Access to Medical Cannabis

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

He will be able to get it now if a clinician is prepared to sign off on it being the right thing for him. If that is not forthcoming now, I have announced today a system of second opinions to allow people to get the clinical sign-off that they need.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

They must be taken into account. It comes down to the question of the complexity of cannabis and the many dozens of active agents in it; CBD and THC, which we have mostly been discussing today, are the main ones. Many drugs have similarly complex interactions. Modern science and medicine are capable, in a controlled environment, of getting to the bottom of which ones have the effect. That is why it is better to do a full RCT with the full scientific structure around it, rather than an observational trial. That will get the drugs to the people who need them quickly, and will provide the evidence base. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that, in that space, we are doing as much as we can. On the timing, I want it to happen as quickly as possible.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It was a very wise decision. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I, too, have constituents who have been exiled to the Netherlands to secure medicinal cannabis for a severely epileptic child, and others who are spending a fortune importing cannabis oil from Canada to help slow the progression of a terminal brain tumour. Will families such as these soon be able to take part in proper clinical trials, as they would be able to elsewhere, so that they can have some hope and we can all benefit from the evidence that will be gained?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the specific case, I will ensure it is dealt with appropriately.

Former British Child Migrants: Payment Scheme

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thanks very much, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I genuinely thank you for offering me the opportunity to speak very briefly.

Clearly, it will be difficult for me to sum up a debate that I have only heard a tiny fraction of, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing it. She secured a similar debate something like seven or eight months ago. She has done Parliament a favour by drawing attention to this issue; most importantly, of course, in doing so, she has helped the survivors of these horrible child migration programmes. I thank her for bringing this issue to Parliament once again.

As well as the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which we discussed last time, there is the inquiry established by the Northern Ireland Executive and chaired by Sir Anthony Hart, who has also reported in detail on the child migration programmes, and the Scottish child abuse inquiry under Lady Smith, which is ongoing. As was well discussed and well established in our previous debate, even if they are looked at by the standards of the time, these programmes were appallingly ill-conceived, and the actions and supervision of those involved fell drastically short of the standards that were expected. Concerns about the programmes were ignored, and little effort was made to ensure that the children being “exported”, to use that horrible term, were safe.

The conclusions of the IICSA report were stark: successive Governments had failed to respond properly to concerns that were raised, and the programmes were allowed by successive British Governments to remain in place, despite a catalogue of evidence showing that children were suffering ill treatment and abuse, including sexual abuse. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), talked about some of the reasons why these programmes were allowed to continue, including politics, which chimed with what we discussed last time.

After the Ross report in 1956, nothing was done. It is stomach-churning to read the IICSA report’s conclusion that that was because of the patronage of persons of influence and position. It is clear that in some cases, the avoidance of embarrassment and reputational risk was more important than the institutional responsibilities towards migrated children. That is a truly damning indictment of successive Governments.

Both the Northern Ireland and the IICSA reports recommended compensation payments for those who had been sent abroad under the child migration programmes over and above any compensation for other wrongs and abuses suffered. The Government’s announcement of the compensation is very welcome indeed, and it is only fair to reflect on the fact that it has been welcomed by groups working on behalf of survivors, including the Child Migrants Trust and the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, and also by former child migrants themselves, who have given evidence to the inquiry.

It is important to hear more from the Government. A statement would have been ideal. We need to know much more about the detail. How has the compensation been calculated? What is the timing? How are folk to apply? Will the Government continue to work with all the groups to ensure that the compensation scheme operates smoothly and reaches as many survivors as possible? After the Windrush scandal, there have been welcome announcements about compensation and redress, but the proof is always in the pudding, and there have already been trials and tribulations in getting that up and running. We do not want that repeated here.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I apologise once again for not having been able to play a full part in the debate, and I again thank the hon. Member for Wigan for securing it.

5.1 pm

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I would normally start by saying that it is a pleasure to engage in the debate, but to be honest this has not been the most comfortable of subjects on which to speak on behalf of the Government. As we have heard, this was a shameful episode in our history, and all the more shaming that it was under successive Governments of different colours. I think everyone in the room would wish to dissociate themselves from that kind of behaviour.

However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on bringing the matter to my attention, again. She has been my conscience on this. Quite rightly, because, as she mentioned, we had the recommendation almost a year ago and it took time to get cross-Government agreement on how to take it forward. Having got that agreement, it was my desire that we make progress with the implementation but, by definition, that has left a number of questions unanswered. I hope that some of the points I make today will answer some of those outstanding questions and settle any anxiety that the child migrants have. Ultimately, they have not been dealt the best cards over the years and it is important that we do our very best to redress the situation. I pledge to continue to do my best in that regard.

The hon. Lady rightly highlighted that there was confusion about who owned the policy, and that is one reason it has taken so long. This all came about because of the child abuse inquiry, which sits under the Home Office, but historically the Department of Health has had responsibility for child migrants generally, and that led to the confusion. I really hope that we can settle the matter more formally, so that we can have more certainty for the child migrants. While I am in this place, the hon. Lady can rest assured that she can always nag me if things go awry, and history tells me that she will. All power to her elbow for doing that, because it is important that we do this right.

Once we had made the decision to make the payments, it was important to make the announcement quickly, not least because some of the individuals are elderly—I am advised that the eldest is 102. Speed is of the essence, to ensure that everyone can get some enjoyment from the payments.

The hon. Lady has once again demonstrated her commitment to ensuring that the welfare of those children is not forgotten; we should never forget what was done in our name. The policy was misguided and wrong, and has caused suffering and distress. The conclusion of the child abuse inquiry was that payment should be made not because people were exposed to abuse—compensation exists for that—but because of the very fact that organisations of the state sent the children away without consent. It is in that spirit that we have adopted the recommendation, recognising that organisations of the state exposed the children to harm, regardless of whether any harm materialised. As a consequence, we have taken the opportunity to announce the payments.

All Members have made very fair points about how the scheme has been communicated. That came about, again, because of the speed with which we wanted to make the announcement. It is also worth noting that the Child Migrants Trust has extremely good relationships with the affected people, so although it was not bells and whistles, we were, in a way, using the right channels to get to those who needed to know. However, we will reflect on what has been said and consider whether and how best to disseminate more information, recognising that not all those affected are necessarily in contact with the trust and it might be a pleasant surprise for them to know about the scheme.

As I mentioned, the payments are on the basis of being exposed to risk; they are not compensation for abuse. We have announced that each former child migrant will receive £20,000 in recognition of that exposure. It is only fair that, in recognition of the passage of time since the recommendation, we backdate the payments to 1 March 2018. As the hon. Lady mentioned, a number of the individuals have passed away since that date, and we will honour any claim made in respect of a deceased migrant.

Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on that. Of course, the public health budgets for local authorities and Public Health England will be settled as part of the spending review, and there was no change to them in the Budget last week. There are also much wider responsibilities on activity—on cycling and walking—on which I am working with the Department for Transport. The document is all about the cross-government action, and the NHS will come forward with its long-term plan for the NHS-specific action. If there are aspects of cross-departmental working that she suggests we have not yet taken up, I will be looking forward to listening to her on that.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and, in particular, I welcome his determination to reduce the inappropriate and sometimes disgraceful treatment of vulnerable people with autism and learning disabilities. He says that prevention is infinitely better than cure—nobody is going to disagree with that—and that the Government are encouraging people to make better choices, which is fine. However, that will ring hollow if the Government themselves duck difficult decisions that could help citizens to make better choices; we have heard about the example of junk food advertising already, but let me touch on the issue of alcohol. If he is serious about supporting healthy choices, surely he must bring to an end the free-for-all that sees supermarkets encouraging alcohol consumption by selling it at ludicrously discounted prices. Some estimate that in the first five years a 50p minimum unit price in England could save more than 1,000 lives, reduce hospital admissions by 75,000 and cut healthcare costs by £326 million. If the Secretary of State is serious about prevention, will he support minimum pricing?

Finally, I welcome the moves in respect of the prescription of medicinal cannabis, but too few are benefiting. My constituent Caroline was given months to live after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. Those treating her link her ongoing good standard of living with her use of cannabis oil from Canada, which comes at an enormous financial cost to her and her family. However, those treating her will not prescribe cannabis oil because there is no suitable medical research on which to base such a prescription. Why not let Caroline become part of that research by prescribing medicinal cannabis to her? We can then all learn from her experience.

[Matt Hancock]

On medicinal cannabis, I announced more research today and there is now a route in England. The hon. Gentleman will of course have to talk to the Scottish health service to ensure that a constituent in Scotland gets access, but I am very happy to look into specific English cases.

On the broader point about alcohol, it is important that we tackle alcohol abuse and it is vital that we do it in the right way. I do not want to punish people who drink responsibly at responsible levels, including myself. I occasionally drink at a responsible level, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does—certainly his colleagues enjoy a wee dram. Nevertheless, 5% of people in this country drink 30% of the alcohol. It is the small minority who present significant problems for the NHS and we need significant, targeted action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

As my hon. Friend, the chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, knows, those groups are key to delivering our tobacco control plan. We are not complacent at all; the delivery plan that was published in June sets out the actions that different agencies will take to deliver the five-year plan, and that absolutely includes mentor cessation services.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I very much welcome news of the consultation on the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid, but are the Government consulting on whether it should happen or on how it should happen?

[Steve Brine]

We will be taking evidence, including from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which is meeting as we speak, to look at the safe upper limit of folate levels. I am particularly keen to get that right, but I am convinced that the evidence shows overwhelmingly that this is something we should be doing.

Universal Health Coverage

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. It is a thoughtful and appropriate way to mark NHS70. I pay tribute to him for his typically expert and heartfelt speech.

Whatever the difference between our parties and the Governments of the UK on the details of health policy, we all agree about the extraordinary benefits that the national health service brings as a universal healthcare service, and about its immense contribution in tackling preventable and communicable diseases in this country, not just through treatment but through immunisation and other public health measures. I pay tribute to all NHS staff for their immense dedication and service. Like other hon. Members, I have benefited from the NHS’s care on many occasions, and I will forever be grateful for that.

As the hon. Gentleman said, that is not to say that the job is done. There are things to improve, but we are fortunate to have been born in a country with such a system, given that so many others are not. In the absence of universal health coverage in some countries, many are excluded from the healthcare they need, sometimes including the most basic care. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, as recently as December 2017, it was reported that at least half the world’s population cannot access essential health services, and almost 100 million people are forced to live in extreme poverty simply because of the expenses associated with healthcare.

It is not just a question of finance and infrastructure; it is also about the barriers caused by culture, prejudice and even draconian and inhumane laws. The hon. Gentleman set out some of the tragic consequences for the affected individuals. For example, the terrible incidence of pneumonia among children in certain countries is a tragedy for individuals, for family after family and for community after community. It is also a disaster for those countries’ economies and public finances. In short, it is a circle of despair.

That is exactly why the goal of universal health coverage is enshrined in sustainable development goal 3—“health for all”—and is a global priority for the World Health Organisation and other international organisations. In simple terms, that means we need to work towards ensuring access to skilled medical professionals in good-quality facilities. We still have a long way to go even in that regard, particularly in the poorest countries and the remotest areas, where even the most basic of issues, such as access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene, remain challenging. Without those things in place, facilities cannot function effectively.

That is not an end to the matter. The goal of universal health coverage will not be realised unless good-quality care is provided without discrimination. There is no point in having facilities and doctors if absence rates among healthcare staff are 60%, as sometimes happens in certain countries. The goal is fatally undermined if discrimination against the most marginalised people, some of whom are the most in need of healthcare, means that they cannot access its full benefits or that they receive substandard treatment. In short, the goal is not simply universal health coverage but effective universal health coverage.

Disease-specific programmes continue to have a vital role to play, but ultimately diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and many others can be eradicated only by establishing universal health coverage, which we sometimes take for granted in our country. That also means ensuring that HIV services are part of a universal health coverage system. People with HIV can often be among the most marginalised in a country—for example, sex workers and men who have sex with men. That can mean that their ability to pay for treatment is even more limited, and they face additional hurdles, such as culture, prejudice and inhumane criminal laws.

I am not slow to criticise the UK Government when they get it wrong, so it is only fair that I praise them when they get it right. I will do that in a moment. The goal of extending universal health coverage around the world will not be assisted by poorly planned and abrupt withdrawals by the Department for International Development from countries without a proper transition. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact gave an amber-red warning to DFID’s transition programmes. The Government have responded to that warning, but it is vital that, as that work is taken forward, DFID ensures that its transition programmes promote UHC and prioritise access to services for the most marginalised communities before it makes its exit.

I recognise that the UK has been a key global leader on this issue in years gone by, and long may that continue. This Government, and any Government, will have our support if they continue to pursue the goals in the universal health coverage 2030 partnership. We need to use the NHS’s expertise and experience to help shape new universal systems in other countries. We should continue to use DFID to put other Governments in a position to support such systems and end reliance on charges and out-of-pocket spending. We want the Foreign Office to be used fully to argue for an increase in health spending and an end to draconian criminal laws that marginalise communities and make access to healthcare difficult. We should continue to support efforts to better measure progress on who has access to universal healthcare and the quality of care they are receiving, so that we can check, for example, that HIV treatment is reaching marginalised communities.

We should continue to support non-governmental organisations and civil society in helping people to access healthcare and hold their national Governments to account. We should continue to be a leader in research and development. The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the work at Queen’s University, but universities across the United Kingdom play a pivotal role in researching diseases that affect low and middle-income countries.

We need to work with other countries and the World Health Organisation to create a global road map on access to medicines, and to end what is sometimes a medicines rip-off. That means encouraging the de-linking of research and development costs from medicine prices, and defending the use of so-called TRIPs flexibilities—those under the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—by low-income countries seeking to access medicines. It would be particularly helpful to hear a bit from the Government about their commitment to pushing for protecting such flexibilities in the outcome document from the forthcoming high-level meeting on tuberculosis, which I understand is to take place in September.

If all that helps to achieve the universal health coverage goal for 2030, then the NHS’s 82nd birthday will be an even more significant and happier occasion than its 70th.

Child Migration Programmes (Child Abuse)

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate.

This is a distressing and shocking subject that has not had the attention that it deserves since the IICSA report in March. She has done us and, more importantly, the victims of this appalling treatment a good service by bringing it to the House, ensuring that what happened in the child migration programmes is spoken about in Parliament and ensuring that action is taken to redress the grave injustices. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for highlighting the significance of the Lanzarote convention. I am not particularly au fait with it and will have to consider it further.

I agree that the IICSA report was comprehensive in its investigation of these programmes. It was thorough and thoughtful, and its conclusions entirely reasonable. I support the calls made today for the implementation of its key recommendations. Like the hon. Lady, and as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I had considerable concerns about how the inquiry was operating in its early days. This report is a sign of encouragement for victims and it gives us an indication that the inquiry has got its act together and will be able to carry out the function that was intended for it.

Similarly, we should not forget the inquiry established by the Northern Ireland Executive into historical institutional abuse, which was chaired by Sir Anthony Hart. Its report contained a very thorough chapter on the child migrant programme that saw children from Northern Ireland sent to Australia. In Scotland, the work of the child abuse inquiry under Lady Smith is to include a specific investigation on child migrants, and work is under way to identify those who may have suffered abuse in Scotland or after being sent abroad.

The reports from the IICSA and Northern Ireland acknowledge that there must be some caution in criticising 20th-century conduct through the lens of the 21st century. Some people quite clearly did believe that migrating children was right, whether because of misguided beliefs about safeguarding the child’s moral or religious wellbeing, removing the child from danger or being economically sensible, or because it was thought that there was a need—believe it or not—to populate the empire with white British stock. As the reports make clear, even looked at by the standards of the time, the programmes were shockingly ill-conceived and the actions and supervision fell drastically short of the expected standards. Concerns about the programmes were repeatedly ignored and little effort was made to ensure that the children “exported” were safe.

The pattern that emerges in the reports is similar. Many had already suffered forms of abuse in institutions on these shores. The process of selection itself was a form of abuse. Overwhelmingly they were being separated from family and they were often lied to about what had happened to their family members or even their own identity. The views of the children and their parents were ignored. Many were abused in transit and many more were abused on arrival in Australia and other destinations. Thousands of children suffered that fate.

Both the IICSA and the Northern Ireland inquiry reports remind us that there is no substitute for the testimony of those who were put through this awful process—we have already heard that from the hon. Lady. It is only because of the courageous testimony of survivors that their reports are so thorough and comprehensive. I pay tribute to all those witnesses and to the Child Migrants Trust for supporting them through the process.

The Northern Ireland report highlighted this particular passage as typical of what all survivors of this process would say:

“We were exported to Australia like little baby convicts. It is hard to understand why they did it. I know the theory—to populate Australia. I still cannot get over the fact that I was taken away from a family I never got the chance to know. I was treated like an object, taken from one place to another. I found it very hard to show affection to my children when they were young. I have improved as the years have gone on. I have a nightmare every night of my life. I relive my past and am happy when daylight comes.”

That witness died before he could sign his witness statement, which emphasises the hon. Lady’s point about the urgency of a response from the Government, especially in the light of the 10 deaths since the IICSA report.

As has been said, successive Governments were outrageously slow to respond. The hon. Lady already emphasised the IICSA’s conclusion, which states:

“it is the overwhelming conclusion of the Inquiry that the institution primarily to blame for the continued existence of the child migration programmes after the Second World War was Her Majesty’s Government”.

The programmes were

“allowed by successive British governments to remain in place, despite a catalogue of evidence which showed that children were suffering ill treatment and abuse, including sexual abuse.”

That continued even after the damning Ross report of 1956. It is stomach churning to read in the IICSA report that that was because, as the hon. Lady said, politics trumped child welfare. I quote it again:

“HMG was reluctant to jeopardise relations with the Australian government…and also to upset philanthropic organisations… Many such organisations enjoyed patronage from persons of influence and position, and it is clear that in some cases the avoidance of embarrassment and reputational risk was more important than the institutions’ responsibilities towards migrated children.”

[Lisa Nandy]

One of the things that is important to many former child migrants is that this never happens to children again. The story that the hon. Gentleman tells, of a Government cowed by the power and the patronage of those involved, is a story that quite honestly could be repeated today. We have seen it time and again throughout history. That is why it is so important that we get a full formal response to this report from the Government. The inquiry was set up to learn the lessons from history, to make sure this never happens again. I fear that we are not doing that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be really helpful for the Minister to respond specifically to that point when she replies?

Fortified Flour

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for introducing this debate and for setting out the facts and the science so comprehensively. I entered the ballot to try to secure a debate on this topic, and I was unsuccessful in persuading the Leader of the House to allow a debate in Government time, so I am pleased that he came up trumps. I also thank both him and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), who made an incredibly powerful speech, for hosting the recent Folic Acid Awareness Day event in conjunction with Shine. I was very sorry to miss that.

Both hon. Members mentioned Shine’s fantastic work, but let me mention another charity. I recently battled through the heat of the London marathon to raise funds for two charities, one of which was Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Scotland. SBH Scotland is a fantastic charity based in Cumbernauld whose specialist staff work across Scotland and are committed to providing a lifetime of information, support and projects to all those affected by spina bifida, hydrocephalus and allied conditions. It, too, is a strong champion of mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid.

Like pretty much everyone else in the Chamber, I believe we are a long way past the point at which mandatory fortification became the right option. Intake of folic acid has been proven to reduce the number of pregnancies affected by neural tube defects, of which spina bifida is the most common. The Government themselves recommend that women who are planning a pregnancy or are within the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy should take a daily 400 microgram supplement of folic acid. However, only 31% of women take the correct dosage, and many do not begin until they are pregnant, when it is too late. We must keep in mind that 45% of pregnancies are unplanned—in those cases, there is no possibility to plan ahead. Overall, 75% of women of childbearing age across the UK are at increased risk of having a pregnancy affected by a neural tube defect due to having lower than the recommended level of folic acid.

There is no evidence to suggest that mandatory fortification would be anything other than beneficial, given that recent research, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd expertly set out, shows there is no longer a basis for setting an upper limit on folic acid intake. As we have heard, the argument is further strengthened by the experience in at least 81 countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia. Importantly, as I understand it, no country that has taken the step of mandating the fortification of flour has gone on to reverse it. It is clearly time for the UK to follow suit.

The issue is particularly pressing in Scotland, where proportionately more children are born with spina bifida than in other parts of the UK and folic acid levels are particularly low—lower than in the UK as a whole, which itself has low levels by international standards. As we have heard, the Scottish Government have supported compulsory fortification of flour for many years. Unfortunately, although power over the issue is devolved to Scotland, the advice from Food Standards Scotland is that realistically, given the way in which the flour and milling industries are structured, a response is better delivered UK-wide. That is what we unite to call for today.

The Holyrood Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency, Public Health England, the British Medical Association, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and all the royal colleges under the sun are on board. The science points overwhelmingly in favour of mandatory fortification, but surely, when we listen to the individuals and families affected by neural tube defects—spina bifida and allied conditions, of which the right hon. Member for Belfast North gave an example—that overwhelming case becomes undeniable. I hope that the Government listen to the science and to the families affected, and act quickly.

Junk Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for introducing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions.

Today’s debate has drawn attention to the serious problem of childhood obesity, the link with junk food advertising, and the fact that a variety of steps are open to us that importantly would reduce the impact of that advertising. One step that many hon. Members have focused on, to which I can give my wholehearted support, is a more general ban on junk food TV advertising prior to the 9 pm watershed. To me, it seems to be an open-and-shut case. We already have some restrictions in place, so broadening their application is really just unfinished business, or seeing them through to their logical conclusion.

Hon. Members have highlighted some of the stark facts, including the link between obesity and 13 types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, mental health problems and heart disease. We have also heard of the extent of the challenge we face. It is as difficult a challenge and, in some respects, even more difficult in Scotland compared with other parts of the UK. The Scottish health survey identified in 2016 that 65% of adults and, as the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) highlighted, 29% of children were overweight or obese. Public awareness remains low, with only a quarter of Scottish adults knowing that being overweight can cause cancer. Every year, excess weight is estimated to cost NHS Scotland up to £600 million. At least one other hon. Member alluded to the £5.1 billion figure, which is the equivalent figure for the whole of the UK.

The hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Erewash highlighted the impact on health inequalities. Again, the pattern is similar in Scotland, with 22% of children from the least deprived quintile overweight or obese. That compares to 27% from the most deprived, and a staggering 41% from the second-most deprived quintile. The hon. Member for Erewash rightly pointed out that even that trend can be linked with different TV viewing patterns.

In short, I cannot see how we can possibly avoid concluding that there is a significant link between junk food TV advertising and childhood obesity, and it is good that no hon. Member has sought to do that today. In a sense, the advertising’s very existence proves it. Who would repeatedly invest huge sums of money in advertising if it did not lead to increased consumption? There is a wealth of evidence worldwide to prove the fact, from the American Psychological Association, to studies from Deakin University in Australia. The most recent contribution, by Cancer Research UK, further confirms that children who are exposed to junk food advertising on television eat more unhealthily than those who are not.

TV advertising works, and that is exactly why so much money is spent on it. It is also why Ofcom’s broadcast restrictions on junk food advertising came into effect 10 years ago following, as I understand it, a report commissioned by the Government Office for Science, which identified that same link. Further action by the Government is now necessary, and the restrictions need to be extended to content that is considered family viewing, such as soaps, game shows and those programmes broadcast before the watershed—the generic TV that fills a lot of time between coming home from school and bedtime. The hon. Members for Erewash and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) set out in great detail why that loophole must be closed, especially given the different patterns of TV viewing that are now prevalent.

Good work on tackling childhood obesity is going on across the UK. The UK Government action plan on childhood obesity published last January was a welcome step in the right direction, and we have also welcomed the sugar tax. In Scotland, we have seen new restrictions on the promotion of unhealthy food as part of the Scottish Government’s new diet and obesity strategy.

As hon. Members have said, there is no one measure that is going to fix the problem. We have heard a huge range of very good ideas today, including action on school meals, the daily mile, labelling, sponsorship, TV programming, education and even lessons we can learn from countries as far and wide as the Netherlands and Thailand. They are all good ideas, but as a minimum start, let us support all the good work that is going on with further restrictions on the advertising of junk food on TV. At the end of the day, our children will thank us one day if we do, but too many of them will pay a drastic price if we do not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As well as congratulating the Minister for Public Health on being an excellent ambassador for the United Kingdom at the G7 health summit in Milan, I congratulate Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust on exiting special measures. It is the 21st trust to do so and was in special measures for longer than any other trust. The fact that it got a good rating for compassion, for the effectiveness of its care and for its leadership is a huge tribute to the hard work of staff.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Back in July, Ministers said that the goal was to ensure that patient access to innovative medicine is well protected

“through the strongest regulatory framework and sharing of data.”

Therefore, will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will definitely be signing up to the new clinical trials regulation system, so that pharmaceutical companies do not have to move trials overseas?

[Mr Hunt]

That is absolutely our intention. We have signalled to the EU and to European countries that we want the closest possible relationship post-Brexit. We have made that big and generous offer, and we hope that they accept it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

Compared with 2010, we are referring an average of 800,000 more people urgently for cancer treatment. My hon. Friend is also right to say that both skin and lung cancer have more straightforward pathways than ovarian and bowel cancer, but that is not to say that we should not focus on continually improving in relation to the points made by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

5. What steps he is taking to implement his Department’s childhood obesity strategy.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

8. What steps he is taking to implement his Department’s childhood obesity strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)]

The Department is working closely with Public Health England, the national health service, local authorities, schools and other partners as we implement the childhood obesity strategy. We have already taken firm action, including consulting on the soft drinks industry levy and launching a broad sugar reduction programme.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme has comprehensively demonstrated how the former Prime Minister’s obesity strategy was drastically watered down by the time of the final publication. Both Public Health England and the Health Committee agree that control of in-store promotions of unhealthy food is absolutely vital. Why was regulation of such promotions ditched from the Government strategy?

[Nicola Blackwood]

We have made no secret of the fact that we considered a range of policies before publishing the childhood obesity strategy, which is a world-leading strategy and one of the most ambitious in the world. It will cut childhood obesity by one fifth in the next 10 years, and I am determined that we do not get lost in a debate about what it could or should have been, but instead get on with implementing it. Our children deserve no less.