Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Tackling obesity is one the great public health challenges of our age. Right across the developed world we are looking at all the things that are going on around the world—the new science and the new research. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that industry has a role to play, as has every part of Government—national Government and local government—as well as families, GPs and the NHS. This will be a whole-nation approach to tackling obesity. We are working on our plans, which I look forward to discussing with him in due course.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Type 2 diabetes is costing our NHS £9 billion a year, and obesity, as we have heard, is the major risk factor. Does the Minister agree with the previous Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who said the other week that

“Just taking a passive approach to”—

obesity—

“is not going to work…we have to go further than we’ve gone up to now in the responsibility deal”?

Does the Minister agree and what more is she going to do about it?

[Jane Ellison]

I welcome the hon. Lady back to her place. It is good to see her back in that job and not on the Government Benches. It is far from the case that we took a passive approach—far from it. Some important things were learned from the way we have worked with industry and we are looking to build on those, but as I have said, there is no silver bullet. There is not a single academic study in the world that says that the way to respond to obesity in the developed world is through a single mechanism. We have to look at a whole-system approach, and that is what we are doing.

Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

I shall not speak for long, but I think it right to respond to the contributions, and to speak on the options proposed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). As we know, new clause 3 proposes to make it a statutory duty for complaints to be resolved within 12 months. We do not think that that is necessary. It is clear that the Bill sets out sufficient steps to achieve that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that, as we know, the overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with within that time, but there are obviously reasons why it may sometimes take longer. As hon. Members suggested, there may be complex cases, other agencies may be involved, or there may be a historical or long-running case that requires the extraction of data from decades past, which it may take a long time to collate. It is often not the ombudsman’s fault that these things take time. We therefore do not think it appropriate to make meeting the 12-month deadline a statutory duty.

On the amendments, it is proposed that when the ombudsman contacts complainants, she gives them an estimate of how long the investigation might take. We discussed the point earlier in relation to new clause 2. We Members of Parliament can get updates from the ombudsman on the progress of cases and share those with our constituents if they want further updates. To be fair, if we think about all the processes in which we support our constituents, this is one in which updates are provided, and complainants are provided with information about how their complaints are progressing and when an outcome might be provided.

Amendment 1 would require the commissioner to keep the complainant informed of progress. There is nothing wrong with this in principle. We should encourage the ombudsman to do this anyway. As I mentioned, as Members of Parliament supporting those complaints, we can receive updates. On the point about financial resource, I have looked closely at the amendment and listened to the debate this morning, and think that where delays occur in the progress of complaints, more often than not that is down to the complexity of the cases, rather than a lack of financial resources, so amendment 5 is not necessary. We do not believe that new clause 3 or the five amendments are necessary.

[Jane Ellison]

I understand the sentiments behind new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and each of the five amendments. I shall try to respond to some of the points that have been made, without reiterating them.

New clause 3 would place a duty on the health service ombudsman to resolve any complaint within 12 months of the date it was received, regardless of its complexity. We all have sympathy with the reason behind it, and we all want investigations by the health service ombudsman, and indeed the NHS, carried out as efficiently as possible. None the less, it would be wrong to rush cases, or to seek to put an artificial time limit on them. What is most important to us as Members acting on behalf of our constituents is that the investigation is conducted appropriately and robustly, which depends on the facts of the case. This is particularly true, as others have said, when the investigation deals with serious or complex issues.

We are all familiar with the fact that the cases investigated by the health service ombudsman generally tend to be complex and serious because they often involve an element of loss, personal tragedy, illness or disability, so they are inevitably sensitive. It is important that those investigations are conducted in a timely fashion, but on the odd occasion when they need to continue beyond the defined period, it is important that there are not artificial constraints, and that we do not constrain the handling of a complaint by focusing on the deadline, rather than the requirements of the case. That may have an unintended impact on the quality of the investigation and the complainant’s expectations about the outcome.

The Bill as drafted will hold the ombudsman more accountable for delays of over 12 months than at present, which is right, but it acknowledges that there will be some cases, albeit very few, where it is appropriate and justifiable for an investigation to take longer. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have alluded to the reasons for that. In other aspects of my portfolio, I have seen some of those reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made a working assumption throughout his comments that one reason may be delay on the part of the investigator, but sometimes it is due to other players in that investigation.

In another part of my portfolio, something extremely important has been unexpectedly delayed by the bereavement of the chief investigator. That could not have been anticipated, but it has added greatly to the delay. Cases brought to the ombudsman nearly always involve illness, and evidence may need to be taken from someone who is still ill or in recovery. It may be difficult to get that evidence, or to ask them to respond to a point made during the investigation. If the person is still suffering the effects of their illness, there may need to be an appropriate delay to allow them to recover sufficiently to give their evidence.

The Bill’s promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), made an extremely good point about expertise. Complex medical issues are rarely black and white. In a debate that has already alluded to corsets and seductions, I hesitate to speculate on the number of shades of grey that might be involved in investigations, but it is clear that they exist. Sometimes, tracking down the right expert may be not a national endeavour, but an international endeavour, if the case involves a rare illness or there is a dispute about the medical opinion. Drawing on my experience of nearly 18 months as a Health Minister, I know that that is sometimes the case and we should allow for it, because it would not benefit the investigation if we did not. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will agree not to press the new clause, and that he will feel not that he is condoning poor or slow administration, but that he is merely accepting that some things just take longer to address.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

That is a useful point to draw out about other parts of this important Bill.

It is for the House to decide whether it wants to place the commitment to a further review on a statutory footing by supporting new clause 25.

As is the convention with such issues of conscience, as a Government we do not take a position either for or against new clauses 1 and 25. If the matter is pressed to a Division, Government Members will have a free vote. However, I hope that it has been helpful to hon. Members in forming their own opinion on these two new clauses for me to set out the Government’s actions to date in this area, the facts in relation to the gestations at which most abortions are performed, and the concerns raised by professional bodies. As I have said, it is for the House to decide whether it wants to support either of the new clauses, or indeed both or neither of them, but I reiterate that abortion of a foetus on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The impassioned speeches that we have heard in this debate are testament to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. New clause 1 would amend the Abortion Act 1967 and proposes that a pregnancy could not

“be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

New clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone and for this to be followed by a strategic Government plan that addresses concerns about the prevalence of termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Scotland and Wales.

I am in favour of new clause 25 as the best way to address concerns about sex-selective abortions. Outwardly, the intentions behind new clause 1 might seem reasonable. However, a wide range of well-respected organisations and experts have raised concerns, pointing out a number of unintended and troubling consequences. The organisations include the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the TUC, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Genetic Alliance UK, Imkaan and the Southall Black Sisters, among many others.

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for an hour’s advance notice of her statement. May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Sir Cyril Chantler and his team for their excellent review? I welcomed some of what the Minister said, but I want to probe her on several issues.

We know that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year. One in two long-term smokers die prematurely due to smoking-related diseases, and two thirds of adult smokers took up smoking as children. As Sir Cyril says, if we can reduce that figure by even 2%, 4,000 fewer children will take up smoking each year. For that reason, I strongly welcome the fact that Sir Cyril’s review confirms what public health experts have been arguing for some time: standardised packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people and could help to save lives.

Sir Cyril’s remit was to consider whether standardised packaging would lead to a decrease in tobacco consumption. Does not the Minister accept that his conclusion is clear that

“standardised packaging would serve to reduce the rate of children taking up smoking”

and could lead to an “important reduction” of uptake and prevalence, and have a “positive impact” on public health? Of course, that is something that all the previous evidence reviews have already shown. Indeed, Sir Cyril says:

“my overall findings are not dissimilar to those of previous reviews.”

Did not the Government’s own systematic review in 2012, which Sir Cyril describes as “extensive” and “authoritative”, conclude that standardised packaging is less appealing than branded packaging, makes health warnings more prominent and refutes the utter falsehood that some brands are healthier than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united on this and the majority of responses to the Government’s consultation favoured such an approach, so does the Minister finally accept that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and that there can be no excuse for further delay?

You will know, Mr Speaker, that Labour has long been calling for the immediate introduction of standardised packaging. For every step that we took in government, the tobacco industry adopted a new approach. After we banned advertising, tobacco manufacturers developed increasingly sophisticated marketing devices for their packaging. In the words of Simon Clark of the tobacco-funded lobby group FOREST and the “Hands Off Our Packs!” campaign:

“It’s like showing them a picture of a Lamborghini and a beaten up Ford Escort and saying, ‘Which one do you prefer?’”

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Health Secretary, he was clear that the next front in the fight against tobacco should be packaging. The question is why have we had to wait so long? More than 70,000 children will have taken up smoking since the Minister announced the review, and today she has announced yet another consultation. The Government have already had a consultation that reported less than a year ago. What does the hon. Lady expect to change? Let me remind her of the words of the Health Minister in the other place, Earl Howe, who said:

“we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 1251.]

Why is the Minister now kicking the matter into the long grass? How many more children will take up smoking before this Government make a decision? Does the Minister not accept that it was the clear will of both Houses of Parliament to proceed with standardised packaging, and is this not yet another example of how her Government are caving in to vested interests and standing up for the wrong people?

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Lady’s response serves to illustrate the difference between opposition and government. I agree that Sir Cyril has produced a compelling report; I recommended it to the House and urged everybody to take the opportunity to read it. He has made a compelling case on the public health evidence, but to make robust policy in this area it is essential that we follow a careful process. That means we have to look at everything in the round, and we have to give everybody who has a stake in the decision an opportunity to make their case. That is what we will proceed to do. I have drawn the House’s attention in the past to the fact that the Australian Government are still engaged in litigation in this area. We need to proceed in a sensible way, but I could not have given the House a clearer indication of the fact that we are moving at the pace dictated by a sensible and robust policy approach. That is the requirement for making good policy.

I am glad the hon. Lady drew attention to Sir Cyril’s review of the evidence from the Stirling review. He did more than just look at the Stirling review; he commissioned independent academic review of its methodology and concluded that it was robust. That is part of his review. As I said, I urge Members to look at that.

Members will have heard the hon. Lady’s response. I can only say to her that at every stage we have proceeded in a sensible, measured but clear way. We took the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014, for which there was a large parliamentary majority. We will publish draft regulations alongside the final short consultation to look at the wider issues, and we will then move as swiftly as possible to a final decision based on all those elements. That gives the House a clear sense of our direction of travel. I want to make sure that, whatever decision the Government finally take, it is robust and one that everyone can have confidence in.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I want to make a bit of progress because I sense that a lively debate will follow my speech, so I want to leave time for that.

The Government—and all Members—are clear that children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, which can be particularly harmful to young children, and we know that young people often have little choice about being in places where they are exposed to smoke. Nevertheless, there are obviously many ways of trying to achieve that aim, which takes me on to the point about education raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby).

We need smokers to protect children not only in the family car, but in any enclosed environment, including the home. Many argue that legislation is the answer, and we will debate that today, but social marketing campaigns to help smokers and parents to understand the risks of second-hand smoke and strongly to encourage voluntary behaviour change are also vital. We would all like to think that the vast majority of parents would not knowingly risk the health of their children. In the event that legislation is introduced to stop smoking in cars carrying children, we should measure its success not by the number of enforcement actions, but by the reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke.

As I have said, the Government will listen carefully to what Parliament has to say about the important principle of whether we should have the power to legislate to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. We will then consider what needs to happen next, which is why, if hon. Members will forgive me, I am not able to talk in great detail about some of the points that they have raised—they are questions for the next stage, once the will of Parliament has been expressed. However, in any event, I have asked Public Health England to continue its work on behaviour change in this area, including through social marketing campaigns. I have asked it to carry out targeted work with local authorities and public health directors in places where we know that there are problems. When Parliament’s will is known and we can assess the maximum impact that can be achieved through education, we will consider putting in place wider public information campaigns.

Arguments about effective enforcement were well rehearsed during the passage of this Bill and the consideration of private Members’ Bills on this matter, including that promoted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I look forward to hearing the debate on smoking in cars with children present and to finding out the will of the House on the principle of the Lords amendment. I also hope that the House will support our proposals on other aspects of tobacco control: the regulation-making powers on standardised packaging; and measures on the age of sale for electronic cigarettes and the proxy purchasing of tobacco.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today the House has the opportunity to vote for a number of measures that will protect children, help to transform attitudes and improve our nation’s public health. I am proud to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 124, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will support the Lords amendments in the Lobby.

It is worth remembering that when the Bill left the House, it did not contain any of the tobacco measures before us today. Those provisions are a credit to those in the other place who successfully argued for them, for which I commend them. The package of measures was passed with a great deal of agreement in the other place, so I hope that we can preserve that consensus in this House.

While I shall focus my remarks chiefly on smoking in cars carrying children, let me first speak to the other measures in the group. I welcome Lords amendment 124, which deals with the standardised packaging of tobacco products. It must be said that the Government have taken a rather long and winding route to get to here, with a few sharp turns along the way. As we heard from the Minister, the Lords amendment is only an enabling provision, because while it gives Ministers the power to introduce standardised packaging, we have no 100% assurance that that will happen. It is no secret that the Opposition would prefer more immediate action, but it is good that we finally see legislation in black and white. Labour Members sincerely hope that, once Sir Cyril has reported, Ministers will do the right thing and use the power. Will the Minister update us on when Sir Cyril will report? Will she guarantee that if he does recommend standardised packaging for tobacco products, secondary legislation will be brought forward before the general election?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, we heard shocking revelations about the reasons behind the Government’s U-turn on minimum unit alcohol pricing. In particular, researchers at Sheffield university have confirmed that they were asked by government not to publish a report that would have undermined the Government’s decision to shelve minimum unit pricing. Why were Ministers so keen to suppress the report? Will the Secretary of State please tell us why some of our country’s leading public health experts are accusing Ministers of deplorable practices and of dancing to the tune of the drinks industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

On the hon. Lady’s substantive point, the reports for the British Medical Journal investigation, which I read in full, did not say that at all and in fact confirm that that was not asked, so what she says is not quite right.

On the wider point, over the past two weeks we have heard a succession of attacks from the hon. Lady and the Opposition about dealings with industry and business. This Government have set out to work in partnership across business and industry, with public health experts and local authorities, to tackle some of these really big public health issues. It is simply incredible that the Labour party believes that these big issues can be taken seriously without engaging with business. Instead of demonising businesses, let us hear some praise for those such as Lidl, which yesterday announced that sweets would be removed from all its checkouts across the country, in response to its customers—a voice that is too little heard by the Labour party.

Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

In accordance with the notice I gave the House yesterday afternoon, this morning I made a written statement announcing that Sir Cyril Chantler will carry out an independent review of the evidence on the impact of standardised tobacco packaging on public health.

Tobacco use, especially among children, remains one of our most significant public health challenges. Each year in England more than 300,000 children under the age of 16 try smoking for the first time. Most adults who smoke started before they were 18 years of age. As a result, we must do all we can to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place, if we are to reduce smoking rates.

We have listened to the strong views expressed on both sides of the House, including when we debated standardised packaging in a Back-Bench business debate earlier this month, to which I responded. Many Members then told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continued to grow and urged the Government to take action. Similarly strong views have been expressed in the other place. As a result, I believe the time is right to seek an independent view on whether the introduction of standardised packaging would be likely to have an effect on public health. In particular, I want to know the likely impact on young people.

I have asked Sir Cyril to undertake a focused review, reporting in March next year. It will be entirely independent, with an independent secretariat, and he is free to draw evidence from whatever sources he considers necessary and appropriate. It will be up to him to determine how he undertakes the review, and he will set that out in more detail in due course. As the House will know, Sir Cyril has confirmed that he has no links with the tobacco industry. The review is not a public consultation. The Government ran a full public consultation in 2012 and the responses will be available in full for the review. To maximise transparency, the Department will also publish the substantive responses received as soon as possible.

The Government will also take advantage of the opportunity offered in another place by tabling an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to provide for a regulation-making power. If, on receiving Sir Cyril’s review, the Government decide to proceed, that will allow standardised tobacco packaging to be introduced without delay. The Government have been consistent in their desire to take an evidence-based approach to public health, and we will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

We have seen plenty of U-turns over the past three years, but only a Government as shambolic as this one could U-turn on a U-turn. It is not so much that they have lost their way on public health—they are running around in circles.

Will the Minister answer a straight question: does she support standardised packaging for cigarettes—yes or no? In the week running up to this being debated in the other place, does she honestly expect us to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Government are on the brink of a humiliating defeat?

The Minister says that we need another review, but the Government have already had a review and the evidence is clear for all to see. Did that not already find that standardised packaging made cigarettes less attractive to young people and health warnings more effective, and did it not refute the utter falsehood that some brands are safer than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united behind the case for standardised packaging—I commend everyone who has campaigned for this measure—but is it not the case that if the lobbying Bill goes through in its current form, it will prevent charities such as Cancer Research UK from ever raising such issues in an election year?

Is not the Prime Minister more interested in listening to Lynton Crosby and the vested interests of big tobacco than cancer charities and health experts? What further evidence does the Minister need? What do Ministers know now that they did not already know when they U-turned on this before the summer recess? Why are the Government delaying this still further? Some 79,230 children will have taken up smoking in the 139 days since the Government U-turned on standardised packaging in July, and about 70,000 more will have had their first cigarette by the time the review reports next March. We should be legislating now, not delaying.

[Jane Ellison]

I thought that was a rather disappointing and naive response. This is a complex area of public health policy, and it is important to follow a clear process and to follow the evidence. The hon. Lady might not believe me, but perhaps she will believe the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who in November 2009, when he was Health Secretary, wrote:

“we would need…convincing evidence showing the health benefits of this policy before it would be acceptable”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

At the risk of repeating myself, all I can say to my right hon. Friend is that I am looking at that very carefully. He is right that we all want to stop children and young people smoking. There is a mass of evidence out there, and we are gaining new evidence and information all the time to help us make decisions. I will continue to look at it as one of the absolute priorities within my brief.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post. We knew that her predecessor supported standardised cigarette packaging: Labour will table amendments to the Children and Families Bill in the other place and in this place to make that a reality. I have listened to contributions from Members on the Government Benches supporting the policy. Will the Minister tell us today whether she supports standardised packaging?

[Jane Ellison]

We are very aware of the discussions that have been going on in the other place and the amendments that have come forward, in which we have taken considerable interest. At this stage, we want to look at all the available evidence, because new information is coming through, before coming to a view. I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to her new post.