House of Commons
Tuesday 18 February 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
King's College London Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 25 February.
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 February.
1. Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he plans to take to draw attention to the damage to health caused by smoking. [14727]
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone):
Press, television and radio advertising are being used in support of a programme aimed at teenagers as well as the more general national smoking education campaign. Detailed arrangements for the final year of the campaign will be finalised shortly. Future activity will be developed in the light of the evaluation of the current campaigns.
Mr. Steen:
Is my hon. Friend aware that non-smokers have absolutely no choice in public places but to inhale other people's smoke, whether in a railway coach or a restaurant? He might consider the Singapore experience, which has been very successful: little plastic see-through igloos are built in public places and are the sole place where smokers may smoke, and the public can look in and see who is puffing away.
Mr. Malone:
Perhaps I can add to the list my hon. Friend gave of places where passive smoking is a problem the Strangers' Bar in this House, where otherwise politically correct Labour Members often inflict this problem on all of us. We will let that pass, however. The instance that my hon. Friend outlined has not been drawn to my attention before. While we are keen to reduce the incidence of passive smoking, my initial reaction is that I do not think that placing the public in the stocks as he suggests would be the best way forward.
Mr. Sheerman:
The Minister must be aware that the House would be a good place to introduce some pioneering
Mr. Malone:
If it is not the smokescreens put up by Opposition Members, it is when they are conflated with hot air that we occasionally have our greatest problems, and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done. The countries in the European Union that have been most successful in reducing smoking among their adult populations are the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where there is no ban on tobacco advertising--but we are supported by a voluntary arrangement. Other EU countries, where there is a ban, have not been nearly as successful as this country. Our principle of voluntary restraint is working, should be supported and should continue.
Dame Jill Knight:
Is my hon. Friend aware that while most smokers are knowledgeable about the dangers that they face from lung cancer and other cancers, few are aware of the severe danger that they face when they have to have anaesthetics for an operation, which can happen to any of us at any time? When he is considering publicity on the matter, will he also stress that point?
Mr. Malone:
My hon. Friend will know that, as research into such matters progresses, and as we develop both the voluntary code of conduct and the warnings that appear on cigarette packets and other forms of advertising, any lessons that can be learnt will be borne in mind. I shall take on board what she says. She underlines another point about not having a ban on advertising: it is important to draw warnings to the attention of the public in a consistent but evolving way, to fit the prevailing circumstances, and that can be done under a voluntary code of regulation through the advertising campaigns that are run in this country.
Mr. Barron:
The Minister must know that the Government have failed to reach their "Health of the Nation" target and that teenage smoking has increased by 50 per cent. Why does he not take the obvious initiative and ban tobacco advertising? Will we have at the next general election the same situation as we had at the last, when a deal was done with Imperial Tobacco so that Tory posters replaced cigarette advertisements on billboards throughout the country? When the Royal College of Physicians tells us that, every day, 450 children start smoking, is not it time that the Conservatives put the health of the public before the health of their party?
Mr. Malone:
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap. The hon. Gentleman would do better to base his case on the facts rather than on that sort of argument. The facts are simply that all the research shows that the one sure way to discourage smoking is to increase the price of tobacco, which is what the Government have done through the tax system. Tobacco in this country is more
The hon. Gentleman is keen to anticipate failure where none has occurred. There were four "Health of the Nation" targets set out for 2000; we are making sound and solid progress on three, and not as much progress as we would like on the fourth; but that makes us determined to redouble our efforts, rather than resort to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge amount of tax paid by smokers? As a non-smoker, I am delighted that they pay that tax, because otherwise I and others like me, who have never smoked, would be required to fill the gap in funding. One wonders where Opposition Members expect to find the funds.
Mr. Malone:
My hon. Friend is right to say that smokers make an important contribution to revenue, but the Government's policy is underpinned by the fact that, while of course an increase in price raises extra revenue, it also fulfils the basic purpose of reducing tobacco consumption.
2. Mr. Illsley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a no-fault liability compensation scheme for those victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by human-derived growth hormone and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [14728]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam):
The human growth hormone treatment programme was the subject of legal action, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and we accepted the judgment that was delivered in July 1996.
Any future claim for compensation for other people who have contracted CJD, however that may have come about, will be considered within the context of the Government's statutory obligations.
Mr. Illsley:
As the Minister rightly points out, the Government were found negligent in the High Court in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases caused by the prescription of human growth hormone. As he will know, 22 victims have already died and far more are living with the terror that they might contract the disease as a result of the treatment, and that they might have to face the disease without any prospect of compensation.
Likewise, CJD victims from BSE are not being compensated, yet the Government have conceded an economic case for BSE compensation to the tune of £1 billion for farmers. Surely it is time to stop the endless litigation and bring in a no-fault liability scheme for the victims, who have contracted this terrible disease as a result of Government negligence, and their families.
Mr. Horam:
Like the whole House, I am enormously sympathetic not only to those who have contracted CJD, whatever the cause, and their families, but to those who are worried but well and do not know whether they will be affected by this terrible disease. The problem from our
Mr. Fabricant:
Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of people contracting Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease through the injection of growth hormone, will the Minister put the issue in perspective by confirming that only 15 people have contracted the disease through the consumption of beef?
Mr. Horam:
So far, the figures suggest that 15 people have contracted the new variant of CJD, although there is no scientific evidence on the connection between BSE and CJD. The numbers are small. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, we must be concerned with not only those who have contracted the disease but, in cases involving human growth hormone, those who may contract it in future. Some of those people will receive compensation under the judgment that has been delivered. The families concerned are appealing against part of the judgment and, if they are successful, that may extend the scope of compensation.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham:
Will the Minister consider the perspective of people such as my constituent, Edward Gray, who have been treated with human growth hormone and face years of stress and worry about whether they will contract this dreadful disease? Would it not be a kindness to introduce a no-fault system for such people as well as for those who have contracted it? That would at least reduce that aspect of the stress and worry associated with the disease.
Mr. Horam:
It is tragic that a treatment that for 25 years appeared to offer people of low stature a chance to reach normal height has developed a terrible side effect. However, the Health Department's first priority must be to cure health problems, not to compensate those who, however sadly, die from or contract this disease. None the less, we will consider cases of negligence most sympathetically. We have followed up the court case quickly. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do that.
Sir Peter Emery:
Will my hon. Friend resist absolutely the accusation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whom I normally respect, that this problem has come about through Government negligence? The debate yesterday made it clear that that is not the case. People who suggest it are attempting to use politics to bring out the sympathy that we all have for people with the disease. It is not a question of political negligence. The Department of Health will do everything possible to assist those who may be affected by the disease.
Mr. Horam:
Indeed. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is why we have given funds to the CJD support network. We are conducting research, and we have set up--and support--a counselling service that operates from Great Ormond Street hospital. On research and health, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, we are
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |