Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be serving under your wise chairmanship, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) who brought to this debate some very particular knowledge, the scope of which, I suspect, none of the rest of us has. It was really interesting to listen to what he had to say.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on introducing the debate, which he did not only with his usual thoroughness but in a very accessible way. That will be much appreciated by those involved in campaigning. Finally, I thank the Oliver King Foundation for keeping the issue alive and for raising awareness of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who has left the Chamber, spoke about the print media. Although I accept that they can have a positive role to play in promoting such issues, it is a double-edged sword, because their coverage of bereavement is often both intrusive and inaccurate, so we should not indulge in an orgy of congratulation. If the Press Complaints Commission had had any teeth, the print media would often have been condemned for the way they have covered bereavement.

I shall cover some of the same ground as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, but with perhaps a slightly different perspective. He was right to say that as much knowledge as possible needs to be disseminated about how to keep blood pumping, which is basically what we are talking about, and about the use of defibrillators. If we talk to people about being trained so that they will be able to act if a defibrillator is available—this issue was brought out well by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and by my hon. Friend—the thing they are concerned about is not necessarily being taught how to use the modern device, but whether they will be able to recognise accurately what they are confronted with. That is often a barrier for many people, but I say rather brutally that the alternative to making a mistake is taking no action at all, which can be fatal. In many cases, that is the choice that people are confronted with.

My second point is about the availability of defibrillators and training in how to use them. Yes, we need them in schools and in public buildings, but there is also an argument, which should be debated, that they should be available in every workplace of significant size. At the end of the day, the powerful case that was set out by my hon. Friend to address the situation hinges on having both defibrillators available and people able to use them. Indeed, the more defibrillators that are available in more diverse places, the more lives will be saved.

My hon. Friend mentioned the availability of fire extinguishers, which is a really good comparison; another is smoke alarms. The impact that smoke alarms have had on detecting fires has been phenomenal. We are now at a point where almost every household has, or should have, a smoke alarm installed. I am not saying that every household should have a defibrillator, but the more widespread these safety and intervention measures are, the more effective they can be.

Finally, there is an overpowering case for screening. For several years now, I have been involved in the all-party group for cardiac arrest in the young, which does an excellent job in campaigning for widespread screening. Personally, I would like every young person to have the opportunity to be screened, because regardless of whether they believe that they might have a problem, the availability of screening would mean that they would, wherever possible, know what happens—in other words, we are talking about screening age groups that might be vulnerable to this sort of problem. However, screening is not easy to access at the moment. Also, where there has been a fatality or where someone has been diagnosed as being vulnerable, there is often a genetic component, so it is possible that other members of the family might be vulnerable as well, but in one case in my constituency, siblings wanted to be screened after they had tragically lost their brother, but they had to go to great extremes and be extremely persistent to access the screening service. That is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.

Let me finish on a helpful note. Earlier, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said that the campaign needed a bit of “oomph” behind it. That is a good way of describing what we would all like to see as a result of today’s debate. If the Minister can address the problem, she might perhaps be known as the Minister for “oomph”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is right. Let schools decide, but let us make it a clear legal requirement that they teach those skills. That is how to make a difference: by having a population that is much more educated in emergency first aid and CPR. The difference that it can make is huge. The Department for Education appears to be highly resistant; I do not know why. Surely we could link it to science or biology. Surely there are ways to deliver that teaching that are not irrelevant to the rest of the curriculum. That is our first request. Can we have a clear requirement?

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton asked, is there not a case for a screening programme, particularly for at-risk young people, such as those who play lots of sport? I know that the UK National Screening Committee has considered the issue, partly because I asked it to, but still no firm recommendations have been made. Will the Minister consider it? It could be delivered for incredibly small amounts of resource in NHS terms; a screening test costs about £30 pounds. It should be available to any parent who wants to make use of it, particularly for young people who play sport every week. My son plays a lot of sport, and I watch him play every week. I have still not had him tested. It crosses my mind all the time that perhaps I should. It should be an easy thing to do; it should not be hard to find. The time has come to provide more screening.

My third and main point is to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to setting a minimum legal requirement for the number of defibrillators in public places. The time has come for that to be required by law. Hon. Members have referred to fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. There comes a point when technology allows something to be made much more widely available in public places and buildings, and I believe that we have reached that point with defibrillators.

[Mr George Howarth]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that workplaces could be added to the list?

[Andy Burnham]

I am sure they could. That is my appeal to the Government. I am not being prescriptive and saying that I want this, that or the other. A compelling case has been made for schools because of the loss of young lives. Shopping centres are also a possibility because of the footfall, as are train stations, airports and so on, and workplaces, particularly where people are under the extra pressure of carrying out intense physical activity.

The Government can advise on what the minimum requirement might be, but it is important to have one. Then we would have national clarity on where the public can expect to find a defibrillator. They would know where to locate one, because defibrillators would be required by law. Communities are crying out for it, and we do not have clarity at the moment. Earlier in the debate, someone asked where we would find a defibrillator in Parliament. I would not know. We need to start thinking about clarity and signage. If we did so, we might be able to have a national open register of defibrillators. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure through an app on a phone that people in a situation where somebody had fallen could find out in real time, via modern technology, where the nearest defibrillator was. An effort could then be made to locate it as soon as possible.

Such things could be done. Lives could be saved. There is no excuse for complacency. We are not talking about huge amounts of money. This House could apply its mind to the issue, bring a little more focus to it and make proportionate and sensible requirements for where defibrillators must be located. Those locations could be publicised, and the public could be educated about how to use them. Why are we not doing it? We should be. I am not making a political point; I am being as critical of our time in government as I am of the current Government. We should be doing it. The case for action is unanswerable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has done us all a huge service by requesting this debate, which is long overdue. Other countries are way ahead of us in putting a proper, thought-through policy in place at every level: education, screening, prevention, and response through public access to defibrillators. My three requests can be given fair consideration by the Minister; if she were to act, we would secure something momentous for the people who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue over recent years. They know and people outside know that it is right to make a change, and some communities are just getting on and doing so; they are not even waiting for Parliament to do something, and that alone should be enough to make us think and act. If we made a commitment now, I am certain that in a matter of years we would see those statistics improve and more lives being saved which, at the end of the day, is the best memorial we can give to Oliver King, Ciaron Geddes, Daniel Young and all the young people who have tragically lost their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is good and is well made.

[Mr George Howarth]

In some respects I share the Minister’s scepticism that legislation is always the answer; it can, on occasions, be a blunt instrument. The problem, however, is that whenever we look at what the alternative is, it is not straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) talked about parish councils, but not everywhere is covered by parish councils.

[Anna Soubry]

That, again, is a good point. Clearly, one size does not fit all. Every area has different needs.