The steroids work by soothing the basic inflammation of the airways so reducing the number of asthma attacks

The steroids work by soothing the basic inflammation of the airways, so reducing the number of asthma attacks.Treatment with inhaled steroids or other anti-inflammatory therapies is more expensive than treatment with bronchodilators – drugs which relax and open up the tubes -but Gina believes it would be more economical in the long term to use the steroids because of the consequent reduction in hospital admissions and days lost at work and school. Thirteen per cent of all children now suffer from asthma in Britain, and 6 per cent of adults.In 1994, 1,640 people died from asthma in the United Kingdom; more than 1,000 lives a year and many thousands of days’ sick-leave from work or school could be saved if all asthma patients were given inhaled steroids or other anti- inflammatory drugs.Asthma occurs when the bronchial tubes swell and go into spasm, causing coughing and wheezing. But in recent decades it has become far more prevalent, increasing by 50 per cent in the most affluent countries over the past 25 years. The initiative, the first time experts from around the world have joined forces, was launched by the World Health Organisation and the US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.At present 150 million people around the world suffer from asthma. GLENDA COOPER

More than 1,000 lives in Britain and 100,000 world-wide could be saved every year if people received effective asthma treatment, according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (Gina), which was launched yesterday in London.
If sufferers regularly used inhaled steroids, between 60 and 70 per cent of deaths could be prevented, said Dr Romain Pauwels, chairman of Gina.

Regardless, such a measure would be severely embarrassing to the UK government and limit its ability to criticise other countries’ records on child rights without accusations of double standards.. The report stated: “Children seeking to exercise their appeal rights, either as part of a family unit (accompanied) or in their own right if unaccompanied, will be adversely affected by the proposed changes. In this context UNHCR refers to the United Kingdom’s express treaty obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child, 1989.”Philippe Lavachy, the UNHCR representative in London, said: “We see that at the end of the road the genuine refugee will pay the price, perhaps along with his wife and children.”At the end of 1994 the UN’s Committee on the Rights of the Child heavily criticised the UK government and the way it was implementing the UN children’s convention.The UN report said that the principles of the convention “appear not to be reflected in legislation [in the UK] in areas such as health, education and social security”.Actual sanctions by the UN over failures to honour convention obligations are limited to a formal criticism and an order to appear before a UN panel in Geneva. The changes may take pounds 200m off the annual welfare budget.Immigrants who fail to make an application for asylum immediately on arrival will be no longer entitled to claim state support and those applicants rejected will be unable to claim benefits while their appeal is being heard.As part of an internal UNHCR report delivered to the Social Security Advisory Committee, Mr Lilley was made aware of the concerns about children of asylum seekers. Central to the UNHCR’s criticisms is that the UK will fail to honour its treaty obligations under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child if the welfare withdrawal changes are made.In today’s judicial review the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is challenging the legality of plans to withdraw benefits from around 70 per cent of asylum seekers.

JAMES CUSICK

The Government is facing renewed criticism from the United Nations over its plans to remove social security payments for most asylum seekers.
Although a judicial review in the High Court today will challenge the planned new regulations, the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has privately told Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security, that the law changes will cause “undue hardship”. I have infiltrated gangs all over the country and got good results for the police. I see myself as a self-employed police officer rather than an informant.”A spokesman for Hampshire Police confirmed that the man had made a civil claim against Mr Hoddinott for pounds 30,650, which he said “was thrown out of court about a month ago, but we understand he has been given leave to appeal”.. He claims that he has helped police recover property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. The informant, who lives at a secret address in Portsmouth, said he had decided to speak out after hearing that Hampshire Police were planning to expand their intelligence network.He said: “It’s no good the police saying they are keen to develop the use of registered informants if they then don’t pay up.

John Hoddinott, Hampshire’s Chief Constable, is said to owe money to the criminal for information he supplied after infiltrating gangs at the request of police. The case was first brought before Portsmouth County Court in 1992, but was passed on to the High Court where it was rejected. It is now on the list for the Court of Appeal and the informant is receiving legal aid.
He says other forces have already paid him thousands of pounds for his help in convicting murderers, drug dealers and robbers. A police chief is facing a pounds 30,000 writ from an informant who claims he has not been paid for tip-offs.

Any lobbyist holding a pass, Mr Miller said, would inevitably give rise to suspicions that they were conducting business within the Commons.Other lobbyists are concerned in case the public feels they are all running businesses from the Commons and using facilities at taxpayers’ expense.. These include payments to MPs by lobbying firms and consultants obtaining passes. He can also use the Commons library and obtainpublished parliamentary papers without charge.Mr Miller’s association has been trying to clamp down on what it perceives as the abuses of the lobbying profession. Our rules bar not just the holding of a sinecure pass but all researchers’ passes by our members.”A Commons pass enables Mr Joseph to move freely around Parliament and mingle with ministers and MPs in the numerous lobbies, bars and restaurants. At the same time, Mr Joseph’s fellow lobbyists moved to distance themselves from him. The Association of Professional Consultants, which counts some of the best-known lobbying firms among its members, strongly condemned Mr Joseph’s use of a Commons pass.Charles Miller, secretary of the association and head of the Public Policy Unit, one of the leading firms, said: “What you have suggested Mr Joseph is doing is not typical of professional lobbyists.