26/01/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.properly manage our transport network? This may be an inadequate

:00:00. > :00:14.birthday present, but I will do my best to deliver on what you want.

:00:15. > :00:17.Point of order. I am glad the Brexit secretary is here to his moment of

:00:18. > :00:23.history. If I could just detain him for a second, he used a quote from

:00:24. > :00:28.my successor's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, somehow suggesting

:00:29. > :00:31.she wanted to deprive 160,000 European citizens of their right of

:00:32. > :00:36.residence in Scotland. By the wonders of modern technology I

:00:37. > :00:41.traced the original quote from July 20 14. In fact she was arguing the

:00:42. > :00:45.exact opposite, that that was one of the reasons Scotland would remain as

:00:46. > :00:52.an independent country and amber of the EU. I know the Brexit secretary

:00:53. > :00:57.well, here's a decent and man. And when I found another minister it

:00:58. > :01:02.used the same smear last October, I'm bound to conclude some teenage

:01:03. > :01:05.scribblers in his department are feeding out misleading information

:01:06. > :01:10.to hapless ministers who are then repeating it to the house. I'm sure

:01:11. > :01:15.the Brexit secretary, perhaps even before he has his moment of history,

:01:16. > :01:24.will want to correct that. Further to that, Mr Secretary. If I am wrong

:01:25. > :01:34.I apologise, I will send him the quote directly. A separate point of

:01:35. > :01:39.order. I will answer the right honourable gentleman's first point

:01:40. > :01:44.of order which, as he and the house knows, was not a point of order. But

:01:45. > :01:48.he sort in his usual rhetorical way to set the record straight as he

:01:49. > :01:54.wished to do so. The secretary of state has responded adequately to

:01:55. > :01:57.the point raised by the Right honourable gentleman and I hope that

:01:58. > :02:07.honour is satisfied in all sites. Point of order. And this is a point

:02:08. > :02:11.of order. Which is to say as you know when a minister makes a

:02:12. > :02:15.statement to the house, the moment base it down a printed copy is then

:02:16. > :02:21.circulated around the chamber by the doorkeepers. That is very useful for

:02:22. > :02:24.many members. You can check exactly what has been said in case you

:02:25. > :02:29.misheard it. The one time we don't do that is the business statement. I

:02:30. > :02:33.admit it is a business question, so it is slightly different, but would

:02:34. > :02:36.it not be for the convenience of the house of the moment that the leader

:02:37. > :02:45.of how is has finished announcing forthcoming business, it was not

:02:46. > :02:49.then circulated for all members? The honourable gentleman raises an

:02:50. > :02:52.interesting point of Administration, and it might be that the leader

:02:53. > :02:59.would like to say something further to the point of order. I completely

:03:00. > :03:05.see that as a reasonable request and I will make sure that happens. Once

:03:06. > :03:11.again, that was not a point of order for the chair, but we are having a

:03:12. > :03:20.very well-balanced session of points of order, and as the gentleman says

:03:21. > :03:25.it gets better. Would you care to make a point of order? It seems a

:03:26. > :03:31.good point for request of ministers, as we seemed to be having 100%

:03:32. > :03:34.record of having the requests fulfilled! That was not a point of

:03:35. > :03:50.order for the chair, so we will move on. Presentation of bells. -- Bill.

:03:51. > :04:05.Notification of withdrawal Bill. Second reading, what date? Tomorrow.

:04:06. > :04:08.Tomorrow! Order. We now come to the backbench motion on the statutory

:04:09. > :04:20.pubs code and the pubs code adjudicator. Thank you. I beg to

:04:21. > :04:23.move the motion as on the order paper and I want to start by

:04:24. > :04:27.thanking the backbench business committee for granting this time for

:04:28. > :04:31.this important debate, to thank the honourable members for Hartlepool

:04:32. > :04:37.and Warwick and Leamington who will lead members with me on this debate,

:04:38. > :04:43.and I thank the honourable gentleman, the member for

:04:44. > :04:49.Hartlepool, and pay tribute to all the work they have done, and the

:04:50. > :04:55.member for Warwick and Leamington who has seen himself first-hand the

:04:56. > :04:58.way these codes are thwarting tenants exercising their rights

:04:59. > :05:03.under the pubs code, and the failure of the adjudicator to address this.

:05:04. > :05:08.I must declare my interest as the chair of the British pub

:05:09. > :05:11.Confederation, the organisation that represents the vast majority of

:05:12. > :05:19.tenants organisations and pub campaigners as well. It is six

:05:20. > :05:26.months now since the start of the statutory pubs code. 21st of January

:05:27. > :05:31.was the six-month anniversary. I wish to make his house that I did

:05:32. > :05:35.not want to have to call this debate today and to bring to the house what

:05:36. > :05:41.I have to so today. More than anyone, perhaps, apart from those

:05:42. > :05:49.believed good coli Suzy 's, I wanted the issues solved the code working

:05:50. > :05:52.and the unfair model as operated and all the tales of abuse is as

:05:53. > :05:56.detailed by the select committee to be thing of the past. But that is

:05:57. > :06:04.I'm afraid not going to be the past -- case on less the code is working

:06:05. > :06:10.and enforced. And that is not the case. The pubs code must work as

:06:11. > :06:20.intended. It is the law. At the moment, pub codes are flouting. And

:06:21. > :06:26.thwarting the will of Parliament and of the Government to laid out how

:06:27. > :06:31.the code should work. As well as work causing a great deal of stress

:06:32. > :06:36.to tenants. Would he agree with me that it is no surprise that the pub

:06:37. > :06:41.codes are doing their utmost to thwart the rent revisions but that

:06:42. > :06:47.the surprise is that the adjudicator seems to think his position is one

:06:48. > :06:52.of private arbitrator and not what we set him up as, namely a judge

:06:53. > :07:01.enforcing the law? I warmly welcome and thank you for the intention. He

:07:02. > :07:07.is someone I know, with great thoroughness and intellect, has

:07:08. > :07:12.looked at this and he is correct. I'm very grateful to the honourable

:07:13. > :07:16.gentleman forgiving way. Does he agree with me that the real issue

:07:17. > :07:19.with the adjudicator Izzy needs to have the confidence of all parties

:07:20. > :07:26.involved and does not seem to be the case of the moment? He is absolutely

:07:27. > :07:28.right. To have ignored the fact that the majority of tenants

:07:29. > :07:35.organisations rejected him and do not have confidence in him and have

:07:36. > :07:39.rejected the recommendation from the select committee to reopen the

:07:40. > :07:43.process is not acceptable. We are talking about the evidence which I

:07:44. > :07:46.will keep presenting in the course of my speech. From the numerous

:07:47. > :07:51.cases that have been taken forward and taken to the adjudicator. I pay

:07:52. > :07:58.tribute to the most representing tenants who have supplied evidence

:07:59. > :08:02.on the situation, the pubs advisory service, the Forum of Private

:08:03. > :08:07.business, the punched talent network, just as the licensees and

:08:08. > :08:11.others. That has led to the British pub Confederation report which is 19

:08:12. > :08:14.detailed pages or based on direct evidence where tenants have sought

:08:15. > :08:20.to take legal rights in the pubs code. All cases taken to the

:08:21. > :08:27.adjudicator. What has the adjudicator produced? A 2-page press

:08:28. > :08:31.release. Worse than that, this press release, this glib statement, is

:08:32. > :08:36.simply not an honest disruption of the situation. The statement from

:08:37. > :08:39.the adjudicator's office provides unexplained and meaningless data

:08:40. > :08:46.while failing to deal with or even mention any of the big issues facing

:08:47. > :08:49.tenants, healing ignores the ways the regulatory pub codes are

:08:50. > :08:55.breaching the code. This covers his own failings to uphold and enforce

:08:56. > :08:58.the code. He effectively admits, to go back to the point, you

:08:59. > :09:04.effectively admits both his failure to enforce or indeed to understand

:09:05. > :09:09.the real role of the adjudicator. There is no mention in the statement

:09:10. > :09:14.of the myriad complaints about pub code behaviour. No mention about the

:09:15. > :09:20.complaints about him. Many complaints from the tenants who have

:09:21. > :09:23.approached him. No mention of issues where tenants are giving up and

:09:24. > :09:28.giving in because of the failure of the code and his office. And

:09:29. > :09:33.extraordinarily no mention at all of the key issues of plain of concerns,

:09:34. > :09:37.key issues people are seeking verification on and the systematic

:09:38. > :09:42.ways of those are insisting the market rent only option needs a new

:09:43. > :09:49.release, which is a clear breach of the pubs code. Would he not a due

:09:50. > :09:54.that the whole point of the pubs adjudicator was to even up and

:09:55. > :09:58.inequality of arms between paps Siddle tenants, a sole trader, or a

:09:59. > :10:04.family business, and very large and powerful chains, and that the lack

:10:05. > :10:11.of equal access to justice or add to our advice is causing great

:10:12. > :10:14.problems? She is right, and the intention is not the reality. That

:10:15. > :10:21.is why the house must take action as must the Government.

:10:22. > :10:26.I have a big spoon to seeing some of these things first-hand and I will

:10:27. > :10:29.say that it has been an unsatisfactory experience, I would

:10:30. > :10:37.like to share with the house the following quote, " moving to a rent

:10:38. > :10:42.only commercial free time lease agreement means larger upfront

:10:43. > :10:46.payments and the loss of the award-winning business friendly

:10:47. > :10:52.services and support, aside from business insurance. " without naming

:10:53. > :10:56.them is involved, would he agree with me that this could be

:10:57. > :10:58.interpreted as threatening, and not in my view a business friendly

:10:59. > :11:09.approach at all. I have that quote in my speech, he's

:11:10. > :11:14.absolutely right, I will refer to its now that he has referenced it,

:11:15. > :11:20.to quickly remind the house, the pubs code and adjudicator was

:11:21. > :11:26.introduced in 2015, the code came into force last year and applies

:11:27. > :11:33.only to business, owning more than five typed pubs in England and

:11:34. > :11:38.Wales. Was I judicial statutory pubs code adjudicator was created to

:11:39. > :11:45.uphold and enforce the pubs code so that it is properly implemented, and

:11:46. > :11:58.to act as impartial arbiter, when there are disputes on certain

:11:59. > :12:02.issues. Is a strong clear document. And of course, at this stage, six

:12:03. > :12:06.months in, ministers and civil servants should not have do

:12:07. > :12:10.intervene when the adjudicator has a role laid down in primary and

:12:11. > :12:14.secondary legislation, to implement and enforce the code, the role of

:12:15. > :12:18.ministers would now be to oversee and scrutinise that activity, but

:12:19. > :12:23.I'm afraid that ministers now have two intervene, because the pubs code

:12:24. > :12:30.adjudicator is not doing the job as laid down in the pubs code, and as

:12:31. > :12:33.laid down in the law. I will be very specific, regulation 50 of the pubs

:12:34. > :12:42.code states, above only business must not subject one to any

:12:43. > :12:45.detriment on the ground and this regulation is being routinely

:12:46. > :12:53.ignored and flouted by other companies. And let me go on to give

:12:54. > :13:01.examples, pub companies are refusing to allow the simple deed of

:13:02. > :13:05.variation to leases if they suggest they want to move it. This would

:13:06. > :13:11.force them to accept a new lease, which is being offered only on

:13:12. > :13:17.unfavourable and detrimental terms, clearly flouting regulation 50,

:13:18. > :13:20.enterprising things are doing systematically and saying they need

:13:21. > :13:24.to go to arbitration over what is clearly not an arbitration point but

:13:25. > :13:28.is a legal breach of the code regulation. Tenants seeking the

:13:29. > :13:34.market only rent option are being presented with unreasonable options,

:13:35. > :13:38.terms making it unviable to obtain or even pursue the option,

:13:39. > :13:45.unreasonable, unaffordable demands for upfront quarterly payments.

:13:46. > :13:48.Excessive dilapidation 's charges, and at the same time, as the right

:13:49. > :13:54.honourable gentleman has said, they are presenting these free of Thai

:13:55. > :13:58.offers, calling them market rent only offers, as if they are the same

:13:59. > :14:02.but they are not, they are the liberally confusing the two. The

:14:03. > :14:06.market rent only option is the right to an independent assessment of the

:14:07. > :14:11.market rent and the right to take it on an existing lease, with no other

:14:12. > :14:16.changes to the lease or to the terms, and yet they are insisting on

:14:17. > :14:21.shorter leases, detrimental terms. Clearly breaching the pubs code. As

:14:22. > :14:25.well as the document, and I will tell the house, it is a punch

:14:26. > :14:32.document, given to tenants, but also, the trade association of the

:14:33. > :14:36.pub go, their Chief Executive has said that it is inevitable that

:14:37. > :14:39.these agreements would have terms that more closely reflect rental

:14:40. > :14:42.agreements elsewhere in the marketplace, with the market rent

:14:43. > :14:46.only option, that is not allowed, that is detriment, it must be simply

:14:47. > :14:55.the lease carrying on and moving to a free of Thai basis paying rent

:14:56. > :15:02.independently assessed. In terms of the independent assessment itself,

:15:03. > :15:05.one issue putting people off, up to ?6,000, and I have been sent a

:15:06. > :15:17.document from a surveyor, of course, any self-regulation, it was 4000

:15:18. > :15:21.maximum, so 2000 each. Unlike what the Royal Institute of chartered

:15:22. > :17:03.surveyors are now presenting. Who is a member for the Royal Institute

:17:04. > :17:12.More than comes from the regulated pub codes. To make things worse and

:17:13. > :17:15.he has been allowed to construct a zone per conflict-of-interest policy

:17:16. > :17:20.and it falls well below what would be considered an industry standard

:17:21. > :17:22.for such a document. Surprisingly it Inc to cleanly falls below the

:17:23. > :17:28.standards of his own professional body. The conflict of interest

:17:29. > :17:36.policy should be similar to that of the grocery goes adjudicator but

:17:37. > :17:40.unlike the GCA he is chosen to publish a separate register of

:17:41. > :17:44.interests along with how his policy will be applied in relation to the

:17:45. > :17:50.register and specifically in regard to his own conflict of interest. He

:17:51. > :17:52.is setting his own rules to avoid having to fully disclose his

:17:53. > :17:57.conflict-of-interest when he is taking on cases. The select

:17:58. > :18:03.committee in July 2016 was clear that he was not only evasive, and

:18:04. > :18:10.the concluded he could not command the necessary confidence of tenants

:18:11. > :18:14.and the post should be reopened. In actual fact he also misled the

:18:15. > :18:20.select committee on important points and has not responded properly two

:18:21. > :18:28.letters asking him to explain. Going back to the key point, he is

:18:29. > :18:32.adjudicator. His job is to uphold and in force. The Government

:18:33. > :18:37.themselves say the adjudicator is responsible for in forcing the

:18:38. > :18:42.statutory pubs code. He is failing to act as an adjudicator, refusing

:18:43. > :18:47.to make rulings on important issues like the deed of variation versus

:18:48. > :18:56.new lease issue and is failing to uphold never mind enforce the code.

:18:57. > :19:00.Does he not understand the role or is this a deliberate attempt to

:19:01. > :19:04.undermine the whole statutory code which has many tenants are fearing?

:19:05. > :19:09.this case-by-case approach, saying that he will do everything on a

:19:10. > :19:14.case-by-case process, means there will not be any opportunity to look

:19:15. > :19:17.at many of the issues which are the same issues being raised by tenants,

:19:18. > :19:30.the same systematic ways that pub codes are seeking to flout and

:19:31. > :19:35.fought the code. I'm thankful for the campaign for many years on this.

:19:36. > :19:40.It may well be true about what he's saying about the motives, but the

:19:41. > :19:44.feedback I am getting is that the entire industry is frustrated about

:19:45. > :19:46.the failure to come to an adjudication, and I think that the

:19:47. > :19:51.entire industry will benefit from the certainty we have in

:19:52. > :19:54.adjudicating, getting on, making decisions and clarifying many of

:19:55. > :20:02.these important point is that he is raising. I thank the honourable

:20:03. > :20:08.gentleman. I would also issue a word of caution, to be careful who you

:20:09. > :20:11.listen to, listen to the licensees that are looking at the cases

:20:12. > :20:15.brought before them. He is right when he says that rulings must be

:20:16. > :20:21.made, his job is not to horse trade behind closed doors and Muddy

:20:22. > :20:27.Waters. And deal with breaches, tenants and pub codes need that

:20:28. > :20:33.clarity which is not doing, the refusal to step in and stop those

:20:34. > :20:39.bridges and make the general rulings amounts to a refusal to perform his

:20:40. > :20:45.statutory role, that is and not acceptable. Most of the nearest

:20:46. > :20:48.thing to bring before the house, Mr Paul Newby, himself in his role as

:20:49. > :20:57.pubs code adjudicator, as breached the very pubs code that is his

:20:58. > :21:00.statutory duty to enforce. Extraordinarily, knee has breached

:21:01. > :21:05.regulation of 38 of the code, which clearly states that where a pub

:21:06. > :21:12.codes and tenant cannot agree, the adjudicator, must within 14 days

:21:13. > :21:16.appoint an assessor, rather than doing so, which is clearly a very

:21:17. > :21:20.important part of his role and laid down in the legislation, he is

:21:21. > :21:23.passing this duty on, to his colleagues, in the Royal Institute

:21:24. > :21:27.of chartered surveyors, dispute resolution service. They are then

:21:28. > :21:31.demanding a fee, which they have no right to do, something which is not

:21:32. > :21:38.in the pubs code and the adjudicator has no right to ignore. This has

:21:39. > :21:43.been raised by the pubs advisory service, and made a complaint,

:21:44. > :21:46.because tenants were being charged this ?250, and he has now said that

:21:47. > :21:52.tenants will no longer be charged and those who have been will be

:21:53. > :21:55.refunded. But he was letting this happen, and he says that the fee

:21:56. > :21:59.will still be charged but they will now be paid from levies. And also,

:22:00. > :22:06.during this very strange period, where Mr Newby was wrongly and

:22:07. > :22:11.illegally delegating these duties to appoint an independent assessor, at

:22:12. > :22:17.this same time, Ricks then appointed a surveyor with the adjudicator 's

:22:18. > :22:22.knowledge called Barry voicing, for a tenant in a punch rent case, and

:22:23. > :22:27.yet Barry voicing was acting at the same time for Punch taverns in

:22:28. > :22:34.another rent case. The tenant refused to accept this, Mr Roissy

:22:35. > :22:43.did not pay his upfront invoices, and this breached the Royal in the

:22:44. > :22:47.Jude of chartered surveyors. And yet it happened and it happened on the

:22:48. > :22:54.knows, and with the knowledge of the pubs adjudicator, who was a member.

:22:55. > :22:59.I wish to refer to a couple more issues, which are of importance to

:23:00. > :23:05.the house, and the first is the proposed Heineken takeover of Punch

:23:06. > :23:17.taverns, 1900 Punch taverns pubs, something of great concern to Punch.

:23:18. > :23:23.They have 1100 pubs, you would be talking about a pub company of 3000

:23:24. > :23:26.pubs. It is clear, and this is a worrying competition issue, it is

:23:27. > :23:33.clear that Heineken are seeking to take over to stop competitors

:23:34. > :23:37.because the Heineken bid document states, improvements in this ability

:23:38. > :23:41.and increases in sales of Heineken brands in high-quality barbs, so it

:23:42. > :23:47.is clearly a bid to gain market share through acquisition of pubs,

:23:48. > :23:50.which, as people have said, would create a monster type, and make it

:23:51. > :23:56.much harder for brewers of all sizes to get products into pubs, which

:23:57. > :24:00.remains an issue. I have to say, it is surely time to consider looking

:24:01. > :24:04.again at the maximum number of pubs owned by breweries to stop this sort

:24:05. > :24:10.of market dominance. But also, a limit on the number of pubs that can

:24:11. > :24:15.be owned by any company, unlike the flawed beer holders, which were

:24:16. > :24:22.floored by government allowing lobbying from big brewers, which

:24:23. > :24:26.allowed a loophole. And here we are today. In terms of the role of the

:24:27. > :24:32.adjudicator on this, the concerns are, of course, that Heineken will

:24:33. > :24:36.seek to force Punch Taverns to stock only their products, and despite

:24:37. > :24:40.discussions, there is nothing in the code that says that they are allowed

:24:41. > :24:44.to do this. The adjudicator has so far refused to clarify this simple

:24:45. > :24:47.point, which is in his remit to do so, this lack of clarity means that

:24:48. > :24:51.potentially the brewers will have ability to use this confusion to

:24:52. > :24:57.threaten legal challenges which could be seen again as putting off

:24:58. > :25:05.discussions over tenants rights under the code. I have dementia

:25:06. > :25:10.Scotland, which is just as important as England and Wales, to the British

:25:11. > :25:13.pub Confederation, and a member of the British pub Confederation be in

:25:14. > :25:15.the Scottish licensed trade Association and all the wonderful

:25:16. > :25:19.work they do in Scotland and they and the British pub Confederation

:25:20. > :25:23.supports the same rights for Scottish licensees tied to pub

:25:24. > :25:27.companies, you have an absurd situation where people tied to the

:25:28. > :25:30.same companies on one side of the border have certain rights and then

:25:31. > :25:35.one mile away, across the board in Scotland they have none of those

:25:36. > :25:36.rights. It should be extended to Scotland. I look forward to

:25:37. > :25:46.comments. I am grateful to him for giving way

:25:47. > :25:52.on that point. Very important, we remind ourselves of the process of

:25:53. > :25:57.legislation that went through. In that vote, which predominantly was

:25:58. > :26:00.about pubs in England, the SNP actually voted with ourselves in

:26:01. > :26:04.that victory because they wanted to have the right in the future. The

:26:05. > :26:08.same as Scotland. It's a shame it hasn't actually been brought in. He

:26:09. > :26:11.is right, that was indeed the only way to ever get these sorts of right

:26:12. > :26:17.and fairness for Scottish tenants was to it to be established anywhere

:26:18. > :26:21.in first. I was delighted the SNP were supporting that are here today,

:26:22. > :26:24.because it is simply wrong that they are discriminated against, which is

:26:25. > :26:30.the point, versus the English and Welsh counterparts. I will indeed

:26:31. > :26:33.touch on some of the points that he and honourable colleagues have made

:26:34. > :26:38.during the debate. He has made an excellent case in many of the

:26:39. > :26:42.deficiencies of the Pubs Code Adjudicator, particularly the

:26:43. > :26:49.conflict of interest, which appears to have it causal link. I'm confused

:26:50. > :26:52.as to why he would recommend that to another jurisdiction when by his own

:26:53. > :26:56.admission it doesn't seem to be working correctly. Honourable

:26:57. > :26:59.gentleman makes an excellent point, which of course is covered in the

:27:00. > :27:04.briefing that the British Pub comfort oration on the Scottish

:27:05. > :27:08.licensed trade Association sent him. One of the exciting possibilities

:27:09. > :27:13.was with a delegation who met the Minister Fergus Ewing MSP. We said,

:27:14. > :27:17.actually, we think you can do this in a simple, clear and better way

:27:18. > :27:21.and one that is appropriate to Scotland, which is a challenge for

:27:22. > :27:24.the Scottish Government. The Scottish licensed trade Association

:27:25. > :27:28.and the British pub but oration will be delighted to offer support in how

:27:29. > :27:31.that can achieved in the best possible way for Scottish licensees,

:27:32. > :27:34.learning some of the lessons about what is going wrong here and the

:27:35. > :27:39.sort of person that should and shouldn't be an adjudicator if that

:27:40. > :27:43.is the system they choose to follow. In conclusion, the reality is that

:27:44. > :27:46.the Statutory Pubs Code is not working as Parliament intended when

:27:47. > :27:51.we voted it through, and it is not working as this Government intended

:27:52. > :27:58.when it drafted the Pubs Code. It has been routinely flouted and

:27:59. > :28:01.ignored by PubCo it's, and Mr Paul Newby, a hugely inappropriate choice

:28:02. > :28:06.for Pubs Code Adjudicator, is failing in his basic and statutory

:28:07. > :28:10.duty to uphold and enforce the code. Tenants seeking to uphold the legal

:28:11. > :28:14.right to the market rent only option are being discriminated against,

:28:15. > :28:19.misled and bullied the excepting tied deals. The problems identified

:28:20. > :28:22.by four Select Committee reports and now by the British pub comfort

:28:23. > :28:28.oration or simply not being addressed. The two things that need

:28:29. > :28:32.to happen, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers, I have to say, have so

:28:33. > :28:35.far ignored this, so far washed their hands of this. But they can no

:28:36. > :28:40.longer do so because the Pubs Code and the law is being flouted. First

:28:41. > :28:45.of all they must intervene, now, and ensure that the Pubs Code works as

:28:46. > :28:48.they Parliament intended and ensure that the office of the Pubs Code

:28:49. > :28:51.Adjudicator is actually upholding and enforcing the code. But I'm

:28:52. > :28:59.afraid after you have heard the reality of what is going on of the

:29:00. > :29:01.six months of the operation of the code, the Secretary of State must

:29:02. > :29:03.now accept the recommendation of the business energy and industrial

:29:04. > :29:05.strategy Select Committee and reopen the appointment process of the Pubs

:29:06. > :29:10.Code Adjudicator. We needed adjudicator who actually properly

:29:11. > :29:13.understands and then clearly properly fulfils this important

:29:14. > :29:17.statutory role. That requires somebody who does not have the

:29:18. > :29:20.conflict-of-interest that Paul Newby has. Somebody who will carry the

:29:21. > :29:26.role as intended, rather than seeking to skew and undermine the

:29:27. > :29:30.very role and the code. A lot of time has gone in from MPs, from

:29:31. > :29:34.ministers, from civil servants, from the Select Committee, and all of

:29:35. > :29:41.that is being ported and ignored. So the code now be made to work with

:29:42. > :29:46.the adjudicator, who will be enforcing it and help to appropriate

:29:47. > :29:50.standards of the quasi judicial position. The law must be able to

:29:51. > :29:59.work, and the will of the House must be upheld. The question is as on the

:30:00. > :30:03.order paper. Laurence Robertson. Can I congratulate the honourable member

:30:04. > :30:09.for Leeds North West on being the energy behind getting this debate.

:30:10. > :30:12.And also to thank him for the constant help which he certainly

:30:13. > :30:17.gives to me and maybe other honourable members when we go to him

:30:18. > :30:22.with certain issues and problems which we having counted in our

:30:23. > :30:28.constituency with tenants and leaseholders of PubCo. Can I also

:30:29. > :30:36.occur a non-Red Rooster a ball interest in that my sister is the

:30:37. > :30:39.tenant of a PubCo -- a non-registerable interest. Some of

:30:40. > :30:44.my remarks will be generated from experience that I have in that

:30:45. > :30:48.respect, but not exclusively - I have a large number of pubs in my

:30:49. > :30:53.constituency, one or two at the moment are being closed and changed

:30:54. > :30:56.into housing, changed into car parking perhaps. And it's that

:30:57. > :31:02.concern about pub closures. Its concern about the lack of

:31:03. > :31:06.profitability of many pubs which really is my motivation for taking

:31:07. > :31:13.part in this debate. Can I say from the outset, I'm not instinctively

:31:14. > :31:18.necessarily oppose to the PubCo model as such. It has a number of

:31:19. > :31:21.advantages. It does allow people with very little capital to actually

:31:22. > :31:28.go into the pub trade in the first place. PubCo, under ordinary

:31:29. > :31:33.circumstances, take responsibility for the building and the exterior

:31:34. > :31:37.work, which as we all know can be very expensive. It can, when it

:31:38. > :31:43.works well, provide some professional back-up. It provides

:31:44. > :31:47.access to a wide range of beers. It doesn't insist that wines and

:31:48. > :31:51.spirits or included in the tie. Although I'll come back to that

:31:52. > :31:56.point a few minutes. It provides an opportunity for the landlord to run

:31:57. > :32:01.a restaurant within the premises. And it provides accommodation where

:32:02. > :32:06.people can live, where the landlord can live. So there are some good

:32:07. > :32:12.aspects to the PubCo model in theory at least. So I'm not out to attack

:32:13. > :32:17.PubCos as such. But in practice, we have seen a lot of problems. Rents,

:32:18. > :32:21.for example, have been very and fairly assessed in many places. They

:32:22. > :32:28.are based not only on the profit that the the pub makes from the

:32:29. > :32:32.Tadhg Beirne, but only the anticipated profit that it might get

:32:33. > :32:35.under certain circumstances from food -- the beer. Even though the

:32:36. > :32:41.PubCo benefits from the sale of its own beer, when the business has

:32:42. > :32:45.actually done better, it's quite often the case that the rent will be

:32:46. > :32:50.increased, even though the PubCo has benefited from the extra beer sales.

:32:51. > :32:55.And that does seem to be quite unfair. PubCo sometimes insists that

:32:56. > :32:59.landlords go on courses, educational courses, when it really is

:33:00. > :33:03.stretching imagination to suggest that somebody who has been on the

:33:04. > :33:08.trade for a long time for example actually needs to go on those

:33:09. > :33:14.courses. The PubCo benefits from the cost of those courses. On many

:33:15. > :33:18.occasions, PubCos insist that landlords use their own, in other

:33:19. > :33:23.words, the PubCo's insurance policies, which are enormous more

:33:24. > :33:29.expensive than elsewhere on the market. They won't allow another

:33:30. > :33:34.product to be used unless it has the identical wording in the alternative

:33:35. > :33:38.insurance policy, which seems to be very unfair and costs landlords an

:33:39. > :33:41.awful lot of money. I have even known it to be the case where the

:33:42. > :33:46.tenant or leaseholder has been told he has to take out an insurance

:33:47. > :33:49.policy which covers the buildings insurance and cover, even though

:33:50. > :33:55.they are not responsible for that very building. And of course,

:33:56. > :33:59.tenants are charged for fixtures and fittings which are not necessarily,

:34:00. > :34:04.in many cases, and which the value, the assessed value of those fixtures

:34:05. > :34:09.and fittings is actually far greater than the actual value. Again, the

:34:10. > :34:14.landlord loses out in that case. So there are all of these problems. And

:34:15. > :34:17.the rate of the pub closure of course did persuade Parliament to

:34:18. > :34:21.change the legislation. As the honourable member for Leeds North

:34:22. > :34:27.West has very accurately and very comprehensively shown, the

:34:28. > :34:33.legislation is not working as it should. For example, confusion

:34:34. > :34:40.actually surrounds who is entitled to the free-of-tie option. There are

:34:41. > :34:44.landlords who feel that only leaseholders or protected tenants

:34:45. > :34:47.are eligible, and that really does need clarifying and I hope that the

:34:48. > :34:52.Minister will be able to clarify that point for us today. Also, if a

:34:53. > :34:58.tenant is not protected under the landlord and tenant act, the

:34:59. > :35:03.particular clause saying that a tenancy or a lease has to be renewed

:35:04. > :35:07.unless the organisation who owns the building actually wants to take it

:35:08. > :35:13.back for their own use, that they do have the very allow for a lease to

:35:14. > :35:16.be renewed. Now, many, many tenants and many leaseholders actually have

:35:17. > :35:20.that clause struck out in the agreement which they reach. And so

:35:21. > :35:24.that's all well and good until they get to the point where they lead a

:35:25. > :35:32.new tenancy or a new lease, and they go to the PubCo saying they want to

:35:33. > :35:35.free-of-tie option. Now, because they are not protected in that way,

:35:36. > :35:38.the PubCo can simply refuse to renew the tenancy. So, is that fair? I

:35:39. > :35:42.would suggest that certainly is not fair and again I would appreciate

:35:43. > :35:46.some clarification on the exact position, because it is an important

:35:47. > :35:54.matter. In a request recently I was told that about 11,500 tenants are

:35:55. > :35:58.protected by the code, but there are many more tenants in the UK than

:35:59. > :36:02.that. It is not always easy to get the new tenancy if you are asking

:36:03. > :36:07.for a free-of-tie arrangement. The PubCo also offering users outside

:36:08. > :36:11.agencies to negotiate the new tenancies, including using for

:36:12. > :36:14.example chartered surveyors, who probably don't understand the local

:36:15. > :36:20.trade, if they understand the trade at all. I've also received

:36:21. > :36:23.complaints that business development managers of PubCos don't properly

:36:24. > :36:26.discuss with tenants the options which are available. The tenant gets

:36:27. > :36:32.told that even if they are prepared to offer them a new tenancy, the red

:36:33. > :36:35.might go up considerably. Now, that is of course where the adjudicator

:36:36. > :36:39.is supposed to be brought in. But the two points from that. That

:36:40. > :36:43.system really does make for bad relations between the tenant and the

:36:44. > :36:47.PubCo. And that's not a good situation to be in. And it does also

:36:48. > :36:51.raise the question, is the adjudicator effectively and

:36:52. > :36:56.efficiently engaging with pubs and landlords who take cases to the? And

:36:57. > :37:01.my experience so far is that that is not happening. Another tenant told

:37:02. > :37:05.me that he started his new tenancy, the need tenancy, he has already had

:37:06. > :37:10.one, at the start of the new tenancy he is effectively having to apply

:37:11. > :37:13.for his own pub as if he is a new talent, filling in CVs and

:37:14. > :37:17.application forms, having to submit a new business plan, going on

:37:18. > :37:21.training courses, which I mentioned earlier, which he had to do when he

:37:22. > :37:24.entered the trade in the first place. This is somebody who has been

:37:25. > :37:29.running a pub or a similar establishment for close on 20 years.

:37:30. > :37:34.So where is the sense, where is the fairness in that? And all of this

:37:35. > :37:38.causes a great deal of stress and problems. I think it's worth

:37:39. > :37:43.pointing out that the tenants quite often can fear and could actually

:37:44. > :37:46.end up not only being out of work and out of business, but actually

:37:47. > :37:51.out of a home, because the pub is the home. It is very unlikely that

:37:52. > :37:54.during the course of being a PubCo tenant they are going to be able to

:37:55. > :37:59.have built up sufficient capital to either buy a new home or certainly

:38:00. > :38:03.not to buy a new business. They are in a very, very precarious

:38:04. > :38:06.situation. And the House of Commons did not intend that to be the case

:38:07. > :38:12.when it passed this legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, just to

:38:13. > :38:14.conclude, the value of pubs to the communities they are in,

:38:15. > :38:19.particularly in rural areas, or enormous. They are often meeting

:38:20. > :38:23.places, places where people can dine together, where clubs and societies

:38:24. > :38:27.can be formed, where friendships can be made. And pubs also raise an

:38:28. > :38:31.awful lot of money for charities. That's something that often gets

:38:32. > :38:35.forgotten. They are valuable community assets. I would just ask

:38:36. > :38:39.the Minister, as far as you can today, and perhaps following this

:38:40. > :38:44.debate, if she can perhaps try and answer some of these queries, if she

:38:45. > :38:48.can consider if anything else can be done to, as the honourable member

:38:49. > :38:52.for Leeds North West said, to give effect to the law and to what the

:38:53. > :38:59.House of Commons actually intended when it brought in these changes.

:39:00. > :39:03.Thank you. Iain Wright. Thank you. Can I begin by saying how grateful I

:39:04. > :39:05.am to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this

:39:06. > :39:08.important debate to take place. I really want to thank the honourable

:39:09. > :39:13.gentleman the Leeds North West. Together with the Jen the

:39:14. > :39:17.Tewkesbury, who has just spoken about the superior knowledge and

:39:18. > :39:21.flexibility and awareness of the Pubs Code and how it should be

:39:22. > :39:28.operated. I also paid tribute to the honourable gentleman Flemington, as

:39:29. > :39:33.well as who is also in her place, the honourable lady the panic Chase,

:39:34. > :39:37.who are both fantastic members of the Select Committee which I'm

:39:38. > :39:40.privileged to chair. All who have spoken so far, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:39:41. > :39:45.have worked hard on the issue of pubs and the pub industry. And this

:39:46. > :39:48.industry has been characterised for many years with a real imbalance in

:39:49. > :39:53.the power between large pub companies and the tenants of pubs

:39:54. > :39:58.tied to those companies, the market has not worked in a fair and

:39:59. > :40:05.equitable way. And tenants have seen unfair conditions imposed upon the

:40:06. > :40:08.manner in which a whole variety of things take place - how they sell

:40:09. > :40:10.the beer, and particularly the rent which they pay and belief in which

:40:11. > :40:14.they operate under. The Pubs Code sets out how PubCos should deal with

:40:15. > :40:19.the tenants in a much fairer way, and I am pleased to see my

:40:20. > :40:22.honourable friend, the member for West Bromwich West, my predecessor

:40:23. > :40:25.in terms of the business Select Committee, who really worked hard in

:40:26. > :40:27.pushing this and making sure that the Goverment's feat will help to

:40:28. > :40:37.the fire with regards to that. His select committee and the Labour

:40:38. > :40:41.front bench, the member for Chesterfield did great work on this,

:40:42. > :40:47.it is nice to see him in his place too. These honourable members have

:40:48. > :40:53.worked incredibly hard to try and balance that imbalance in the power

:40:54. > :40:57.relationship between pub cos and tenants, and a key part of

:40:58. > :41:03.addressing that is the Pubs Code adjudicator, the adjudicator

:41:04. > :41:07.providing guidance and judges on transactions to making Sarah. As

:41:08. > :41:10.we've heard, Mr Newby is the first adjudicator and in many respects by

:41:11. > :41:16.being the first appointment Mr Newby will shape the nature, style and

:41:17. > :41:22.tone of the job enable way which actors will be dealt with by his

:41:23. > :41:25.successors. His judgment. Set residents having ramifications on

:41:26. > :41:29.the pub trade under pub property business for decades to come. Dave

:41:30. > :41:34.Manfred of the pubs advisory service and a landlord himself said to us

:41:35. > :41:36.when we were taking evidence on the select committee that the man I

:41:37. > :41:40.quote committee pubs adjudicator needs to be fair and harsh and the

:41:41. > :41:44.decisions he makes need to be based on our common law of justice and

:41:45. > :41:48.fairness, such that they can be then applied to similar cases so that

:41:49. > :41:53.precedent is set. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. It

:41:54. > :41:56.is therefore essential that the first appointment of a key role

:41:57. > :42:02.commands universal respect immediately and is not subject to

:42:03. > :42:05.criticism or accusations of conflicts of interest, whether those

:42:06. > :42:09.conflicts of interest are either real or perceived because perception

:42:10. > :42:15.is equally important in matters such as this. I'm grateful for him

:42:16. > :42:19.forgiving way. Would he agree with me that the imbalance he rightly

:42:20. > :42:25.speaks of means that the proper role of the adjudicator is not to

:42:26. > :42:31.maintain an impartial view solely, but specifically to look at cases of

:42:32. > :42:44.abuse by the pub codes, a symmetrical case of abuse, it isn't

:42:45. > :42:54.the tenants abusing the code but PubCos and abusing the issue. He

:42:55. > :42:57.makes an incredibly important point and the balance has to be addressed

:42:58. > :43:04.in the respect to the power dynamics. I would suggest that isn't

:43:05. > :43:07.taking place. I want to be clear Mr Newby's professional credentials and

:43:08. > :43:10.expertise are not disputed commit his knowledge of the industry having

:43:11. > :43:13.worked in the pub property business for something like 35 years, that is

:43:14. > :43:18.not in doubt and cannot be questioned. However, having looked

:43:19. > :43:22.at this in a select committee, we believe there is a significant

:43:23. > :43:25.reason why he should find it difficult and is finding it

:43:26. > :43:29.difficult to command the confidence of all parts of the industry, namely

:43:30. > :43:34.that strong perception of conflict of interest made worse by an ongoing

:43:35. > :43:41.financial interest of Mr Newby's in his former firm. I give way. Thank

:43:42. > :43:44.you very much, and following the speech by the Honourable member for

:43:45. > :43:48.Leeds North West, and the chair of the select committee, there has been

:43:49. > :43:52.a number of criticisms made of the pubs adjudicator. Do you think he

:43:53. > :44:00.should be called in front of the select committee again? I think this

:44:01. > :44:03.is an issue that has attracted enormous interest not just from our

:44:04. > :44:07.select committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Garth from predecessor

:44:08. > :44:10.select committees who actually helped to change the law when it

:44:11. > :44:14.comes to this. I will maintain them as chair of the select committee

:44:15. > :44:18.presents, in terms of hard-working and determined members on the select

:44:19. > :44:21.committees that as the honourable gentleman for Warrington and Cannock

:44:22. > :44:27.Chase, that this is not going to go away, and we will continue to put

:44:28. > :44:31.our attention and pressure on this, to pressure the government is to

:44:32. > :44:34.look again at the appointments process to have disappointment, this

:44:35. > :44:39.important appointment to be fair and impartial and that is not happening

:44:40. > :44:43.at the moment. Before I touch upon the key reason why we want to see

:44:44. > :44:47.this appointments process reopened I want to touch upon an issue came up

:44:48. > :44:50.in the select committee. Simon Clark is eighth tied tenant and a surveyor

:44:51. > :44:54.and as well as Mr Mountford were mentioned earlier they expressed

:44:55. > :44:58.surprise and concerned that Vista Newby, a chartered surveyor can even

:44:59. > :45:02.applied for the job. Both said that they needed some money -- somebody

:45:03. > :45:06.from outside the industry. Mr Mountford said that they had said to

:45:07. > :45:09.the Department of business innovations and skills that it was

:45:10. > :45:14.then, and I quote, that they appoint a judge or somebody with legal

:45:15. > :45:17.experience. We should not be appointing a surveyor. Mr Clark

:45:18. > :45:22.suggested that it definitely shouldn't have been as surveyor

:45:23. > :45:26.because there would always be a topic of interest because in all

:45:27. > :45:31.likelihood they would have always advised one of the parties. Prior to

:45:32. > :45:36.becoming the pubs adjudicator, Mr Newby was a director of a firm of

:45:37. > :45:40.business property valuers and surveyors. In giving evidence to the

:45:41. > :45:43.select committee, and I think the gentleman for Leeds North West has

:45:44. > :45:49.mentioned this, he stated that around about 23% of the firm's fee

:45:50. > :45:55.income, a material amounts, derived from advice provided to large pub

:45:56. > :45:59.companies. That in itself would lend itself to accusations of potential

:46:00. > :46:02.and certainly perceived conflict of interest. However, Mr Newby

:46:03. > :46:06.continues to have financial interests in the company. He came to

:46:07. > :46:11.the committee to give evidence in May and then clarified some of his

:46:12. > :46:14.self confessed inaccuracies to us in a letter to me in November, at the

:46:15. > :46:23.instigation of the minister that he said. Mr Newby has both shares and

:46:24. > :46:27.notes owed to him by the company. We asked him on the committee whether

:46:28. > :46:31.he would provide a clean and the findable break with his old firm by

:46:32. > :46:34.divesting himself of his financial interests, and he stated in his

:46:35. > :46:38.November letter to me that the company was unwilling to do so in

:46:39. > :46:43.order to avoid putting in his own words, undue strain on capital

:46:44. > :46:48.resources of the firm. I think it is probably more accurate to call it

:46:49. > :46:51.the firm's cash flow. I think this is very serious, Madam Deputy

:46:52. > :46:55.Speaker and really undermines the ability of the adjudicator to

:46:56. > :46:59.command the trust and respect of all sides of the industry. My only does

:47:00. > :47:02.he have a significant financial interest in the hands of both shares

:47:03. > :47:06.and loans in the company, which drives a significant part of its

:47:07. > :47:10.revenue from large pub companies, he cannot alter that situation because

:47:11. > :47:14.that would put strain on cash flow. In other words, there remains an

:47:15. > :47:18.ongoing financial interest and it is in Mr Newby's interest for the firm

:47:19. > :47:23.to do well in order to secure the monies owed to him. That could mean

:47:24. > :47:31.that his judgments would assist large PubCos who commissioned

:47:32. > :47:36.arrangements to arrange cash flow position and profitability for the

:47:37. > :47:43.firm, and allow payments hence to Mr Newby to be made. When he came for

:47:44. > :47:46.the committee, Mr Newby said that he had taken off his previous hat and

:47:47. > :47:49.thrown it away. But he hasn't, Madame Debbie disputed. The ongoing

:47:50. > :47:56.financial interest means that he's very clearly wearing that had. It

:47:57. > :47:59.comes down to this, that there is a clear perception of conflict of

:48:00. > :48:03.interest. I look at things through the prism of football, Madam Deputy

:48:04. > :48:06.Speaker, and it seems to me like it is a refereed officiating in a

:48:07. > :48:10.football match between Chelsea, who are top of the premiership at the

:48:11. > :48:19.moment, and Newport County, who are bottom of League 2. Hartlepool

:48:20. > :48:25.hasn't fallen quite just yet. Yet. So there is a match between Chelsea

:48:26. > :48:29.and Newport County. That huge imbalance between different skills

:48:30. > :48:32.and experience. Although that is a separate debate, I would suggest.

:48:33. > :48:37.Only for fans to discover that the referee owns shares in Chelsea's

:48:38. > :48:41.shirt sponsor. It is as close a relationship as this. And with

:48:42. > :48:44.regard to perceptions of conflict of interest it started with the first

:48:45. > :48:49.appointment immediately, and I said to Mr Newby at the committee

:48:50. > :48:54.committee cannot possibly win any judgment he makes will always now

:48:55. > :48:58.accused in terms of being unfair and impartial. Very much like a referee

:48:59. > :49:03.who would be considered to be impartial, to be not independent.

:49:04. > :49:07.This is a serious failing in the ability of the Pubs Code to be

:49:08. > :49:12.operating effectively. And a vivid contrast was brought home to me in

:49:13. > :49:15.the select committee when I asked both tenants and landlords and then

:49:16. > :49:20.executives from large PubCos whether they had confidence in Mr Newby and

:49:21. > :49:24.his appointment. The large SAID they did not have a problem once

:49:25. > :49:29.volley-macro whatsoever. The tenants believed clearly that they didn't

:49:30. > :49:33.believe judgments will be fair and impartial. That strikes the contrast

:49:34. > :49:37.and it shows that it cannot operate effectively. The Pubs Code has

:49:38. > :49:41.broken down before it has even begun and the Minister needs to intervene

:49:42. > :49:44.to ensure the code starts to work. Now, I'm disappointed that the

:49:45. > :49:46.Secretary of State rejected calls to reopen the appointments process. I

:49:47. > :49:52.hope the Minister would accept that this case demonstrates a serious and

:49:53. > :49:57.clear perceived conflict of interest and that perception is stopping the

:49:58. > :50:00.code from working effectively. To ensure the viability of the pub

:50:01. > :50:06.industry and to protect the interests of tenants, which have not

:50:07. > :50:11.been provided with -- for many, many years, will she opened the process

:50:12. > :50:17.again, and have an adjudicator that is and is seen to be completely in

:50:18. > :50:24.independent and impartial? Toby Perkins. They derive much Madame

:50:25. > :50:31.Leopard is bigger. I congratulate the member for Leeds North West for

:50:32. > :50:33.securing the debate, a good pubs campaigner and speaks very

:50:34. > :50:36.powerfully on behalf of the industry and I'm pleased we have worked

:50:37. > :50:40.together to introduce the code in the last Parliament, and to ensure

:50:41. > :50:44.the free market rent only option be part of it. It has been a great

:50:45. > :50:48.honour to take over from him as the chair of the pub All Party

:50:49. > :50:51.Parliamentary Group and I'm sure we will continue to work closely

:50:52. > :50:55.together on these issues. The work we have done together in the past

:50:56. > :50:58.has taken us some of the way to where we are today, I hope that we

:50:59. > :51:01.would be part of the Labour government that would get to deliver

:51:02. > :51:06.this code, but sadly that is not the case. The Pubs Code was a

:51:07. > :51:11.contentious and important battle to win. I recall as I'm sure the

:51:12. > :51:17.honourable gentleman does, campaigners tears of joy when we

:51:18. > :51:21.finally secured the victory that it should market rent only options were

:51:22. > :51:29.a part of the pub code after he had brought forward that's amendments to

:51:30. > :51:31.the report stage. And I recall those campaigners, many campaigners coming

:51:32. > :51:38.to me saying it is too late for me, I've gone bankrupt as a result of

:51:39. > :51:41.the imperfections and the way in which the industry has been run in

:51:42. > :51:46.the past but nonetheless, it is crucial for me to know that the

:51:47. > :51:50.government, parliament is going to be bringing this kind of abuse to an

:51:51. > :51:55.end. And so it is incredibly important that campaigners who have

:51:56. > :51:58.spent many many years getting governments to recognise that power

:51:59. > :52:03.imbalance in the industry, and the exploitation of that situation

:52:04. > :52:06.resulted from that, and that those people now have confidence in the

:52:07. > :52:10.Pubs Code and that we end up delivering what those tears of joy

:52:11. > :52:19.were expecting from us. The Labour government of 2000 and 52 2010, did

:52:20. > :52:23.excellent work -- 2005-2010, and the Labour member from Wentworth pursued

:52:24. > :52:28.and look at this issue, set a final challenge for the industry, in the

:52:29. > :52:33.latter days of government the coalition government that followed

:52:34. > :52:36.of it were wary of regulating a corrugated industry and attempted to

:52:37. > :52:39.do everything within their power to give the industry time to put their

:52:40. > :52:44.own houses in order. It was very much last resort for the government

:52:45. > :52:47.is doing to use the statutory pubs code and it was a shock to them and

:52:48. > :52:53.were able to get the house to introduce a market rent only option

:52:54. > :52:56.to the legislation. All critics were determined to say we shouldn't

:52:57. > :53:00.legislate, that it would make matters worse, they reflected back

:53:01. > :53:04.on the pier owners and they said the Labour didn't turn out how it was

:53:05. > :53:07.expected, and there were always people who were saying that any kind

:53:08. > :53:12.of government legislation would make the industry worse. And it is

:53:13. > :53:18.important that those people who have faith in this code get the sense

:53:19. > :53:22.that this Parliament and government are serious about ensuring that the

:53:23. > :53:27.legislation that we pass actually delivers what we intend for it. Now,

:53:28. > :53:29.I have to say, I think it did to the credit of this government that

:53:30. > :53:32.following the election they have stuck to their word and they did

:53:33. > :53:35.indeed introduce the code that they committed to. And it is now the

:53:36. > :53:44.entire industry's interest to ensure the pub codes is established, it and

:53:45. > :53:47.that the industry sees the rigour with which it is enforced and that

:53:48. > :53:51.is established. The Pubs Code adjudicator needs to be seen to be

:53:52. > :53:57.impartial, and clearly the motion in front of us, supported by the

:53:58. > :53:59.committee and of course the honourable gentleman Felice

:54:00. > :54:04.north-west and the honourable gentleman from Warrington means that

:54:05. > :54:08.the test of confidence have not been met. We have had deeply concerning

:54:09. > :54:11.allegations about the conduct about companies when tenants wish to avail

:54:12. > :54:16.themselves of the market rent only option and one of the key tests of

:54:17. > :54:19.the adjudicator will be to start talking clarity deterrence and the

:54:20. > :54:24.pub owning businesses on issues like the appropriateness of these

:54:25. > :54:29.variations as a tool for transferring from a tight tenancy to

:54:30. > :54:32.everyone. I haven't had a convincing reason as to why that shouldn't be

:54:33. > :54:35.appropriate in the majority of cases. Now, I will come in a moment

:54:36. > :54:41.to the appointment and performance of Mr Newby, I do think it is fair

:54:42. > :54:43.to reflect that alongside my praise for the government in bringing

:54:44. > :54:48.forward some form of legislation there are also legitimate questions.

:54:49. > :54:51.About the way that is being implemented. It may seem a little

:54:52. > :55:02.harsh to criticise the government for being too slow and too hasty.

:55:03. > :55:07.I believe the Government could have come forward much more quickly with

:55:08. > :55:14.a draft code that the entire industry knew what was in store,

:55:15. > :55:18.pointed an earlier point the adjudicator and given more time for

:55:19. > :55:22.that sort of setup process to work. I also think that the scale of the

:55:23. > :55:27.changes to the code from the initial one to the final one, even though I

:55:28. > :55:30.support most of those changes, I do think that lead-in time was short

:55:31. > :55:36.and left the adjudicator and the industry with very little time to

:55:37. > :55:40.establish the new rules of the game. Now, I'm also very conscious of the

:55:41. > :55:44.strong criticism from the Select Committee of this process. That led

:55:45. > :55:48.to the appointment of Mr Newby. This has been repeated by my honourable

:55:49. > :55:53.friend from Hartlepool, and questioned about whether his

:55:54. > :55:55.background opened him up to perceptions of impartiality. And I

:55:56. > :55:59.sympathise with many of those than the MERS. The honourable member from

:56:00. > :56:04.Leeds North West referred to my meeting with Mr Newby this week --

:56:05. > :56:09.many of those sentiments. I'm very happy to do so. As always, my

:56:10. > :56:13.approach to these matters is to meet all parties involved in this, I have

:56:14. > :56:17.met already with some of the campaigners, my friend from

:56:18. > :56:24.Hartlepool met in a couple of weeks, I haven't yet met with the BBPA or

:56:25. > :56:29.with the AMR or many other organisations but I will do. I think

:56:30. > :56:33.it is important that everybody gets an opportunity to be heard, that's

:56:34. > :56:37.always the approach that I take. But I said to Mr Newby when I met with

:56:38. > :56:40.him this week, the focus on his background will continue. While

:56:41. > :56:45.there are no adjudicator positions coming from his office, while he has

:56:46. > :56:50.perceived conflict-of-interest that exists. What we all want is for the

:56:51. > :56:54.adjudicator to get on and adjudicate and start answering some of these

:56:55. > :56:58.key questions about how the Pubs Code should be interpreted. Once

:56:59. > :57:03.many of these initial decisions are taken, there will be far greater

:57:04. > :57:05.clarity for tenants, an opportunity for the adjudicator as the

:57:06. > :57:09.honourable gentleman for Russ Dorset referred to but actually start

:57:10. > :57:13.representing the people he is there to represent, those who have set up

:57:14. > :57:16.the Pubs Code in order to protect, and it will be there for the

:57:17. > :57:22.adjudicator to be able to go to the pubs, the pub owning companies and

:57:23. > :57:25.say, we have met previously about the red Lion, and now you're coming

:57:26. > :57:28.back with a back with the same issue about the dog and dark, we

:57:29. > :57:33.continuing to have these arguments? I think the honourable gentleman

:57:34. > :57:37.from Leeds North West makes an important point. Of course there may

:57:38. > :57:41.be differences of interpretation, differences of fact in individual

:57:42. > :57:46.cases, but there are themes that emerged throughout this process that

:57:47. > :57:50.could be looked at and could be processed very, very quickly indeed,

:57:51. > :57:55.and would give that clarity. As I said in my intervention previously,

:57:56. > :57:58.I think that across the industry on both sides of the argument there is

:57:59. > :58:04.a real frustration at the length of time that it is taking for decisions

:58:05. > :58:09.to emerge. Mr Newby has stored me we will continue to start and see

:58:10. > :58:15.positions within the next month as -- has assured me. We hope he

:58:16. > :58:20.delivers on that. The motion also refers to Mr Newby's shareholding

:58:21. > :58:25.and loans to Florence. This has been referred to by other contributors.

:58:26. > :58:29.-- the Fleurets. I know the commission reviewed by involvement

:58:30. > :58:33.of Mr Newby and Fleurets and considered that no conflict exists,

:58:34. > :58:36.but the fact it is continuing to be raised undermines his perceived

:58:37. > :58:41.impartiality in the very first place. Mr Newby tells me, as he said

:58:42. > :58:45.Select Committee, that he has attempted to but unable to come to

:58:46. > :58:49.come to an early of his loan from Fleurets. And I will be writing to

:58:50. > :58:53.Mr Newby and the Fleurets to urge them to recommence talks aimed at

:58:54. > :58:57.ending his involvement with the firm so that the perception of his

:58:58. > :59:01.impartiality is addressed. I would call on the Minister when she

:59:02. > :59:06.responds today to do the same thing, to ask Mr Newby again and to ask

:59:07. > :59:09.Fleurets to recognise this perception is undermining his

:59:10. > :59:14.ability to be seen as impartial, and to take every possible step to find

:59:15. > :59:23.an alternative source of this money that isn't Mr Newby. And I will not

:59:24. > :59:26.go into on the floor of the House the amounts concerned, but in the

:59:27. > :59:29.context of industry visa huge sums and it would pose a serious question

:59:30. > :59:34.about the ability of the company if they were unable to replace the sort

:59:35. > :59:40.of amount they are talking about. But they are significant enough sums

:59:41. > :59:42.for them to be relevant to the decision-making of the individual,

:59:43. > :59:48.or at least to be perceived to be relevant to the decision-making of

:59:49. > :59:52.the individual. I said to Mr Newby, and I will say the same here, but I

:59:53. > :59:56.believe that that relationship and the perception of that relationship

:59:57. > :59:59.will undermine the decisions he is taking. It is important that the

:00:00. > :00:04.adjudicator is free to adjudicate freely on the basis of the evidence.

:00:05. > :00:07.And if he knows that every time he makes a decision some people are

:00:08. > :00:10.going to be saying, well like he hasn't made that decision because of

:00:11. > :00:17.the evidence, he's made it because of this interest, then it undermines

:00:18. > :00:21.the way that his decisions are seen. And so I reiterate that point and I

:00:22. > :00:29.hope the Minister will respond to it. Now, I know that campaigners

:00:30. > :00:34.have called effectively for Mr Newby's dismissal and the restarting

:00:35. > :00:37.of the process. I am anxious that restarting the entire process pushes

:00:38. > :00:40.further away the prospect of a resolution for many tellers who

:00:41. > :00:44.desperately need the certainty that the code adjudications will bring.

:00:45. > :00:47.The honourable honourable gentleman was right, there has been many

:00:48. > :00:50.people walking away from the process, people who are either

:00:51. > :00:56.settling as a result of losing confidence in the process, or are

:00:57. > :01:02.actually potentially going bust and being unable to carry on in the

:01:03. > :01:08.trade as a result of that. And so if the Government are mindful, are

:01:09. > :01:12.minded to agree with what is in the motion here today, then I would want

:01:13. > :01:17.them to also set out how quickly they are going to be in a position

:01:18. > :01:21.to ensure we start getting some decisions. Because, much like

:01:22. > :01:27.Brexit, sometimes no Deal or a bad deal are the same thing. And we need

:01:28. > :01:31.to make sure we are getting the right decisions but that we are

:01:32. > :01:34.getting some decisions. Mr Newby has been described to me as a rabbit in

:01:35. > :01:38.the headlights are free to make a decision that will ultimately need

:01:39. > :01:41.to be made. The sense of frustration at the failure to start providing

:01:42. > :01:45.certainty is a very strong and real one. The Government and Mr Newby

:01:46. > :01:49.should be under no illusions about the damage that further delays will

:01:50. > :01:53.pose to the entire process. In summary, there is a need for this

:01:54. > :01:56.Pubs Code and the role of the adjudicator to gain public

:01:57. > :02:00.confidence. It has not made a great start. Government should do more to

:02:01. > :02:03.identify the cause of the delays and the bride whatever support is needed

:02:04. > :02:11.in order to clear this Bobridge. I should also urge Fleurets and Mr

:02:12. > :02:13.Newby to sever their ties, which are comparatively small, and give the

:02:14. > :02:23.industry the certainty it is crying out for. Adrian Bailey. Thank you,

:02:24. > :02:27.Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I add my thanks and congratulations to the

:02:28. > :02:34.honourable member from Leeds North West for securing this debate, and

:02:35. > :02:38.also compliment him on his tenacious commitment to this particular cause,

:02:39. > :02:46.which I know goes back over many years. And, to a certain extent, I

:02:47. > :02:50.do feel that the fact that we are having a debate now on the

:02:51. > :02:55.application of the Pubs Code, rather than the introduction of it, is at

:02:56. > :02:59.least if you like a certain consolation and a reflection of the

:03:00. > :03:04.progress which has been made on this particular issue. Now, I do feel a

:03:05. > :03:14.certain sense of d j vu standing here again, and once again debating

:03:15. > :03:19.this issue. I sat on the 2009 business Select Committee on PubCos,

:03:20. > :03:26.chaired by Sir Peter Love, which in itself is the third, after two

:03:27. > :03:30.predecessors had also held enquiries into this issue, and indeed as the

:03:31. > :03:38.former chair of the business Select Committee, I chaired another inquiry

:03:39. > :03:43.myself in 2014. And I sincerely hope that after the Government did

:03:44. > :03:47.eventually accept the recommendations of that committee to

:03:48. > :03:54.introduce this, this would be the last time we would feel the need to

:03:55. > :04:02.debate it. I do add my thanks to the honourable member for Hartlepool in

:04:03. > :04:09.chairing the successor committee, which has been prepared to look at

:04:10. > :04:13.the issues arising from the appointment of the adjudicator, and

:04:14. > :04:19.effectively carried the torch which has been carried so long by

:04:20. > :04:25.different manifestations of the business Select Committee. I think

:04:26. > :04:34.it's fair to say that the history of this issue has been characterised by

:04:35. > :04:40.obstructive nurse and an unwillingness of the pub companies

:04:41. > :04:48.to recognise the reality of the injustices to the tenants, the

:04:49. > :04:55.licensees, and quite frankly the flawed business model that they are

:04:56. > :05:01.a part of. And the failure to act on recommendations, often quite

:05:02. > :05:06.moderate recommendations of success select committees has been a

:05:07. > :05:12.reflection of the Mac just obstructive nurse in any legislation

:05:13. > :05:19.that actually challenges the business model -- of the obstructive

:05:20. > :05:28.nurse. Any legislation is here because of that. They have exploited

:05:29. > :05:33.every possible opportunity to walk the will of Parliament. And I'm

:05:34. > :05:37.afraid it was always likely, even with the implementation of

:05:38. > :05:42.legislation, that they would continue to do so -- to thwart the

:05:43. > :05:45.will of Parliament. Current experience, and indeed this debate

:05:46. > :05:52.is a reflection of that culture that avails in the industry. You find

:05:53. > :05:57.that the PubCos proclaim publicly that they accept the legislation,

:05:58. > :06:05.indeed they embrace the legislation, and are anxious to make it work. And

:06:06. > :06:08.yet privately, and the evidence I think, overwhelming evidence

:06:09. > :06:11.submitted by the honourable member from Leeds North West and indeed the

:06:12. > :06:19.honourable member the Tewkesbury as well, demonstrates that their

:06:20. > :06:27.Private actions or incomplete contradiction to the public

:06:28. > :06:34.posturing. -- are in complete contradiction to their private

:06:35. > :06:38.posturing. It reflects the level of profitability coming from a tied

:06:39. > :06:43.tenancy, and may be just the negotiating purposes, maybe not,

:06:44. > :06:46.they add on to it number of other conditions which in fact potentially

:06:47. > :06:55.make the agreement even more uncompetitive. It's not surprising

:06:56. > :07:01.that I believe in the first five months of this appointment, the

:07:02. > :07:10.adjudicator has had something like 376 calls from publicans. And I

:07:11. > :07:17.believe also that currently there are 77 referrals before the

:07:18. > :07:23.adjudicator. And most of those odd to do with the market rent only

:07:24. > :07:31.option. -- are to do. This in itself, given that, shall we say,

:07:32. > :07:37.obstructive and lack of clarity being conveyed the licensees by the

:07:38. > :07:42.pub companies, in effect to obscure the rights they have to take, is a

:07:43. > :07:50.reflection of the profound dissatisfaction with the process so

:07:51. > :07:54.far. Now, as has been said by a number of speakers, the role of the

:07:55. > :08:05.adjudicator is actually crucial to the successful outcome of the

:08:06. > :08:12.legislation, and is crucial to the success of successive Select

:08:13. > :08:17.Committee recommendations. The commitment of almost now generations

:08:18. > :08:22.of parliamentarians here to make this work. And if we don't get it

:08:23. > :08:26.right, then so much work by so many people in this Parliament and so

:08:27. > :08:35.much parliamentary time will have been wasted. The role and financial

:08:36. > :08:42.interests of Paul Newby, the adjudicator, have been under

:08:43. > :08:49.considerable scrutiny. And I commend them for the forensic way in which

:08:50. > :08:52.they interviewed him. Now, can I say, I am always reticent to

:08:53. > :08:57.criticise somebody before they've had a chance to demonstrate the

:08:58. > :09:03.ability to actually act in a particular job. And my instinct when

:09:04. > :09:10.he was appointed was to say, well, lets just see how he gets on with it

:09:11. > :09:18.first before we make a judgment. But given the sort of keen nature of it

:09:19. > :09:23.and the culture that he is there to change and the role that he has the

:09:24. > :09:30.change in it, I think there are certain issues which have to be

:09:31. > :09:34.resolved. My honourable friend, the member for Chesterfield and others,

:09:35. > :09:40.have referred to his financial involvement in Fleurets. And there

:09:41. > :09:51.is that old adage, perception is reality. And whilst somebody has a

:09:52. > :09:54.financial interest in a body associated with one side of the

:09:55. > :10:00.arbitration procedure, there is always going to be this perception

:10:01. > :10:04.that the adjudicator cannot act impartially.

:10:05. > :10:10.I think that is reflected by the evidence that was submitted by one

:10:11. > :10:16.of the previous speakers when they said that when interviewed, I think

:10:17. > :10:20.it was the member for the heart liberal select committee, that the

:10:21. > :10:24.pub companies declared total confidence in Paul Newby, the

:10:25. > :10:33.representatives of the tenants said the opposite. And it is very

:10:34. > :10:38.difficult to secure confidence in a process where one of the two sides

:10:39. > :10:41.that will be affected by these processes has absolutely no

:10:42. > :10:47.confidence in the person doing it. The honourable member for Hartlepool

:10:48. > :10:59.used the metaphor of a football referee. Arising from that, I'm

:11:00. > :11:04.really very concerned that many tenants who actually need that

:11:05. > :11:09.adjudication, and for whom it might actually be, shall we say, observing

:11:10. > :11:13.their livelihood in the long term, will be unwilling to use the

:11:14. > :11:20.processes that are available under this Parliament, which have they

:11:21. > :11:25.fought for over the years in order to meet their needs. If they feel

:11:26. > :11:30.that they are buying going to the adjudicator they will not have an

:11:31. > :11:36.impartial hearing, and in fact they could actually prejudice their own

:11:37. > :11:39.business position by doing so, they are going to be reluctant. Building

:11:40. > :11:44.to his appointment is the implication that the potential that

:11:45. > :11:54.this piece of legislation will be undermined from the start. I think

:11:55. > :11:59.there is a way forward. My honourable friend from Chesterfield

:12:00. > :12:02.said that they basically should divest himself of these interests,

:12:03. > :12:12.and it certainly shouldn't be beyond his ability if his commitment is

:12:13. > :12:14.true to his success in this role, he should be to find a way of divesting

:12:15. > :12:21.himself from this financial interest. If he does not do so, and

:12:22. > :12:25.refuses to act on this, then I think really it should come back to this

:12:26. > :12:32.house that further action be taken to ensure that he is removed or some

:12:33. > :12:38.other process takes place to deal with this particular problem. This

:12:39. > :12:43.Parliament and members within it have worked for many years to get

:12:44. > :12:52.this far. It is crucial to the livelihood of thousands of

:12:53. > :12:58.republicans up and down the country. -- publicans. It is essential for

:12:59. > :13:02.the business model that it works, and you cannot have somebody at the

:13:03. > :13:08.heart of the whole process which, shall we say, potentially undermines

:13:09. > :13:17.the working of it. He should do this, or parliament should act.

:13:18. > :13:21.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate the

:13:22. > :13:27.member from Leeds North West for not only securing this debate, but as

:13:28. > :13:35.has been documented, his tenacity on this issue. He is indeed I would

:13:36. > :13:41.suggest the pub champion of wetness -- Westminster, and I think he has a

:13:42. > :13:44.clear run at that title now. Goodness me, are pubs need a

:13:45. > :13:49.champion, now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was brought up in a pub full stop

:13:50. > :13:55.thankfully the right side of the bar. My parents owned a couple of

:13:56. > :14:08.pubs when I was a kid which extended to a super pub which was where I

:14:09. > :14:11.spent perhaps a misspent youth. ... I have thought of pubs necessarily

:14:12. > :14:15.as places not necessarily where they get jumped where people meet each

:14:16. > :14:18.other. I have been fortunate to live across the United Kingdom in many

:14:19. > :14:21.different guises and the first places you would go to meet members

:14:22. > :14:25.of the community would be the local pub. It isn't where you just get a

:14:26. > :14:27.drink and have a chat but if you are looking for Obama not only did you

:14:28. > :14:31.find a plumber within ten minutes but you could have seven or eight

:14:32. > :14:37.different reviews of that, sitting at the bar. They are crucial to

:14:38. > :14:40.communities, bringing them together and it isn't only about the pursuit

:14:41. > :14:44.of alcohol, but they are struggling. 25% of pubs in Scotland have

:14:45. > :14:47.disappeared in the last ten years, and they are social economic and all

:14:48. > :14:51.sorts of challenges that they face. People drink at home now.

:14:52. > :14:56.Increasingly come inside their house, without taking the option of

:14:57. > :15:00.going to the community friendly pub and that is a real, real shame, so

:15:01. > :15:04.to have people like the member for Leeds North West to champion this

:15:05. > :15:09.course is very heartening and I wish all success. Madam debit is bigger

:15:10. > :15:14.the honourable member form Leeds North West gave a very detailed

:15:15. > :15:20.analysis of the problems that we are facing with the pubs adjudicator and

:15:21. > :15:23.he and I have spoken on this issue in a few times, in particular the

:15:24. > :15:27.conflict of interest position that the pubs adjudicator allegedly finds

:15:28. > :15:33.itself in. Being a former lawyer I am acutely aware of what constitutes

:15:34. > :15:36.a constitutive interest, -- conflict of interest, and the word perception

:15:37. > :15:40.has been used many times in this debate and I would suggest that the

:15:41. > :15:44.perception of the comic of interest is indeed enough to create that

:15:45. > :15:48.conflict. You cannot enter the controlling mind that person and say

:15:49. > :15:52.within those circumstances that financial interest is liking to make

:15:53. > :15:56.him a different decision, the perception of the conflict is enough

:15:57. > :16:02.and I can't understand why the government have seen this. It seems

:16:03. > :16:07.to be the clearest example of a conflict-of-interest position, and

:16:08. > :16:10.perhaps not even opening up the bombers process, for the government

:16:11. > :16:14.to call Mr Newby before them to see whether that conflict-of-interest

:16:15. > :16:18.position is tenable or not tenable I think it has to be done as a matter

:16:19. > :16:21.of great urgency and I can't understand why nobody could look at

:16:22. > :16:29.the situation and see that there wasn't a clear conflict of interest.

:16:30. > :16:32.I thank him for giving way. To help them on that point perhaps and to

:16:33. > :16:34.remind the minister part of the problem is that the conflicts

:16:35. > :16:39.weren't properly declared by Mr Newby but the right questions when

:16:40. > :16:42.asked at the appointments process, to these things weren't known, which

:16:43. > :16:47.is why we had the strange situation where the select committee forced

:16:48. > :16:51.him to publish his real convict of interest after five months in the

:16:52. > :16:59.job. We have clear evidence in the select committee that this is the

:17:00. > :17:03.case, which surely should compel the government to immediate action. The

:17:04. > :17:06.whole point of an adjudicator was to address the difference between big

:17:07. > :17:09.breweries and small tenants, and that is the matter that needs to be

:17:10. > :17:15.addressed with the greatest of urgency. There have been many

:17:16. > :17:18.accidents beaches here today and I will run through some point some of

:17:19. > :17:22.them before I make further comment and the position of Scotland that

:17:23. > :17:28.has been alluded to by honourable colleagues. The member for

:17:29. > :17:31.Tewkesbury has everybody did Allied problems in the process, and asked

:17:32. > :17:36.the Minister to answer questions I would particularly interested in,

:17:37. > :17:40.the problem with renewed tenancies, and I would call the Minister to

:17:41. > :17:43.give clarity on that issue. He described pubs are valuable

:17:44. > :17:49.community assets and given what I say, I agree wholeheartedly, and

:17:50. > :17:53.hopefully we can start campaigning to make conscious of the public

:17:54. > :17:55.turned back towards seeing pubs as community assets and places where

:17:56. > :18:01.communities can be brought together and he talks also about the

:18:02. > :18:05.awareness of pubs because if tenants don't know that they have a code,

:18:06. > :18:11.they don't know the right of redress, then frankly Mr Newby will

:18:12. > :18:14.get away with config interest, because people don't know their

:18:15. > :18:18.rights. Basically when you are right in that case. The honourable member

:18:19. > :18:22.for Hartlepool in the chair of the business select committee made an

:18:23. > :18:26.excellent speech, and again touched majorly on the point of time fictive

:18:27. > :18:30.interest, if I haven't already said, that would corroborate what he said.

:18:31. > :18:32.He touched on the perception and I would reiterate again that the

:18:33. > :18:38.perception of conflict of interest is indeed a conflict of interest. As

:18:39. > :18:40.a lawyer I was taught by a partner in how to identify

:18:41. > :18:44.conflict-of-interest and it is something that you are acutely aware

:18:45. > :18:47.of a is a lawyer, looking for it in every single transaction that you

:18:48. > :18:50.do. He said to me that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

:18:51. > :18:55.walks like a duck, chances are, Richard, it's a duck. If it feels

:18:56. > :18:57.like a conflict of interest, it looks maybe like a conflict of

:18:58. > :19:03.interest, then it is quite categorically a

:19:04. > :19:07.conflict-of-interest. I listened with great interest to the

:19:08. > :19:12.honourable member for Chesterfield who has admitted that the pubs

:19:13. > :19:14.adjudicator process is not often the best start on that has been

:19:15. > :19:19.corroborated by members across the chamber and he gave a useful

:19:20. > :19:23.context, asking the house how it has come about over the last ten years

:19:24. > :19:26.and what he did in the last ten years to initiate this change and I

:19:27. > :19:37.would suggest he has been very successful and campaigning on this

:19:38. > :19:53.issue, side more successful than his last campaign to make Scotland teams

:19:54. > :20:01.to sing God Save The Queen. I didn't make any suggestion. I would never

:20:02. > :20:07.attempt to mislead the house, I apologise if I am and back mistaken.

:20:08. > :20:10.I don't want to detain the house I will was proposing that the initial

:20:11. > :20:13.award team had a separate national anthem to God Save The Queen and

:20:14. > :20:16.that God Save The Queen is only used when Britain were playing and that

:20:17. > :20:20.England should have an international at them, not telling Scotland or

:20:21. > :20:26.Wales want to sing at all. I will look at the leaflet, but I don't

:20:27. > :20:33.think we should defend the house. -- detain the house. The member for

:20:34. > :20:37.west branch west talked with d j vu, and I again think he was talking

:20:38. > :20:40.about d j vu if variants being positive, discussing some of the

:20:41. > :20:44.other problem is that have occurred with the pubs adjudicator. The fact

:20:45. > :20:49.I think the fact that we keep coming back to these problems indicates

:20:50. > :20:57.that it would be slavish policy by the Scottish Government to except

:20:58. > :20:59.the system on a one size fits all broadbrush approach that has clearly

:21:00. > :21:03.got problems. It is worth mentioning clearly that I'm committed

:21:04. > :21:11.personally to defending Scottish pub tenants and the covenant is also. --

:21:12. > :21:17.government. Given the wording of the motion, urging parity for Scottish

:21:18. > :21:20.tenants will clearly involve parity in fairness, but whether fairness

:21:21. > :21:23.exist in the current system given the problems identified is another

:21:24. > :21:29.matter. I think the government is right to take the approach that they

:21:30. > :21:33.have to outline that approach in any more detail right now. The Scottish

:21:34. > :21:39.Government introduced a voluntary code for pubs in 2015 and the

:21:40. > :21:47.landlords. Clearly voluntary is not essentially as effective as

:21:48. > :21:52.compulsory. We consulted this year from July 2016 and published the 77

:21:53. > :22:01.page report in December of 2006 team. -- 2016. It highlighted that

:22:02. > :22:10.the pub sector has different characteristics to the pub sector in

:22:11. > :22:14.the rest of the UK, 47% of the pubs in the UK are tied, only 17 in

:22:15. > :22:17.Scotland. There are longer leases in the UK than Scotland. That is

:22:18. > :22:21.further evidence of the one size fits all policy might not be the

:22:22. > :22:25.best suggestion but that is not to say that we don't recognise that

:22:26. > :22:27.there are concerns. The evidence collected did not suggest that any

:22:28. > :22:33.part of the pub sector in Scotland was being unfairly disadvantaged. In

:22:34. > :22:35.relation to another as a result a further dialogue between the

:22:36. > :22:38.relevant trade bodies, government and other interested parties should

:22:39. > :22:45.continue for changes to the legislation are made. It isn't and I

:22:46. > :22:48.emphasise, it is not rolled out. I don the finding of the research, it

:22:49. > :22:51.is clear that there was more work to do, to ensure the relationship

:22:52. > :22:57.between power companies and tenants is further distraction than terror

:22:58. > :23:07.fight, -- strengthened and clarified, also on beer. It faces

:23:08. > :23:14.significant challenges in recruiting licensees to participate in the

:23:15. > :23:16.research. Created by an apparent were unwillingness to engage on the

:23:17. > :23:19.subject of the detailed level. Clearly consequence this means that

:23:20. > :23:25.more discussions and further detailed study should be taken with

:23:26. > :23:29.a significantly increased level of interest, and involvement from the

:23:30. > :23:32.wider industry. Quite bluntly, Madame Debord is bigger, we feel

:23:33. > :23:36.that more evidence is required before we could go down the road of

:23:37. > :23:43.compulsory pubs adjudicator 's, and clearly there are lessons to be

:23:44. > :23:49.learned from the system that has been put in this place. I don't

:23:50. > :23:52.think that is wrong, sometimes we will do things first here, and then

:23:53. > :23:58.in Holyrood, sometimes the way round. Of course, ultimately, we

:23:59. > :24:02.would like to do it better. That concludes my comments but just to

:24:03. > :24:05.reiterate we believe in fairness for pub tenants, we are not at this

:24:06. > :24:08.stage in Scotland yet where evidence been compelling to make ask go down

:24:09. > :24:12.that road but we are looking at this system, we are thinking about that,

:24:13. > :24:15.we are analysing the mistakes and hopefully in the future we will

:24:16. > :24:16.devise a system that properly protects the rights and fair

:24:17. > :24:33.treatment of tenants to tied pubs. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:24:34. > :24:37.congratulate the member of the Leeds North West and Tewkesbury for

:24:38. > :24:41.securing this debate and being a supporter and defender of pubs.

:24:42. > :24:45.Honourable friends, the Pubs Code came in after much wrangling in

:24:46. > :24:49.Parliament. It was a code that was called for by many stakeholders in

:24:50. > :24:54.the industry. One of the most important objectives of this code

:24:55. > :24:59.was to provide a level playing field for tenants, often local pub tenants

:25:00. > :25:05.to be able to fairly compete with PubCos in negotiations. This was

:25:06. > :25:09.highlighted by my honourable friend for Chesterfield. I congratulate

:25:10. > :25:14.this House for addressing such issues in the code, in particular

:25:15. > :25:18.the successful introduction of the market rent is only option for

:25:19. > :25:23.tenants to seek the best deals when negotiating with one of the large

:25:24. > :25:27.six PubCos. The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code

:25:28. > :25:32.Adjudicator, a decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to this

:25:33. > :25:35.position, to oversee the running of the code, provide information about

:25:36. > :25:40.the code, and come awareness Eysseric, to enforce the code. In

:25:41. > :25:44.the midst of all this there has been raped tension between some groups in

:25:45. > :25:49.the industry, in particular surrounding the role of the Pubs

:25:50. > :25:54.Code Adjudicator -- there has been particular attention. My honourable

:25:55. > :25:57.friend, the member for Chesterfield, highlighted issues around conflict

:25:58. > :26:03.of interest in his speech and made some very sensible points. As have

:26:04. > :26:07.many others, who have made eloquent contributions regarding that issue.

:26:08. > :26:13.I referred to the honourable member from Leeds North West, Tewkesbury,

:26:14. > :26:17.my honourable friend for West Dorset and my honourable friend for

:26:18. > :26:21.Chesterfield, Hartlepool and West Bromwich. And I will not go over the

:26:22. > :26:25.points they have already so eloquently made. But I will say that

:26:26. > :26:28.firstly the Pubs Code is an essential part in moving the

:26:29. > :26:34.levelling the playing field between pub tenants and the larger PubCos.

:26:35. > :26:38.And in doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants

:26:39. > :26:44.against the very large PubCos and their organisations. The market rent

:26:45. > :26:48.is only option was successfully introduced so that pub tenants could

:26:49. > :26:54.have more flexibility in their operations. And it was welcomed by

:26:55. > :26:59.many stakeholders. But clearly, as we have heard today, there are

:27:00. > :27:04.serious questions on the effectiveness of the code and its

:27:05. > :27:08.current implementation, and that of the role and the conduct and the

:27:09. > :27:15.perceived conflict-of-interest of the pub code adjudicator. I will

:27:16. > :27:19.refer to the honourable member for Dumfries Galloway. I think he

:27:20. > :27:24.clearly explained from his legal background how that perceived

:27:25. > :27:28.conflict-of-interest can be a sort of serious barrier to actually what

:27:29. > :27:33.is going on at the moment, and if there is a perceived conflict of

:27:34. > :27:37.interest, then that has to really be looked into seriously. Since the

:27:38. > :27:42.introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward

:27:43. > :27:47.to the pub code adjudicator. And mostly, those are to do with the

:27:48. > :27:51.market rent issues. This is very crucial to many of the small

:27:52. > :27:55.operators will this sector. So we will see that there is clearly a

:27:56. > :28:03.demand for arbitration via this code. And it is of great concern to

:28:04. > :28:09.me and many others that not one of these cases has actually reached any

:28:10. > :28:12.resolution. And while I read it Nice that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has

:28:13. > :28:16.only been imposed the six months, it does seem to me that during that

:28:17. > :28:24.time he should have made his mark on the industry to try and gain the

:28:25. > :28:27.confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of

:28:28. > :28:32.referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator must be seen to

:28:33. > :28:38.be fair and free of any conflict of interest. And this issue is clearly

:28:39. > :28:42.one, to my mind, that the Government needs to address urgently. And this

:28:43. > :28:50.was raised clearly by my honourable friend from Hartlepool. Honourable

:28:51. > :28:54.friends, the pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK. In

:28:55. > :29:00.particular, the local pubs that formed the hub of many communities.

:29:01. > :29:04.In this time of the Goverment's cuts the vital local services, we have

:29:05. > :29:09.seen community pubs step in to provide libraries and cafes to serve

:29:10. > :29:15.their communities. I commend the work done by the not for profit

:29:16. > :29:18.organisation in this aspect. Therefore, it is crucial that the

:29:19. > :29:22.pub code works by everyone as the effective measure it sets out to be

:29:23. > :29:25.and was expected to be. This brings me to the point raised by many

:29:26. > :29:30.honourable members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There

:29:31. > :29:35.certainly have been some raised tensions in the debate over the

:29:36. > :29:39.appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. And, as I've already said, I welcome

:29:40. > :29:42.honourable members who have made points about the perceived

:29:43. > :29:49.conflict-of-interest issues surrounding Mr Newby's former

:29:50. > :29:54.employer. And I do also want to refer to the findings of the Select

:29:55. > :30:01.Committee, and I would urge the Minister to look carefully into

:30:02. > :30:02.those recommendations. Particularly about the perceived

:30:03. > :30:07.conflict-of-interest, and also taking into account Mr Newby's

:30:08. > :30:12.shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today. In my

:30:13. > :30:17.view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The

:30:18. > :30:21.Government must ensure that the role of pub code adjudicator is truly

:30:22. > :30:27.impartial. And independent, so that pub tenants, whom the pub code is

:30:28. > :30:31.there to serve, are satisfied with the work done. And clearly, as

:30:32. > :30:36.outlined by my honourable friend for Dumfries Galloway, that has not

:30:37. > :30:40.been the case. It is my view, it is only in this way that we will ensure

:30:41. > :30:46.a fair and proper process, and it is only in this way that we will ensure

:30:47. > :30:53.that we focus on the real important issues. I urge the Government to

:30:54. > :30:56.examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options

:30:57. > :31:05.which will increase transparency unfairness. Over the last couple of

:31:06. > :31:08.weeks, I have had many meetings with the representatives of some of the

:31:09. > :31:11.pub tenants groups and representatives from the larger

:31:12. > :31:18.PubCos. In all of these meetings there were recurring theme that

:31:19. > :31:22.appear to unite all stakeholders, including business rates. Therefore

:31:23. > :31:29.we must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub

:31:30. > :31:31.industry. The pub has long been part of established British life, and is

:31:32. > :31:37.now the number three on the list of things to do the tourists coming to

:31:38. > :31:42.the UK. We must do everything we can do it sure this continues.

:31:43. > :31:48.Honourable friends, the Pubs Code is there to help local pub tenants get

:31:49. > :31:51.a fair deal when negotiating with a larger PubCo. But we have already

:31:52. > :31:57.heard today that some in the industry and convinced that this is

:31:58. > :32:01.working for them. -- are unconvinced. I strongly urge this

:32:02. > :32:04.Government to do what it can to ensure that the Pubs Code is

:32:05. > :32:08.properly implemented for everyone, and in particular for tied tenants,

:32:09. > :32:13.who have long campaigned for the negotiations. I believe it is only

:32:14. > :32:20.fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister reviews the way in which he

:32:21. > :32:24.has been appointed, the matters that have arisen from this debate and

:32:25. > :32:28.from the Select Committee, in order for us to move on from the position

:32:29. > :32:34.we are finding ourselves in now, and to make progress to ensure that the

:32:35. > :32:40.Pubs Code is implemented properly, and that absolutely everybody has

:32:41. > :32:46.trust and confidence in the way it was meant to be. Thank you.

:32:47. > :32:53.Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would first like to

:32:54. > :32:56.congratulate the honourable member from Leeds North West, and my

:32:57. > :33:01.honourable friend for chicks break for securing today's debate on the

:33:02. > :33:05.Pubs Code Adjudicator -- for Tewkesbury. And to thank members

:33:06. > :33:07.across the House who have contributed to the excellent and

:33:08. > :33:11.thought-provoking debate that we have heard this afternoon. Clearly,

:33:12. > :33:17.the subject continues to attract strong views, passion and debate,

:33:18. > :33:21.and the Government, I would like to reassure the House, is fully

:33:22. > :33:25.committed to ensuring that tied tenants can operate in an

:33:26. > :33:29.environment that is fair and allows them to thrive. That is why we

:33:30. > :33:33.introduced the Pubs Code, and I pay by the killer tribute to the

:33:34. > :33:40.honourable member for Leeds North West -- I pay particular tribute.

:33:41. > :33:45.The Pubs Code regulates the relationship between around 11,500

:33:46. > :33:50.tied pub tenants and the large pub owning businesses. Which rent the

:33:51. > :33:56.pubs to them and sell them tied products. The Pubs Code applies to

:33:57. > :34:00.pub owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, as we have heard

:34:01. > :34:06.this afternoon, and there are currently six businesses that fall

:34:07. > :34:10.in scope of the pubs code - Admiral Caverns, enterprise Inns, Greene

:34:11. > :34:15.King, milestones, Punch Taverns and start pubs and bars owned by

:34:16. > :34:20.Heineken. The two principles of the pubs code - there and lawful dealing

:34:21. > :34:25.by pub owning businesses in relation to the tied tenants -- fair and

:34:26. > :34:27.lawful. And tied pub tenants should be no worse off than if they were

:34:28. > :34:35.not subject to any time. And the not subject to any time. And the

:34:36. > :34:37.Pubs Code should make sure that tied pub tenants receive the formation

:34:38. > :34:41.they need to make informed decisions about taking on a pub or new terms

:34:42. > :34:47.and conditions, have the rent-free assessed if they haven't had a

:34:48. > :34:50.review for five years, -- have their rent assessed. And the request in

:34:51. > :34:55.market on the option to go market on the option to go

:34:56. > :34:58.free-of-tie and pay only a market rent in specific circumstances,

:34:59. > :35:03.including at a rent renewal or a renewal of tenancy. I'm going to

:35:04. > :35:09.first deal with the appointment of Mr Newby and performance issues

:35:10. > :35:12.raised in the debate. And I'm sure we will be able to come back to some

:35:13. > :35:17.of these important issues as I go through my speech. We believe that

:35:18. > :35:22.he is the right person to ensure that pub codes delivers its

:35:23. > :35:26.statutory objectives, and, for reasons I will come onto, we think

:35:27. > :35:31.he has got off to a good start in the course of his responsibilities.

:35:32. > :35:37.Since his appointment, Mr Newby has himself very visible and accessible.

:35:38. > :35:42.He has attended at least eight conferences across the country.

:35:43. > :35:46.Various events, and eight road shows across the country, where he has met

:35:47. > :35:52.many stakeholders, including several hundred talents. He has also taken

:35:53. > :35:57.pains to pursue greater visibility for the Pubs Code and raise

:35:58. > :36:01.awareness for the Pubs Code among tenants by appearing on various

:36:02. > :36:05.television programmes like pubs special and the great British Pub

:36:06. > :36:09.Revolution. Both with the aim of bringing the Pubs Code to the

:36:10. > :36:13.attention of a wider audience. You know, I didn't watch the programmes

:36:14. > :36:17.myself, so I can't comment on the creative content, but there it is

:36:18. > :36:22.like they are a means of raising awareness with the target audience.

:36:23. > :36:25.Through these appearances, Mr Newby has explained his role and

:36:26. > :36:28.responsibility and shown his determination to help create a

:36:29. > :36:34.fairer business environment for tied pub tenants that allows the pubs, so

:36:35. > :36:38.important to our communities, to thrive. Contrary to what we've

:36:39. > :36:42.heard, Mr Newby has been raising awareness among tenants that under

:36:43. > :36:49.Regulation 50, a pub owning business must not subject it tied pub tenants

:36:50. > :36:53.do any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises or attempts to

:36:54. > :36:57.exercise any rights under these regulations. And it's very important

:36:58. > :37:02.that he continues to make this case. I will give way to the honourable

:37:03. > :37:07.gentleman. I'm very grateful. Can she therefore clarify that in the

:37:08. > :37:13.context of that desire and that order in the legislation that the

:37:14. > :37:20.pub owning business who was moving from being tied to a free-of-tie

:37:21. > :37:24.model would be able to do it with a simple the relation that meant that

:37:25. > :37:27.this was the only change to the terms and conditions, that all of

:37:28. > :37:33.the other terms and conditions didn't have to be reviewed as a

:37:34. > :37:37.result of the type to do that? I have great sympathy with the point

:37:38. > :37:41.the honourable member has made. And I hope that in June course that will

:37:42. > :37:48.be clarified by the pub code adjudicator. But the pub code itself

:37:49. > :37:52.is not clear on that particular aspect, and it will be, it will be

:37:53. > :37:58.up to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to pronounce on that when he feels he

:37:59. > :38:01.has enough evidence on that point. I reiterate that I do have

:38:02. > :38:06.considerable sympathy with the point the honourable member makes. Mr

:38:07. > :38:09.Newby has received a positive response from tenants, with the

:38:10. > :38:15.majority being supportive of his role. And I do accept that the right

:38:16. > :38:19.numbers of people, of tenants, who are opposed and deeply so do his

:38:20. > :38:23.role, and I couldn't have sat here for the last 1.5 hours without

:38:24. > :38:28.realising that even if I do know before. I won't give way yet, but I

:38:29. > :38:31.will of cores give way to the honourable gentleman, I will make

:38:32. > :38:37.some progress but then I will give way to him. The point is that... I

:38:38. > :38:40.will come to the... I might as well have given way because he's made his

:38:41. > :38:45.point anyway, I will come to the point that he is raising about

:38:46. > :38:49.tenants that are in support of him shortly in my speech. But suffice to

:38:50. > :38:55.say, the numbers of florals he is getting worried in any case the

:38:56. > :38:59.witness to what I'm saying -- the numbers of referrals he is getting

:39:00. > :39:02.would in any case the witness. They are coming to the Pubs Code

:39:03. > :39:07.Adjudicator to seek protection is provided by the Pubs Code. In the

:39:08. > :39:12.first six months, the inquiry line, set up by the adjudicator to pride

:39:13. > :39:18.information about the code, has received 435 enquiries -- to provide

:39:19. > :39:20.information. 91% were from tied pub tenants or their representatives,

:39:21. > :39:26.bearing out the imbalance that these business people have had to suffer

:39:27. > :39:34.over many years. On the same period, the Pubs Code Adjudicator received

:39:35. > :39:37.121 referrals for arbitration. I will respond to a few of the

:39:38. > :39:42.comments that were made during the debate. My right honourable friend

:39:43. > :39:47.for West Dorset and other members have observed that the Pubs Code

:39:48. > :39:52.Adjudicator does have a jewel role in both upholding and enforcing the

:39:53. > :39:56.code. Adjudicating on alleged breaches of the code, and the Pubs

:39:57. > :40:00.Code is in law to bring greater protection to tenants. And to

:40:01. > :40:06.strengthen their position in what was a very unlevel playing field. So

:40:07. > :40:10.the PCA's role is therefore to uphold the law and not to interpret

:40:11. > :40:14.it in the way that is biased towards one party or another when it comes

:40:15. > :40:17.to the adjudication side of his responsibilities.

:40:18. > :40:29.We have heard allegations of ongoing abuse I pub companies touring

:40:30. > :40:35.despite -- during this debate, from the honourable member from Warwick

:40:36. > :40:37.and also from Tewkesbury and others, tenants seeking the mark and others,

:40:38. > :40:43.tenants seeking the marking rent only option -- market rent only

:40:44. > :40:48.option, are being undermined by a company is threatening to make the

:40:49. > :40:54.pursuit of a market rent only option unreliable in direct contravention

:40:55. > :40:58.of regulation 50 of the code. And there are clearly, I would suggest,

:40:59. > :41:02.incidences of flouting the code going on, and honourable members are

:41:03. > :41:06.quite right to bring them forward to the house as they have done this

:41:07. > :41:11.afternoon. They are what the code is designed to root out and I would

:41:12. > :41:17.urge honourable members to refer them to the pub code adjudicator.

:41:18. > :41:24.Continuing on the performance issues, the honourable member for

:41:25. > :41:30.Chesterfield quite rightly raised his concerns that they have not yet

:41:31. > :41:34.been any adjudications, there is a clear appetite which is felt indeed

:41:35. > :41:38.by the pub code adjudicator himself or adjudications to start coming out

:41:39. > :41:46.and I have no doubt that they will be, that they will do so in due

:41:47. > :41:51.course, without further delay, and there is no doubt that the pub code

:41:52. > :41:56.adjudicator will start to form some views based on the evidence that he

:41:57. > :41:59.is seeing so that we don't indefinitely have a situation where

:42:00. > :42:03.every single case takes the same amount of time that the cases have

:42:04. > :42:08.taken in the first few months of his deliberations. I quite concur with

:42:09. > :42:13.that point, and I have questioned the pub code adjudicator will about

:42:14. > :42:16.that and he is yours me that although the law is technical and

:42:17. > :42:20.not clear on every point that when he is satisfied that he can issue

:42:21. > :42:27.guidance he most certainly will issue guidance. And he has already,

:42:28. > :42:31.of course, made statements which I think should give some comfort to

:42:32. > :42:35.the house. On the 9th of September he made a public statement in

:42:36. > :42:42.response to information received from stakeholders reminding the pub

:42:43. > :42:45.owning companies of their obligations and what he expected of

:42:46. > :42:49.them in relation to the code. That they should act in a manner that

:42:50. > :42:55.doesn't inhibit tied tenants from accessing their rights, must make

:42:56. > :42:59.available all relation relating to rent assessment and proposed

:43:00. > :43:03.tenancies and must ensure that M R O tenancies comply with the code and

:43:04. > :43:06.do not contain the sorts of unreasonable terms we have heard

:43:07. > :43:10.about the only debate this afternoon. It is clear from even our

:43:11. > :43:14.investigations prior to this debate is that at least one pub owning

:43:15. > :43:18.company is still not complying with the code and making life difficult

:43:19. > :43:26.for its tied tenants and this needs to be rooted out. I will give way. I

:43:27. > :43:30.thank the Minister for giving way. I feel I have two just remind her of

:43:31. > :43:33.her wonder work when she was in the select committee and shared the same

:43:34. > :43:36.view but she must substantiate the statement she has made for the

:43:37. > :43:40.majority of tenants supporting Paul Newman. Does she realise that the

:43:41. > :43:45.only organisations that he has cited in support, the eight M R, one of

:43:46. > :43:54.their members a regulated PubCos, the PII can run by somebody who used

:43:55. > :44:07.to be a member of Taiwan macro, the FLA run by enterprise ins, and

:44:08. > :44:12.social would she correct the record that people still in majority oppose

:44:13. > :44:18.Paul Newby? I don't to the criticisms that the honourable

:44:19. > :44:24.gentleman makes. I'm sure he has not interviewed all 11,000 buyers and --

:44:25. > :44:32.11,500 tied tenants in the country and the representation I have seen

:44:33. > :44:43.is open to question of how many tenants may be representative. It is

:44:44. > :44:47.all very well to criticise the bodies he is quoted, but they are

:44:48. > :44:50.credible organisations, they have welcomed his appointment, and they

:44:51. > :44:54.have commented that it is essential that the post is held by somebody

:44:55. > :44:59.with an in depth knowledge of the market and when I visited the office

:45:00. > :45:04.of the pub code adjudicator in Birmingham, and met the team of

:45:05. > :45:07.staff behind him they were all also very relieved that they had the

:45:08. > :45:12.leadership of someone who knew so much about the industry, and the

:45:13. > :45:16.market. If I may continue because honourable members raised other very

:45:17. > :45:21.important issues including, of course, the conflict of interest

:45:22. > :45:25.issue raised particularly by the honourable member for Hartlepool.

:45:26. > :45:30.There have been to accusations against Mr Newby that he is a

:45:31. > :45:35.conflict of interest through his financial interests in Fleurets, and

:45:36. > :45:40.also, and I take this seriously, the perception that he is convicted,

:45:41. > :45:43.which means that he is not able to carry out his role effectively.

:45:44. > :45:49.There is a delicate balance to be struck by saying that perception is

:45:50. > :45:56.reality. Also, taking advantage of every opportunity to boost and give

:45:57. > :46:01.further credence to that conflict. However, on the conflict of

:46:02. > :46:07.interest, as the Secretary of State explained to the select committee on

:46:08. > :46:13.the 14th of the December, the appointment of the post was run in

:46:14. > :46:18.accordance to the code, a proper and rigorously followed process and the

:46:19. > :46:22.panel concluded Mr Newby and no conflicts of interest which should

:46:23. > :46:28.into question his ability to do the job. And the Commissioner of Public

:46:29. > :46:31.appointments, Mr Peter Riddle has also considered the matter and has

:46:32. > :46:36.confirmed his view that nothing was hidden and there have been proper

:46:37. > :46:40.and transparent processes. He has also been satisfied that the panel

:46:41. > :46:45.were entitled to conclude that Mr Newby has no such conflict of

:46:46. > :46:47.interest. It would be wrong to refuse the judgment of the

:46:48. > :46:55.independent figure responsible for overseeing these figures. It is a

:46:56. > :46:58.man of great integrity who has decided this a great understanding

:46:59. > :47:07.of many of the issues of public employment. The government does not

:47:08. > :47:10.agree that is his previous environment with Fleurets Crater

:47:11. > :47:14.conflict of interest that could give rise to a reasonable perception of

:47:15. > :47:17.bias. I am sorry honourable members are dissatisfied with that but we

:47:18. > :47:21.have heard the accusations Mr Newby misled the select committee about

:47:22. > :47:28.his financial interest in his former company but he is not attempting to

:47:29. > :47:32.disguise the nature of his financial interests in Fleurets. He answered

:47:33. > :47:35.the question he was asked to do the best of his ability at the time and

:47:36. > :47:39.there was no intention to mislead. He later became aware that some

:47:40. > :47:43.technical parts of his evidence were inaccurate, he has written to the

:47:44. > :47:50.committee to set the record straight. The request for early

:47:51. > :47:54.repayment which I think was made particularly by the honourable

:47:55. > :48:00.member for Chesterfield backed up by the honourable member for West

:48:01. > :48:02.Bromwich West who made a speech which I listened to with great

:48:03. > :48:07.attention, having sat on his committee in the early years of my

:48:08. > :48:10.time here in Parliament, and listened very carefully to what he

:48:11. > :48:16.said, but during his oral evidence, Mr Newby was open about the nature

:48:17. > :48:19.of his loan arrangements with Fleurets, and in order to be helpful

:48:20. > :48:23.he did say that he would ask if that would be possible for the loan to be

:48:24. > :48:28.repaid or quickly, but that agreement was already in place when

:48:29. > :48:32.I left, so he took the opportunity when writing to the committee to

:48:33. > :48:36.update them on his request and his willingness to seek to address his

:48:37. > :48:39.concerns should not be construed that an admission that he believes

:48:40. > :48:45.he's conflicted, nor that the government think that this is the

:48:46. > :48:48.case. So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the pub 's code is very

:48:49. > :48:53.important for the pubs sector. I feel passionately that it is vital

:48:54. > :48:59.that Mr Newby is allowed to get on with his job, there are all these

:49:00. > :49:01.adjudications are now awaiting an outcome, and I share the frustration

:49:02. > :49:08.that we have not seen any results from them as yet. However, I do

:49:09. > :49:13.understand that six months on is still not a long time, considering

:49:14. > :49:19.the burden of work and associated with the role, and just a small

:49:20. > :49:23.staff of nine people, so I do feel it is incumbent upon is all to give

:49:24. > :49:28.Mr Newby the space to do his job properly over the next few months

:49:29. > :49:30.and then I am sure that honourable members will know about beaver

:49:31. > :49:35.questing a further statement and maybe there will be another debate

:49:36. > :49:39.when we can talk about the outcome more than the process, I hope,

:49:40. > :49:43.because he is doing a good job, he has a lot of important work to do

:49:44. > :49:47.and it is important that through his work and the adjudications that he

:49:48. > :49:52.makes, that the confidence of the sector is built up and most

:49:53. > :49:58.important of all the tenants in all our constituencies are protected as

:49:59. > :50:02.Parliament intended. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to

:50:03. > :50:07.thank all members in this debate. Some excellent contributions from

:50:08. > :50:12.all sides, and very notably not a single backbencher stood up in

:50:13. > :50:15.support of Mr Paul Newby or claimed that the Pubs Code were working. I

:50:16. > :50:19.have decided the minister, who I like and who did great work with the

:50:20. > :50:26.select committee, and I paid tributes to her and all former

:50:27. > :50:30.colleagues, Peter Luff, particularly, a Conservative MP, a

:50:31. > :50:33.cross-party work. It must've stuck in her crawly things that she had

:50:34. > :50:37.had to say delay because I had to the house that she was really

:50:38. > :50:41.regurgitating the misleading nonsense that is coming from the

:50:42. > :50:44.pubs adjudicator office, talking about visits, visibility, road shows

:50:45. > :50:48.and what a lovely charming chappie is. It is this kind of backslapping

:50:49. > :50:55.approach that has got this sector in such a mess surveyors who know pub

:50:56. > :51:04.code buses and play at the same golf clubs with them. We have to have a

:51:05. > :51:10.proper system of adjudication in, as the juggling for West Dorset said.

:51:11. > :51:17.All colleagues, like her, do understand this. She does admit

:51:18. > :51:20.there are clear examples of flouting the code but she didn't acknowledge

:51:21. > :51:24.that the pubs adjudicator isn't doing anything about them, it

:51:25. > :51:28.including on the point of deeds of variation which I hope we will get

:51:29. > :51:30.action on. I say to her direct daily and collaborative that will shoot

:51:31. > :51:33.meet with me and other representatives of the British bug

:51:34. > :51:36.Federation, we will send their hate copy of the report, we must discuss

:51:37. > :51:41.it with her and her officials with the reality is that we have heard

:51:42. > :51:45.these addition Billy macro vision of Paul Newby is untenable. He cannot

:51:46. > :51:48.perform this role, he simply never you will have confidence of the

:51:49. > :51:53.tenants, and frankly the whole situation around him stinks. The

:51:54. > :51:57.member for Dumfries and Galloway says that if it looks like a duck,

:51:58. > :52:00.it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Frankly, he is a dead duck but worse

:52:01. > :52:05.than that, a duck that is in real danger of compromising, scheming,

:52:06. > :52:09.watering down everything that the government tried to do with the Pubs

:52:10. > :52:12.Code and what this house stood for. It will not go away, he will never

:52:13. > :52:17.have the Commons attends Cannes and the Pubs Code must be made to work

:52:18. > :52:21.full stop is her duty, her and her ministerial colleagues, to do so. We

:52:22. > :52:24.look forward to meeting with them to present the real evidence, unlike

:52:25. > :52:27.the nonsense, and a reminder how is that Greene King, one of the six

:52:28. > :52:32.regulated Taiwan macro, are a member of the very organisation that is the

:52:33. > :52:39.Newby has claimed supports him. That is what the situation is here, it is

:52:40. > :52:43.not good enough, it is the vast amend number of licensees, and all

:52:44. > :52:46.people that the British bug Federation organisations are

:52:47. > :52:51.representing or pose Mr Newby, they have no confidence in him. He will

:52:52. > :52:54.have to go. It will happen, and it depends whether we see leadership

:52:55. > :52:59.from the government or whether this had to drag on another six months or

:53:00. > :53:04.a year but this will not go away. The question is as on the up order

:53:05. > :53:10.paper. As many are the opinions AI macro. To the country, no. The ayes

:53:11. > :53:20.habit. We now come to the backbench debate on access to breast cancer

:53:21. > :53:27.drugs. I beg to move the motion in my name. Thank you, Mr Deputy

:53:28. > :53:30.Speaker. I would like to thank the backbench business committee for the

:53:31. > :53:35.swift way in which they gave us time to have this important debate.

:53:36. > :53:39.Today, I want to put the spotlight on the issue that affects the lives

:53:40. > :53:44.of millions of people, people living with breast cancer, and also their

:53:45. > :53:49.family and friends. I'm sure that almost everyone here today will know

:53:50. > :53:52.someone who has had this disease, and my own friends have suffered

:53:53. > :53:56.from breast cancer and am so pleased that many of them will be in the

:53:57. > :54:00.public gallery to watch this debate today. I have received large amounts

:54:01. > :54:04.of communication one of the latest last night from a baby and Ashley

:54:05. > :54:08.you cannot be here today but who will be watching it on TV. It is

:54:09. > :54:14.something affecting people, irrespective of their class, work.

:54:15. > :54:17.We know that many honourable members have suffered from breast cancer

:54:18. > :54:27.like my honourable friend and my whip, who has a great recovery. Can

:54:28. > :54:35.I share with the house that a member from my own side approached me only

:54:36. > :54:39.yesterday about receiving treatment and while she wanted to be in this

:54:40. > :54:44.debate she felt it was too close to her at this moment to be involved.

:54:45. > :54:49.I'm sure honourable members will agree with me when I say we need a

:54:50. > :54:50.health system where the most effective cancer treatments are

:54:51. > :55:03.available to all patients will I want patients to know that we have

:55:04. > :55:10.not given up on them, and we want an NHS that provides us all with access

:55:11. > :55:17.to the most effective treatments. If the deliberations that are used by

:55:18. > :55:23.Nice, particularly the metastatic breast cancer, take insufficient

:55:24. > :55:30.account of the needs of young families to spend more time with

:55:31. > :55:34.their mothers, is the remedy to that something that Nice itself can take

:55:35. > :55:38.in altering the way it goes about those deliberations, or is it

:55:39. > :55:44.something that we need to do here in this House or the Government needs

:55:45. > :55:51.to do? I think the answer for the right honourable member's question

:55:52. > :55:55.is both. There are issues about how Nice, the National Institute of

:55:56. > :56:01.clinical excellence, assess new drugs, particularly cutting edge

:56:02. > :56:06.drugs like Kadcyla. And as he will know because of his involvement, the

:56:07. > :56:12.last government had the Cancer Drugs Fund. It is not an either- or, it is

:56:13. > :56:14.something we need to come together to discuss. People with more

:56:15. > :56:21.scientific knowledge than myself might wish to consider. I'm very

:56:22. > :56:24.grateful to the honourable member for giving way and I congratulate

:56:25. > :56:28.her on securing this is really important debate. Does she share my

:56:29. > :56:32.concern at news that the Government appears to be ready to leave the

:56:33. > :56:43.European Medicines Agency following the Brexit vote? Which many people

:56:44. > :56:47.fear will lead to a slowdown in access to new medicines. She talks

:56:48. > :56:51.about the importance of NHS patients getting access to medicines, this

:56:52. > :56:57.could make the situation worse and we would be disadvantaged, to other

:56:58. > :57:01.countries in Europe. Mr Deputy Speaker, breast cancer knows no

:57:02. > :57:04.boundaries, class, social, geographic. And anything that

:57:05. > :57:11.reduces our access to better forms of treatment is detrimental, in my

:57:12. > :57:16.view. The ability to lead a rich and longer life as a result of medical

:57:17. > :57:20.advances should not be limited just to those who can afford private

:57:21. > :57:26.health care. Those advantages should be accessible to us all. Today in

:57:27. > :57:28.particular, our debate will focus on the provision of Kadcyla, which is

:57:29. > :57:34.under threat. Most honourable members will be aware that the lease

:57:35. > :57:37.of life the breast cancer drug Kadcyla has brought the thousands of

:57:38. > :57:42.women in illness who have incurable secondary breast cancer. These women

:57:43. > :57:48.rely on Kadcyla during rich their lives, give them extra pressures

:57:49. > :57:53.years to live. It is in many ways it revolutionaries drug. By targeting

:57:54. > :57:58.cancer cells directly, it helps reduce the number of side-effects,

:57:59. > :58:01.boosting the quality-of-life of those women inevitably. I know that

:58:02. > :58:05.honourable members who have heard these women talk about their

:58:06. > :58:08.experiences will be humbled to learn of the distress and despair that

:58:09. > :58:12.they face as a result of the National is the Jude of health care

:58:13. > :58:19.excellence, Nice, to be provisionally rejected the future of

:58:20. > :58:24.Kadcyla on the NHS. Today we are all supporting breast cancer now's keep

:58:25. > :58:30.Kadcyla campaign, to encourage Nice to reverse its decision and enable

:58:31. > :58:33.the continued access of this drug on the NHS, which both improves the

:58:34. > :58:37.quality-of-life and extends the lives of thousands of women in this

:58:38. > :58:40.country. Thousands of people across the country have had their views

:58:41. > :58:45.heard since Nice's decision was announced at the end of December.

:58:46. > :58:49.They have signed by position might petition and contacted the local MPs

:58:50. > :58:52.to ask that we do not give up on women and the children who are

:58:53. > :58:55.dependent on their mothers, the families who want to have those

:58:56. > :59:00.precious extra times with their loved ones. This is why we are all

:59:01. > :59:03.here today, to raise our collective voice in support of these women and

:59:04. > :59:08.defend the treatment that allows them to live their lives. I will

:59:09. > :59:10.focus much of what I have to say today on Kadcyla, but there are

:59:11. > :59:17.other specific breast cancer drugs that we need to consider, too, as

:59:18. > :59:20.well as the broader issue of how decisions on access to treatment is

:59:21. > :59:24.made. Unfortunately, we are yet to see any improvement in access to pay

:59:25. > :59:27.the drugs, some of which can prevent the development of certain cancers,

:59:28. > :59:33.saving thousands of lives, and saving the NHS a great deal of

:59:34. > :59:39.money. Just a few months ago, the front pages of national papers

:59:40. > :59:42.highlighted the poor access to vital bisphosphonate drugs, which camp

:59:43. > :59:46.event women developing secondary cancer. Yet this Government has

:59:47. > :59:50.barely acknowledged the problem of access to this treatment. I look

:59:51. > :59:55.forward to hearing from the Minister about when we can expect tangible

:59:56. > :59:58.results and access to of Paton drugs, including bisphosphonates. To

:59:59. > :00:04.be clear, many of the women who did a oh the lives to Kadcyla might not

:00:05. > :00:07.have ever developed secondary breast cancer have they had access to buy

:00:08. > :00:16.false than eight drugs in the first place. Thank you, I'm grateful to my

:00:17. > :00:25.honourable friend for giving way. I want to talk about off Paton drugs,

:00:26. > :00:28.specifically on bisphosphonate specifically, is she concerned by

:00:29. > :00:35.the UK breast cancer group survey undertaken in March last year that

:00:36. > :00:37.at the moment only 24% of breast cancer clinicians offering

:00:38. > :00:42.bisphosphonates the patient's? That is something the Government could

:00:43. > :00:48.urgently addressed up yellow I completely agree to my honourable

:00:49. > :00:55.friend. It is not just about Kadcyla, but about the thousands of

:00:56. > :01:00.lives of women who rely on it to survive. I want to share my words

:01:01. > :01:03.and experiences of two of my friends whose lives have been transformed by

:01:04. > :01:08.actors devised back. One of my friends who is here today, I went to

:01:09. > :01:12.primary school with. I won't tell the House just how many years ago

:01:13. > :01:15.that might have been! Her name is Samantha. When I got the breast

:01:16. > :01:25.cancer diagnosis, I glibly thought, it's OK, I'll get to would. But

:01:26. > :01:28.sadly, about 18 months ago, I found out this was not the case, and my

:01:29. > :01:31.cancer has spread to my liver. That's when I really knew that my

:01:32. > :01:33.cancer meant business. And that is where Kadcyla comes in. You see, for

:01:34. > :01:40.breast cancer, although I coped and kept going with surgery, it was

:01:41. > :01:45.grim. I worked a bit, but regular chemotherapy is not a doddle. Ipsos

:01:46. > :01:50.gym at Howells is the least of it. Putting on a brave face and wearing

:01:51. > :01:53.a wig is just a service issue. Getting up and vomiting and going to

:01:54. > :01:57.work to deal with the VAT is about hardest thing I have ever done. It

:01:58. > :02:02.wasn't simply because I don't have enough sick pay and work to cover my

:02:03. > :02:06.mortgage, I actually like work. Work allows me to make my contribution,

:02:07. > :02:12.and I think that's pretty near the most important thing. Making my life

:02:13. > :02:17.make a difference, and Kadcyla, well, that means that my life isn't

:02:18. > :02:22.over. It really gives me hope. There is a big hole where my 45 millimetre

:02:23. > :02:26.tune be used to be in my liver, and Scottish you and other bits. But I'm

:02:27. > :02:32.cancer free without having to take another year off my life -- and scar

:02:33. > :02:35.tissue. My work is precious, I have kept the business going, eight

:02:36. > :02:38.people are employed because I could keep going, and Kadcyla makes it

:02:39. > :02:44.possible for me. I would also like to mention my friend... I

:02:45. > :02:48.congratulate my honourable friend on her, obtaining this debate. She

:02:49. > :02:52.certainly made a very powerful speech on behalf of her constituent.

:02:53. > :02:59.Does she agree with me that when Nice looks at this, at the cost

:03:00. > :03:05.value ratio around this, that her constituent's story and the keeping

:03:06. > :03:09.of eight people in work should be a factor at looking at women's

:03:10. > :03:13.economic life and roll both at the workplace and the home? Can I

:03:14. > :03:16.completely agree with my honourable friend. I appreciate that these

:03:17. > :03:21.equations and calculations are difficult and I don't underestimate

:03:22. > :03:25.the work of Nice. But it is about life and quality-of-life and about

:03:26. > :03:31.so many more people than those just affected by having the council. And

:03:32. > :03:36.to my friend Lesley, in 2030 my world was turned upside down when I

:03:37. > :03:42.was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer and a rare and

:03:43. > :03:45.aggressive kind of cancer that develops in the limb muscles. After

:03:46. > :03:48.15 months' treatment, compromising eight chemotherapy treatments, and

:03:49. > :03:53.Mustaq, 15 radiotherapy treatments and the year of medication, it

:03:54. > :03:57.appeared that the cancer had gone. Four months later I noticed a rash

:03:58. > :04:01.around the scar tissue of the Mustaq, and a biopsy showed that the

:04:02. > :04:06.cancer had re-occurred in my skin. My oncologist told me was in a tight

:04:07. > :04:09.corner, because the cancer had returned so quickly, I wasn't

:04:10. > :04:13.eligible for the usual drug treatments, radiotherapy was not an

:04:14. > :04:16.option because I had recently completed a course, and surgery

:04:17. > :04:20.wasn't possible because of the location of the cancer. I was told

:04:21. > :04:24.the council was incurable and referred to the Royal Marsden. They

:04:25. > :04:29.confirmed that surgery was not feasible because the cancer has

:04:30. > :04:34.spread so quickly over a large area, making skin grafts impossible. I was

:04:35. > :04:37.told Kadcyla was my best chance. I have now been treated with Kadcyla

:04:38. > :04:42.the 22 months, and I have been told of others that have been treated for

:04:43. > :04:47.five years. Signs that the cancer has disappeared very quickly, and so

:04:48. > :04:52.far I remain cancer free. Kadcyla has enabled me to live a life

:04:53. > :04:57.reasonably normally, and participate in and contribute to my local

:04:58. > :05:01.community. Kadcyla has been a life-saver for me, and without it my

:05:02. > :05:05.future was very uncertain. I feel profoundly fortunate to have

:05:06. > :05:09.received it, and I'm incredulous that such an effective drug will now

:05:10. > :05:13.be denied to other people in my situation. I would also like to

:05:14. > :05:18.mention Rosalie, who was featured in the Evening Standard on Friday

:05:19. > :05:23.night. Rosalie is just 33 and is living with incurable breast cancer.

:05:24. > :05:28.She is in single-parent two children, three and six, and she is

:05:29. > :05:31.terrified of the future without the option of Kadcyla, terrified of her

:05:32. > :05:37.kids growing up alone. In Rosalie's on words - I hate feeling like a

:05:38. > :05:40.victim, but I have to fight my kids. There are more important than me

:05:41. > :05:45.feeling vulnerable against going public. I have to fight for life,

:05:46. > :05:50.for them. Then there is Maddy, who you may have seen last week on the

:05:51. > :05:54.Victoria Derbyshire programme. She has spoken so eloquently of how

:05:55. > :05:58.Kadcyla gave her hope. It has improved her life both significantly

:05:59. > :06:02.and quickly, enabling her to live a much fuller and richer life - going

:06:03. > :06:08.on holiday and playing an active part in her young but's life. These

:06:09. > :06:12.are just a few women of so many lives who have been made possible

:06:13. > :06:15.through access to Kadcyla. I'm sure many honourable members will share

:06:16. > :06:19.the experiences of the Rome constituents, such as the honourable

:06:20. > :06:23.member for Croydon South, who will no doubt talk about the incredible

:06:24. > :06:28.Bonnie Fox, the face of breast cancer now's keep Kadcyla campaign.

:06:29. > :06:31.Thanks to Bonnie's hard work and bat of breast cancer now, this campaign

:06:32. > :06:38.has seen over 100,000 people signed the petition calling for Nice and

:06:39. > :06:45.Roche to come together and reassess this decision and find a solution to

:06:46. > :06:49.keep Kadcyla available. Bonnie is an incredible advocate for the keep

:06:50. > :06:53.Kadcyla campaign, inspiring so many others as she leads the case for

:06:54. > :06:56.this treatment. Bonnie says her inspiration is wanting to have as

:06:57. > :07:01.much time with her two-year-old son Barnaby as possible. In her own

:07:02. > :07:05.words - I already feel cheated by diagnosed with secondary breast

:07:06. > :07:11.cancer at 37 with the baby. Having the drug taken away that would add

:07:12. > :07:16.years to my life and give me quality time with my son is so cruel. I'm

:07:17. > :07:20.grateful to her. She will be aware that the Government's accelerated

:07:21. > :07:25.access review last October recommended that Nice should review

:07:26. > :07:29.its health technology assessment processes and methods. Is she

:07:30. > :07:33.concerned that the review of this drug, Kadcyla and other drugs on the

:07:34. > :07:37.Cancer Drugs Fund, is happening before that review takes place, so

:07:38. > :07:41.we might learn the lessons about how the review process needs to improve

:07:42. > :07:45.and we won't benefit from Matt? Can I agree with the right honourable

:07:46. > :07:52.member. I'm sure he knows more about this process than myself. It clearly

:07:53. > :07:55.makes sense if these kind of unique, unusual, first-tier drugs should be

:07:56. > :07:59.considered in the light of that reconsideration. You know, I could

:08:00. > :08:02.go on, and I hope that we will hear the stories of these and so many

:08:03. > :08:07.other women whose lives have been affected by singing the Roux breast

:08:08. > :08:10.cancer and enriched by Kadcyla. It matters so much to all of these

:08:11. > :08:16.women for one simple reason - it works. Kadcyla is effective, it

:08:17. > :08:20.already been available on the NHS for over two years, and its

:08:21. > :08:23.side-effects are limited in comparison to other treatments. But

:08:24. > :08:27.today it is nothing short of a tragedy to know that countless women

:08:28. > :08:30.who thought that Kadcyla would be the next treatment they would

:08:31. > :08:35.receive for their breast cancer or having their lives shortened in

:08:36. > :08:38.front of their eyes. Imagine, you're living with incurable breast cancer,

:08:39. > :08:42.you know that there is no cure but there is something that can give you

:08:43. > :08:51.extra time with people you love, people who depend on you. It could

:08:52. > :08:54.be a year or five years or even longer. If you needed a drug today,

:08:55. > :09:00.the NHS would give it to you. But if you needed it in a few months' time,

:09:01. > :09:06.you may have lost or trials. -- lost your chance. I thank her for giving

:09:07. > :09:10.way, she is making a perfect speech. I congratulate her on securing the

:09:11. > :09:12.debate. Would she agree that the phenomenon of the new drugs in the

:09:13. > :09:18.pipeline which would make of vital difference but being held up by this

:09:19. > :09:21.conflict between Nice and pharmaceutical companies overpricing

:09:22. > :09:26.or value for money or whatever you call it, it not only applies to

:09:27. > :09:31.breast cancer but for other cancers, too. My constituent David Innis is

:09:32. > :09:36.one of 30,000 sufferers of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. He was in

:09:37. > :09:42.here earlier this week making the same argument. He was diagnosed at

:09:43. > :09:46.39. He has lived with it since 2009, he is making the same point she

:09:47. > :09:50.makes as Mike both parties need to end the logjam and come up with a

:09:51. > :09:55.deal and is sure that the availability of these jobs actually

:09:56. > :10:03.put lives first, because life is too short, literally, otherwise.

:10:04. > :10:10.stop. I completely agree with in which the best to her constituent.

:10:11. > :10:17.How can we withdraw a drug from the NHS that works? It seems senseless

:10:18. > :10:20.that it is happening, and of course Kadcyla is just one drug that we

:10:21. > :10:26.need to look at, what will happen with other key breast cancer drugs

:10:27. > :10:30.now and in the future? I would like to consider just two more examples,

:10:31. > :10:39.one already available on the Cancer Drugs Fund and one not. Pogeta is

:10:40. > :10:49.currently available, and has not yet been reappraised as Kadcyla has been

:10:50. > :10:54.and is used for HD are two positive breast cancer patients. It enables

:10:55. > :10:58.women to live for an additional six months without the breast cancer

:10:59. > :11:02.progressing and can extend life by an additional six months or more but

:11:03. > :11:13.because it is administers with two other drugs, it would not be

:11:14. > :11:20.considered cost-effective under a NICE standards even if drug

:11:21. > :11:25.manufacturers gave it away for free. Another drug worth considering is

:11:26. > :11:31.Palbocyclib and I apologise if I have spelt that wrong. It is a new

:11:32. > :11:37.drug that is being assessed for the first time, another extremely

:11:38. > :11:47.effective drug, and allowing ten months without progressive cancer.

:11:48. > :11:51.Robust overall survival data is not yet available because it is so new.

:11:52. > :11:55.Perversely this will count against it in the NICE appraisal. This is

:11:56. > :12:02.because overall survival data is given greater weight than

:12:03. > :12:07.progression free survival, in NICE appraisals, despite the fact that

:12:08. > :12:12.the outcome is the same, a longer and enrich life was that we are

:12:13. > :12:15.seeing effective treatment being rejected or facing rejection. What I

:12:16. > :12:19.want to know is if it is really right that we have a health service

:12:20. > :12:23.planning to take away these lifelines? How was the decision to

:12:24. > :12:26.take away these life extending drugs beneficial for people living with

:12:27. > :12:31.cancer, or any of us who might one day need access to them? Who makes

:12:32. > :12:39.the decisions as to Mark how can we be sure they are the right ones? I

:12:40. > :12:44.have my questions regarding the factors constituting the process. It

:12:45. > :12:50.is too easy to assume that experts must automatically be right. Numbers

:12:51. > :12:55.income for merely use, then yes or no. Let us not forget that we are

:12:56. > :13:06.talking about people's lives. For those affected, for those whose this

:13:07. > :13:18.is all too real. The appraisal process is there doom. Dad how many

:13:19. > :13:28.people understand the issues in these decisions prisons, the drug

:13:29. > :13:32.Palbocyclib is proving so effective that data is only available on how

:13:33. > :13:37.cancer is progressing. In terms of the appraisal, would she agree with

:13:38. > :13:43.me that the fact that this drug is available in France, Germany,

:13:44. > :13:48.Austria and Canada shows that routinely are system isn't working?

:13:49. > :13:52.I would agree with my honourable friend on that point and it is

:13:53. > :13:56.amazing to think that it will take for this particular drug longer to

:13:57. > :14:02.get overall survival data because people are living longer without

:14:03. > :14:06.their cancer spreading? Is obvious success is seen as a disadvantage in

:14:07. > :14:12.the NICE appraisal system. The cost of Palbocyclib would appear to be

:14:13. > :14:14.much higher in the NICE formula as a result because overall survival data

:14:15. > :14:21.is given much more weight than progression free survival will stop

:14:22. > :14:28.that does seem illogical. Consider also the criteria for and of life

:14:29. > :14:31.treatment determination. If a treatment is end of life it is

:14:32. > :14:39.allowed to have doubled the quality adjusted life year, but end of life

:14:40. > :14:43.is considered to be two years. But not why not three years? How have we

:14:44. > :14:49.ended up with such an arbitrary fixed figure, especially when the

:14:50. > :14:52.figure is set in Scotland, as three years? There is no cure for

:14:53. > :14:56.secondary breast cancer but as people start to live longer it will

:14:57. > :14:59.place them at a disadvantage in terms of accessing treatment because

:15:00. > :15:02.it will be harder for those treatments to become approved, and

:15:03. > :15:08.as they are no longer considered under the end of life criteria. I

:15:09. > :15:14.asked the Minister how can she be sure that the NICE process is still

:15:15. > :15:17.fit for purpose? Will she responds passivity on the two suggestions of

:15:18. > :15:21.revealing the wakeboard regressions free survival when overall survival

:15:22. > :15:28.is not available because treatment is so effective? And whether the end

:15:29. > :15:32.of life criteria could be changed to three years instead of two? Finally,

:15:33. > :15:39.I would also like to return to the issue of offbeat and treatments will

:15:40. > :15:42.stop over recent years there have been two private members bills on

:15:43. > :15:47.the topic, one introduced by my honourable friend the member for

:15:48. > :15:50.Torfaen. We had many commitments to the subject from the then Minister

:15:51. > :15:54.for life sciences but adds yet we have not seen any improvements to

:15:55. > :15:58.access, which is hugely disappointment. The Minister

:15:59. > :16:01.committed to establish a working group to investigate what could be

:16:02. > :16:04.done to enable use of such treatments and I believe this this

:16:05. > :16:08.working group is due to conclude its work next month with a report. Can I

:16:09. > :16:12.ask the minister whether this will report will introduce a clear

:16:13. > :16:18.pathway for oft repeated treatments and or she write to me with the

:16:19. > :16:21.details of this pathway and how it will explicitly work for

:16:22. > :16:27.bisphosphonates drugs for prevention of secondary breast cancer. I know

:16:28. > :16:30.that others have been disappointed by the extremely patchy availability

:16:31. > :16:36.of this treatment for eligible women. As a result it recently were

:16:37. > :16:39.lodged the 43p a day campaign to highlight the low cost of this

:16:40. > :16:44.treatment and the fact that it would save over 1000 lives every year in

:16:45. > :16:50.the UK if it worse routinely available. Not to mention saving

:16:51. > :16:53.millions of pounds for the NHS. Thank her for giving way and

:16:54. > :16:57.congratulate her for securing the debate. Can I put on my support for

:16:58. > :17:01.the case the honourable ladies making and particularly draw the

:17:02. > :17:05.house attention to the case of my constituent Bonnie Fox who is in the

:17:06. > :17:08.gallery above us this morning, suffering in the way that the

:17:09. > :17:11.honourable member has been describing and whose life chances

:17:12. > :17:17.would be greatly improved if something more could be done to

:17:18. > :17:21.preserve the availability of Kadcyla and I once again express the support

:17:22. > :17:27.for the case for the honourable ladies's eloquently expressed case.

:17:28. > :17:33.Can I thank the honourable member, is likely to have such an

:17:34. > :17:38.exceptional constituent as Bonnie Fox who we have already mentioned in

:17:39. > :17:46.the debate because of a sessional work. The Minister has said that CCD

:17:47. > :17:52.'s are responsible for commissioning the treatment for bisphosphonates.

:17:53. > :17:59.Could the Minister let me know what the contact has been with CCG in

:18:00. > :18:10.this process. This is a challenge in execs leg-macro existing

:18:11. > :18:14.arrangements,... Does the Minister agree that if we want general in

:18:15. > :18:17.progress on availability of this treatment we cannot take the path of

:18:18. > :18:25.least resistance, and just say it is up to CCG. It is -- they are

:18:26. > :18:31.independent bodies and make their own decisions. That is a do nothing

:18:32. > :18:35.option. Is an old treatment requiring a new approach, requiring

:18:36. > :18:40.our commissioning strategists at NHS England to make a decision about how

:18:41. > :18:45.to commission this treatment routinely. Will the Minister agreed

:18:46. > :18:49.to meet with Ian Dodge, national director more commissioning strategy

:18:50. > :18:54.to discuss the specific case with him? And to keep members here today

:18:55. > :18:58.updated on those discussions was to mark and with the Minister agree

:18:59. > :19:01.that it is indeed worrying at a treatment that could prevent over

:19:02. > :19:06.1000 women getting secondary breast cancer every year is not routinely

:19:07. > :19:14.available? To finish and I'm sure everybody will be delighted...! I

:19:15. > :19:18.had the Minister would consider the meeting of some of the women

:19:19. > :19:21.affected by the breast cancer and breast cancer now here today and I

:19:22. > :19:23.would like to thank those women in the public gallery for coming here

:19:24. > :19:31.to show their support for this debate en masse? I would like to

:19:32. > :19:34.wish every single one of them well. Access to life enhancing and life

:19:35. > :19:37.saving drugs should be a right in the UK, not a decision based on a

:19:38. > :19:44.lottery of access to private health care. I sincerely hope that

:19:45. > :19:48.Palbocyclib will reverse the decision and give every woman that

:19:49. > :19:53.future back. The question is as on the order paper. Ian Stewart. Thank

:19:54. > :20:00.you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating the honourable

:20:01. > :20:05.lady from Mitcham and Morden for securing the important debate and

:20:06. > :20:09.also for setting out the case so powerfully. I agree with pretty much

:20:10. > :20:13.everything she has said, and I know there are quite a number of members

:20:14. > :20:16.wishing to speak so I went to tame the house simply by repeating all of

:20:17. > :20:23.these points. My motivation for speaking today comes from a meeting

:20:24. > :20:30.I had with my constituency surgery just a couple of weeks ago with my

:20:31. > :20:34.constituent Joanna Mears, and her husband, and they, like many other

:20:35. > :20:40.sufferers, are in the public gallery this afternoon watching proceedings.

:20:41. > :20:43.Mrs Mears suffers from secondary breast cancer and while her

:20:44. > :20:49.condition sadly is terminology is responding well to her existing

:20:50. > :20:55.medication and has already had more than twice the expected benefit span

:20:56. > :21:01.from that notification -- medication. What she is on now, when

:21:02. > :21:08.that's no longer has its effect her only remaining option is Kadcyla,

:21:09. > :21:15.and naturally she is very concerned that if the NICE decision is upheld

:21:16. > :21:20.then that option... It is essentially the same question that

:21:21. > :21:25.has already been asked. I think we all accept that a mistake... That to

:21:26. > :21:33.this is a decision this is wrong. The key question is what is the

:21:34. > :21:37.remedy? Is the remedy within the remit of Palbocyclib to sort by

:21:38. > :21:41.changing its procedures and considerations? Or does this lie

:21:42. > :21:46.with the framework, the statutory framework that parliament and

:21:47. > :21:52.government has set within which NICE works? That is the issue I think two

:21:53. > :21:58.which we must come to an answer. I'm grateful to him for asking me

:21:59. > :22:03.questions and my answer will be pretty much the same as the

:22:04. > :22:07.honourable lady's. In this specific case I think, I hope that there is

:22:08. > :22:16.scope for NICE and the manufacturer of Kadcyla to sit down and agree if

:22:17. > :22:20.only for this treatment some compromise, and actually I had a

:22:21. > :22:26.briefing note from them this morning stating that they are willing to do

:22:27. > :22:32.that, and I hope that NICE... If I may just finished answering my noble

:22:33. > :22:38.friend first. I will certainly away afterwards. I hope that Palbocyclib

:22:39. > :22:43.will respond in kind to -- I hope that NICE will respond in kind. As

:22:44. > :22:46.my honourable friend points out I think there was a broader issue for

:22:47. > :22:54.other drugs, and I do think it is time to perhaps look again at the

:22:55. > :22:58.appraisal system and others, so we don't have to continue to return to

:22:59. > :23:03.this debate went in new drug in the future is identified, and there is a

:23:04. > :23:08.question of its affordability under the Cancer Drugs Fund, so I hope

:23:09. > :23:13.that answers my honourable friend was a point. The other would general

:23:14. > :23:17.from Coventry. I think the honourable gentleman. I agree with

:23:18. > :23:22.him because it is not only these drugs we are debating today where we

:23:23. > :23:24.have problems before, in relation to NICE in particular, and I think in

:23:25. > :23:29.answer to his honourable friend's question both the Cedars should be

:23:30. > :23:34.looked at by the Minister and NICE should be looked at as well because

:23:35. > :23:38.it will be -- we have continually come back here, the years I've spent

:23:39. > :23:44.here listening to the same questions, is nobody 's business, to

:23:45. > :23:47.use an expression. The Irn-Bru gentleman from Coventry South makes

:23:48. > :23:52.an important point and I don't pretend to be an expert in how NICE

:23:53. > :23:57.works but what I hope to bring to this debate is a personal example

:23:58. > :24:05.from my constituent just to underline the human effects that

:24:06. > :24:10.these matters have. I don't have a solution necessarily but I hope the

:24:11. > :24:13.outcome from this debate will be as well as looking at Kadcyla itself

:24:14. > :24:21.perhaps seeking a fresh look at the whole process.

:24:22. > :24:26.The Nice framework works very well for mass drugs, where the entire

:24:27. > :24:30.population or in whole vaccination is going to work. But for very small

:24:31. > :24:35.numbers of people, the 1200 women that really need this drug, I

:24:36. > :24:40.personally don't think it is as effective a process. There are two

:24:41. > :24:46.people in the negotiation two Kadcyla and Roche. We mustn't have

:24:47. > :24:54.Roche seeing the new drugs as a new cash cow, as has certain goes

:24:55. > :25:00.Kadcyla in 2017. Women's lives should not be treated as cash cows

:25:01. > :25:05.by this drugs company. I agree with the honourable lady. I have not had

:25:06. > :25:08.any personal discussions with Roche, I can only take at face value the

:25:09. > :25:15.note they sent me earlier this morning, that seemed to be a genuine

:25:16. > :25:19.wish to negotiate with Nice and get down to an acceptable price. And I

:25:20. > :25:25.hope that debate is joined in the spirit it is meant. I was going to

:25:26. > :25:29.mention this later in my speech, but perhaps it's appropriate now. I

:25:30. > :25:36.think one area that does need to be examined is the pharmaceutical price

:25:37. > :25:39.regulation scheme, a five-year voluntary contract between

:25:40. > :25:44.pharmaceutical companies and Nice. If I understand how it is intended

:25:45. > :25:49.to work is that the pharmaceutical companies will underwrite any

:25:50. > :25:55.overspend for a particular drug, but for various reasons that doesn't

:25:56. > :25:59.seem to be working in practice. So my honourable friend the Minister, I

:26:00. > :26:03.would urge her to look at that particular point that some in the

:26:04. > :26:11.industry are making. If I may return to the case of Mrs yours, my

:26:12. > :26:17.constituent. As I say, when her current medication ceases to be

:26:18. > :26:24.effective, she considers the only option. While she has responded well

:26:25. > :26:27.to the current treatment, there is every likelihood, and her consultant

:26:28. > :26:34.agrees, that she will similarly respond positively to Kadcyla. And

:26:35. > :26:39.there is every chance that she would enjoy the benefits of that well in

:26:40. > :26:45.excess of the expected nine months that it has meant. And I just would

:26:46. > :26:52.therefore argue that a blanket ban on this drug would be inappropriate.

:26:53. > :26:56.At the very least there should be some flexibility in the system to

:26:57. > :26:59.make it available to people like my constituent, for whom there is a

:27:00. > :27:06.very high probability that it would have more than the expected and

:27:07. > :27:10.official process. I would also make the point that because she has

:27:11. > :27:14.responded so well to her existing drug, if her life is able to be

:27:15. > :27:20.extended considerably by Kadcyla, it will allow more research to be done

:27:21. > :27:23.on the efficacy of her existing medication, and that would be an

:27:24. > :27:29.important body of evidence to add to the whole appraisal process. The

:27:30. > :27:35.honourable lady from Mitch Mann mortem quite rightly said that

:27:36. > :27:42.prescription drugs should be based solely on clinical need, and no

:27:43. > :27:44.longer a factor. When I met Mrs Mears, she made one point to me that

:27:45. > :27:48.I couldn't really answer. Through her life she has been a

:27:49. > :27:51.professional, worked professionally in the criminal justice system and

:27:52. > :27:56.done a lot of work in saving the public purse money by innovating

:27:57. > :28:03.programmes to reduce youth offending. That value cannot be

:28:04. > :28:08.calculated. But she made the point to make up the one point in my life

:28:09. > :28:12.I need something back -- she made the one point to me, at the one

:28:13. > :28:16.point and my life I need summing back from this country, it can't be

:28:17. > :28:19.given to me. I really couldn't answer that. I hope that something

:28:20. > :28:26.can be done to make this drug available. As I say, the Nice

:28:27. > :28:32.decision is provisional. I contributed to the consultation, and

:28:33. > :28:40.I hope, I think it is in early March next, that they will review this

:28:41. > :28:44.decision. I know that NHS resources are finite, and there are many

:28:45. > :28:48.competing demands on its budget, and the debate on the overall size of

:28:49. > :28:55.the NHS budget must be a matter for another time. But in cases like

:28:56. > :29:01.this, to illustrate the need to use what resources we have as

:29:02. > :29:07.efficiently as possible. Just before I met Mrs Mears the other week, I

:29:08. > :29:12.happened to see a story in the media which really made my blood boil. And

:29:13. > :29:20.I just simply put this on the table, I don't pretend to be an expert in

:29:21. > :29:25.the prescription system. But the story reported that the NHS wastes

:29:26. > :29:30.about ?80 billion per annum by prescribing simple painkillers like

:29:31. > :29:36.paracetamol, which you can buy in a supermarket for 20p or 30p per

:29:37. > :29:40.packet. But it goes through the usual prescription system, and costs

:29:41. > :29:47.?80 billion per year. Surely there is a way of getting around that to

:29:48. > :29:51.somehow give GP practices in stock of these basic painkillers, I'm not

:29:52. > :29:54.asking people that currently get their prescriptions free to start

:29:55. > :30:00.paying, but surely there is a way of the doctors just simply issuing them

:30:01. > :30:03.when it's appropriate to do so, and stop this merry-go-round of

:30:04. > :30:07.paperwork that they say costs many millions of pounds. I think the

:30:08. > :30:13.honourable gentleman is making a very valuable point. Would he agree

:30:14. > :30:16.with me that one way around this would be to have prescribing

:30:17. > :30:22.pharmacists that could give out those basic painkillers and

:30:23. > :30:26.medications such as that without the need for the patient to even see

:30:27. > :30:32.their GP, plus freeing up valuable GP time? That sounds in on the

:30:33. > :30:37.sensible suggestion. I don't pretend to be an expert in the system, but

:30:38. > :30:42.surely something like that can be done. That money saved can be added

:30:43. > :30:49.to the Cancer Drugs Fund and make more drugs like Kadcyla available to

:30:50. > :30:53.people who need it. So I'm going to end my comments, I know that many

:30:54. > :30:58.members want to contribute, but please let's try to do everything we

:30:59. > :31:03.can in this House, in Courage Nice, encourage Roche, certainly look at

:31:04. > :31:10.the overall system, but particularly on this drug. It means so much to my

:31:11. > :31:16.constituent, and the many others up and down the country. So I hope this

:31:17. > :31:19.debate has that effect, and I conclude where I started in

:31:20. > :31:26.congratulating the honourable lady for introducing it. Nick Thomas.

:31:27. > :31:29.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the Backbench

:31:30. > :31:33.Business Committee. That was very, very important topic for debate this

:31:34. > :31:38.afternoon. I would also like to pay tribute to my honourable friend, the

:31:39. > :31:42.member for Mitchell Mann mortem, for the passionate and thoughtful way in

:31:43. > :31:47.which she introduced the debate. And also to endorse everything that she

:31:48. > :31:54.said, and particularly in relation specifically to the drug Kadcyla.

:31:55. > :31:58.She said in her pithy way, firstly it works, but secondly it has far

:31:59. > :32:02.fewer side-effects than many cancer drugs do. I was very proud to have

:32:03. > :32:05.backed as well the 43p per day campaign that was mentioned by my

:32:06. > :32:13.honourable friend in her opening remarks. I should in interest as the

:32:14. > :32:17.chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on off-patent drugs. I should

:32:18. > :32:22.also say that one of my first actions and being a member of this

:32:23. > :32:26.House in 2050 was to become a breast cancer ambassador. I was very proud

:32:27. > :32:29.to do so, as the person who inspired me to come into politics actually

:32:30. > :32:33.was my grandmother, who died of the disease years ago. But I was lucky

:32:34. > :32:38.enough in my early months in this House to be drawn in the ballot for

:32:39. > :32:43.a Private Member's Bill. And I introduced the off-patent drugs

:32:44. > :32:47.bill. And although it was talked down in quite controversial

:32:48. > :32:50.circumstances on the 6th of November 2015, I was nonetheless very pleased

:32:51. > :32:55.to work after that make cross-party basis to achieve legislative

:32:56. > :33:01.progress. And I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for Central

:33:02. > :33:04.Ayrshire, the honourable members for Bury St Edmunds, Daventry, and

:33:05. > :33:09.indeed the former Minister for life scientist, and the work that was

:33:10. > :33:13.done in those months to make legislative changes that would then

:33:14. > :33:16.incorporated in what was then the access to medical treatment

:33:17. > :33:21.innovation bill, which later became an Act and received Royal assent in

:33:22. > :33:27.March last year. I want to come if I make to the pledges that were made

:33:28. > :33:31.on the 29th of January 2016, and how things have moved forward since. I

:33:32. > :33:35.would say to the Minister that in setting out a number of questions

:33:36. > :33:39.about this, I don't necessarily expect them all to be answered in

:33:40. > :33:43.detail in her closing remarks. But if there are aspects that she feels

:33:44. > :33:46.she cannot answer in detail, I would be very grateful if she would write

:33:47. > :33:53.to me about those matters after the debate today. On the 29th of January

:33:54. > :33:57.2016, I and others in this House put down a package of amendments to this

:33:58. > :34:03.Bill. Some of which were substantial and went into the Bill, and others

:34:04. > :34:09.which were amendments to receive the promises I have talked about. The

:34:10. > :34:13.then Minister for life sciences said, broadly, the intention of the

:34:14. > :34:16.package of amendments is to introduce off label repurposed

:34:17. > :34:20.medicines in the bill and the budget. The heart of the agenda. And

:34:21. > :34:24.that is precisely what we sought to do that day. And he added, I

:34:25. > :34:27.wholeheartedly supported the intention of this bill and its

:34:28. > :34:32.predecessor, but not the mechanism. We now have a mechanism that will

:34:33. > :34:35.work. We spoke that day about the mechanism. Now, one of those

:34:36. > :34:40.amendments was a request for an action plan. And it was decided by

:34:41. > :34:46.the Minister that he didn't want that on the face of the bill, but he

:34:47. > :34:51.actually said this - "Let me set up my commitment and bat of the

:34:52. > :34:56.Government the pursuing the agenda with time and rigour". I thank my

:34:57. > :35:00.honourable friend for giving way. I remember his bill very well and the

:35:01. > :35:05.shameful way in which it was talked down by the professional filibuster.

:35:06. > :35:10.Would he not agree that any action plan needs to look at these things,

:35:11. > :35:14.and also the diagnosis support and information that patients have a

:35:15. > :35:17.other types of cancer as well as breast cancer, as well as the

:35:18. > :35:21.limited availability of effective drugs we have talked about that do

:35:22. > :35:27.not have side effects and the fact that drugs have been delisted from

:35:28. > :35:32.the Cancer Drugs Fund. I certainly agree that the pathway has to be a

:35:33. > :35:34.comprehensive one. I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I will

:35:35. > :35:42.come back to the pathway in a moment. In addition, that day, the

:35:43. > :35:45.then Minister for life sciences said he would explore mechanisms for

:35:46. > :35:48.ensuring that the National is the Judith clinical excellence can look

:35:49. > :35:52.at evidence and develop evidence -based guidance on off label

:35:53. > :35:57.medicines so that doctors are aware of which dropped are being used on

:35:58. > :36:02.off label indications. -- which drugs. He added that Nice are

:36:03. > :36:06.looking at ways to collect evidence on repurposed medicines. I'm pleased

:36:07. > :36:09.with the progress that has been made with the national fund and I will

:36:10. > :36:15.come back to that specifically in a moment. We thought this would have

:36:16. > :36:18.applied to NHS England. A new system of national commissioning of

:36:19. > :36:22.repurposed drugs. Again, the amendment was not accepted. But this

:36:23. > :36:27.pledge was given - the NHS is happy to look at all options for promoting

:36:28. > :36:30.off label and repurposed drugs use. I hope that pledge will be repeated

:36:31. > :36:36.by the Minister at the dispatch box today. There was also a commitment

:36:37. > :36:41.to consult all relevant stakeholders going forward. Again, I'd hope that

:36:42. > :36:45.would be fairly uncontroversial and able to be repeated. Let me come to

:36:46. > :36:50.where we have got to. When I intervened on the speech of my

:36:51. > :36:55.honourable friend, I did quit worrying statistic about

:36:56. > :37:00.bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates really does provide a case in point

:37:01. > :37:05.here. Bisphosphonates is a drug that is used to treat osteoporosis, but

:37:06. > :37:11.it is very, very effective in its second reform, it's repurposed form,

:37:12. > :37:14.where you do have somebody with primary breast cancer, it certainly

:37:15. > :37:19.helps with preventing it spreading to the bone. It is very effective in

:37:20. > :37:23.that regard. That statistic of only 24% of clinicians actually being

:37:24. > :37:28.able to prescribe it is a very worrying one, and one that needs to

:37:29. > :37:32.be addressed. There should be in the system no barrier to that being far

:37:33. > :37:36.more widely prescribed than it is. Let me just come to the working

:37:37. > :37:41.group, because I understand that it will conclude at the end of next

:37:42. > :37:46.month. I'm very grateful I will be meeting officials from the medicines

:37:47. > :37:52.and pharmacy directorate to discuss this in the next few weeks. But it

:37:53. > :37:56.would be appreciated that if there is to be a pathway, whether the

:37:57. > :38:02.Minister would be prepared to share that with me in draft form prior to

:38:03. > :38:05.then in order for comments to be made, particularly going back to the

:38:06. > :38:11.pledges that were made last year. The British National formulary has

:38:12. > :38:15.begun work. Indeed, I looked up bisphosphonates specifically on the

:38:16. > :38:21.BNF online before I came into this debate today. This is what makes

:38:22. > :38:26.that 24% statistic even more worrying, really, because BNF online

:38:27. > :38:30.actually says that the use of bisphosphonates impatience with

:38:31. > :38:34.metastatic breast cancer may reduce pain and prevent pain and prevent

:38:35. > :38:38.skeletal complications of bonuses starters. Now that is actually there

:38:39. > :38:43.already. It is the in the prescribers Bible, if you like -- on

:38:44. > :38:47.metastatic. It would be something for the Minister to focus on, why

:38:48. > :38:52.that is not filtering through the system in the way it should be. In

:38:53. > :38:56.addition, there is a pilot licensing scheme that brings together medical

:38:57. > :39:02.research charities and generic manufacturers of drugs, the

:39:03. > :39:06.licensees of Paton drugs for the new purposes. If the Minister could

:39:07. > :39:11.comment on whether that fully fledged scheme would be helpful, but

:39:12. > :39:18.I also think this is an interesting development because my Bill in its

:39:19. > :39:21.original form was actually a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to

:39:22. > :39:24.seek licences for drugs in the new indications. That was the bone of

:39:25. > :39:30.contention between myself and the Minister. At the time we thought

:39:31. > :39:35.that was too much and too onerous with respect to the Secretary of

:39:36. > :39:38.State to have that duty. The other interesting point, looking back at

:39:39. > :39:42.that debate, is the other point that was made then was about the EU's

:39:43. > :39:48.licensing scheme. It said that changes could run a coach and horses

:39:49. > :39:51.through it. Given that we're not going to be members of the European

:39:52. > :39:54.Union by the end of this Parliament, I would be interested in the

:39:55. > :39:59.Minister's comment as to how she the Brexit process, the end of the

:40:00. > :40:02.Brexit process, when we are no longer members of the EU, would

:40:03. > :40:05.actually affect this? If it was seen by the Minister at the time is

:40:06. > :40:10.browsing problems, perhaps she could tell us whether she is considering

:40:11. > :40:13.whether or not this pilot licensing can first of all become fully

:40:14. > :40:18.fledged, but without that you are being licensing scheme, how she sees

:40:19. > :40:21.that developing here in the UK going forward. -- without the European

:40:22. > :40:25.licensing scheme. I appreciate I have got a lot of points to the

:40:26. > :40:30.Minister there. I'm perfectly happy if she could write to me about it.

:40:31. > :40:35.But I think what we shouldn't forget here is really the difference that

:40:36. > :40:40.this of Paton drugs agenda can make the people's lives -- this

:40:41. > :40:43.off-patent drugs agenda. Those who face this issue have incredible

:40:44. > :40:48.bravery. The honourable member for Bristol West is in the House with

:40:49. > :40:52.us, and the constituent Bonnie Fox, the honourable member for Croydon

:40:53. > :40:55.South. We in this House as legislators Ujah YouTube to all of

:40:56. > :41:00.those who suffer from this terrible disease to take all of this possible

:41:01. > :41:00.that that we can to make these extraordinarily cheap drugs readily

:41:01. > :41:11.available as possible. It is alleged to speak on this

:41:12. > :41:14.thread and I would like to congratulate the member for securing

:41:15. > :41:18.it was honoured to be able to back it in the application to the

:41:19. > :41:23.backbench committee. I would also do like to thank her for her powerful

:41:24. > :41:27.speech, it was very moving. Fighting cancer is not just a top priority

:41:28. > :41:30.for the NHS, it is one of the greatest scientific challenges of

:41:31. > :41:35.our time. Treating our illnesses with signs rather than superstition

:41:36. > :41:38.is a relatively new idea in the history of medicine. But the

:41:39. > :41:41.acceleration of better diagnosis, better treatment, and a more

:41:42. > :41:45.successful outcome is keeping more of us alive for longer, and with

:41:46. > :41:52.better policies of life. The motion before the house mentions Kadcyla, a

:41:53. > :41:56.treatment which Nice has not enabled to comment for the of second breast

:41:57. > :42:00.cancer and we await the results of their consultation in March. This is

:42:01. > :42:02.a treatment which is a relative of another medicine which in its

:42:03. > :42:08.introduction was also extremely controversial, and after a lot of

:42:09. > :42:13.consideration by Nice and a lot of debate and pressure by the house the

:42:14. > :42:19.drug was approved and has helped thousands of people, because men get

:42:20. > :42:25.breast cancer, too, fighting breast cancer. Timber macros are treatment

:42:26. > :42:29.which could help a number of women on the existing remit and would help

:42:30. > :42:32.them to advance. We talk about secondary or metastatic breast

:42:33. > :42:37.cancer than we talk about people whose lives are massively sorted by

:42:38. > :42:42.breast. Kadcyla gives them and their families more time on the quality of

:42:43. > :42:46.life. It can have months their life expectancy, whose remaining lives

:42:47. > :42:50.are only likely to be mentioned in a few months, and the honourable

:42:51. > :42:52.member for Michelin and Morden very movingly talks about some of her

:42:53. > :42:58.friends and those in the gallery, too. We all understand that the

:42:59. > :43:03.financial constraints asked tight on NHS even though spending has

:43:04. > :43:05.increased and I welcome cancer drug funds providing patients with much

:43:06. > :43:10.better access to promising new cancer treatments with also value

:43:11. > :43:16.for the taxpayer. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the honourable

:43:17. > :43:20.lady for giving way, and I was profoundly moved by the case in my

:43:21. > :43:24.constituency Melanie Marshall who sadly is suffering from breast

:43:25. > :43:27.cancer and one of the policy to me is she finds it hard to understand

:43:28. > :43:31.why the NHS can spend such significant sums on conditions which

:43:32. > :43:36.frankly not life-threatening, and sometimes lead to verge on the

:43:37. > :43:45.cosmetic, and yet not give a priority vital drugs like someone

:43:46. > :43:49.macro? -- priority to drugs like Kadcyla question mark surely there

:43:50. > :43:52.is money that can be found. I also get e-mails on the censored out but

:43:53. > :43:56.there are other considerations like mental health which is one of the

:43:57. > :44:01.reasons why some people don't quite understand why money is being spent

:44:02. > :44:04.in various parts of the NHS. Those are the reasons behind that. I

:44:05. > :44:09.totally agree with you on drugs like this which seem to make such a

:44:10. > :44:12.difference. In the case of Kadcyla there seem to be question is why it

:44:13. > :44:15.can't be brought into the regular use. Some of these are for Nice and

:44:16. > :44:22.some of them for the manufacturer for up Kadcyla is a treatment

:44:23. > :44:28.accepted by numerous European countries. I am reassured that

:44:29. > :44:32.cancer charities seen that Nice has made every effort to fund it. The

:44:33. > :44:37.question remains that how Nice's final position compares to other

:44:38. > :44:43.countries, France and Germany for instance. Once's 's equivalent of

:44:44. > :44:50.Nice considered it in the same way as Nice has and approved it. Another

:44:51. > :44:55.query is the joys of comparative treatment in assessing the quality

:44:56. > :45:00.of Kadcyla as a treatment. They concern that the comparator is a old

:45:01. > :45:01.treatment, and I'm going to compare it, very difficult with these

:45:02. > :45:21.medical terms,. I haven't been able to say those terms. The

:45:22. > :45:33.comparisons made with those previous drugs seems unrealistic to base an

:45:34. > :45:35.old drugs. Everyone would understand the comparison if it was made to a

:45:36. > :45:43.currently available drug. What is the status of the study under the

:45:44. > :45:55.name Ester looking at Kadcyla? In the event that a Nice concludes

:45:56. > :46:00.their study in 2023, the immediate concerns about ability remains. --

:46:01. > :46:06.availability. Perhaps the manufacturer will reconsider their

:46:07. > :46:10.position. It has been unfortunate that Nice has been subjected to

:46:11. > :46:16.sustained attacks by the manufacturer Roche. I call upon them

:46:17. > :46:19.to get round the table with Nice and look again at the pricing of the

:46:20. > :46:24.drug as they have done with others in the past. Turning to other

:46:25. > :46:27.treatments I know that messages going out to clinical commissioning

:46:28. > :46:30.groups about the options available and treatment, many members will

:46:31. > :46:36.have had a campaign e-mails relating to bisphosphonates, and I was

:46:37. > :46:39.reassured that the response I had from the Department of Health and

:46:40. > :46:43.the Portsmouth clinical commissioning group that they be

:46:44. > :46:45.made available in my constituency. Queen Elizabeth Hospital in

:46:46. > :46:49.Portsmouth has above average performance in both treatment times

:46:50. > :46:54.and outcomes and is becoming if not already a centre of Alex and in

:46:55. > :47:04.cancer treatment. -- centre of excellence. Like many issues in the

:47:05. > :47:09.house, and many in the house, many have died in my family of breast

:47:10. > :47:16.cancer. We need to keep drugs available to treat them, and that

:47:17. > :47:19.sounds like Kadcyla. May I congratulate the honourable member

:47:20. > :47:22.for Michelin and Morden for securing the debate which was an

:47:23. > :47:29.extraordinary powerful, I thought, and emotive speech, and join her in

:47:30. > :47:33.actually wishing everybody here today in the public gallery and

:47:34. > :47:38.everybody who is watching this debate at home, all the very best

:47:39. > :47:42.for their future. It is a pleasure to follow the member for Milton

:47:43. > :47:48.Keynes who I thought made a very powerful case, personal testimony of

:47:49. > :47:54.his constituents, and argued her case eloquently. The member for

:47:55. > :48:00.Torfaen, we often come into politics for many different reasons,

:48:01. > :48:06.profession of public pain being one, and the NHS wasn't created in 1948,

:48:07. > :48:12.it was created much earlier when his father died, and he spoke eloquently

:48:13. > :48:17.about his grandmother being his big inspiration into politics and her

:48:18. > :48:21.dying of the disease. And finally be a member for Portsmouth South I hope

:48:22. > :48:27.I can pronounce the drugs that I will mention as she did in this

:48:28. > :48:33.debate. We have heard a lot of statistics today, and stats in

:48:34. > :48:38.themselves are shocking, and is important to remind ourselves that

:48:39. > :48:41.behind every statistic there is a human story. Women all too often,

:48:42. > :48:46.will young women, mothers lives are being cut cruelly short. We have

:48:47. > :48:52.also heard many important interventions about the access to

:48:53. > :48:55.breast cancer drugs for treatment of secondary breast cancer. At the

:48:56. > :49:00.heart of the day the motion is also the issue of how we can improve

:49:01. > :49:05.access to both innovative new breast cancer drugs and off patented drugs

:49:06. > :49:09.used for breast cancer. The use of such drugs relates not only do the

:49:10. > :49:15.treatment of breast cancer but also its prevention. I am immensely proud

:49:16. > :49:19.that in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the home to the

:49:20. > :49:23.nightingale centre, Europe's first breast cancer prevention Centre and

:49:24. > :49:32.the charity prevent breast cancer. We also benefit being a Mancunian MP

:49:33. > :49:35.for the pros proximity the Christy Hospital, the largest single site

:49:36. > :49:42.cancer centre in Europe, treating more bad 44,000 patients a year. The

:49:43. > :49:43.nightingale centre opened at University Hospital south

:49:44. > :49:51.Manchester, Wythenshawe Hospital, with July 2000 cents -- 2007,

:49:52. > :49:53.offering state-of-the-art diagnostic treatment to women and men with

:49:54. > :49:59.breast cancer and coordinates the best cancer treatment from the NHS

:50:00. > :50:03.for the Wallaby and chest area. It's also provides training facilities

:50:04. > :50:08.aimed at interesting the shortage of breast cancer specialists and houses

:50:09. > :50:14.many of the prevent breast cancer researchers, looking at ways to

:50:15. > :50:19.predict and prevent breast cancer. In the prevent breast cancer

:50:20. > :50:23.research unit, several drugs now off patented are being repurposed for

:50:24. > :50:27.preventing cancer coming back. Women with a family has the or other

:50:28. > :50:32.factors making high risk -- family history, have been known to be

:50:33. > :50:36.benefiting from these drugs which prevent the disease but they find it

:50:37. > :50:39.difficult to obtain these inexpensive tried and tested drugs

:50:40. > :50:42.because they are currently not listed in the British national

:50:43. > :50:47.formulary ads specifically licensed for new purpose of prevention,

:50:48. > :50:53.despite successful clinical trials. There are currently three drugs in

:50:54. > :51:04.this situation. Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and astrophysical. -- I

:51:05. > :51:08.would be happy to give well. I'm very grateful for my aunt will

:51:09. > :51:12.friend giving way. Specifically on the British national for myriad and

:51:13. > :51:18.aid policies being put together, a new one, by the B and F which will

:51:19. > :51:21.set out how it will get more off label drugs. Will my honourable

:51:22. > :51:27.friend agree that it is we can have the policy available the matter? I

:51:28. > :51:32.congratulate honourable friend doing so much work in this area since he

:51:33. > :51:35.has come to this parliament. We can only hope Stoke, and maybe the

:51:36. > :51:42.minister will have more information for us in her summing up on that

:51:43. > :51:46.particular issue today. The prevent breast cancer research unit oh so

:51:47. > :51:48.has further out of patented drugs under investigation for prevention

:51:49. > :51:53.that may even be better in the future. As well as doing everything

:51:54. > :51:57.we can to extend the life of women with secondary breast cancer we must

:51:58. > :52:02.also do what we can to prevent breast cancer occurrence in the

:52:03. > :52:07.first place. As we all know prevention is better than cure. And

:52:08. > :52:10.for those with secondary cancer where cure is currently out of reach

:52:11. > :52:15.this is something many will be striving for for the next

:52:16. > :52:20.generation. At the moment the system stands in the way of this. The

:52:21. > :52:27.solution to make the drugs widely available which would be

:52:28. > :52:31.cost-effective would be to ask Nice to list such drugs are approved for

:52:32. > :52:36.the new indication of a mention in the BN F publication following

:52:37. > :52:40.evaluation of relevant clinical trials of course so that doctors can

:52:41. > :52:45.have confidence in prescribing them. The current requirements to obtain a

:52:46. > :52:48.new medicine and health care products regulatory agency licence

:52:49. > :52:54.for this new indication is expensive and impractical for repurposed

:52:55. > :52:58.medications as they usually lack a sponsoring pharmaceutical company to

:52:59. > :53:08.champion the use of the new genetic drug. I am sealed the new Minister

:53:09. > :53:12.-- I'm sure the Minister would be in agreement that the small change he

:53:13. > :53:14.would be in the best interests of the fight against breast cancer and

:53:15. > :53:21.I would ask them to consider that and Nice in addressing this changing

:53:22. > :53:25.way which the drugs are listed to evaluate for new purposes such as

:53:26. > :53:33.prevention to be listed for approved as that purpose. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:53:34. > :53:38.when we lose someone prematurely to cancer obviously grief follows. It

:53:39. > :53:44.has been my experience that when we lose someone to breast cancer were

:53:45. > :53:47.the grief is particularly poignant. So, tonight my thoughts and prayers

:53:48. > :53:54.are with all my constituents who have either succumbs to this or who

:53:55. > :54:01.are battling this and their families to carry the consequences. I lost my

:54:02. > :54:06.cousin to the disease and my two friends Tom and Claire both lost

:54:07. > :54:10.their mothers to this disease. I stand in solidarity with my

:54:11. > :54:14.constituents Sheila Higgins who currently battles this disease. She

:54:15. > :54:19.has been a mother to me for the last two decades. Finally, my

:54:20. > :54:23.parliamentary assistants, Suzanne Richards, who came back to work

:54:24. > :54:28.after Christmas with a clean bill of health. She was diagnosed with a

:54:29. > :54:31.virulent strain last year. She had world-class treatment that

:54:32. > :54:36.Wythenshawe and the Christy hospitals. Today is her birthday.

:54:37. > :54:43.Many of us feared it would be a birthday she would never see. Happy

:54:44. > :54:49.birthday, Suzanne. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank the

:54:50. > :54:53.honourable member for Mitcham and Morden in securing this debate. May

:54:54. > :54:56.I say what a pleasure it is to follow the our noble member form

:54:57. > :55:00.Wythenshawe south-east and I'm sure everyone in the house wishes his

:55:01. > :55:01.assistant and a very happy and fulfilling birthday. May there be

:55:02. > :55:13.many, many more to come. Most families in this country have

:55:14. > :55:19.some experience of cancer at some point. We've had many compelling

:55:20. > :55:24.examples today in the house. I am very conscious that as we discuss

:55:25. > :55:28.this difficult topic of the provision of medicines to those who

:55:29. > :55:33.need it that are frankly, discussions about price, and the

:55:34. > :55:38.cost of drugs, means nothing to wives, two daughters, to mothers and

:55:39. > :55:42.grandmothers, who simply want to live the next week, the next month,

:55:43. > :55:48.the next year, to see their next birthday or the birthday of a loved

:55:49. > :55:52.one. I don't underestimate the task facing NICE but I have to say having

:55:53. > :55:57.listened to the speeches today in the house, we do ask, we should ask,

:55:58. > :56:03.why it is countries such as France and Germany have approved this drug.

:56:04. > :56:08.And yet NICE has drawn the initial conclusion it has at the end of last

:56:09. > :56:13.year. I hope today, I know the minister is listening carefully, I

:56:14. > :56:18.hope today questions, thoughts on this process, feeds into a larger

:56:19. > :56:24.review as to how NICE is looking at these drugs and other drugs, and

:56:25. > :56:29.whether we have got the processes correct. And as appropriate as it

:56:30. > :56:33.can be. I'm a big believer any system run by human beings can

:56:34. > :56:39.always do better and I wonder if this is an example of that now. I'd

:56:40. > :56:42.like Mr Deputy Speaker to look at Lincolnshire because it is the

:56:43. > :56:49.county in which my constituency is situated. I'm pleased we have a

:56:50. > :56:55.better than average cancer screening in the county. What worries me is

:56:56. > :57:02.that when it comes to diagnose in the early signs of breast cancer,

:57:03. > :57:06.might local CCG ranks third from the bottom in the United Kingdom. -- my

:57:07. > :57:10.local. It's very significant, because we all know in this house

:57:11. > :57:16.and beyond, the earlier the diagnosis of cancer, where the first

:57:17. > :57:22.stage or secondary, the better the chances are of successful treatment.

:57:23. > :57:25.The treatment of secondary breast cancer holds particular relevance in

:57:26. > :57:31.my constituency because I've met representatives from breast Cancer

:57:32. > :57:37.care. I say representatives, they were women, mums, wives, as I say. I

:57:38. > :57:41.was incredibly moved to here to hear their stories of their own

:57:42. > :57:48.experiences of living with secondary breast cancer. I commend the vital

:57:49. > :57:52.work that charity has done, in particular, the secondary, not

:57:53. > :57:55.second-rate, campaign, that has been looking into the barriers to

:57:56. > :58:01.improving care for those with secondary breast cancer. They

:58:02. > :58:05.highlighted to me the key point that unless our hospital trusts are

:58:06. > :58:11.collecting specific data on how many people have been diagnosed with

:58:12. > :58:15.secondary breast cancer, they cannot plan accurately, those trusts, for

:58:16. > :58:19.the services for those patients. I was shocked to learn about two

:58:20. > :58:26.thirds of hospital trusts in this country do not collect that state.

:58:27. > :58:33.-- collect that data. My own trust is one of those trusts. I urge my

:58:34. > :58:38.own hospital trust and others across the country to start collecting that

:58:39. > :58:44.state, so that from there the services provided to women with

:58:45. > :58:52.secondary breast cancer can be planned properly and effectively.

:58:53. > :58:59.Now, I know the Minister will help the house with the success of the

:59:00. > :59:03.Cancer Drugs Fund. We know that 95,000 people have received life

:59:04. > :59:08.extending drugs they need through that fund. But of course we must

:59:09. > :59:12.also strive to look at new ways to make sure patients have access to

:59:13. > :59:15.innovative new medicines, diagnostics and medical

:59:16. > :59:21.technologies, as, indeed, is happening through the accelerated

:59:22. > :59:25.access review plans. I also have to say I welcome the government

:59:26. > :59:32.commitment to making sure the prices charged to the NHS are fair, and is

:59:33. > :59:36.not inflated. I cannot be the only member who was shocked and pretty

:59:37. > :59:40.disgusted, actually, at some of the headlines that have appeared in

:59:41. > :59:43.newspapers recently, about the conduct of some people, some

:59:44. > :59:49.companies, when it comes to massively inflating the price of

:59:50. > :59:53.patented drugs. I'm really, really pleased that loophole is going to be

:59:54. > :59:59.closed to the health services medical supplies built in the other

:00:00. > :00:03.place at this moment. I also urge the Secretary of State, as I know

:00:04. > :00:06.he's doing, to make sure the Competition and Markets Authority

:00:07. > :00:16.keeps a close eye on this as well. Unfair practices should not conspire

:00:17. > :00:21.against our stitch woods, our neighbours, friends, families, when

:00:22. > :00:24.it comes to the treatment of cancer. I know my honourable friend the

:00:25. > :00:30.Minister has listened very carefully to the concerns raised in what I

:00:31. > :00:35.have found to be a very informative and engaging debate. I hope a

:00:36. > :00:40.solution is reached quickly between NICE and Roesch if the problem is

:00:41. > :00:51.that the price charged for this drug is too high. I wish every single

:00:52. > :00:55.woman in this country currently battling cancer, first stage or

:00:56. > :00:58.secondary stage, I wish them the very, very Best of luck and I hope

:00:59. > :01:05.they feel this debate has done them proud. Steve Baker. Thank you Mr

:01:06. > :01:09.Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the honourable lady for securing this

:01:10. > :01:15.debate. I'm here today to represent the concerns of my constituents and

:01:16. > :01:21.I should say of course I joined the cause for cancer to be more

:01:22. > :01:26.available. When my staff and I were discussing correspondence we've

:01:27. > :01:29.received about this debate, a particular constituent case, we

:01:30. > :01:33.quickly agreed this is about one of the worst kind of correspondence we

:01:34. > :01:39.receive, where people are terminally ill but unable to access the

:01:40. > :01:42.medicines that they would need. This is particularly acute, I don't think

:01:43. > :01:46.I would be the first member to struggle to keep a quaver out of my

:01:47. > :01:51.voice, my mother-in-law died from secondary cancer. These things will

:01:52. > :01:54.stay with all of us. None of us can know what ladies are going through

:01:55. > :01:59.who are currently suffering from these diseases but when one has seen

:02:00. > :02:02.it from second hand, certainly we would all want to live in a world

:02:03. > :02:06.where the NHS does not have to practice any kind of rationing.

:02:07. > :02:12.That's really the point I want to focus on, because as the honourable

:02:13. > :02:16.gentleman for Coventry South indicated, this is a retractable

:02:17. > :02:20.problem. I'm aware of some of the great difficulties their work

:02:21. > :02:26.bringing forward a drug to help men in a similar set of circumstances

:02:27. > :02:31.suffering with prostate cancer. In a sense I wish to sympathise with the

:02:32. > :02:35.Minister and with NICE. I think NICE and the Minister has an extremely

:02:36. > :02:40.difficult task because while it is very easy for all of us to say, of

:02:41. > :02:44.course, Kadcyla should be freely available to all those who need it

:02:45. > :02:47.without restriction, I'm aware this is a long-standing problem which

:02:48. > :02:53.applies to many innovative pharmaceuticals, and I know it'll

:02:54. > :02:55.come as no comfort whatever to sufferers of various cancers to know

:02:56. > :02:59.a profit-making pharmaceutical system has a far better record of

:03:00. > :03:05.innovation than the alternative planned systems. In saying that I

:03:06. > :03:10.wish the Minister every successor she moves forward in a crucially

:03:11. > :03:14.important task, working out how to ensure these innovative medicines

:03:15. > :03:22.come forward at lower cost and at a greater rate.

:03:23. > :03:31.Martin Day. It's a pleasure to take part in today's important debate,

:03:32. > :03:33.make I thank the honourable member for Mitcham and Morden for securing

:03:34. > :03:38.it, I'm grateful for her comments and contributions and the cases she

:03:39. > :03:44.used to illustrate it. It eloquently put a human face to the problem

:03:45. > :03:47.faced. The debate around the access to Kadcyla is of immense interest to

:03:48. > :03:52.the public on both sides of the border, breast cancer being the most

:03:53. > :03:54.common cancer faced, a fact illustrated by the many individual

:03:55. > :03:59.constituency cases and examples given from all sides of the house

:04:00. > :04:02.here today. As has been mentioned, Kadcyla is a life extending

:04:03. > :04:06.treatment giving some women with incurable secondary breast cancer up

:04:07. > :04:10.to nine months longer than the alternatives and has fewer side

:04:11. > :04:16.effects at a cost of 90,000 per patient. In Scotland Kadcyla has

:04:17. > :04:19.never been available on the NHS, the Scottish medicines Consortium which

:04:20. > :04:23.makes its decisions independently of ministers and Parliament decided in

:04:24. > :04:26.October 2014 not to approve Kadcyla for routine use in Scotland after

:04:27. > :04:31.considering all available evidence, they felt the treatment cost in

:04:32. > :04:35.relation to benefits was not sufficient. Patients have only been

:04:36. > :04:40.able to access it in exceptional circumstances to individual patient

:04:41. > :04:45.treatment requests. It is estimated over 100 women in Scotland would

:04:46. > :04:50.benefit from Kadcyla annually. A Kadcyla discount has been offered by

:04:51. > :04:54.the pharmaceutical company Roche and they wrote to Scottish Government

:04:55. > :04:57.officials about a patient access scheme. They've resubmitted their

:04:58. > :05:05.application so it can be considered for routine use across the NHS in

:05:06. > :05:08.Scotland. It's being assessed. ... I thank my honourable friend for

:05:09. > :05:14.giving way, I wonder if he will join me in my hopes for a positive

:05:15. > :05:19.outcome in relation to Kadcyla for our constituents who are affected by

:05:20. > :05:23.secondary breast cancer. And for whom this debate means so much

:05:24. > :05:27.today. I thank my colleague for making that point and I would join

:05:28. > :05:31.with her in hoping for the positive outcome, we expect a decision can be

:05:32. > :05:36.made in March with a decision on 10th of April. I look forward to

:05:37. > :05:39.that. The SNP Scottish Government has substantially increased access

:05:40. > :05:43.to new medicines particularly for cancer with a number of reforms and

:05:44. > :05:47.investment in recent years. The Scottish Government will build on

:05:48. > :05:50.recent reforms and make further improvements by collaboration with

:05:51. > :05:54.patients and NHS staff by accepting recommendations of the Doctor Brian

:05:55. > :05:57.Montgomery review. Jordan Robertson Cabinet Secretary for health,

:05:58. > :06:03.well-being and sport, announce the Scottish Government will take

:06:04. > :06:06.forward all 28 of the review's recommendations. Doctor Montgomery

:06:07. > :06:12.was tasked to examine how the changes to the Consortium process in

:06:13. > :06:15.2014 access affected access to medicines for end of life

:06:16. > :06:20.conditions. The process for appraising medicines can be made

:06:21. > :06:24.more open, transparent and robust. Amongst the Montgomery

:06:25. > :06:31.recommendations, I will not list all 28, is giving the SMC the option of

:06:32. > :06:38.an interim recommendation for use subject to ongoing evaluation, which

:06:39. > :06:41.will allow the collection of data on real-world effectiveness. There is

:06:42. > :06:46.managed access agreements, a medicine provided at a discounted

:06:47. > :06:51.price for a period of time to perfect data on its effectiveness.

:06:52. > :06:54.As well as making use of the NHS services in Scotland to lead

:06:55. > :06:58.negotiations on cost with the industry to get the fairest price

:06:59. > :07:02.possible. And better capturing of patient outcome data, as it's vital

:07:03. > :07:06.we can determine whether medicines are bringing the level of benefits

:07:07. > :07:09.to patients that are expected. Beyond the recommendations of the

:07:10. > :07:13.review Miss Robertson has announced improvements to the process for the

:07:14. > :07:20.nonroutine access to medicines on an individual case by case basis. The

:07:21. > :07:23.approved clinical Systems piloted in Glasgow 2015 to handle applications

:07:24. > :07:27.for medicines has been successfully rolled out across Scotland. The

:07:28. > :07:31.second tier of packs will be introduced to build upon the

:07:32. > :07:39.existing individual patient treatment request system. This will

:07:40. > :07:43.include consideration of equity of access with other parts of the UK as

:07:44. > :07:49.a material part of its decision-making process. In November

:07:50. > :07:53.the senior public affairs manager of Cancer UK in Scotland said SMC does

:07:54. > :07:58.a difficult but necessary job to assess whether new cancer drugs

:07:59. > :08:01.should be made available on the NHS. Following the SMC forums we've been

:08:02. > :08:05.pleased to see a significant increase in the availability of

:08:06. > :08:09.cancer drugs in Scotland and we support the review's recommendations

:08:10. > :08:12.to make further progress. Breast cancer now has said the Scottish

:08:13. > :08:17.Government reforms give fresh hope for a system that will put patients

:08:18. > :08:20.and their families first and said Scotland's approach to reform is a

:08:21. > :08:27.useful example to the rest of the UK about ways in which the system can

:08:28. > :08:32.be improved. I thank my honourable friend for giving way and reflecting

:08:33. > :08:35.upon his words in relation to the flexibility of approach and the need

:08:36. > :08:41.to continue to keep pushing forward to make sure we allow access, as

:08:42. > :08:45.many of these drugs as possible for the people in such need. I wonder if

:08:46. > :08:49.he would join with me in commending the Scottish Government for that

:08:50. > :08:53.approach and hoping that approach continuing will make some

:08:54. > :08:57.difference. Yes, I thank my honourable friend for making those

:08:58. > :09:01.points and will indeed join with her in those comments. A new Scottish

:09:02. > :09:06.cancer strategy was launched in 2016, which is very ambitious and

:09:07. > :09:11.aims to stop anyone dying of breast cancer by 2015 and breast cancer is

:09:12. > :09:13.a priority in the detect cancer early initiative, there are many

:09:14. > :09:18.things we need to move forward in that direction. No debate seems

:09:19. > :09:22.complete without reference to Brexit. This issue is no exception.

:09:23. > :09:27.Given the Health Secretary has stated the UK will not be in the

:09:28. > :09:31.European medicines agency, DMA, there could be implications as to

:09:32. > :09:33.how medicines are regulated and marketing authorisations will be

:09:34. > :09:39.required from the medicines and health care products regulatory

:09:40. > :09:43.agency for the UK. I'm in no doubt the implications of that will be

:09:44. > :09:46.less efficiency and possibly a longer process for obtaining

:09:47. > :09:51.authorisations, resulting, I fear coming innovative drugs taken longer

:09:52. > :09:55.to reach patients. Some industry leaders predict it in the region of

:09:56. > :10:01.150 days based on the examples of Switzerland and Canada. According to

:10:02. > :10:04.a piece that appeared last in the Financial Times, when Sir Michael

:10:05. > :10:08.won instead of the NHRA was asked whether it would be able to take on

:10:09. > :10:13.all the extra work registering new drugs and medical devices currently

:10:14. > :10:17.carried out by the BMA, he said, I quote "Certainly not". A

:10:18. > :10:20.considerable investment and recruitment will be required to

:10:21. > :10:23.re-establish it as a stand-alone national regulator and I would be

:10:24. > :10:27.keen to hear from the Minister out alleged drug access for UK patients

:10:28. > :10:44.will be avoided. In conclusion, with regards to Kadcyla... He raises are

:10:45. > :10:50.very good point. But there has been a problem with regard to the costs

:10:51. > :10:56.involved. Kelly say, I hope the government will be able to find a

:10:57. > :11:01.better way through the system then we have previously heard. I hope

:11:02. > :11:06.that could solve the problem of the European medicines agency but we

:11:07. > :11:16.will also have a better regular regulatory system afterwards. In

:11:17. > :11:20.conclusion, with regard to Kadcyla, I hope it's resubmission is at a

:11:21. > :11:31.fair price for its possible use in Scotland. It could give sufferers

:11:32. > :11:36.Fisher are detained with their families and loved ones. We know

:11:37. > :11:41.need pharmaceutical companies to do the bit by bringing forward much

:11:42. > :11:46.fear pricing for new medicines, so excess is as wide as possible for

:11:47. > :11:49.the people of Scotland. Cost-effectiveness is the key marker

:11:50. > :11:59.for making sure drugs are readily available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr

:12:00. > :12:08.Deputy Speaker. I want to thank my honourable friend for securing this

:12:09. > :12:13.debate following the very sad news that her friend, who had been

:12:14. > :12:17.receiving this life extending treatment, we had just heard that

:12:18. > :12:22.her life had been taken away from her. I am pleased that this very

:12:23. > :12:26.important debate, she was able to secure it with the backbench

:12:27. > :12:30.committee. I want to thank all colleagues who have attended today

:12:31. > :12:35.and made excellent speeches, revealed she prefers the experiences

:12:36. > :12:46.and thoughts, from the Honourable member for Milton Keynes South and

:12:47. > :12:50.Portsmouth South. I want to thank Honourable friends from a range of

:12:51. > :13:01.other constituencies who have taken part today. I am sure the minister

:13:02. > :13:07.has been given a lot to think about and I look forward to hearing the

:13:08. > :13:12.response shortly. Finally, I want to thank breast cancer and no, for the

:13:13. > :13:20.campaigning work. Also, breast Cancer care for their continued

:13:21. > :13:26.support. In my contribution, I will briefly established the documented

:13:27. > :13:33.than perceived benefits of Kadcyla. I will then look at the provision of

:13:34. > :13:38.the drugs and the problems with determining the funding of the drugs

:13:39. > :13:50.on its cost-effectiveness as judged by NICE. Funding through the breast

:13:51. > :14:01.Council scheme in 2015 was a great success. At the time, the value of

:14:02. > :14:05.the drug was fairly successful. It was decided that the cost of it was

:14:06. > :14:16.worth it, given its effectiveness. However, the future funding of the

:14:17. > :14:29.drug is no underestimate. It joins another of secondary breast cancer

:14:30. > :14:36.drugs. It becomes a funding solution for the problems of the research. It

:14:37. > :14:45.was a funder of Toronto trip to expensive to be recommended by NICE.

:14:46. > :14:50.We can all agree that patients have benefited from the introduction of

:14:51. > :14:56.the cancer drugs from. But there is a risk know that access will be

:14:57. > :15:01.restricted. This is no surprise, given the cash strapped national

:15:02. > :15:06.Health Service. There are pleasures to provide these costly drugs

:15:07. > :15:11.developed by these pharmaceutical companies and is forced to look at

:15:12. > :15:16.cost rather than clinical need. Her response would be welcome of the

:15:17. > :15:20.Minister could outline concerns around these issues, if they have

:15:21. > :15:25.been addressed and assessed. We have had a number of good suggestions

:15:26. > :15:34.today about how funding may be redirected. Thank you for giving

:15:35. > :15:39.way. Is this not all the more poignant by virtue of the fact that

:15:40. > :15:49.since 2001, the incidences of breast cancer goes up by 9% every year? She

:15:50. > :15:56.makes a really good point. That could also be through the diagnosis

:15:57. > :16:01.of breast cancer, perhaps more people coming forward to be

:16:02. > :16:05.diagnosed than previously. But it is going to become more of an issue,

:16:06. > :16:12.not less of one in the years to come. As we have here today, Kadcyla

:16:13. > :16:20.is said to benefit 1200 women in England alone. It can increase life

:16:21. > :16:25.expectancy by six months. For some women, it can stretch in two years.

:16:26. > :16:30.But even if measured in months. Those months are surely priceless to

:16:31. > :16:35.the women and families involved. I speak from personal experience,

:16:36. > :16:40.because I lost my mother-in-law to secondary breast cancer 20 years

:16:41. > :16:46.ago. That was when my children were very small. I know that she

:16:47. > :16:53.treasured every day in the end of the done anything to spend another

:16:54. > :17:00.six months with her grandchildren. We wanted that. For all those 12 --

:17:01. > :17:04.1200 women, it is time for the children perhaps reach one more may

:17:05. > :17:09.all stored with their families, to see the children starting school

:17:10. > :17:13.perhaps, getting married, starting university, perhaps having a go in

:17:14. > :17:22.Sheffield. These memories are so precious and who families are able

:17:23. > :17:32.to cope with what inevitably follows. I am very grateful. She has

:17:33. > :17:42.made a very powerful point and an important point. The most aggressive

:17:43. > :17:48.of cancers, the period between diagnosis, that can be very short.

:17:49. > :17:54.Any extension of life, as you rightly say, to celebrate family

:17:55. > :17:59.events or anything else, is incredibly important and we should

:18:00. > :18:08.not lose sight of that. I agree. What price can be put on those

:18:09. > :18:12.precious months? Thank you. I have some investment in this. My only

:18:13. > :18:16.experience of breast cancer treatment over the past three years

:18:17. > :18:22.has left me really passionate about the issue of prevention. As well as

:18:23. > :18:27.thanking the breast cancer charities and she has done, but calling on all

:18:28. > :18:35.of us to spread the word through women we do to make sure they go for

:18:36. > :18:41.screening tests. I learnt about it through a television programme. I

:18:42. > :18:45.want people to what they can do to prevent breast cancer, because that

:18:46. > :18:53.is ways that the risk can be prevented. It is no magic cure, but

:18:54. > :18:57.it can be reduced. Thank you. We have not touched on prevention or

:18:58. > :19:03.early diagnosis, but they are absolutely vital points to be made.

:19:04. > :19:08.We have two looked at these in this house before in other debates are

:19:09. > :19:13.lame really grateful for my honourable friend reasoning that

:19:14. > :19:21.point. I am happy every day to see her back here in this place. What

:19:22. > :19:29.stands out with Kadcyla is the reduced side-effects. They can enjoy

:19:30. > :19:37.include the inducement of osteoporosis. Also, the increased

:19:38. > :19:39.chance of blood clots. The side-effects of some cancer

:19:40. > :19:47.treatments can be truly awful and are often too daunting to prevent

:19:48. > :19:51.the use of further treatment. It is the common perception that women

:19:52. > :19:55.make the perception to India treatment earlier than planned. This

:19:56. > :20:00.is often because the suffering they are in June because of the treatment

:20:01. > :20:06.is not worth the additional life it is pervading. It is all about the

:20:07. > :20:11.quality of her life. In the search conducted in the United States, with

:20:12. > :20:20.regard to side-effects commonly found less than 5% of women suffered

:20:21. > :20:24.a knee loss of here. We know that hearing loss can be highly traumatic

:20:25. > :20:29.for women undergoing cancer treatment. It is one of the most

:20:30. > :20:35.discussed side-effects of cancer. Given that we are discussing

:20:36. > :20:38.secondary breast cancer, which is ultimately terminal, the best

:20:39. > :20:43.outcome we can offer through treatment is both the extension and

:20:44. > :20:50.preservation of the quality of life enjoyed pre-diagnosis. Because

:20:51. > :20:54.Kadcyla causes fewer side effects, it represents a treatment which can

:20:55. > :20:57.effectively achieved not only an extension but he preservation of

:20:58. > :21:01.some of the quality of life to be enjoyed by these women

:21:02. > :21:06.pre-diagnosis. Look forward to hearing from Minister of what she is

:21:07. > :21:11.doing to ensure that women will continue to benefit from this fatal

:21:12. > :21:17.treatment in the future. Also, how we can support of patented drugs.

:21:18. > :21:22.Drug patents often worse for 20 years, sometimes ten years. At the

:21:23. > :21:27.end of it, that is very little incentive for these to be licensed.

:21:28. > :21:34.These drugs are still in many places clinically effective and can be very

:21:35. > :21:43.cost-effective. Currently, the NHS has no means of making them readily

:21:44. > :21:53.available. Did somebody asked me to give way? No, I am hearing things!

:21:54. > :21:59.That has not been made available to patients despite its effectiveness.

:22:00. > :22:03.If that was given to the entire eligible population, it could

:22:04. > :22:09.prevent one in ten cancer deaths. It is concerning that in research

:22:10. > :22:15.carried out by cancer groups, only 24% of clinicians were offering

:22:16. > :22:21.these two patients. Solving the issue is therefore an opportunity to

:22:22. > :22:27.help breast cancer survival rates and is something I hope the minister

:22:28. > :22:31.will consider carefully. I want to finish by talking about the cost

:22:32. > :22:44.effectiveness of drugs. At the moment, NICE as they would system

:22:45. > :22:47.for quantifying it. It is almost impossible to objectively measure

:22:48. > :22:53.someone's quality of life. The question surrounding the morality of

:22:54. > :23:00.attempting to do so, even. Is raised in the social value judgment paper

:23:01. > :23:11.by NICE, as is so often the case, a clear cause of the problem you lies

:23:12. > :23:15.with: NICE assesses these drugs. Drug acceptance and funding is

:23:16. > :23:22.determined solely by clinical meat, not the cost of value

:23:23. > :23:31.considerations. It is clearly a need to be addressed these issues. Breast

:23:32. > :23:35.cancer patients have to consider considerable side-effects, but they

:23:36. > :23:41.have been greatly lessened and this has led to a much higher quality of

:23:42. > :23:48.life post diagnosis. At the moment, it is almost impossible for NICE two

:23:49. > :23:55.reissue of this quality of life. We can see that these individuals would

:23:56. > :23:59.suffer a law quality of life without Kadcyla. This deserves more

:24:00. > :24:04.attention in value with regard to drug approval and funding. To end,

:24:05. > :24:07.the state funding of jobs at the moment is becoming based on cost

:24:08. > :24:12.effectiveness rather than the clinical needs. As the debate has

:24:13. > :24:16.shown, it should not be the only deciding factor. It disregards many

:24:17. > :24:25.personal reasons for many people who rely drug treatments. Kadcyla Has

:24:26. > :24:29.benefited many people. It has been pooled devastatingly out of their

:24:30. > :24:33.reach. The Minister has the lever of power to address the problems within

:24:34. > :24:37.the system which is letting them down. Members across the chamber

:24:38. > :24:43.have eloquently made the case today. I hope they have listened and she

:24:44. > :24:52.will give some reassurances to them and their families today. Thank you.

:24:53. > :24:58.A large number of very important and technical points have been raised

:24:59. > :25:05.today. I will do my best to respond. I hope colleagues will allow me to

:25:06. > :25:11.write to them. Kennedy congratulate the honourable member for securing

:25:12. > :25:19.the debate. I would like to join the house in paying tribute to the work

:25:20. > :25:24.that she has done. She has campaigned tirelessly to improve

:25:25. > :25:33.access to cancer drugs for her constituents and as she and. Cancer

:25:34. > :25:36.is a truly terrible disease earned, clear from the mini moving

:25:37. > :25:38.contributions we have here today, there are a few of us who have not

:25:39. > :26:08.been touched by it. These stories are us why we're here

:26:09. > :26:12.today. There is an all-party group for almost every disease known to

:26:13. > :26:19.man, perhaps with the exception of rigor mortis. If patience and

:26:20. > :26:23.campaigners are to have confidence in clinical decision making, there

:26:24. > :26:28.will have to be profound changes, rather than them bringing lobbying

:26:29. > :26:32.to MPs who are uniquely unqualified to make those decisions. Can I

:26:33. > :26:40.suggest to my honourable friend that one of those changes might need to

:26:41. > :26:45.be a thorough review of the framework and guidance under which

:26:46. > :26:48.NICE operates? My honourable friend makes a very important point which

:26:49. > :26:51.has been made by a number of colleagues today. I'll address it

:26:52. > :26:57.further in the speech if you will allow me. We do want to lead the

:26:58. > :27:02.world in the UK in fighting cancer. Survival rates in this country have

:27:03. > :27:05.never been higher but we must go further. While medicines of a vital

:27:06. > :27:11.weapon in the battle against cancer, we must not forget the bigger

:27:12. > :27:15.picture. More than half of people receiving cancer diagnosis live ten

:27:16. > :27:20.years or more. 96% of women diagnosed with breast cancer in

:27:21. > :27:26.England with more than a year after diagnosis, 86% will live five years

:27:27. > :27:31.and 81% at least ten years. Improving outcomes for all cancers

:27:32. > :27:35.remains a priority for this government. Our mandate is to make

:27:36. > :27:38.England one of the most successful countries in Europe at preventing

:27:39. > :27:42.premature death for all cancers and we're working to achieve this

:27:43. > :27:47.through the of our most recent cancer strategy. As the honourable

:27:48. > :27:50.lady for Bristol West says, early diagnosis and prevention is

:27:51. > :27:55.essential to achieving this and the faster diagnosis standard will speed

:27:56. > :27:59.up diagnosis of all cancer. The new standard is to ensure every patient

:28:00. > :28:03.referred for an investigation but suspicion of cancer is diagnosed or

:28:04. > :28:07.has cancer ruled out within 28 days. It's important we support further

:28:08. > :28:12.clinical research as it can have high impact on cancer survival

:28:13. > :28:17.rates, which is why the NHRC and 42 million on cancer research in

:28:18. > :28:20.2015-2016. We mustn't forget the vital research carried out by the

:28:21. > :28:25.cancer charities supported by the millions of pounds donated by

:28:26. > :28:29.members of the public each year. The government does fully understand how

:28:30. > :28:32.important it is people are able to access new and promising drug

:28:33. > :28:36.treatments for people affected by cancer, and we firmly believe

:28:37. > :28:39.clinically appropriate drugs established as cost-effective should

:28:40. > :28:44.be routinely available to NHS patients. All of us know these

:28:45. > :28:49.decisions which can be fiendishly complex will never be easy. We know

:28:50. > :28:55.from long experience in this place they should not be made by arbitrate

:28:56. > :29:00.intervention of politicians. They must be clinically led and made on

:29:01. > :29:03.the basis of the best available evidence and be frequently reviewed

:29:04. > :29:07.when new evidence come forward. That is why it is right for NICE to play

:29:08. > :29:13.this role in providing independent evidence -based guidance for the NHS

:29:14. > :29:17.on whether significant new drugs represent a clinically and

:29:18. > :29:21.cost-effective use of NHS resources. If a drug is recommended by NICE the

:29:22. > :29:26.NHS is legally required to fund it and over the years many thousands

:29:27. > :29:33.have benefited from the cancer drugs NICE has recommended. These include

:29:34. > :29:42.transformative drugs for cancer. Drugs for skin cancer and prostate

:29:43. > :29:46.cancer. Unfortunately, there are cancer drugs NICE is not able to

:29:47. > :29:49.recommend as clinically and cost-effective on the basis of the

:29:50. > :29:54.evidence available to it. That is why the government established the

:29:55. > :29:58.cancer drugs funding England and since October 2010 we've invested

:29:59. > :30:02.more than 1.2 billion in the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has helped over

:30:03. > :30:05.95,000 people in England to access life extending cancer drugs that

:30:06. > :30:11.would not otherwise have been available. In July last year NHS

:30:12. > :30:15.England NICE introduced a new operating model which builds on this

:30:16. > :30:22.and ensures the fund isn't based on a more stable footing in the future.

:30:23. > :30:25.Three key objectives, to make sure there is fast access to promising

:30:26. > :30:29.new treatments, that taxpayers get good value for money on drug

:30:30. > :30:33.expenditure, and pharmaceutical companies are willing to price

:30:34. > :30:37.products responsibly and access a new fast track to NHS funding for

:30:38. > :30:42.the best and most promising drugs. As part of the transition to the new

:30:43. > :30:44.operating model, ice is looking at whether drugs previously available

:30:45. > :30:48.through the fund should be funded through baseline funding in future.

:30:49. > :30:55.Ice has recently been able to recommend to all these drugs for

:30:56. > :31:02.breast cancer. -- recommend two of these drugs. These will be routinely

:31:03. > :31:08.available to patients. It was able to recommend these products taking

:31:09. > :31:15.into account patient access schemes. As we are discussing today, they

:31:16. > :31:18.also reappraised Kadcyla. As the honourable member rightly explained

:31:19. > :31:22.they consulted on its draft guidance but were not able to recommend the

:31:23. > :31:26.drug as it was too expensive for the benefits it gives and could not be

:31:27. > :31:31.recommended for routine use. As my honourable friend the honourable

:31:32. > :31:37.member for Milton Keynes South said, it's important to stress NICE has

:31:38. > :31:42.not issued its final guidance on Kadcyla. And we'll take responses on

:31:43. > :31:46.the recent consultation fully into account on developing its final

:31:47. > :31:51.recommendations. It allows time for further negotiation between NICE and

:31:52. > :31:55.Roche. That is why the debate today has been of value. I appreciate this

:31:56. > :32:00.is an anxious time for women with breast cancer but I hope all here

:32:01. > :32:05.today will appreciate these are very difficult decisions to make and NICE

:32:06. > :32:09.must be able to make these decisions free from political interference. I

:32:10. > :32:13.assure the house that regardless of the outcome of the appraisal NHS

:32:14. > :32:16.England will continue to fund Kadcyla through the CDF for all

:32:17. > :32:22.patients who have already begun treatment. The honourable lady and

:32:23. > :32:32.others also raised the importance of access to bisphosphonate for cancer

:32:33. > :32:35.patients. The use of off label land off patents drugs is common in

:32:36. > :32:41.clinical practice, there is no regulatory barrier to their

:32:42. > :32:50.prescription and NICE issues advice to clinicians on new off label uses

:32:51. > :32:55.of drugs. The honourable member made an important and informed speech on

:32:56. > :33:01.this issue which proves... Just over ten minutes, I think... Why he is

:33:02. > :33:06.the chair of the committee. Progress needs to be made and the working

:33:07. > :33:12.group is about to review its latest progress in the next month. I shall

:33:13. > :33:16.certainly raise the issues he has put forward with my colleague the

:33:17. > :33:19.noble lord or Shaughnessy who is responsible for this policy area. I

:33:20. > :33:24.ask him to respond, especially regarding the sharing of the working

:33:25. > :33:27.group's progress, and an update regarding the publication, which was

:33:28. > :33:32.raised by the honourable member for Wythenshawe. He would perhaps like

:33:33. > :33:35.to know the Association for medical and research charities is working

:33:36. > :33:39.with the Department of Health to facilitate and improve take-up of

:33:40. > :33:42.robust research findings to the repurposed drugs where appropriate

:33:43. > :33:46.for the patient. I suspect he knows it given the nature of his speech.

:33:47. > :33:52.For those other colleagues who intervened on this point,

:33:53. > :33:57.bisphosphonate is medicine used to treat osteoporosis. As colleagues

:33:58. > :34:00.note, they are used for other medical conditions including

:34:01. > :34:04.reducing the risk of primary breast cancer. Based on research in the

:34:05. > :34:12.Lancet in 2015. Which found they could be used to help women being

:34:13. > :34:17.treated with early breast cancer. They can reduce the risk of cancer

:34:18. > :34:21.spreading by 28%. Because there is good research evidence that supports

:34:22. > :34:24.their use they can be prescribed to patients for this purpose where

:34:25. > :34:29.prescribers consider this meet their clinical needs. I am aware there are

:34:30. > :34:33.concerns about access to bisphosphonate and prescription of

:34:34. > :34:38.them for this purpose is variable. There may be some confusion at local

:34:39. > :34:43.level as to who is responsible for commissioning them for this use. I

:34:44. > :34:47.am happy to share NHS England's advice on these points, whilst NHS

:34:48. > :34:49.England is responsible for commissioning specialist services,

:34:50. > :34:53.the manual for specialised services makes it clear the decision to

:34:54. > :35:00.prescribe bisphosphonate rests with the initial and patient. Honourable

:35:01. > :35:05.members may be aware NICE is currently updating its guideline on

:35:06. > :35:09.the diagnosis and management of early breast cancer and the use of

:35:10. > :35:14.bisphosphonate will be considered part of this. Guidance is due in

:35:15. > :35:20.2018 and my officials have spoken to NICE about the timescale, given

:35:21. > :35:24.concerns about the prescription of bisphosphonate. NICE is looking at

:35:25. > :35:27.the feasibility of bringing forward recommendations on use of

:35:28. > :35:30.bisphosphonate. It will be important to consider what implications might

:35:31. > :35:34.be for the timescale of the remainder of the guideline. I'll be

:35:35. > :35:40.happy to keep the house updated on that decision. The government is not

:35:41. > :35:43.complacent about the availability of breast cancer drugs and we are

:35:44. > :35:46.looking for measures to drive greater access to innovative

:35:47. > :35:49.technologies. As the member for Norfolk zero mentioned we've

:35:50. > :35:56.accelerated the access review which published its final report in

:35:57. > :36:01.October, setting out how the UK can increase access to devices and

:36:02. > :36:06.diagnostics for NHS patients and create a more attractive environment

:36:07. > :36:12.for investors. We'll respond to the review in the spring. NICE has two

:36:13. > :36:16.continue to evolve to change as in the development of new drugs and the

:36:17. > :36:23.development of the health and care system. Given the time, I'll respond

:36:24. > :36:27.to the need to respond to these in writing. We'll continue to work with

:36:28. > :36:33.NICE to ensure its methods remain fit for purpose. We have to remember

:36:34. > :36:37.improving outcomes for cancer patients is not just about drugs,

:36:38. > :36:43.that's why we accepted or 96 recommendations in the independent

:36:44. > :36:46.cancer task force report. The recommendations are a consensus of

:36:47. > :36:52.the whole cancer community on what is needed to transform cancer care

:36:53. > :36:55.across the whole pathway, from prevention and early diagnosis to

:36:56. > :36:58.living with and beyond cancer, and is dealing with side-effects

:36:59. > :37:04.mentioned so movingly by the Shadow minister. We are implementing this

:37:05. > :37:10.through a strategy which was published in May, and we hope to see

:37:11. > :37:13.great progress as it is delivered. As was made clear by the speeches of

:37:14. > :37:23.so many today, breast cancer affects so many today. That is why we invest

:37:24. > :37:26.so much in cancer services. So that more people may survive cancer and

:37:27. > :37:31.more people live better with cancer. They need rapid access to more

:37:32. > :37:35.effective treatments, surgery, radiotherapy or drugs. That is what

:37:36. > :37:41.I want to see, that is what this government will deliver. I'm sure

:37:42. > :37:44.the whole house will want to join me in congratulating all who have

:37:45. > :37:48.fought and survived breast cancer. We will want to stand alongside

:37:49. > :37:53.everybody who is living with a diagnosis of breast cancer, battling

:37:54. > :37:57.treatment, and living with all this sometimes hidden day-to-day impact

:37:58. > :38:02.of breast cancer. I'm quite sure we will want to remember all those who

:38:03. > :38:06.fought valiantly but lost the battle with breast cancer. We've made much

:38:07. > :38:10.progress in improving care, providing drugs, funding research,

:38:11. > :38:14.but we know there is much more we can and must do to fight this

:38:15. > :38:18.disease. I hope each and every one of you here today we'll do what

:38:19. > :38:24.you've been doing today and told us to account as we move on and try to

:38:25. > :38:29.do just that. -- hold us to account. Siobhan McDonagh to wind-up. Summing

:38:30. > :38:33.up can I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate and

:38:34. > :38:38.thank the Minister for her detailed response. Most importantly, can I

:38:39. > :38:41.thank those women in the public gallery for coming here to show

:38:42. > :38:46.their support for this debate en masse. I wish every single one of

:38:47. > :38:52.them well and hope they will join me for tea after this debate. Perhaps

:38:53. > :38:56.unconventionally may I also invite any of the honourable members and

:38:57. > :39:04.right Honourable members here who would also like to join those women

:39:05. > :39:11.to join us 40 two thank them for their efforts in campaigning and to

:39:12. > :39:18.understand more about their case. Can I expressly invite Suzanne, the

:39:19. > :39:22.member Wythenshawe and sail east's office, there is a cake in the room