Tobacco Products (Plain Packaging)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to speak under your chairmanship. I assure you that I will have my hearing tested.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. As he and colleagues throughout the House who are concerned about the Government’s decision not to implement standardised packaging for tobacco products said, this debate is not about scoring political points, but about holding the Government to account for what many of us consider to be a wrong move.

Clearly, the Government have recognised the negative consequences arising from ready access to non-standardised packaging, yet they drag their feet, are adamant that the evidence is not substantial enough and insist that non-legislative solutions are better suited to the task in hand. Pressure on smoking must be continuous and relentless because we are fighting a pervasive, lethal and powerful addiction. Plain packaging fits the bill. Not only is there a real need for it, but it is a solution that is both wanted and workable. Tobacco is the only consumer product that, if used as instructed, kills half of its long-term users. All tobacco products damage health, so it is right that they are treated differently from other consumer products.

I shall make it clear what that means. In my local authority area of Stockton, more than 250 people die prematurely every year from smoking-related diseases. We have a lung cancer rate of 67.1 per 100,000 people, which is a staggering 40% higher than the national average.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way to protect children is to act now? Around 50 studies say that the measure would have an impact, so the Government need not wait for the results of the Australian change in the law.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is certainly the case. Children are the most vulnerable group and they need protection from exposure to lethal smoking in closed spaces such as cars and the tobacco industry’s never-ending search for new addicts. Marketing is known to pull children into smoking and the pack is just another marketing tool.

The tobacco industry is now prevented from conventional advertising in this country, so we must look abroad to discover its true intentions. I have been sent the wording on a US internet site advertising Vogue cigarettes, a brand that is owned by British American Tobacco and aimed at young women. They are on sale throughout the UK. One US site says:

“Vogue Cigarettes stand out among other cigarette brands for both their appearance and their unique recognisable taste...The all-white box design with a tiny coloured branch and different coloured leaves reflects the romantic essence that is Vogue Cigarettes”.

Another site says that

“the Vogue cigarette’s style was based on the 1950s couture…The length and the…appearance…is an attribute of the femininity”.

What crass nonsense! The tobacco industry calls these cigarettes “romantic” and “feminine”; I call them addictive and deadly. The real concern of the tobacco industry about standard packaging is, of course, that it would prevent them from marketing their products and recruiting new smokers, and there is a standard litany of excuses.

One is that standard packs would increase illicit trade. That myth has already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Harrow East. Another is that standard packs would put the packaging industry out of business, but let us not forget that we need to worry about the good health of the nation, and tough as it would be on employees and others involved in production and supplies, if that good health is to be achieved, we should not really be focusing on the downside. There are many other excuses too, from the damage that will be done to retailers and the loss of tax revenues, to the amazing claim from some in the industry that packaging does not really matter. So many excuses, so little evidence.

The case for standard packs is strong, and the need for action is urgent. On one side there is the rich and utterly cynical industry that is quite happy to market products that still kill more than 100,000 people across the UK every year—more than the next six most common causes of preventable death. On the other side is the medical and health community, politicians from all parties, and the general public. In the middle are the Government: they have lost the political will to act, so they must let Parliament decide.

Induced Abortion

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for introducing the debate, although I wonder why now. I listened to hon. Members’ contributions, and I agree with some of the arguments from both sides. I agree that abortion should available on demand until 12 weeks, and that there are serious issues about termination on gender grounds that need looking at, but the crux of the matter is about reducing the termination limit from 24 to 20 weeks, and I keep asking why now. There is no new medical evidence. The majority of professional bodies support a 24-week limit, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, and the general public.

[Kate Green]

This is the first time that public opinion has been mentioned in the debate. Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent YouGov survey report about a week ago which showed that 47% of the public support a 24-week limit, 4% believe it should be even later than 24 weeks, and 33% want it reduced?

[Julie Elliott]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I am aware of the report, but it was worth telling hon. Members.

Is the answer to “Why have the debate now?” that there are more late abortions? No. The contrary is true, and 91% of abortions take place at less than 12 weeks, which is when most of us want them to occur. Only 1% take place after 20 weeks, and the figure is falling every year. There has been mention of whether a foetus feels pain, and I refer to a report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2010. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was commissioned by the Department of Health to update the report on foetal awareness. It concluded:

“The fetus cannot experience pain before 24 weeks gestation due to lack of development of essential parts of the brain required for pain perception.”

I turn to improving survival rates. They are improving at more than 24 weeks, and during the 20 years since the limit was changed, they have improved significantly. When I had my twins in 1991, the 28-week survival rate was quite low, and that has improved, but that is not the case below 24 weeks.

Have the people presenting for late abortion changed? No, they have not. In the main, they are still the most vulnerable people in our society—the very young, older women who may not have realised that they were pregnant until a very late stage, pregnancy deniers, and people suffering domestic abuse. The list goes on. I suspect that many of those people do not realise how many weeks pregnant they are when they present to the medical profession.

The issue is so sensitive that we should consider the impact of our debate on the general population. As medical evidence has not changed since 2008, I wonder why we are discussing the matter now. Our discussions today will have an impact on vulnerable people in our society, because the subject is upsetting, distressing and worrying for them. They may just read the headlines of the debate, which I suspect will be on the scaremongering side, because that is what has happened in the past, and that can make people feel even more vulnerable.

[John Pugh]

Why are we discussing now matters that we could have discussed in 2008? The hon. Lady is relatively new to the House. She will be aware that whenever the issue has been raised formally in the House, the lid has been put on it pretty quickly, so there has not been a thorough and exhaustive debate that might help matters.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

MPs must act with responsibility, and always consider the impact on our constituents and the wider population of issues that we bring to the House. We must not scaremonger, or involve issues of guilt, which has happened in some contributions today. I am wholly opposed to that.

I return to what I said at the beginning—why have this debate now? I cannot see any medical or logical reason for it now because no new evidence has come forward since it was last discussed in 2008. If there was new evidence, I would be happy to have the debate. My mind is not closed to changing the limit ever, and if medical evidence suggests strongly that survival rates may be lower than at 24 weeks, that would be the time to consider the issue, not now.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julie Elliott]

No.

Members of Parliament must always be aware of the impact of our discussions. I conclude by saying, not just as a Member of Parliament, but as the mother of four adult children, and grandmother of two gorgeous little granddaughters, that for their future—this does not impact on me because I am far too old—we should keep medical evidence under review. We should debate such issues sensitively when they change, not on a whim or for emotional reasons. When medical evidence clearly changes, that is the point at which to discuss the matter. I am sad that this debate is taking place today.

NHS (Private Sector)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

There is no escaping the fact that the role of the private sector in the national health service is one of the most contentious issues to arise when discussing or debating the health service. Some people would suggest that there was no appreciable difference between the policies of the Labour Opposition and the Conservative Government, especially on the use of private companies to deliver services.

I believe that there is a huge chasm of difference, which has been borne out by this debate. It comes down to this: what we saw under previous Labour Governments was the private sector being used to add grit to the system. It operated in the system with strict limitations, and it was deployed, for example, to drive down waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks. In tandem with targets, the private sector offered a means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NHS, delivering choice and quality to patients. That is where our policies and those of the Government diverge.

It is clear that the intention of the Conservative-led Government is completely different. The NHS is under siege from the Government, who regard the private sector as a means to undermine and weaken the NHS. For all the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary about their love of the NHS, I would assert that their actions have shown only that they do not fundamentally believe in the principles, values and ethos of the NHS. Those actions attack its very purpose and everything that people hold dear in that world-revered service.

The Government are pushing ahead with their Bill in the face of widespread opposition. Along with the majority of health professionals and the British public, I believe that the Bill should be stopped. Let me make it clear: nothing that I have heard from Health Ministers is reassuring for anyone who has fought to save the NHS. When the Government talk about a regulated market for the NHS people are, and should be, filled with fear.

There will be an increasing role for the private sector, and organisations can be both providers and commissioners. Any A-level business student could explain that that leads to a conflict of interest, and it contradicts and inhibits the notion of introducing genuine competition in the NHS, if that was the intention. I think that the Health Secretary may be mixing up words beginning with “c”. Instead of “competition”, I believe that the word he has been looking for is “cartel”. However it is dressed up, there is one thing I am certain of: allowing such a situation to develop is not in patients’ best interests. There are many questions that need answering. With the private income cap set at 49%, what guarantees are there that hospitals will be able to deliver choice and meet waiting times? What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that private providers will not cherry-pick the best income-generation services, leaving cost-intensive services such as—

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the cap will do nothing to help the problem of health inequalities and that it will in fact exacerbate the problem?

[Rosie Cooper]

National health services should be provided on the basis of need, not the ability to pay, so I agree.

I was saying that cost-intensive services such as accident and emergency services may well be threatened. How will the overall capacity of the health care market be managed effectively? How would the Government ensure that the proposal did not impact on the ability of hospitals to deliver urgent care?

We have had to proceed very quickly, but there are some major issues to consider. In conclusion, I urge Members to support the motion for the simple reason that it shines a light on how, once again, the Government are developing policy based on ideology and not on what is best for patients. The people’s trust was hard won and the Government have broken that trust yet again. It is another example of ill conceived, poorly developed, incomprehensible policy that we have come to expect from the Government, which leaves Members, the medical profession and our constituents with more questions than answers. A commentator said that the NHS was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I believe that the way to save it is to kill the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the tremendous work done by him and his colleagues on the all-party group, will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s initiative—providing £50 million for the rest of this year and £200 million from next year for the cancer fund—is an important step forward in helping those who suffer from cancer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that work is ongoing on refining, following the review, the cancer reform strategy, and we are looking at the scope for improving survival rates by the increased use of diagnostic tests and at improving care across the board, so that we raise our standards to the highest in Europe rather than being the poor relation.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.

[Julie Elliott]

In the light of the 0.5% real cut in the NHS after the social care switch, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) referred, may I ask when the Secretary of State decided to break his promise on a real-terms funding increase for the NHS? Does he accept that that is not what my constituents expected when they heard the Prime Minister promise real increases for the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady’s constituents expect the truth, which is that we are providing increased resources for the NHS in real terms, taking it from £104 billion to £114 billion. That is completely contrary to what we were advised to do by the Labour party, which said that we should cut the NHS budget. We did not do that; we increased it.