UK Parliament / Open data

Health Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Naseby (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill.
My Lords, I have no interest to declare in this Bill and I certainly have never smoked in my life. It is clearly an important Bill and one should assess it in the total context of health policy, cost, and priority of health need. The National Health Service is probably at an all-time low in terms of its management. We are told that it is running at a loss of £750 million a year, which is still rising. I note that the Minister in introducing the Bill did not, to the best of my knowledge, tell noble Lords the costs of each part of the Bill. When he winds up, I hope that he will be in a position to tell us the cost of implementing each of the varying parts of this important Bill. This is clearly a very strong anti-smoking Bill, but it is very much in contrast to the Government’s health policy overall. I mention, first, alcohol policy. Though too much alcohol is detrimental to health, the Government have extended drinking hours and made alcohol easier to obtain. Secondly, we see a continual easing of the policy on the taking, using and obtaining of drugs, be it cannabis or the new dance drug. Thirdly, I mention gambling. Gambling is very much a social ill, yet we see in the Government’s policy a provision to increase the opportunities for families to gamble. Most of us, who have either served in the other place or seen a bit of life, know what a tragedy and a disease gambling can be, and how terrible can be its consequences. Fourthly, a report placed in all our boxes today points out that the Government’s obesity policy at present is in complete tatters. It is an obesity policy which should be implemented properly and one which has come to the fore particularly in the past seven to 10 years. That is the background. I now consider the science. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that I do not have my head in the sand. He is a scientist; I am not. During my national service, I learnt to fly in the Royal Air Force. The science of aviation used to be crystal clear in relation to sonic travel: everyone said that it was fundamental and definite. That was changed dramatically when they discovered the real effect of going through the sonic barrier. Noble Lords will remember the problems of Concorde and others. Science changes with further information. I do not say that it will change necessarily in relation to smoking. The evidence is quite clear and fundamental about the person who smokes. But I have yet to be convinced about passive smoking. I may be wrong, but others have been wrong—not least in the example I have given. To get a little nearer to the world about which the Minister knows, the same comment would apply to vitamins and minerals. Twenty years ago the medical world scoffed at the role of vitamins and minerals. Today that has all changed and most people—the Government included—recognise that there is some role for some vitamins and some minerals. In considering the 1998 and 2004 reports of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health—SCOTH—noble Lords, myself included, and interested parties should have the right to see the evidence, debate and minutes of that organisation. With the greatest will in the world and seeking to be objective, that scientific committee appointed by the Government does not have the most balanced membership. It does not have that degree of balance for me as an individual to have total faith in it. However, I find it strange that at this point in time SCOTH has not allowed its minutes to be made fully available. They are not yet in the public domain. In addition, I am informed that the papers which have partially been provided have been redacted. Some would say another word for redacted is censored. That may be going a little far; I do not know. If the evidence on passive smoking is so clear—I have an open mind—why is that evidence not made available to interested parties? Perhaps the Minister will cover that point when winding up. I do not know why there was not proper debate in another place about ventilation and air conditioning. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain says that she is totally convinced; that that subject is irrelevant. But looking at the world of air conditioning, extraction and so on, is not irrelevant.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c298-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Legislation
Health Bill 2005-06
Back to top