Address by Michea¡l Martin to the Conference - Legislating for Tobacco Free Society

Thank you Chairman I would like to extend a warm welcome to our keynote speakers, David Byrne of the European Commission, Derek Yach from the World Health Organisation, and Paul Quinn representing Congressman Marty Meehan who sends his apologies. When we include the speakers who will address later sessions, this is, undoubtedly, one of the strongest teams that have been assembled on tobacco control in Europe. The very strength of the team underlines what I see as a shift – a very necessary shift – in the way we perceive the tobacco issue. For the last twenty years, we have lived out a paradox. It isn´t a social side issue. I make no apology for the bluntness of what I´m saying, and will come back, a little later, to the radicalism I believe we need to bring – nationally – to this issue. For starters, though, I want to lay it on the line that what we´re talking about is an epidemic as deadly as any suffered by human kind throughout the centuries. Slower than some of those epidemics in its lethal action, perhaps. But an epidemic, nonetheless. According to the World Health Organisation tobacco accounted for just over 3 million annual deaths in 1990, rising to 4.023 million annual deaths in 1998. The numbers of deaths due to tobacco will rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and reach roughly 10 million annually by 2030. This is quite simply ghastly. Tobacco kills. It kills in many different ways. It kills increasing numbers of women. It does its damage directly and indirectly. For children, much of the damage comes from smoking by adults where children live, study, play and work. The very least we should be able to offer every child is breathable air. Air that doesn´t do them damage. We´re now seeing a global public health response to the tobacco epidemic. The Tobacco Free Initiative launched by the World Health Organisation was matched by significant tobacco control initiatives throughout the world. During this conference we will hear about the experiences our speakers had in driving these initiatives. This Tobacco Free Initiative poses unique challenges to our legal frameworks at both national and international levels; in particular it raises challenges about the legal context in which tobacco products are traded and asks questions about the impact of commercial speech especially on children, and the extent of the limitations that should be imposed on it. Politicians, supported by economists and lawyers as well as the medical profession, must continue to explore and develop this context to find innovative ways to wrap public health considerations around the trade in tobacco products – very tightly. We also have the right to demand a totally new paradigm from the tobacco industry. Bluntly, the tobacco industry plays the PR game at its cynical worst. The industry sells its products without regard to the harm these products cause. At the same time, to gain social acceptance, it gives donations, endowments and patronage to high profile events and people. Not good enough. This model of behaviour is no longer acceptable in a modern society. We need one where the industry integrates social responsibility and accountability into its day-to-day activities. We have waited for this change in behaviour from the tobacco industry for many decades. Unfortunately the documents disclosed during litigation in the USA and from other sources make very depressing reading; it is clear from them that any trust society placed in the tobacco industry in the past to address the health problems associated with its products was misplaced. This industry appears to lack the necessary leadership to guide it towards just and responsible action. Instead, it chooses evasion, deception and at times illegal activity to protect its profits at any price and to avoid its responsibilities to society and its customers. It has engaged in elaborate ´spin´ to generate political tolerance, scientific uncertainty and public acceptance of its products. Legislators must act now. I see no reason why the global community should continue to wait. Effective legal controls must be laid on this errant industry. We should also keep these controls under review at regular intervals and if they are failing to achieve the desired outcomes we should be prepared to amend them. In Ireland, as Minister for Health and Children, I launched a comprehensive tobacco control policy entitled “Towards a Tobacco Free Society“. OTT?Excessive?Unrealistic? On the contrary – I believe it to be imperative and inevitable. I honestly hold that, given the range of fatal diseases caused by tobacco use we have little alternative but to pursue the clear objective of creating a tobacco free society. Aiming at a tobacco free society means ensuring public and political opinion are properly informed. It requires help to be given to smokers to break the addiction. It demands that people are protected against environmental tobacco smoke and children are protected from any inducement to experiment with this product. Over the past year we have implemented a number of measures which will support these objectives; we have established an independent Office of Tobacco Control, we have introduced free nicotine replacement therapy for low-income earners, we have extended our existing prohibitions on tobacco advertising to the print media with some minor derogations for international publications. We have raised the legal age at which a person can be sold tobacco products to eighteen years. We have invested substantially more funds in health promotion activities and we have mounted sustained information campaigns. We have engaged in sponsorship arrangements, which are new and innovative for public bodies. I have provided health boards with additional resources to let them mount a sustained inspection and enforcement service. Health boards will engage new Directors of Tobacco Control responsible for coordinating each health board´s response and for liasing with the Tobacco Control Agency I set up earlier this year. Most recently, I have published a comprehensive Bill – The Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001. This Bill will, among other things, end all forms of product display and in-store advertising and will require all retailers to register with the new Tobacco Control Agency. Ten packs of cigarettes will be banned and transparent and independent testing procedures of tobacco products will be introduced. Enforcement officers will be given all the necessary powers to ensure there is full compliance with the law. On smoking in public places we will extend the existing areas covered and it is proposed that I, as Minister for Health and Children, will have the powers to introduce further prohibitions in public places such as pubs and the work place. I will also provide for the establishment of a Tobacco Free Council to advise and assist on an ongoing basis. I believe the measures already introduced and those additional ones proposed in the Bill have widespread community support. In fact, you´re going to hear a detailed presentation from the MRBI which will amply illustrate the extent of this support. The great thing is that the support comes from smokers and non-smokers alike. Bottom line, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we are at a watershed. As a society (if you´ll allow me to play with a popular phrase) we´ve realised it´s time to ´wake up and smell the cigarettes.´ Smell them. See them for what they are. And get real about destroying their hold on our people. The MRBI survey makes it clear that the single strongest weapon we have when it comes to preventing the habit among young people is price. Simple as that. Price. Up to now, the fear of inflation has been a real impediment to increasing taxes on tobacco. It sounds a serious, logical argument. Until you take it out and look at it a little more closely. Weigh it, as it were, in two hands. I believe – and I believe this with a great passion – that we must take cigarettes out of the equation we use when awarding wage increases. I am calling on IBEC and ICTU, on employers and trade unions alike, to move away from any kind of tolerance of a trade that is killing our citizens. At one point in industrial history, cigarettes were a staple of the workingman´s life. So it was legitimate to include them in the ´basket´ of goods that goes to make up the Consumer Price Index. It isn´t legitimate to include them any more. Today, I´m saying that society collectively must take the step to remove cigarettes from the basket of normality, from the list of elements which constitute necessary consumer spending. I´m saying: “We can no longer delude ourselves. We must exclude cigarettes from the considerations we address in central wage bargaining. We must price cigarettes out of the reach of the children those cigarettes will kill.” Right now, in the monthly Central Statistics Office reports on consumer spending, the figures include cigarettes. But – right down at the bottom of the page – there´s another figure. Calculated without including cigarettes. I believe that if we continue to use the first figure as our constant measure, it will be an indictment of us as legislators, as advocates for working people, as public health professionals. If, on the other hand, we move to the use of the second figure, we will be sending out a message of startling clarity to the nation. We will be saying “We don´t count an addictive, killer drug as part of normal consumer spending.” Taking cigarettes out of the basket used to determine the Consumer Price Index will take away the inflation argument. It will not be easy, in its implications for the social partners. But it is morally inescapable. We must do it. Because it will help us stop the killer that is tobacco. If we can do it, we will give so much extra strength to health educators and the new Tobacco Control Association. This new organisation of young people who already have branches in over fifteen counties, is represented here today. The young adults who make up its membership are well placed to advise children of the dangers of tobacco addiction in a way that older generations cannot. It would strengthen their hand if cigarettes move – in price terms – out of the easy reach of our children Finally, I would like to commend so many public health advocates who have shown professional and indeed personal courage in their commitment to this critical public health issue down through the years. We need you to continue to challenge and confront this grave public health problem and to repudiate the questionable science of the tobacco industry. The Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society represents a new and dynamic form of partnership between government and civil society. It will provide an effective platform to engage and mobilise the many different professional and academic skills necessary to guide and challenge us. I wish the conference every success.

Good quality parenting programmes and the home to school transition

Evidence Review 1 - Good quality parenting programmes and the home to school transition Briefing 1a - Good Quality Parenting Programmes Briefing 1b - Improving the Home to School Transition This set of documents, commissioned by Public Health England (PHE£0, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, address the effects of parenting and good transition on the health and wellbeing of children aged 0-5. They also provide case studies, and examples of good practice for local areas. Evaluations from the UK and other countries show a positive effect of parenting interventions on outcomes and behaviours that we know are linked to positive health and development outcomes for children. Home to school transition programmes can be effective in improving the outcomes for children from more disadvantaged socio-economic groups more than for children from more advantaged socio-economic groups, although longer term impact on health inequalities can only be inferred because the impact on health has not been studied. The full evidence review and two shorter summary briefings are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the ‘Local Action on health inequalities’ project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page.

Tackling Health Inequalities through Action on the Social Determinants of Health: Lessons from Experience

Briefing 10 - Lessons from experience This document, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, sets out 12 points to consider when taking action locally on the social determinants of health. It is intended as a source of information on approaches to consider when devising local programmes and strategies to reduce health inequalities. It complements the other briefings and evidence reviews in this series, which provide more detail on action on specific social determinant areas, such as employment and early years interventions, including information on impacts and cost effectiveness where available. The 12 steps are divided across three parts. The first part sets out four strategies that help prioritise action on health equity. The next steps are principles of effective action on the social determinants of the health, presented in the second part. Finally, the steps in part three outline ways of ensuring that measures to increase health equity are sustainable and have impact over the long term. The briefing is available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the ‘Local Action on health inequalities’ project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page.

Understanding the Economics of Investments in the Social Determinants of Health

Briefing 9 - Understanding the economics of investments in the social determinants of health This document, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, examines how to use measures of economic investment to improve and increase local investment in the social determinants of health. The paper provides information to support decision-making on actions to address the social determinants of health and the development of business cases for investment. It supplements the evidence reviews in this series, which include information on the economic impacts of actions on health inequalities, and should help the reader to be an intelligent customer and commissioner of economic analyses and to understand their limitations. The paper covers: - The rationale for understanding, measuring and taking into account the economic impact of decisions and interventions that impact on the social determinants of health.- The benefits and limitations of various ‘economic measures of impact’ – commonly used terms which can be confusing, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of which measure of economic impact is appropriate for what purpose.- What is currently known about the economic impact of intervening in the social determinants of health.- Good practice and further resources which will support better decisions. The briefing is available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the ‘Local Action on health inequalities’ project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page.

Health Inequalities and the Living Wage

Evidence Review 6 - Health inequalities and the living wage Briefing 6 - Health inequalities and the living wage This pair of documents, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, address the role of a minimum income in improving health. These papers provide a summary of evidence on the health impacts of living on a low income. They assess the evidence around how the living wage addresses low incomes, health and health inequalities. The living wage is an hourly minimum wage, optional for employers, calculated according to the basic cost of living. Local authorities and other organisations that have implemented the living wage for their staff are presented as case study interventions to show how it is possible, the challenges faced and how they were overcome and any reported income, health and business benefits. The full evidence review and a shorter summary briefing are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the ‘Local Action on health inequalities’ project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page.

Reducing the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET)

Evidence Review 3 - Reducing the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) Briefing 3 - Reducing the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) This pair of documents, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, examine how to help young people into employment, education or training. They describe the relationship between being NEET and health; inequalities in prevalence of being NEET; and the scale of the problem. The papers show that being NEET, particularly for prolonged periods, is associated with negative effects on health and a range of other outcomes. Furthermore, the chances of becoming NEET are not equally or randomly distributed throughout society – those who are relatively disadvantaged, from poor backgrounds, or who have had negative experiences at school are more likely to spend some time being NEET. The papers also propose actions that can be taken at a local level in order to reduce the proportion of young people who are NEET. There is good evidence on what works in order to enable and support young people to enter employment, education and training. Taking action to reduce NEET levels is both possible and necessary – both to ensure young people have opportunities, and also as an important way to improve public health and reduce inequalities. The full evidence review and a shorter summary briefing are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the ‘Local Action on health inequalities’ project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page.

2004 National report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point: Norway: New developments, trends and in-depth information on selected issues.

This is the fourth annual report to the EMCDDA from the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) on the drugs situation in Norway. The report has been drawn up in accordance with the new reporting guidelines introduced by the EMCDDA this year. We have endeavoured to follow these as consistently as possible, with the main focus on “new developments” and substantial changes in epidemiology, legislation and organisation. To allow readers to obtain more background information the report contains a number of references to the national report for 2003, and occasional references to the report for 2002.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

National Audit of the Organisation of Services for Falls and Bone Health of Older People

This report presents the results of the second national audit which examines the organisation of services provided to older people for falls prevention and bone health. Falls and fractures are a common and serious problem affecting older people, with high levels of personal and financial cost. National guidelines, supported by the research evidence, require the provision of integrated services for falls and fracture prevention and treatment. Effective commissioning is needed to produce such high quality services.��This audit was commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as part of the second cycle of audits on services for the prevention of falls and fractures in older people. It follows the first organisational audit, performed in 2005, and the clinical audit of 2007. All were audited against specific standards from the National Service Framework for Older People (NSF) and guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Since the first audit, indicators have been added or updated in line with new guidance including that on falls prevention of inpatients following the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) report on slips, trips and falls in hospital (2007). For the first time, the audit also looks specifically at falls and fracture prevention in mental healthcare and a sample of care homes.

Caring for Seniors With Alzheimer's Disease: Canadian Institute for Health Information

Caring for Seniors In 2007-2008, one in five seniors (20%) in Canada receiving long-term home care had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or other dementia. Nearly one in six (17%) of these clients with dementia were suffering from moderate to severe impairment in cognition and daily functioning yet still managed to remain at home.This study from the Canadian Institute for Health Information also found that one in six (17%) seniors with dementia living in residential care facilities (such as nursing or long-term care homes) in 2008-2009 had relatively low levels of impairment or could still perform basic functions quite well on their own. The odds of a senior with low impairment being placed in residential care were seven times more likely if the senior had a tendency to wander. Marital status was also a factor in determining whether a senior with low impairment was newly admitted to a care facility rather than at home with home care. 

The Marmot Review: Updated data and information 2 years on

To mark the two year anniversary since The Marmot Review ('Fair Society, Healthy Lives') was published, on the 15th of February the UCL Institute of Health Equity published new data on key health inequalities indicators at local authority level in England.Main Findings:Life Expectancy – this has historically been one of the main indicators of health inequalities.The Marmot Indicators from this year’s charts show the average life expectancy for eachlocal authority and the level of inequality within each authority area (7):-While overall life expectancy at birth in England increased by 0.3 years for both menand women between 2007-9 and 2008-10, inequalities in life expectancy betweenneighbourhoods increased by 0.1 years for men and showed no change for women-Among the 150 upper tier local authorities in England, life expectancy improved inthe majority of cases (133 areas saw improvements for men and 125 sawimprovements for women). However inequalities also increased in the majority ofareas (104 for men and 92 for women).-The largest increase in inequality in life expectancy was in West Berkshire for men(2.0 years) and inMiddlesbrough for women (2 years). The largest decreases ininequality were in Kensington and Chelsea for both men and women (1.9 and 1.1years respectively. To find out more, please read: - The press release, including key figures and main findings. - A blog by Michael Marmot about the data and it's implications. - Press coverage of the data in national and local newspapers and websites. - A powerpoint presentation on the key findings.

Diabetes in pregnancy: are we providing the best care?

This third and final report of the CEMACH national diabetes programme comes at an important time in the national drive to improve services for women with diabetes in pregnancy. The National Service Framework (NSF) for Diabetes requires the NHS to develop, implement and monitor policies that seek to empower and support women with diabetes to optimise the outcomes of their pregnancy. The CEMACH report shows that, whilst progress has been made in improving services for women with diabetes and their babies, there is much still to be done to meet the standards recommended by the NSF. Too many women continue to be poorly prepared for pregnancy in the critical areas of glycaemic control and folic acid supplementation. The report underlines the need for an increased focus on diabetes preconception care services and the development of strategies to educate women with diabetes of childbearing age. The growing proportion of women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, many of whom are from minority ethnic groups, presents an additional challenge for health services in developing responsive and accessible services.This CEMACH report has identifi ed several areas of good clinical practice during pregnancy in women with pre-existing diabetes. However, there continue to be areas where there is room for improvement, including antenatal fetal surveillance, glycaemic control during labour and delivery and postnatal diabetes care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently in the fi nal stages of development of its new guideline for the management of diabetes in pregnancy. This guideline, when taken together with the CEMACH report, will provide local health services with an unprecedented wealth of material on which to base their development of improved services for women with diabetes in pregnancy.��