Tobacco Packaging

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Although I disagree with much of what we have just heard, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). I am grateful that we, once again, have a chance to speak about the merits of standardised packaging. I also spoke on the subject in the debate that took place earlier in the year. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I spoke of the devastating effects that smoking-related illnesses have on families and individuals throughout our country. In the 10 months after the Government closed the consultation on this matter, no meaningful action was taken. During that time, 150,000 children will have started to smoke and, as we have heard, addiction results in the death of half its long-term users. Fifteen months have now passed, so we have had another five months during which we have had the opportunity to reduce significantly the 100,000 smoking-related deaths that take place each year. Sadly, yet again, no action has been taken by this Government.

We cannot neglect our duty to give all children and young people the best start in all areas of life. Health, education, decent housing and physical and emotional security are some of the very basics we should strive to achieve. Without them, children do not have an equal chance in life. By failing to protect children from the dangers of smoking when they are too young to make a truly informed choice, we are failing to provide each child with their very basic rights. The reform is simple and the potential gains are immense. There is a reason why smoking-related deaths are labelled as “preventable”. The question is how long, and how many lives will it take, before the Government act.

One thing is clear: standardised cigarette packaging will be introduced. This country has historically taken a strong line on the regulation of harmful products consumed by young people: in 2005, we tightened regulations on the advertising of alcohol, ensuring that advertising did not link to youth culture or irresponsible behaviour; to prevent passive smoking, we banned smoking in public places; to prevent children from taking up smoking at a young age, we made it illegal for shops to sell cigarettes to under-18s; and to prevent cigarettes from being glamorised, we ended sports sponsorship and billboard advertising.

We have put legislation in place to make adult consumers fully aware of the risks associated with smoking, launching nationwide health campaigns and offering tailored support for those who want to quit. Evidence and public support has helped successive Governments strive to improve the health of our nation. We must continue that tradition and strive to give young people every opportunity to live a healthy life. If we are to improve public health, cut preventable deaths and prevent young people from taking up a habit that could cause them significant harm, the course of action that is open to us is clear: standardised cigarette packaging, which can and would improve the health of future generations.

The evidence is clear: advertising works. If it did not, tobacco companies throughout the world would not spend huge amounts of money to reach out to new and existing consumers. Last year. Cancer Research UK released a report on the influence that marketing has on young people. It stated:

“All 19 quantitative studies found standard packs less attractive than branded equivalents, to both adults and children”

and that

“13 qualitative studies found that standard packs consistently received lower ratings on projected personality attributes (such as ‘popular’ and ‘cool’) than branded packs”.

All that reinforces the World Health Organisation’s conclusion:

“Marketing of tobacco products encourages current smokers to smoke more, decreases their motivation to quit and urges young people to start”.

Over half of long-term smokers die from a smoking-related disease, and that amounts to more than 100,000 people each year. In my constituency, 283 people per 100,000 die each year from smoking-related diseases. An estimated 1,110 young people aged between 10 and 14 are classified as regular smokers. Given that nationally each year more than 200,000 young people under 16 are beginning to smoke, inaction amounts to nothing less than neglect. For Barnsley alone, smoking creates a bill amounting to £75.3 million each year; financially, and socially, the costs of smoking are high.

The evidence is clear, and the only thing lacking clarity in this debate is the reason behind the Government’s failure to act. By introducing standardised packaging, Britain would send an important message that we are a country that prioritises our children’s health and well-being. By failing to act, the Government are prioritising business interest over the health of young people and future generations.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend used the word “neglect” and said that we could be neglecting our young people by failing to act. Does he agree that this is a genuine child protection issue?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are in this place to make judgments about what is in the interests of our constituents, and it is my judgment, as it is his and, I believe, that of the majority of hon. Members, that it is in the short-term, medium-term and long-term public interest of our constituents to introduce standardised cigarette packaging.

I therefore strongly believe that the arguments against plain packaging—standardised packaging—and the justification for the Government’s “wait and see” approach are inconsistent. First, introducing standardised packaging is not aimed at stigmatising adults who already smoke. This is not about limiting choice for adult consumers; standardised packaging does not change what is inside the packet, but is a measure to protect children who are more easily influenced by marketing. Secondly, some hon. Members have argued that introducing such a measure would limit the tobacco industry’s right to advertise. Instead, we should be asking ourselves whether, by allowing the continuation of the status quo, we are infringing on the right of every young person to have a healthy childhood, and increasing their chances of taking up a habit that could have significant health implications for them for the rest of their life.

It is regrettable that I, along with many other hon. Members, must persist in relaying the facts to a Government who, as of yet, seek to ignore the evidence in front of them. This country has been an international leader in public health policy and we should continue to be so. We will have standardised packaging at some point in the future—it is just a question of when. Fundamentally, standardised cigarette packaging is about improving the nation’s health and giving each child the best possible chance of living a healthy life. The choice is theirs when they are an adult, but the responsibility is ours now. I urge the Government to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Given that at least a quarter of a million children aged 11 to 15 take up smoking across the country each year, does the Minister accept that if we wait for two to three years for evidence to emerge from Australia about the impact of standardised cigarette packaging, hundreds of thousands of children will have started to smoke in the meantime?

[Jane Ellison]

On the Government Benches, we are interested in all measures that might stop children smoking. I do not recognise at all the time scales that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are looking now at what is emerging in Australia and around the world so that we have more information on which to base an informed decision.

Health and Social Care

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Queen’s Speech debate on health and social care. Protecting the health of young people, reducing preventable deaths and safeguarding the health of Britain’s population are three important goals, but the absence of a Bill to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes undermines the Government’s commitment to those goals.

Cancer is an illness that touches many people’s lives. Although research is key to finding new ways to treat cancer, the Government can take simple and practical measures to avoid preventable deaths. Last week, the Government failed to introduce one such measure that could help to reduce cancer and other forms of smoking-related disease.

The introduction of standardised, plain packaging had been heralded as a good idea by a number of members of the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), a member of the medical profession, had previously shown his support for plain packaging. He said that plain packaging

“could certainly help to reduce the brand marketing appeal of cigarettes to teenagers, and most importantly, help to stop young people from developing a smoking habit that can only shorten their lives.”

I agree with him. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has stated that the evidence she has

“seen suggests that it is the attractiveness of the packets that leads young people to decide to take up smoking.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; Vol. 156, c. 561.]

I agree with her, too, and yet, three years into this Parliament, no action has been taken by the Government.

According to Cancer Research UK, more than 100,000 deaths are caused by tobacco each year in the UK. That could be much reduced if the Government took meaningful action. Between 2006 and 2007, the Labour Government took action to curb the harmful effects of smoking by banning smoking in public places. As the shadow Secretary of State for Health has said, the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes is a natural progression, and as the Leader of the Opposition said in his response to the Queen’s Speech, plain packaging is the right thing for public health and the right thing for the country. I agree with him.

Since the Government consultation on plain packaging closed some nine months ago in August 2012, more than 150,000 children will have started an addiction to a substance that results in the death of half its long-term users. I accept that the introduction of plain packaging is not a silver bullet, but neither is it the nanny state, as some have described it. Plain packaging is a means of preventing young people from taking up a habit that, in the long run, could cost them their lives. Some 257,000 11 to 15-year-olds become smokers each year, and that number is unacceptable. We already have legislation to prevent children below the age of 18 from buying cigarettes. We banned smoking in public places, but more needs to be done.

[Mrs Moon]

The allegation is that it would be a nanny state if we introduced plain packaging. Is that not a contradiction, given that we know that state intervention often saves lives? If we had been worried about the nanny state, we would never have introduced seat belts or drink-driving laws, yet we would never move back from those. Is it not time we moved forward on plain packaging as well?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree. The term “nanny state” has been used, but we want to prevent young people from taking up a habit that in the long term could cost them their lives. In 2013, Labour Members are on the correct side of the debate, which is also where the public are.

We should pause to consider the financial costs of smoking, which can be seen in its impact in towns such as the one I am proud to represent. The financial costs encompass much more than heightened NHS expenses; lost output and lost productivity both increase the price associated with smoking. For Barnsley alone, smoking creates a bill amounting to £75.3 million each year.

Yet the financial cost is small compared with the human cost. In Barnsley, there are 485 adult deaths from smoking each year. Despite that, nearly 1,000 children in Barnsley aged between 11 and 15 take up smoking each year and approximately 1,100 10 to 14-year-olds there are regular smokers. Like the rest of the UK, Barnsley has paid too high a price. It is time that action was taken to prevent the costs of smoking from stretching further and further into the future.

Let us be clear: advertising works. If it did not, the tobacco industry would not spend such vast amounts of time, money and effort on packaging presentation and it would not be opposing plain packaging with such vigour. For the tobacco industry, packaging is a form of advertising that helps to keep existing customers loyal and attracts new ones. On that point, the World Health Organisation is clear:

“Marketing of tobacco products encourages current smokers to smoke more, decreases their motivation to quit, and urges”

young people to start.

Of course children will be attracted to sophisticated and glamorous packaging. When he was Health Secretary, the Leader of the House echoed that view, stating:

“It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets…children should be protected from the start.”

Unusually, I agree with him.

A lack of evidence cannot be used as an excuse for delaying the essential legislation. Advertising does impact on young people’s decisions, and in the context of smoking that means that children’s health is put at risk. The trade-off between the tobacco industry and children’s health has been in favour of the industry for too long. It is time that something was done to redress the balance.

There is also clear support for plain packaging from the public. Last year, 63% of the UK public supported standardised, plain packaging and only 16% of people opposed it. A lack of public support is not holding the Government back from introducing the legislation; in fact, 85% of people back Government action to reduce the number of young people who start smoking.

By delaying the next step in smoking prevention, the Government are not only putting a future generation’s health at risk, but ignoring a key issue that British people want and need Parliament to address. There is the evidence, the public support and the moral imperative to act, yet the Government have so far failed to take the definitive action needed to save lives, reduce health care costs and prevent children’s health from being put at risk.

Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my apologies for not being able to attend the winding-up speeches. Let me conclude by saying that I am in no doubt that plain packaging is the right thing for public health and the right thing for the country. I am in no doubt we will have plain packaging. When we get there, we will wonder why it took so long to protect children against the harmful impacts of smoking and about the lives that could have been saved if we had acted sooner. We can stop that wondering if we act sooner rather than later. We know that advertising works and that smoking kills. It is time to do something about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

The hon. Lady will be aware that it is important not to rush the roll-out of any service. That is why we kept in place the NHS Direct service in areas where rolling out the 111 service has been slower. A lot of good work is going on in early intervention; it focuses on giving local authorities the budget and the powers to make a difference to local communities. The Labour party should get behind that and do much more to support it. It is this Government who are making a difference in early years, and I hope that the Opposition can support us on that.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

10. When the Government plan to respond to the consultation on standardised packaging for tobacco products; and if he will bring forward legislative proposals on standardised packaging.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

I am afraid that I cannot give a timetable, and I make no apology for the fact that this Government are taking a careful look at all the evidence that has come out of the consultation.

[Dan Jarvis]

Figures from Cancer Research UK show that more than 1,100 of the 10 to 14-year-olds in Barnsley are regular smokers. Given that countries such as Australia and New Zealand have now committed to standardised packaging, I ask the Minister again: are the Government planning to legislate to give millions of children one less reason to start smoking?

[Anna Soubry]

I find it most bizarre that the advice I am given by my officials—and I absolutely accept their advice—is that, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, because of judicial reviews of consultations, I am not allowed to have an opinion, so I do not give any opinion, notwithstanding the fact that many people would say that he advances a number of important arguments. I will say, however, that it is important to look at all the emerging evidence, including that coming out of Australia. As he will no doubt know, Australia continues to face a legal challenge that is yet to be resolved. It is also important to be aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on cancer issues through the all-party group. The NHS Commissioning Board is held to account through the mandate, which clearly states that we must make tangible progress towards having the lowest mortality rates in Europe for cancer and a number of other major diseases. I will expect the board to clamp down hard on CCGs who fail to deliver on what needs to happen for them to deliver on that promise.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Cancer Research UK has expressed deep concern about the fragmentation of cancer services and the climate of uncertainty that makes it harder to improve them due to the Government’s NHS reorganisation. I appreciate that that is not the fault of the Secretary of State, but he has the power to do something about it. Will he listen to Cancer Research UK and stop the fragmentation of cancer services?

[Mr Hunt]

Of course, I understand the concerns of Cancer Research, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands the personal tragedy that cancer can cause. The change in the clinical networks is happening because we want them to cover dementia, which we were talking about earlier, mental health services and maternity and paediatric services. It is right that they should do so, but I want to make absolutely sure that as we go through the restructuring the benefits of the cancer clinical networks remain as strong as ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

10. What progress he has made on tackling inequalities in cancer care.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

Through the national cancer equality initiative, we are working in partnership with patients, professionals, academics and the voluntary sector to take forward a range of projects, such as working with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK to tackle the under-treatment of older people, our launching of the “Cancer does not discriminate” campaign with black and minority ethnic groups and our funding of work to target lesbian and bisexual women with cervical screening.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sure the Secretary of State and the Minister will acknowledge that cancer mortality rates are higher in my constituency than in his. Can he therefore justify to my constituents why Barnsley primary care trust is being forced to spend £17 million not on addressing issues surrounding the inequality of cancer care but on delivering an undemocratic, unwanted and unnecessary top-down reorganisation of our NHS?

[Paul Burstow]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman: first, that the reforms will actually release resources from back-office costs and put them back into the front line, which I hope all hon. Members want to happen; and, secondly, that when it comes to our cancer strategy, we committed additional resources in the spending review to invest in cancer services. If he wants to raise specific issues with me, I will be only too happy to address them.

Future of the NHS

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The national health service is about people—those who work in the NHS and the patients for whom they care. It produces heroes on a daily basis. In the last year, I spent long nights at my late wife’s bedside as she battled against cancer. I am reminded of Andrew Agombar, the consultant surgeon who twice operated on my late wife, and of his relentless commitment to trying to save her and to serving the public. I am reminded of the conversations I have had in Barnsley hospital with doctors and nurses. I am reminded of the GPs who provide an integral part of the British way of life and I am reminded of the porters, cleaners and volunteers. They are all heroes and are all dedicated to the very best principles of our NHS.

In my family’s darkest days, we saw the true genius of the NHS—a genius based on care and compassion, commitment and dedication, principles and standards. The market can be a useful tool, but there are limits to its ability to deliver those values. There is a reason why Bupa does not do accident and emergency, and we must never allow an ideological free-market agenda to undermine all that is great about the NHS. That is what the Government are in danger of doing. I accept the need for fiscal responsibility and I acknowledge that the Secretary of State’s proposals have the purpose of moving health care more into the community and away from hospitals, but the patient, not the market, must always come first. The risk is that the British people will pay for these reforms three times over while patients see little or no improvement in their care.

The previous Labour Government delivered the biggest hospital-building programme in NHS history based on private finance initiative funding, which the then Opposition supported. Consequently, many trusts are now locked into 20 to 30-year fiscal plans. In order to realise the benefits of the investment that Labour put into the NHS, those trusts will require stable funding over this period. Without it, much of the existing investment could be wasted.

GP commissioning is another example of the Bill’s inefficiencies. The taxpayer could end up paying to fund the community or the private investor.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has just given an eloquent explanation of why the market should be ignored in health care, but he has also said that the whole of health care spending should be fixed in stone for 30 years just to suit the PFI contracts signed by the previous Government.

[Dan Jarvis]

I did not say the market should be ignored. The point that I was making is that ultimately it is a matter of priorities.

What will be the cost of making NHS staff redundant, before the additional cost of rehiring by the GP commissioning bodies? To me, none of this makes sense, and it leads many health officials to question whether the Health Secretary fully understands what impact the reforms will have on the front line morally, economically and logistically, and in this confusion the NHS is placed at risk.

Why not use the facilities that the Labour Government spent £100 billion building over the past decade? Would it not be simpler to keep the PCTs? Surely it makes far more sense to increase GP involvement to allow for clinical oversight, and use the facilities and the staff base that we have spent the past decade investing in. Of course there are problems in the NHS which need solving, but the Government’s plans are not just a misguided attempt at privatisation by stealth; they fail to acknowledge that the past 13 years of reforms ever happened.

As well as issues of cost, the proposed reforms are a threat to the accountability of the NHS—at a local level, with the removal of the non-executive directors, and nationally, with the transfer of responsibility from Whitehall to the NHS board. How will we know whether we are getting value for money? What impact will the reforms have on local waiting times? If the Secretary of State genuinely believes in these reforms, what accountability mechanism is he introducing to judge how well they are working? The Department of Health has not explained how the reforms will address the challenges of longer life expectancy, advances in technology and greater public expectations.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a thoughtful speech. The incoming Government inherited an NHS which has had a massive increase in expenditure, yet has seen a 15% drop in productivity over time. Does he have any thoughts on what reforms do need to be made? Despite having money thrown at it, the NHS was not delivering in terms of productivity and was thereby letting patients down. What is his prescription to make the NHS stronger?

[Dan Jarvis]

Although I am new to this business, if hon. Members and the Secretary of State had such faith in the reforms, it is confusing to me why they were not put in the manifesto and the people of this country given the opportunity to vote on them at the general election.

GPs will be substituting the calculator for the stethoscope. That is bad for the NHS and bad for patients. Given how far we have come, would not the first year of the Secretary of State’s tenure in the Department of Health have been better spent, for example, on a concentrated investment of effort in cancer care? We must fight the war on bureaucracy, but not at the expense of the war on cancer.

Would not the Secretary of State have better spent his time learning from our European partners how to educate our constituents about the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle—diet, drink and drugs—and their effect, particularly with regard to cancer treatment? We need to address why a cancer sufferer in Barnsley is less likely to survive than a sufferer in Barnet. These are the NHS reforms that would make a positive difference and that the country expects us to deliver. Instead, in my constituency, the scale and pace of the Government’s cuts are making it virtually impossible for Barnsley hospital to plan ahead. Budgets are being cut while patient numbers are going up.

The Government are proposing the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since its inception—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I have almost finished so I shall keep going.

The reorganisation is one for which the Government have no mandate. That raises the question, as I said, of whether the Secretary of State deliberately chose not to include these drastic reforms in the manifesto because he knew how unpopular they would be. The NHS is the pride of its staff, its patients and our country. We all deserve better.