suicidal thoughts—nine times higher than for the general population. The society also reports that as much as 11% of people who die by suicide have either an autism diagnosis or autism traits. Those figures are shocking and demand action. The insights and voices of autistic people and their families, which I heard at the roundtable and in further conversations, have been invaluable in shaping my understanding of the scale of the challenge and the need for action.

Recent research from Autism Action, the University of Cambridge and Bournemouth University—the largest study of autism and suicide to date—provides further insight. Almost 1,400 autistic people took part. The study identified loneliness, hopelessness and feelings of failure as key drivers of suicidal thoughts; many reported difficulties in getting the support they needed, long waiting times for diagnosis and a lack of post-diagnostic help. Our national strategies do recognise autistic people as a priority group, but there is more to do to ensure that recognition translates into practical action. An updated suicide prevention strategy should specifically address the needs of autistic people, and the next autism strategy should explicitly consider suicidality, with the two approaches working hand in hand, rather than separately.

While there is more to be done nationally to address mental health issues, I am proud that local organisations in Bracknell are already leading the way: Walks for Wellbeing and Sandhurst Health Walks; Youthline and Create Hope; Stepping Stones Recovery College; Sandhurst counselling service, which, I am very happy to say, is back up and running after a difficult year; Andy’s Man Club and the Crowthorne and Wokingham Without men’s shed; and, of course, Bracknell Samaritans. These groups are lifelines, and they deserve recognition and support for the critical services they provide. I am pleased to say I have met each of them and can personally vouch for the hard work they do in our community.

I want to end with a message to anyone watching or listening today who may be struggling: help is available. Whether by calling the Samaritans on 116 123, through local services in Bracknell Forest or through friends, family and community, there are people ready to listen and to help. Please reach out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

That has been a running theme this morning, which will not be lost on Ministers. We will ensure, as we deliver neighbourhood health services, that people can receive care closer to home, wherever they live. We have heard that message loud and clear today, and I think the hon. Member will see that priority reflected in our 10-year plan for health.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, as my brother is a GP. When my residents are able to get a GP appointment, they are frustrated when they are sent halfway across the borough to a different surgery from the one they are registered with by their primary care network. Can we address that, and is it part of our proposals in the new GP contract?

[Wes Streeting]

We do want to put GPs at the heart of neighbourhood health services, and we want people to have care close to home. There are benefits to primary care working at scale, so I would not want to criticise them for doing that. The important thing is different courses for different horses. Some of us are much more mobile, more active and more online and would welcome that flexibility. For others, continuity of care that is close to home, or indeed in their home, is important. It is important that people get the right care, in the right place, at the right time, wherever they live, and that is what we will deliver.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The economics of the Green party are even more fantastical than the economics of the Conservatives and Reform; we all dread to think what things might be like under that party. We see that in the local council in my city of Bristol, and it is an absolute disaster. If the council could just get on with building council houses and social homes, it would help more people to live a better life, and would aid prevention. We are getting on with tackling social care. That was announced in the spending review, and that is what the Casey review will do.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the largest-ever capital investment in our NHS in the spending review yesterday, building on the Chancellor’s announcement in last year’s Budget of the money to rebuild RAAC-infested hospitals such as Frimley Park hospital, which will benefit my constituents. That was committed to by the previous Conservative Government, but, shockingly, it was never paid for. With the Government standing four-square behind rebuilding Frimley Park hospital, does the Minister agree it is time for Frimley Health NHS trust to get on and announce the site for the new hospital?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Chancellor’s statement and our commitment to the NHS. I know he has been working so hard on this issue on behalf of RAAC hospitals and Frimley Park hospital since he became a Member of Parliament last year, and we are four-square behind that work getting on. It is at the beginning of a very long queue in the new hospital programme. It is one of the things we inherited—we wish it was a better inheritance, but we are working with what we have. We have put the new hospital programme on a firm financial footing, and Frimley Park is at the beginning of that queue. We are very keen that people get on with it very quickly, because there are very many other people waiting behind them.

Dementia Care

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member has beaten me to it—I absolutely agree.

The lack of respite support is pushing carers into crisis, and when that happens the result is clear: faster entry into long-term care, increased hospital admissions, more GP appointments and distress for everyone involved.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that respite care is important. In my constituency, Sandhurst day centre offers fantastic respite care, allowing people with dementia to stay as active and as social as possible for as long as possible, which we know also keeps people out of hospital for longer. Does she agree that we need to see more support for day centres such as Sandhurst day centre?

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more—I am sure I will agree with most of the interventions in this debate.

This does not have to be the outcome. We know that with the right support at the right time, people can live well with dementia at home, and that reduces pressure on services and improves quality of life.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I place on record my thanks to Fiona for her campaigning work in circumstances that are completely unimaginable for those who have not walked in her shoes and experienced the kind of grief that she is experiencing. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) has been campaigning assiduously on this issue; similarly, we have had representations from the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who is in his place, and the right hon. Gentleman. We are carefully considering the arguments that have been made, and looking at what we can do in this Bill to advance things in the way that Fiona and others like her would like to see. We will continue that engagement throughout the passage of the Bill, and see if there is a workable way in which we can improve it to ensure that others do not have to go through the unimaginable heartbreak that Fiona is living with every day.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is touching on ways to strengthen this Bill even further. He will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has just this morning published our report on the Bill. We have praised it for all that it will do to address a number of inequalities, but we have picked out one or two areas where it could go even further. I know that he will not yet have had a chance to look at our report, but will he arrange for a meeting with members of the Committee and the relevant Minister to discuss our findings?

[Wes Streeting]

I wish I could correct my hon. Friend and say that I have already read in detail the feedback from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but he is right: I have not yet had a chance to do that. However, I can assure him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Care will look at the Committee’s report. We would be very happy to meet members of the Committee to discuss in further detail their findings and recommendations.

We want to ensure that the Bill is as strong as it can be, given the length of time that has passed since the Mental Health Act was reformed. Indeed, the Mental Health Act is as old as I am. [Interruption.] Thank you for those interventions. I assure Members heaping compliments across the Chamber that it will not affect investment decisions in their constituencies, but I am none the less very grateful.

There is a serious point here: whereas attitudes to mental health have come on in leaps and bounds in the past four decades, the law has been frozen in time. As a result, the current legislation fails to give patients adequate dignity, voice and agency in their care, despite the fact that patients have consistently told us that being treated humanely, and making decisions about their own care, plays a vital role in their recovery.

When patients are detained and treated without any say over what is happening to them, it can have serious consequences for their ongoing health. To quote one of the many patients who bravely shared their experiences with Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review:

“Being sectioned was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. Sadly, as a result of being sectioned I developed PTSD”—

post-traumatic stress disorder—

“as the direct result of the way I was treated”.

Sir Simon’s review was published seven years ago. It shone a light on a group of people who had been hidden, ignored and forgotten. In the time that has passed since, the case for change has only snowballed. The Bill now takes forward Sir Simon’s recommendations.

The review stressed that legislation alone would not fix the system; culture and resources matter too. This was echoed in Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS, which uncovered some hard truths: a dramatic rise in the use of restrictive interventions on children; and 345,000 patients waiting more than a year for their first appointment with mental health services—more than the entire population of Leicester—of whom 109,000 were under the age of 18. This Bill does not solve every problem in our mental health services, but it marks a vital step in our plans to improve the quality of care, combat long-standing inequalities, and bring about a stronger focus on prevention and early intervention in mental health.

National Cancer Plan

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that some of these contributions are quite emotional, and if people need to leave the Chamber after they have spoken, that is okay by me.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Ethan was just 15 and studying for his GCSEs when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Sadly, he passed away two years later. I had the privilege of meeting his mum, Nikki, this weekend at two events organised to raise money for brain tumour research. In Ethan’s memory, will the Minister commit himself to improving outcomes for people with brain tumours through the national cancer plan?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Through my hon. Friend, I would like to pass my condolences on to Nikki for the loss of Ethan. As I have said, we have not made anything like the progress we would want to make on treatment and survival rates for brain tumours. That will form an integral part of our national cancer plan, and we will utilise all the latest advances in technology and science to try to get the better outcomes that we so desperately want.

Obesity: Food and Diet

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Opher]

I absolutely agree with that. We must treat people in a fair and compassionate way. We must point that out to them, as medical professionals, and help them to get better. I agree with the hon. Lady about stigma.

On obesity strategies, since 1990, we have had 700 separate policies to tackle obesity, yet it has doubled. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Having looked at the evidence, it is clear that voluntary targets do not work. Voluntary targets for the food industry and relying on individual agency—giving us choice in what we eat—cannot reduce obesity. The food industry, of course, has a vested interest in making money. While education and exercise are really good, there is not much evidence to suggest that they reduce obesity. It is all about food.

There has been a lot of research. Nesta, the Obesity Health Alliance and the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee have done multiple reports on obesity, and it is clear that we can halve it. All we need to do is reduce everyone’s calorie intake by 200 calories a day. That is the difference between McDonald’s large fries and standard fries—other fries are available—so it is not a massive thing, but we all have to do it. As always with public health, small drops in what we take can have a massive effect on the population.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when there is such a strong correlation between child poverty and child obesity, that we tackle not only the food systems leading to poor health outcomes, but the price of food? We must see those two challenges in lockstep and work to address both the quality of food and the cost.

[Dr Opher]

Absolutely. One of the main pitfalls we must avoid is that there is no point in making cheap food more expensive. That will make people poorer. We need to be much more creative than that.

Winter Preparedness

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking everyone who works in the system. As I said, the NHS is getting £12 billion more this year from this Government than it had from the previous Government in the spring Budget. We are now focused on ensuring that money is used properly.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Let me take this opportunity to thank healthcare workers in Bracknell Forest, who will be working so hard across the Christmas period to keep patients safe this winter. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that we have not only the right investment in our health services but the right reforms, so that we can fix the broken NHS and get it back on its feet?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to make sure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently and effectively in the right places for the right treatment at the right time. That is why we are looking at our long-term plan. That is why we want to stabilise the system, so we do not have to keep coming back here year after year with a so-called winter crisis.

Puberty-suppressing Hormones

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The only thing worse than a Member not knowing the answer to their own question is the Minister not knowing the answer. Happily, in this case, I can say that surgical intervention for trans people does not apply to children and young people.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome the spirit in which the Health Secretary has made today’s statement and his commitment to improving healthcare for all trans people, but I want to press him a bit on continuity of care. This summer, I had a real struggle working with parents of young trans kids who were supporting their children in their journey and had accessed puberty blockers through overseas prescribers. They had done so after much heartfelt indecision, because they thought they were supporting what was best for their children and, frankly, because better healthcare options were not available to them under the previous Government. I welcome the moves taken to speed up the trial, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that while we wait for that trial to be set up, nobody currently receiving treatment with puberty blockers—however they may have accessed them in the past—will face a discontinuity in their care?

[Wes Streeting]

Any young person in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who had a valid prescription for these medicines in the six months prior to 3 June and 27 August respectively can seek continuation of their prescription from a UK-registered clinician. Guidance has been issued to general practitioners setting out prescribing scenarios. It remains the case that continuation of puberty-supressing hormones can be considered where the GP feels competent to do so, and where confirmation in the form of documentary evidence that treatment had been under way is available. The guidance also makes clear that GPs should consider what further support should be offered, including assessing whether referral to the children and young people’s gender service or, indeed, for mental health support is required.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I do not always do this, but I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the tone he has adopted in this debate and for recognising the strongly and sincerely held views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of it. I am also grateful to him for being typically willing to share with the House in support of his points something as personal as what happened to his grandmother. Sadly, it will not surprise him that no one asks me for my ID these days—I will have to take some tips from him on the moisturiser that he uses. [Interruption.] I will ignore the unkind comment that he has just made.

In many ways, this Bill is like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts—indeed, it is good in many parts—and started from a place of good intentions. As the Secretary of State set out, smoking has a huge cost to society and to individuals. We know that smoking is the single biggest entirely preventable cause of ill health, death and disability in this country, and we see in our NHS the impact of smoking every day. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths in the UK each year and is estimated to cost the NHS and social care more than £3 billion a year, including 75,000 GP appointments every month. As the Secretary of State said, almost every minute someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking. It substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions throughout people’s lives, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, cancers, dementia and asthma.

As the Secretary of State has alluded to in the past, it is often people in more deprived areas who have higher smoking rates, lower healthy life expectancy and higher mortality rates linked to smoking. Some 230,000 households are estimated to live in smoking-induced poverty, and children of smokers are three times as likely to start to smoke, potentially perpetuating the cycle. Over 80% of smokers started before they turned 20—many started as children—yet more than half of current smokers want to quit; as the Secretary of State said, three quarters say that they would never have started smoking if they had the choice again. Let me be clear: reducing smoking, giving people the information and support to quit, and helping to protect children in particular are worthy ambitions.

Among all the doom and gloom, there is some positive news: smoking rates are falling anyway. While around 6 million people in the UK smoke, the number of smokers has been falling for decades. In 2023, just 10.5% of people aged 16 and over smoked, compared with 20.3% in 2010, 20.7% in 2000 and 30% a decade before that in 1990. Likewise, the number of children who smoke is falling. While this trend is welcome, it is understandable that there is a strong desire to see continued action to further drive down the prevalence of smoking and tackle the recent rise in vaping among non-smokers, especially among young people, and to protect future generations.

As was evidenced by the interventions that the Secretary of State kindly took from many hon. Members, I am sure that many of us in the House have been alarmed by the surge in youth vaping, which has doubled in the past five years. Despite it already being illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s, a quarter of children tried vaping in 2023. While nicotine vapes can and do play an important part in helping adults to quit smoking, we are clear that children who do not smoke should not take up vaping. The nicotine content makes those products highly addictive, while the long-term impacts of the colours and flavours being inhaled are highly unlikely to be beneficial. Of course, the full effects may not be known for some years yet.

The uptake in youth vaping has been driven in part by the branding and promotion of products clearly aimed at children, with vapes, packaging, descriptions and marketing all designed to appeal specifically to young people. Grown adults trying to quit smoking are unlikely to see the appeal of cartoon characters on their vapes, but of course, children and young people will. Likewise, the bright colours and fruit flavours are far more likely to appeal to children than to those looking to quit tobacco smoking.

For those reasons, the last Government introduced a Bill that primarily targeted our interventions at young people. It would have restricted who could purchase tobacco products without impacting current adult smokers. It sought to tackle youth vaping by restricting flavours, introducing plain packaging and changing how vapes are displayed in shops so that they do not appeal to children. It would also have prohibited the sale of non-nicotine vapes and vaping alternatives such as nicotine pouches to under-18s, just as it is already illegal to sell nicotine vapes to children. In parallel, it would have introduced new fines for rogue retailers in order to tackle the illegal market, seeking to make sure that the law—such as age restrictions on purchasing vapes—was properly enforced.

That approach was targeted at the next generation of young people and aimed to prevent the take-up of smoking and vaping and break the cycle of nicotine addiction before it had even started. That Bill was not about demonising people who smoke or curtailing current smokers’ rights or entitlements in any way. None the less, it had challenging practical implementation impacts.

I have a lot of respect for the public health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne)—I think that is his new constituency name—and know him well. I hope that when he winds up the debate, he will address some of the points I am about to make. My first point is about the impact on shopkeepers, particularly small shopkeepers, of enforcing and operating within increased restrictions, and the extent to which those restrictions are practically enforceable. In the context of what the Bill sets out to do, how does one avoid the existence of, or an increase in, a black-market economy in vapes or cigarettes?

We introduced our Bill before the general election. Since then, the new Government have introduced a Bill that may have the same name, but is not quite the same Bill that was introduced back in March. The Bill before us today gives the Secretary of State new, or significantly modified, powers under the Health Act 2006. It runs the risk of piling an unknown number of regulations on to retailers through a new licensing scheme, and it creates a whole new registration scheme. The challenge is that right hon. and hon. Members will not be told in detail what those schemes will look like, the specific impact they will have on businesses, or the detailed impact they will have on smoking and vaping rates until after the legislation has been passed. A hefty impact assessment—all 294 pages of it—has been produced. Given that the public health Minister has signed it, I fear he had to read every one of those pages before doing so. However, even with that impact assessment, the detailed impact of the individual regulations that may follow is unclear.

For example, clause 136 amends the Health Act 2006 to give the Secretary of State the power to extend smokefree places to some outdoor spaces. Of course, adults should be mindful and thoughtful about where they smoke or vape to be considerate to those around them, especially in areas with children or vulnerable young people, but the Bill risks giving the Secretary of State expanded powers to expand smokefree areas with minimal oversight. I acknowledge that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used, but as we in this House know, a statutory instrument and the procedures that accompany it are not as rigorous in their scrutiny as primary legislation.

Unlike previous laws, which banned smoking in confined areas such as pubs and bars, the Secretary of State is talking about bans in open spaces where the risks of second-hand smoking may be more limited. Page 64 of the delegated powers memorandum states:

“Under Section 4 of the 2006 Act, the Secretary of State could make regulations to designate additional places as smoke-free provided that they were of the opinion that there was a significant risk persons present in such a place would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke without a smoke-free designation…Section 5 of the 2006 Act gave the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.”

It goes on to say:

“Clause 136 amends the existing power in section 4 of the 2006 Act by omitting the risk condition.”

I would be grateful if the public health Minister could explain in his winding-up speech—I suspect he will be able to do so—why that condition is being removed. It was there for a reason: to give a sense of proportionality to anything that was done and to ensure that a particular bar had to be met, given the impact. Its removal effectively gives the Secretary of State much greater discretion to do as he wishes at a future date. I note that the Secretary of State has said today that he changed his mind on banning smoking in pub gardens or outside hospitality venues. I know him well, and he is an honourable man, so I take him at his word on that, but there is nothing in this proposed legislation to prevent a future Secretary of State from coming back, consulting and expanding beyond the areas where he proposes to restrict smoking to other venues and settings at a future date. Under clause 136, that could be done without the crucial risk criteria being applied. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point, because it is hugely important. Members are being asked to decide now whether they support expanding smokefree places to an unknown list of outdoor spaces in the future, so it genuinely raises significant challenges and concerns if that gateway is not in place.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. Some 13% of adults in Bracknell smoke, but we know that more than half of smokers would like to give up, so what I and my constituents are listening for is a commitment that his party will back concrete measures to end the public health epidemic of smoking once and for all—or are they just going to wrap up their objections in sophistry?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for most of what he just said. I will address precisely his point in a few paragraphs, but I say to him that my party brought forward legislation in March, which was debated in April, that did not have the mission-creep that I fear the Secretary of State is demonstrating with clause 136 and various other measures in this proposed legislation.

I must also challenge the Government on how they anticipate this measure being enforced. Will members of the public be encouraged to call the police if they see a parent smoking in a prohibited place? If there are no children in a park or playground, will it still be prohibited?

Concerns are also raised by the new licensing and registration schemes. While it is right that we had planned to expand the existing notification scheme to include non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products involved in the supply chain, this Bill goes a number of steps further. The Secretary of State will be able to create a new licensing regime for retailers for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. Over 70% of convenience stores selling vapes and tobacco products are independent shops. How will they fare and how will they be assisted with the layers of added bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with the Bill? Do local authorities, which are already under pressure, have the capacity and additional funding allocated to administer such a licensing scheme in their areas?

Again, my fear is that we are unable to make a fully informed decision about the impact because the regulations will be set out only after the Bill has passed. The impact assessment states:

“A more restrictive licensing scheme would be expected to have a greater impact on public health and a greater economic impact on businesses.”

However, we simply do not know if that is what the Secretary of State has in mind or what the regulations will look like. Likewise, there is no detail on the impacts of a new registration scheme for all tobacco, vaping, nicotine and herbal products, as well as tobacco-related devices.

In the few months that the Government have been in office, they have sadly shown that they are not particularly a friend of business and have broken a number of their pre- election promises. Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State as an individual and as a right hon. Member of this House, I ask him to forgive the cynicism of those on the Opposition Benches over any attempted reassurances from the Government that they will take businesses’ concerns into account as they consult on their plans.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), if a Division is called, in line with the precedent set last time this will be a free vote; each Conservative Member may vote as they choose. The Bill, as I have said, comes from a good intention to keep the population healthy, to ease costs for the NHS and to prevent children from taking up addictive habits that may follow them for the rest of their lives. I support those objectives, but I call on the Minister for public health, when he winds up, to give the reassurances I seek and roll back the additional measures that have been put in place, over and above what we were proposing.

It is important that information is available so that people can make informed decisions and that support is available for those who choose to stop smoking. Adult individuals are best placed to make decisions about their own lives, but we recognise that the same is not true for children. I look forward to the responses from the Minister for public health, which I hope will be constructive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to be collaborative and constructive in his approach to the legislation.