Nuclear Test Veterans

Debate between Anna Soubry and Gary Streeter

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baron]

Our central argument is not to put the science to one side, as the Minister suggested. We can argue about the science, and both sides will be able to draw justification for their particular line. The Rowland report was certainly peer reviewed and accepted by the New Zealand Government of the day, so it cannot be easily discarded by the Minister.

Let me return, however, to what I call the international table of decency. The Minister needs to check what happens with regard to US veterans, because those who turn up at a veterans’ hospital have access to free health care. In addition, there does not have to be a causal link between being at the tests and one of a series of illnesses—mostly cancer, but other illnesses, too.

The Minister also mentioned Canada; again, no causal link is required, but it is clear that the payment is there to be made. Likewise, the Minister is slightly incorrect, or disingenuous at least, to suggest that we can simply discard the example of the Isle of Man. She says that only two payments have been made, but she also needs to check that figure, because my evidence suggests that 17 have been made to date.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I repeat the obvious point that interventions should be brief?

[Anna Soubry]

That is what I am told. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is not true, we will get it sorted out and we will find out. My information is that there have been two payments. He misses the point about the American system, which is that it is means-tested, while ours is not. I have made my point about Canada, where the scheme applied to 900 personnel involved in a clean-up after a radiation leak. I would therefore suggest that there is no comparison to be made in relation to nuclear test veterans.

On the science, my hon. Friend relies on one report, and I have made my comments about it. I rely on three reports, which have been done over many years, and I know of no one who challenges their findings.

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

Debate between Anna Soubry and Gary Streeter

Monday 25th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend’s point is another well made point.

I will return to where this debate started—the subject of sudden adult death syndrome. Starting with screening, often when there has been a case of a sudden cardiac arrest, many people say, “Screening will have a big impact in the future.” As the right hon. Member for Leigh will know, the UK National Screening Committee, an independent expert body that advises Ministers about all aspects of screening, assesses the evidence for screening against a set of internationally recognised criteria. No doubt that is why the right hon. Gentleman listened to and followed its advice, which is that, while screening has a potential to save lives, it is not a foolproof process. The footballer Fabrice Muamba suffered cardiac arrest, and many of us will remember what happened to him at the game. We have heard many people describe the amazing medical assistance that he was given—I cannot remember for how long he was unconscious, but it was an incredibly long time—and that young man has made a remarkable recovery. However, I am told that he had received several screening tests throughout his career.

In 2008, the UK NSC reviewed the evidence for screening for the most common cause of sudden death in those under the age of 30, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, including looking at athletes and young people who participated in sport. A number of the cases that we have heard today involved, invariably, young men or boys who died while playing sport, notably football. The UK NSC concluded that the evidence did not support the introduction of screening. Sudden cardiac death is a complex condition and is difficult to detect through screening; there is no single test that can detect all the conditions, nor is it possible to say which abnormalities will lead to sudden cardiac death. However, in line with its three-yearly review policy, the UK NSC is again reviewing the evidence. This time the review will go further than only looking at the evidence for screening for HCM and will cover screening for the major causes of sudden cardiac death in young people between the ages of 12 and 39. The review will take into account the most up-to-date international evidence, including evidence from Italy, where screening is currently offered to athletes between the ages of 12 and 35.

There will be an opportunity to participate in the review process later this year, when a copy of the latest review will be open for public consultation on the UK NSC’s website. No doubt, a number of the organisations and charities that we have heard about today will take part in that consultation. I am told that although screening is not routinely available in England, work to prevent premature death from cardiovascular disease is a priority, as it should be.

On 5 March, the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy—not exactly words that trip off the tongue—was published. It sets out a range of actions to reduce premature mortality for those with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease. The NHS Commissioning Board will work with the Resuscitation Council, the British Heart Foundation and others to promote the site mapping and registration of defibrillators, and to look at ways of increasing the numbers trained in using them. I pay tribute to the foundation, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, and rightly so, as we are all grateful for its work in, for example, placing defibrillators in Liverpool primary schools. That is, no doubt, because of the outstanding work of the Oliver King Foundation.

Ambulance trusts have had responsibility for the provision of defibrillators since 2005, and in my view they are best placed to know what is needed in their local area. However, it is important to recognise that defibrillators help only in a minority of cases. The majority of out-of-hospital heart attacks—up to 80%—happen in the home. Bystander CPR doubles survival rates, but it is only attempted in 20% to 30% of cases. It is clear that although defibrillators play an important part, we have to bear in mind, as I said, that 80% of heart attacks, if they do not happen in hospital, happen at home, and I absolutely concede that there is a real need for an increase in the amount of people trained in CPR, because we know that that also plays a hugely important part in ensuring that people who have a heart attack survive it.

When there is a sudden cardiac death, we need to take action to ensure that potentially affected family members are identified and offered counselling and testing to see if they are also at risk. We know that that does not always happen. There are continuing discussions with the chief coroner for England to determine how coroners’ services might help in the identification of potentially affected family members, so that more lives can be saved. The national clinical director for heart disease, Professor Gray, will work with all relevant stakeholders to develop and spread good practice around sudden cardiac death.

In conclusion, I will wait to see the latest recommendation from the UK NSC, following its latest review of evidence. The national clinical director for heart disease will continue to promote good practice and awareness around sudden cardiac death. However, as I have said before—forgive me for repeating myself—I will ensure that I speak to the relevant Minister at the Department for Education about all the arguments that have been advanced today for training in CPR and life-saving techniques to be part of the national curriculum. It is my understanding that that particular part of it is under review, and I will impress on him or her how strongly Members have spoken today.

Again, I thank everybody, especially those who signed the petition, for bringing the debate into this place and, effectively, for shining a spotlight on the matter. I hope that hon. Members will take the issue to their local press, as I am sure they will, and that the national press might also look at it. It is absolutely right that the more we ventilate it, the better the situation will be.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

In debates of this kind, the mover of the motion may have a few moments to summarise or respond at the end.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Anna Soubry and Gary Streeter

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Streeter]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I have done so twice.

It is time to take a stand. I suggest three things—we are coming now to solutions. First, I suggest that we vote overwhelmingly today to reject the ECHR judgment and support the motion. In doing so, we will send a clear signal to our constituents that we understand and echo their desire not to put up with this nonsense any longer. We will also send a signal to ECHR judges that we do not appreciate, and will not accept, their attempts to legislate for us here in the United Kingdom. That is our job, not theirs.

Secondly, we need to start work immediately on amending, or at least on restricting or clarifying, the European convention on human rights. That will require the political will of the House and of the Government on this side of the channel, and political muscle and skill on the other side. Fortunately, machinery for that is in place—it is called the Council of Europe, which among other duties oversees the work of the European Court of Human Rights. I suggest that our Government, working with the British delegation of MPs to the Council, immediately set on a course to suggest to our friends across the channel amendments to the convention. They could suggest narrowing the rules governing the scope of the Court, or further protocols. We should use whatever the correct procedures are—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can advise us on those—to take this important but increasingly abused convention back to its original purpose; namely, to underpin basic human rights, and to prevent the excesses of torture, imprisonment without trial and persecution perpetrated on European people in the second world war from ever being visited upon us again. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that that will not be easy, but it is not impossible, and we should start that journey today.

Thirdly and finally, I know not whether Mr John Hirst, the axe murderer—nice man—fought his case on legal aid, but I am certain that he fought it either on legal aid or on a no win, no fee basis.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It was legal aid.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend shouts in my ear that Hirst fought his case on legal aid. In any case, we should now make a further change to the consultation process on legal aid reform that is currently being conducted by the Ministry of Justice, and make it clear that legal aid will no longer—from today—be available to prisoners or former prisoners suing the Government because they have been denied a vote. We are in the process of reducing legal aid for all kinds of legal action, so why not expressly exclude those claims, which the whole country deprecates? We have the power to do so and we should exercise it.

I was never any good at physics at school, but I remember one law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Convicted criminals and their lawyers and the ECHR have conspired to create an action. Let this House today decide to put into place an equal and opposite reaction. I support the motion and hope that it receives an overwhelming majority.