UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Andrew Faulds – 1978 Apology to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the personal statement made by Andrew Faulds, the then Labour MP for Warley East, in the House of Commons on 8 May 1978.

    Last Thursday evening, towards the end of the debate on Southern Rhodesia, I was prompted by a momentary surge of annoyance to make a vulgar rejoinder to a comment from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) about hon. Members not having been to Africa. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, in my earlier profession we indulge in exchanges which are more often candid and colourful rather than precise and parliamentary. But my importation of such phraseology into the Chamber was inexcusable.

    Unfortunately, I cannot expunge the offensive words, but I have already written to the right hon. Member for Knutsford apologising to him, and now I wish to extend my apology to you, Sir, and to the House for my regrettable lapse.

  • Clinton Davis – 1978 Statement on Oil Pollution on the East Anglian Coastline

    Below is the text of the statement made by Clinton Davis, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, in the House of Commons on 8 May 1978.

    The Greek tanker “Eleni V” and the French bulk carrier “Roseline” collided in fog at about 12.15 p.m. on Saturday 6th May, some eight ​ and a half miles east of Happisburgh and six miles off the coast of Norfolk.

    I am glad to be able to inform the House that no lives were lost and that there were no serious injuries reported. The 39 crew members of the tanker were taken aboard the “Roseline” and have been taken to France.

    The “Eleni V” was cut in two about one quarter of the way from its bows. The larger after section is under tow and is off the Hook of Holland, awaiting entry to Rotterdam. The smaller forward section tilted through rather more than 90 degrees, to leave the bows almost vertical with about 20 feet above and some 80 feet below water.

    Given the condition of the forward section and in view of some deterioration in the weather outlook at about Sunday midday, it was decided to attempt to beach the forward section off Yarmouth, in a reasonably favourable position for further salvage operation.

    Unfortunately, the forward section swung on touching the bottom this morning, and the tow line parted. The last report I have is that, after drifting south, the section is on Corton Sand, about three miles off Lowestoft. A Trinity House vessel and four tugs, including two equipped for spraying, are in attendance and are seeking to secure a line to that section.

    The “Eleni V” was carrying some 16,800 tons of heavy fuel oil from Rotterdam to Grangemouth, including approximately 5,000 tons in the forward section.

    My Department’s anti-pollution organisation was activated immediately after the collision. A helicopter reconnaissance on Saturday afternoon, in poor to moderate visibility, located only one oil patch of any size. Reconnaissance flights are continuing.

    By midday on Sunday, eight spraying vessels were in operation off Yarmouth, with a naval vessel acting as on-scene commander, and succeeding in breaking up the patch into smaller slicks. Ten spraying vessels are there at present.
    Some oil has come ashore this morning on 15 miles of coastline between Winterton and Lowestoft. At worst it is about 25 feet wide but in most places it ​ is in patches. The local authorities are satisfied that they are coping with this oil.

    I am very conscious that the remaining oil on the forward section—perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 tons—represent a potential pollution risk. Our objective is to remove this threat of pollution as soon as this can practicably and safely be done.

    The French authorities have put in hand an inquiry into the conduct of the master and crew of the French ship and it is also hoped to take evidence from the personnel of the Greek ship. I have only just been advised that the Greek authorities are proposing to undertake a public inquiry.

  • William Rodgers – 1978 Statement on the Port Of London

    Below is the text of the statement made by William Rodgers, the then Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 May 1978.

    On 6th April, Mr. John Cuckney, whom I appointed chairman of the Port of London Authority in the autumn of last year, reported to me a rapidly deteriorating financial situation in the Port of London. He had previously expressed concern about the PLA’s ability to manage within its existing financial resources and the need to agree a comprehensive strategy for the port in the form of a corporate plan.

    In the last month, the gravity of the situation has been fully apparent. On 4th May Mr. Cuckney told me that, in the event of no change of policy, mounting losses would total £76 million by 1982, the loss for 1982 probably being £17 million. The full picture is not yet established.

    The chairman has set out his explanation of this state of affairs in his annual report, published last week, of which copies are available in the Library. In brief, the chairman says that although the fixed costs of the port have been reduced over the years by dock closures, the disposal of surplus property and the severance of personnel, reductions have not kept pace with the decline in trade. Since 1974, losses and costs have reduced ​ the PLA’s reserves by £52 million. A major contributory factor has been the cost of maintaining uneconomic facilities and a dock labour force much in excess of need.

    The chairman believes that if costs can be cut and productivity raised the port can adapt by building on the positive aspects of its business. I have no reason to dissent from this broad analysis.

    Mr. Cuckney is continuing his urgent examination of the financial situation and is in the closest touch with me and with my Department. I have also arranged for Price Waterhouse &Co. to advise me on the Authority’s financial forecasts. I have made clear to Mr. Cuckney that any proposals from his board should be designed to chart a path to viability and a secure future.

    The Government have no executive authority over the PLA, but I am considering with my ministerial colleagues whether and by what means the Government can assist the PLA in its task. We are very fully aware of the industrial, social and environmental aspects of the problem. No solution will be easy.
    I will report further to the House in due course.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to the Nation (in Polish)

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to the Nation (in Polish)

    Below is the text of the letter to the nation sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 3 April 2020. The English version of the letter is here.

    Pragnę przekazać Państwu aktualne informacje na temat działań podejmowanych w walce z koronawirusem.

    W ciągu kilku krótkich tygodni codzienne życie w naszym kraju uległo radykalnym zmianom. Wszyscy odczuwamy ogromny wpływ koronawirusa nie tylko na nas samych, ale również na naszych najbliższych oraz nasze społeczności.

    Doskonale rozumiem trudności, jakie w naszym życiu, firmach i pracy powodują zakłócenia związane z koronawirusem. Podjęte przez nas działania są jednak niezbędne z jednego prostego powodu.

    Jeśli zbyt wiele osób zachoruje poważnie w tym samym czasie, publiczna służba zdrowia (NHS) nie da sobie rady. Będzie to kosztować wiele istnień ludzkich. Musimy spowolnić rozprzestrzenianie się wirusa i zmniejszyć liczbę tych, którzy wymagają leczenia szpitalnego, aby uratować jak najwięcej osób.

    Dlatego wydajemy proste zalecenie – wszyscy muszą pozostać w domu.

    Nie należy spotykać się ze znajomymi ani krewnymi, którzy nie mieszkają razem z Państwem. Z domu można wychodzić jedynie w ściśle określonym celu, takim jak zakupy produktów żywnościowych lub leków, ruch na świeżym powietrzu raz dziennie oraz zasięganie pomocy medycznej. Można podróżować do pracy i z powrotem, jednak w miarę możliwości należy pracować zdalnie z domu.

    W razie konieczności wyjścia z domu należy starać się o zachowanie dwumetrowej odległości od osób, które nie są członkami Państwa gospodarstwa domowego.

    Te zasady muszą być przestrzegane. Jeśli zostaną naruszone, policja będzie nakładać kary grzywny i rozpraszać zgromadzonych.

    Wiem, że wielu z Państwa głęboko niepokoją skutki finansowe, z jakimi przyjdzie się zmierzyć Państwa rodzinom. Rząd dołoży wszelkich starań, aby pomóc rodzinom w przetrwaniu trudnych chwil i zapewnić im byt.

    W załączonej ulotce przedstawiono szczegółowe informacje na temat dostępnego wsparcia oraz zasad, jakie należy przestrzegać. Najnowsze porady można również znaleźć na stronie internetowej gov.uk/coronavirus.

    Od samego początku staraliśmy się wprowadzić właściwe działania we właściwym czasie. Bez wahania posuniemy się dalej, jeśli będzie to konieczne w oparciu o informacje naukowe i medyczne.

    Pragnę powiedzieć to Państwu bez ogródek – wiemy, że sytuacja ulegnie pogorszeniu, zanim się poprawi. Prowadzimy jednak właściwe przygotowania i im bardziej będziemy stosować się wszyscy do ustalonych zasad, tym mniej będzie zgonów, a życie wcześniej powróci do normy.

    Pragnę podziękować wszystkim, którzy pracują niestrudzenie, aby pokonać wirusa, szczególnie pracownikom naszej wspaniałej służby zdrowia i sektora opieki w Anglii, Szkocji, Walii i Irlandii Północnej. Poświęcenie, z jakim nasi lekarze, pielęgniarki i inne osoby świadczące opiekę stają na wysokości zadania stanowi prawdziwą inspirację.

    Tysiące emerytowanych lekarzy i pielęgniarek powraca do NHS, a setki tysięcy ochotników zgłaszają się do niesienia pomocy tym, którzy potrzebują jej najbardziej. Właśnie tą wspaniałą brytyjską postawą pokonamy koronawirusa i dokonamy tego wspólnie.

    Właśnie dlatego, w chwili zagrożenia narodowego, apeluję do wszystkich i proszę – pozostańcie w domu, chrońcie NHS, ratujcie ludzkie życie.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to the Nation

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to the Nation

    Below is the text of the letter to the nation sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 3 April 2020.

    I am writing to you to update you on the steps we are taking to combat coronavirus.

    In just a few short weeks, everyday life in this country has changed dramatically. We all feel the profound impact of coronavirus not just on ourselves, but on our loved ones and our communities.

    I understand completely the difficulties this disruption has caused to your lives, businesses and jobs. But the action we have taken is absolutely necessary, for one very simple reason.

    If too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to cope. This will cost lives. We must slow the spread of the disease, and reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment in order to save as many lives as possible.

    That is why we are giving one simple instruction – you must stay at home.

    You should not meet friends or relatives who do not live in your home. You may only leave your home for very limited purposes, such as buying food and medicine, exercising once a day and seeking medical attention. You can travel to and from work but should work from home if you can.

    When you do have to leave your home, you should ensure, wherever possible, that you are two metres apart from anyone outside of your household.

    These rules must be observed. So, if people break the rules, the police will issue fines and disperse gatherings.

    I know many of you will be deeply worried about the financial impact on you and your family. The Government will do whatever it takes to help you make ends meet and put food on the table.

    The enclosed leaflet sets out more detail about the support available and the rules you need to follow. You can also find the latest advice at gov.uk/coronavirus. From the start, we have sought to put in the right measures at the right time. We will not hesitate to go further if that is what the scientific and medical advice tells us we must do.

    It’s important for me to level with you – we know things will get worse before they get better. But we are making the right preparations, and the more we all follow the rules, the fewer lives will be lost and the sooner life can return to normal.

    I want to thank everyone who is working flat out to beat the virus, in particular the staff in our fantastic NHS and care sector across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has been truly inspirational to see our doctors, nurses and other carers rise magnificently to the needs of the hour.

    Thousands of retired doctors and nurses are returning to the NHS – and hundreds of thousands of citizens are volunteering to help the most vulnerable. It is with that great British spirit that we will beat coronavirus and we will beat it together. That is why, at this moment of national emergency, I urge you, please, to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives.

  • Eric Deakins – 1978 Speech on Multiple Sclerosis and the Naudicelle Treatment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Deakins, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in the House of Commons on 5 May 1978.

    I am glad to have this opportunity of replying to the points raised this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I know that his interest in this subject—which goes back a number of years—is shared by other hon. Members. Let me say frankly at the outset that there is very little I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said on this matter in reply to hon. Members who have written to him and put down Questions in the House.

    The reason for this is that in all fields of treatment and prescribing of medicines one must tread most carefully and cautiously and, as I hope I can show to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend that, in this area particularly, there is very good reason indeed for slow progress. Let me first explain something of the general context in which treatment under the National Health Service occurs.

    Family doctors, under the National Health Service, are free to prescribe any drug or medicine they consider necessary for the proper treatment of their patients, though they may be asked to justify their prescribing decisions, if the cost appears excessive, or if the substance may not be a drug. Only the doctor concerned can decide whether something is necessary for the treatment of his patient and whether that substance is something that should properly be prescribed as a charge on the National Health Service.

    If there is any doubt on the latter point, the doctor will consider carefully whether he would feel able to justify the ​ decision to prescribe a substance if called upon to do so. If he is satisfied on this point, there is nothing to prevent him from issuing the prescription and it being dispensed in the normal way.

    I emphasise that it is the doctor, and only the doctor, who can determine which medicines or drugs should or should not be prescribed for a patient. It is certainly not the Department’s job and it would be quite wrong for it or anyone else—including the patient—to attempt to influence the doctor’s decision.

    My hon. Friend asked about representations from doctors. Over the course of some three years there have been 69 cases of family doctors who have defended their decision to prescribe Naudicelle for multiple sclerosis before their professional colleagues on the local medical committee. In 25 of these cases the doctor concerned was about to satisfy his colleagues that the substance had been properly prescribed in the circumstances.

    National Health Service legislation does not define a “drug”. The question of which items or substances should or should not be regarded as drugs, which form part of the pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service Act, has been considered on several occasions by independent professional committees. Precise terminology has varied, but the basic conclusion of each committee has been that substances of a primarily nutritional nature cannot be regarded as drugs and, because they are therefore “foods”, cannot be provided on National Health Service prescription.

    Often the question whether a particular substance is a drug depends upon the circumstances, and no definition could hold good for every case. However, for practical medical purposes, it is reasonable to expect that, where a substance is prescribed for a patient, the substance will have both pharmacological and therapeutic effect on the condition being treated.

    In certain conditions, a “food” may have the characteristics of a “drug”. To advise on the circumstances in which items may be regarded as “drugs”—and therefore prescribable at National Health Service expense—the Department and the profession are very fortunate to have the services of an independent professional body chaired by Professor Barbara ​ Clayton of the Hospital for Sick Children. This body is known as the advisory committee on borderline substances.

    The advisory committee plays a continuing role in examining claims of therapeutic efficacy for individual substances and preparations in relation to particular conditions—that is, whether in particular conditions they may be regarded as having the effect of a drug. Such is the prestige of this independent committee of experts among their professional colleagues that any recommendation which is made is usually acceptable to all concerned. However, I must point out again that whatever the committee’s recommendations, the final decision whether a substance should be prescribed for a patient’s condition rests with the doctor.

    The practical effect of this is that if the committee recommends that a substance acts like a drug for a particular condition then, if the doctor prescribes it for that condition, the National Health Service pays for it. If the committee does not so recommend, decisions to prescribe that substance may be challenged, but—and to re-emphasise the point that I made at the beginning about the prescribing freedom of the family doctor—doctors can and often do successfully defend their prescribing decisions, through the machinery laid down in regulations for this purpose, notwithstanding an advisory committee recommendation.

    I have described this framework in some detail, because it is germane to the fundamental question raised by my hon. Friend why the substance known as Naudicelle cannot at present be provided at National Health Service expense in the treatment of multiple sclerosis at home. I say “at home” deliberately, because a patient in hospital is provided with all his daily needs. These include whatever food and toilet preparations may be considered advisable for him and which he would be expected to provide for himself as necessities of normal life if he were living at home.

    As those who have had anything to do with the disease will know—my hon. Friend stressed this matter—multiple sclerosis is a very distressing disease and one which is most difficult to treat. I understand its effects are so variable between individual patients and that the ​ course the disease follows is so erratic that often it is difficult for a layman to appreciate that a multiple sclerosis patient in remission is ill. I am told that many of the features of multiple sclerosis can present—variability, erratic and unpredictable developments—make every patient’s case uniquely individual.
    That being so, formidable barriers are presented to those evaluating the efficacy of particular types of treatment. At any time patients may experience spontaneous remissions of the condition, sometimes of long duration, so that it can be most difficult to know whether encouraging changes are in fact due to treatment.

    Multiple sclerosis is the general term given to cover many symptoms of weakness and loss of use occurring in different parts of the body. Experts differ in their views on the disease, and for this reason no single method to treat the condition or alleviate the symptoms has been arrived at. One view is that if the proportion of saturated fat in the diet were reduced relative to unsaturated fat, it might help a patient’s nervous system function more effectively. To explore the validity of this theory, multiple sclerosis patients have been given oils such as sunflower seed oil which contain the unsaturated fat, linoleic acid. An even less saturated fat, gamma linoleic acid is, I understand, found in the oil of the evening primrose, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and it is this oil which is contained in Naudicelle capsules.

    The capsules are a proprietary preparation manufactured by Bio-Oils Research Limited of Nantwich, Cheshire. From the outset it has claimed that the Naudicelle capsules contain a pre-digested form of linoleic acid which acts more directly and more quickly than other linoleic acid derivatives.

    This claim was included in the evidence submitted to the advisory committee on borderline substances in July 1974. At that time the committee convened a special meeting to consider in detail the whole question of the use of dietary supplements and linoleic acid and its derivatives in the management of multiple sclerosis. The committee examined in great detail all the available evidence published during the preceding years. In addition, it considered the written evidence from several consultants—some of ​ whom participated at the meeting—who were either known to the chairman or who had been recommended by the Medical Research Council as being or having recently been engaged in research into the problem. I am advised that the research for the meeting, the trouble taken to canvass informed opinion and members’ keen interest and sympathy combined to make this probably the most carefully prepared exercise the advisory committee on borderline substances had ever undertaken.

    Reluctantly, after much deliberation, the committee decided that there was no evidence which could justify recommending that linoleic acid or its derivatives should be regarded as a drug in the management of multiple sclerosis. The committee was particularly concerned that any advice offered should be founded firmly on scientific evidence. It felt that it would be wrong to offer advice that might raise false hopes among multiple sclerosis patients, their families or friends, that an effective palliative or cure was close at hand—a point emphasised by my hon. Friend. Members noted that research into the value of unsaturated fats in the management of multiple sclerosis was continuing and expressed their readiness to reconsider their decision if and when fresh scientific evidence became available.

    Moreover, in October 1974 a conference on multiple sclerosis, arranged jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reached broadly the same conclusion on the question of dietary supplements as the advisory committee on borderline substances. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the Medical Research Council’s annual report for 1975–76 stated:

    “The evidence for a beneficial effect of linoleic acid supplements in the diet is unconvincing but the existing studies should be continued; meanwhile no further trials should be supported.”

    I must take serious note of this view. It is an expert one and is endorsed by my medical advisers in the Department.

    To give the House further evidence of the Government’s constant concern to leave no stone unturned in this matter, I should like to point to my right hon. Friend’s meeting with a deputation from the Multiple Sclerosis Action Group early ​ last year. Particular attention was paid at that meeting to the claims that were being made for Naudicelle capsules and the superior virtues of their active ingredient, gamma-linolenate as compared with those of linoleic acid and to the need for further research. The deputation included a distinguished research scientist who, I understand, is engaged in the field of multiple sclerosis research and who explained the claims for gamma-linolenate very lucidly. However, my right hon. Friend had to tell the deputation that, having consulted the Department’s medical advisers afresh about these claims and the value of further research, he felt that he would not be justified in initiating or supporting more research. He promised to ensure that any new scientific evidence that may appear is placed before the advisory committee without delay.

    I understand that, in addition to the research mentioned in the MRC report that I quoted earlier, a trial financed by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of dietary supplements, including Naudicelle capsules, has been undertaken at a hospital in the North-East. The results are expected shortly. The chairman of the advisory committee is in touch with the research teams concerned and hopes to convene at an early date a meeting of the committee, augmented by other experts invited for the occasion to consider these results. Of course, we can make no assumptions yet about the outcome of the trials.

    Since the submission to the advisory committee in 1974, Bio-Oils Research Limited has applied for and been granted a product licence for Naudicelle capsules under the Medicines Act 1968 as

    “dietary supplements where unsaturated fatty acids are needed”.

    Aside from the researches sponsored by MRC and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, I understand that Bio-Oils Research Ltd. has been granted a clinical trial certificate to enable it to have its product tested in relation to multiple sclerosis. The certificate is valid until November this year. Naturally, if the firm were then to produce evidence of the efficacy of its product in relation to multiple sclerosis, it would be open to it to apply for its existing product licence to be varied so as to specify the disease.

    If such a variation were granted there would be no question that Naudicelle might be regarded as a drug in the management of multiple sclerosis.

    The Government regard the promotion of health and the prevention and eradication of disease as a prime responsibility of my Department. However, we cannot will the results or the developments that we desire. I know of nobody who does not wish that a drug that would cure or alleviate multiple sclerosis were available.

    Certainly the moment any substance or preparation is shown scientifically to have a beneficial effect, then, whatever it is, it will be made available as soon as possible as a drug for the treatment of the disease. However, I am bound to remind the House, as I implied at the outset, that ​ the history of research into multiple sclerosis is one of repeated disappointments.

    My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues including early diagnosis and the possibility of the Department having field trials about which I shall write to him. In the meantime, let me repeat that the reason why Naudicelle would be challenged if prescribed by a family doctor at National Health Service expense is that we are advised that the only scientifically reliable evidence that we have does not justify the belief that dietary supplements such as Naudicelle capsules are helpful in the management of multiple sclerosis.

  • Phillip Whitehead – 1978 Speech on Multiple Sclerosis and the Naudicelle Treatment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Phillip Whitehead, the then Labour MP for Derby North, in the House of Commons on 5 May 1978.

    In raising this subject, I do not want to be thought to be plugging a particular brand name or suggesting that Naudicelle is a catch-all cure for the scourge of multiple sclerosis. However, I believe that it is of fundamental importance that we and the Department of Health and Social Security give the closest attention to the dietary supplement containing a ​ committee on borderline substances and derived from the evening primrose, which is sold in this country under the name of Naudicelle, as I shall refer to it. We should look at reasons why an increasing number of multiple sclerosis sufferers are, in a sense, conducting their own trial and marking their own personal results by the money they have to spend on the preparation as well as the testimony they almost all give to it.

    I was first interested in the properties of Naudicelle by my constituent and friend, Mrs. Josephine de la Mare, secretary of the Derby Multiple Sclerosis Society. I regret to say that after a long illness, which was fought every inch of the way, she died last week. It is right that I should pay my own tribute today to this brave lady. She led me, in early discussions about dietary supplements, both to Mr. Joe Osborne of Newhall in Staffordshire, who has been working in the Burton-on-Trent area, linking Naudicelle dietary supplements with a proper regime of exercise, and to ARMS, the action group for research into multiple sclerosis.

    Mr. Osborne, through his own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—who has taken up his case energetically and who, I know, would have wished to be present today had he not been prevented by a prior engagement—and the ARMS group, in direct correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Medical Research Council, have been pressing for early publication of the results of recent trials at Newcastle, for further and wider trials of this substance and for support for the screening of close relatives of multiple sclerosis sufferers who may, it seems possible, be at greater risk, so that there shall be an early diagnosis of the disease.

    I shall argue that such wider study of a substance with no known harmful side effects and for which much is claimed, would be helped by the availability of Naudicelle on prescription at the discretion of the local general practitioner. Professor Field at Newcastle, who has been a pioneer of research into demyelinating diseases and in the screening of young people who may be at risk, is strongly of the opinion that Naudicelle can be of help to acute sufferers from ​ multiple sclerosis in reducing the number, severity and duration of the attacks which they incur.

    There have been earlier experiments by Professor Millar and others into the effects of linoleic acids which principally derive from sunflower seed oils as a dietary supplement. The test which is most eagerly awaited now is the double-blind trial carried out by Professor Shaw, also at Newcastle upon Tyne. This, I understand, covers two groups of patients, the old chronic and acute relapsing patients respectively. Professor Shaw wrote to the hon. Member for Burton on 13th February to say:

    “Our clinical trial has been completed but the results have not yet been fully analysed. Much of the statistical work has been done but there are still a few more calculations to be made before final conclusions can be drawn …. As you may recall, the results of the first part of the trial which were published in the British Medical Journal in October showed that Naudicelle had conferred no benefit on the treated patients. The part of the trial now under analysis deals with a different group of patients but I hope that no assumptions will be made about the outcome of the trial until the calculations have been completed. I am distressed to learn that in Italy Naudicelle has received wide publicity as an effective treatment for multiple sclerosis. This has raised hopes to a degree that is not in my view justified by the scientific information at present available.”

    I include that last rider because it is important to stress very strongly that no one seriously asking for a wider study of the substance ought to claim, or ought to lead multiple sclerosis suffers to believe, that it is a cure for the disease. That is not what is claimed by those who have taken the greatest interest in it and, indeed, by the patients who claim, as I shall show, that it has many beneficial effects for them. It can, it is claimed, control the onset and severity of the attacks incurred by multiple sclerosis sufferers.

    The earlier the disease is diagnosed and caught, the greater the beneficial effects have been, it is claimed, in nonscientific trials. That is why we are all anxious to see the early publication of the second series of tests on acute relapsing patients being conducted by Professor Shaw. I spoke earlier this week to Professor Shaw. He told me that he will be calling together in London a group of his learned colleagues in the next few days to evaluate the results that ​ he has achieved in the second test, prior to publication.

    In the nature of balloting for debates on the Adjournment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not always possible to predict precisely when the debate will come. In a sense, it might have been better had we been able to have this debate a week or two after the publication of Professor Shaw’s finding. However, what I shall be saying today will be argued ex hypothesi on the basis that if we learn something from the second series of tests conducted by Professor Shaw, that will be an additional reason and, I submit, an urgent reason for the Department’s taking a fresh look at the claims which have been made so widely for this substance Naudicelle.

    Hon. Members who have communicated with the Department of Health and Social Security—as I know many of them have—have had to rely upon the testimony of those already using the substance, and the many doctors and others who have been working in this field, such as Mr. Osborne, to whom I referred earlier, who have used it often in conjunction with concentrated programmes of exercise and physiotherapy.

    I think that in this short debate it would be right to quote from at least some of the testimony which is typical of that which so many hon. Members have received from individual sufferers from multiple sclerosis. I shall mention one or two of the letters as an example of the pressure which has rightly been brought to bear upon Members of Parliament to make the DHSS look again very carefully at this matter.

    I have a number of letters here from which I shall quote very briefly. First, I have a letter from Mrs. Williams of Burton-on-Trent, who has had the disease for a long time and whose husband has worked closely with Mr. Osborne in that area. She says:

    “In the space of 12 months—from 10th May 1977 to the present day, 4th May 1978—there has been no need for me to visit my GP from either attacks due to MS or, indeed, any other ailment. In fact, I have not lost one working day from my employment … Of course, there have been those days when I felt a little below par, but I think one would agree all normal people experience those. Looking back over these 12 months on Naudicelle, I will now stress more strongly where the greatest stability has been created. Firstly, there has been a tremendous improvement in my vision ​ … and a marked improvement in my circulation.”

    Mrs. Williams then goes on to describe other beneficial effects of the treatment. She has had the disease for a longer period of time, and her letter is typical of many that we get expressing the general view that this substance is very beneficial indeed as a dietary supplement.

    The next letter is from a constituent of mine, Mrs. Mason, in Allestree, in Derby, who is talking of her husband. With this case, as with the previous one, I am following up a case which has been mentioned in the book published on the subject by Mr. Osborne. Clearly one wanted to look at such cases some months or a year later, to see whether this had been a false dawn in the case of the sufferers concerned. In each case that I have followed up it would appear that the improvement—or what they believe to be an improvement—has been sustained.

    Mrs. Mason, in talking of her husband, writes:

    “His wheelchair is now a thing of the past, now walking with either one elbow crutch or one walking stick, in the home on a very smooth surface he needs no aid at all, his arms are much stronger, his eyesight is better than it has been for years.”

    She goes on to say that the doctor is very pleased by this improvement. To the amazement of the local Press, her husband entered the sports for the disabled recently and was able to win the discus competition, the shot put and the 60 metres freestyle walk. He will go on to compete at Stoke Mandeville in September.

    Mrs. Mason says in the course of her letter that she thinks that the capsules should be available to multiple sclerosis patients on the National Health Service. She adds:

    “It is cruel to deprive them of it. They are like insulin is to a diabetic, and where would they be without their insulin, and yet that is free for diabetics.”

    I appreciate that there are very great differences between the need to provide insulin for diabetic sufferers and what is claimed and what is so far known of the gamma-linolenic concentrates. However, I feel that when people speak in those terms, although they may be using a figure of speech, they are expressing, in what is to them the clearest possible ​ way, the amazing effect that the treatment has had on them and on their own lives. They are lives which, I remind my hon. Friend, have been largely without hope because one of the cruellest features of the disease multiple sclerosis is that when it is initially diagnosed all too often in the past people have been told “I am sorry. There is no effective treatment.

    We can ease the downward progression of the disease, perhaps. We can make you comfortable for long periods of time. You will enjoy periods of remission. But the overall prognosis is pretty hopeless.” That is what has caused so much despair and dismay amongst those who have had the disease diagnosed and why it is so important that we should look at every possible way of helping them.

    I have a number of other letters which it is perhaps unnecessary to quote at length because they all make the same basic point that their condition has stabilised and that some at least of the symptoms of this dreadful disease have been very much ameliorated over the course of months and years during which they have been taking this preparation as a dietary supplement.

    This is no scientific trial. I accept that. It could not possibly be. But it is of importance that we have the widest possible knowledge of these case histories, and I want to ask my hon. Friend to say how many submissions there have been from general practitioners about Naudicelle and about the beneficial effects of linoleic and gamma-linolenic concentrates of this kind, whether based on the evening primrose, sunflower or safflower oils.

    We need to know what the medical profession, directly in touch as GPs are with the average MS sufferer, is now saying about this, and I think that we also sould know whether there are any known harmful side effects to this preparation. I know of none, and I have been told of none. It is important that this should be established. If we argue, as I am in this debate, that it would be greatly in the interest of arriving at some kind of conclusion about the possible beneficial effects of Naudicelle if we were to have it more widely available so that there could be a test within the general population, we need to know whether it ​ has harmful side effects. I believe and I submit that it has none.

    The Department has said in letters to me, to the hon. Member for Burton and to a number of other hon. Members that Naudicelle is a food and not a medicine, that it will keep a benign eye on tests into the efficiency of dietary supplements, and that it has allowed Naudicelle a Medicines Act licence under the 1968 Act with all the usual limitations, but no more than that.

    The problem is that for the many thousands of multiple sclerosis sufferers time is very precious and hope is rationed. Many of the letters that I have mentioned speak of the utter despair of those who have had multiple sclerosis diagnosed. This is why, in terms of those who have it at the moment and even more so in terms of those many thousands who will have it diagnosed in the next few years, it is important that we should now have from the Department a promise of early action.

    With that in mind, the questions which I wish to ask are these. Will the Department undertake to act on the results of the Newcastle tests if these happen to show beneficial results for acute relapsing patients? Will it, in those circumstances, be prepared to go back to the advisory committee on bordering substances and to the MRC and to consider once more the possibility of putting Naudicelle on the National Health Service at the discretion of the general practitioner concerned? Will it further extend the field trials under its own auspices prior to such reconsideration? At the moment we know of the double-blind trial which is going on at Newcastle and we know of the immense random sampling, if it can be so described, which has come to the surface as a result of the work of laymen such as Mr. Osborne and many individual branches and arms of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. We should like to see the Department itself intervening and taking a hand.

    Finally, I wish to go slightly wide of the subject of this debate and ask my hon. Friend whether the Department will undertake to extend and further investigate the system of diagnostic blood testing which has been developed by Professor Field. It is in this area that there is the most hope for combating those forces which appear to act early on the ​ acute multiple sclerosis sufferer. If any of the claims for these dietary supplements have been justified, it is obviously in cases where the disease has not progressed through all its acute stages. In that stage most can be done by the dietary supplements.

    The badge of the Multiple Sclerosis Society is a key. We are all looking for the key which will unlock the mysteries of this disease. The most curious thing about the disease itself is that perhaps that key might be found in the seeds of that equally mysterious flower, the evening primrose.

  • European Commission – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    European Commission – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by the European Commission on 2 April 2020.

    Saving lives and supporting livelihoods in these times of acute crisis is paramount. The Commission is further increasing its response by proposing to set up a €100 billion solidarity instrument to help workers keep their incomes and help businesses stay afloat, called SURE. It is also proposing to redirect all available structural funds to the response to the coronavirus.

    Farmers and fishermen will also receive support, as will the most deprived. All of these measures are based on the current EU budget and will squeeze out every available euro. They show the need for a strong and flexible long-term EU budget. The Commission will work to ensure that the EU can count on such a strong budget to get back on its feet and progress on the path to recovery.

    The coronavirus outbreak is testing Europe in ways that would have been unthinkable only a few weeks ago. The depth and the breadth of this crisis requires a response unprecedented in scale, speed and solidarity.

    In the past weeks, the Commission has acted to provide Member States with all the flexibility they need to support financially their health care systems, their businesses and workers. It has acted to coordinate, speed up and reinforce the procurement efforts of medical equipment and has directed research funding to the development of a vaccine. It has worked tirelessly to ensure that goods and cross-border workers can continue to move across the EU, to keep hospitals functioning, factories running and shop shelves stocked. It has and continues to support the repatriation of EU citizens, their families and long-term residents to Europe from across the world.

    In doing this, the Commission is acting on its conviction that the only effective solution to the crisis in Europe is one based on cooperation, flexibility and, above all, solidarity.

    Today’s proposals take the response to a new level.

    Commenting on the proposals adopted today, President von der Leyen said: “In this coronavirus crisis, only the strongest of responses will do. We must use every means at our disposal. Every available euro in the EU budget will be redirected to address it, every rule will be eased to enable the funding to flow rapidly and effectively. With a new solidarity instrument, we will mobilise €100 billion to keep people in jobs and businesses running. With this, we are joining forces with Member States to save lives and protect livelihoods. This is European solidarity.”

    €100 billion to keep people in jobs and businesses running: the SURE initiative

    We need to cushion the economic blow in order for the EU economy to be ready to restart when the conditions are right. To achieve this, we must keep people in employment and businesses running. All Member States have or will soon have short-time work schemes to help achieve this.

    SURE is the Commission’s answer to this: a new instrument that will provide up to €100 billion in loans to countries that need it to ensure that workers receive an income and businesses keep their staff. This allows people to continue to pay their rent, bills and food shopping and helps provide much needed stability to the economy.

    The loans will be based on guarantees provided by Member States and will be directed to where they are most urgently needed. All Member States will be able to make use of this but it will be of particular importance to the hardest-hit.

    SURE will support short-time work schemes and similar measures to help Member States protect jobs, employees and self-employed against the risk of dismissal and loss of income. Firms will be able to temporarily reduce the hours of employees or suspend work altogether, with income support provided by the State for the hours not worked. The self-employed will receive income replacement for the current emergency.

    Delivering for the most deprived – the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

    As most of Europe practices social distancing to slow the spread of the virus, it is all the more important that those who rely on others for the most basic of needs are not cut off from help. The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived will evolve to meet the challenge: in particular, the use of electronic vouchers to reduce the risk of contamination will be introduced, as well as the possibility of buying protective equipment for those delivering the aid.

    Supporting fishermen and farmers

    Europe’s farming and fisheries have an essential role in providing us with the food we eat. They are hard hit by the crisis, in turn hitting our food supply chains and the local economies that the sector sustains.

    As with the structural funds, the use of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be made more flexible. Member States will be able to provide support:

    to fishermen for the temporary cessation of fishing activities;

    to aquaculture farmers for the temporary suspension or reduction of production and provide support;

    and to producer organisations for the temporary storage of fishery and aquaculture products.

    The Commission will also shortly propose a range of measures to ensure that farmers and other beneficiaries can get the support they need from the Common Agricultural Policy, for example by granting more time to introduce applications for support and more time to allow administrations to process them, increasing advances for direct payments and rural development payments, and offering additional flexibility for on-the-spot checks to minimise the need for physical contact and reduce administrative burden.

    Protecting our economy and people with all available means

    Redirecting all Cohesion Policy funds to fight the emergency

    All uncommitted money from the three Cohesion Policy funds – the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund – will be mobilised to address the effects of the public health crisis.

    To make sure that funds can be re-directed to where they are most urgently needed, transfers between funds as well as between categories of regions and between policy objectives will be made possible. Moreover, co-financing requirements will be abandoned, as Member States are already using all their means to fight the crisis. Administration will be simplified.

    The Emergency Support Instrument

    The European Union has not faced a health crisis in its history on this scale or spreading at this speed. In response, the first priority is to save lives and to meet the needs of our health care systems and professionals who are working miracles every day right across our Union.

    The Commission is working hard to ensure the supply of protective gear and respiratory equipment. Despite the strong production efforts of industry, Member States still face severe shortages of protective gear and respiratory equipment in some areas. They also lack sufficient treatment facilities and would benefit from being able to move patients to areas with more resources and dispatch medical staff to hardest-hit places. Support will also be needed for mass testing, for medical research, deploying new treatments, and for producing, purchasing and distributing vaccines across the EU.

    The EU is today proposing to use all available remaining funds from this year’s EU budget to help to respond to the needs of European health systems.

    €3 billion will be put into the Emergency Support Instrument, of which €300 million will be allocated to RescEU to support the common stockpile of equipment. The first priority would be managing the public health crisis and securing vital equipment and supplies, from ventilators to personal protective gear, from mobile medical teams to medical assistance for the most vulnerable, including those in refugee camps. The second area of focus would be on enabling the scaling up of testing efforts. The proposal would also enable the Commission to procure directly on behalf of the Member States.

    More to come

    As the situation continues to evolve, the Commission will come forward with more proposals and will work with the other EU institutions to move forward as quickly as possible.

  • Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on 1 April 2020.

    Good afternoon and thank you for joining us for the daily briefing on our fight against coronavirus.

    I am joined today by Dr Yvonne Doyle who is the medical director of Public Health England.

    Before Yvonne provides an update on the latest data from our COBR coronavirus fact file, I would like to update you on the steps that we are taking to defeat this pandemic.

    Our step-by-step action plan is aiming to slow the spread of the virus, so fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, protecting the ability of the NHS to cope.

    Throughout our response to coronavirus, we have been following the scientific and medical advice. We have been deliberate in our actions, taking the right steps at the right time.

    We are also taking unprecedented action to increase NHS capacity by dramatically expanding the number of beds, key staff and life-saving equipment on the front-line to provide the care when people need it most.

    The daily figures show that a total of 152,979 people in the UK have now been tested for coronavirus.

    Of those, 29,474 have tested positive.

    The number of people admitted to hospital in England with coronavirus symptoms is now 10,767, with 3,915 of those in London and 1,918 in the Midlands.

    Of those hospitalised in the UK, sadly 2,352 have died. This is an increase of 563 fatalities since yesterday. The youngest of them was just 13 years old.

    All our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives.

    This is more tragic evidence that this virus does not discriminate.

    The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest threat our country has faced in decades, and we are not alone. All over the world we are seeing the devastating impact of this invisible killer.

    We recognise the extreme disruption the necessary actions we are asking people to take are having on their lives, businesses, jobs and the nation’s economy.

    And I want to thank everyone across our whole country for the huge effort that is being made, collectively, in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic.

    To the frontline workers treating and caring for patients, the people delivering supplies to their neighbours, and the millions staying at home: thank you. You are protecting the NHS and saving lives.

    And I want to thank businesses too.

    Through your support for your workers and your communities, and through your willingness to support our health service, you are making a real difference.

    Whether it’s INEOS building a new hand sanitiser plant near Middlesbrough in just ten days;

    Or UCL engineers working with Mercedes Formula One to build new Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machines, which help patients to breathe more easily;

    Or broadband providers giving their customers unlimited data to stay connected;

    Or indeed London’s ExCel Centre being converted into the NHS Nightingale Hospital with space for 4,000 patients.

    These are just a few of the examples of businesses from across our great nation supporting lifesaving work.

    There are also thousands of businesses, large and small, which have worked with staff to ensure they are supported in the days and weeks ahead.

    Whether that is through ensuring PHE guidelines are followed on site, implementing furlough schemes, carrying over annual leave, or providing the means to work from home.

    I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to all of those businesses, up and down the country, which are working to keep our economy going.

    So that when this crisis passes, and it will, we are ready to bounce back.

    Our businesses are doing all they can to support our people, and I want to make it clear that government, in turn, will do all it can to support our businesses.

    We have taken unprecedented action to support firms, safeguard jobs and protect the economy.

    From today businesses will start benefiting from £22 billion in the form of business rates relief. And grants of up to £25,000 which are being paid into the bank accounts of the smallest high street firms.

    On Saturday, I said that we had provided funds to councils in England for grants to small businesses.

    As of today, these local authorities have received more than £12 billion.

    This afternoon I held a call with hundreds of local authorities across England and made clear that this money must reach businesses as quickly as possible. And I know that businesses across England have already started to receive these grants.

    We know high street banks are working really hard to support the UK through this period, including through mortgage holidays and increased credit facilities.

    Loans for businesses are also being issued through the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme since it came into operation last week.

    The Chancellor, together with the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority, wrote to the chief executives of the UK banks to urge them to make sure that the benefits of the Loan Scheme are passed through to businesses and consumers.

    And it would be completely unacceptable if any banks were unfairly refusing funds to good businesses in financial difficulty.

    Just as the taxpayer stepped in to help the banks back in 2008, we will work with the banks to do everything they can to repay that favour and support the businesses and people of the United Kingdom in their time of need.

    Of course, this is a brand new scheme and, as with all new schemes, it will not be perfect from the outset.

    We are listening all the time. And in response to concerns that we’ve heard from businesses, we are looking at ways in which we can ensure they get the support they need. The Chancellor will be saying more on this in the coming days.

    It is crucial that when we overcome this crisis, as in time we will, that businesses are in a good position to move forward.

    Times are tough, and we have harder times ahead of us.

    But I know that together, we will pull through.

  • 2020 Statement by NATO Ministers on the Coronavirus

    2020 Statement by NATO Ministers on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by NATO Foreign Ministers on 2 April 2020.

    We, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of NATO, meet today in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic which is affecting all Allies and partners, imposing a huge cost in lives lost, as well as a sudden and severe shock to our economies. We express our deepest sympathies with all the victims of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and with all those affected by its consequences. We pay tribute to the health care workers, as well as all the others who are on the front line in our battle against this disease. These include the men and women in uniform who continue to work daily for our collective security. And we thank our citizens who understand that, working together, we will defeat this challenge more quickly and save lives.

    NATO is doing its part. Allies are supporting each other – including with medical professionals, hospital beds, vital medical equipment, and best practices and ideas on how to fight this deadly disease. We are airlifting critical medical supplies from across the globe, providing medical personnel, essential materials, and vital equipment from military and civilian sources, and harnessing our medical, scientific, and technological knowledge and resources to help deliver innovative responses. Allies are also working together to ensure public access to transparent, timely, and accurate information, which is critical to overcoming this pandemic and to combating disinformation. Because we need a coordinated and comprehensive approach, NATO is working closely with other international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the European Union.

    Even as we do the absolute maximum to contain and then overcome this challenge, NATO remains active, focused and ready to perform its core tasks: collective defence, crisis management, and cooperative security. Our ability to conduct our operations and assure deterrence and defence against all the threats we face is unimpaired. And we have today taken further decisions to enhance NATO’s role in facing current and future security challenges.

    We welcome North Macedonia as NATO’s 30th Ally. As we face this unprecedented challenge, our 30 nations stand together in solidarity and transatlantic unity.