26/01/2017 House of Commons


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS


26/01/2017

Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons, including backbench business debates on the Statutory Pubs Code and access to breast cancer drugs.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

properly manage our transport network? This may be an inadequate

:00:00.:00:00.

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

:00:00.:00:14.

Point of order. I am glad the Brexit secretary is here to his moment of

:00:15.:00:17.

history. If I could just detain him for a second, he used a quote from

:00:18.:00:23.

my successor's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, somehow suggesting

:00:24.:00:28.

she wanted to deprive 160,000 European citizens of their right of

:00:29.:00:31.

residence in Scotland. By the wonders of modern technology I

:00:32.:00:36.

traced the original quote from July 20 14. In fact she was arguing the

:00:37.:00:41.

exact opposite, that that was one of the reasons Scotland would remain as

:00:42.:00:45.

an independent country and amber of the EU. I know the Brexit secretary

:00:46.:00:52.

well, here's a decent and man. And when I found another minister it

:00:53.:00:57.

used the same smear last October, I'm bound to conclude some teenage

:00:58.:01:02.

scribblers in his department are feeding out misleading information

:01:03.:01:05.

to hapless ministers who are then repeating it to the house. I'm sure

:01:06.:01:10.

the Brexit secretary, perhaps even before he has his moment of history,

:01:11.:01:15.

will want to correct that. Further to that, Mr Secretary. If I am wrong

:01:16.:01:24.

I apologise, I will send him the quote directly. A separate point of

:01:25.:01:34.

order. I will answer the right honourable gentleman's first point

:01:35.:01:39.

of order which, as he and the house knows, was not a point of order. But

:01:40.:01:44.

he sort in his usual rhetorical way to set the record straight as he

:01:45.:01:48.

wished to do so. The secretary of state has responded adequately to

:01:49.:01:54.

the point raised by the Right honourable gentleman and I hope that

:01:55.:01:57.

honour is satisfied in all sites. Point of order. And this is a point

:01:58.:02:07.

of order. Which is to say as you know when a minister makes a

:02:08.:02:11.

statement to the house, the moment base it down a printed copy is then

:02:12.:02:15.

circulated around the chamber by the doorkeepers. That is very useful for

:02:16.:02:21.

many members. You can check exactly what has been said in case you

:02:22.:02:24.

misheard it. The one time we don't do that is the business statement. I

:02:25.:02:29.

admit it is a business question, so it is slightly different, but would

:02:30.:02:33.

it not be for the convenience of the house of the moment that the leader

:02:34.:02:36.

of how is has finished announcing forthcoming business, it was not

:02:37.:02:45.

then circulated for all members? The honourable gentleman raises an

:02:46.:02:49.

interesting point of Administration, and it might be that the leader

:02:50.:02:52.

would like to say something further to the point of order. I completely

:02:53.:02:59.

see that as a reasonable request and I will make sure that happens. Once

:03:00.:03:05.

again, that was not a point of order for the chair, but we are having a

:03:06.:03:11.

very well-balanced session of points of order, and as the gentleman says

:03:12.:03:20.

it gets better. Would you care to make a point of order? It seems a

:03:21.:03:25.

good point for request of ministers, as we seemed to be having 100%

:03:26.:03:31.

record of having the requests fulfilled! That was not a point of

:03:32.:03:34.

order for the chair, so we will move on. Presentation of bells. -- Bill.

:03:35.:03:50.

Notification of withdrawal Bill. Second reading, what date? Tomorrow.

:03:51.:04:05.

Tomorrow! Order. We now come to the backbench motion on the statutory

:04:06.:04:08.

pubs code and the pubs code adjudicator. Thank you. I beg to

:04:09.:04:20.

move the motion as on the order paper and I want to start by

:04:21.:04:23.

thanking the backbench business committee for granting this time for

:04:24.:04:27.

this important debate, to thank the honourable members for Hartlepool

:04:28.:04:31.

and Warwick and Leamington who will lead members with me on this debate,

:04:32.:04:37.

and I thank the honourable gentleman, the member for

:04:38.:04:43.

Hartlepool, and pay tribute to all the work they have done, and the

:04:44.:04:49.

member for Warwick and Leamington who has seen himself first-hand the

:04:50.:04:55.

way these codes are thwarting tenants exercising their rights

:04:56.:04:58.

under the pubs code, and the failure of the adjudicator to address this.

:04:59.:05:03.

I must declare my interest as the chair of the British pub

:05:04.:05:08.

Confederation, the organisation that represents the vast majority of

:05:09.:05:11.

tenants organisations and pub campaigners as well. It is six

:05:12.:05:19.

months now since the start of the statutory pubs code. 21st of January

:05:20.:05:26.

was the six-month anniversary. I wish to make his house that I did

:05:27.:05:31.

not want to have to call this debate today and to bring to the house what

:05:32.:05:35.

I have to so today. More than anyone, perhaps, apart from those

:05:36.:05:41.

believed good coli Suzy 's, I wanted the issues solved the code working

:05:42.:05:49.

and the unfair model as operated and all the tales of abuse is as

:05:50.:05:52.

detailed by the select committee to be thing of the past. But that is

:05:53.:05:56.

I'm afraid not going to be the past -- case on less the code is working

:05:57.:06:04.

and enforced. And that is not the case. The pubs code must work as

:06:05.:06:10.

intended. It is the law. At the moment, pub codes are flouting. And

:06:11.:06:20.

thwarting the will of Parliament and of the Government to laid out how

:06:21.:06:26.

the code should work. As well as work causing a great deal of stress

:06:27.:06:31.

to tenants. Would he agree with me that it is no surprise that the pub

:06:32.:06:36.

codes are doing their utmost to thwart the rent revisions but that

:06:37.:06:41.

the surprise is that the adjudicator seems to think his position is one

:06:42.:06:47.

of private arbitrator and not what we set him up as, namely a judge

:06:48.:06:52.

enforcing the law? I warmly welcome and thank you for the intention. He

:06:53.:07:01.

is someone I know, with great thoroughness and intellect, has

:07:02.:07:07.

looked at this and he is correct. I'm very grateful to the honourable

:07:08.:07:12.

gentleman forgiving way. Does he agree with me that the real issue

:07:13.:07:16.

with the adjudicator Izzy needs to have the confidence of all parties

:07:17.:07:19.

involved and does not seem to be the case of the moment? He is absolutely

:07:20.:07:26.

right. To have ignored the fact that the majority of tenants

:07:27.:07:28.

organisations rejected him and do not have confidence in him and have

:07:29.:07:35.

rejected the recommendation from the select committee to reopen the

:07:36.:07:39.

process is not acceptable. We are talking about the evidence which I

:07:40.:07:43.

will keep presenting in the course of my speech. From the numerous

:07:44.:07:46.

cases that have been taken forward and taken to the adjudicator. I pay

:07:47.:07:51.

tribute to the most representing tenants who have supplied evidence

:07:52.:07:58.

on the situation, the pubs advisory service, the Forum of Private

:07:59.:08:02.

business, the punched talent network, just as the licensees and

:08:03.:08:07.

others. That has led to the British pub Confederation report which is 19

:08:08.:08:11.

detailed pages or based on direct evidence where tenants have sought

:08:12.:08:14.

to take legal rights in the pubs code. All cases taken to the

:08:15.:08:20.

adjudicator. What has the adjudicator produced? A 2-page press

:08:21.:08:27.

release. Worse than that, this press release, this glib statement, is

:08:28.:08:31.

simply not an honest disruption of the situation. The statement from

:08:32.:08:36.

the adjudicator's office provides unexplained and meaningless data

:08:37.:08:39.

while failing to deal with or even mention any of the big issues facing

:08:40.:08:46.

tenants, healing ignores the ways the regulatory pub codes are

:08:47.:08:49.

breaching the code. This covers his own failings to uphold and enforce

:08:50.:08:55.

the code. He effectively admits, to go back to the point, you

:08:56.:08:58.

effectively admits both his failure to enforce or indeed to understand

:08:59.:09:04.

the real role of the adjudicator. There is no mention in the statement

:09:05.:09:09.

of the myriad complaints about pub code behaviour. No mention about the

:09:10.:09:14.

complaints about him. Many complaints from the tenants who have

:09:15.:09:20.

approached him. No mention of issues where tenants are giving up and

:09:21.:09:23.

giving in because of the failure of the code and his office. And

:09:24.:09:28.

extraordinarily no mention at all of the key issues of plain of concerns,

:09:29.:09:33.

key issues people are seeking verification on and the systematic

:09:34.:09:37.

ways of those are insisting the market rent only option needs a new

:09:38.:09:42.

release, which is a clear breach of the pubs code. Would he not a due

:09:43.:09:49.

that the whole point of the pubs adjudicator was to even up and

:09:50.:09:54.

inequality of arms between paps Siddle tenants, a sole trader, or a

:09:55.:09:58.

family business, and very large and powerful chains, and that the lack

:09:59.:10:04.

of equal access to justice or add to our advice is causing great

:10:05.:10:11.

problems? She is right, and the intention is not the reality. That

:10:12.:10:14.

is why the house must take action as must the Government.

:10:15.:10:21.

I have a big spoon to seeing some of these things first-hand and I will

:10:22.:10:26.

say that it has been an unsatisfactory experience, I would

:10:27.:10:29.

like to share with the house the following quote, " moving to a rent

:10:30.:10:37.

only commercial free time lease agreement means larger upfront

:10:38.:10:42.

payments and the loss of the award-winning business friendly

:10:43.:10:46.

services and support, aside from business insurance. " without naming

:10:47.:10:52.

them is involved, would he agree with me that this could be

:10:53.:10:56.

interpreted as threatening, and not in my view a business friendly

:10:57.:10:58.

approach at all. I have that quote in my speech, he's

:10:59.:11:09.

absolutely right, I will refer to its now that he has referenced it,

:11:10.:11:14.

to quickly remind the house, the pubs code and adjudicator was

:11:15.:11:20.

introduced in 2015, the code came into force last year and applies

:11:21.:11:26.

only to business, owning more than five typed pubs in England and

:11:27.:11:33.

Wales. Was I judicial statutory pubs code adjudicator was created to

:11:34.:11:38.

uphold and enforce the pubs code so that it is properly implemented, and

:11:39.:11:45.

to act as impartial arbiter, when there are disputes on certain

:11:46.:11:58.

issues. Is a strong clear document. And of course, at this stage, six

:11:59.:12:02.

months in, ministers and civil servants should not have do

:12:03.:12:06.

intervene when the adjudicator has a role laid down in primary and

:12:07.:12:10.

secondary legislation, to implement and enforce the code, the role of

:12:11.:12:14.

ministers would now be to oversee and scrutinise that activity, but

:12:15.:12:18.

I'm afraid that ministers now have two intervene, because the pubs code

:12:19.:12:23.

adjudicator is not doing the job as laid down in the pubs code, and as

:12:24.:12:30.

laid down in the law. I will be very specific, regulation 50 of the pubs

:12:31.:12:33.

code states, above only business must not subject one to any

:12:34.:12:42.

detriment on the ground and this regulation is being routinely

:12:43.:12:45.

ignored and flouted by other companies. And let me go on to give

:12:46.:12:53.

examples, pub companies are refusing to allow the simple deed of

:12:54.:13:01.

variation to leases if they suggest they want to move it. This would

:13:02.:13:05.

force them to accept a new lease, which is being offered only on

:13:06.:13:11.

unfavourable and detrimental terms, clearly flouting regulation 50,

:13:12.:13:17.

enterprising things are doing systematically and saying they need

:13:18.:13:20.

to go to arbitration over what is clearly not an arbitration point but

:13:21.:13:24.

is a legal breach of the code regulation. Tenants seeking the

:13:25.:13:28.

market only rent option are being presented with unreasonable options,

:13:29.:13:34.

terms making it unviable to obtain or even pursue the option,

:13:35.:13:38.

unreasonable, unaffordable demands for upfront quarterly payments.

:13:39.:13:45.

Excessive dilapidation 's charges, and at the same time, as the right

:13:46.:13:48.

honourable gentleman has said, they are presenting these free of Thai

:13:49.:13:54.

offers, calling them market rent only offers, as if they are the same

:13:55.:13:58.

but they are not, they are the liberally confusing the two. The

:13:59.:14:02.

market rent only option is the right to an independent assessment of the

:14:03.:14:06.

market rent and the right to take it on an existing lease, with no other

:14:07.:14:11.

changes to the lease or to the terms, and yet they are insisting on

:14:12.:14:16.

shorter leases, detrimental terms. Clearly breaching the pubs code. As

:14:17.:14:21.

well as the document, and I will tell the house, it is a punch

:14:22.:14:25.

document, given to tenants, but also, the trade association of the

:14:26.:14:32.

pub go, their Chief Executive has said that it is inevitable that

:14:33.:14:36.

these agreements would have terms that more closely reflect rental

:14:37.:14:39.

agreements elsewhere in the marketplace, with the market rent

:14:40.:14:42.

only option, that is not allowed, that is detriment, it must be simply

:14:43.:14:46.

the lease carrying on and moving to a free of Thai basis paying rent

:14:47.:14:55.

independently assessed. In terms of the independent assessment itself,

:14:56.:15:02.

one issue putting people off, up to ?6,000, and I have been sent a

:15:03.:15:05.

document from a surveyor, of course, any self-regulation, it was 4000

:15:06.:15:17.

maximum, so 2000 each. Unlike what the Royal Institute of chartered

:15:18.:15:21.

surveyors are now presenting. Who is a member for the Royal Institute

:15:22.:17:03.

More than comes from the regulated pub codes. To make things worse and

:17:04.:17:12.

he has been allowed to construct a zone per conflict-of-interest policy

:17:13.:17:15.

and it falls well below what would be considered an industry standard

:17:16.:17:20.

for such a document. Surprisingly it Inc to cleanly falls below the

:17:21.:17:22.

standards of his own professional body. The conflict of interest

:17:23.:17:28.

policy should be similar to that of the grocery goes adjudicator but

:17:29.:17:36.

unlike the GCA he is chosen to publish a separate register of

:17:37.:17:40.

interests along with how his policy will be applied in relation to the

:17:41.:17:44.

register and specifically in regard to his own conflict of interest. He

:17:45.:17:50.

is setting his own rules to avoid having to fully disclose his

:17:51.:17:52.

conflict-of-interest when he is taking on cases. The select

:17:53.:17:57.

committee in July 2016 was clear that he was not only evasive, and

:17:58.:18:03.

the concluded he could not command the necessary confidence of tenants

:18:04.:18:10.

and the post should be reopened. In actual fact he also misled the

:18:11.:18:14.

select committee on important points and has not responded properly two

:18:15.:18:20.

letters asking him to explain. Going back to the key point, he is

:18:21.:18:28.

adjudicator. His job is to uphold and in force. The Government

:18:29.:18:32.

themselves say the adjudicator is responsible for in forcing the

:18:33.:18:37.

statutory pubs code. He is failing to act as an adjudicator, refusing

:18:38.:18:42.

to make rulings on important issues like the deed of variation versus

:18:43.:18:47.

new lease issue and is failing to uphold never mind enforce the code.

:18:48.:18:56.

Does he not understand the role or is this a deliberate attempt to

:18:57.:19:00.

undermine the whole statutory code which has many tenants are fearing?

:19:01.:19:04.

this case-by-case approach, saying that he will do everything on a

:19:05.:19:09.

case-by-case process, means there will not be any opportunity to look

:19:10.:19:14.

at many of the issues which are the same issues being raised by tenants,

:19:15.:19:17.

the same systematic ways that pub codes are seeking to flout and

:19:18.:19:30.

fought the code. I'm thankful for the campaign for many years on this.

:19:31.:19:35.

It may well be true about what he's saying about the motives, but the

:19:36.:19:40.

feedback I am getting is that the entire industry is frustrated about

:19:41.:19:44.

the failure to come to an adjudication, and I think that the

:19:45.:19:46.

entire industry will benefit from the certainty we have in

:19:47.:19:51.

adjudicating, getting on, making decisions and clarifying many of

:19:52.:19:54.

these important point is that he is raising. I thank the honourable

:19:55.:20:02.

gentleman. I would also issue a word of caution, to be careful who you

:20:03.:20:08.

listen to, listen to the licensees that are looking at the cases

:20:09.:20:11.

brought before them. He is right when he says that rulings must be

:20:12.:20:15.

made, his job is not to horse trade behind closed doors and Muddy

:20:16.:20:21.

Waters. And deal with breaches, tenants and pub codes need that

:20:22.:20:27.

clarity which is not doing, the refusal to step in and stop those

:20:28.:20:33.

bridges and make the general rulings amounts to a refusal to perform his

:20:34.:20:39.

statutory role, that is and not acceptable. Most of the nearest

:20:40.:20:45.

thing to bring before the house, Mr Paul Newby, himself in his role as

:20:46.:20:48.

pubs code adjudicator, as breached the very pubs code that is his

:20:49.:20:57.

statutory duty to enforce. Extraordinarily, knee has breached

:20:58.:21:00.

regulation of 38 of the code, which clearly states that where a pub

:21:01.:21:05.

codes and tenant cannot agree, the adjudicator, must within 14 days

:21:06.:21:12.

appoint an assessor, rather than doing so, which is clearly a very

:21:13.:21:16.

important part of his role and laid down in the legislation, he is

:21:17.:21:20.

passing this duty on, to his colleagues, in the Royal Institute

:21:21.:21:23.

of chartered surveyors, dispute resolution service. They are then

:21:24.:21:27.

demanding a fee, which they have no right to do, something which is not

:21:28.:21:31.

in the pubs code and the adjudicator has no right to ignore. This has

:21:32.:21:38.

been raised by the pubs advisory service, and made a complaint,

:21:39.:21:43.

because tenants were being charged this ?250, and he has now said that

:21:44.:21:46.

tenants will no longer be charged and those who have been will be

:21:47.:21:52.

refunded. But he was letting this happen, and he says that the fee

:21:53.:21:55.

will still be charged but they will now be paid from levies. And also,

:21:56.:21:59.

during this very strange period, where Mr Newby was wrongly and

:22:00.:22:06.

illegally delegating these duties to appoint an independent assessor, at

:22:07.:22:11.

this same time, Ricks then appointed a surveyor with the adjudicator 's

:22:12.:22:17.

knowledge called Barry voicing, for a tenant in a punch rent case, and

:22:18.:22:22.

yet Barry voicing was acting at the same time for Punch taverns in

:22:23.:22:27.

another rent case. The tenant refused to accept this, Mr Roissy

:22:28.:22:34.

did not pay his upfront invoices, and this breached the Royal in the

:22:35.:22:43.

Jude of chartered surveyors. And yet it happened and it happened on the

:22:44.:22:47.

knows, and with the knowledge of the pubs adjudicator, who was a member.

:22:48.:22:54.

I wish to refer to a couple more issues, which are of importance to

:22:55.:22:59.

the house, and the first is the proposed Heineken takeover of Punch

:23:00.:23:05.

taverns, 1900 Punch taverns pubs, something of great concern to Punch.

:23:06.:23:17.

They have 1100 pubs, you would be talking about a pub company of 3000

:23:18.:23:23.

pubs. It is clear, and this is a worrying competition issue, it is

:23:24.:23:26.

clear that Heineken are seeking to take over to stop competitors

:23:27.:23:33.

because the Heineken bid document states, improvements in this ability

:23:34.:23:37.

and increases in sales of Heineken brands in high-quality barbs, so it

:23:38.:23:41.

is clearly a bid to gain market share through acquisition of pubs,

:23:42.:23:47.

which, as people have said, would create a monster type, and make it

:23:48.:23:50.

much harder for brewers of all sizes to get products into pubs, which

:23:51.:23:56.

remains an issue. I have to say, it is surely time to consider looking

:23:57.:24:00.

again at the maximum number of pubs owned by breweries to stop this sort

:24:01.:24:04.

of market dominance. But also, a limit on the number of pubs that can

:24:05.:24:10.

be owned by any company, unlike the flawed beer holders, which were

:24:11.:24:15.

floored by government allowing lobbying from big brewers, which

:24:16.:24:22.

allowed a loophole. And here we are today. In terms of the role of the

:24:23.:24:26.

adjudicator on this, the concerns are, of course, that Heineken will

:24:27.:24:32.

seek to force Punch Taverns to stock only their products, and despite

:24:33.:24:36.

discussions, there is nothing in the code that says that they are allowed

:24:37.:24:40.

to do this. The adjudicator has so far refused to clarify this simple

:24:41.:24:44.

point, which is in his remit to do so, this lack of clarity means that

:24:45.:24:47.

potentially the brewers will have ability to use this confusion to

:24:48.:24:51.

threaten legal challenges which could be seen again as putting off

:24:52.:24:57.

discussions over tenants rights under the code. I have dementia

:24:58.:25:05.

Scotland, which is just as important as England and Wales, to the British

:25:06.:25:10.

pub Confederation, and a member of the British pub Confederation be in

:25:11.:25:13.

the Scottish licensed trade Association and all the wonderful

:25:14.:25:15.

work they do in Scotland and they and the British pub Confederation

:25:16.:25:19.

supports the same rights for Scottish licensees tied to pub

:25:20.:25:23.

companies, you have an absurd situation where people tied to the

:25:24.:25:27.

same companies on one side of the border have certain rights and then

:25:28.:25:30.

one mile away, across the board in Scotland they have none of those

:25:31.:25:35.

rights. It should be extended to Scotland. I look forward to

:25:36.:25:36.

comments. I am grateful to him for giving way

:25:37.:25:46.

on that point. Very important, we remind ourselves of the process of

:25:47.:25:52.

legislation that went through. In that vote, which predominantly was

:25:53.:25:57.

about pubs in England, the SNP actually voted with ourselves in

:25:58.:26:00.

that victory because they wanted to have the right in the future. The

:26:01.:26:04.

same as Scotland. It's a shame it hasn't actually been brought in. He

:26:05.:26:08.

is right, that was indeed the only way to ever get these sorts of right

:26:09.:26:11.

and fairness for Scottish tenants was to it to be established anywhere

:26:12.:26:17.

in first. I was delighted the SNP were supporting that are here today,

:26:18.:26:21.

because it is simply wrong that they are discriminated against, which is

:26:22.:26:24.

the point, versus the English and Welsh counterparts. I will indeed

:26:25.:26:30.

touch on some of the points that he and honourable colleagues have made

:26:31.:26:33.

during the debate. He has made an excellent case in many of the

:26:34.:26:38.

deficiencies of the Pubs Code Adjudicator, particularly the

:26:39.:26:42.

conflict of interest, which appears to have it causal link. I'm confused

:26:43.:26:49.

as to why he would recommend that to another jurisdiction when by his own

:26:50.:26:52.

admission it doesn't seem to be working correctly. Honourable

:26:53.:26:56.

gentleman makes an excellent point, which of course is covered in the

:26:57.:26:59.

briefing that the British Pub comfort oration on the Scottish

:27:00.:27:04.

licensed trade Association sent him. One of the exciting possibilities

:27:05.:27:08.

was with a delegation who met the Minister Fergus Ewing MSP. We said,

:27:09.:27:13.

actually, we think you can do this in a simple, clear and better way

:27:14.:27:17.

and one that is appropriate to Scotland, which is a challenge for

:27:18.:27:21.

the Scottish Government. The Scottish licensed trade Association

:27:22.:27:24.

and the British pub but oration will be delighted to offer support in how

:27:25.:27:28.

that can achieved in the best possible way for Scottish licensees,

:27:29.:27:31.

learning some of the lessons about what is going wrong here and the

:27:32.:27:34.

sort of person that should and shouldn't be an adjudicator if that

:27:35.:27:39.

is the system they choose to follow. In conclusion, the reality is that

:27:40.:27:43.

the Statutory Pubs Code is not working as Parliament intended when

:27:44.:27:46.

we voted it through, and it is not working as this Government intended

:27:47.:27:51.

when it drafted the Pubs Code. It has been routinely flouted and

:27:52.:27:58.

ignored by PubCo it's, and Mr Paul Newby, a hugely inappropriate choice

:27:59.:28:01.

for Pubs Code Adjudicator, is failing in his basic and statutory

:28:02.:28:06.

duty to uphold and enforce the code. Tenants seeking to uphold the legal

:28:07.:28:10.

right to the market rent only option are being discriminated against,

:28:11.:28:14.

misled and bullied the excepting tied deals. The problems identified

:28:15.:28:19.

by four Select Committee reports and now by the British pub comfort

:28:20.:28:22.

oration or simply not being addressed. The two things that need

:28:23.:28:28.

to happen, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers, I have to say, have so

:28:29.:28:32.

far ignored this, so far washed their hands of this. But they can no

:28:33.:28:35.

longer do so because the Pubs Code and the law is being flouted. First

:28:36.:28:40.

of all they must intervene, now, and ensure that the Pubs Code works as

:28:41.:28:45.

they Parliament intended and ensure that the office of the Pubs Code

:28:46.:28:48.

Adjudicator is actually upholding and enforcing the code. But I'm

:28:49.:28:51.

afraid after you have heard the reality of what is going on of the

:28:52.:28:59.

six months of the operation of the code, the Secretary of State must

:29:00.:29:01.

now accept the recommendation of the business energy and industrial

:29:02.:29:03.

strategy Select Committee and reopen the appointment process of the Pubs

:29:04.:29:05.

Code Adjudicator. We needed adjudicator who actually properly

:29:06.:29:10.

understands and then clearly properly fulfils this important

:29:11.:29:13.

statutory role. That requires somebody who does not have the

:29:14.:29:17.

conflict-of-interest that Paul Newby has. Somebody who will carry the

:29:18.:29:20.

role as intended, rather than seeking to skew and undermine the

:29:21.:29:26.

very role and the code. A lot of time has gone in from MPs, from

:29:27.:29:30.

ministers, from civil servants, from the Select Committee, and all of

:29:31.:29:34.

that is being ported and ignored. So the code now be made to work with

:29:35.:29:41.

the adjudicator, who will be enforcing it and help to appropriate

:29:42.:29:46.

standards of the quasi judicial position. The law must be able to

:29:47.:29:50.

work, and the will of the House must be upheld. The question is as on the

:29:51.:29:59.

order paper. Laurence Robertson. Can I congratulate the honourable member

:30:00.:30:03.

for Leeds North West on being the energy behind getting this debate.

:30:04.:30:09.

And also to thank him for the constant help which he certainly

:30:10.:30:12.

gives to me and maybe other honourable members when we go to him

:30:13.:30:17.

with certain issues and problems which we having counted in our

:30:18.:30:22.

constituency with tenants and leaseholders of PubCo. Can I also

:30:23.:30:28.

occur a non-Red Rooster a ball interest in that my sister is the

:30:29.:30:36.

tenant of a PubCo -- a non-registerable interest. Some of

:30:37.:30:39.

my remarks will be generated from experience that I have in that

:30:40.:30:44.

respect, but not exclusively - I have a large number of pubs in my

:30:45.:30:48.

constituency, one or two at the moment are being closed and changed

:30:49.:30:53.

into housing, changed into car parking perhaps. And it's that

:30:54.:30:56.

concern about pub closures. Its concern about the lack of

:30:57.:31:02.

profitability of many pubs which really is my motivation for taking

:31:03.:31:06.

part in this debate. Can I say from the outset, I'm not instinctively

:31:07.:31:13.

necessarily oppose to the PubCo model as such. It has a number of

:31:14.:31:18.

advantages. It does allow people with very little capital to actually

:31:19.:31:21.

go into the pub trade in the first place. PubCo, under ordinary

:31:22.:31:28.

circumstances, take responsibility for the building and the exterior

:31:29.:31:33.

work, which as we all know can be very expensive. It can, when it

:31:34.:31:37.

works well, provide some professional back-up. It provides

:31:38.:31:43.

access to a wide range of beers. It doesn't insist that wines and

:31:44.:31:47.

spirits or included in the tie. Although I'll come back to that

:31:48.:31:51.

point a few minutes. It provides an opportunity for the landlord to run

:31:52.:31:56.

a restaurant within the premises. And it provides accommodation where

:31:57.:32:01.

people can live, where the landlord can live. So there are some good

:32:02.:32:06.

aspects to the PubCo model in theory at least. So I'm not out to attack

:32:07.:32:12.

PubCos as such. But in practice, we have seen a lot of problems. Rents,

:32:13.:32:17.

for example, have been very and fairly assessed in many places. They

:32:18.:32:21.

are based not only on the profit that the the pub makes from the

:32:22.:32:28.

Tadhg Beirne, but only the anticipated profit that it might get

:32:29.:32:32.

under certain circumstances from food -- the beer. Even though the

:32:33.:32:35.

PubCo benefits from the sale of its own beer, when the business has

:32:36.:32:41.

actually done better, it's quite often the case that the rent will be

:32:42.:32:45.

increased, even though the PubCo has benefited from the extra beer sales.

:32:46.:32:50.

And that does seem to be quite unfair. PubCo sometimes insists that

:32:51.:32:55.

landlords go on courses, educational courses, when it really is

:32:56.:32:59.

stretching imagination to suggest that somebody who has been on the

:33:00.:33:03.

trade for a long time for example actually needs to go on those

:33:04.:33:08.

courses. The PubCo benefits from the cost of those courses. On many

:33:09.:33:14.

occasions, PubCos insist that landlords use their own, in other

:33:15.:33:18.

words, the PubCo's insurance policies, which are enormous more

:33:19.:33:23.

expensive than elsewhere on the market. They won't allow another

:33:24.:33:29.

product to be used unless it has the identical wording in the alternative

:33:30.:33:34.

insurance policy, which seems to be very unfair and costs landlords an

:33:35.:33:38.

awful lot of money. I have even known it to be the case where the

:33:39.:33:41.

tenant or leaseholder has been told he has to take out an insurance

:33:42.:33:46.

policy which covers the buildings insurance and cover, even though

:33:47.:33:49.

they are not responsible for that very building. And of course,

:33:50.:33:55.

tenants are charged for fixtures and fittings which are not necessarily,

:33:56.:33:59.

in many cases, and which the value, the assessed value of those fixtures

:34:00.:34:04.

and fittings is actually far greater than the actual value. Again, the

:34:05.:34:09.

landlord loses out in that case. So there are all of these problems. And

:34:10.:34:14.

the rate of the pub closure of course did persuade Parliament to

:34:15.:34:17.

change the legislation. As the honourable member for Leeds North

:34:18.:34:21.

West has very accurately and very comprehensively shown, the

:34:22.:34:27.

legislation is not working as it should. For example, confusion

:34:28.:34:33.

actually surrounds who is entitled to the free-of-tie option. There are

:34:34.:34:40.

landlords who feel that only leaseholders or protected tenants

:34:41.:34:44.

are eligible, and that really does need clarifying and I hope that the

:34:45.:34:47.

Minister will be able to clarify that point for us today. Also, if a

:34:48.:34:52.

tenant is not protected under the landlord and tenant act, the

:34:53.:34:58.

particular clause saying that a tenancy or a lease has to be renewed

:34:59.:35:03.

unless the organisation who owns the building actually wants to take it

:35:04.:35:07.

back for their own use, that they do have the very allow for a lease to

:35:08.:35:13.

be renewed. Now, many, many tenants and many leaseholders actually have

:35:14.:35:16.

that clause struck out in the agreement which they reach. And so

:35:17.:35:20.

that's all well and good until they get to the point where they lead a

:35:21.:35:24.

new tenancy or a new lease, and they go to the PubCo saying they want to

:35:25.:35:32.

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

:35:33.:35:35.

the PubCo can simply refuse to renew the tenancy. So, is that fair? I

:35:36.:35:38.

would suggest that certainly is not fair and again I would appreciate

:35:39.:35:42.

some clarification on the exact position, because it is an important

:35:43.:35:46.

matter. In a request recently I was told that about 11,500 tenants are

:35:47.:35:54.

protected by the code, but there are many more tenants in the UK than

:35:55.:35:58.

that. It is not always easy to get the new tenancy if you are asking

:35:59.:36:02.

for a free-of-tie arrangement. The PubCo also offering users outside

:36:03.:36:07.

agencies to negotiate the new tenancies, including using for

:36:08.:36:11.

example chartered surveyors, who probably don't understand the local

:36:12.:36:14.

trade, if they understand the trade at all. I've also received

:36:15.:36:20.

complaints that business development managers of PubCos don't properly

:36:21.:36:23.

discuss with tenants the options which are available. The tenant gets

:36:24.:36:26.

told that even if they are prepared to offer them a new tenancy, the red

:36:27.:36:32.

might go up considerably. Now, that is of course where the adjudicator

:36:33.:36:35.

is supposed to be brought in. But the two points from that. That

:36:36.:36:39.

system really does make for bad relations between the tenant and the

:36:40.:36:43.

PubCo. And that's not a good situation to be in. And it does also

:36:44.:36:47.

raise the question, is the adjudicator effectively and

:36:48.:36:51.

efficiently engaging with pubs and landlords who take cases to the? And

:36:52.:36:56.

my experience so far is that that is not happening. Another tenant told

:36:57.:37:01.

me that he started his new tenancy, the need tenancy, he has already had

:37:02.:37:05.

one, at the start of the new tenancy he is effectively having to apply

:37:06.:37:10.

for his own pub as if he is a new talent, filling in CVs and

:37:11.:37:13.

application forms, having to submit a new business plan, going on

:37:14.:37:17.

training courses, which I mentioned earlier, which he had to do when he

:37:18.:37:21.

entered the trade in the first place. This is somebody who has been

:37:22.:37:24.

running a pub or a similar establishment for close on 20 years.

:37:25.:37:29.

So where is the sense, where is the fairness in that? And all of this

:37:30.:37:34.

causes a great deal of stress and problems. I think it's worth

:37:35.:37:38.

pointing out that the tenants quite often can fear and could actually

:37:39.:37:43.

end up not only being out of work and out of business, but actually

:37:44.:37:46.

out of a home, because the pub is the home. It is very unlikely that

:37:47.:37:51.

during the course of being a PubCo tenant they are going to be able to

:37:52.:37:54.

have built up sufficient capital to either buy a new home or certainly

:37:55.:37:59.

not to buy a new business. They are in a very, very precarious

:38:00.:38:03.

situation. And the House of Commons did not intend that to be the case

:38:04.:38:06.

when it passed this legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, just to

:38:07.:38:12.

conclude, the value of pubs to the communities they are in,

:38:13.:38:14.

particularly in rural areas, or enormous. They are often meeting

:38:15.:38:19.

places, places where people can dine together, where clubs and societies

:38:20.:38:23.

can be formed, where friendships can be made. And pubs also raise an

:38:24.:38:27.

awful lot of money for charities. That's something that often gets

:38:28.:38:31.

forgotten. They are valuable community assets. I would just ask

:38:32.:38:35.

the Minister, as far as you can today, and perhaps following this

:38:36.:38:39.

debate, if she can perhaps try and answer some of these queries, if she

:38:40.:38:44.

can consider if anything else can be done to, as the honourable member

:38:45.:38:48.

for Leeds North West said, to give effect to the law and to what the

:38:49.:38:52.

House of Commons actually intended when it brought in these changes.

:38:53.:38:59.

Thank you. Iain Wright. Thank you. Can I begin by saying how grateful I

:39:00.:39:03.

am to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this

:39:04.:39:05.

important debate to take place. I really want to thank the honourable

:39:06.:39:08.

gentleman the Leeds North West. Together with the Jen the

:39:09.:39:13.

Tewkesbury, who has just spoken about the superior knowledge and

:39:14.:39:17.

flexibility and awareness of the Pubs Code and how it should be

:39:18.:39:21.

operated. I also paid tribute to the honourable gentleman Flemington, as

:39:22.:39:28.

well as who is also in her place, the honourable lady the panic Chase,

:39:29.:39:33.

who are both fantastic members of the Select Committee which I'm

:39:34.:39:37.

privileged to chair. All who have spoken so far, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:39:38.:39:40.

have worked hard on the issue of pubs and the pub industry. And this

:39:41.:39:45.

industry has been characterised for many years with a real imbalance in

:39:46.:39:48.

the power between large pub companies and the tenants of pubs

:39:49.:39:53.

tied to those companies, the market has not worked in a fair and

:39:54.:39:58.

equitable way. And tenants have seen unfair conditions imposed upon the

:39:59.:40:05.

manner in which a whole variety of things take place - how they sell

:40:06.:40:08.

the beer, and particularly the rent which they pay and belief in which

:40:09.:40:10.

they operate under. The Pubs Code sets out how PubCos should deal with

:40:11.:40:14.

the tenants in a much fairer way, and I am pleased to see my

:40:15.:40:19.

honourable friend, the member for West Bromwich West, my predecessor

:40:20.:40:22.

in terms of the business Select Committee, who really worked hard in

:40:23.:40:25.

pushing this and making sure that the Goverment's feat will help to

:40:26.:40:27.

the fire with regards to that. His select committee and the Labour

:40:28.:40:37.

front bench, the member for Chesterfield did great work on this,

:40:38.:40:41.

it is nice to see him in his place too. These honourable members have

:40:42.:40:47.

worked incredibly hard to try and balance that imbalance in the power

:40:48.:40:53.

relationship between pub cos and tenants, and a key part of

:40:54.:40:57.

addressing that is the Pubs Code adjudicator, the adjudicator

:40:58.:41:03.

providing guidance and judges on transactions to making Sarah. As

:41:04.:41:07.

we've heard, Mr Newby is the first adjudicator and in many respects by

:41:08.:41:10.

being the first appointment Mr Newby will shape the nature, style and

:41:11.:41:16.

tone of the job enable way which actors will be dealt with by his

:41:17.:41:22.

successors. His judgment. Set residents having ramifications on

:41:23.:41:25.

the pub trade under pub property business for decades to come. Dave

:41:26.:41:29.

Manfred of the pubs advisory service and a landlord himself said to us

:41:30.:41:34.

when we were taking evidence on the select committee that the man I

:41:35.:41:36.

quote committee pubs adjudicator needs to be fair and harsh and the

:41:37.:41:40.

decisions he makes need to be based on our common law of justice and

:41:41.:41:44.

fairness, such that they can be then applied to similar cases so that

:41:45.:41:48.

precedent is set. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. It

:41:49.:41:53.

is therefore essential that the first appointment of a key role

:41:54.:41:56.

commands universal respect immediately and is not subject to

:41:57.:42:02.

criticism or accusations of conflicts of interest, whether those

:42:03.:42:05.

conflicts of interest are either real or perceived because perception

:42:06.:42:09.

is equally important in matters such as this. I'm grateful for him

:42:10.:42:15.

forgiving way. Would he agree with me that the imbalance he rightly

:42:16.:42:19.

speaks of means that the proper role of the adjudicator is not to

:42:20.:42:25.

maintain an impartial view solely, but specifically to look at cases of

:42:26.:42:31.

abuse by the pub codes, a symmetrical case of abuse, it isn't

:42:32.:42:44.

the tenants abusing the code but PubCos and abusing the issue. He

:42:45.:42:54.

makes an incredibly important point and the balance has to be addressed

:42:55.:42:57.

in the respect to the power dynamics. I would suggest that isn't

:42:58.:43:04.

taking place. I want to be clear Mr Newby's professional credentials and

:43:05.:43:07.

expertise are not disputed commit his knowledge of the industry having

:43:08.:43:10.

worked in the pub property business for something like 35 years, that is

:43:11.:43:13.

not in doubt and cannot be questioned. However, having looked

:43:14.:43:18.

at this in a select committee, we believe there is a significant

:43:19.:43:22.

reason why he should find it difficult and is finding it

:43:23.:43:25.

difficult to command the confidence of all parts of the industry, namely

:43:26.:43:29.

that strong perception of conflict of interest made worse by an ongoing

:43:30.:43:34.

financial interest of Mr Newby's in his former firm. I give way. Thank

:43:35.:43:41.

you very much, and following the speech by the Honourable member for

:43:42.:43:44.

Leeds North West, and the chair of the select committee, there has been

:43:45.:43:48.

a number of criticisms made of the pubs adjudicator. Do you think he

:43:49.:43:52.

should be called in front of the select committee again? I think this

:43:53.:44:00.

is an issue that has attracted enormous interest not just from our

:44:01.:44:03.

select committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Garth from predecessor

:44:04.:44:07.

select committees who actually helped to change the law when it

:44:08.:44:10.

comes to this. I will maintain them as chair of the select committee

:44:11.:44:14.

presents, in terms of hard-working and determined members on the select

:44:15.:44:18.

committees that as the honourable gentleman for Warrington and Cannock

:44:19.:44:21.

Chase, that this is not going to go away, and we will continue to put

:44:22.:44:27.

our attention and pressure on this, to pressure the government is to

:44:28.:44:31.

look again at the appointments process to have disappointment, this

:44:32.:44:34.

important appointment to be fair and impartial and that is not happening

:44:35.:44:39.

at the moment. Before I touch upon the key reason why we want to see

:44:40.:44:43.

this appointments process reopened I want to touch upon an issue came up

:44:44.:44:47.

in the select committee. Simon Clark is eighth tied tenant and a surveyor

:44:48.:44:50.

and as well as Mr Mountford were mentioned earlier they expressed

:44:51.:44:54.

surprise and concerned that Vista Newby, a chartered surveyor can even

:44:55.:44:58.

applied for the job. Both said that they needed some money -- somebody

:44:59.:45:02.

from outside the industry. Mr Mountford said that they had said to

:45:03.:45:06.

the Department of business innovations and skills that it was

:45:07.:45:09.

then, and I quote, that they appoint a judge or somebody with legal

:45:10.:45:14.

experience. We should not be appointing a surveyor. Mr Clark

:45:15.:45:17.

suggested that it definitely shouldn't have been as surveyor

:45:18.:45:22.

because there would always be a topic of interest because in all

:45:23.:45:26.

likelihood they would have always advised one of the parties. Prior to

:45:27.:45:31.

becoming the pubs adjudicator, Mr Newby was a director of a firm of

:45:32.:45:36.

business property valuers and surveyors. In giving evidence to the

:45:37.:45:40.

select committee, and I think the gentleman for Leeds North West has

:45:41.:45:43.

mentioned this, he stated that around about 23% of the firm's fee

:45:44.:45:49.

income, a material amounts, derived from advice provided to large pub

:45:50.:45:55.

companies. That in itself would lend itself to accusations of potential

:45:56.:45:59.

and certainly perceived conflict of interest. However, Mr Newby

:46:00.:46:02.

continues to have financial interests in the company. He came to

:46:03.:46:06.

the committee to give evidence in May and then clarified some of his

:46:07.:46:11.

self confessed inaccuracies to us in a letter to me in November, at the

:46:12.:46:14.

instigation of the minister that he said. Mr Newby has both shares and

:46:15.:46:23.

notes owed to him by the company. We asked him on the committee whether

:46:24.:46:27.

he would provide a clean and the findable break with his old firm by

:46:28.:46:31.

divesting himself of his financial interests, and he stated in his

:46:32.:46:34.

November letter to me that the company was unwilling to do so in

:46:35.:46:38.

order to avoid putting in his own words, undue strain on capital

:46:39.:46:43.

resources of the firm. I think it is probably more accurate to call it

:46:44.:46:48.

the firm's cash flow. I think this is very serious, Madam Deputy

:46:49.:46:51.

Speaker and really undermines the ability of the adjudicator to

:46:52.:46:55.

command the trust and respect of all sides of the industry. My only does

:46:56.:46:59.

he have a significant financial interest in the hands of both shares

:47:00.:47:02.

and loans in the company, which drives a significant part of its

:47:03.:47:06.

revenue from large pub companies, he cannot alter that situation because

:47:07.:47:10.

that would put strain on cash flow. In other words, there remains an

:47:11.:47:14.

ongoing financial interest and it is in Mr Newby's interest for the firm

:47:15.:47:18.

to do well in order to secure the monies owed to him. That could mean

:47:19.:47:23.

that his judgments would assist large PubCos who commissioned

:47:24.:47:31.

arrangements to arrange cash flow position and profitability for the

:47:32.:47:36.

firm, and allow payments hence to Mr Newby to be made. When he came for

:47:37.:47:43.

the committee, Mr Newby said that he had taken off his previous hat and

:47:44.:47:46.

thrown it away. But he hasn't, Madame Debbie disputed. The ongoing

:47:47.:47:49.

financial interest means that he's very clearly wearing that had. It

:47:50.:47:56.

comes down to this, that there is a clear perception of conflict of

:47:57.:47:59.

interest. I look at things through the prism of football, Madam Deputy

:48:00.:48:03.

Speaker, and it seems to me like it is a refereed officiating in a

:48:04.:48:06.

football match between Chelsea, who are top of the premiership at the

:48:07.:48:10.

moment, and Newport County, who are bottom of League 2. Hartlepool

:48:11.:48:19.

hasn't fallen quite just yet. Yet. So there is a match between Chelsea

:48:20.:48:25.

and Newport County. That huge imbalance between different skills

:48:26.:48:29.

and experience. Although that is a separate debate, I would suggest.

:48:30.:48:32.

Only for fans to discover that the referee owns shares in Chelsea's

:48:33.:48:37.

shirt sponsor. It is as close a relationship as this. And with

:48:38.:48:41.

regard to perceptions of conflict of interest it started with the first

:48:42.:48:44.

appointment immediately, and I said to Mr Newby at the committee

:48:45.:48:49.

committee cannot possibly win any judgment he makes will always now

:48:50.:48:54.

accused in terms of being unfair and impartial. Very much like a referee

:48:55.:48:58.

who would be considered to be impartial, to be not independent.

:48:59.:49:03.

This is a serious failing in the ability of the Pubs Code to be

:49:04.:49:07.

operating effectively. And a vivid contrast was brought home to me in

:49:08.:49:12.

the select committee when I asked both tenants and landlords and then

:49:13.:49:15.

executives from large PubCos whether they had confidence in Mr Newby and

:49:16.:49:20.

his appointment. The large SAID they did not have a problem once

:49:21.:49:24.

volley-macro whatsoever. The tenants believed clearly that they didn't

:49:25.:49:29.

believe judgments will be fair and impartial. That strikes the contrast

:49:30.:49:33.

and it shows that it cannot operate effectively. The Pubs Code has

:49:34.:49:37.

broken down before it has even begun and the Minister needs to intervene

:49:38.:49:41.

to ensure the code starts to work. Now, I'm disappointed that the

:49:42.:49:44.

Secretary of State rejected calls to reopen the appointments process. I

:49:45.:49:46.

hope the Minister would accept that this case demonstrates a serious and

:49:47.:49:52.

clear perceived conflict of interest and that perception is stopping the

:49:53.:49:57.

code from working effectively. To ensure the viability of the pub

:49:58.:50:00.

industry and to protect the interests of tenants, which have not

:50:01.:50:06.

been provided with -- for many, many years, will she opened the process

:50:07.:50:11.

again, and have an adjudicator that is and is seen to be completely in

:50:12.:50:17.

independent and impartial? Toby Perkins. They derive much Madame

:50:18.:50:24.

Leopard is bigger. I congratulate the member for Leeds North West for

:50:25.:50:31.

securing the debate, a good pubs campaigner and speaks very

:50:32.:50:33.

powerfully on behalf of the industry and I'm pleased we have worked

:50:34.:50:36.

together to introduce the code in the last Parliament, and to ensure

:50:37.:50:40.

the free market rent only option be part of it. It has been a great

:50:41.:50:44.

honour to take over from him as the chair of the pub All Party

:50:45.:50:48.

Parliamentary Group and I'm sure we will continue to work closely

:50:49.:50:51.

together on these issues. The work we have done together in the past

:50:52.:50:55.

has taken us some of the way to where we are today, I hope that we

:50:56.:50:58.

would be part of the Labour government that would get to deliver

:50:59.:51:01.

this code, but sadly that is not the case. The Pubs Code was a

:51:02.:51:06.

contentious and important battle to win. I recall as I'm sure the

:51:07.:51:11.

honourable gentleman does, campaigners tears of joy when we

:51:12.:51:17.

finally secured the victory that it should market rent only options were

:51:18.:51:21.

a part of the pub code after he had brought forward that's amendments to

:51:22.:51:29.

the report stage. And I recall those campaigners, many campaigners coming

:51:30.:51:31.

to me saying it is too late for me, I've gone bankrupt as a result of

:51:32.:51:38.

the imperfections and the way in which the industry has been run in

:51:39.:51:41.

the past but nonetheless, it is crucial for me to know that the

:51:42.:51:46.

government, parliament is going to be bringing this kind of abuse to an

:51:47.:51:50.

end. And so it is incredibly important that campaigners who have

:51:51.:51:55.

spent many many years getting governments to recognise that power

:51:56.:51:58.

imbalance in the industry, and the exploitation of that situation

:51:59.:52:03.

resulted from that, and that those people now have confidence in the

:52:04.:52:06.

Pubs Code and that we end up delivering what those tears of joy

:52:07.:52:10.

were expecting from us. The Labour government of 2000 and 52 2010, did

:52:11.:52:19.

excellent work -- 2005-2010, and the Labour member from Wentworth pursued

:52:20.:52:23.

and look at this issue, set a final challenge for the industry, in the

:52:24.:52:28.

latter days of government the coalition government that followed

:52:29.:52:33.

of it were wary of regulating a corrugated industry and attempted to

:52:34.:52:36.

do everything within their power to give the industry time to put their

:52:37.:52:39.

own houses in order. It was very much last resort for the government

:52:40.:52:44.

is doing to use the statutory pubs code and it was a shock to them and

:52:45.:52:47.

were able to get the house to introduce a market rent only option

:52:48.:52:53.

to the legislation. All critics were determined to say we shouldn't

:52:54.:52:56.

legislate, that it would make matters worse, they reflected back

:52:57.:53:00.

on the pier owners and they said the Labour didn't turn out how it was

:53:01.:53:04.

expected, and there were always people who were saying that any kind

:53:05.:53:07.

of government legislation would make the industry worse. And it is

:53:08.:53:12.

important that those people who have faith in this code get the sense

:53:13.:53:18.

that this Parliament and government are serious about ensuring that the

:53:19.:53:22.

legislation that we pass actually delivers what we intend for it. Now,

:53:23.:53:27.

I have to say, I think it did to the credit of this government that

:53:28.:53:29.

following the election they have stuck to their word and they did

:53:30.:53:32.

indeed introduce the code that they committed to. And it is now the

:53:33.:53:35.

entire industry's interest to ensure the pub codes is established, it and

:53:36.:53:44.

that the industry sees the rigour with which it is enforced and that

:53:45.:53:47.

is established. The Pubs Code adjudicator needs to be seen to be

:53:48.:53:51.

impartial, and clearly the motion in front of us, supported by the

:53:52.:53:57.

committee and of course the honourable gentleman Felice

:53:58.:53:59.

north-west and the honourable gentleman from Warrington means that

:54:00.:54:04.

the test of confidence have not been met. We have had deeply concerning

:54:05.:54:08.

allegations about the conduct about companies when tenants wish to avail

:54:09.:54:11.

themselves of the market rent only option and one of the key tests of

:54:12.:54:16.

the adjudicator will be to start talking clarity deterrence and the

:54:17.:54:19.

pub owning businesses on issues like the appropriateness of these

:54:20.:54:24.

variations as a tool for transferring from a tight tenancy to

:54:25.:54:29.

everyone. I haven't had a convincing reason as to why that shouldn't be

:54:30.:54:32.

appropriate in the majority of cases. Now, I will come in a moment

:54:33.:54:35.

to the appointment and performance of Mr Newby, I do think it is fair

:54:36.:54:41.

to reflect that alongside my praise for the government in bringing

:54:42.:54:43.

forward some form of legislation there are also legitimate questions.

:54:44.:54:48.

About the way that is being implemented. It may seem a little

:54:49.:54:51.

harsh to criticise the government for being too slow and too hasty.

:54:52.:55:02.

I believe the Government could have come forward much more quickly with

:55:03.:55:07.

a draft code that the entire industry knew what was in store,

:55:08.:55:14.

pointed an earlier point the adjudicator and given more time for

:55:15.:55:18.

that sort of setup process to work. I also think that the scale of the

:55:19.:55:22.

changes to the code from the initial one to the final one, even though I

:55:23.:55:27.

support most of those changes, I do think that lead-in time was short

:55:28.:55:30.

and left the adjudicator and the industry with very little time to

:55:31.:55:36.

establish the new rules of the game. Now, I'm also very conscious of the

:55:37.:55:40.

strong criticism from the Select Committee of this process. That led

:55:41.:55:44.

to the appointment of Mr Newby. This has been repeated by my honourable

:55:45.:55:48.

friend from Hartlepool, and questioned about whether his

:55:49.:55:53.

background opened him up to perceptions of impartiality. And I

:55:54.:55:55.

sympathise with many of those than the MERS. The honourable member from

:55:56.:55:59.

Leeds North West referred to my meeting with Mr Newby this week --

:56:00.:56:04.

many of those sentiments. I'm very happy to do so. As always, my

:56:05.:56:09.

approach to these matters is to meet all parties involved in this, I have

:56:10.:56:13.

met already with some of the campaigners, my friend from

:56:14.:56:17.

Hartlepool met in a couple of weeks, I haven't yet met with the BBPA or

:56:18.:56:24.

with the AMR or many other organisations but I will do. I think

:56:25.:56:29.

it is important that everybody gets an opportunity to be heard, that's

:56:30.:56:33.

always the approach that I take. But I said to Mr Newby when I met with

:56:34.:56:37.

him this week, the focus on his background will continue. While

:56:38.:56:40.

there are no adjudicator positions coming from his office, while he has

:56:41.:56:45.

perceived conflict-of-interest that exists. What we all want is for the

:56:46.:56:50.

adjudicator to get on and adjudicate and start answering some of these

:56:51.:56:54.

key questions about how the Pubs Code should be interpreted. Once

:56:55.:56:58.

many of these initial decisions are taken, there will be far greater

:56:59.:57:03.

clarity for tenants, an opportunity for the adjudicator as the

:57:04.:57:05.

honourable gentleman for Russ Dorset referred to but actually start

:57:06.:57:09.

representing the people he is there to represent, those who have set up

:57:10.:57:13.

the Pubs Code in order to protect, and it will be there for the

:57:14.:57:16.

adjudicator to be able to go to the pubs, the pub owning companies and

:57:17.:57:22.

say, we have met previously about the red Lion, and now you're coming

:57:23.:57:25.

back with a back with the same issue about the dog and dark, we

:57:26.:57:28.

continuing to have these arguments? I think the honourable gentleman

:57:29.:57:33.

from Leeds North West makes an important point. Of course there may

:57:34.:57:37.

be differences of interpretation, differences of fact in individual

:57:38.:57:41.

cases, but there are themes that emerged throughout this process that

:57:42.:57:46.

could be looked at and could be processed very, very quickly indeed,

:57:47.:57:50.

and would give that clarity. As I said in my intervention previously,

:57:51.:57:55.

I think that across the industry on both sides of the argument there is

:57:56.:57:58.

a real frustration at the length of time that it is taking for decisions

:57:59.:58:04.

to emerge. Mr Newby has stored me we will continue to start and see

:58:05.:58:09.

positions within the next month as -- has assured me. We hope he

:58:10.:58:15.

delivers on that. The motion also refers to Mr Newby's shareholding

:58:16.:58:20.

and loans to Florence. This has been referred to by other contributors.

:58:21.:58:25.

-- the Fleurets. I know the commission reviewed by involvement

:58:26.:58:29.

of Mr Newby and Fleurets and considered that no conflict exists,

:58:30.:58:33.

but the fact it is continuing to be raised undermines his perceived

:58:34.:58:36.

impartiality in the very first place. Mr Newby tells me, as he said

:58:37.:58:41.

Select Committee, that he has attempted to but unable to come to

:58:42.:58:45.

come to an early of his loan from Fleurets. And I will be writing to

:58:46.:58:49.

Mr Newby and the Fleurets to urge them to recommence talks aimed at

:58:50.:58:53.

ending his involvement with the firm so that the perception of his

:58:54.:58:57.

impartiality is addressed. I would call on the Minister when she

:58:58.:59:01.

responds today to do the same thing, to ask Mr Newby again and to ask

:59:02.:59:06.

Fleurets to recognise this perception is undermining his

:59:07.:59:09.

ability to be seen as impartial, and to take every possible step to find

:59:10.:59:14.

an alternative source of this money that isn't Mr Newby. And I will not

:59:15.:59:23.

go into on the floor of the House the amounts concerned, but in the

:59:24.:59:26.

context of industry visa huge sums and it would pose a serious question

:59:27.:59:29.

about the ability of the company if they were unable to replace the sort

:59:30.:59:34.

of amount they are talking about. But they are significant enough sums

:59:35.:59:40.

for them to be relevant to the decision-making of the individual,

:59:41.:59:42.

or at least to be perceived to be relevant to the decision-making of

:59:43.:59:48.

the individual. I said to Mr Newby, and I will say the same here, but I

:59:49.:59:52.

believe that that relationship and the perception of that relationship

:59:53.:59:56.

will undermine the decisions he is taking. It is important that the

:59:57.:59:59.

adjudicator is free to adjudicate freely on the basis of the evidence.

:00:00.:00:04.

And if he knows that every time he makes a decision some people are

:00:05.:00:07.

going to be saying, well like he hasn't made that decision because of

:00:08.:00:10.

the evidence, he's made it because of this interest, then it undermines

:00:11.:00:17.

the way that his decisions are seen. And so I reiterate that point and I

:00:18.:00:21.

hope the Minister will respond to it. Now, I know that campaigners

:00:22.:00:29.

have called effectively for Mr Newby's dismissal and the restarting

:00:30.:00:34.

of the process. I am anxious that restarting the entire process pushes

:00:35.:00:37.

further away the prospect of a resolution for many tellers who

:00:38.:00:40.

desperately need the certainty that the code adjudications will bring.

:00:41.:00:44.

The honourable honourable gentleman was right, there has been many

:00:45.:00:47.

people walking away from the process, people who are either

:00:48.:00:50.

settling as a result of losing confidence in the process, or are

:00:51.:00:56.

actually potentially going bust and being unable to carry on in the

:00:57.:01:02.

trade as a result of that. And so if the Government are mindful, are

:01:03.:01:08.

minded to agree with what is in the motion here today, then I would want

:01:09.:01:12.

them to also set out how quickly they are going to be in a position

:01:13.:01:17.

to ensure we start getting some decisions. Because, much like

:01:18.:01:21.

Brexit, sometimes no Deal or a bad deal are the same thing. And we need

:01:22.:01:27.

to make sure we are getting the right decisions but that we are

:01:28.:01:31.

getting some decisions. Mr Newby has been described to me as a rabbit in

:01:32.:01:34.

the headlights are free to make a decision that will ultimately need

:01:35.:01:38.

to be made. The sense of frustration at the failure to start providing

:01:39.:01:41.

certainty is a very strong and real one. The Government and Mr Newby

:01:42.:01:45.

should be under no illusions about the damage that further delays will

:01:46.:01:49.

pose to the entire process. In summary, there is a need for this

:01:50.:01:53.

Pubs Code and the role of the adjudicator to gain public

:01:54.:01:56.

confidence. It has not made a great start. Government should do more to

:01:57.:02:00.

identify the cause of the delays and the bride whatever support is needed

:02:01.:02:03.

in order to clear this Bobridge. I should also urge Fleurets and Mr

:02:04.:02:11.

Newby to sever their ties, which are comparatively small, and give the

:02:12.:02:13.

industry the certainty it is crying out for. Adrian Bailey. Thank you,

:02:14.:02:23.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I add my thanks and congratulations to the

:02:24.:02:27.

honourable member from Leeds North West for securing this debate, and

:02:28.:02:34.

also compliment him on his tenacious commitment to this particular cause,

:02:35.:02:38.

which I know goes back over many years. And, to a certain extent, I

:02:39.:02:46.

do feel that the fact that we are having a debate now on the

:02:47.:02:50.

application of the Pubs Code, rather than the introduction of it, is at

:02:51.:02:55.

least if you like a certain consolation and a reflection of the

:02:56.:02:59.

progress which has been made on this particular issue. Now, I do feel a

:03:00.:03:04.

certain sense of d j vu standing here again, and once again debating

:03:05.:03:14.

this issue. I sat on the 2009 business Select Committee on PubCos,

:03:15.:03:19.

chaired by Sir Peter Love, which in itself is the third, after two

:03:20.:03:26.

predecessors had also held enquiries into this issue, and indeed as the

:03:27.:03:30.

former chair of the business Select Committee, I chaired another inquiry

:03:31.:03:38.

myself in 2014. And I sincerely hope that after the Government did

:03:39.:03:43.

eventually accept the recommendations of that committee to

:03:44.:03:47.

introduce this, this would be the last time we would feel the need to

:03:48.:03:54.

debate it. I do add my thanks to the honourable member for Hartlepool in

:03:55.:04:02.

chairing the successor committee, which has been prepared to look at

:04:03.:04:09.

the issues arising from the appointment of the adjudicator, and

:04:10.:04:13.

effectively carried the torch which has been carried so long by

:04:14.:04:19.

different manifestations of the business Select Committee. I think

:04:20.:04:25.

it's fair to say that the history of this issue has been characterised by

:04:26.:04:34.

obstructive nurse and an unwillingness of the pub companies

:04:35.:04:40.

to recognise the reality of the injustices to the tenants, the

:04:41.:04:48.

licensees, and quite frankly the flawed business model that they are

:04:49.:04:55.

a part of. And the failure to act on recommendations, often quite

:04:56.:05:01.

moderate recommendations of success select committees has been a

:05:02.:05:06.

reflection of the Mac just obstructive nurse in any legislation

:05:07.:05:12.

that actually challenges the business model -- of the obstructive

:05:13.:05:19.

nurse. Any legislation is here because of that. They have exploited

:05:20.:05:28.

every possible opportunity to walk the will of Parliament. And I'm

:05:29.:05:33.

afraid it was always likely, even with the implementation of

:05:34.:05:37.

legislation, that they would continue to do so -- to thwart the

:05:38.:05:42.

will of Parliament. Current experience, and indeed this debate

:05:43.:05:45.

is a reflection of that culture that avails in the industry. You find

:05:46.:05:52.

that the PubCos proclaim publicly that they accept the legislation,

:05:53.:05:57.

indeed they embrace the legislation, and are anxious to make it work. And

:05:58.:06:05.

yet privately, and the evidence I think, overwhelming evidence

:06:06.:06:08.

submitted by the honourable member from Leeds North West and indeed the

:06:09.:06:11.

honourable member the Tewkesbury as well, demonstrates that their

:06:12.:06:19.

Private actions or incomplete contradiction to the public

:06:20.:06:27.

posturing. -- are in complete contradiction to their private

:06:28.:06:34.

posturing. It reflects the level of profitability coming from a tied

:06:35.:06:38.

tenancy, and may be just the negotiating purposes, maybe not,

:06:39.:06:43.

they add on to it number of other conditions which in fact potentially

:06:44.:06:46.

make the agreement even more uncompetitive. It's not surprising

:06:47.:06:55.

that I believe in the first five months of this appointment, the

:06:56.:07:01.

adjudicator has had something like 376 calls from publicans. And I

:07:02.:07:10.

believe also that currently there are 77 referrals before the

:07:11.:07:17.

adjudicator. And most of those odd to do with the market rent only

:07:18.:07:23.

option. -- are to do. This in itself, given that, shall we say,

:07:24.:07:31.

obstructive and lack of clarity being conveyed the licensees by the

:07:32.:07:37.

pub companies, in effect to obscure the rights they have to take, is a

:07:38.:07:42.

reflection of the profound dissatisfaction with the process so

:07:43.:07:50.

far. Now, as has been said by a number of speakers, the role of the

:07:51.:07:54.

adjudicator is actually crucial to the successful outcome of the

:07:55.:08:05.

legislation, and is crucial to the success of successive Select

:08:06.:08:12.

Committee recommendations. The commitment of almost now generations

:08:13.:08:17.

of parliamentarians here to make this work. And if we don't get it

:08:18.:08:22.

right, then so much work by so many people in this Parliament and so

:08:23.:08:26.

much parliamentary time will have been wasted. The role and financial

:08:27.:08:35.

interests of Paul Newby, the adjudicator, have been under

:08:36.:08:42.

considerable scrutiny. And I commend them for the forensic way in which

:08:43.:08:49.

they interviewed him. Now, can I say, I am always reticent to

:08:50.:08:52.

criticise somebody before they've had a chance to demonstrate the

:08:53.:08:57.

ability to actually act in a particular job. And my instinct when

:08:58.:09:03.

he was appointed was to say, well, lets just see how he gets on with it

:09:04.:09:10.

first before we make a judgment. But given the sort of keen nature of it

:09:11.:09:18.

and the culture that he is there to change and the role that he has the

:09:19.:09:23.

change in it, I think there are certain issues which have to be

:09:24.:09:30.

resolved. My honourable friend, the member for Chesterfield and others,

:09:31.:09:34.

have referred to his financial involvement in Fleurets. And there

:09:35.:09:40.

is that old adage, perception is reality. And whilst somebody has a

:09:41.:09:51.

financial interest in a body associated with one side of the

:09:52.:09:54.

arbitration procedure, there is always going to be this perception

:09:55.:10:00.

that the adjudicator cannot act impartially.

:10:01.:10:04.

I think that is reflected by the evidence that was submitted by one

:10:05.:10:10.

of the previous speakers when they said that when interviewed, I think

:10:11.:10:16.

it was the member for the heart liberal select committee, that the

:10:17.:10:20.

pub companies declared total confidence in Paul Newby, the

:10:21.:10:24.

representatives of the tenants said the opposite. And it is very

:10:25.:10:33.

difficult to secure confidence in a process where one of the two sides

:10:34.:10:38.

that will be affected by these processes has absolutely no

:10:39.:10:41.

confidence in the person doing it. The honourable member for Hartlepool

:10:42.:10:47.

used the metaphor of a football referee. Arising from that, I'm

:10:48.:10:59.

really very concerned that many tenants who actually need that

:11:00.:11:04.

adjudication, and for whom it might actually be, shall we say, observing

:11:05.:11:09.

their livelihood in the long term, will be unwilling to use the

:11:10.:11:13.

processes that are available under this Parliament, which have they

:11:14.:11:20.

fought for over the years in order to meet their needs. If they feel

:11:21.:11:25.

that they are buying going to the adjudicator they will not have an

:11:26.:11:30.

impartial hearing, and in fact they could actually prejudice their own

:11:31.:11:36.

business position by doing so, they are going to be reluctant. Building

:11:37.:11:39.

to his appointment is the implication that the potential that

:11:40.:11:44.

this piece of legislation will be undermined from the start. I think

:11:45.:11:54.

there is a way forward. My honourable friend from Chesterfield

:11:55.:11:59.

said that they basically should divest himself of these interests,

:12:00.:12:02.

and it certainly shouldn't be beyond his ability if his commitment is

:12:03.:12:12.

true to his success in this role, he should be to find a way of divesting

:12:13.:12:14.

himself from this financial interest. If he does not do so, and

:12:15.:12:21.

refuses to act on this, then I think really it should come back to this

:12:22.:12:25.

house that further action be taken to ensure that he is removed or some

:12:26.:12:32.

other process takes place to deal with this particular problem. This

:12:33.:12:38.

Parliament and members within it have worked for many years to get

:12:39.:12:43.

this far. It is crucial to the livelihood of thousands of

:12:44.:12:52.

republicans up and down the country. -- publicans. It is essential for

:12:53.:12:58.

the business model that it works, and you cannot have somebody at the

:12:59.:13:02.

heart of the whole process which, shall we say, potentially undermines

:13:03.:13:08.

the working of it. He should do this, or parliament should act.

:13:09.:13:17.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate the

:13:18.:13:21.

member from Leeds North West for not only securing this debate, but as

:13:22.:13:27.

has been documented, his tenacity on this issue. He is indeed I would

:13:28.:13:35.

suggest the pub champion of wetness -- Westminster, and I think he has a

:13:36.:13:41.

clear run at that title now. Goodness me, are pubs need a

:13:42.:13:44.

champion, now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was brought up in a pub full stop

:13:45.:13:49.

thankfully the right side of the bar. My parents owned a couple of

:13:50.:13:55.

pubs when I was a kid which extended to a super pub which was where I

:13:56.:14:08.

spent perhaps a misspent youth. ... I have thought of pubs necessarily

:14:09.:14:11.

as places not necessarily where they get jumped where people meet each

:14:12.:14:15.

other. I have been fortunate to live across the United Kingdom in many

:14:16.:14:18.

different guises and the first places you would go to meet members

:14:19.:14:21.

of the community would be the local pub. It isn't where you just get a

:14:22.:14:25.

drink and have a chat but if you are looking for Obama not only did you

:14:26.:14:27.

find a plumber within ten minutes but you could have seven or eight

:14:28.:14:31.

different reviews of that, sitting at the bar. They are crucial to

:14:32.:14:37.

communities, bringing them together and it isn't only about the pursuit

:14:38.:14:40.

of alcohol, but they are struggling. 25% of pubs in Scotland have

:14:41.:14:44.

disappeared in the last ten years, and they are social economic and all

:14:45.:14:47.

sorts of challenges that they face. People drink at home now.

:14:48.:14:51.

Increasingly come inside their house, without taking the option of

:14:52.:14:56.

going to the community friendly pub and that is a real, real shame, so

:14:57.:15:00.

to have people like the member for Leeds North West to champion this

:15:01.:15:04.

course is very heartening and I wish all success. Madam debit is bigger

:15:05.:15:09.

the honourable member form Leeds North West gave a very detailed

:15:10.:15:14.

analysis of the problems that we are facing with the pubs adjudicator and

:15:15.:15:20.

he and I have spoken on this issue in a few times, in particular the

:15:21.:15:23.

conflict of interest position that the pubs adjudicator allegedly finds

:15:24.:15:27.

itself in. Being a former lawyer I am acutely aware of what constitutes

:15:28.:15:33.

a constitutive interest, -- conflict of interest, and the word perception

:15:34.:15:36.

has been used many times in this debate and I would suggest that the

:15:37.:15:40.

perception of the comic of interest is indeed enough to create that

:15:41.:15:44.

conflict. You cannot enter the controlling mind that person and say

:15:45.:15:48.

within those circumstances that financial interest is liking to make

:15:49.:15:52.

him a different decision, the perception of the conflict is enough

:15:53.:15:56.

and I can't understand why the government have seen this. It seems

:15:57.:16:02.

to be the clearest example of a conflict-of-interest position, and

:16:03.:16:07.

perhaps not even opening up the bombers process, for the government

:16:08.:16:10.

to call Mr Newby before them to see whether that conflict-of-interest

:16:11.:16:14.

position is tenable or not tenable I think it has to be done as a matter

:16:15.:16:18.

of great urgency and I can't understand why nobody could look at

:16:19.:16:21.

the situation and see that there wasn't a clear conflict of interest.

:16:22.:16:29.

I thank him for giving way. To help them on that point perhaps and to

:16:30.:16:32.

remind the minister part of the problem is that the conflicts

:16:33.:16:34.

weren't properly declared by Mr Newby but the right questions when

:16:35.:16:39.

asked at the appointments process, to these things weren't known, which

:16:40.:16:42.

is why we had the strange situation where the select committee forced

:16:43.:16:47.

him to publish his real convict of interest after five months in the

:16:48.:16:51.

job. We have clear evidence in the select committee that this is the

:16:52.:16:59.

case, which surely should compel the government to immediate action. The

:17:00.:17:03.

whole point of an adjudicator was to address the difference between big

:17:04.:17:06.

breweries and small tenants, and that is the matter that needs to be

:17:07.:17:09.

addressed with the greatest of urgency. There have been many

:17:10.:17:15.

accidents beaches here today and I will run through some point some of

:17:16.:17:18.

them before I make further comment and the position of Scotland that

:17:19.:17:22.

has been alluded to by honourable colleagues. The member for

:17:23.:17:28.

Tewkesbury has everybody did Allied problems in the process, and asked

:17:29.:17:31.

the Minister to answer questions I would particularly interested in,

:17:32.:17:36.

the problem with renewed tenancies, and I would call the Minister to

:17:37.:17:40.

give clarity on that issue. He described pubs are valuable

:17:41.:17:43.

community assets and given what I say, I agree wholeheartedly, and

:17:44.:17:49.

hopefully we can start campaigning to make conscious of the public

:17:50.:17:53.

turned back towards seeing pubs as community assets and places where

:17:54.:17:55.

communities can be brought together and he talks also about the

:17:56.:18:01.

awareness of pubs because if tenants don't know that they have a code,

:18:02.:18:05.

they don't know the right of redress, then frankly Mr Newby will

:18:06.:18:11.

get away with config interest, because people don't know their

:18:12.:18:14.

rights. Basically when you are right in that case. The honourable member

:18:15.:18:18.

for Hartlepool in the chair of the business select committee made an

:18:19.:18:22.

excellent speech, and again touched majorly on the point of time fictive

:18:23.:18:26.

interest, if I haven't already said, that would corroborate what he said.

:18:27.:18:30.

He touched on the perception and I would reiterate again that the

:18:31.:18:32.

perception of conflict of interest is indeed a conflict of interest. As

:18:33.:18:38.

a lawyer I was taught by a partner in how to identify

:18:39.:18:40.

conflict-of-interest and it is something that you are acutely aware

:18:41.:18:44.

of a is a lawyer, looking for it in every single transaction that you

:18:45.:18:47.

do. He said to me that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

:18:48.:18:50.

walks like a duck, chances are, Richard, it's a duck. If it feels

:18:51.:18:55.

like a conflict of interest, it looks maybe like a conflict of

:18:56.:18:57.

interest, then it is quite categorically a

:18:58.:19:03.

conflict-of-interest. I listened with great interest to the

:19:04.:19:07.

honourable member for Chesterfield who has admitted that the pubs

:19:08.:19:12.

adjudicator process is not often the best start on that has been

:19:13.:19:14.

corroborated by members across the chamber and he gave a useful

:19:15.:19:19.

context, asking the house how it has come about over the last ten years

:19:20.:19:23.

and what he did in the last ten years to initiate this change and I

:19:24.:19:26.

would suggest he has been very successful and campaigning on this

:19:27.:19:37.

issue, side more successful than his last campaign to make Scotland teams

:19:38.:19:53.

to sing God Save The Queen. I didn't make any suggestion. I would never

:19:54.:20:01.

attempt to mislead the house, I apologise if I am and back mistaken.

:20:02.:20:07.

I don't want to detain the house I will was proposing that the initial

:20:08.:20:10.

award team had a separate national anthem to God Save The Queen and

:20:11.:20:13.

that God Save The Queen is only used when Britain were playing and that

:20:14.:20:16.

England should have an international at them, not telling Scotland or

:20:17.:20:20.

Wales want to sing at all. I will look at the leaflet, but I don't

:20:21.:20:26.

think we should defend the house. -- detain the house. The member for

:20:27.:20:33.

west branch west talked with d j vu, and I again think he was talking

:20:34.:20:37.

about d j vu if variants being positive, discussing some of the

:20:38.:20:40.

other problem is that have occurred with the pubs adjudicator. The fact

:20:41.:20:44.

I think the fact that we keep coming back to these problems indicates

:20:45.:20:49.

that it would be slavish policy by the Scottish Government to except

:20:50.:20:57.

the system on a one size fits all broadbrush approach that has clearly

:20:58.:20:59.

got problems. It is worth mentioning clearly that I'm committed

:21:00.:21:03.

personally to defending Scottish pub tenants and the covenant is also. --

:21:04.:21:11.

government. Given the wording of the motion, urging parity for Scottish

:21:12.:21:17.

tenants will clearly involve parity in fairness, but whether fairness

:21:18.:21:20.

exist in the current system given the problems identified is another

:21:21.:21:23.

matter. I think the government is right to take the approach that they

:21:24.:21:29.

have to outline that approach in any more detail right now. The Scottish

:21:30.:21:33.

Government introduced a voluntary code for pubs in 2015 and the

:21:34.:21:39.

landlords. Clearly voluntary is not essentially as effective as

:21:40.:21:47.

compulsory. We consulted this year from July 2016 and published the 77

:21:48.:21:52.

page report in December of 2006 team. -- 2016. It highlighted that

:21:53.:22:01.

the pub sector has different characteristics to the pub sector in

:22:02.:22:10.

the rest of the UK, 47% of the pubs in the UK are tied, only 17 in

:22:11.:22:14.

Scotland. There are longer leases in the UK than Scotland. That is

:22:15.:22:17.

further evidence of the one size fits all policy might not be the

:22:18.:22:21.

best suggestion but that is not to say that we don't recognise that

:22:22.:22:25.

there are concerns. The evidence collected did not suggest that any

:22:26.:22:27.

part of the pub sector in Scotland was being unfairly disadvantaged. In

:22:28.:22:33.

relation to another as a result a further dialogue between the

:22:34.:22:35.

relevant trade bodies, government and other interested parties should

:22:36.:22:38.

continue for changes to the legislation are made. It isn't and I

:22:39.:22:45.

emphasise, it is not rolled out. I don the finding of the research, it

:22:46.:22:48.

is clear that there was more work to do, to ensure the relationship

:22:49.:22:51.

between power companies and tenants is further distraction than terror

:22:52.:22:57.

fight, -- strengthened and clarified, also on beer. It faces

:22:58.:23:07.

significant challenges in recruiting licensees to participate in the

:23:08.:23:14.

research. Created by an apparent were unwillingness to engage on the

:23:15.:23:16.

subject of the detailed level. Clearly consequence this means that

:23:17.:23:19.

more discussions and further detailed study should be taken with

:23:20.:23:25.

a significantly increased level of interest, and involvement from the

:23:26.:23:29.

wider industry. Quite bluntly, Madame Debord is bigger, we feel

:23:30.:23:32.

that more evidence is required before we could go down the road of

:23:33.:23:36.

compulsory pubs adjudicator 's, and clearly there are lessons to be

:23:37.:23:43.

learned from the system that has been put in this place. I don't

:23:44.:23:49.

think that is wrong, sometimes we will do things first here, and then

:23:50.:23:52.

in Holyrood, sometimes the way round. Of course, ultimately, we

:23:53.:23:58.

would like to do it better. That concludes my comments but just to

:23:59.:24:02.

reiterate we believe in fairness for pub tenants, we are not at this

:24:03.:24:05.

stage in Scotland yet where evidence been compelling to make ask go down

:24:06.:24:08.

that road but we are looking at this system, we are thinking about that,

:24:09.:24:12.

we are analysing the mistakes and hopefully in the future we will

:24:13.:24:15.

devise a system that properly protects the rights and fair

:24:16.:24:16.

treatment of tenants to tied pubs. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:24:17.:24:33.

congratulate the member of the Leeds North West and Tewkesbury for

:24:34.:24:37.

securing this debate and being a supporter and defender of pubs.

:24:38.:24:41.

Honourable friends, the Pubs Code came in after much wrangling in

:24:42.:24:45.

Parliament. It was a code that was called for by many stakeholders in

:24:46.:24:49.

the industry. One of the most important objectives of this code

:24:50.:24:54.

was to provide a level playing field for tenants, often local pub tenants

:24:55.:24:59.

to be able to fairly compete with PubCos in negotiations. This was

:25:00.:25:05.

highlighted by my honourable friend for Chesterfield. I congratulate

:25:06.:25:09.

this House for addressing such issues in the code, in particular

:25:10.:25:14.

the successful introduction of the market rent is only option for

:25:15.:25:18.

tenants to seek the best deals when negotiating with one of the large

:25:19.:25:23.

six PubCos. The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code

:25:24.:25:27.

Adjudicator, a decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to this

:25:28.:25:32.

position, to oversee the running of the code, provide information about

:25:33.:25:35.

the code, and come awareness Eysseric, to enforce the code. In

:25:36.:25:40.

the midst of all this there has been raped tension between some groups in

:25:41.:25:44.

the industry, in particular surrounding the role of the Pubs

:25:45.:25:49.

Code Adjudicator -- there has been particular attention. My honourable

:25:50.:25:54.

friend, the member for Chesterfield, highlighted issues around conflict

:25:55.:25:57.

of interest in his speech and made some very sensible points. As have

:25:58.:26:03.

many others, who have made eloquent contributions regarding that issue.

:26:04.:26:07.

I referred to the honourable member from Leeds North West, Tewkesbury,

:26:08.:26:13.

my honourable friend for West Dorset and my honourable friend for

:26:14.:26:17.

Chesterfield, Hartlepool and West Bromwich. And I will not go over the

:26:18.:26:21.

points they have already so eloquently made. But I will say that

:26:22.:26:25.

firstly the Pubs Code is an essential part in moving the

:26:26.:26:28.

levelling the playing field between pub tenants and the larger PubCos.

:26:29.:26:34.

And in doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants

:26:35.:26:38.

against the very large PubCos and their organisations. The market rent

:26:39.:26:44.

is only option was successfully introduced so that pub tenants could

:26:45.:26:48.

have more flexibility in their operations. And it was welcomed by

:26:49.:26:54.

many stakeholders. But clearly, as we have heard today, there are

:26:55.:26:59.

serious questions on the effectiveness of the code and its

:27:00.:27:04.

current implementation, and that of the role and the conduct and the

:27:05.:27:08.

perceived conflict-of-interest of the pub code adjudicator. I will

:27:09.:27:15.

refer to the honourable member for Dumfries Galloway. I think he

:27:16.:27:19.

clearly explained from his legal background how that perceived

:27:20.:27:24.

conflict-of-interest can be a sort of serious barrier to actually what

:27:25.:27:28.

is going on at the moment, and if there is a perceived conflict of

:27:29.:27:33.

interest, then that has to really be looked into seriously. Since the

:27:34.:27:37.

introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward

:27:38.:27:42.

to the pub code adjudicator. And mostly, those are to do with the

:27:43.:27:47.

market rent issues. This is very crucial to many of the small

:27:48.:27:51.

operators will this sector. So we will see that there is clearly a

:27:52.:27:55.

demand for arbitration via this code. And it is of great concern to

:27:56.:28:03.

me and many others that not one of these cases has actually reached any

:28:04.:28:09.

resolution. And while I read it Nice that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has

:28:10.:28:12.

only been imposed the six months, it does seem to me that during that

:28:13.:28:16.

time he should have made his mark on the industry to try and gain the

:28:17.:28:24.

confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of

:28:25.:28:27.

referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator must be seen to

:28:28.:28:32.

be fair and free of any conflict of interest. And this issue is clearly

:28:33.:28:38.

one, to my mind, that the Government needs to address urgently. And this

:28:39.:28:42.

was raised clearly by my honourable friend from Hartlepool. Honourable

:28:43.:28:50.

friends, the pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK. In

:28:51.:28:54.

particular, the local pubs that formed the hub of many communities.

:28:55.:29:00.

In this time of the Goverment's cuts the vital local services, we have

:29:01.:29:04.

seen community pubs step in to provide libraries and cafes to serve

:29:05.:29:09.

their communities. I commend the work done by the not for profit

:29:10.:29:15.

organisation in this aspect. Therefore, it is crucial that the

:29:16.:29:18.

pub code works by everyone as the effective measure it sets out to be

:29:19.:29:22.

and was expected to be. This brings me to the point raised by many

:29:23.:29:25.

honourable members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There

:29:26.:29:30.

certainly have been some raised tensions in the debate over the

:29:31.:29:35.

appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. And, as I've already said, I welcome

:29:36.:29:39.

honourable members who have made points about the perceived

:29:40.:29:42.

conflict-of-interest issues surrounding Mr Newby's former

:29:43.:29:49.

employer. And I do also want to refer to the findings of the Select

:29:50.:29:54.

Committee, and I would urge the Minister to look carefully into

:29:55.:30:01.

those recommendations. Particularly about the perceived

:30:02.:30:02.

conflict-of-interest, and also taking into account Mr Newby's

:30:03.:30:07.

shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today. In my

:30:08.:30:12.

view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The

:30:13.:30:17.

Government must ensure that the role of pub code adjudicator is truly

:30:18.:30:21.

impartial. And independent, so that pub tenants, whom the pub code is

:30:22.:30:27.

there to serve, are satisfied with the work done. And clearly, as

:30:28.:30:31.

outlined by my honourable friend for Dumfries Galloway, that has not

:30:32.:30:36.

been the case. It is my view, it is only in this way that we will ensure

:30:37.:30:40.

a fair and proper process, and it is only in this way that we will ensure

:30:41.:30:46.

that we focus on the real important issues. I urge the Government to

:30:47.:30:53.

examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options

:30:54.:30:56.

which will increase transparency unfairness. Over the last couple of

:30:57.:31:05.

weeks, I have had many meetings with the representatives of some of the

:31:06.:31:08.

pub tenants groups and representatives from the larger

:31:09.:31:11.

PubCos. In all of these meetings there were recurring theme that

:31:12.:31:18.

appear to unite all stakeholders, including business rates. Therefore

:31:19.:31:22.

we must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub

:31:23.:31:29.

industry. The pub has long been part of established British life, and is

:31:30.:31:31.

now the number three on the list of things to do the tourists coming to

:31:32.:31:37.

the UK. We must do everything we can do it sure this continues.

:31:38.:31:42.

Honourable friends, the Pubs Code is there to help local pub tenants get

:31:43.:31:48.

a fair deal when negotiating with a larger PubCo. But we have already

:31:49.:31:51.

heard today that some in the industry and convinced that this is

:31:52.:31:57.

working for them. -- are unconvinced. I strongly urge this

:31:58.:32:01.

Government to do what it can to ensure that the Pubs Code is

:32:02.:32:04.

properly implemented for everyone, and in particular for tied tenants,

:32:05.:32:08.

who have long campaigned for the negotiations. I believe it is only

:32:09.:32:13.

fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister reviews the way in which he

:32:14.:32:20.

has been appointed, the matters that have arisen from this debate and

:32:21.:32:24.

from the Select Committee, in order for us to move on from the position

:32:25.:32:28.

we are finding ourselves in now, and to make progress to ensure that the

:32:29.:32:34.

Pubs Code is implemented properly, and that absolutely everybody has

:32:35.:32:40.

trust and confidence in the way it was meant to be. Thank you.

:32:41.:32:46.

Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would first like to

:32:47.:32:53.

congratulate the honourable member from Leeds North West, and my

:32:54.:32:56.

honourable friend for chicks break for securing today's debate on the

:32:57.:33:01.

Pubs Code Adjudicator -- for Tewkesbury. And to thank members

:33:02.:33:05.

across the House who have contributed to the excellent and

:33:06.:33:07.

thought-provoking debate that we have heard this afternoon. Clearly,

:33:08.:33:11.

the subject continues to attract strong views, passion and debate,

:33:12.:33:17.

and the Government, I would like to reassure the House, is fully

:33:18.:33:21.

committed to ensuring that tied tenants can operate in an

:33:22.:33:25.

environment that is fair and allows them to thrive. That is why we

:33:26.:33:29.

introduced the Pubs Code, and I pay by the killer tribute to the

:33:30.:33:33.

honourable member for Leeds North West -- I pay particular tribute.

:33:34.:33:40.

The Pubs Code regulates the relationship between around 11,500

:33:41.:33:45.

tied pub tenants and the large pub owning businesses. Which rent the

:33:46.:33:50.

pubs to them and sell them tied products. The Pubs Code applies to

:33:51.:33:56.

pub owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, as we have heard

:33:57.:34:00.

this afternoon, and there are currently six businesses that fall

:34:01.:34:06.

in scope of the pubs code - Admiral Caverns, enterprise Inns, Greene

:34:07.:34:10.

King, milestones, Punch Taverns and start pubs and bars owned by

:34:11.:34:15.

Heineken. The two principles of the pubs code - there and lawful dealing

:34:16.:34:20.

by pub owning businesses in relation to the tied tenants -- fair and

:34:21.:34:25.

lawful. And tied pub tenants should be no worse off than if they were

:34:26.:34:27.

not subject to any time. And the not subject to any time. And the

:34:28.:34:35.

Pubs Code should make sure that tied pub tenants receive the formation

:34:36.:34:37.

they need to make informed decisions about taking on a pub or new terms

:34:38.:34:41.

and conditions, have the rent-free assessed if they haven't had a

:34:42.:34:47.

review for five years, -- have their rent assessed. And the request in

:34:48.:34:50.

market on the option to go market on the option to go

:34:51.:34:55.

free-of-tie and pay only a market rent in specific circumstances,

:34:56.:34:58.

including at a rent renewal or a renewal of tenancy. I'm going to

:34:59.:35:03.

first deal with the appointment of Mr Newby and performance issues

:35:04.:35:09.

raised in the debate. And I'm sure we will be able to come back to some

:35:10.:35:12.

of these important issues as I go through my speech. We believe that

:35:13.:35:17.

he is the right person to ensure that pub codes delivers its

:35:18.:35:22.

statutory objectives, and, for reasons I will come onto, we think

:35:23.:35:26.

he has got off to a good start in the course of his responsibilities.

:35:27.:35:31.

Since his appointment, Mr Newby has himself very visible and accessible.

:35:32.:35:37.

He has attended at least eight conferences across the country.

:35:38.:35:42.

Various events, and eight road shows across the country, where he has met

:35:43.:35:46.

many stakeholders, including several hundred talents. He has also taken

:35:47.:35:52.

pains to pursue greater visibility for the Pubs Code and raise

:35:53.:35:57.

awareness for the Pubs Code among tenants by appearing on various

:35:58.:36:01.

television programmes like pubs special and the great British Pub

:36:02.:36:05.

Revolution. Both with the aim of bringing the Pubs Code to the

:36:06.:36:09.

attention of a wider audience. You know, I didn't watch the programmes

:36:10.:36:13.

myself, so I can't comment on the creative content, but there it is

:36:14.:36:17.

like they are a means of raising awareness with the target audience.

:36:18.:36:22.

Through these appearances, Mr Newby has explained his role and

:36:23.:36:25.

responsibility and shown his determination to help create a

:36:26.:36:28.

fairer business environment for tied pub tenants that allows the pubs, so

:36:29.:36:34.

important to our communities, to thrive. Contrary to what we've

:36:35.:36:38.

heard, Mr Newby has been raising awareness among tenants that under

:36:39.:36:42.

Regulation 50, a pub owning business must not subject it tied pub tenants

:36:43.:36:49.

do any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises or attempts to

:36:50.:36:53.

exercise any rights under these regulations. And it's very important

:36:54.:36:57.

that he continues to make this case. I will give way to the honourable

:36:58.:37:02.

gentleman. I'm very grateful. Can she therefore clarify that in the

:37:03.:37:07.

context of that desire and that order in the legislation that the

:37:08.:37:13.

pub owning business who was moving from being tied to a free-of-tie

:37:14.:37:20.

model would be able to do it with a simple the relation that meant that

:37:21.:37:24.

this was the only change to the terms and conditions, that all of

:37:25.:37:27.

the other terms and conditions didn't have to be reviewed as a

:37:28.:37:33.

result of the type to do that? I have great sympathy with the point

:37:34.:37:37.

the honourable member has made. And I hope that in June course that will

:37:38.:37:41.

be clarified by the pub code adjudicator. But the pub code itself

:37:42.:37:48.

is not clear on that particular aspect, and it will be, it will be

:37:49.:37:52.

up to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to pronounce on that when he feels he

:37:53.:37:58.

has enough evidence on that point. I reiterate that I do have

:37:59.:38:01.

considerable sympathy with the point the honourable member makes. Mr

:38:02.:38:06.

Newby has received a positive response from tenants, with the

:38:07.:38:09.

majority being supportive of his role. And I do accept that the right

:38:10.:38:15.

numbers of people, of tenants, who are opposed and deeply so do his

:38:16.:38:19.

role, and I couldn't have sat here for the last 1.5 hours without

:38:20.:38:23.

realising that even if I do know before. I won't give way yet, but I

:38:24.:38:28.

will of cores give way to the honourable gentleman, I will make

:38:29.:38:31.

some progress but then I will give way to him. The point is that... I

:38:32.:38:37.

will come to the... I might as well have given way because he's made his

:38:38.:38:40.

point anyway, I will come to the point that he is raising about

:38:41.:38:45.

tenants that are in support of him shortly in my speech. But suffice to

:38:46.:38:49.

say, the numbers of florals he is getting worried in any case the

:38:50.:38:55.

witness to what I'm saying -- the numbers of referrals he is getting

:38:56.:38:59.

would in any case the witness. They are coming to the Pubs Code

:39:00.:39:02.

Adjudicator to seek protection is provided by the Pubs Code. In the

:39:03.:39:07.

first six months, the inquiry line, set up by the adjudicator to pride

:39:08.:39:12.

information about the code, has received 435 enquiries -- to provide

:39:13.:39:18.

information. 91% were from tied pub tenants or their representatives,

:39:19.:39:20.

bearing out the imbalance that these business people have had to suffer

:39:21.:39:26.

over many years. On the same period, the Pubs Code Adjudicator received

:39:27.:39:34.

121 referrals for arbitration. I will respond to a few of the

:39:35.:39:37.

comments that were made during the debate. My right honourable friend

:39:38.:39:42.

for West Dorset and other members have observed that the Pubs Code

:39:43.:39:47.

Adjudicator does have a jewel role in both upholding and enforcing the

:39:48.:39:52.

code. Adjudicating on alleged breaches of the code, and the Pubs

:39:53.:39:56.

Code is in law to bring greater protection to tenants. And to

:39:57.:40:00.

strengthen their position in what was a very unlevel playing field. So

:40:01.:40:06.

the PCA's role is therefore to uphold the law and not to interpret

:40:07.:40:10.

it in the way that is biased towards one party or another when it comes

:40:11.:40:14.

to the adjudication side of his responsibilities.

:40:15.:40:17.

We have heard allegations of ongoing abuse I pub companies touring

:40:18.:40:29.

despite -- during this debate, from the honourable member from Warwick

:40:30.:40:35.

and also from Tewkesbury and others, tenants seeking the mark and others,

:40:36.:40:37.

tenants seeking the marking rent only option -- market rent only

:40:38.:40:43.

option, are being undermined by a company is threatening to make the

:40:44.:40:48.

pursuit of a market rent only option unreliable in direct contravention

:40:49.:40:54.

of regulation 50 of the code. And there are clearly, I would suggest,

:40:55.:40:58.

incidences of flouting the code going on, and honourable members are

:40:59.:41:02.

quite right to bring them forward to the house as they have done this

:41:03.:41:06.

afternoon. They are what the code is designed to root out and I would

:41:07.:41:11.

urge honourable members to refer them to the pub code adjudicator.

:41:12.:41:17.

Continuing on the performance issues, the honourable member for

:41:18.:41:24.

Chesterfield quite rightly raised his concerns that they have not yet

:41:25.:41:30.

been any adjudications, there is a clear appetite which is felt indeed

:41:31.:41:34.

by the pub code adjudicator himself or adjudications to start coming out

:41:35.:41:38.

and I have no doubt that they will be, that they will do so in due

:41:39.:41:46.

course, without further delay, and there is no doubt that the pub code

:41:47.:41:51.

adjudicator will start to form some views based on the evidence that he

:41:52.:41:56.

is seeing so that we don't indefinitely have a situation where

:41:57.:41:59.

every single case takes the same amount of time that the cases have

:42:00.:42:03.

taken in the first few months of his deliberations. I quite concur with

:42:04.:42:08.

that point, and I have questioned the pub code adjudicator will about

:42:09.:42:13.

that and he is yours me that although the law is technical and

:42:14.:42:16.

not clear on every point that when he is satisfied that he can issue

:42:17.:42:20.

guidance he most certainly will issue guidance. And he has already,

:42:21.:42:27.

of course, made statements which I think should give some comfort to

:42:28.:42:31.

the house. On the 9th of September he made a public statement in

:42:32.:42:35.

response to information received from stakeholders reminding the pub

:42:36.:42:42.

owning companies of their obligations and what he expected of

:42:43.:42:45.

them in relation to the code. That they should act in a manner that

:42:46.:42:49.

doesn't inhibit tied tenants from accessing their rights, must make

:42:50.:42:55.

available all relation relating to rent assessment and proposed

:42:56.:42:59.

tenancies and must ensure that M R O tenancies comply with the code and

:43:00.:43:03.

do not contain the sorts of unreasonable terms we have heard

:43:04.:43:06.

about the only debate this afternoon. It is clear from even our

:43:07.:43:10.

investigations prior to this debate is that at least one pub owning

:43:11.:43:14.

company is still not complying with the code and making life difficult

:43:15.:43:18.

for its tied tenants and this needs to be rooted out. I will give way. I

:43:19.:43:26.

thank the Minister for giving way. I feel I have two just remind her of

:43:27.:43:30.

her wonder work when she was in the select committee and shared the same

:43:31.:43:33.

view but she must substantiate the statement she has made for the

:43:34.:43:36.

majority of tenants supporting Paul Newman. Does she realise that the

:43:37.:43:40.

only organisations that he has cited in support, the eight M R, one of

:43:41.:43:45.

their members a regulated PubCos, the PII can run by somebody who used

:43:46.:43:54.

to be a member of Taiwan macro, the FLA run by enterprise ins, and

:43:55.:44:07.

social would she correct the record that people still in majority oppose

:44:08.:44:12.

Paul Newby? I don't to the criticisms that the honourable

:44:13.:44:18.

gentleman makes. I'm sure he has not interviewed all 11,000 buyers and --

:44:19.:44:24.

11,500 tied tenants in the country and the representation I have seen

:44:25.:44:32.

is open to question of how many tenants may be representative. It is

:44:33.:44:43.

all very well to criticise the bodies he is quoted, but they are

:44:44.:44:47.

credible organisations, they have welcomed his appointment, and they

:44:48.:44:50.

have commented that it is essential that the post is held by somebody

:44:51.:44:54.

with an in depth knowledge of the market and when I visited the office

:44:55.:44:59.

of the pub code adjudicator in Birmingham, and met the team of

:45:00.:45:04.

staff behind him they were all also very relieved that they had the

:45:05.:45:07.

leadership of someone who knew so much about the industry, and the

:45:08.:45:12.

market. If I may continue because honourable members raised other very

:45:13.:45:16.

important issues including, of course, the conflict of interest

:45:17.:45:21.

issue raised particularly by the honourable member for Hartlepool.

:45:22.:45:25.

There have been to accusations against Mr Newby that he is a

:45:26.:45:30.

conflict of interest through his financial interests in Fleurets, and

:45:31.:45:35.

also, and I take this seriously, the perception that he is convicted,

:45:36.:45:40.

which means that he is not able to carry out his role effectively.

:45:41.:45:43.

There is a delicate balance to be struck by saying that perception is

:45:44.:45:49.

reality. Also, taking advantage of every opportunity to boost and give

:45:50.:45:56.

further credence to that conflict. However, on the conflict of

:45:57.:46:01.

interest, as the Secretary of State explained to the select committee on

:46:02.:46:07.

the 14th of the December, the appointment of the post was run in

:46:08.:46:13.

accordance to the code, a proper and rigorously followed process and the

:46:14.:46:18.

panel concluded Mr Newby and no conflicts of interest which should

:46:19.:46:22.

into question his ability to do the job. And the Commissioner of Public

:46:23.:46:28.

appointments, Mr Peter Riddle has also considered the matter and has

:46:29.:46:31.

confirmed his view that nothing was hidden and there have been proper

:46:32.:46:36.

and transparent processes. He has also been satisfied that the panel

:46:37.:46:40.

were entitled to conclude that Mr Newby has no such conflict of

:46:41.:46:45.

interest. It would be wrong to refuse the judgment of the

:46:46.:46:47.

independent figure responsible for overseeing these figures. It is a

:46:48.:46:55.

man of great integrity who has decided this a great understanding

:46:56.:46:58.

of many of the issues of public employment. The government does not

:46:59.:47:07.

agree that is his previous environment with Fleurets Crater

:47:08.:47:10.

conflict of interest that could give rise to a reasonable perception of

:47:11.:47:14.

bias. I am sorry honourable members are dissatisfied with that but we

:47:15.:47:17.

have heard the accusations Mr Newby misled the select committee about

:47:18.:47:21.

his financial interest in his former company but he is not attempting to

:47:22.:47:28.

disguise the nature of his financial interests in Fleurets. He answered

:47:29.:47:32.

the question he was asked to do the best of his ability at the time and

:47:33.:47:35.

there was no intention to mislead. He later became aware that some

:47:36.:47:39.

technical parts of his evidence were inaccurate, he has written to the

:47:40.:47:43.

committee to set the record straight. The request for early

:47:44.:47:50.

repayment which I think was made particularly by the honourable

:47:51.:47:54.

member for Chesterfield backed up by the honourable member for West

:47:55.:48:00.

Bromwich West who made a speech which I listened to with great

:48:01.:48:02.

attention, having sat on his committee in the early years of my

:48:03.:48:07.

time here in Parliament, and listened very carefully to what he

:48:08.:48:10.

said, but during his oral evidence, Mr Newby was open about the nature

:48:11.:48:16.

of his loan arrangements with Fleurets, and in order to be helpful

:48:17.:48:19.

he did say that he would ask if that would be possible for the loan to be

:48:20.:48:23.

repaid or quickly, but that agreement was already in place when

:48:24.:48:28.

I left, so he took the opportunity when writing to the committee to

:48:29.:48:32.

update them on his request and his willingness to seek to address his

:48:33.:48:36.

concerns should not be construed that an admission that he believes

:48:37.:48:39.

he's conflicted, nor that the government think that this is the

:48:40.:48:45.

case. So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the pub 's code is very

:48:46.:48:48.

important for the pubs sector. I feel passionately that it is vital

:48:49.:48:53.

that Mr Newby is allowed to get on with his job, there are all these

:48:54.:48:59.

adjudications are now awaiting an outcome, and I share the frustration

:49:00.:49:01.

that we have not seen any results from them as yet. However, I do

:49:02.:49:08.

understand that six months on is still not a long time, considering

:49:09.:49:13.

the burden of work and associated with the role, and just a small

:49:14.:49:19.

staff of nine people, so I do feel it is incumbent upon is all to give

:49:20.:49:23.

Mr Newby the space to do his job properly over the next few months

:49:24.:49:28.

and then I am sure that honourable members will know about beaver

:49:29.:49:30.

questing a further statement and maybe there will be another debate

:49:31.:49:35.

when we can talk about the outcome more than the process, I hope,

:49:36.:49:39.

because he is doing a good job, he has a lot of important work to do

:49:40.:49:43.

and it is important that through his work and the adjudications that he

:49:44.:49:47.

makes, that the confidence of the sector is built up and most

:49:48.:49:52.

important of all the tenants in all our constituencies are protected as

:49:53.:49:58.

Parliament intended. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to

:49:59.:50:02.

thank all members in this debate. Some excellent contributions from

:50:03.:50:07.

all sides, and very notably not a single backbencher stood up in

:50:08.:50:12.

support of Mr Paul Newby or claimed that the Pubs Code were working. I

:50:13.:50:15.

have decided the minister, who I like and who did great work with the

:50:16.:50:19.

select committee, and I paid tributes to her and all former

:50:20.:50:26.

colleagues, Peter Luff, particularly, a Conservative MP, a

:50:27.:50:30.

cross-party work. It must've stuck in her crawly things that she had

:50:31.:50:33.

had to say delay because I had to the house that she was really

:50:34.:50:37.

regurgitating the misleading nonsense that is coming from the

:50:38.:50:41.

pubs adjudicator office, talking about visits, visibility, road shows

:50:42.:50:44.

and what a lovely charming chappie is. It is this kind of backslapping

:50:45.:50:48.

approach that has got this sector in such a mess surveyors who know pub

:50:49.:50:55.

code buses and play at the same golf clubs with them. We have to have a

:50:56.:51:04.

proper system of adjudication in, as the juggling for West Dorset said.

:51:05.:51:10.

All colleagues, like her, do understand this. She does admit

:51:11.:51:17.

there are clear examples of flouting the code but she didn't acknowledge

:51:18.:51:20.

that the pubs adjudicator isn't doing anything about them, it

:51:21.:51:24.

including on the point of deeds of variation which I hope we will get

:51:25.:51:28.

action on. I say to her direct daily and collaborative that will shoot

:51:29.:51:30.

meet with me and other representatives of the British bug

:51:31.:51:33.

Federation, we will send their hate copy of the report, we must discuss

:51:34.:51:36.

it with her and her officials with the reality is that we have heard

:51:37.:51:41.

these addition Billy macro vision of Paul Newby is untenable. He cannot

:51:42.:51:45.

perform this role, he simply never you will have confidence of the

:51:46.:51:48.

tenants, and frankly the whole situation around him stinks. The

:51:49.:51:53.

member for Dumfries and Galloway says that if it looks like a duck,

:51:54.:51:57.

it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Frankly, he is a dead duck but worse

:51:58.:52:00.

than that, a duck that is in real danger of compromising, scheming,

:52:01.:52:05.

watering down everything that the government tried to do with the Pubs

:52:06.:52:09.

Code and what this house stood for. It will not go away, he will never

:52:10.:52:12.

have the Commons attends Cannes and the Pubs Code must be made to work

:52:13.:52:17.

full stop is her duty, her and her ministerial colleagues, to do so. We

:52:18.:52:21.

look forward to meeting with them to present the real evidence, unlike

:52:22.:52:24.

the nonsense, and a reminder how is that Greene King, one of the six

:52:25.:52:27.

regulated Taiwan macro, are a member of the very organisation that is the

:52:28.:52:32.

Newby has claimed supports him. That is what the situation is here, it is

:52:33.:52:39.

not good enough, it is the vast amend number of licensees, and all

:52:40.:52:43.

people that the British bug Federation organisations are

:52:44.:52:46.

representing or pose Mr Newby, they have no confidence in him. He will

:52:47.:52:51.

have to go. It will happen, and it depends whether we see leadership

:52:52.:52:54.

from the government or whether this had to drag on another six months or

:52:55.:52:59.

a year but this will not go away. The question is as on the up order

:53:00.:53:04.

paper. As many are the opinions AI macro. To the country, no. The ayes

:53:05.:53:10.

habit. We now come to the backbench debate on access to breast cancer

:53:11.:53:20.

drugs. I beg to move the motion in my name. Thank you, Mr Deputy

:53:21.:53:27.

Speaker. I would like to thank the backbench business committee for the

:53:28.:53:30.

swift way in which they gave us time to have this important debate.

:53:31.:53:35.

Today, I want to put the spotlight on the issue that affects the lives

:53:36.:53:39.

of millions of people, people living with breast cancer, and also their

:53:40.:53:44.

family and friends. I'm sure that almost everyone here today will know

:53:45.:53:49.

someone who has had this disease, and my own friends have suffered

:53:50.:53:52.

from breast cancer and am so pleased that many of them will be in the

:53:53.:53:56.

public gallery to watch this debate today. I have received large amounts

:53:57.:54:00.

of communication one of the latest last night from a baby and Ashley

:54:01.:54:04.

you cannot be here today but who will be watching it on TV. It is

:54:05.:54:08.

something affecting people, irrespective of their class, work.

:54:09.:54:14.

We know that many honourable members have suffered from breast cancer

:54:15.:54:17.

like my honourable friend and my whip, who has a great recovery. Can

:54:18.:54:27.

I share with the house that a member from my own side approached me only

:54:28.:54:35.

yesterday about receiving treatment and while she wanted to be in this

:54:36.:54:39.

debate she felt it was too close to her at this moment to be involved.

:54:40.:54:44.

I'm sure honourable members will agree with me when I say we need a

:54:45.:54:49.

health system where the most effective cancer treatments are

:54:50.:54:50.

available to all patients will I want patients to know that we have

:54:51.:55:03.

not given up on them, and we want an NHS that provides us all with access

:55:04.:55:10.

to the most effective treatments. If the deliberations that are used by

:55:11.:55:17.

Nice, particularly the metastatic breast cancer, take insufficient

:55:18.:55:23.

account of the needs of young families to spend more time with

:55:24.:55:30.

their mothers, is the remedy to that something that Nice itself can take

:55:31.:55:34.

in altering the way it goes about those deliberations, or is it

:55:35.:55:38.

something that we need to do here in this House or the Government needs

:55:39.:55:44.

to do? I think the answer for the right honourable member's question

:55:45.:55:51.

is both. There are issues about how Nice, the National Institute of

:55:52.:55:55.

clinical excellence, assess new drugs, particularly cutting edge

:55:56.:56:01.

drugs like Kadcyla. And as he will know because of his involvement, the

:56:02.:56:06.

last government had the Cancer Drugs Fund. It is not an either- or, it is

:56:07.:56:12.

something we need to come together to discuss. People with more

:56:13.:56:14.

scientific knowledge than myself might wish to consider. I'm very

:56:15.:56:21.

grateful to the honourable member for giving way and I congratulate

:56:22.:56:24.

her on securing this is really important debate. Does she share my

:56:25.:56:28.

concern at news that the Government appears to be ready to leave the

:56:29.:56:32.

European Medicines Agency following the Brexit vote? Which many people

:56:33.:56:43.

fear will lead to a slowdown in access to new medicines. She talks

:56:44.:56:47.

about the importance of NHS patients getting access to medicines, this

:56:48.:56:51.

could make the situation worse and we would be disadvantaged, to other

:56:52.:56:57.

countries in Europe. Mr Deputy Speaker, breast cancer knows no

:56:58.:57:01.

boundaries, class, social, geographic. And anything that

:57:02.:57:04.

reduces our access to better forms of treatment is detrimental, in my

:57:05.:57:11.

view. The ability to lead a rich and longer life as a result of medical

:57:12.:57:16.

advances should not be limited just to those who can afford private

:57:17.:57:20.

health care. Those advantages should be accessible to us all. Today in

:57:21.:57:26.

particular, our debate will focus on the provision of Kadcyla, which is

:57:27.:57:28.

under threat. Most honourable members will be aware that the lease

:57:29.:57:34.

of life the breast cancer drug Kadcyla has brought the thousands of

:57:35.:57:37.

women in illness who have incurable secondary breast cancer. These women

:57:38.:57:42.

rely on Kadcyla during rich their lives, give them extra pressures

:57:43.:57:48.

years to live. It is in many ways it revolutionaries drug. By targeting

:57:49.:57:53.

cancer cells directly, it helps reduce the number of side-effects,

:57:54.:57:58.

boosting the quality-of-life of those women inevitably. I know that

:57:59.:58:01.

honourable members who have heard these women talk about their

:58:02.:58:05.

experiences will be humbled to learn of the distress and despair that

:58:06.:58:08.

they face as a result of the National is the Jude of health care

:58:09.:58:12.

excellence, Nice, to be provisionally rejected the future of

:58:13.:58:19.

Kadcyla on the NHS. Today we are all supporting breast cancer now's keep

:58:20.:58:24.

Kadcyla campaign, to encourage Nice to reverse its decision and enable

:58:25.:58:30.

the continued access of this drug on the NHS, which both improves the

:58:31.:58:33.

quality-of-life and extends the lives of thousands of women in this

:58:34.:58:37.

country. Thousands of people across the country have had their views

:58:38.:58:40.

heard since Nice's decision was announced at the end of December.

:58:41.:58:45.

They have signed by position might petition and contacted the local MPs

:58:46.:58:49.

to ask that we do not give up on women and the children who are

:58:50.:58:52.

dependent on their mothers, the families who want to have those

:58:53.:58:55.

precious extra times with their loved ones. This is why we are all

:58:56.:59:00.

here today, to raise our collective voice in support of these women and

:59:01.:59:03.

defend the treatment that allows them to live their lives. I will

:59:04.:59:08.

focus much of what I have to say today on Kadcyla, but there are

:59:09.:59:10.

other specific breast cancer drugs that we need to consider, too, as

:59:11.:59:17.

well as the broader issue of how decisions on access to treatment is

:59:18.:59:20.

made. Unfortunately, we are yet to see any improvement in access to pay

:59:21.:59:24.

the drugs, some of which can prevent the development of certain cancers,

:59:25.:59:27.

saving thousands of lives, and saving the NHS a great deal of

:59:28.:59:33.

money. Just a few months ago, the front pages of national papers

:59:34.:59:39.

highlighted the poor access to vital bisphosphonate drugs, which camp

:59:40.:59:42.

event women developing secondary cancer. Yet this Government has

:59:43.:59:46.

barely acknowledged the problem of access to this treatment. I look

:59:47.:59:50.

forward to hearing from the Minister about when we can expect tangible

:59:51.:59:55.

results and access to of Paton drugs, including bisphosphonates. To

:59:56.:59:58.

be clear, many of the women who did a oh the lives to Kadcyla might not

:59:59.:00:04.

have ever developed secondary breast cancer have they had access to buy

:00:05.:00:07.

false than eight drugs in the first place. Thank you, I'm grateful to my

:00:08.:00:16.

honourable friend for giving way. I want to talk about off Paton drugs,

:00:17.:00:25.

specifically on bisphosphonate specifically, is she concerned by

:00:26.:00:28.

the UK breast cancer group survey undertaken in March last year that

:00:29.:00:35.

at the moment only 24% of breast cancer clinicians offering

:00:36.:00:37.

bisphosphonates the patient's? That is something the Government could

:00:38.:00:42.

urgently addressed up yellow I completely agree to my honourable

:00:43.:00:48.

friend. It is not just about Kadcyla, but about the thousands of

:00:49.:00:55.

lives of women who rely on it to survive. I want to share my words

:00:56.:01:00.

and experiences of two of my friends whose lives have been transformed by

:01:01.:01:03.

actors devised back. One of my friends who is here today, I went to

:01:04.:01:08.

primary school with. I won't tell the House just how many years ago

:01:09.:01:12.

that might have been! Her name is Samantha. When I got the breast

:01:13.:01:15.

cancer diagnosis, I glibly thought, it's OK, I'll get to would. But

:01:16.:01:25.

sadly, about 18 months ago, I found out this was not the case, and my

:01:26.:01:28.

cancer has spread to my liver. That's when I really knew that my

:01:29.:01:31.

cancer meant business. And that is where Kadcyla comes in. You see, for

:01:32.:01:33.

breast cancer, although I coped and kept going with surgery, it was

:01:34.:01:40.

grim. I worked a bit, but regular chemotherapy is not a doddle. Ipsos

:01:41.:01:45.

gym at Howells is the least of it. Putting on a brave face and wearing

:01:46.:01:50.

a wig is just a service issue. Getting up and vomiting and going to

:01:51.:01:53.

work to deal with the VAT is about hardest thing I have ever done. It

:01:54.:01:57.

wasn't simply because I don't have enough sick pay and work to cover my

:01:58.:02:02.

mortgage, I actually like work. Work allows me to make my contribution,

:02:03.:02:06.

and I think that's pretty near the most important thing. Making my life

:02:07.:02:12.

make a difference, and Kadcyla, well, that means that my life isn't

:02:13.:02:17.

over. It really gives me hope. There is a big hole where my 45 millimetre

:02:18.:02:22.

tune be used to be in my liver, and Scottish you and other bits. But I'm

:02:23.:02:26.

cancer free without having to take another year off my life -- and scar

:02:27.:02:32.

tissue. My work is precious, I have kept the business going, eight

:02:33.:02:35.

people are employed because I could keep going, and Kadcyla makes it

:02:36.:02:38.

possible for me. I would also like to mention my friend... I

:02:39.:02:44.

congratulate my honourable friend on her, obtaining this debate. She

:02:45.:02:48.

certainly made a very powerful speech on behalf of her constituent.

:02:49.:02:52.

Does she agree with me that when Nice looks at this, at the cost

:02:53.:02:59.

value ratio around this, that her constituent's story and the keeping

:03:00.:03:05.

of eight people in work should be a factor at looking at women's

:03:06.:03:09.

economic life and roll both at the workplace and the home? Can I

:03:10.:03:13.

completely agree with my honourable friend. I appreciate that these

:03:14.:03:16.

equations and calculations are difficult and I don't underestimate

:03:17.:03:21.

the work of Nice. But it is about life and quality-of-life and about

:03:22.:03:25.

so many more people than those just affected by having the council. And

:03:26.:03:31.

to my friend Lesley, in 2030 my world was turned upside down when I

:03:32.:03:36.

was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer and a rare and

:03:37.:03:42.

aggressive kind of cancer that develops in the limb muscles. After

:03:43.:03:45.

15 months' treatment, compromising eight chemotherapy treatments, and

:03:46.:03:48.

Mustaq, 15 radiotherapy treatments and the year of medication, it

:03:49.:03:53.

appeared that the cancer had gone. Four months later I noticed a rash

:03:54.:03:57.

around the scar tissue of the Mustaq, and a biopsy showed that the

:03:58.:04:01.

cancer had re-occurred in my skin. My oncologist told me was in a tight

:04:02.:04:06.

corner, because the cancer had returned so quickly, I wasn't

:04:07.:04:09.

eligible for the usual drug treatments, radiotherapy was not an

:04:10.:04:13.

option because I had recently completed a course, and surgery

:04:14.:04:16.

wasn't possible because of the location of the cancer. I was told

:04:17.:04:20.

the council was incurable and referred to the Royal Marsden. They

:04:21.:04:24.

confirmed that surgery was not feasible because the cancer has

:04:25.:04:29.

spread so quickly over a large area, making skin grafts impossible. I was

:04:30.:04:34.

told Kadcyla was my best chance. I have now been treated with Kadcyla

:04:35.:04:37.

the 22 months, and I have been told of others that have been treated for

:04:38.:04:42.

five years. Signs that the cancer has disappeared very quickly, and so

:04:43.:04:47.

far I remain cancer free. Kadcyla has enabled me to live a life

:04:48.:04:52.

reasonably normally, and participate in and contribute to my local

:04:53.:04:57.

community. Kadcyla has been a life-saver for me, and without it my

:04:58.:05:01.

future was very uncertain. I feel profoundly fortunate to have

:05:02.:05:05.

received it, and I'm incredulous that such an effective drug will now

:05:06.:05:09.

be denied to other people in my situation. I would also like to

:05:10.:05:13.

mention Rosalie, who was featured in the Evening Standard on Friday

:05:14.:05:18.

night. Rosalie is just 33 and is living with incurable breast cancer.

:05:19.:05:23.

She is in single-parent two children, three and six, and she is

:05:24.:05:28.

terrified of the future without the option of Kadcyla, terrified of her

:05:29.:05:31.

kids growing up alone. In Rosalie's on words - I hate feeling like a

:05:32.:05:37.

victim, but I have to fight my kids. There are more important than me

:05:38.:05:40.

feeling vulnerable against going public. I have to fight for life,

:05:41.:05:45.

for them. Then there is Maddy, who you may have seen last week on the

:05:46.:05:50.

Victoria Derbyshire programme. She has spoken so eloquently of how

:05:51.:05:54.

Kadcyla gave her hope. It has improved her life both significantly

:05:55.:05:58.

and quickly, enabling her to live a much fuller and richer life - going

:05:59.:06:02.

on holiday and playing an active part in her young but's life. These

:06:03.:06:08.

are just a few women of so many lives who have been made possible

:06:09.:06:12.

through access to Kadcyla. I'm sure many honourable members will share

:06:13.:06:15.

the experiences of the Rome constituents, such as the honourable

:06:16.:06:19.

member for Croydon South, who will no doubt talk about the incredible

:06:20.:06:23.

Bonnie Fox, the face of breast cancer now's keep Kadcyla campaign.

:06:24.:06:28.

Thanks to Bonnie's hard work and bat of breast cancer now, this campaign

:06:29.:06:31.

has seen over 100,000 people signed the petition calling for Nice and

:06:32.:06:38.

Roche to come together and reassess this decision and find a solution to

:06:39.:06:45.

keep Kadcyla available. Bonnie is an incredible advocate for the keep

:06:46.:06:49.

Kadcyla campaign, inspiring so many others as she leads the case for

:06:50.:06:53.

this treatment. Bonnie says her inspiration is wanting to have as

:06:54.:06:56.

much time with her two-year-old son Barnaby as possible. In her own

:06:57.:07:01.

words - I already feel cheated by diagnosed with secondary breast

:07:02.:07:05.

cancer at 37 with the baby. Having the drug taken away that would add

:07:06.:07:11.

years to my life and give me quality time with my son is so cruel. I'm

:07:12.:07:16.

grateful to her. She will be aware that the Government's accelerated

:07:17.:07:20.

access review last October recommended that Nice should review

:07:21.:07:25.

its health technology assessment processes and methods. Is she

:07:26.:07:29.

concerned that the review of this drug, Kadcyla and other drugs on the

:07:30.:07:33.

Cancer Drugs Fund, is happening before that review takes place, so

:07:34.:07:37.

we might learn the lessons about how the review process needs to improve

:07:38.:07:41.

and we won't benefit from Matt? Can I agree with the right honourable

:07:42.:07:45.

member. I'm sure he knows more about this process than myself. It clearly

:07:46.:07:52.

makes sense if these kind of unique, unusual, first-tier drugs should be

:07:53.:07:55.

considered in the light of that reconsideration. You know, I could

:07:56.:07:59.

go on, and I hope that we will hear the stories of these and so many

:08:00.:08:02.

other women whose lives have been affected by singing the Roux breast

:08:03.:08:07.

cancer and enriched by Kadcyla. It matters so much to all of these

:08:08.:08:10.

women for one simple reason - it works. Kadcyla is effective, it

:08:11.:08:16.

already been available on the NHS for over two years, and its

:08:17.:08:20.

side-effects are limited in comparison to other treatments. But

:08:21.:08:23.

today it is nothing short of a tragedy to know that countless women

:08:24.:08:27.

who thought that Kadcyla would be the next treatment they would

:08:28.:08:30.

receive for their breast cancer or having their lives shortened in

:08:31.:08:35.

front of their eyes. Imagine, you're living with incurable breast cancer,

:08:36.:08:38.

you know that there is no cure but there is something that can give you

:08:39.:08:42.

extra time with people you love, people who depend on you. It could

:08:43.:08:51.

be a year or five years or even longer. If you needed a drug today,

:08:52.:08:54.

the NHS would give it to you. But if you needed it in a few months' time,

:08:55.:09:00.

you may have lost or trials. -- lost your chance. I thank her for giving

:09:01.:09:06.

way, she is making a perfect speech. I congratulate her on securing the

:09:07.:09:10.

debate. Would she agree that the phenomenon of the new drugs in the

:09:11.:09:12.

pipeline which would make of vital difference but being held up by this

:09:13.:09:18.

conflict between Nice and pharmaceutical companies overpricing

:09:19.:09:21.

or value for money or whatever you call it, it not only applies to

:09:22.:09:26.

breast cancer but for other cancers, too. My constituent David Innis is

:09:27.:09:31.

one of 30,000 sufferers of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. He was in

:09:32.:09:36.

here earlier this week making the same argument. He was diagnosed at

:09:37.:09:42.

39. He has lived with it since 2009, he is making the same point she

:09:43.:09:46.

makes as Mike both parties need to end the logjam and come up with a

:09:47.:09:50.

deal and is sure that the availability of these jobs actually

:09:51.:09:55.

put lives first, because life is too short, literally, otherwise.

:09:56.:10:03.

stop. I completely agree with in which the best to her constituent.

:10:04.:10:10.

How can we withdraw a drug from the NHS that works? It seems senseless

:10:11.:10:17.

that it is happening, and of course Kadcyla is just one drug that we

:10:18.:10:20.

need to look at, what will happen with other key breast cancer drugs

:10:21.:10:26.

now and in the future? I would like to consider just two more examples,

:10:27.:10:30.

one already available on the Cancer Drugs Fund and one not. Pogeta is

:10:31.:10:39.

currently available, and has not yet been reappraised as Kadcyla has been

:10:40.:10:49.

and is used for HD are two positive breast cancer patients. It enables

:10:50.:10:54.

women to live for an additional six months without the breast cancer

:10:55.:10:58.

progressing and can extend life by an additional six months or more but

:10:59.:11:02.

because it is administers with two other drugs, it would not be

:11:03.:11:13.

considered cost-effective under a NICE standards even if drug

:11:14.:11:20.

manufacturers gave it away for free. Another drug worth considering is

:11:21.:11:25.

Palbocyclib and I apologise if I have spelt that wrong. It is a new

:11:26.:11:31.

drug that is being assessed for the first time, another extremely

:11:32.:11:37.

effective drug, and allowing ten months without progressive cancer.

:11:38.:11:47.

Robust overall survival data is not yet available because it is so new.

:11:48.:11:51.

Perversely this will count against it in the NICE appraisal. This is

:11:52.:11:55.

because overall survival data is given greater weight than

:11:56.:12:02.

progression free survival, in NICE appraisals, despite the fact that

:12:03.:12:07.

the outcome is the same, a longer and enrich life was that we are

:12:08.:12:12.

seeing effective treatment being rejected or facing rejection. What I

:12:13.:12:15.

want to know is if it is really right that we have a health service

:12:16.:12:19.

planning to take away these lifelines? How was the decision to

:12:20.:12:23.

take away these life extending drugs beneficial for people living with

:12:24.:12:26.

cancer, or any of us who might one day need access to them? Who makes

:12:27.:12:31.

the decisions as to Mark how can we be sure they are the right ones? I

:12:32.:12:39.

have my questions regarding the factors constituting the process. It

:12:40.:12:44.

is too easy to assume that experts must automatically be right. Numbers

:12:45.:12:50.

income for merely use, then yes or no. Let us not forget that we are

:12:51.:12:55.

talking about people's lives. For those affected, for those whose this

:12:56.:13:06.

is all too real. The appraisal process is there doom. Dad how many

:13:07.:13:18.

people understand the issues in these decisions prisons, the drug

:13:19.:13:28.

Palbocyclib is proving so effective that data is only available on how

:13:29.:13:32.

cancer is progressing. In terms of the appraisal, would she agree with

:13:33.:13:37.

me that the fact that this drug is available in France, Germany,

:13:38.:13:43.

Austria and Canada shows that routinely are system isn't working?

:13:44.:13:48.

I would agree with my honourable friend on that point and it is

:13:49.:13:52.

amazing to think that it will take for this particular drug longer to

:13:53.:13:56.

get overall survival data because people are living longer without

:13:57.:14:02.

their cancer spreading? Is obvious success is seen as a disadvantage in

:14:03.:14:06.

the NICE appraisal system. The cost of Palbocyclib would appear to be

:14:07.:14:12.

much higher in the NICE formula as a result because overall survival data

:14:13.:14:14.

is given much more weight than progression free survival will stop

:14:15.:14:21.

that does seem illogical. Consider also the criteria for and of life

:14:22.:14:28.

treatment determination. If a treatment is end of life it is

:14:29.:14:31.

allowed to have doubled the quality adjusted life year, but end of life

:14:32.:14:39.

is considered to be two years. But not why not three years? How have we

:14:40.:14:43.

ended up with such an arbitrary fixed figure, especially when the

:14:44.:14:49.

figure is set in Scotland, as three years? There is no cure for

:14:50.:14:52.

secondary breast cancer but as people start to live longer it will

:14:53.:14:56.

place them at a disadvantage in terms of accessing treatment because

:14:57.:14:59.

it will be harder for those treatments to become approved, and

:15:00.:15:02.

as they are no longer considered under the end of life criteria. I

:15:03.:15:08.

asked the Minister how can she be sure that the NICE process is still

:15:09.:15:14.

fit for purpose? Will she responds passivity on the two suggestions of

:15:15.:15:17.

revealing the wakeboard regressions free survival when overall survival

:15:18.:15:21.

is not available because treatment is so effective? And whether the end

:15:22.:15:28.

of life criteria could be changed to three years instead of two? Finally,

:15:29.:15:32.

I would also like to return to the issue of offbeat and treatments will

:15:33.:15:39.

stop over recent years there have been two private members bills on

:15:40.:15:42.

the topic, one introduced by my honourable friend the member for

:15:43.:15:47.

Torfaen. We had many commitments to the subject from the then Minister

:15:48.:15:50.

for life sciences but adds yet we have not seen any improvements to

:15:51.:15:54.

access, which is hugely disappointment. The Minister

:15:55.:15:58.

committed to establish a working group to investigate what could be

:15:59.:16:01.

done to enable use of such treatments and I believe this this

:16:02.:16:04.

working group is due to conclude its work next month with a report. Can I

:16:05.:16:08.

ask the minister whether this will report will introduce a clear

:16:09.:16:12.

pathway for oft repeated treatments and or she write to me with the

:16:13.:16:18.

details of this pathway and how it will explicitly work for

:16:19.:16:21.

bisphosphonates drugs for prevention of secondary breast cancer. I know

:16:22.:16:27.

that others have been disappointed by the extremely patchy availability

:16:28.:16:30.

of this treatment for eligible women. As a result it recently were

:16:31.:16:36.

lodged the 43p a day campaign to highlight the low cost of this

:16:37.:16:39.

treatment and the fact that it would save over 1000 lives every year in

:16:40.:16:44.

the UK if it worse routinely available. Not to mention saving

:16:45.:16:50.

millions of pounds for the NHS. Thank her for giving way and

:16:51.:16:53.

congratulate her for securing the debate. Can I put on my support for

:16:54.:16:57.

the case the honourable ladies making and particularly draw the

:16:58.:17:01.

house attention to the case of my constituent Bonnie Fox who is in the

:17:02.:17:05.

gallery above us this morning, suffering in the way that the

:17:06.:17:08.

honourable member has been describing and whose life chances

:17:09.:17:11.

would be greatly improved if something more could be done to

:17:12.:17:17.

preserve the availability of Kadcyla and I once again express the support

:17:18.:17:21.

for the case for the honourable ladies's eloquently expressed case.

:17:22.:17:27.

Can I thank the honourable member, is likely to have such an

:17:28.:17:33.

exceptional constituent as Bonnie Fox who we have already mentioned in

:17:34.:17:38.

the debate because of a sessional work. The Minister has said that CCD

:17:39.:17:46.

's are responsible for commissioning the treatment for bisphosphonates.

:17:47.:17:52.

Could the Minister let me know what the contact has been with CCG in

:17:53.:17:59.

this process. This is a challenge in execs leg-macro existing

:18:00.:18:10.

arrangements,... Does the Minister agree that if we want general in

:18:11.:18:14.

progress on availability of this treatment we cannot take the path of

:18:15.:18:17.

least resistance, and just say it is up to CCG. It is -- they are

:18:18.:18:25.

independent bodies and make their own decisions. That is a do nothing

:18:26.:18:31.

option. Is an old treatment requiring a new approach, requiring

:18:32.:18:35.

our commissioning strategists at NHS England to make a decision about how

:18:36.:18:40.

to commission this treatment routinely. Will the Minister agreed

:18:41.:18:45.

to meet with Ian Dodge, national director more commissioning strategy

:18:46.:18:49.

to discuss the specific case with him? And to keep members here today

:18:50.:18:54.

updated on those discussions was to mark and with the Minister agree

:18:55.:18:58.

that it is indeed worrying at a treatment that could prevent over

:18:59.:19:01.

1000 women getting secondary breast cancer every year is not routinely

:19:02.:19:06.

available? To finish and I'm sure everybody will be delighted...! I

:19:07.:19:14.

had the Minister would consider the meeting of some of the women

:19:15.:19:18.

affected by the breast cancer and breast cancer now here today and I

:19:19.:19:21.

would like to thank those women in the public gallery for coming here

:19:22.:19:23.

to show their support for this debate en masse? I would like to

:19:24.:19:31.

wish every single one of them well. Access to life enhancing and life

:19:32.:19:34.

saving drugs should be a right in the UK, not a decision based on a

:19:35.:19:37.

lottery of access to private health care. I sincerely hope that

:19:38.:19:44.

Palbocyclib will reverse the decision and give every woman that

:19:45.:19:48.

future back. The question is as on the order paper. Ian Stewart. Thank

:19:49.:19:53.

you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating the honourable

:19:54.:20:00.

lady from Mitcham and Morden for securing the important debate and

:20:01.:20:05.

also for setting out the case so powerfully. I agree with pretty much

:20:06.:20:09.

everything she has said, and I know there are quite a number of members

:20:10.:20:13.

wishing to speak so I went to tame the house simply by repeating all of

:20:14.:20:16.

these points. My motivation for speaking today comes from a meeting

:20:17.:20:23.

I had with my constituency surgery just a couple of weeks ago with my

:20:24.:20:30.

constituent Joanna Mears, and her husband, and they, like many other

:20:31.:20:34.

sufferers, are in the public gallery this afternoon watching proceedings.

:20:35.:20:40.

Mrs Mears suffers from secondary breast cancer and while her

:20:41.:20:43.

condition sadly is terminology is responding well to her existing

:20:44.:20:49.

medication and has already had more than twice the expected benefit span

:20:50.:20:55.

from that notification -- medication. What she is on now, when

:20:56.:21:01.

that's no longer has its effect her only remaining option is Kadcyla,

:21:02.:21:08.

and naturally she is very concerned that if the NICE decision is upheld

:21:09.:21:15.

then that option... It is essentially the same question that

:21:16.:21:20.

has already been asked. I think we all accept that a mistake... That to

:21:21.:21:25.

this is a decision this is wrong. The key question is what is the

:21:26.:21:33.

remedy? Is the remedy within the remit of Palbocyclib to sort by

:21:34.:21:37.

changing its procedures and considerations? Or does this lie

:21:38.:21:41.

with the framework, the statutory framework that parliament and

:21:42.:21:46.

government has set within which NICE works? That is the issue I think two

:21:47.:21:52.

which we must come to an answer. I'm grateful to him for asking me

:21:53.:21:58.

questions and my answer will be pretty much the same as the

:21:59.:22:03.

honourable lady's. In this specific case I think, I hope that there is

:22:04.:22:07.

scope for NICE and the manufacturer of Kadcyla to sit down and agree if

:22:08.:22:16.

only for this treatment some compromise, and actually I had a

:22:17.:22:20.

briefing note from them this morning stating that they are willing to do

:22:21.:22:26.

that, and I hope that NICE... If I may just finished answering my noble

:22:27.:22:32.

friend first. I will certainly away afterwards. I hope that Palbocyclib

:22:33.:22:38.

will respond in kind to -- I hope that NICE will respond in kind. As

:22:39.:22:43.

my honourable friend points out I think there was a broader issue for

:22:44.:22:46.

other drugs, and I do think it is time to perhaps look again at the

:22:47.:22:54.

appraisal system and others, so we don't have to continue to return to

:22:55.:22:58.

this debate went in new drug in the future is identified, and there is a

:22:59.:23:03.

question of its affordability under the Cancer Drugs Fund, so I hope

:23:04.:23:08.

that answers my honourable friend was a point. The other would general

:23:09.:23:13.

from Coventry. I think the honourable gentleman. I agree with

:23:14.:23:17.

him because it is not only these drugs we are debating today where we

:23:18.:23:22.

have problems before, in relation to NICE in particular, and I think in

:23:23.:23:24.

answer to his honourable friend's question both the Cedars should be

:23:25.:23:29.

looked at by the Minister and NICE should be looked at as well because

:23:30.:23:34.

it will be -- we have continually come back here, the years I've spent

:23:35.:23:38.

here listening to the same questions, is nobody 's business, to

:23:39.:23:44.

use an expression. The Irn-Bru gentleman from Coventry South makes

:23:45.:23:47.

an important point and I don't pretend to be an expert in how NICE

:23:48.:23:52.

works but what I hope to bring to this debate is a personal example

:23:53.:23:57.

from my constituent just to underline the human effects that

:23:58.:24:05.

these matters have. I don't have a solution necessarily but I hope the

:24:06.:24:10.

outcome from this debate will be as well as looking at Kadcyla itself

:24:11.:24:13.

perhaps seeking a fresh look at the whole process.

:24:14.:24:21.

The Nice framework works very well for mass drugs, where the entire

:24:22.:24:26.

population or in whole vaccination is going to work. But for very small

:24:27.:24:30.

numbers of people, the 1200 women that really need this drug, I

:24:31.:24:35.

personally don't think it is as effective a process. There are two

:24:36.:24:40.

people in the negotiation two Kadcyla and Roche. We mustn't have

:24:41.:24:46.

Roche seeing the new drugs as a new cash cow, as has certain goes

:24:47.:24:54.

Kadcyla in 2017. Women's lives should not be treated as cash cows

:24:55.:25:00.

by this drugs company. I agree with the honourable lady. I have not had

:25:01.:25:05.

any personal discussions with Roche, I can only take at face value the

:25:06.:25:08.

note they sent me earlier this morning, that seemed to be a genuine

:25:09.:25:15.

wish to negotiate with Nice and get down to an acceptable price. And I

:25:16.:25:19.

hope that debate is joined in the spirit it is meant. I was going to

:25:20.:25:25.

mention this later in my speech, but perhaps it's appropriate now. I

:25:26.:25:29.

think one area that does need to be examined is the pharmaceutical price

:25:30.:25:36.

regulation scheme, a five-year voluntary contract between

:25:37.:25:39.

pharmaceutical companies and Nice. If I understand how it is intended

:25:40.:25:44.

to work is that the pharmaceutical companies will underwrite any

:25:45.:25:49.

overspend for a particular drug, but for various reasons that doesn't

:25:50.:25:55.

seem to be working in practice. So my honourable friend the Minister, I

:25:56.:25:59.

would urge her to look at that particular point that some in the

:26:00.:26:03.

industry are making. If I may return to the case of Mrs yours, my

:26:04.:26:11.

constituent. As I say, when her current medication ceases to be

:26:12.:26:17.

effective, she considers the only option. While she has responded well

:26:18.:26:24.

to the current treatment, there is every likelihood, and her consultant

:26:25.:26:27.

agrees, that she will similarly respond positively to Kadcyla. And

:26:28.:26:34.

there is every chance that she would enjoy the benefits of that well in

:26:35.:26:39.

excess of the expected nine months that it has meant. And I just would

:26:40.:26:45.

therefore argue that a blanket ban on this drug would be inappropriate.

:26:46.:26:52.

At the very least there should be some flexibility in the system to

:26:53.:26:56.

make it available to people like my constituent, for whom there is a

:26:57.:26:59.

very high probability that it would have more than the expected and

:27:00.:27:06.

official process. I would also make the point that because she has

:27:07.:27:10.

responded so well to her existing drug, if her life is able to be

:27:11.:27:14.

extended considerably by Kadcyla, it will allow more research to be done

:27:15.:27:20.

on the efficacy of her existing medication, and that would be an

:27:21.:27:23.

important body of evidence to add to the whole appraisal process. The

:27:24.:27:29.

honourable lady from Mitch Mann mortem quite rightly said that

:27:30.:27:35.

prescription drugs should be based solely on clinical need, and no

:27:36.:27:42.

longer a factor. When I met Mrs Mears, she made one point to me that

:27:43.:27:44.

I couldn't really answer. Through her life she has been a

:27:45.:27:48.

professional, worked professionally in the criminal justice system and

:27:49.:27:51.

done a lot of work in saving the public purse money by innovating

:27:52.:27:56.

programmes to reduce youth offending. That value cannot be

:27:57.:28:03.

calculated. But she made the point to make up the one point in my life

:28:04.:28:08.

I need something back -- she made the one point to me, at the one

:28:09.:28:12.

point and my life I need summing back from this country, it can't be

:28:13.:28:16.

given to me. I really couldn't answer that. I hope that something

:28:17.:28:19.

can be done to make this drug available. As I say, the Nice

:28:20.:28:26.

decision is provisional. I contributed to the consultation, and

:28:27.:28:32.

I hope, I think it is in early March next, that they will review this

:28:33.:28:40.

decision. I know that NHS resources are finite, and there are many

:28:41.:28:44.

competing demands on its budget, and the debate on the overall size of

:28:45.:28:48.

the NHS budget must be a matter for another time. But in cases like

:28:49.:28:55.

this, to illustrate the need to use what resources we have as

:28:56.:29:01.

efficiently as possible. Just before I met Mrs Mears the other week, I

:29:02.:29:07.

happened to see a story in the media which really made my blood boil. And

:29:08.:29:12.

I just simply put this on the table, I don't pretend to be an expert in

:29:13.:29:20.

the prescription system. But the story reported that the NHS wastes

:29:21.:29:25.

about ?80 billion per annum by prescribing simple painkillers like

:29:26.:29:30.

paracetamol, which you can buy in a supermarket for 20p or 30p per

:29:31.:29:36.

packet. But it goes through the usual prescription system, and costs

:29:37.:29:40.

?80 billion per year. Surely there is a way of getting around that to

:29:41.:29:47.

somehow give GP practices in stock of these basic painkillers, I'm not

:29:48.:29:51.

asking people that currently get their prescriptions free to start

:29:52.:29:54.

paying, but surely there is a way of the doctors just simply issuing them

:29:55.:30:00.

when it's appropriate to do so, and stop this merry-go-round of

:30:01.:30:03.

paperwork that they say costs many millions of pounds. I think the

:30:04.:30:07.

honourable gentleman is making a very valuable point. Would he agree

:30:08.:30:13.

with me that one way around this would be to have prescribing

:30:14.:30:16.

pharmacists that could give out those basic painkillers and

:30:17.:30:22.

medications such as that without the need for the patient to even see

:30:23.:30:26.

their GP, plus freeing up valuable GP time? That sounds in on the

:30:27.:30:32.

sensible suggestion. I don't pretend to be an expert in the system, but

:30:33.:30:37.

surely something like that can be done. That money saved can be added

:30:38.:30:42.

to the Cancer Drugs Fund and make more drugs like Kadcyla available to

:30:43.:30:49.

people who need it. So I'm going to end my comments, I know that many

:30:50.:30:53.

members want to contribute, but please let's try to do everything we

:30:54.:30:58.

can in this House, in Courage Nice, encourage Roche, certainly look at

:30:59.:31:03.

the overall system, but particularly on this drug. It means so much to my

:31:04.:31:10.

constituent, and the many others up and down the country. So I hope this

:31:11.:31:16.

debate has that effect, and I conclude where I started in

:31:17.:31:19.

congratulating the honourable lady for introducing it. Nick Thomas.

:31:20.:31:26.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the Backbench

:31:27.:31:29.

Business Committee. That was very, very important topic for debate this

:31:30.:31:33.

afternoon. I would also like to pay tribute to my honourable friend, the

:31:34.:31:38.

member for Mitchell Mann mortem, for the passionate and thoughtful way in

:31:39.:31:42.

which she introduced the debate. And also to endorse everything that she

:31:43.:31:47.

said, and particularly in relation specifically to the drug Kadcyla.

:31:48.:31:54.

She said in her pithy way, firstly it works, but secondly it has far

:31:55.:31:58.

fewer side-effects than many cancer drugs do. I was very proud to have

:31:59.:32:02.

backed as well the 43p per day campaign that was mentioned by my

:32:03.:32:05.

honourable friend in her opening remarks. I should in interest as the

:32:06.:32:13.

chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on off-patent drugs. I should

:32:14.:32:17.

also say that one of my first actions and being a member of this

:32:18.:32:22.

House in 2050 was to become a breast cancer ambassador. I was very proud

:32:23.:32:26.

to do so, as the person who inspired me to come into politics actually

:32:27.:32:29.

was my grandmother, who died of the disease years ago. But I was lucky

:32:30.:32:33.

enough in my early months in this House to be drawn in the ballot for

:32:34.:32:38.

a Private Member's Bill. And I introduced the off-patent drugs

:32:39.:32:43.

bill. And although it was talked down in quite controversial

:32:44.:32:47.

circumstances on the 6th of November 2015, I was nonetheless very pleased

:32:48.:32:50.

to work after that make cross-party basis to achieve legislative

:32:51.:32:55.

progress. And I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for Central

:32:56.:33:01.

Ayrshire, the honourable members for Bury St Edmunds, Daventry, and

:33:02.:33:04.

indeed the former Minister for life scientist, and the work that was

:33:05.:33:09.

done in those months to make legislative changes that would then

:33:10.:33:13.

incorporated in what was then the access to medical treatment

:33:14.:33:16.

innovation bill, which later became an Act and received Royal assent in

:33:17.:33:21.

March last year. I want to come if I make to the pledges that were made

:33:22.:33:27.

on the 29th of January 2016, and how things have moved forward since. I

:33:28.:33:31.

would say to the Minister that in setting out a number of questions

:33:32.:33:35.

about this, I don't necessarily expect them all to be answered in

:33:36.:33:39.

detail in her closing remarks. But if there are aspects that she feels

:33:40.:33:43.

she cannot answer in detail, I would be very grateful if she would write

:33:44.:33:46.

to me about those matters after the debate today. On the 29th of January

:33:47.:33:53.

2016, I and others in this House put down a package of amendments to this

:33:54.:33:57.

Bill. Some of which were substantial and went into the Bill, and others

:33:58.:34:03.

which were amendments to receive the promises I have talked about. The

:34:04.:34:09.

then Minister for life sciences said, broadly, the intention of the

:34:10.:34:13.

package of amendments is to introduce off label repurposed

:34:14.:34:16.

medicines in the bill and the budget. The heart of the agenda. And

:34:17.:34:20.

that is precisely what we sought to do that day. And he added, I

:34:21.:34:24.

wholeheartedly supported the intention of this bill and its

:34:25.:34:27.

predecessor, but not the mechanism. We now have a mechanism that will

:34:28.:34:32.

work. We spoke that day about the mechanism. Now, one of those

:34:33.:34:35.

amendments was a request for an action plan. And it was decided by

:34:36.:34:40.

the Minister that he didn't want that on the face of the bill, but he

:34:41.:34:46.

actually said this - "Let me set up my commitment and bat of the

:34:47.:34:51.

Government the pursuing the agenda with time and rigour". I thank my

:34:52.:34:56.

honourable friend for giving way. I remember his bill very well and the

:34:57.:35:00.

shameful way in which it was talked down by the professional filibuster.

:35:01.:35:05.

Would he not agree that any action plan needs to look at these things,

:35:06.:35:10.

and also the diagnosis support and information that patients have a

:35:11.:35:14.

other types of cancer as well as breast cancer, as well as the

:35:15.:35:17.

limited availability of effective drugs we have talked about that do

:35:18.:35:21.

not have side effects and the fact that drugs have been delisted from

:35:22.:35:27.

the Cancer Drugs Fund. I certainly agree that the pathway has to be a

:35:28.:35:32.

comprehensive one. I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I will

:35:33.:35:34.

come back to the pathway in a moment. In addition, that day, the

:35:35.:35:42.

then Minister for life sciences said he would explore mechanisms for

:35:43.:35:45.

ensuring that the National is the Judith clinical excellence can look

:35:46.:35:48.

at evidence and develop evidence -based guidance on off label

:35:49.:35:52.

medicines so that doctors are aware of which dropped are being used on

:35:53.:35:57.

off label indications. -- which drugs. He added that Nice are

:35:58.:36:02.

looking at ways to collect evidence on repurposed medicines. I'm pleased

:36:03.:36:06.

with the progress that has been made with the national fund and I will

:36:07.:36:09.

come back to that specifically in a moment. We thought this would have

:36:10.:36:15.

applied to NHS England. A new system of national commissioning of

:36:16.:36:18.

repurposed drugs. Again, the amendment was not accepted. But this

:36:19.:36:22.

pledge was given - the NHS is happy to look at all options for promoting

:36:23.:36:27.

off label and repurposed drugs use. I hope that pledge will be repeated

:36:28.:36:30.

by the Minister at the dispatch box today. There was also a commitment

:36:31.:36:36.

to consult all relevant stakeholders going forward. Again, I'd hope that

:36:37.:36:41.

would be fairly uncontroversial and able to be repeated. Let me come to

:36:42.:36:45.

where we have got to. When I intervened on the speech of my

:36:46.:36:50.

honourable friend, I did quit worrying statistic about

:36:51.:36:55.

bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates really does provide a case in point

:36:56.:37:00.

here. Bisphosphonates is a drug that is used to treat osteoporosis, but

:37:01.:37:05.

it is very, very effective in its second reform, it's repurposed form,

:37:06.:37:11.

where you do have somebody with primary breast cancer, it certainly

:37:12.:37:14.

helps with preventing it spreading to the bone. It is very effective in

:37:15.:37:19.

that regard. That statistic of only 24% of clinicians actually being

:37:20.:37:23.

able to prescribe it is a very worrying one, and one that needs to

:37:24.:37:28.

be addressed. There should be in the system no barrier to that being far

:37:29.:37:32.

more widely prescribed than it is. Let me just come to the working

:37:33.:37:36.

group, because I understand that it will conclude at the end of next

:37:37.:37:41.

month. I'm very grateful I will be meeting officials from the medicines

:37:42.:37:46.

and pharmacy directorate to discuss this in the next few weeks. But it

:37:47.:37:52.

would be appreciated that if there is to be a pathway, whether the

:37:53.:37:56.

Minister would be prepared to share that with me in draft form prior to

:37:57.:38:02.

then in order for comments to be made, particularly going back to the

:38:03.:38:05.

pledges that were made last year. The British National formulary has

:38:06.:38:11.

begun work. Indeed, I looked up bisphosphonates specifically on the

:38:12.:38:15.

BNF online before I came into this debate today. This is what makes

:38:16.:38:21.

that 24% statistic even more worrying, really, because BNF online

:38:22.:38:26.

actually says that the use of bisphosphonates impatience with

:38:27.:38:30.

metastatic breast cancer may reduce pain and prevent pain and prevent

:38:31.:38:34.

skeletal complications of bonuses starters. Now that is actually there

:38:35.:38:38.

already. It is the in the prescribers Bible, if you like -- on

:38:39.:38:43.

metastatic. It would be something for the Minister to focus on, why

:38:44.:38:47.

that is not filtering through the system in the way it should be. In

:38:48.:38:52.

addition, there is a pilot licensing scheme that brings together medical

:38:53.:38:56.

research charities and generic manufacturers of drugs, the

:38:57.:39:02.

licensees of Paton drugs for the new purposes. If the Minister could

:39:03.:39:06.

comment on whether that fully fledged scheme would be helpful, but

:39:07.:39:11.

I also think this is an interesting development because my Bill in its

:39:12.:39:18.

original form was actually a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to

:39:19.:39:21.

seek licences for drugs in the new indications. That was the bone of

:39:22.:39:24.

contention between myself and the Minister. At the time we thought

:39:25.:39:30.

that was too much and too onerous with respect to the Secretary of

:39:31.:39:35.

State to have that duty. The other interesting point, looking back at

:39:36.:39:38.

that debate, is the other point that was made then was about the EU's

:39:39.:39:42.

licensing scheme. It said that changes could run a coach and horses

:39:43.:39:48.

through it. Given that we're not going to be members of the European

:39:49.:39:51.

Union by the end of this Parliament, I would be interested in the

:39:52.:39:54.

Minister's comment as to how she the Brexit process, the end of the

:39:55.:39:59.

Brexit process, when we are no longer members of the EU, would

:40:00.:40:02.

actually affect this? If it was seen by the Minister at the time is

:40:03.:40:05.

browsing problems, perhaps she could tell us whether she is considering

:40:06.:40:10.

whether or not this pilot licensing can first of all become fully

:40:11.:40:13.

fledged, but without that you are being licensing scheme, how she sees

:40:14.:40:18.

that developing here in the UK going forward. -- without the European

:40:19.:40:21.

licensing scheme. I appreciate I have got a lot of points to the

:40:22.:40:25.

Minister there. I'm perfectly happy if she could write to me about it.

:40:26.:40:30.

But I think what we shouldn't forget here is really the difference that

:40:31.:40:35.

this of Paton drugs agenda can make the people's lives -- this

:40:36.:40:40.

off-patent drugs agenda. Those who face this issue have incredible

:40:41.:40:43.

bravery. The honourable member for Bristol West is in the House with

:40:44.:40:48.

us, and the constituent Bonnie Fox, the honourable member for Croydon

:40:49.:40:52.

South. We in this House as legislators Ujah YouTube to all of

:40:53.:40:55.

those who suffer from this terrible disease to take all of this possible

:40:56.:41:00.

that that we can to make these extraordinarily cheap drugs readily

:41:01.:41:00.

available as possible. It is alleged to speak on this

:41:01.:41:11.

thread and I would like to congratulate the member for securing

:41:12.:41:14.

it was honoured to be able to back it in the application to the

:41:15.:41:18.

backbench committee. I would also do like to thank her for her powerful

:41:19.:41:23.

speech, it was very moving. Fighting cancer is not just a top priority

:41:24.:41:27.

for the NHS, it is one of the greatest scientific challenges of

:41:28.:41:30.

our time. Treating our illnesses with signs rather than superstition

:41:31.:41:35.

is a relatively new idea in the history of medicine. But the

:41:36.:41:38.

acceleration of better diagnosis, better treatment, and a more

:41:39.:41:41.

successful outcome is keeping more of us alive for longer, and with

:41:42.:41:45.

better policies of life. The motion before the house mentions Kadcyla, a

:41:46.:41:52.

treatment which Nice has not enabled to comment for the of second breast

:41:53.:41:56.

cancer and we await the results of their consultation in March. This is

:41:57.:42:00.

a treatment which is a relative of another medicine which in its

:42:01.:42:02.

introduction was also extremely controversial, and after a lot of

:42:03.:42:08.

consideration by Nice and a lot of debate and pressure by the house the

:42:09.:42:13.

drug was approved and has helped thousands of people, because men get

:42:14.:42:19.

breast cancer, too, fighting breast cancer. Timber macros are treatment

:42:20.:42:25.

which could help a number of women on the existing remit and would help

:42:26.:42:29.

them to advance. We talk about secondary or metastatic breast

:42:30.:42:32.

cancer than we talk about people whose lives are massively sorted by

:42:33.:42:37.

breast. Kadcyla gives them and their families more time on the quality of

:42:38.:42:42.

life. It can have months their life expectancy, whose remaining lives

:42:43.:42:46.

are only likely to be mentioned in a few months, and the honourable

:42:47.:42:50.

member for Michelin and Morden very movingly talks about some of her

:42:51.:42:52.

friends and those in the gallery, too. We all understand that the

:42:53.:42:58.

financial constraints asked tight on NHS even though spending has

:42:59.:43:03.

increased and I welcome cancer drug funds providing patients with much

:43:04.:43:05.

better access to promising new cancer treatments with also value

:43:06.:43:10.

for the taxpayer. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the honourable

:43:11.:43:16.

lady for giving way, and I was profoundly moved by the case in my

:43:17.:43:20.

constituency Melanie Marshall who sadly is suffering from breast

:43:21.:43:24.

cancer and one of the policy to me is she finds it hard to understand

:43:25.:43:27.

why the NHS can spend such significant sums on conditions which

:43:28.:43:31.

frankly not life-threatening, and sometimes lead to verge on the

:43:32.:43:36.

cosmetic, and yet not give a priority vital drugs like someone

:43:37.:43:45.

macro? -- priority to drugs like Kadcyla question mark surely there

:43:46.:43:49.

is money that can be found. I also get e-mails on the censored out but

:43:50.:43:52.

there are other considerations like mental health which is one of the

:43:53.:43:56.

reasons why some people don't quite understand why money is being spent

:43:57.:44:01.

in various parts of the NHS. Those are the reasons behind that. I

:44:02.:44:04.

totally agree with you on drugs like this which seem to make such a

:44:05.:44:09.

difference. In the case of Kadcyla there seem to be question is why it

:44:10.:44:12.

can't be brought into the regular use. Some of these are for Nice and

:44:13.:44:15.

some of them for the manufacturer for up Kadcyla is a treatment

:44:16.:44:22.

accepted by numerous European countries. I am reassured that

:44:23.:44:28.

cancer charities seen that Nice has made every effort to fund it. The

:44:29.:44:32.

question remains that how Nice's final position compares to other

:44:33.:44:37.

countries, France and Germany for instance. Once's 's equivalent of

:44:38.:44:43.

Nice considered it in the same way as Nice has and approved it. Another

:44:44.:44:50.

query is the joys of comparative treatment in assessing the quality

:44:51.:44:55.

of Kadcyla as a treatment. They concern that the comparator is a old

:44:56.:45:00.

treatment, and I'm going to compare it, very difficult with these

:45:01.:45:01.

medical terms,. I haven't been able to say those terms. The

:45:02.:45:21.

comparisons made with those previous drugs seems unrealistic to base an

:45:22.:45:33.

old drugs. Everyone would understand the comparison if it was made to a

:45:34.:45:35.

currently available drug. What is the status of the study under the

:45:36.:45:43.

name Ester looking at Kadcyla? In the event that a Nice concludes

:45:44.:45:55.

their study in 2023, the immediate concerns about ability remains. --

:45:56.:46:00.

availability. Perhaps the manufacturer will reconsider their

:46:01.:46:06.

position. It has been unfortunate that Nice has been subjected to

:46:07.:46:10.

sustained attacks by the manufacturer Roche. I call upon them

:46:11.:46:16.

to get round the table with Nice and look again at the pricing of the

:46:17.:46:19.

drug as they have done with others in the past. Turning to other

:46:20.:46:24.

treatments I know that messages going out to clinical commissioning

:46:25.:46:27.

groups about the options available and treatment, many members will

:46:28.:46:30.

have had a campaign e-mails relating to bisphosphonates, and I was

:46:31.:46:36.

reassured that the response I had from the Department of Health and

:46:37.:46:39.

the Portsmouth clinical commissioning group that they be

:46:40.:46:43.

made available in my constituency. Queen Elizabeth Hospital in

:46:44.:46:45.

Portsmouth has above average performance in both treatment times

:46:46.:46:49.

and outcomes and is becoming if not already a centre of Alex and in

:46:50.:46:54.

cancer treatment. -- centre of excellence. Like many issues in the

:46:55.:47:04.

house, and many in the house, many have died in my family of breast

:47:05.:47:09.

cancer. We need to keep drugs available to treat them, and that

:47:10.:47:16.

sounds like Kadcyla. May I congratulate the honourable member

:47:17.:47:19.

for Michelin and Morden for securing the debate which was an

:47:20.:47:22.

extraordinary powerful, I thought, and emotive speech, and join her in

:47:23.:47:29.

actually wishing everybody here today in the public gallery and

:47:30.:47:33.

everybody who is watching this debate at home, all the very best

:47:34.:47:38.

for their future. It is a pleasure to follow the member for Milton

:47:39.:47:42.

Keynes who I thought made a very powerful case, personal testimony of

:47:43.:47:48.

his constituents, and argued her case eloquently. The member for

:47:49.:47:54.

Torfaen, we often come into politics for many different reasons,

:47:55.:48:00.

profession of public pain being one, and the NHS wasn't created in 1948,

:48:01.:48:06.

it was created much earlier when his father died, and he spoke eloquently

:48:07.:48:12.

about his grandmother being his big inspiration into politics and her

:48:13.:48:17.

dying of the disease. And finally be a member for Portsmouth South I hope

:48:18.:48:21.

I can pronounce the drugs that I will mention as she did in this

:48:22.:48:27.

debate. We have heard a lot of statistics today, and stats in

:48:28.:48:33.

themselves are shocking, and is important to remind ourselves that

:48:34.:48:38.

behind every statistic there is a human story. Women all too often,

:48:39.:48:41.

will young women, mothers lives are being cut cruelly short. We have

:48:42.:48:46.

also heard many important interventions about the access to

:48:47.:48:52.

breast cancer drugs for treatment of secondary breast cancer. At the

:48:53.:48:55.

heart of the day the motion is also the issue of how we can improve

:48:56.:49:00.

access to both innovative new breast cancer drugs and off patented drugs

:49:01.:49:05.

used for breast cancer. The use of such drugs relates not only do the

:49:06.:49:09.

treatment of breast cancer but also its prevention. I am immensely proud

:49:10.:49:15.

that in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the home to the

:49:16.:49:19.

nightingale centre, Europe's first breast cancer prevention Centre and

:49:20.:49:23.

the charity prevent breast cancer. We also benefit being a Mancunian MP

:49:24.:49:32.

for the pros proximity the Christy Hospital, the largest single site

:49:33.:49:35.

cancer centre in Europe, treating more bad 44,000 patients a year. The

:49:36.:49:42.

nightingale centre opened at University Hospital south

:49:43.:49:43.

Manchester, Wythenshawe Hospital, with July 2000 cents -- 2007,

:49:44.:49:51.

offering state-of-the-art diagnostic treatment to women and men with

:49:52.:49:53.

breast cancer and coordinates the best cancer treatment from the NHS

:49:54.:49:59.

for the Wallaby and chest area. It's also provides training facilities

:50:00.:50:03.

aimed at interesting the shortage of breast cancer specialists and houses

:50:04.:50:08.

many of the prevent breast cancer researchers, looking at ways to

:50:09.:50:14.

predict and prevent breast cancer. In the prevent breast cancer

:50:15.:50:19.

research unit, several drugs now off patented are being repurposed for

:50:20.:50:23.

preventing cancer coming back. Women with a family has the or other

:50:24.:50:27.

factors making high risk -- family history, have been known to be

:50:28.:50:32.

benefiting from these drugs which prevent the disease but they find it

:50:33.:50:36.

difficult to obtain these inexpensive tried and tested drugs

:50:37.:50:39.

because they are currently not listed in the British national

:50:40.:50:42.

formulary ads specifically licensed for new purpose of prevention,

:50:43.:50:47.

despite successful clinical trials. There are currently three drugs in

:50:48.:50:53.

this situation. Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and astrophysical. -- I

:50:54.:51:04.

would be happy to give well. I'm very grateful for my aunt will

:51:05.:51:08.

friend giving way. Specifically on the British national for myriad and

:51:09.:51:12.

aid policies being put together, a new one, by the B and F which will

:51:13.:51:18.

set out how it will get more off label drugs. Will my honourable

:51:19.:51:21.

friend agree that it is we can have the policy available the matter? I

:51:22.:51:27.

congratulate honourable friend doing so much work in this area since he

:51:28.:51:32.

has come to this parliament. We can only hope Stoke, and maybe the

:51:33.:51:35.

minister will have more information for us in her summing up on that

:51:36.:51:42.

particular issue today. The prevent breast cancer research unit oh so

:51:43.:51:46.

has further out of patented drugs under investigation for prevention

:51:47.:51:48.

that may even be better in the future. As well as doing everything

:51:49.:51:53.

we can to extend the life of women with secondary breast cancer we must

:51:54.:51:57.

also do what we can to prevent breast cancer occurrence in the

:51:58.:52:02.

first place. As we all know prevention is better than cure. And

:52:03.:52:07.

for those with secondary cancer where cure is currently out of reach

:52:08.:52:10.

this is something many will be striving for for the next

:52:11.:52:15.

generation. At the moment the system stands in the way of this. The

:52:16.:52:20.

solution to make the drugs widely available which would be

:52:21.:52:27.

cost-effective would be to ask Nice to list such drugs are approved for

:52:28.:52:31.

the new indication of a mention in the BN F publication following

:52:32.:52:36.

evaluation of relevant clinical trials of course so that doctors can

:52:37.:52:40.

have confidence in prescribing them. The current requirements to obtain a

:52:41.:52:45.

new medicine and health care products regulatory agency licence

:52:46.:52:48.

for this new indication is expensive and impractical for repurposed

:52:49.:52:54.

medications as they usually lack a sponsoring pharmaceutical company to

:52:55.:52:58.

champion the use of the new genetic drug. I am sealed the new Minister

:52:59.:53:08.

-- I'm sure the Minister would be in agreement that the small change he

:53:09.:53:12.

would be in the best interests of the fight against breast cancer and

:53:13.:53:14.

I would ask them to consider that and Nice in addressing this changing

:53:15.:53:21.

way which the drugs are listed to evaluate for new purposes such as

:53:22.:53:25.

prevention to be listed for approved as that purpose. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:53:26.:53:33.

when we lose someone prematurely to cancer obviously grief follows. It

:53:34.:53:38.

has been my experience that when we lose someone to breast cancer were

:53:39.:53:44.

the grief is particularly poignant. So, tonight my thoughts and prayers

:53:45.:53:47.

are with all my constituents who have either succumbs to this or who

:53:48.:53:54.

are battling this and their families to carry the consequences. I lost my

:53:55.:54:01.

cousin to the disease and my two friends Tom and Claire both lost

:54:02.:54:06.

their mothers to this disease. I stand in solidarity with my

:54:07.:54:10.

constituents Sheila Higgins who currently battles this disease. She

:54:11.:54:14.

has been a mother to me for the last two decades. Finally, my

:54:15.:54:19.

parliamentary assistants, Suzanne Richards, who came back to work

:54:20.:54:23.

after Christmas with a clean bill of health. She was diagnosed with a

:54:24.:54:28.

virulent strain last year. She had world-class treatment that

:54:29.:54:31.

Wythenshawe and the Christy hospitals. Today is her birthday.

:54:32.:54:36.

Many of us feared it would be a birthday she would never see. Happy

:54:37.:54:43.

birthday, Suzanne. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank the

:54:44.:54:49.

honourable member for Mitcham and Morden in securing this debate. May

:54:50.:54:53.

I say what a pleasure it is to follow the our noble member form

:54:54.:54:56.

Wythenshawe south-east and I'm sure everyone in the house wishes his

:54:57.:55:00.

assistant and a very happy and fulfilling birthday. May there be

:55:01.:55:01.

many, many more to come. Most families in this country have

:55:02.:55:13.

some experience of cancer at some point. We've had many compelling

:55:14.:55:19.

examples today in the house. I am very conscious that as we discuss

:55:20.:55:24.

this difficult topic of the provision of medicines to those who

:55:25.:55:28.

need it that are frankly, discussions about price, and the

:55:29.:55:33.

cost of drugs, means nothing to wives, two daughters, to mothers and

:55:34.:55:38.

grandmothers, who simply want to live the next week, the next month,

:55:39.:55:42.

the next year, to see their next birthday or the birthday of a loved

:55:43.:55:48.

one. I don't underestimate the task facing NICE but I have to say having

:55:49.:55:52.

listened to the speeches today in the house, we do ask, we should ask,

:55:53.:55:57.

why it is countries such as France and Germany have approved this drug.

:55:58.:56:03.

And yet NICE has drawn the initial conclusion it has at the end of last

:56:04.:56:08.

year. I hope today, I know the minister is listening carefully, I

:56:09.:56:13.

hope today questions, thoughts on this process, feeds into a larger

:56:14.:56:18.

review as to how NICE is looking at these drugs and other drugs, and

:56:19.:56:24.

whether we have got the processes correct. And as appropriate as it

:56:25.:56:29.

can be. I'm a big believer any system run by human beings can

:56:30.:56:33.

always do better and I wonder if this is an example of that now. I'd

:56:34.:56:39.

like Mr Deputy Speaker to look at Lincolnshire because it is the

:56:40.:56:42.

county in which my constituency is situated. I'm pleased we have a

:56:43.:56:49.

better than average cancer screening in the county. What worries me is

:56:50.:56:55.

that when it comes to diagnose in the early signs of breast cancer,

:56:56.:57:02.

might local CCG ranks third from the bottom in the United Kingdom. -- my

:57:03.:57:06.

local. It's very significant, because we all know in this house

:57:07.:57:10.

and beyond, the earlier the diagnosis of cancer, where the first

:57:11.:57:16.

stage or secondary, the better the chances are of successful treatment.

:57:17.:57:22.

The treatment of secondary breast cancer holds particular relevance in

:57:23.:57:25.

my constituency because I've met representatives from breast Cancer

:57:26.:57:31.

care. I say representatives, they were women, mums, wives, as I say. I

:57:32.:57:37.

was incredibly moved to here to hear their stories of their own

:57:38.:57:41.

experiences of living with secondary breast cancer. I commend the vital

:57:42.:57:48.

work that charity has done, in particular, the secondary, not

:57:49.:57:52.

second-rate, campaign, that has been looking into the barriers to

:57:53.:57:55.

improving care for those with secondary breast cancer. They

:57:56.:58:01.

highlighted to me the key point that unless our hospital trusts are

:58:02.:58:05.

collecting specific data on how many people have been diagnosed with

:58:06.:58:11.

secondary breast cancer, they cannot plan accurately, those trusts, for

:58:12.:58:15.

the services for those patients. I was shocked to learn about two

:58:16.:58:19.

thirds of hospital trusts in this country do not collect that state.

:58:20.:58:26.

-- collect that data. My own trust is one of those trusts. I urge my

:58:27.:58:33.

own hospital trust and others across the country to start collecting that

:58:34.:58:38.

state, so that from there the services provided to women with

:58:39.:58:44.

secondary breast cancer can be planned properly and effectively.

:58:45.:58:52.

Now, I know the Minister will help the house with the success of the

:58:53.:58:59.

Cancer Drugs Fund. We know that 95,000 people have received life

:59:00.:59:03.

extending drugs they need through that fund. But of course we must

:59:04.:59:08.

also strive to look at new ways to make sure patients have access to

:59:09.:59:12.

innovative new medicines, diagnostics and medical

:59:13.:59:15.

technologies, as, indeed, is happening through the accelerated

:59:16.:59:21.

access review plans. I also have to say I welcome the government

:59:22.:59:25.

commitment to making sure the prices charged to the NHS are fair, and is

:59:26.:59:32.

not inflated. I cannot be the only member who was shocked and pretty

:59:33.:59:36.

disgusted, actually, at some of the headlines that have appeared in

:59:37.:59:40.

newspapers recently, about the conduct of some people, some

:59:41.:59:43.

companies, when it comes to massively inflating the price of

:59:44.:59:49.

patented drugs. I'm really, really pleased that loophole is going to be

:59:50.:59:53.

closed to the health services medical supplies built in the other

:59:54.:59:59.

place at this moment. I also urge the Secretary of State, as I know

:00:00.:00:03.

he's doing, to make sure the Competition and Markets Authority

:00:04.:00:06.

keeps a close eye on this as well. Unfair practices should not conspire

:00:07.:00:16.

against our stitch woods, our neighbours, friends, families, when

:00:17.:00:21.

it comes to the treatment of cancer. I know my honourable friend the

:00:22.:00:24.

Minister has listened very carefully to the concerns raised in what I

:00:25.:00:30.

have found to be a very informative and engaging debate. I hope a

:00:31.:00:35.

solution is reached quickly between NICE and Roesch if the problem is

:00:36.:00:40.

that the price charged for this drug is too high. I wish every single

:00:41.:00:51.

woman in this country currently battling cancer, first stage or

:00:52.:00:55.

secondary stage, I wish them the very, very Best of luck and I hope

:00:56.:00:58.

they feel this debate has done them proud. Steve Baker. Thank you Mr

:00:59.:01:05.

Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the honourable lady for securing this

:01:06.:01:09.

debate. I'm here today to represent the concerns of my constituents and

:01:10.:01:15.

I should say of course I joined the cause for cancer to be more

:01:16.:01:21.

available. When my staff and I were discussing correspondence we've

:01:22.:01:26.

received about this debate, a particular constituent case, we

:01:27.:01:29.

quickly agreed this is about one of the worst kind of correspondence we

:01:30.:01:33.

receive, where people are terminally ill but unable to access the

:01:34.:01:39.

medicines that they would need. This is particularly acute, I don't think

:01:40.:01:42.

I would be the first member to struggle to keep a quaver out of my

:01:43.:01:46.

voice, my mother-in-law died from secondary cancer. These things will

:01:47.:01:51.

stay with all of us. None of us can know what ladies are going through

:01:52.:01:54.

who are currently suffering from these diseases but when one has seen

:01:55.:01:59.

it from second hand, certainly we would all want to live in a world

:02:00.:02:02.

where the NHS does not have to practice any kind of rationing.

:02:03.:02:06.

That's really the point I want to focus on, because as the honourable

:02:07.:02:12.

gentleman for Coventry South indicated, this is a retractable

:02:13.:02:16.

problem. I'm aware of some of the great difficulties their work

:02:17.:02:20.

bringing forward a drug to help men in a similar set of circumstances

:02:21.:02:26.

suffering with prostate cancer. In a sense I wish to sympathise with the

:02:27.:02:31.

Minister and with NICE. I think NICE and the Minister has an extremely

:02:32.:02:35.

difficult task because while it is very easy for all of us to say, of

:02:36.:02:40.

course, Kadcyla should be freely available to all those who need it

:02:41.:02:44.

without restriction, I'm aware this is a long-standing problem which

:02:45.:02:47.

applies to many innovative pharmaceuticals, and I know it'll

:02:48.:02:53.

come as no comfort whatever to sufferers of various cancers to know

:02:54.:02:55.

a profit-making pharmaceutical system has a far better record of

:02:56.:02:59.

innovation than the alternative planned systems. In saying that I

:03:00.:03:05.

wish the Minister every successor she moves forward in a crucially

:03:06.:03:10.

important task, working out how to ensure these innovative medicines

:03:11.:03:14.

come forward at lower cost and at a greater rate.

:03:15.:03:22.

Martin Day. It's a pleasure to take part in today's important debate,

:03:23.:03:31.

make I thank the honourable member for Mitcham and Morden for securing

:03:32.:03:33.

it, I'm grateful for her comments and contributions and the cases she

:03:34.:03:38.

used to illustrate it. It eloquently put a human face to the problem

:03:39.:03:44.

faced. The debate around the access to Kadcyla is of immense interest to

:03:45.:03:47.

the public on both sides of the border, breast cancer being the most

:03:48.:03:52.

common cancer faced, a fact illustrated by the many individual

:03:53.:03:54.

constituency cases and examples given from all sides of the house

:03:55.:03:59.

here today. As has been mentioned, Kadcyla is a life extending

:04:00.:04:02.

treatment giving some women with incurable secondary breast cancer up

:04:03.:04:06.

to nine months longer than the alternatives and has fewer side

:04:07.:04:10.

effects at a cost of 90,000 per patient. In Scotland Kadcyla has

:04:11.:04:16.

never been available on the NHS, the Scottish medicines Consortium which

:04:17.:04:19.

makes its decisions independently of ministers and Parliament decided in

:04:20.:04:23.

October 2014 not to approve Kadcyla for routine use in Scotland after

:04:24.:04:26.

considering all available evidence, they felt the treatment cost in

:04:27.:04:31.

relation to benefits was not sufficient. Patients have only been

:04:32.:04:35.

able to access it in exceptional circumstances to individual patient

:04:36.:04:40.

treatment requests. It is estimated over 100 women in Scotland would

:04:41.:04:45.

benefit from Kadcyla annually. A Kadcyla discount has been offered by

:04:46.:04:50.

the pharmaceutical company Roche and they wrote to Scottish Government

:04:51.:04:54.

officials about a patient access scheme. They've resubmitted their

:04:55.:04:57.

application so it can be considered for routine use across the NHS in

:04:58.:05:05.

Scotland. It's being assessed. ... I thank my honourable friend for

:05:06.:05:08.

giving way, I wonder if he will join me in my hopes for a positive

:05:09.:05:14.

outcome in relation to Kadcyla for our constituents who are affected by

:05:15.:05:19.

secondary breast cancer. And for whom this debate means so much

:05:20.:05:23.

today. I thank my colleague for making that point and I would join

:05:24.:05:27.

with her in hoping for the positive outcome, we expect a decision can be

:05:28.:05:31.

made in March with a decision on 10th of April. I look forward to

:05:32.:05:36.

that. The SNP Scottish Government has substantially increased access

:05:37.:05:39.

to new medicines particularly for cancer with a number of reforms and

:05:40.:05:43.

investment in recent years. The Scottish Government will build on

:05:44.:05:47.

recent reforms and make further improvements by collaboration with

:05:48.:05:50.

patients and NHS staff by accepting recommendations of the Doctor Brian

:05:51.:05:54.

Montgomery review. Jordan Robertson Cabinet Secretary for health,

:05:55.:05:57.

well-being and sport, announce the Scottish Government will take

:05:58.:06:03.

forward all 28 of the review's recommendations. Doctor Montgomery

:06:04.:06:06.

was tasked to examine how the changes to the Consortium process in

:06:07.:06:12.

2014 access affected access to medicines for end of life

:06:13.:06:15.

conditions. The process for appraising medicines can be made

:06:16.:06:20.

more open, transparent and robust. Amongst the Montgomery

:06:21.:06:24.

recommendations, I will not list all 28, is giving the SMC the option of

:06:25.:06:31.

an interim recommendation for use subject to ongoing evaluation, which

:06:32.:06:38.

will allow the collection of data on real-world effectiveness. There is

:06:39.:06:41.

managed access agreements, a medicine provided at a discounted

:06:42.:06:46.

price for a period of time to perfect data on its effectiveness.

:06:47.:06:51.

As well as making use of the NHS services in Scotland to lead

:06:52.:06:54.

negotiations on cost with the industry to get the fairest price

:06:55.:06:58.

possible. And better capturing of patient outcome data, as it's vital

:06:59.:07:02.

we can determine whether medicines are bringing the level of benefits

:07:03.:07:06.

to patients that are expected. Beyond the recommendations of the

:07:07.:07:09.

review Miss Robertson has announced improvements to the process for the

:07:10.:07:13.

nonroutine access to medicines on an individual case by case basis. The

:07:14.:07:20.

approved clinical Systems piloted in Glasgow 2015 to handle applications

:07:21.:07:23.

for medicines has been successfully rolled out across Scotland. The

:07:24.:07:27.

second tier of packs will be introduced to build upon the

:07:28.:07:31.

existing individual patient treatment request system. This will

:07:32.:07:39.

include consideration of equity of access with other parts of the UK as

:07:40.:07:43.

a material part of its decision-making process. In November

:07:44.:07:49.

the senior public affairs manager of Cancer UK in Scotland said SMC does

:07:50.:07:53.

a difficult but necessary job to assess whether new cancer drugs

:07:54.:07:58.

should be made available on the NHS. Following the SMC forums we've been

:07:59.:08:01.

pleased to see a significant increase in the availability of

:08:02.:08:05.

cancer drugs in Scotland and we support the review's recommendations

:08:06.:08:09.

to make further progress. Breast cancer now has said the Scottish

:08:10.:08:12.

Government reforms give fresh hope for a system that will put patients

:08:13.:08:17.

and their families first and said Scotland's approach to reform is a

:08:18.:08:20.

useful example to the rest of the UK about ways in which the system can

:08:21.:08:27.

be improved. I thank my honourable friend for giving way and reflecting

:08:28.:08:32.

upon his words in relation to the flexibility of approach and the need

:08:33.:08:35.

to continue to keep pushing forward to make sure we allow access, as

:08:36.:08:41.

many of these drugs as possible for the people in such need. I wonder if

:08:42.:08:45.

he would join with me in commending the Scottish Government for that

:08:46.:08:49.

approach and hoping that approach continuing will make some

:08:50.:08:53.

difference. Yes, I thank my honourable friend for making those

:08:54.:08:57.

points and will indeed join with her in those comments. A new Scottish

:08:58.:09:01.

cancer strategy was launched in 2016, which is very ambitious and

:09:02.:09:06.

aims to stop anyone dying of breast cancer by 2015 and breast cancer is

:09:07.:09:11.

a priority in the detect cancer early initiative, there are many

:09:12.:09:13.

things we need to move forward in that direction. No debate seems

:09:14.:09:18.

complete without reference to Brexit. This issue is no exception.

:09:19.:09:22.

Given the Health Secretary has stated the UK will not be in the

:09:23.:09:27.

European medicines agency, DMA, there could be implications as to

:09:28.:09:31.

how medicines are regulated and marketing authorisations will be

:09:32.:09:33.

required from the medicines and health care products regulatory

:09:34.:09:39.

agency for the UK. I'm in no doubt the implications of that will be

:09:40.:09:43.

less efficiency and possibly a longer process for obtaining

:09:44.:09:46.

authorisations, resulting, I fear coming innovative drugs taken longer

:09:47.:09:51.

to reach patients. Some industry leaders predict it in the region of

:09:52.:09:55.

150 days based on the examples of Switzerland and Canada. According to

:09:56.:10:01.

a piece that appeared last in the Financial Times, when Sir Michael

:10:02.:10:04.

won instead of the NHRA was asked whether it would be able to take on

:10:05.:10:08.

all the extra work registering new drugs and medical devices currently

:10:09.:10:13.

carried out by the BMA, he said, I quote "Certainly not". A

:10:14.:10:17.

considerable investment and recruitment will be required to

:10:18.:10:20.

re-establish it as a stand-alone national regulator and I would be

:10:21.:10:23.

keen to hear from the Minister out alleged drug access for UK patients

:10:24.:10:27.

will be avoided. In conclusion, with regards to Kadcyla... He raises are

:10:28.:10:44.

very good point. But there has been a problem with regard to the costs

:10:45.:10:50.

involved. Kelly say, I hope the government will be able to find a

:10:51.:10:56.

better way through the system then we have previously heard. I hope

:10:57.:11:01.

that could solve the problem of the European medicines agency but we

:11:02.:11:06.

will also have a better regular regulatory system afterwards. In

:11:07.:11:16.

conclusion, with regard to Kadcyla, I hope it's resubmission is at a

:11:17.:11:20.

fair price for its possible use in Scotland. It could give sufferers

:11:21.:11:31.

Fisher are detained with their families and loved ones. We know

:11:32.:11:36.

need pharmaceutical companies to do the bit by bringing forward much

:11:37.:11:41.

fear pricing for new medicines, so excess is as wide as possible for

:11:42.:11:46.

the people of Scotland. Cost-effectiveness is the key marker

:11:47.:11:49.

for making sure drugs are readily available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr

:11:50.:11:59.

Deputy Speaker. I want to thank my honourable friend for securing this

:12:00.:12:08.

debate following the very sad news that her friend, who had been

:12:09.:12:13.

receiving this life extending treatment, we had just heard that

:12:14.:12:17.

her life had been taken away from her. I am pleased that this very

:12:18.:12:22.

important debate, she was able to secure it with the backbench

:12:23.:12:26.

committee. I want to thank all colleagues who have attended today

:12:27.:12:30.

and made excellent speeches, revealed she prefers the experiences

:12:31.:12:35.

and thoughts, from the Honourable member for Milton Keynes South and

:12:36.:12:46.

Portsmouth South. I want to thank Honourable friends from a range of

:12:47.:12:50.

other constituencies who have taken part today. I am sure the minister

:12:51.:13:01.

has been given a lot to think about and I look forward to hearing the

:13:02.:13:07.

response shortly. Finally, I want to thank breast cancer and no, for the

:13:08.:13:12.

campaigning work. Also, breast Cancer care for their continued

:13:13.:13:20.

support. In my contribution, I will briefly established the documented

:13:21.:13:26.

than perceived benefits of Kadcyla. I will then look at the provision of

:13:27.:13:33.

the drugs and the problems with determining the funding of the drugs

:13:34.:13:38.

on its cost-effectiveness as judged by NICE. Funding through the breast

:13:39.:13:50.

Council scheme in 2015 was a great success. At the time, the value of

:13:51.:14:01.

the drug was fairly successful. It was decided that the cost of it was

:14:02.:14:05.

worth it, given its effectiveness. However, the future funding of the

:14:06.:14:16.

drug is no underestimate. It joins another of secondary breast cancer

:14:17.:14:29.

drugs. It becomes a funding solution for the problems of the research. It

:14:30.:14:36.

was a funder of Toronto trip to expensive to be recommended by NICE.

:14:37.:14:45.

We can all agree that patients have benefited from the introduction of

:14:46.:14:50.

the cancer drugs from. But there is a risk know that access will be

:14:51.:14:56.

restricted. This is no surprise, given the cash strapped national

:14:57.:15:01.

Health Service. There are pleasures to provide these costly drugs

:15:02.:15:06.

developed by these pharmaceutical companies and is forced to look at

:15:07.:15:11.

cost rather than clinical need. Her response would be welcome of the

:15:12.:15:16.

Minister could outline concerns around these issues, if they have

:15:17.:15:20.

been addressed and assessed. We have had a number of good suggestions

:15:21.:15:25.

today about how funding may be redirected. Thank you for giving

:15:26.:15:34.

way. Is this not all the more poignant by virtue of the fact that

:15:35.:15:39.

since 2001, the incidences of breast cancer goes up by 9% every year? She

:15:40.:15:49.

makes a really good point. That could also be through the diagnosis

:15:50.:15:56.

of breast cancer, perhaps more people coming forward to be

:15:57.:16:01.

diagnosed than previously. But it is going to become more of an issue,

:16:02.:16:05.

not less of one in the years to come. As we have here today, Kadcyla

:16:06.:16:12.

is said to benefit 1200 women in England alone. It can increase life

:16:13.:16:20.

expectancy by six months. For some women, it can stretch in two years.

:16:21.:16:25.

But even if measured in months. Those months are surely priceless to

:16:26.:16:30.

the women and families involved. I speak from personal experience,

:16:31.:16:35.

because I lost my mother-in-law to secondary breast cancer 20 years

:16:36.:16:40.

ago. That was when my children were very small. I know that she

:16:41.:16:46.

treasured every day in the end of the done anything to spend another

:16:47.:16:53.

six months with her grandchildren. We wanted that. For all those 12 --

:16:54.:17:00.

1200 women, it is time for the children perhaps reach one more may

:17:01.:17:04.

all stored with their families, to see the children starting school

:17:05.:17:09.

perhaps, getting married, starting university, perhaps having a go in

:17:10.:17:13.

Sheffield. These memories are so precious and who families are able

:17:14.:17:22.

to cope with what inevitably follows. I am very grateful. She has

:17:23.:17:32.

made a very powerful point and an important point. The most aggressive

:17:33.:17:42.

of cancers, the period between diagnosis, that can be very short.

:17:43.:17:48.

Any extension of life, as you rightly say, to celebrate family

:17:49.:17:54.

events or anything else, is incredibly important and we should

:17:55.:17:59.

not lose sight of that. I agree. What price can be put on those

:18:00.:18:08.

precious months? Thank you. I have some investment in this. My only

:18:09.:18:12.

experience of breast cancer treatment over the past three years

:18:13.:18:16.

has left me really passionate about the issue of prevention. As well as

:18:17.:18:22.

thanking the breast cancer charities and she has done, but calling on all

:18:23.:18:27.

of us to spread the word through women we do to make sure they go for

:18:28.:18:35.

screening tests. I learnt about it through a television programme. I

:18:36.:18:41.

want people to what they can do to prevent breast cancer, because that

:18:42.:18:45.

is ways that the risk can be prevented. It is no magic cure, but

:18:46.:18:53.

it can be reduced. Thank you. We have not touched on prevention or

:18:54.:18:57.

early diagnosis, but they are absolutely vital points to be made.

:18:58.:19:03.

We have two looked at these in this house before in other debates are

:19:04.:19:08.

lame really grateful for my honourable friend reasoning that

:19:09.:19:13.

point. I am happy every day to see her back here in this place. What

:19:14.:19:21.

stands out with Kadcyla is the reduced side-effects. They can enjoy

:19:22.:19:29.

include the inducement of osteoporosis. Also, the increased

:19:30.:19:37.

chance of blood clots. The side-effects of some cancer

:19:38.:19:39.

treatments can be truly awful and are often too daunting to prevent

:19:40.:19:47.

the use of further treatment. It is the common perception that women

:19:48.:19:51.

make the perception to India treatment earlier than planned. This

:19:52.:19:55.

is often because the suffering they are in June because of the treatment

:19:56.:20:00.

is not worth the additional life it is pervading. It is all about the

:20:01.:20:06.

quality of her life. In the search conducted in the United States, with

:20:07.:20:11.

regard to side-effects commonly found less than 5% of women suffered

:20:12.:20:20.

a knee loss of here. We know that hearing loss can be highly traumatic

:20:21.:20:24.

for women undergoing cancer treatment. It is one of the most

:20:25.:20:29.

discussed side-effects of cancer. Given that we are discussing

:20:30.:20:35.

secondary breast cancer, which is ultimately terminal, the best

:20:36.:20:38.

outcome we can offer through treatment is both the extension and

:20:39.:20:43.

preservation of the quality of life enjoyed pre-diagnosis. Because

:20:44.:20:50.

Kadcyla causes fewer side effects, it represents a treatment which can

:20:51.:20:54.

effectively achieved not only an extension but he preservation of

:20:55.:20:57.

some of the quality of life to be enjoyed by these women

:20:58.:21:01.

pre-diagnosis. Look forward to hearing from Minister of what she is

:21:02.:21:06.

doing to ensure that women will continue to benefit from this fatal

:21:07.:21:11.

treatment in the future. Also, how we can support of patented drugs.

:21:12.:21:17.

Drug patents often worse for 20 years, sometimes ten years. At the

:21:18.:21:22.

end of it, that is very little incentive for these to be licensed.

:21:23.:21:27.

These drugs are still in many places clinically effective and can be very

:21:28.:21:34.

cost-effective. Currently, the NHS has no means of making them readily

:21:35.:21:43.

available. Did somebody asked me to give way? No, I am hearing things!

:21:44.:21:53.

That has not been made available to patients despite its effectiveness.

:21:54.:21:59.

If that was given to the entire eligible population, it could

:22:00.:22:03.

prevent one in ten cancer deaths. It is concerning that in research

:22:04.:22:09.

carried out by cancer groups, only 24% of clinicians were offering

:22:10.:22:15.

these two patients. Solving the issue is therefore an opportunity to

:22:16.:22:21.

help breast cancer survival rates and is something I hope the minister

:22:22.:22:27.

will consider carefully. I want to finish by talking about the cost

:22:28.:22:31.

effectiveness of drugs. At the moment, NICE as they would system

:22:32.:22:44.

for quantifying it. It is almost impossible to objectively measure

:22:45.:22:47.

someone's quality of life. The question surrounding the morality of

:22:48.:22:53.

attempting to do so, even. Is raised in the social value judgment paper

:22:54.:23:00.

by NICE, as is so often the case, a clear cause of the problem you lies

:23:01.:23:11.

with: NICE assesses these drugs. Drug acceptance and funding is

:23:12.:23:15.

determined solely by clinical meat, not the cost of value

:23:16.:23:22.

considerations. It is clearly a need to be addressed these issues. Breast

:23:23.:23:31.

cancer patients have to consider considerable side-effects, but they

:23:32.:23:35.

have been greatly lessened and this has led to a much higher quality of

:23:36.:23:41.

life post diagnosis. At the moment, it is almost impossible for NICE two

:23:42.:23:48.

reissue of this quality of life. We can see that these individuals would

:23:49.:23:55.

suffer a law quality of life without Kadcyla. This deserves more

:23:56.:23:59.

attention in value with regard to drug approval and funding. To end,

:24:00.:24:04.

the state funding of jobs at the moment is becoming based on cost

:24:05.:24:07.

effectiveness rather than the clinical needs. As the debate has

:24:08.:24:12.

shown, it should not be the only deciding factor. It disregards many

:24:13.:24:16.

personal reasons for many people who rely drug treatments. Kadcyla Has

:24:17.:24:25.

benefited many people. It has been pooled devastatingly out of their

:24:26.:24:29.

reach. The Minister has the lever of power to address the problems within

:24:30.:24:33.

the system which is letting them down. Members across the chamber

:24:34.:24:37.

have eloquently made the case today. I hope they have listened and she

:24:38.:24:43.

will give some reassurances to them and their families today. Thank you.

:24:44.:24:52.

A large number of very important and technical points have been raised

:24:53.:24:58.

today. I will do my best to respond. I hope colleagues will allow me to

:24:59.:25:05.

write to them. Kennedy congratulate the honourable member for securing

:25:06.:25:11.

the debate. I would like to join the house in paying tribute to the work

:25:12.:25:19.

that she has done. She has campaigned tirelessly to improve

:25:20.:25:24.

access to cancer drugs for her constituents and as she and. Cancer

:25:25.:25:33.

is a truly terrible disease earned, clear from the mini moving

:25:34.:25:36.

contributions we have here today, there are a few of us who have not

:25:37.:25:38.

been touched by it. These stories are us why we're here

:25:39.:26:08.

today. There is an all-party group for almost every disease known to

:26:09.:26:12.

man, perhaps with the exception of rigor mortis. If patience and

:26:13.:26:19.

campaigners are to have confidence in clinical decision making, there

:26:20.:26:23.

will have to be profound changes, rather than them bringing lobbying

:26:24.:26:28.

to MPs who are uniquely unqualified to make those decisions. Can I

:26:29.:26:32.

suggest to my honourable friend that one of those changes might need to

:26:33.:26:40.

be a thorough review of the framework and guidance under which

:26:41.:26:45.

NICE operates? My honourable friend makes a very important point which

:26:46.:26:48.

has been made by a number of colleagues today. I'll address it

:26:49.:26:51.

further in the speech if you will allow me. We do want to lead the

:26:52.:26:57.

world in the UK in fighting cancer. Survival rates in this country have

:26:58.:27:02.

never been higher but we must go further. While medicines of a vital

:27:03.:27:05.

weapon in the battle against cancer, we must not forget the bigger

:27:06.:27:11.

picture. More than half of people receiving cancer diagnosis live ten

:27:12.:27:15.

years or more. 96% of women diagnosed with breast cancer in

:27:16.:27:20.

England with more than a year after diagnosis, 86% will live five years

:27:21.:27:26.

and 81% at least ten years. Improving outcomes for all cancers

:27:27.:27:31.

remains a priority for this government. Our mandate is to make

:27:32.:27:35.

England one of the most successful countries in Europe at preventing

:27:36.:27:38.

premature death for all cancers and we're working to achieve this

:27:39.:27:42.

through the of our most recent cancer strategy. As the honourable

:27:43.:27:47.

lady for Bristol West says, early diagnosis and prevention is

:27:48.:27:50.

essential to achieving this and the faster diagnosis standard will speed

:27:51.:27:55.

up diagnosis of all cancer. The new standard is to ensure every patient

:27:56.:27:59.

referred for an investigation but suspicion of cancer is diagnosed or

:28:00.:28:03.

has cancer ruled out within 28 days. It's important we support further

:28:04.:28:07.

clinical research as it can have high impact on cancer survival

:28:08.:28:12.

rates, which is why the NHRC and 42 million on cancer research in

:28:13.:28:17.

2015-2016. We mustn't forget the vital research carried out by the

:28:18.:28:20.

cancer charities supported by the millions of pounds donated by

:28:21.:28:25.

members of the public each year. The government does fully understand how

:28:26.:28:29.

important it is people are able to access new and promising drug

:28:30.:28:32.

treatments for people affected by cancer, and we firmly believe

:28:33.:28:36.

clinically appropriate drugs established as cost-effective should

:28:37.:28:39.

be routinely available to NHS patients. All of us know these

:28:40.:28:44.

decisions which can be fiendishly complex will never be easy. We know

:28:45.:28:49.

from long experience in this place they should not be made by arbitrate

:28:50.:28:55.

intervention of politicians. They must be clinically led and made on

:28:56.:29:00.

the basis of the best available evidence and be frequently reviewed

:29:01.:29:03.

when new evidence come forward. That is why it is right for NICE to play

:29:04.:29:07.

this role in providing independent evidence -based guidance for the NHS

:29:08.:29:13.

on whether significant new drugs represent a clinically and

:29:14.:29:17.

cost-effective use of NHS resources. If a drug is recommended by NICE the

:29:18.:29:21.

NHS is legally required to fund it and over the years many thousands

:29:22.:29:26.

have benefited from the cancer drugs NICE has recommended. These include

:29:27.:29:33.

transformative drugs for cancer. Drugs for skin cancer and prostate

:29:34.:29:42.

cancer. Unfortunately, there are cancer drugs NICE is not able to

:29:43.:29:46.

recommend as clinically and cost-effective on the basis of the

:29:47.:29:49.

evidence available to it. That is why the government established the

:29:50.:29:54.

cancer drugs funding England and since October 2010 we've invested

:29:55.:29:58.

more than 1.2 billion in the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has helped over

:29:59.:30:02.

95,000 people in England to access life extending cancer drugs that

:30:03.:30:05.

would not otherwise have been available. In July last year NHS

:30:06.:30:11.

England NICE introduced a new operating model which builds on this

:30:12.:30:15.

and ensures the fund isn't based on a more stable footing in the future.

:30:16.:30:22.

Three key objectives, to make sure there is fast access to promising

:30:23.:30:25.

new treatments, that taxpayers get good value for money on drug

:30:26.:30:29.

expenditure, and pharmaceutical companies are willing to price

:30:30.:30:33.

products responsibly and access a new fast track to NHS funding for

:30:34.:30:37.

the best and most promising drugs. As part of the transition to the new

:30:38.:30:42.

operating model, ice is looking at whether drugs previously available

:30:43.:30:44.

through the fund should be funded through baseline funding in future.

:30:45.:30:48.

Ice has recently been able to recommend to all these drugs for

:30:49.:30:55.

breast cancer. -- recommend two of these drugs. These will be routinely

:30:56.:31:02.

available to patients. It was able to recommend these products taking

:31:03.:31:08.

into account patient access schemes. As we are discussing today, they

:31:09.:31:15.

also reappraised Kadcyla. As the honourable member rightly explained

:31:16.:31:18.

they consulted on its draft guidance but were not able to recommend the

:31:19.:31:22.

drug as it was too expensive for the benefits it gives and could not be

:31:23.:31:26.

recommended for routine use. As my honourable friend the honourable

:31:27.:31:31.

member for Milton Keynes South said, it's important to stress NICE has

:31:32.:31:37.

not issued its final guidance on Kadcyla. And we'll take responses on

:31:38.:31:42.

the recent consultation fully into account on developing its final

:31:43.:31:46.

recommendations. It allows time for further negotiation between NICE and

:31:47.:31:51.

Roche. That is why the debate today has been of value. I appreciate this

:31:52.:31:55.

is an anxious time for women with breast cancer but I hope all here

:31:56.:32:00.

today will appreciate these are very difficult decisions to make and NICE

:32:01.:32:05.

must be able to make these decisions free from political interference. I

:32:06.:32:09.

assure the house that regardless of the outcome of the appraisal NHS

:32:10.:32:13.

England will continue to fund Kadcyla through the CDF for all

:32:14.:32:16.

patients who have already begun treatment. The honourable lady and

:32:17.:32:22.

others also raised the importance of access to bisphosphonate for cancer

:32:23.:32:32.

patients. The use of off label land off patents drugs is common in

:32:33.:32:35.

clinical practice, there is no regulatory barrier to their

:32:36.:32:41.

prescription and NICE issues advice to clinicians on new off label uses

:32:42.:32:50.

of drugs. The honourable member made an important and informed speech on

:32:51.:32:55.

this issue which proves... Just over ten minutes, I think... Why he is

:32:56.:33:01.

the chair of the committee. Progress needs to be made and the working

:33:02.:33:06.

group is about to review its latest progress in the next month. I shall

:33:07.:33:12.

certainly raise the issues he has put forward with my colleague the

:33:13.:33:16.

noble lord or Shaughnessy who is responsible for this policy area. I

:33:17.:33:19.

ask him to respond, especially regarding the sharing of the working

:33:20.:33:24.

group's progress, and an update regarding the publication, which was

:33:25.:33:27.

raised by the honourable member for Wythenshawe. He would perhaps like

:33:28.:33:32.

to know the Association for medical and research charities is working

:33:33.:33:35.

with the Department of Health to facilitate and improve take-up of

:33:36.:33:39.

robust research findings to the repurposed drugs where appropriate

:33:40.:33:42.

for the patient. I suspect he knows it given the nature of his speech.

:33:43.:33:46.

For those other colleagues who intervened on this point,

:33:47.:33:52.

bisphosphonate is medicine used to treat osteoporosis. As colleagues

:33:53.:33:57.

note, they are used for other medical conditions including

:33:58.:34:00.

reducing the risk of primary breast cancer. Based on research in the

:34:01.:34:04.

Lancet in 2015. Which found they could be used to help women being

:34:05.:34:12.

treated with early breast cancer. They can reduce the risk of cancer

:34:13.:34:17.

spreading by 28%. Because there is good research evidence that supports

:34:18.:34:21.

their use they can be prescribed to patients for this purpose where

:34:22.:34:24.

prescribers consider this meet their clinical needs. I am aware there are

:34:25.:34:29.

concerns about access to bisphosphonate and prescription of

:34:30.:34:33.

them for this purpose is variable. There may be some confusion at local

:34:34.:34:38.

level as to who is responsible for commissioning them for this use. I

:34:39.:34:43.

am happy to share NHS England's advice on these points, whilst NHS

:34:44.:34:47.

England is responsible for commissioning specialist services,

:34:48.:34:49.

the manual for specialised services makes it clear the decision to

:34:50.:34:53.

prescribe bisphosphonate rests with the initial and patient. Honourable

:34:54.:35:00.

members may be aware NICE is currently updating its guideline on

:35:01.:35:05.

the diagnosis and management of early breast cancer and the use of

:35:06.:35:09.

bisphosphonate will be considered part of this. Guidance is due in

:35:10.:35:14.

2018 and my officials have spoken to NICE about the timescale, given

:35:15.:35:20.

concerns about the prescription of bisphosphonate. NICE is looking at

:35:21.:35:24.

the feasibility of bringing forward recommendations on use of

:35:25.:35:27.

bisphosphonate. It will be important to consider what implications might

:35:28.:35:30.

be for the timescale of the remainder of the guideline. I'll be

:35:31.:35:34.

happy to keep the house updated on that decision. The government is not

:35:35.:35:40.

complacent about the availability of breast cancer drugs and we are

:35:41.:35:43.

looking for measures to drive greater access to innovative

:35:44.:35:46.

technologies. As the member for Norfolk zero mentioned we've

:35:47.:35:49.

accelerated the access review which published its final report in

:35:50.:35:56.

October, setting out how the UK can increase access to devices and

:35:57.:36:01.

diagnostics for NHS patients and create a more attractive environment

:36:02.:36:06.

for investors. We'll respond to the review in the spring. NICE has two

:36:07.:36:12.

continue to evolve to change as in the development of new drugs and the

:36:13.:36:16.

development of the health and care system. Given the time, I'll respond

:36:17.:36:23.

to the need to respond to these in writing. We'll continue to work with

:36:24.:36:27.

NICE to ensure its methods remain fit for purpose. We have to remember

:36:28.:36:33.

improving outcomes for cancer patients is not just about drugs,

:36:34.:36:37.

that's why we accepted or 96 recommendations in the independent

:36:38.:36:43.

cancer task force report. The recommendations are a consensus of

:36:44.:36:46.

the whole cancer community on what is needed to transform cancer care

:36:47.:36:52.

across the whole pathway, from prevention and early diagnosis to

:36:53.:36:55.

living with and beyond cancer, and is dealing with side-effects

:36:56.:36:58.

mentioned so movingly by the Shadow minister. We are implementing this

:36:59.:37:04.

through a strategy which was published in May, and we hope to see

:37:05.:37:10.

great progress as it is delivered. As was made clear by the speeches of

:37:11.:37:13.

so many today, breast cancer affects so many today. That is why we invest

:37:14.:37:23.

so much in cancer services. So that more people may survive cancer and

:37:24.:37:26.

more people live better with cancer. They need rapid access to more

:37:27.:37:31.

effective treatments, surgery, radiotherapy or drugs. That is what

:37:32.:37:35.

I want to see, that is what this government will deliver. I'm sure

:37:36.:37:41.

the whole house will want to join me in congratulating all who have

:37:42.:37:44.

fought and survived breast cancer. We will want to stand alongside

:37:45.:37:48.

everybody who is living with a diagnosis of breast cancer, battling

:37:49.:37:53.

treatment, and living with all this sometimes hidden day-to-day impact

:37:54.:37:57.

of breast cancer. I'm quite sure we will want to remember all those who

:37:58.:38:02.

fought valiantly but lost the battle with breast cancer. We've made much

:38:03.:38:06.

progress in improving care, providing drugs, funding research,

:38:07.:38:10.

but we know there is much more we can and must do to fight this

:38:11.:38:14.

disease. I hope each and every one of you here today we'll do what

:38:15.:38:18.

you've been doing today and told us to account as we move on and try to

:38:19.:38:24.

do just that. -- hold us to account. Siobhan McDonagh to wind-up. Summing

:38:25.:38:29.

up can I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate and

:38:30.:38:33.

thank the Minister for her detailed response. Most importantly, can I

:38:34.:38:38.

thank those women in the public gallery for coming here to show

:38:39.:38:41.

their support for this debate en masse. I wish every single one of

:38:42.:38:46.

them well and hope they will join me for tea after this debate. Perhaps

:38:47.:38:52.

unconventionally may I also invite any of the honourable members and

:38:53.:38:56.

right Honourable members here who would also like to join those women

:38:57.:39:04.

to join us 40 two thank them for their efforts in campaigning and to

:39:05.:39:11.

understand more about their case. Can I expressly invite Suzanne, the

:39:12.:39:18.

member Wythenshawe and sail east's office, there is a cake in the room

:39:19.:39:22.

with her name on it. Happy birthday, Suzanne. The question is as on the

:39:23.:39:32.

order paper. As many as Arafat opinion say I. Of the contrary know.

:39:33.:39:38.

Russian number two on business of the house. The Minister to move. Beg

:39:39.:39:45.

to move. The question is as on the order paper. Chris Leslie. Mad in

:39:46.:39:52.

jeopardy speaker thank you very much, I was hoping the Minister

:39:53.:39:57.

might at least explain to the house and those watching proceedings what

:39:58.:40:01.

the effect of his motion would be. In fact, it's the very first step,

:40:02.:40:07.

perhaps not necessarily an entirely bad one, but it's the first step in

:40:08.:40:13.

the concertina of the debate process.

:40:14.:40:21.

The process of making shorter the time for the House to consider the

:40:22.:40:28.

European Union Withdraw Bill, as it ought to be called. Because this is

:40:29.:40:34.

a motion which seeks to allow members and honourable members the

:40:35.:40:37.

opportunity to table amendments to the committee stage consideration of

:40:38.:40:43.

this legislation hurdle at this point, well, after the passing of

:40:44.:40:49.

this motion this afternoon, rather than, as is the usual procedure as I

:40:50.:40:52.

understand it, which is that amendments for committee stage are

:40:53.:40:57.

not normally allowed to be tabled until after the second reading has

:40:58.:40:59.

been heard and debated and voted upon. Madame Deputy Speaker, I

:41:00.:41:06.

understand that there are good reasons for that particular

:41:07.:41:10.

convention. Those reasons I suppose we're late to the fact that

:41:11.:41:15.

honourable members would normally want to hear from government

:41:16.:41:22.

ministers and other honourable members their thoughts on the

:41:23.:41:25.

principle of the legislation at first, before then having the

:41:26.:41:28.

opportunity to reflect on what has been set, reflect on the policy of

:41:29.:41:32.

the government, and at that point, then, table their amendments. I

:41:33.:41:39.

thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does it not strike him

:41:40.:41:44.

as somewhat odd, given that it somewhat makes the assumption that

:41:45.:41:48.

the bill is going to pass its second reading, and that there might not be

:41:49.:41:53.

any amendments made to it - we can all make our calculations, but on a

:41:54.:41:56.

point of principle, it seems to be odd that we are assuming this bill

:41:57.:41:59.

will go automatically to second reading before we even get to that

:42:00.:42:03.

stage? My honourable friend is entirely correct. There is a lot of

:42:04.:42:06.

assumptions which this government seems to make, it is part of their

:42:07.:42:11.

general instinct to railroad legislation through. But

:42:12.:42:15.

particularly with this piece of legislation, making assumptions that

:42:16.:42:18.

the House will have nothing much of any consequence to say about one of

:42:19.:42:25.

the most important issues in our generation, fact that the UK will be

:42:26.:42:30.

withdrawing from the European Union. And of course, I suspect that there

:42:31.:42:35.

will indeed be very many amendments that honourable members will want to

:42:36.:42:40.

table under this particular motion, Madame Deputy Speaker, should it be

:42:41.:42:44.

passed. But I would say, Madame Deputy Speaker, to the minister that

:42:45.:42:49.

I think it is massively regrettable that the government are taking this

:42:50.:42:52.

particular approach. They could have taken a far more relaxed, open

:42:53.:42:58.

approach to dialogue and to debate, listening to the issues which are

:42:59.:43:01.

raised from all sides when amendments are tabled in the normal

:43:02.:43:08.

course of events, rebutting them if they so wish. But instead, this is

:43:09.:43:14.

an approach which I think speaks volumes to the frailty and the fear

:43:15.:43:20.

that ministers have of ordinary debate and discussion in the House

:43:21.:43:23.

of Commons. Because honourable members do have a lot to say about

:43:24.:43:29.

this particular piece of legislation. For myself, I don't

:43:30.:43:35.

believe that we can ignore the outcome of the referendum, but

:43:36.:43:39.

withdrawing from the European Union has phenomenal consequences. Southee

:43:40.:43:43.

amendments that may we -- that we may wish to table have to cover, in

:43:44.:43:47.

my view, all of those issues surrounding the triggering of

:43:48.:43:52.

Article 50. Whilst I understand that the minister in moving this motion

:43:53.:43:55.

is seeking to allow and afford members the opportunity to table

:43:56.:43:59.

amendments in advance of the weekend, before second reading

:44:00.:44:04.

occurs, I do think it would be regrettable if we lose that space

:44:05.:44:08.

between second reading and committee stage for people to reflect on some

:44:09.:44:13.

very, very important things, one of which, of course, is this question

:44:14.:44:17.

of the white paper. The white paper which the Prime Minister has

:44:18.:44:21.

conceded we are going to have, and as yet we still do not know when

:44:22.:44:23.

such a white paper will be published. If we have the white

:44:24.:44:27.

paper today, it might help us informed the amendments which in an

:44:28.:44:31.

hour's time, we might be able to table. This is actually a very

:44:32.:44:36.

narrow motion and it is about the tabling of amendments. And I think

:44:37.:44:42.

the honourable gentleman is kind of moving into the direction of white

:44:43.:44:45.

papers. I'm going to be very strict about keeping to the wording of this

:44:46.:44:48.

amendment. If he comes back to that, I will allow him to continue. I will

:44:49.:44:55.

give way in a moment. Madame Deputy Speaker, you are entirely short and

:44:56.:44:58.

to focus very much on the narrow nature of this particular motion. I

:44:59.:45:02.

believe that the motion should have made reference to the white paper in

:45:03.:45:05.

this particular process because although it allows members to table

:45:06.:45:10.

amendments before the second reading process, it does not necessarily

:45:11.:45:13.

mean that we can table amendments in view of the white paper having been

:45:14.:45:18.

published. It is in expectation that we are tabling amendments perhaps

:45:19.:45:22.

beyond that second reading period when the white paper that has been

:45:23.:45:30.

promised will not be available. I thank my honourable friend. This

:45:31.:45:35.

bill has clearly been tabled with great speed following the Supreme

:45:36.:45:39.

Court decision. We are I understand not being given that long a time to

:45:40.:45:44.

debate it. Is he, and are we certain, that given the complex

:45:45.:45:48.

cities of this, that this bill is fully compliant with the judgment of

:45:49.:45:51.

the Supreme Court, particularly with regard to triggering Article 50?

:45:52.:45:56.

Well, I would not want to stray beyond the precise terms of the

:45:57.:46:00.

motion that we have before us, which I appreciate is very much about the

:46:01.:46:03.

timing of the tabling of amendments. But my honourable friend does point

:46:04.:46:08.

is something I think which will definitely not just come up in

:46:09.:46:11.

debate in the second reading, but could be something which he himself

:46:12.:46:14.

could consider as an amendments to the legislation. I give way. If I

:46:15.:46:19.

might help, the point he makes about the white paper and its relation to

:46:20.:46:22.

amendments which might be tabled is a very good one, because members may

:46:23.:46:28.

wish to table amendments and new clauses and schedules which relate

:46:29.:46:32.

to issues which they are not happy with, and which we are yet to see.

:46:33.:46:36.

So there is a very, very practical concern here, about being able to

:46:37.:46:39.

table amendments before we have had a proper presentation of facts by

:46:40.:46:45.

the Government. Can I make a helpful suggestion that members put their

:46:46.:46:48.

name down to speak in the debate on Tuesday, at which point all of this

:46:49.:46:56.

would be very relevant? I appreciate that, Madame Deputy Speaker, but

:46:57.:46:58.

this motion we are debating today about the timing of the tabling of

:46:59.:47:03.

amendments is a symptom of the Government, which strategy in

:47:04.:47:05.

relation to its approach to the withdrawal of the UK from the

:47:06.:47:09.

European Union. And therefore I think it is entirely appropriate

:47:10.:47:13.

that the House spots that, recognises what's going on here,

:47:14.:47:16.

because this is the very first step in the compression of this process,

:47:17.:47:22.

where normally, members would have, for very good historic reasons, long

:47:23.:47:27.

established by convention, the right to listen to ministers at second

:47:28.:47:30.

reading, reflect on those thoughts before tabling amendments. But what

:47:31.:47:35.

ministers are intent on doing is running this bill through the House

:47:36.:47:38.

of Commons without thinking of the consequences of that, leaving

:47:39.:47:42.

honourable members the opportunity to table amendments at this stage,

:47:43.:47:46.

before we've even heard government policy properly at second reading,

:47:47.:47:49.

and it's about the time... This really is his last warning. What

:47:50.:47:54.

he's talking about is the bill that's coming up next week. This is

:47:55.:47:58.

not what we are debating here. This is entirely about the amendments

:47:59.:48:05.

that are being accepted before the bill has been read a second time. It

:48:06.:48:10.

is a very, very narrow motion, and if he keeps to that he may continue

:48:11.:48:13.

from big but he's really testing my patience. It is a very narrowly

:48:14.:48:19.

drafted motion. It does indeed say that in respect of this particular

:48:20.:48:24.

bill, notices of amendments, new clauses and schedules, can be moved

:48:25.:48:29.

in committee as accepted by clerks at the table before the bill has had

:48:30.:48:32.

a reading at the second time. And that in itself begs a number of

:48:33.:48:37.

particular questions. You may have noticed, Madame Deputy Speaker, for

:48:38.:48:42.

example, that AQ has formed already beside your Chair of honourable

:48:43.:48:45.

members who may wish to table amendments. I am given to

:48:46.:48:49.

understand, if honourable members wish to table amendments at the

:48:50.:48:54.

passing of this motion, we should approach the table and hand those

:48:55.:49:00.

over to the clerks. And of course, there is I suspect going to be a

:49:01.:49:05.

great deal of demand for the clerks' time and attention with these

:49:06.:49:07.

amendments. One issue I would like to raise, and maybe the minister can

:49:08.:49:14.

respond, is the pressures on the clerks which I think will arise over

:49:15.:49:18.

this week and in the coming days, because of the demands of members

:49:19.:49:24.

wanting to table amendments. There is sympathy I hear from my

:49:25.:49:30.

honourable friend Jon Nolan for his close work and affinity with clerks

:49:31.:49:35.

in the House, and cares very much about procedure. But it is a serious

:49:36.:49:39.

point. We are talking about a second reading which is coming up on

:49:40.:49:43.

Tuesday and Wednesday, and then of course, the committee stage, the

:49:44.:49:45.

following week, ridiculously, gagging Parliament in its ability to

:49:46.:49:51.

properly scrutinise the legislation, when the Maastricht Treaty had 23

:49:52.:49:55.

days of consideration, the Lisbon Treaty had 11 days on consideration,

:49:56.:49:59.

and yet the House is only going to have that particular period. In

:50:00.:50:02.

respect of the motion of the timing of the tabling of amendments, I

:50:03.:50:07.

would like the minister to think about...

:50:08.:50:22.

With other legislation, for instance, did we have this with the

:50:23.:50:27.

Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty, the single

:50:28.:50:37.

European act? Madame Deputy Speaker, I have in my possession managed to

:50:38.:50:45.

scribble down on paper that I have available in my office about 22

:50:46.:50:50.

amendments that I thought this an appropriate to this particular piece

:50:51.:50:54.

of legislation. Spy catching your eye, Madame Deputy Speaker, I have

:50:55.:50:59.

already shot my place in the foot by missing my place in the queue that

:51:00.:51:02.

is forming by your Chair to table said amendments. But that is

:51:03.:51:07.

something I will have to live with by making the points that I wanted

:51:08.:51:11.

to make about this particular motion today. I would also like to ask

:51:12.:51:17.

Madame Deputy Speaker about whether the committee on procedures, I think

:51:18.:51:20.

it is called, has been consulted about the motion that we have before

:51:21.:51:25.

us today. As I understand it, this is a highly unusual change, not

:51:26.:51:27.

necessarily one which is unwelcome, but as I say, it is a symptom of the

:51:28.:51:34.

Government's intention to override normal procedures and processes, the

:51:35.:51:38.

conventions of the House which would normally allow us to reflect on when

:51:39.:51:43.

we table amendments. So, Madame Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is

:51:44.:51:46.

important that members of this House do exercise their rights to reflect

:51:47.:51:52.

on the consequences of this particular legislation. It is one of

:51:53.:51:55.

the most important decisions that I think we will be making, who

:51:56.:51:58.

certainly this year, definitely in this Parliament, perhaps in my time

:51:59.:52:06.

in the House. I think all honourable members should think about the

:52:07.:52:09.

amendments that might be pertinent to this particulars legislation.

:52:10.:52:15.

Yes, while the bill may be narrowly drawn, it is simple, just one line,

:52:16.:52:19.

one clause, how can you possibly want to end that? Well, a short

:52:20.:52:25.

sentence can have a huge effect on public policy and all our

:52:26.:52:28.

constituents, Madame Deputy Speaker, and it is our duty to think about

:52:29.:52:31.

the amendments that might be relevant and to table them if we

:52:32.:52:38.

wish. And I hope that all honourable members will think about their

:52:39.:52:41.

responsibilities. Yes, the clerks look as though they're going to have

:52:42.:52:46.

a very busy weekend thinking about things, trying to make sure that the

:52:47.:52:53.

drafting of amendments... Because some say there are a lot of lawyers

:52:54.:52:57.

in the House. I am not a lawyer myself, I know there are many

:52:58.:53:01.

honourable members who are, and we do need assistance sometimes in

:53:02.:53:04.

phraseology, and terminology around these particular amendments. But I

:53:05.:53:08.

think the minister should at least give us the courtesy of explaining

:53:09.:53:12.

why he has tabled this motion today, and setting up the fact that this is

:53:13.:53:16.

the beginning of the compression of the Parliamentary consideration of

:53:17.:53:20.

the European Union withdrawal bill. For him not to do so, for him to

:53:21.:53:26.

simply stand and say, beg to move, I think yet again is a sign of the

:53:27.:53:29.

arrogance of the Government, perhaps not for police reflecting on the

:53:30.:53:33.

judgment of the Supreme Court, which insisted that this Parliament has a

:53:34.:53:37.

duty to legislate on these particular matters. It's not

:53:38.:53:41.

something for the prerogative, it is for us to amend the bill and to make

:53:42.:53:45.

sure, if we have to do so before second reading, that we have those

:53:46.:53:54.

particular rights. From this very unusual motion, I totally agree with

:53:55.:53:57.

him that I would certainly like to know what precedent there is for

:53:58.:54:01.

this on major or minor legislation. It is entirely unclear to me as to

:54:02.:54:07.

what the time deadline would be for tabling amendments. Resume public,

:54:08.:54:12.

before the bill is read a second time, presumably, you can hang

:54:13.:54:16.

something in right up to the deadline. But unless it is printed

:54:17.:54:20.

for consideration, how can we properly consider those amendments?

:54:21.:54:26.

Well, it is a very good point. I think we will obviously have a

:54:27.:54:30.

notice of amendment sheep published I presume tomorrow morning, if of

:54:31.:54:34.

course the House is sitting. -- sheet. And then again, on Monday.

:54:35.:54:40.

That would be before we get to a second reading next week. I wonder

:54:41.:54:44.

if honourable members might wager abet on thinking how many amendments

:54:45.:54:47.

we might actually have on the order paper before we even get to the

:54:48.:54:51.

second reading. This could be quite a record for the House. On the point

:54:52.:54:58.

of the number of amendments, he will recall the Scotland Act bridgehead

:54:59.:55:05.

147 amendments, I think plenty of which actually were put to a vote,

:55:06.:55:09.

purely because of the system of this Parliament, and the time it takes

:55:10.:55:13.

to. The public will be looking on and watching this process and

:55:14.:55:17.

wondering why we can have so little time on such an important issue.

:55:18.:55:22.

The honourable ladies correct of course, people watching proceedings

:55:23.:55:28.

May say this is a simple motion, what are the honourable members

:55:29.:55:32.

talking about? We're talking about was the most significant policy

:55:33.:55:35.

change is affecting our constituents a generation. I certainly believe I

:55:36.:55:40.

wouldn't be doing my job as a member of Parliament if I didn't think

:55:41.:55:45.

about all of the consequences that could arise from leaving the

:55:46.:55:48.

European Union. The decision has been made in the referendum but is

:55:49.:55:53.

for this Parliament to enact and put that legislation into effect. To do

:55:54.:55:57.

so without amendment or thinking of those consequences, all of the

:55:58.:56:05.

ramifications for trade, social policy, we would not be doing our

:56:06.:56:10.

duty. I have much more to say, but I think I would be testing the

:56:11.:56:14.

patience of the house were I to do so. I'll keep my remarks short at

:56:15.:56:23.

this point. Stuart hosiery. I will also try to stick to be fairly

:56:24.:56:27.

narrow remit of this motion. And say from the outset we welcome the

:56:28.:56:31.

opportunity to be able to table amendments in advance of second

:56:32.:56:36.

reading. Whether they are today or on Monday, a substantial number will

:56:37.:56:43.

be tabled. If I don't stretch your patience too far, may I make one

:56:44.:56:51.

small observation on the bill, rather the explanatory notes. Number

:56:52.:56:57.

22 says the bill is not expected to have any financial implications.

:56:58.:56:59.

LAUGHTER I expect that is very far from what

:57:00.:57:06.

will happen. And it's on matters financial backed many of the

:57:07.:57:14.

amendments we wish to table will be taken. The difficulty is, we've had

:57:15.:57:19.

it already suggested, the White Paper, which is to accompany this

:57:20.:57:22.

bill, has not yet been published. Which brings us to the rather vexed

:57:23.:57:28.

question of how the clerks, in advance of the second reading, deal

:57:29.:57:36.

with the amendments as they tabled. Two very small examples, not to

:57:37.:57:40.

debate the policy by any means, but to give to small examples of why

:57:41.:57:46.

this is profoundly problematic. We know there is demand in the

:57:47.:57:49.

financial services sector for financial passport. We know there is

:57:50.:57:54.

demand in many sectors for significant and long transitional

:57:55.:58:01.

arrangements. Unless we tell the clerks what the White Paper may say

:58:02.:58:04.

about this, whether the government may have accepted some sense on

:58:05.:58:07.

this, it means the nature of the amendments which can be tabled,

:58:08.:58:12.

notwithstanding the welcome extra time to do it, becomes extremely

:58:13.:58:17.

difficult indeed. It's also a very narrow bill. We welcome the

:58:18.:58:22.

opportunity to table amendments, we need to know what may or may not be

:58:23.:58:28.

in the range acceptable, not able to be put on the table, but selectable

:58:29.:58:33.

and potable in this regard. I'm sure some colleagues in the house would

:58:34.:58:40.

think it was sensible, for example, to try and avoid ?1000 levy on every

:58:41.:58:46.

EU employee. While we can table such an amendment we don't know if it's

:58:47.:58:50.

been accepted and we don't know how the clerks may choose to deal with

:58:51.:58:56.

it. With the honourable member not agree it would be perhaps

:58:57.:59:01.

disadvantageous to the government if amendments are being tabled without

:59:02.:59:04.

knowledge either of the White Paper or what ministers may say to clarify

:59:05.:59:08.

points made by honourable members during the second reading debate. We

:59:09.:59:14.

may have a range of amendments tabled which may have been averted

:59:15.:59:19.

if the process was conducted in appropriate order. The lady makes a

:59:20.:59:24.

very good point. I want to stick to the process of doing this. That's

:59:25.:59:30.

precisely that. Had all of the information required been available,

:59:31.:59:38.

notwithstanding the time, the very eventuality could absolutely be

:59:39.:59:41.

avoided. There is another issue, this motion today, and we do welcome

:59:42.:59:52.

it, may be seen by the public in the future as problematic rather than

:59:53.:59:56.

beneficial, precisely for the reasons the honourable lady has

:59:57.:00:02.

suggested. I'll happily give way. There was a procedural issue for

:00:03.:00:06.

those not familiar with proceedings of the house, that some people may

:00:07.:00:10.

feel rushed into putting down amendments, because they are able to

:00:11.:00:14.

be put down, rather than take that time to craft them in such a way

:00:15.:00:18.

they might be selectable, veritable, perhaps endorsed on both sides of

:00:19.:00:22.

the house. It's a very real issue that can affect our ability to

:00:23.:00:27.

debate this issue. To reject the opportunity of the time to table in

:00:28.:00:31.

advance. However, the possibility of amendments being badly drafted and

:00:32.:00:36.

rushed precisely because of this motion is a very real one. It

:00:37.:00:41.

wouldn't be the first time we've got to the later stages of legislation

:00:42.:00:46.

for the government to table substantial tables of amendments

:00:47.:00:49.

because they draft legislation and amendments might not have been

:00:50.:00:53.

drafted adequately or correctly in the first place. I'm grateful to my

:00:54.:00:59.

honourable friend for giving way, is not the case that with the Supreme

:01:00.:01:03.

Court giving its judgment and empowering Parliament to take a vote

:01:04.:01:06.

on the issue, in sense what the government is done by pushing this

:01:07.:01:10.

forward with such haste and not allowing honourable members to wait

:01:11.:01:13.

to see what is discussed at second reading, there is an argument

:01:14.:01:17.

perhaps even holding the Supreme Court judgment in contempt...

:01:18.:01:20.

Because what the Supreme Court judgment is about is making sure

:01:21.:01:23.

Parliament does its job on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom and

:01:24.:01:26.

it has been denied by the sheer rant at a haste of this government is

:01:27.:01:30.

driving this through at the pace they are doing. My honourable friend

:01:31.:01:39.

is fundamentally right. The time to table amendments early years

:01:40.:01:43.

welcome, of course, and the government will rightly argue this

:01:44.:01:48.

is Parliament deciding, but nevertheless the consequences of

:01:49.:01:54.

that, as he has described, are of course absolutely true. I'll give

:01:55.:01:58.

way one last time, I want to make this brief. The example of the

:01:59.:02:07.

thousand pound levy for incoming non-UK EU citizens, in the absence

:02:08.:02:10.

of information from the government we may face amendments surrounding

:02:11.:02:15.

employers already having employees from non-EU countries, like those in

:02:16.:02:21.

the London hotel sector, they are worried about 80% in some of their

:02:22.:02:26.

hotels, non-UK non-EU employees, we may seek amendments on that. It's

:02:27.:02:34.

unclear at this stage. This is the point often repeated. Without

:02:35.:02:39.

stretching patience too much, one could add the Scottish fish

:02:40.:02:45.

processing sector to the hospitality sector for precisely the same point.

:02:46.:02:49.

Given the clerks will not have access to the White Paper to

:02:50.:02:53.

identify what may or may not have been accepted by way of clarity of

:02:54.:02:58.

change, it does make these extremely difficult. One final intervention. I

:02:59.:03:05.

was just reading the expand remote to the Bill explaining why the fast

:03:06.:03:10.

tracking is being adopted and therefore we are considering this

:03:11.:03:16.

motion now. The house agreed in December, I voted against it like he

:03:17.:03:22.

did, to authorise the commencement of Article 50 by the end of March.

:03:23.:03:27.

At that stage we didn't know what the supreme judgment would be.

:03:28.:03:31.

Respective of the role of the house, nor in respect of the role of the

:03:32.:03:34.

other legislatures. When circumstances change would he agree

:03:35.:03:39.

it's right the house reconsiders and the explanatory reason for the fast

:03:40.:03:48.

tracking really does not hold water. That is probably correct. The fast

:03:49.:03:53.

tracking, rather the additional time for the amendment is welcome, but

:03:54.:03:58.

the fast tracking of what is a small measure whether government would

:03:59.:04:01.

appear to have an ill bold majority seems in haste, which is unnecessary

:04:02.:04:08.

only to meet arbitrary timescales set rather than allowing detailed

:04:09.:04:13.

scrutiny. We won't oppose this motion. The time to table in advance

:04:14.:04:22.

of second reading is welcome but I'm sure no one will be left in doubt it

:04:23.:04:26.

is not without some significant and substantial problems. I fully

:04:27.:04:37.

appreciate this is a narrow motion. I'll do my best to stick to the

:04:38.:04:42.

point. I think is the place it is such a narrow motion is a point of

:04:43.:04:47.

principle. When the public look on and look at this process they want

:04:48.:04:51.

confident in the process. People did not have confidence in the process

:04:52.:04:56.

in the run-up the EU referendum. In October 2012, power was conferred

:04:57.:05:03.

from the UK Government to the Scottish Government for Scotland to

:05:04.:05:06.

hold a referendum on Scottish independence. Powell is being

:05:07.:05:13.

conferred, as the motion says, to the Prime Minister. It strikes me

:05:14.:05:17.

there are two major differences. The timescale between power conferred to

:05:18.:05:22.

the Scottish parliament when we had the referendum in 2014 was

:05:23.:05:28.

significant. We went through a two-year process of public

:05:29.:05:31.

engagement, wrote things down, we have a White Paper, we had 650 pages

:05:32.:05:37.

of White Paper. This is what it looks like. The minister isn't

:05:38.:05:40.

paying attention but I wonder whether he read the White Paper.

:05:41.:05:47.

This is what a white paper looks like, this is what putting blood

:05:48.:05:53.

sweat and tears and plans into your constitutional future looks like.

:05:54.:05:56.

Some think this government has not bothered to do. The people of the

:05:57.:06:02.

United Kingdom deserve better. People in Scotland got the gold

:06:03.:06:07.

standard of referendum, had a proper consultation process. In the run-up

:06:08.:06:10.

to the referendum in Scotland we had over 90% of people registered to

:06:11.:06:19.

vote voluntarily hand over... Could the honourable lady mention

:06:20.:06:22.

amendments? She may be coming on to it but we are talking about the

:06:23.:06:27.

Scottish referendum, not even the EU referendum, let alone the bill

:06:28.:06:31.

coming up next week. It's a very narrow motion and I appreciate there

:06:32.:06:34.

are lots of members wishing to speak but there is only so much that can

:06:35.:06:38.

be said. The rest of the debate takes place next week. Hannah Badr

:06:39.:06:43.

Al Badoor Mark thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I take on board what

:06:44.:06:52.

she says. -- Hannah Bardell. She will be very much aware 16 and

:06:53.:06:55.

17-year-olds did have a vote in the Scottish referendum. In the future

:06:56.:07:02.

any constitutional arrangements across the UK, 16 and 17-year-olds

:07:03.:07:09.

are guaranteed a right to vote. This isn't just any amendments, these are

:07:10.:07:16.

very specific amendments. Not amending this bill here. Hannah

:07:17.:07:24.

Bardell. I will seek, Madam Deputy Speaker, to close shortly, and keep

:07:25.:07:28.

away from the theoretical. However, these are the options we are left

:07:29.:07:32.

with. I am a member of Parliament that represent a Scottish

:07:33.:07:36.

constituency. Since we arrived here we have sought to seek sought to

:07:37.:07:43.

share the good and positive and constructive experiences we had in

:07:44.:07:46.

Scotland during the referendum. Every time on matters such as 16 and

:07:47.:07:50.

17-year-olds this government has sought to ignore them. I thank her

:07:51.:07:58.

for giving way. Does she agree, this is a procedural resolution, and the

:07:59.:08:01.

fact suddenly this debate is taking place even though the order paper

:08:02.:08:08.

says no debate, does that not say something about something else we've

:08:09.:08:12.

tried to do, to reform procedures and make them more transparent.

:08:13.:08:15.

There is much that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament

:08:16.:08:19.

experience. I couldn't agree with my honourable friend more. It comes to

:08:20.:08:26.

the crux of my point. Many amendments will be tabled as the

:08:27.:08:30.

timescale to do that is short. The timescale for debate and voting will

:08:31.:08:38.

be short. Is it not the case that for discussing the amendments to

:08:39.:08:44.

this euphemistically called Bill... In the spirit of respect it has to

:08:45.:08:48.

happen within all the nations of the UK, one has to ask whether the

:08:49.:08:52.

government but before we consider these amendments, has consulted with

:08:53.:08:58.

the other legislators in the United Kingdom that the Scottish Government

:08:59.:09:02.

has had the opportunity to take part of the debate with the government

:09:03.:09:05.

before it becomes part of the bill as part of the process of respect. I

:09:06.:09:11.

agree with one of my honourable friends. The bottom line here is

:09:12.:09:18.

that people will watch this process, people did not have faith in the

:09:19.:09:22.

run-up to the EU referendum. They are now looking on, the whole world

:09:23.:09:26.

is looking on. Our international reputation is at stake, it's so

:09:27.:09:31.

important our process... One more time I will give way. Would be

:09:32.:09:37.

honourable lady not agree that something of such momentous

:09:38.:09:40.

significance is this change to our Constitution deserves scrupulous and

:09:41.:09:45.

regular eyes to Parliamentary process, and chopping and changing

:09:46.:09:48.

and playing games with our usual processes on a bill of this

:09:49.:09:52.

significance will undermine public confidence in this house and its

:09:53.:09:53.

processes. I feel you are going in the wrong

:09:54.:10:08.

direction, so I will finish by quoting someone who said public

:10:09.:10:12.

confidence in the integrity of government is indispensable to faith

:10:13.:10:15.

and democracy, and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost

:10:16.:10:20.

faith in everything we fight and spend for. I hope this government

:10:21.:10:23.

thinks very carefully about that, about the process that it is

:10:24.:10:29.

embarking on, and does a decent job. Again, it is very unusual to have a

:10:30.:10:33.

debate on this sort of procedural motion, but I think it is very

:10:34.:10:35.

important on a matter of principle for our constituents to understand

:10:36.:10:39.

the processes of this House, given the significance of the journey we

:10:40.:10:44.

are about to embark upon, debating and amending and discussing and

:10:45.:10:47.

voting on this bill, which is of generational significant struggle

:10:48.:10:50.

this is not just any piece of legislation, this is a bill which

:10:51.:10:54.

will affect the prospects of people in my constituency, businesses and

:10:55.:10:57.

organisations and people up and down Wales, for many years to come. It is

:10:58.:11:01.

only right that the people understand the processes of This

:11:02.:11:06.

Place, which can often seem very labyrinthine, I have to say. I

:11:07.:11:10.

support the type of agenda which the honourable lady was talking about,

:11:11.:11:14.

with regard to straightening out and sympathising some of our procedures.

:11:15.:11:17.

I wonder whether the procedure committee has look at this issue. I

:11:18.:11:21.

have not seen this type of motion before, except perhaps on emergency

:11:22.:11:24.

anti-terrorism legislation and things like that. Whilst it is

:11:25.:11:29.

welcome to have more time to put down amendments, it does suggest a

:11:30.:11:32.

very odd direction from the Government, both in terms of that in

:11:33.:11:35.

support of us having not gone through the second reading debate,

:11:36.:11:38.

not seen a white paper and not having been able to think through

:11:39.:11:44.

the structure of new amendments and schedules, and who we might wish to

:11:45.:11:47.

table them with, who we might want to get to support them, before they

:11:48.:11:53.

are laid. These matters have great significance in determining what

:11:54.:11:57.

amendments, as you will know, Madame Deputy Speaker, gets elected and

:11:58.:12:00.

which ones are able to be voted upon. I had a frustrating experience

:12:01.:12:05.

recently on a similarly short bill, with regard to the Commonwealth

:12:06.:12:09.

development corporation, where we had a number of amendments down, but

:12:10.:12:12.

because of the nature of the debate and the rules which were set in by

:12:13.:12:15.

the usual channels and others, there were only a certain number of votes

:12:16.:12:21.

able to be taken. The issue which I had tabled an amendment on, which

:12:22.:12:26.

had cross-party support, was not actually voted on because we were

:12:27.:12:30.

told they could only be two votes because of the limitations on time

:12:31.:12:34.

and on process. I have to say, Madame Deputy Speaker, I am deeply

:12:35.:12:38.

concerned when I hear that there will only be three days of debate on

:12:39.:12:42.

this. We do not know how much time there will be for debate on report,

:12:43.:12:47.

or indeed what will be inserted into the debate. I thank my honourable

:12:48.:12:55.

for. Would he agree that this is a strange day to table a motion which

:12:56.:13:02.

effectively starts the exit process, the day on which most members, just

:13:03.:13:07.

look around, are back in their constituency, many campaigning on

:13:08.:13:10.

two by-elections. Does my honourable friend agree that the way this has

:13:11.:13:15.

been tabled today brings the House into disrepute check it would have

:13:16.:13:21.

been easy for the Government to have tabled this on Monday, to give

:13:22.:13:24.

people a week before starting the process for the second reading late

:13:25.:13:29.

the following week? He makes a very good point. It is typical of this

:13:30.:13:33.

government to table things at the last minute, on a Thursday, when

:13:34.:13:36.

they think people have gone home, when nobody is watching. I think it

:13:37.:13:40.

is important that my constituents understand how procedural devices in

:13:41.:13:44.

this House are often used to frustrate debate, frustrate

:13:45.:13:50.

discussion and frustrate the reasonable scrutiny of Parliament,

:13:51.:13:52.

which fundamentally is what the Supreme Court said was crucial

:13:53.:13:55.

should take place on this important matter. I am disappointed to hear a

:13:56.:14:01.

minister on the front bench chuntering, time wasting, at my

:14:02.:14:04.

honourable friend's intervention. This is about this Parliament having

:14:05.:14:08.

a say, having proper scrutiny over something so fundamental, which will

:14:09.:14:14.

affect generations to come. I do not normally like to get into big

:14:15.:14:17.

procedural debates in This Place. I normally like to talk about the

:14:18.:14:20.

issues of substance, but when we are about to embark on a matter which is

:14:21.:14:24.

so important, it is absolutely crucial that we have the most tax

:14:25.:14:28.

transparent, accessible and open processes around these amendments,

:14:29.:14:32.

clauses and schedules and how those are voted upon. The people... If

:14:33.:14:57.

that is the issue, then certainly,... It has to be done in a

:14:58.:15:01.

way that makes the will of the people we have in this Parliament.

:15:02.:15:12.

With great respect, that is the prerogative, not to ignore the view

:15:13.:15:16.

of the people, but to acknowledge the voice of the people in the

:15:17.:15:19.

referendum truckle I do not necessarily disagree with the spirit

:15:20.:15:23.

of what he says. He is an assiduous tribute to debate and procedures in

:15:24.:15:29.

This Place. I know he would welcome the proper scrutiny, whether or not

:15:30.:15:33.

we agree on the results of the referendum or how we should take the

:15:34.:15:37.

process forward. I know that he does agree on the importance of This

:15:38.:15:40.

Place and its processes and the way that we debate and discuss things. I

:15:41.:15:44.

think it is important to understand that the way in which, the order in

:15:45.:15:47.

which amendments are tabled in This Place, can significantly affect the

:15:48.:15:52.

ability of people to speak on them, and also which ones are able to be

:15:53.:16:05.

voted upon. We do not want chicanery attempting to prevent debate and

:16:06.:16:09.

reasonable discussion. They are chuntering already. We all

:16:10.:16:16.

understand what the result of the referendum was, we all have

:16:17.:16:20.

different views on that. But there are many, many issues of concern as

:16:21.:16:23.

to how this process is being carried out. The Prime Minister has already

:16:24.:16:27.

shown a great deal of contempt for this House in not turning up here to

:16:28.:16:30.

expand herself and answer questions. The fact that they have been forced

:16:31.:16:35.

into a corner about publishing a white paper, and now appearing to

:16:36.:16:38.

tinker with the procedures of This Place, to rush headlong into a

:16:39.:16:44.

process and not allow adequate scrutiny. Madame Deputy Speaker, I

:16:45.:16:47.

raise these issues not through any attempt to frustrate process, to

:16:48.:16:52.

stop it. And I will not be opposing this motion, but I do want the

:16:53.:16:57.

public and my constituents to understand that there are those in

:16:58.:17:00.

this House, Adam Deputy Speaker, who attempt to abuse often procedures of

:17:01.:17:05.

this House, to prevent reasonable scrutiny and votes being taken. And

:17:06.:17:09.

I would be deeply concerned if that were to continue over the next few

:17:10.:17:13.

weeks. We have already seen a habit and a direction of travel from this

:17:14.:17:17.

government. I hope that that stops right now, that we have a proper

:17:18.:17:22.

debate and proper scrutiny. With my honourable for an degree, and it is

:17:23.:17:29.

certainly not time wasting, I hope, this latest intervention, that it

:17:30.:17:33.

would be a very sad day, on such an important decision, if the

:17:34.:17:36.

procedures and time given for this debate in this House were less than

:17:37.:17:41.

in the unelected Other Place? I would absolutely agree with him. The

:17:42.:17:46.

comparison has already been made. I find it difficult to understand how

:17:47.:17:49.

we can spend less time on this than was spent on the Lisbon Treaty or

:17:50.:17:53.

the Maastricht Treaty. Forget all sorts of procedural devices have

:17:54.:17:58.

been exported. This is a matter of generational significance, which

:17:59.:18:00.

ever views we have about the referendum and the type of

:18:01.:18:03.

arrangement that we move into. It is important that it is done properly,

:18:04.:18:10.

with transparency and care and consideration, because the decisions

:18:11.:18:13.

we make will last for decades to come.

:18:14.:18:29.

Peter Grant, my apologies. Accepted, Madame Deputy Speaker. But you will

:18:30.:18:39.

remember that next time I try to catch your eye! Madame Deputy

:18:40.:18:45.

Speaker, I would be interested to know why it is that the Government

:18:46.:18:50.

have taken this welcome but still unusual step with this bill. It is

:18:51.:18:54.

almost as if we are going to have more time to table amendments then

:18:55.:18:57.

we will have to discuss them. It might be because the Government

:18:58.:19:00.

knows there will be a huge amount of amendments being tabled. The number

:19:01.:19:05.

of specific issues that members will want very clear decisions on his

:19:06.:19:08.

massive. Think about all the questions that have been raised to

:19:09.:19:11.

the Leader of the House, the the Prime Minister, about what is going

:19:12.:19:16.

to happen to EU nationals who are here, to UK nationals over there, to

:19:17.:19:22.

universities, farming, fishing... Every one of them potentially is

:19:23.:19:28.

several different amendments. If in their haste to get to the cliff edge

:19:29.:19:32.

as quickly as possible, only a tiny percentage of those amendments are

:19:33.:19:39.

considered, we will end up with bad, bad legislation. On this, possibly

:19:40.:19:42.

the most important decision this Parliament has taken since this

:19:43.:19:45.

Chamber has been built, bad legislation is something we cannot

:19:46.:19:52.

afford. Would be honourable gentleman not agree with me, as

:19:53.:19:55.

somebody who campaigned fiercely for us to remain within the European

:19:56.:19:59.

Union, the most important decision that was made was when this House

:20:00.:20:04.

decided, be now wrong or right, given the result, for when we

:20:05.:20:09.

decided to have a referendum, and we decided that whatever the result of

:20:10.:20:13.

the referendum was, we would be true to that decision? My recollection of

:20:14.:20:21.

the act that was passed apart from the fact that it was deeply flawed,

:20:22.:20:25.

and that is why we are now in this mess, is that it did not say that

:20:26.:20:29.

Parliament had to abide by that decision, it did not say it was

:20:30.:20:33.

binding, it did not say anything about it, it just said there would

:20:34.:20:37.

be a referendum. Maybe the government needs to look at an

:20:38.:20:42.

amendment to this bill to retrospectively make the last one

:20:43.:20:51.

binding! The bill is being rushed through, because there is a

:20:52.:20:54.

political imperative, not a legal imperative, for Article 50 to be

:20:55.:20:59.

triggered by the 31st of March. The builders not require the Prime

:21:00.:21:02.

Minister to do anything by the 31st of March, it does not require her to

:21:03.:21:10.

do anything at all. So, is it for the Government themselves to correct

:21:11.:21:15.

that mistake - and can the minister explained why it is that, five days

:21:16.:21:20.

is not enough, it is more than a lot of us get, but given the

:21:21.:21:24.

Government's own summary of the built, which is 15 times longer than

:21:25.:21:28.

the bill itself, given that the advice in that summary is that the

:21:29.:21:32.

impact of the bill itself will be both clear and limited... Limited?!

:21:33.:21:38.

It is the most important bill this House has ever considered. Given

:21:39.:21:42.

that it is so limited, why does the Government need to allow so much

:21:43.:21:46.

additional time for all these amendments? I will just gently

:21:47.:21:51.

remind him that he's talking about a different bill from the motion that

:21:52.:21:55.

we are debating here. If you could get back to the tabling of

:21:56.:22:01.

amendments, I'd be very grateful. I was referring not so much for the

:22:02.:22:03.

content of the bill but to its extent and its limited impact and

:22:04.:22:08.

wondering why we needed so much additional time to launch

:22:09.:22:14.

amendments. Generally speaking, the public are not interested in

:22:15.:22:16.

procedures and the timing of amendments and what days of the week

:22:17.:22:21.

hills are created on and so on. This time, it is important, because it's

:22:22.:22:25.

very clear that the procedures of the House are being used to get the

:22:26.:22:29.

result that the Government wants, because they are not prepared to

:22:30.:22:34.

subject this important bill to... Let's not forget, the only reason

:22:35.:22:38.

the Government is here today is because it has been... Does he share

:22:39.:22:44.

my concern that with two other legal cases already under way, one around

:22:45.:22:48.

EEA membership, and another one around whether Article 50 is

:22:49.:22:51.

actually retractable, which could also result in new clauses and

:22:52.:22:54.

schedules being required by the government? I am grateful for that

:22:55.:22:58.

point. I never think it is a good idea to speak in late on court cases

:22:59.:23:02.

in here, especially if you have got is little legal training as me the

:23:03.:23:06.

Government it may well be that these are factors which will come back to

:23:07.:23:09.

haunt the Government in a big way in the future. The Prime Minister has

:23:10.:23:11.

placed a political imperative on herself to get this Article 50

:23:12.:23:19.

implemented by the 31st of March. Will my honourable friend join with

:23:20.:23:23.

me, and further to the honourable members point, in taking this

:23:24.:23:28.

opportunity to thank the democracy campaigners, in particular Gina

:23:29.:23:33.

Miller, of course. Their actions and intervention in the courts have

:23:34.:23:35.

meant that a Prime Minister who sought to ignore Parliament and

:23:36.:23:39.

treat the powers entrusted to her as an absolute privilege has been

:23:40.:23:42.

brought back into line of some sort? It is a contribution which will have

:23:43.:23:50.

long-lasting effects. Can I certainly concur with my honourable

:23:51.:23:55.

friend's comments? I always think it is in it for me bad taste for anyone

:23:56.:23:59.

to bad-mouth the motivation of someone who just won a court case.

:24:00.:24:03.

Because the definition of someone who has sprung a court case in the

:24:04.:24:08.

High Court, by definition, they were right to take it. I thought the

:24:09.:24:14.

statement made by Gina Miller after the case was utterly genuine. There

:24:15.:24:20.

is a number of questions which I would like the Government to answer

:24:21.:24:23.

in order to expand to us why they are this unusual procedural step.

:24:24.:24:31.

Why is it that this bill in particular, possibly the shortest

:24:32.:24:33.

bill in this session, is expected to attract so many amendments? I want

:24:34.:24:40.

to finish off so I will not take any more interventions. Thank you,

:24:41.:24:48.

Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I commend your patience, like other members?

:24:49.:24:56.

Sadly, I think that this will not be the end of the need for the person

:24:57.:25:01.

sitting in that Chair to have patience. Because although we are

:25:02.:25:05.

discussing the motion here to give extra time to provide amendments and

:25:06.:25:11.

extra clauses and so on what I will glad to support, we are definitely

:25:12.:25:17.

discussing the business of the House and not the content of next week's

:25:18.:25:19.

bill. The charge is that the government

:25:20.:25:30.

has begun to politicise, very consciously, the procedures and

:25:31.:25:36.

business of the house. That is why we have to stand here, now we've got

:25:37.:25:40.

a little time, and bring the government to account on that

:25:41.:25:42.

politicisation of the business of the house. I think the honourable

:25:43.:25:48.

gentleman is making a strong point. I wonder if he's noticed the

:25:49.:25:51.

government Chief Whip scuttling back and forth. Which seems to suggest

:25:52.:25:56.

they are worried about something, worried about this place having a

:25:57.:26:00.

say on motions and procedures and all along they have assumed they can

:26:01.:26:03.

do whatever they like without reference back to this Parliament. I

:26:04.:26:07.

do take that point and I'm not saying this to chide the government,

:26:08.:26:14.

but I'm trying to bring out into the open in this chamber what we all

:26:15.:26:20.

know. The government has been introducing a new Parliamentary

:26:21.:26:22.

convention that float on from the fact we had a referendum. The

:26:23.:26:27.

referendum went against the government. The government is in

:26:28.:26:32.

panic and shock, it's divided amongst its own backbenchers,

:26:33.:26:36.

decided on a new convention, to simply use the Crown prerogative to

:26:37.:26:39.

ram through whatever they wanted, basing that on the fact they had got

:26:40.:26:45.

the decision for Brexit through the referendum. That's in stark contrast

:26:46.:26:52.

to the history of this chamber. What has occurred since the government

:26:53.:26:56.

tried... Let me make a viewpoint is because we're running out of time

:26:57.:27:00.

and we want to hear the minister. I want very clearly to make the point

:27:01.:27:08.

that the government, in a panic, chose to use the royal prerogative.

:27:09.:27:12.

It's been struck down this week by the Supreme Court. A momentous

:27:13.:27:16.

historical position. You would have thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, in

:27:17.:27:21.

that point, the government would have more regard for the procedures

:27:22.:27:26.

of the house and the business, how the business of the house is

:27:27.:27:29.

formulated, to give the house the proper say in this historic decision

:27:30.:27:33.

about Brexit. Did you learn that lesson? No. He came back with a one

:27:34.:27:39.

line bill, to be fast tracked. That is why in order to make some amends

:27:40.:27:43.

we are here this afternoon discussing a way of getting some

:27:44.:27:52.

extra time to draft a motion, to go with that fast-track procedure. I

:27:53.:27:56.

have every right to. The members have every right to worry the

:27:57.:28:00.

government still has not got clear that we are now going to have proper

:28:01.:28:04.

Parliamentary scrutiny, including control over the business of how

:28:05.:28:09.

this motion goes through and this debate goes through the house. Just

:28:10.:28:15.

to underline, let's look at what the explanatory notes say about the

:28:16.:28:18.

explanation for the fast tracking. First we were told there was

:28:19.:28:24.

unexpected step in the formal process, the Supreme Court. I'm

:28:25.:28:27.

sorry, if our Majesty's government... It's no fault of this

:28:28.:28:33.

house that Her Majesty's government does not understand what's happening

:28:34.:28:37.

in the real world. No fault of this house that members on both sides of

:28:38.:28:41.

Her Majesty's government gets caught by surprise. The rest of us weren't.

:28:42.:28:46.

It's not an excuse to fast-track. I put it to the Minister. Second

:28:47.:28:53.

explanation we get for the fast tracking is that it would cause

:28:54.:28:57.

considerable delay to commencing the former exit process of the trading

:28:58.:29:03.

of article 50. That's why we are having. That is a random arbitrary

:29:04.:29:11.

decision of Her Majesty's government to trigger article 50 at the end of

:29:12.:29:15.

March. That is not the decision of this house. To say we have to

:29:16.:29:19.

fast-track because the government executive made a decision about when

:29:20.:29:23.

it wanted to do things. If it becomes a principle of how we do

:29:24.:29:27.

business in this house, if any government and any executive at any

:29:28.:29:31.

time says we want to do something next week, because we need to get it

:29:32.:29:35.

done next week we're going to fast-track everything, that is an

:29:36.:29:41.

aggregation of democracy. On that, it strikes me the need for the

:29:42.:29:46.

fast-track process and the need for the almost lack of parliamentary

:29:47.:29:50.

scrutiny we are seeing shows up that the government is very well its case

:29:51.:29:54.

is not strong, not watertight, and it would be easy for members across

:29:55.:29:59.

the house to pick holes in it. -- the government is a very aware.

:30:00.:30:04.

Because there are so many holes. I fear it may be the case but the

:30:05.:30:08.

government has nothing to fear from democracy. If the people of England

:30:09.:30:13.

and Wales have voted and wish to leave the European Union, that is up

:30:14.:30:18.

to them. I will not oppose that. The people of Scotland have voted to

:30:19.:30:21.

stay, that's what we're going to do. The issue, I want to come back to

:30:22.:30:25.

this and won't take any more interventions... The point is the

:30:26.:30:30.

government is politicising procedures of the house on this

:30:31.:30:34.

matter. We've been here before, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say this

:30:35.:30:40.

humbly to the chair because this is why it becomes a major issue, we've

:30:41.:30:46.

seen this in the 1880s and 1890s, when a government supported a

:30:47.:30:49.

legitimate desire for home rule in Ireland. It's led to major, major

:30:50.:30:58.

debate in this Parliament. It became focused through the whole question

:30:59.:31:01.

of the procedures of this Parliament. Again, in the 1970s,

:31:02.:31:05.

when devolution was first being discussed for Scotland, it

:31:06.:31:14.

intertwined with major issues of business of the house because in the

:31:15.:31:18.

case of home rule for Ireland, the case for home rule of devolution for

:31:19.:31:23.

Scotland, the executive put itself against the face of Parliament

:31:24.:31:27.

having a proper democratic discussion. In the end, Madam Deputy

:31:28.:31:35.

Speaker, the business will go through this afternoon. Unless the

:31:36.:31:40.

government learns the basic lesson that every time it tries to thwart

:31:41.:31:47.

democratic discussion in this house, members of both sides will face the

:31:48.:31:50.

executive down. Unless the government learns the lesson and

:31:51.:31:54.

opens up the debate, we're in for a lot of procedural discussion over

:31:55.:32:00.

the next year. Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion before the house this

:32:01.:32:06.

afternoon has one purpose. Set out in the terms of the motion that I

:32:07.:32:11.

moved. Namely, to suspend the normal rule in this house that amendments

:32:12.:32:17.

may only be tabled by honourable members once second reading has been

:32:18.:32:23.

achieved. The government's motive in tabling this motion this afternoon

:32:24.:32:27.

is to make it easier for honourable members on all sides to consider and

:32:28.:32:33.

then to table any amendment that they wish to do. If honourable

:32:34.:32:38.

members choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity

:32:39.:32:41.

either through blocking this motion this afternoon or through simply

:32:42.:32:44.

waiting until the end of second reading, they are perfectly entitled

:32:45.:32:48.

to take that course of action and we are not in any way through this

:32:49.:32:53.

motion limiting the continued right of honourable members to table

:32:54.:33:01.

additional amendments once second reading has been completed. But in

:33:02.:33:04.

line with the normal procedures of the house. What the government is

:33:05.:33:13.

seeking to do is to respond. In a way a number of members have

:33:14.:33:19.

suggested, we are proceeding with the article 50 bill through

:33:20.:33:24.

extradited process. This expedited process is something that in my time

:33:25.:33:31.

here has been used by governments of all political colours, often in

:33:32.:33:37.

response to High Court decisions or Supreme Court decisions, which have

:33:38.:33:41.

interpreted the law in a different way from how the law had previously

:33:42.:33:48.

been assumed to stand. And it is usual for this kind of motion to be

:33:49.:33:55.

moved by the government on the day when such expedited process is

:33:56.:34:01.

applied. Our purpose in using the expedited process is to enable us to

:34:02.:34:07.

comply promptly with the judgment of the Supreme Court while at the same

:34:08.:34:11.

time respecting the vote of this house, that the Prime Minister

:34:12.:34:16.

should trigger the article 50 process by the end of March this

:34:17.:34:22.

year. It is trying to make sure we can comply both with the Supreme

:34:23.:34:27.

Court and the clearly and overwhelmingly expressed view of a

:34:28.:34:35.

vote in this House of Commons. And I think the speeches we've heard this

:34:36.:34:44.

afternoon are indicative of the shambolic state of some of the

:34:45.:34:48.

arguments being presented by honourable members opposite. I have

:34:49.:34:52.

to say I am disappointed that there seems to be this obsession about

:34:53.:34:57.

debating the process of each and every stage, rather than focusing

:34:58.:35:05.

upon what are the key objectives in a negotiation, which will deliver

:35:06.:35:11.

the best deal for people in every part of the United Kingdom,

:35:12.:35:16.

following the outcome of the United Kingdom referendum earlier this

:35:17.:35:22.

year. That is what in the forefront of the government. That is what I

:35:23.:35:30.

submit is on the mind of our constituents who sent us here, not

:35:31.:35:36.

the detail of perhaps unusual and arcane procedure. We accepted, Madam

:35:37.:35:41.

Deputy Speaker, the judge's ruling on the steps of the Supreme Court

:35:42.:35:46.

after the judges had given judgment. We immediately complied with that

:35:47.:35:49.

judgment by introducing a bill. Honourable members opposite have

:35:50.:35:54.

nothing whatever to complain about. The government could not have been

:35:55.:35:59.

more prompt, efficient, or responsible in complying with that

:36:00.:36:03.

Supreme Court judgment. The question is on the order paper. I think the

:36:04.:36:13.

ayes have it, the ayes have it. Question is that this house to now

:36:14.:36:22.

adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say

:36:23.:36:27.

aye... Contrary no. Order, order.

:36:28.:36:42.