| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or the new variant, is a ghastly disease, and I welcome the Government's response to today's question.
It is important that people realise that science does not have the answer to every question, and that there is uncertainty, but it is also important that people be given facts. They should be given facts in a balanced way, however, and I despair at headlines such as "230,000 at
risk from CJD jab". Apparently, that was published at the instigation of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is disgraceful to use such a serious issue purely for party political purposes--especially for a party that denies that there is any risk whatever.
There is just as much uncertainty over eating beef on the bone. Conservative Members were right when they said that the Government were overreacting on beef on the bone, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say, "We've got to do everything to be as sure as possible"--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be putting a question to the Secretary of State.
Dr. Brand:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the way this issue has been presented is not in the interest of the public health of this nation? There may be uncertainty over some blood products, but there is absolute certainty about the risk of hepatitis acquired abroad and about the handicapping and death of rhesus babies. It is frightfully important that we get this absolutely right, and I welcome the way the right hon. Gentleman is treating that particular concern.
Mr. Dobson:
I thank the doctor for a question based on his professional knowledge and concern. What I do not like is the challenge which some of the coverage represents to the integrity of a substantial number of hard-working people who are trying their level best to identify the level of risk and how we deal with it--not to mention a substantial number of public officials who have rightly been used to the idea that our blood supplies were generally better and safer than any supplies elsewhere in the world.
These people have been forced by circumstances for which neither they nor we are responsible to seek alternative sources for plasma from abroad, in some cases from countries that we would not normally have associated with particularly high standards of blood supplies. But they have been determined--and I have backed them up--that, when plasma is sought from, in particular, the United States, both premises and processes must be vetted in advance by experts from the Medicines Control Agency to ensure that the supplies meet our standards. All that takes time, but it is time well spent if we can ensure that alternative supplies are as safe as it is possible to make them, in the face of a problem which--as I have said--has arisen through the fault of no one in the Chamber, and which is, at the moment, literally unquantifiable.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
My right hon. Friend is dealing with a subject that we all well understand will be difficult to explain fully. There will be a lot of uncertainty about putting out messages when perhaps they should be held back. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that one thing is certain? When the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talked of putting down a few questions, it crossed my mind that it would have been very handy if a few Tory Back Benchers had put down a few questions in the past, when certain things were happening under a Tory Government who allowed this scandal to continue.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that we had not just one ministerial statement on that fateful day, but two? Such was the enormity of the problem--the Tories had covered it up for so long--that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health had to answer questions on the same day. I have never seen that happen before, in all the 28 years I have been a Member of Parliament. Now the Tories are coming along and trying to give the impression that a Labour Government are at fault.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people will consider the issue to be a question of trust? They did not trust the Tories in this regard; they kicked them out. They will agree with my right hon. Friend in that, as long as Ministers are straight and transparent and make statements to the House, they will believe what those Ministers say.
Mr. Dobson:
I can tell my good and hon. Friend that, ever since I began my current job, I have tried to ensure that all information on matters such as this is made public as soon as reasonably possible. I have followed that to the letter. I have been so anxious to ensure that written questions receive accurate answers that I have insisted on their being vetted by the Chief Medical Officer himself, so that the answers are accurate, professionally sound and based on information that has been checked by someone whose integrity is unchallengeable.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
I note that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sitting on the Front Bench near the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement has no implications for British farmers, and will he reaffirm his confidence in British beef?
Mr. Dobson:
Yes, indeed. I think that my good, close and right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is sitting here because he is a friend of mine--and I am glad that he is.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr):
What are the prospects of developing a test for CJD in blood donations? I know that a prion is different from a virus, but I understand that blood donations are screened for HIV and hepatitis. Given the history of BSE, should not the former Government, 10 years ago, have put 10 times as much effort into developing a test for BSE in live animals?
Mr. Dobson:
I am here to answer questions on behalf of the present Government, and in relation to my stewardship. I can only say that substantial scientific efforts are being put into identifying a biopsy test for CJD. At present, it is only possible to be sure that someone died of new variant CJD by examining the brain after death; so any steps that can be taken to develop a test are very welcome.
As I said, all this has been going on since before we came to office. I hope that the scientists will come up with something, but it is proving very difficult, just as it has proved very difficult to come up with a live test
for BSE. The sooner we can discover such a test, the better: it would transform the situation, because it would enable blood supplies and so forth to be made a good deal safer. We have provided funds. I believe, for instance, that we are providing funds for Dr. Dealler, who is occasionally quoted in the newspapers. He is looking for a test, but as yet he has not found one.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
The House will have noted the Secretary of State's comments about the need to advise the public about the degrees of risk associated with CJD. In answer to a question about beef on the bone, the Minister for Public Health told me that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee had said--in relation to the inadvisability of beef on the bone continuing to be sold--
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his Department is being entirely consistent and evenhanded in taking measures to deal with risks to human health across the board?
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire):
Does not this sorry episode demonstrate the frailty of human knowledge? Does it not show that scientists do not know the answers to many of the questions that trouble us, including the question of the interaction of animal and human health?
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's statement. I note that he has been meticulous in taking measures to deal with public health, that he has been open about the process and that he has consulted, and then followed medical advice to the letter. Does that not contrast with the behaviour of Opposition Members who were in charge at the beginning of the affair?
Mr. Dobson:
I do not really want to go into that. Let me just say that I think officials in my Department are better pleased to be operating under a regime that tells the truth and tells it quickly, acts on the advice that it receives and finds the funds to make that possible. They do seem, from time to time, to contrast that regime with what they had to put up with before.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge):
Has the Department of Health been able to establish how many of the 31 known victims of new variant CJD had had operations or invasive surgery on the national health service? If so, has the Secretary of State taken any action to trace other people who may be at risk after such surgery?
"that there was a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising from this exposure in 1998."--[Official Report, 13 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 84.]
The next day, 14 July 1998, the Minister said that, reporting on peanut allergy, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment had said that it was "potentially life-threatening", and advised that families with a history of allergic disease should avoid peanuts as a "sensible precautionary measure".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |