| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's long-standing concern about this matter. I understand also his concern for those who believe that this drug might help them. However, it is right and consistent that the Government should take the view that research must be carried out in this area. I accept that my hon. Friend believes that we should take a decision before the results of that research are known, but he will know that that is not the Government's view.
It has been made plain that, if and when a cannabis-based medicine is developed and shown to meet established standards in terms of safety and so on, the matter could be reconsidered. I understand my hon. Friend's concern--particularly for those who are in distress or pain--but the Government have considered the matter most carefully, and do not feel able to take the course of action that he recommends.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
May I echo the calls from both sides of the Chamber for a debate on the concordat between the Government and the Liberal party? That would provide an opportunity to explore fully the rumour circulating the Palace that the Liberals will have to rename themselves the Liberal doormat party.
Mrs. Beckett:
I have nothing to add to what I said before about the unlikelihood of a debate on that matter.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a further debate on employee rights? Following the implementation of legislation such as the working time directive, some of my constituents have reported that some employers are trying to evade their
Mrs. Beckett:
It is always a source of concern if people feel that their rights may be at risk or that there is some danger of those rights being denied. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the improvements that the Government have made in access to fair treatment at work. We shall continue to work on those matters.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Further to the pertinent inquiries by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement or debate about the proposed allocation of Short money in light of the announced engagement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats?
The right hon. Lady will be aware that, to all intents and purposes, on the subjects of education, health, social security and European Union policy, the Liberal Democrats will not oppose the Government. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the purpose of Short money is specifically to assist the work of a major party that seeks to oppose the Government, and not to assist parties that are--metaphorically at least--kissing, cuddling and fawning over the Government?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am touched by the enthusiasm of the Conservative party for Short money--which was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government to support the better working of the House, and which the Conservatives showed considerable reluctance to improve in any way when they were the Government and we were the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman's entire question appears to be based on a false premise. If he believes that the Liberal party is supporting everything that we are doing on health and education, never mind on the handling of economic and monetary union, he has not been listening in this place.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
In response to earlier questions, the Leader of the House suggested that the proposed merger between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats was confined to some policy areas, or some departmental areas. May I add my voice to the calls for a proper debate on the implications of the merger? In those policy areas, it would obviously be inappropriate for them to have continued representation on Select Committees and other Committees of the House in the proportion that they have at the moment.
Mrs. Beckett:
I do not know how the Conservative Opposition would manage if they were asked to take up more places on Committees, because--thanks to the judgment of the electorate--there are, comparatively speaking, so few Conservative Members. However, I repeat that I do not intend to find time for a debate on the matter; and as there has been no merger, there would be nothing to debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The right hon. Lady said that she got slightly lost with my second original question. Therefore, will she answer a specific point that I put to her? Can she name a single Labour Back Bencher who enthusiastically supports the closed-list system?
Mrs. Beckett:
Yes, of course. That system is supported by all Labour Members, who are well aware that that it is simple and straightforward. However, the main point is that, if Conservative Members--as they do--continually talk about democracy, they make it plain that they do not understand it. The choices that were made on the operation of the system as it is to be applied to the European elections, were made democratically in the Labour party by members of our party, not by the leadership.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)
(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Government's reaction to new findings about the risks associated with new variant CJD.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson):
First, I apologise to the House for the delay in responding to this private notice question, which was caused by the fact that the computers in the Department went down when the young woman concerned was trying to type from my manuscript so that I could provide a decent copy for everyone.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have ensured that any recommendations from the experts who advise me on ways to reduce any risk of transmission of new variant CJD are implemented promptly and made public.
As far as I am aware, there are no new findings to report to the House about new variant CJD, but I can bring the House up to date on developments this year and the action that I have taken.
Following the development of BSE in the national herd and the identification of new variant CJD, the previous Government were advised that the human disease was probably linked to exposure to BSE. Since new variant CJD was identified, 31 cases have been notified to the Department of Health--three in 1995, 10 in 1996, 10 in 1997 and eight cases so far this year. Whenever there have been any new developments, I have sought expert advice on what I should do. I have taken that advice, instigated prompt action, found the necessary funds and made public what I have done.
In November 1997 I was advised that there was a possibility, however small, that new variant CJD could be transmitted through blood. I sought the expert advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and warned the National Blood Authority that it should be prepared to take all necessary steps to introduce the removal of white blood cells from the blood supply--a process called leucodepletion--should that be necessary. I made that information public and said at the time that it was better to be safe than sorry.
In February, I was advised by the Committee on Safety of Medicines that, as a precautionary measure, the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products should be phased out. The committee went on to review each individual blood product licence, and on 13 May confirmed that all those products should be manufactured from plasma sourced from abroad. I have already authorised that action, at an estimated cost of about £30 million. At the same time, the committee emphasised that until safe new supplies made from non-UK sources were available, it was essential to maintain sufficient supplies of UK products for the national health service.
Anti-D immunoglobulin is used on mothers who are rhesus negative to prevent the serious condition of haemolytic disease in newborn babies, which can lead to fatalities or the babies being seriously handicapped by cerebral palsy or deafness.
There has always been a worldwide shortage of anti-D immunoglobulin. It has therefore taken longer to obtain sources of plasma to use for anti-D from non-UK sources
than in the case of other blood products. That was known to the Committee on Safety of Medicines when it gave its advice. The scarcity arises because the donors are rare and must be specially immunised before they can produce anti-D blood. That obviously takes time. Sources have now been identified and those products should be available in a few months.
In July, SEAC advised me that leucodepletion for blood transfusions might reduce the theoretical possibility of the transmission of nvCJD through blood, and the blood service has been instructed to introduce leucodepletion as soon as possible. I made that public; the estimated cost is £70 million.
One of the difficulties in handling this issue is that there is no known test for nvCJD and no certainty about the size of the epidemic. No one yet knows whether we face a small number of cases or a large number. Experts have been looking into that since cases were first identified.
Following the recent identification of prions in the appendix that had been removed from a patient who later died of nvCJD, I have asked scientists to draw up arrangements for a survey of human tissue held by hospitals throughout the country, in an effort to help to determine the extent of nvCJD in the general population. In line with our usual policies, that was announced on 27 August.
That discovery also raised the possibility of the transmission of nvCJD by surgical instruments during commonplace operations. SEAC advised that the risk was minimal, and to date I have not been advised to take any action on that aspect. The expert committees are reviewing the issue, and I will take any further action should they so advise. In the meantime, I have authorised work to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of infection being transmitted by surgical instruments, should that be deemed necessary.
4.16 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |