| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Dec 2009 : Column 63WH—continued
In preparing for the debate, I discovered other particularly shocking figures. Some 10 million people regularly exceed the limits, putting themselves at risk of developing long-term health problems, and 2.6 million people regularly drink more than double the lower-risk amount, which
increases their risk of death from an alcohol-related cause tenfold. Well over 1 million people are dependent on alcohol. To describe the same figures in a slightly starker way, that group of 10 million people who regularly exceed the limits drink three quarters of all alcohol consumed in this country, and the group of 2.6 million people who drink more than double the limits consume a quarter of all alcohol consumed, which is around 3,000 units a year compared to just 200 units for low-level-risk drinkers.
Since the early '90s, we have seen a rapid growth in how much people drink and the annual number of deaths caused by alcohol. It is fair to say that the growth fell slightly in 2007, but it is still far too high. In 2007, 8,724 deaths were wholly attributable to alcohol, through things such as alcoholic liver disease. That was fewer than in 2006, but still more than twice the number in 1991. If we include deaths to which alcohol is a contributory factor-some cancers, for example-the number of deaths rises to 16,000, and rises still further if deaths caused by drink driving, accidents and violence are included.
The cost to the national heath service of all that is huge-about £2.7 billion every year. In 2007-08, there were more than 860,000 hospital admissions due to alcohol, which was 6 per cent. of all admissions. That figure is rising by more than 70,000 every year. Staggeringly, more than a third of all accident and emergency and ambulance costs may be alcohol related. All that adds up to a major public health problem and a huge source of avoidable cost, without even starting to look at the personal costs of alcohol abuse to individuals, families and whole communities.
What are we doing about the situation? We are determined to turn it around. In April 2008, we created the first ever incentive for primary care trusts to bring alcohol-related hospital admissions into the spotlight, through the vital signs indicator. That is one of the indicators in the NHS national operating framework, and it measures how a hospital is managing its admissions.
We have launched the alcohol improvement programme, which gives front-line staff the tools and guidance better to understand local needs and better to commission services. There has been a groundswell of support, with two thirds of all PCTs now choosing alcohol as a local priority and focusing funds and attention on what they can do to reduce harm from alcohol.
Alcohol is also one of the top 10 PCT priorities within the world-class commissioning programme, and GP practices are now encouraged financially to identify new patients who have unhealthy drinking habits and offer them advice on changing their behaviour. The evidence shows that one in eight people will go on to change their drinking habits. We now see better screening, commissioning and access to treatment. Last year, more than 100,000 people were treated for alcohol dependence.
My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of super-strength lager, from the size of the can to the case for minimum pricing and increasing the tax charged. We recognise the concern he described, which is that the sale of higher-strength lager, beer or cider in conventionally sized cans may encourage people to consume large quantities of alcohol. We take the view that consumers should have a choice of smaller measures in on-trade premises, and we have recently consulted on making it a legal requirement always to offer 125 ml measures of wine.
We will also consider the case for making higher-strength drinks available in smaller or re-sealable containers. My hon. Friend has mentioned before, and did so again today, the fact that many homeless people buy super-strength lagers. It is true that some homeless people suffer from a complex mix of problems, including mental health issues, for which I have responsibility, and various forms of substance abuse.
We will shortly launch "New Horizons", our strategy for improving mental health services. More important is the fact that it will promote wider community mental health and well-being. It will also include specific work with those who have chaotic lifestyles, such as the homeless.
There is a good deal of public concern about the fact that alcohol is often sold at heavily discounted prices, and that that can fuel harmful drinking. As well as it being common sense, evidence shows that the cheaper alcohol is, the more people will drink. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say and I share his concerns, as does the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. It would be wrong, however, to think that there is one simple solution to the dilemma. Altering people's behaviour is never easy, as has already been remarked upon, and we must start by empowering people to make sensible choices, based on the information that they need to make their own decisions. It is important that those who drink strong lager understand how strong their drink is, how much they are drinking and what health risks are involved.
The "Know Your Limits" campaign is catching people's attention and making them think twice about how much they drink. Public awareness of the campaign is running at more than 70 per cent., which is high, and the number of people who know their daily alcohol limits-currently about a third-is growing.
Today is the first day of December, and shop windows are already heavy with decorations and festive bargains. I remind the House that later this week the Department for Transport will launch the annual drink-driving campaign. Those who drink and drive not only put themselves and others in danger, but risk a fine, a 12-month driving ban and a criminal record. I have hijacked my hon. Friend's debate to put that clearly on the record, because we want to build on the momentum of those and other campaigns, including on rape and
domestic violence. We shall introduce a new hard-hitting campaign for the new year to highlight the health risks of alcohol.
To go with raising public awareness, we need proper labelling. In 2007, we announced a voluntary agreement with the industry to show alcohol and health information on most alcohol labels by the end of 2008. We will publish the results of a second monitoring exercise shortly, together with a consultation on the next steps. Unfortunately, despite the good efforts of some companies, progress on labelling has been disappointing. Giving people access to the right information when they are buying alcohol is essential, and if industry cannot or will not deliver on its promises, we are prepared to take more radical action to ensure real progress.
We also need to tackle cheap alcohol. The Prime Minister has said that
"we will give local authorities the power to ban 24-hour drinking throughout a community in the interests of local people".
Industry needs to take some responsibility when it sells discounted, high-strength alcohol.
Tax is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor, and I am not yet a Treasury Minister. In 2008-09, my right hon. Friend raised duty on alcohol by 6 per cent. in real terms, and he is committed to increasing it by a further 2 per cent. every year until 2012-13. When VAT was cut by 2.5 per cent. last year, duty on alcohol was raised to compensate. I am glad to say that when VAT returns to 17.5 per cent. in the new year, that increase will remain.
Through the new mandatory code for alcohol retailing, we have shown that if industry continues to act irresponsibly we will legislate. Cheap, very strong alcohol, combined with lack of awareness of the damage it may do, is costing the NHS billions of pounds-and the lives of thousands of people. Although intervention on pricing has been ruled out, we need to strike the right balance between supporting enterprise and respecting the rights of responsible customers, making a real difference. We have said that we will defer work on minimum pricing; we are still thinking about the matter.
We are starting to turn the tide in many areas, but we must always try to do more. In that way, we can help to improve the health of my hon. Friend's constituents in Battersea and of the constituents of all Members. The needs of constituents must come first, and tackling the problem of alcohol misuse is critical to their health and to the future of our NHS.
Offshore Dredging
1.29 pm
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): It is a great pleasure, Mr. Amess, to speak under your chairmanship on a subject that is of great concern to many of my constituents and to those of colleagues in coastal constituencies.
The Minister will know that the East Riding coastal zone, which stretches from Flamborough head to Spurn point and much of which is in my constituency, has one of the fastest eroding coastlines in north-west Europe. According to Hull university, the area with the fastest rate of erosion was
"At Road Junction South of Cowden",
where the rate of erosion was 6.28 metres a year on average between 1954 and 2004. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we must not stop striving to improve our understanding of the forces that are changing our coast. A crucial point is that each bit of coast and each incidence of dredging is different and needs to be considered on its merits, even though that consideration should be informed by a full understanding of issues and research from around the world. Having a comprehensive understanding of the forces behind coastal erosion would enable us to come up with better measures to protect people's homes and businesses in a sustainable and affordable way.
As I said, a significant number of my constituents are concerned that continued offshore dredging is having a direct impact on the speed of erosion along the east Yorkshire coast and the Holderness coast in particular. I pay tribute to Gavin Scott of Holmpton, a constituent of mine, for his indefatigable persistence in raising these issues. He was reported in the Yorkshire Post as saying:
"The Government would have us believe that the vastly increased coastal erosion in our area is due to global warming, climate change and a rise in the height of sea levels. But after sifting through all the evidence I personally think dredging in UK waters should now be totally banned...It displays a total disregard for other people and their livelihoods and seems to me to be tantamount to persecution of coastal dwellers."
As you can see, Mr. Amess, feelings run high. Fisherman Derek Crook, whose home at Tunstall has been lost to coastal erosion, said:
"It is an absolute national scandal that the Government is selling sand and gravel to the Continent and it must be a contributing factor to beach draw-down."
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The hon. Gentleman has brought an important matter before the House. My fishermen and 40,000 of my constituents who live on Canvey Island share his concerns. The dredging of 32 million to 34 million cubic metres of spoil to make a deep, quarter-mile-wide trench for shipping for the new London gateway port at Corringham could have a devastating impact on Canvey Island's sea defences, which run alongside the area where the majority of that dredging will take place, but Ministers do not seem able to take that on.
Mr. Stuart:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A key issue is to ensure that we have a full and proper understanding of the processes at work and that such understanding as we have is shared with our constituents. The campaign group MARINET, which is part of Friends of the Earth and campaigns against marine aggregates dredging, claims that the dredging of
offshore sand and gravel deposits can disturb the regeneration of beaches during the summer months. It argues that if beaches become severely eroded due to offshore dredging, coastal defences and particularly sand cliffs, sand dunes, salt marshes and shingle beaches can be progressively damaged, producing coastal erosion.
MARINET also points out-I hope that the Minister will deal with this issue-that Holland and Belgium do not allow the dredging of sand and gravel deposits within 25 km of their shoreline or in coastal waters whose depth is less than 20 metres. A question that my constituents have is why, if those rules are suitable in those countries, they are not suitable for the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister can explain that.
The British Marine Aggregate Producers Association points to the fact that marine aggregate is playing a role in replenishing Britain's beaches in some places. That raises another question in my area. If that sand replenishment is suitable along parts of Lincolnshire, where I understand that it happens, why is it not appropriate for the east Yorkshire coast? That is another issue for the Minister to deal with.
Mr. Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. I had a similar debate some time ago. Presumably he will get exactly the same answers. With regard to beach replenishment, does he not find it perverse that we are paying a company to bring ashore sand that will probably go back into the sea to fill up the trench that was scoured out to bring the sand in originally?
Mr. Stuart: That is an interesting point and one often made to me by my constituents. I am not entirely sure that it is true. Certainly Holland, which has very much an evidence-based approach, is relying more and more on replenishment. I understand that it conducts-as we do-a full analysis of the impact before it dredges. It then examines what happens after the dredging and looks at the hole. That is a hotly disputed issue between MARINET and the dredging companies, which is why I hope that the Minister will be able to help us today. In Holland, they rely on that analysis. If the hole does not fill in and if the aggregate is taken from an area that is not part of the immediate beach replenishment system or part of that sediment that comes down the coast-in our case, it comes southwards-it is not obvious how taking it from elsewhere would have an impact. However, that is a hotly disputed issue.
A key point that I want to make today is to ask the Government to recognise the strength of feeling, doubt and scepticism among our constituents and to ensure that their minds can be put at rest if their fears are unfounded, or further to investigate if those fears have a better basis.
The aggregate producers association points out that dredging often occurs large distances offshore-8 km or more-and that permission would not be given if the experts felt that there was the slightest threat to natural processes. I know that that makes many of my constituents guffaw, but there is a system in place. It certainly has not been obvious to me, from looking at the evidence and examining it, that dredging relict deposits-deposits that are not part of a dynamic coastal system, but have sat dormant for thousands of years off the coast-has had an impact on the coast itself. It certainly does not
remove sediment from the coastal system, because that relict deposit has never played a part in that coastal sediment system. I am yet to be persuaded that there is a problem from such dredging, which is the sort of dredging that happens off my constituency's coast in East Yorkshire.
However, examples are often cited-including Hallsands, the proposed dredging off the coast of Filey a few years ago and others-where the analysis showed that dredging in certain places would have an impact on the sediment that would be available to go on the beaches of the area. It is a matter of looking at each issue in turn.
The marine dredging operations for sand and gravel in the UK are closely controlled and monitored by the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed out to the territorial limit, and the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agency. Current regulations require all applications for a dredging licence to be accompanied with a full environmental impact assessment. That should be supported by a coastal impact study that considers whether the proposed dredging is far enough offshore for there to be no beach draw-down into the deepened area. They look at whether the proposed dredging would interrupt the natural supply of materials to beaches through tides and currents, the likely effects on bars and banks, which provide protection to the coast, and the likely changes to the height of waves passing over dredged areas. Those studies, therefore, look at the key issues and concerns that my constituents raise with me.
The Marine and Fisheries Agency says that it would refuse licenses where there was an unacceptable impact on coastal erosion, flood risk management or the environment in general. However, MARINET points out that little monitoring of the impact of dredging on fisheries and marine biological communities, or on shorelines and coastal defences, takes place during the lifetime or after the expiry of the licence. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. What happens during the lifetime of the licence and afterwards? That, MARINET quite rightly says, makes it very difficult to know whether to suspend a licence mid-term, if it is indeed true.
From the evidence I have reviewed, there is little to suggest that marine aggregate dredging is implicated in coastal erosion on the east coast. The general conclusion seems to be that material required to support existing shorelines is delivered from elsewhere along the coast-not offshore. Therefore, an offshore intervention is unlikely to interrupt that supply. I understand from the Environment Agency that since 2002 more than £9 million has been invested in research associated with marine aggregate extraction. Of course, not all of that will relate to the effect on coastal erosion.
At a public meeting held in March in Holderness in my constituency, which I convened, dredging industry representatives and Professor Mike Elliot of the university of Hull agreed that more research could only be of assistance. I put that to the Minister. While the evidence overall does not suggest that current dredging is having an impact on the East Riding coast, we must recognise that each case is different. Professor Elliot contacted me before this debate and said, "The point being missed at the moment is that each case is different. Dredging of North sea glacial deposits is different from the sand extraction just offshore for beach nourishment. There is
the need for a dispassionate and fully objective look at this topic using evidence from worldwide." That is a key message for the Minister to look again and ensure that coastal communities feel part of that and have access to it.
While the uncertainty attached to currently used predictive models is not fully recognised, those most at risk will always be tempted to think that the research does not sufficiently explain the situation in their area. To have their home at risk from natural forces is bad enough, but people feel particular injustice if their homes and communities-their most treasured and valuable assets-are seen to be put at risk by entirely avoidable commercial activities. What assurance can the Minister give that dredging off the east coast of England is not having a detrimental effect? Will he consider further research and what confidence does he have in our understanding of the physical impacts of aggregate dredging?
I want to give time to the Minister to reply, but before I finish I would like to address the topic of what can be done to help people who lose their homes to the sea. I congratulate Councillors Jane Evison and Jonathan Owen of East Riding of Yorkshire council for working so hard on this subject, and I thank the Minister and his predecessors for being so agreeable to meeting representatives from the East Riding to hear the case being put.
We have repeatedly asked for help for people who invest their last pennies-they often struggle to get a mortgage, as one might understand, if they buy a home near the sea. They put all they have into a home, but erosion often accelerates beyond the norm. Sometimes there are periods in which erosion is slower than normal, and then there are periods of greater pace and people lose their home. On top of losing everything they have ever saved and had in the home, they are forced to pay the cost of demolition to boot. I do not believe that a perverse incentive would be created if society as a whole covered the cost of demolition for the tiny number of people to whom this happens. I hope that the Minister can share good news with us on that front today.
We have seen recently the devastation that flooding can cause to people. In 2007, my constituency was one of the worst affected in the country; every town and almost every village in it was affected by flooding. If the Minister provides reassurance that the threat of coastal erosion is not being speeded up by avoidable activities, that will be welcome. Also, will he promise the people in my constituency and elsewhere who live with the risk of coastal erosion that the Government are sympathetic to their plight?
I have laid out the case that I wanted to put to the Minister. I hope he can respond positively on the issues of additional research and communication with coastal dwellers so that they have better understanding and confidence that decisions have been taken in their interest, not in a commercial or tax-gathering interest. I also hope that people who lose their homes to coastal erosion will be supported.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |