26/01/2017 House of Commons


Similar Content

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



properly manage our transport network? This may be an inadequate


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


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


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


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


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


residence in Scotland. By the wonders of modern technology I


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


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


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


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


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


scribblers in his department are feeding out misleading information


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


then circulated for all members? The honourable gentleman raises an


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


thanking the backbench business committee for granting this time for


this important debate, to thank the honourable members for Hartlepool


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


and I thank the honourable gentleman, the member for


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


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


way these codes are thwarting tenants exercising their rights


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


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


Confederation, the organisation that represents the vast majority of


tenants organisations and pub campaigners as well. It is six


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


rejected the recommendation from the select committee to reopen the


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


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


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


tribute to the most representing tenants who have supplied evidence


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


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


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


detailed pages or based on direct evidence where tenants have sought


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


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


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


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


the adjudicator's office provides unexplained and meaningless data


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


tenants, healing ignores the ways the regulatory pub codes are


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


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


effectively admits both his failure to enforce or indeed to understand


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


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


complaints about him. Many complaints from the tenants who have


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


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


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


key issues people are seeking verification on and the systematic


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


say that it has been an unsatisfactory experience, I would


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


only commercial free time lease agreement means larger upfront


payments and the loss of the award-winning business friendly


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


months in, ministers and civil servants should not have do


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


detriment on the ground and this regulation is being routinely


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


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


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


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


unfavourable and detrimental terms, clearly flouting regulation 50,


enterprising things are doing systematically and saying they need


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


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


market only rent option are being presented with unreasonable options,


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


unreasonable, unaffordable demands for upfront quarterly payments.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


these agreements would have terms that more closely reflect rental


agreements elsewhere in the marketplace, with the market rent


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


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


independently assessed. In terms of the independent assessment itself,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


standards of his own professional body. The conflict of interest


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the concluded he could not command the necessary confidence of tenants


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


select committee on important points and has not responded properly two


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


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


themselves say the adjudicator is responsible for in forcing the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


entire industry will benefit from the certainty we have in


adjudicating, getting on, making decisions and clarifying many of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


statutory duty to enforce. Extraordinarily, knee has breached


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


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


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


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


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


of chartered surveyors, dispute resolution service. They are then


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


illegally delegating these duties to appoint an independent assessor, at


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


clear that Heineken are seeking to take over to stop competitors


because the Heineken bid document states, improvements in this ability


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


floored by government allowing lobbying from big brewers, which


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


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


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


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


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


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


potentially the brewers will have ability to use this confusion to


threaten legal challenges which could be seen again as putting off


discussions over tenants rights under the code. I have dementia


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


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


the Scottish licensed trade Association and all the wonderful


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


supports the same rights for Scottish licensees tied to pub


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


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


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


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


comments. I am grateful to him for giving way


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


deficiencies of the Pubs Code Adjudicator, particularly the


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


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


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


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


briefing that the British Pub comfort oration on the Scottish


licensed trade Association sent him. One of the exciting possibilities


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


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


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


the Scottish Government. The Scottish licensed trade Association


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


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


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


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


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


the Statutory Pubs Code is not working as Parliament intended when


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


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


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


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


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


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


misled and bullied the excepting tied deals. The problems identified


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


now accept the recommendation of the business energy and industrial


strategy Select Committee and reopen the appointment process of the Pubs


Code Adjudicator. We needed adjudicator who actually properly


understands and then clearly properly fulfils this important


statutory role. That requires somebody who does not have the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


with certain issues and problems which we having counted in our


constituency with tenants and leaseholders of PubCo. Can I also


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


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


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


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


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


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


concern about pub closures. Its concern about the lack of


profitability of many pubs which really is my motivation for taking


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


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


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


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


circumstances, take responsibility for the building and the exterior


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


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


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


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


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


a restaurant within the premises. And it provides accommodation where


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


stretching imagination to suggest that somebody who has been on the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


policy which covers the buildings insurance and cover, even though


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


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


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


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


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


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


change the legislation. As the honourable member for Leeds North


West has very accurately and very comprehensively shown, the


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


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


landlords who feel that only leaseholders or protected tenants


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


agencies to negotiate the new tenancies, including using for


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


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


complaints that business development managers of PubCos don't properly


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


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


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


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


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


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


raise the question, is the adjudicator effectively and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


am to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this


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


gentleman the Leeds North West. Together with the Jen the


Tewkesbury, who has just spoken about the superior knowledge and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the power between large pub companies and the tenants of pubs


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


addressing that is the Pubs Code adjudicator, the adjudicator


providing guidance and judges on transactions to making Sarah. As


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


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


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


successors. His judgment. Set residents having ramifications on


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


is therefore essential that the first appointment of a key role


commands universal respect immediately and is not subject to


criticism or accusations of conflicts of interest, whether those


conflicts of interest are either real or perceived because perception


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


expertise are not disputed commit his knowledge of the industry having


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


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


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


reason why he should find it difficult and is finding it


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


select committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Garth from predecessor


select committees who actually helped to change the law when it


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


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


committees that as the honourable gentleman for Warrington and Cannock


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


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


look again at the appointments process to have disappointment, this


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


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


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


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


and as well as Mr Mountford were mentioned earlier they expressed


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


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


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


the Department of business innovations and skills that it was


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


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


suggested that it definitely shouldn't have been as surveyor


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


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


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


business property valuers and surveyors. In giving evidence to the


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


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


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


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


and certainly perceived conflict of interest. However, Mr Newby


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Speaker and really undermines the ability of the adjudicator to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that his judgments would assist large PubCos who commissioned


arrangements to arrange cash flow position and profitability for the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


and Newport County. That huge imbalance between different skills


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


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


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


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


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


committee cannot possibly win any judgment he makes will always now


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


clear perceived conflict of interest and that perception is stopping the


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


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


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


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


independent and impartial? Toby Perkins. They derive much Madame


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


securing the debate, a good pubs campaigner and speaks very


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


honourable gentleman does, campaigners tears of joy when we


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


spent many many years getting governments to recognise that power


imbalance in the industry, and the exploitation of that situation


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


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


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


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


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


latter days of government the coalition government that followed


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that this Parliament and government are serious about ensuring that the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


committee and of course the honourable gentleman Felice


north-west and the honourable gentleman from Warrington means that


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


allegations about the conduct about companies when tenants wish to avail


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


the adjudicator will be to start talking clarity deterrence and the


pub owning businesses on issues like the appropriateness of these


variations as a tool for transferring from a tight tenancy to


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


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


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


to reflect that alongside my praise for the government in bringing


forward some form of legislation there are also legitimate questions.


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


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


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


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


pointed an earlier point the adjudicator and given more time for


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


friend from Hartlepool, and questioned about whether his


background opened him up to perceptions of impartiality. And I


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


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


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


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


met already with some of the campaigners, my friend from


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


clarity for tenants, an opportunity for the adjudicator as the


honourable gentleman for Russ Dorset referred to but actually start


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


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


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


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


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


continuing to have these arguments? I think the honourable gentleman


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


be differences of interpretation, differences of fact in individual


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Fleurets to recognise this perception is undermining his


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


believe that that relationship and the perception of that relationship


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


further away the prospect of a resolution for many tellers who


desperately need the certainty that the code adjudications will bring.


The honourable honourable gentleman was right, there has been many


people walking away from the process, people who are either


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Pubs Code and the role of the adjudicator to gain public


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


eventually accept the recommendations of that committee to


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


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


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


the issues arising from the appointment of the adjudicator, and


effectively carried the torch which has been carried so long by


different manifestations of the business Select Committee. I think


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


obstructive nurse and an unwillingness of the pub companies


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


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


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


moderate recommendations of success select committees has been a


reflection of the Mac just obstructive nurse in any legislation


that actually challenges the business model -- of the obstructive


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


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


afraid it was always likely, even with the implementation of


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


will of Parliament. Current experience, and indeed this debate


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


that the PubCos proclaim publicly that they accept the legislation,


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


yet privately, and the evidence I think, overwhelming evidence


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


honourable member the Tewkesbury as well, demonstrates that their


Private actions or incomplete contradiction to the public


posturing. -- are in complete contradiction to their private


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


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


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


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


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


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


believe also that currently there are 77 referrals before the


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


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


obstructive and lack of clarity being conveyed the licensees by the


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


reflection of the profound dissatisfaction with the process so


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


adjudicator is actually crucial to the successful outcome of the


legislation, and is crucial to the success of successive Select


Committee recommendations. The commitment of almost now generations


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


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


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


interests of Paul Newby, the adjudicator, have been under


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


have referred to his financial involvement in Fleurets. And there


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


financial interest in a body associated with one side of the


arbitration procedure, there is always going to be this perception


that the adjudicator cannot act impartially.


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


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


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


pub companies declared total confidence in Paul Newby, the


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


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


that will be affected by these processes has absolutely no


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


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


really very concerned that many tenants who actually need that


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


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


processes that are available under this Parliament, which have they


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


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


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


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


to his appointment is the implication that the potential that


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


there is a way forward. My honourable friend from Chesterfield


said that they basically should divest himself of these interests,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Increasingly come inside their house, without taking the option of


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


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


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


the honourable member form Leeds North West gave a very detailed


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


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


conflict of interest position that the pubs adjudicator allegedly finds


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


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


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


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


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


within those circumstances that financial interest is liking to make


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


remind the minister part of the problem is that the conflicts


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


addressed with the greatest of urgency. There have been many


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


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


has been alluded to by honourable colleagues. The member for


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


the Minister to answer questions I would particularly interested in,


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


give clarity on that issue. He described pubs are valuable


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


hopefully we can start campaigning to make conscious of the public


turned back towards seeing pubs as community assets and places where


communities can be brought together and he talks also about the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


interest, then it is quite categorically a


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


honourable member for Chesterfield who has admitted that the pubs


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


corroborated by members across the chamber and he gave a useful


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


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


would suggest he has been very successful and campaigning on this


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


got problems. It is worth mentioning clearly that I'm committed


personally to defending Scottish pub tenants and the covenant is also. --


government. Given the wording of the motion, urging parity for Scottish


tenants will clearly involve parity in fairness, but whether fairness


exist in the current system given the problems identified is another


matter. I think the government is right to take the approach that they


have to outline that approach in any more detail right now. The Scottish


Government introduced a voluntary code for pubs in 2015 and the


landlords. Clearly voluntary is not essentially as effective as


compulsory. We consulted this year from July 2016 and published the 77


page report in December of 2006 team. -- 2016. It highlighted that


the pub sector has different characteristics to the pub sector in


the rest of the UK, 47% of the pubs in the UK are tied, only 17 in


Scotland. There are longer leases in the UK than Scotland. That is


further evidence of the one size fits all policy might not be the


best suggestion but that is not to say that we don't recognise that


there are concerns. The evidence collected did not suggest that any


part of the pub sector in Scotland was being unfairly disadvantaged. In


relation to another as a result a further dialogue between the


relevant trade bodies, government and other interested parties should


continue for changes to the legislation are made. It isn't and I


emphasise, it is not rolled out. I don the finding of the research, it


is clear that there was more work to do, to ensure the relationship


between power companies and tenants is further distraction than terror


fight, -- strengthened and clarified, also on beer. It faces


significant challenges in recruiting licensees to participate in the


research. Created by an apparent were unwillingness to engage on the


subject of the detailed level. Clearly consequence this means that


more discussions and further detailed study should be taken with


a significantly increased level of interest, and involvement from the


wider industry. Quite bluntly, Madame Debord is bigger, we feel


that more evidence is required before we could go down the road of


compulsory pubs adjudicator 's, and clearly there are lessons to be


learned from the system that has been put in this place. I don't


think that is wrong, sometimes we will do things first here, and then


in Holyrood, sometimes the way round. Of course, ultimately, we


would like to do it better. That concludes my comments but just to


reiterate we believe in fairness for pub tenants, we are not at this


stage in Scotland yet where evidence been compelling to make ask go down


that road but we are looking at this system, we are thinking about that,


we are analysing the mistakes and hopefully in the future we will


devise a system that properly protects the rights and fair


treatment of tenants to tied pubs. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I


congratulate the member of the Leeds North West and Tewkesbury for


securing this debate and being a supporter and defender of pubs.


Honourable friends, the Pubs Code came in after much wrangling in


Parliament. It was a code that was called for by many stakeholders in


the industry. One of the most important objectives of this code


was to provide a level playing field for tenants, often local pub tenants


to be able to fairly compete with PubCos in negotiations. This was


highlighted by my honourable friend for Chesterfield. I congratulate


this House for addressing such issues in the code, in particular


the successful introduction of the market rent is only option for


tenants to seek the best deals when negotiating with one of the large


six PubCos. The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code


Adjudicator, a decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to this


position, to oversee the running of the code, provide information about


the code, and come awareness Eysseric, to enforce the code. In


the midst of all this there has been raped tension between some groups in


the industry, in particular surrounding the role of the Pubs


Code Adjudicator -- there has been particular attention. My honourable


friend, the member for Chesterfield, highlighted issues around conflict


of interest in his speech and made some very sensible points. As have


many others, who have made eloquent contributions regarding that issue.


I referred to the honourable member from Leeds North West, Tewkesbury,


my honourable friend for West Dorset and my honourable friend for


Chesterfield, Hartlepool and West Bromwich. And I will not go over the


points they have already so eloquently made. But I will say that


firstly the Pubs Code is an essential part in moving the


levelling the playing field between pub tenants and the larger PubCos.


And in doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants


against the very large PubCos and their organisations. The market rent


is only option was successfully introduced so that pub tenants could


have more flexibility in their operations. And it was welcomed by


many stakeholders. But clearly, as we have heard today, there are


serious questions on the effectiveness of the code and its


current implementation, and that of the role and the conduct and the


perceived conflict-of-interest of the pub code adjudicator. I will


refer to the honourable member for Dumfries Galloway. I think he


clearly explained from his legal background how that perceived


conflict-of-interest can be a sort of serious barrier to actually what


is going on at the moment, and if there is a perceived conflict of


interest, then that has to really be looked into seriously. Since the


introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward


to the pub code adjudicator. And mostly, those are to do with the


market rent issues. This is very crucial to many of the small


operators will this sector. So we will see that there is clearly a


demand for arbitration via this code. And it is of great concern to


me and many others that not one of these cases has actually reached any


resolution. And while I read it Nice that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has


only been imposed the six months, it does seem to me that during that


time he should have made his mark on the industry to try and gain the


confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of


referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator must be seen to


be fair and free of any conflict of interest. And this issue is clearly


one, to my mind, that the Government needs to address urgently. And this


was raised clearly by my honourable friend from Hartlepool. Honourable


friends, the pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK. In


particular, the local pubs that formed the hub of many communities.


In this time of the Goverment's cuts the vital local services, we have


seen community pubs step in to provide libraries and cafes to serve


their communities. I commend the work done by the not for profit


organisation in this aspect. Therefore, it is crucial that the


pub code works by everyone as the effective measure it sets out to be


and was expected to be. This brings me to the point raised by many


honourable members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There


certainly have been some raised tensions in the debate over the


appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. And, as I've already said, I welcome


honourable members who have made points about the perceived


conflict-of-interest issues surrounding Mr Newby's former


employer. And I do also want to refer to the findings of the Select


Committee, and I would urge the Minister to look carefully into


those recommendations. Particularly about the perceived


conflict-of-interest, and also taking into account Mr Newby's


shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today. In my


view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The


Government must ensure that the role of pub code adjudicator is truly


impartial. And independent, so that pub tenants, whom the pub code is


there to serve, are satisfied with the work done. And clearly, as


outlined by my honourable friend for Dumfries Galloway, that has not


been the case. It is my view, it is only in this way that we will ensure


a fair and proper process, and it is only in this way that we will ensure


that we focus on the real important issues. I urge the Government to


examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options


which will increase transparency unfairness. Over the last couple of


weeks, I have had many meetings with the representatives of some of the


pub tenants groups and representatives from the larger


PubCos. In all of these meetings there were recurring theme that


appear to unite all stakeholders, including business rates. Therefore


we must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub


industry. The pub has long been part of established British life, and is


now the number three on the list of things to do the tourists coming to


the UK. We must do everything we can do it sure this continues.


Honourable friends, the Pubs Code is there to help local pub tenants get


a fair deal when negotiating with a larger PubCo. But we have already


heard today that some in the industry and convinced that this is


working for them. -- are unconvinced. I strongly urge this


Government to do what it can to ensure that the Pubs Code is


properly implemented for everyone, and in particular for tied tenants,


who have long campaigned for the negotiations. I believe it is only


fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister reviews the way in which he


has been appointed, the matters that have arisen from this debate and


from the Select Committee, in order for us to move on from the position


we are finding ourselves in now, and to make progress to ensure that the


Pubs Code is implemented properly, and that absolutely everybody has


trust and confidence in the way it was meant to be. Thank you.


Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would first like to


congratulate the honourable member from Leeds North West, and my


honourable friend for chicks break for securing today's debate on the


Pubs Code Adjudicator -- for Tewkesbury. And to thank members


across the House who have contributed to the excellent and


thought-provoking debate that we have heard this afternoon. Clearly,


the subject continues to attract strong views, passion and debate,


and the Government, I would like to reassure the House, is fully


committed to ensuring that tied tenants can operate in an


environment that is fair and allows them to thrive. That is why we


introduced the Pubs Code, and I pay by the killer tribute to the


honourable member for Leeds North West -- I pay particular tribute.


The Pubs Code regulates the relationship between around 11,500


tied pub tenants and the large pub owning businesses. Which rent the


pubs to them and sell them tied products. The Pubs Code applies to


pub owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, as we have heard


this afternoon, and there are currently six businesses that fall


in scope of the pubs code - Admiral Caverns, enterprise Inns, Greene


King, milestones, Punch Taverns and start pubs and bars owned by


Heineken. The two principles of the pubs code - there and lawful dealing


by pub owning businesses in relation to the tied tenants -- fair and


lawful. And tied pub tenants should be no worse off than if they were


not subject to any time. And the not subject to any time. And the


Pubs Code should make sure that tied pub tenants receive the formation


they need to make informed decisions about taking on a pub or new terms


and conditions, have the rent-free assessed if they haven't had a


review for five years, -- have their rent assessed. And the request in


market on the option to go market on the option to go


free-of-tie and pay only a market rent in specific circumstances,


including at a rent renewal or a renewal of tenancy. I'm going to


first deal with the appointment of Mr Newby and performance issues


raised in the debate. And I'm sure we will be able to come back to some


of these important issues as I go through my speech. We believe that


he is the right person to ensure that pub codes delivers its


statutory objectives, and, for reasons I will come onto, we think


he has got off to a good start in the course of his responsibilities.


Since his appointment, Mr Newby has himself very visible and accessible.


He has attended at least eight conferences across the country.


Various events, and eight road shows across the country, where he has met


many stakeholders, including several hundred talents. He has also taken


pains to pursue greater visibility for the Pubs Code and raise


awareness for the Pubs Code among tenants by appearing on various


television programmes like pubs special and the great British Pub


Revolution. Both with the aim of bringing the Pubs Code to the


attention of a wider audience. You know, I didn't watch the programmes


myself, so I can't comment on the creative content, but there it is


like they are a means of raising awareness with the target audience.


Through these appearances, Mr Newby has explained his role and


responsibility and shown his determination to help create a


fairer business environment for tied pub tenants that allows the pubs, so


important to our communities, to thrive. Contrary to what we've


heard, Mr Newby has been raising awareness among tenants that under


Regulation 50, a pub owning business must not subject it tied pub tenants


do any detriment on the ground that the tenant exercises or attempts to


exercise any rights under these regulations. And it's very important


that he continues to make this case. I will give way to the honourable


gentleman. I'm very grateful. Can she therefore clarify that in the


context of that desire and that order in the legislation that the


pub owning business who was moving from being tied to a free-of-tie


model would be able to do it with a simple the relation that meant that


this was the only change to the terms and conditions, that all of


the other terms and conditions didn't have to be reviewed as a


result of the type to do that? I have great sympathy with the point


the honourable member has made. And I hope that in June course that will


be clarified by the pub code adjudicator. But the pub code itself


is not clear on that particular aspect, and it will be, it will be


up to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to pronounce on that when he feels he


has enough evidence on that point. I reiterate that I do have


considerable sympathy with the point the honourable member makes. Mr


Newby has received a positive response from tenants, with the


majority being supportive of his role. And I do accept that the right


numbers of people, of tenants, who are opposed and deeply so do his


role, and I couldn't have sat here for the last 1.5 hours without


realising that even if I do know before. I won't give way yet, but I


will of cores give way to the honourable gentleman, I will make


some progress but then I will give way to him. The point is that... I


will come to the... I might as well have given way because he's made his


point anyway, I will come to the point that he is raising about


tenants that are in support of him shortly in my speech. But suffice to


say, the numbers of florals he is getting worried in any case the


witness to what I'm saying -- the numbers of referrals he is getting


would in any case the witness. They are coming to the Pubs Code


Adjudicator to seek protection is provided by the Pubs Code. In the


first six months, the inquiry line, set up by the adjudicator to pride


information about the code, has received 435 enquiries -- to provide


information. 91% were from tied pub tenants or their representatives,


bearing out the imbalance that these business people have had to suffer


over many years. On the same period, the Pubs Code Adjudicator received


121 referrals for arbitration. I will respond to a few of the


comments that were made during the debate. My right honourable friend


for West Dorset and other members have observed that the Pubs Code


Adjudicator does have a jewel role in both upholding and enforcing the


code. Adjudicating on alleged breaches of the code, and the Pubs


Code is in law to bring greater protection to tenants. And to


strengthen their position in what was a very unlevel playing field. So


the PCA's role is therefore to uphold the law and not to interpret


it in the way that is biased towards one party or another when it comes


to the adjudication side of his responsibilities.


We have heard allegations of ongoing abuse I pub companies touring


despite -- during this debate, from the honourable member from Warwick


and also from Tewkesbury and others, tenants seeking the mark and others,


tenants seeking the marking rent only option -- market rent only


option, are being undermined by a company is threatening to make the


pursuit of a market rent only option unreliable in direct contravention


of regulation 50 of the code. And there are clearly, I would suggest,


incidences of flouting the code going on, and honourable members are


quite right to bring them forward to the house as they have done this


afternoon. They are what the code is designed to root out and I would


urge honourable members to refer them to the pub code adjudicator.


Continuing on the performance issues, the honourable member for


Chesterfield quite rightly raised his concerns that they have not yet


been any adjudications, there is a clear appetite which is felt indeed


by the pub code adjudicator himself or adjudications to start coming out


and I have no doubt that they will be, that they will do so in due


course, without further delay, and there is no doubt that the pub code


adjudicator will start to form some views based on the evidence that he


is seeing so that we don't indefinitely have a situation where


every single case takes the same amount of time that the cases have


taken in the first few months of his deliberations. I quite concur with


that point, and I have questioned the pub code adjudicator will about


that and he is yours me that although the law is technical and


not clear on every point that when he is satisfied that he can issue


guidance he most certainly will issue guidance. And he has already,


of course, made statements which I think should give some comfort to


the house. On the 9th of September he made a public statement in


response to information received from stakeholders reminding the pub


owning companies of their obligations and what he expected of


them in relation to the code. That they should act in a manner that


doesn't inhibit tied tenants from accessing their rights, must make


available all relation relating to rent assessment and proposed


tenancies and must ensure that M R O tenancies comply with the code and


do not contain the sorts of unreasonable terms we have heard


about the only debate this afternoon. It is clear from even our


investigations prior to this debate is that at least one pub owning


company is still not complying with the code and making life difficult


for its tied tenants and this needs to be rooted out. I will give way. I


thank the Minister for giving way. I feel I have two just remind her of


her wonder work when she was in the select committee and shared the same


view but she must substantiate the statement she has made for the


majority of tenants supporting Paul Newman. Does she realise that the


only organisations that he has cited in support, the eight M R, one of


their members a regulated PubCos, the PII can run by somebody who used


to be a member of Taiwan macro, the FLA run by enterprise ins, and


social would she correct the record that people still in majority oppose


Paul Newby? I don't to the criticisms that the honourable


gentleman makes. I'm sure he has not interviewed all 11,000 buyers and --


11,500 tied tenants in the country and the representation I have seen


is open to question of how many tenants may be representative. It is


all very well to criticise the bodies he is quoted, but they are


credible organisations, they have welcomed his appointment, and they


have commented that it is essential that the post is held by somebody


with an in depth knowledge of the market and when I visited the office


of the pub code adjudicator in Birmingham, and met the team of


staff behind him they were all also very relieved that they had the


leadership of someone who knew so much about the industry, and the


market. If I may continue because honourable members raised other very


important issues including, of course, the conflict of interest


issue raised particularly by the honourable member for Hartlepool.


There have been to accusations against Mr Newby that he is a


conflict of interest through his financial interests in Fleurets, and


also, and I take this seriously, the perception that he is convicted,


which means that he is not able to carry out his role effectively.


There is a delicate balance to be struck by saying that perception is


reality. Also, taking advantage of every opportunity to boost and give


further credence to that conflict. However, on the conflict of


interest, as the Secretary of State explained to the select committee on


the 14th of the December, the appointment of the post was run in


accordance to the code, a proper and rigorously followed process and the


panel concluded Mr Newby and no conflicts of interest which should


into question his ability to do the job. And the Commissioner of Public


appointments, Mr Peter Riddle has also considered the matter and has


confirmed his view that nothing was hidden and there have been proper


and transparent processes. He has also been satisfied that the panel


were entitled to conclude that Mr Newby has no such conflict of


interest. It would be wrong to refuse the judgment of the


independent figure responsible for overseeing these figures. It is a


man of great integrity who has decided this a great understanding


of many of the issues of public employment. The government does not


agree that is his previous environment with Fleurets Crater


conflict of interest that could give rise to a reasonable perception of


bias. I am sorry honourable members are dissatisfied with that but we


have heard the accusations Mr Newby misled the select committee about


his financial interest in his former company but he is not attempting to


disguise the nature of his financial interests in Fleurets. He answered


the question he was asked to do the best of his ability at the time and


there was no intention to mislead. He later became aware that some


technical parts of his evidence were inaccurate, he has written to the


committee to set the record straight. The request for early


repayment which I think was made particularly by the honourable


member for Chesterfield backed up by the honourable member for West


Bromwich West who made a speech which I listened to with great


attention, having sat on his committee in the early years of my


time here in Parliament, and listened very carefully to what he


said, but during his oral evidence, Mr Newby was open about the nature


of his loan arrangements with Fleurets, and in order to be helpful


he did say that he would ask if that would be possible for the loan to be


repaid or quickly, but that agreement was already in place when


I left, so he took the opportunity when writing to the committee to


update them on his request and his willingness to seek to address his


concerns should not be construed that an admission that he believes


he's conflicted, nor that the government think that this is the


case. So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the pub 's code is very


important for the pubs sector. I feel passionately that it is vital


that Mr Newby is allowed to get on with his job, there are all these


adjudications are now awaiting an outcome, and I share the frustration


that we have not seen any results from them as yet. However, I do


understand that six months on is still not a long time, considering


the burden of work and associated with the role, and just a small


staff of nine people, so I do feel it is incumbent upon is all to give


Mr Newby the space to do his job properly over the next few months


and then I am sure that honourable members will know about beaver


questing a further statement and maybe there will be another debate


when we can talk about the outcome more than the process, I hope,


because he is doing a good job, he has a lot of important work to do


and it is important that through his work and the adjudications that he


makes, that the confidence of the sector is built up and most


important of all the tenants in all our constituencies are protected as


Parliament intended. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to


thank all members in this debate. Some excellent contributions from


all sides, and very notably not a single backbencher stood up in


support of Mr Paul Newby or claimed that the Pubs Code were working. I


have decided the minister, who I like and who did great work with the


select committee, and I paid tributes to her and all former


colleagues, Peter Luff, particularly, a Conservative MP, a


cross-party work. It must've stuck in her crawly things that she had


had to say delay because I had to the house that she was really


regurgitating the misleading nonsense that is coming from the


pubs adjudicator office, talking about visits, visibility, road shows


and what a lovely charming chappie is. It is this kind of backslapping


approach that has got this sector in such a mess surveyors who know pub


code buses and play at the same golf clubs with them. We have to have a


proper system of adjudication in, as the juggling for West Dorset said.


All colleagues, like her, do understand this. She does admit


there are clear examples of flouting the code but she didn't acknowledge


that the pubs adjudicator isn't doing anything about them, it


including on the point of deeds of variation which I hope we will get


action on. I say to her direct daily and collaborative that will shoot


meet with me and other representatives of the British bug


Federation, we will send their hate copy of the report, we must discuss


it with her and her officials with the reality is that we have heard


these addition Billy macro vision of Paul Newby is untenable. He cannot


perform this role, he simply never you will have confidence of the


tenants, and frankly the whole situation around him stinks. The


member for Dumfries and Galloway says that if it looks like a duck,


it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Frankly, he is a dead duck but worse


than that, a duck that is in real danger of compromising, scheming,


watering down everything that the government tried to do with the Pubs


Code and what this house stood for. It will not go away, he will never


have the Commons attends Cannes and the Pubs Code must be made to work


full stop is her duty, her and her ministerial colleagues, to do so. We


look forward to meeting with them to present the real evidence, unlike


the nonsense, and a reminder how is that Greene King, one of the six


regulated Taiwan macro, are a member of the very organisation that is the


Newby has claimed supports him. That is what the situation is here, it is


not good enough, it is the vast amend number of licensees, and all


people that the British bug Federation organisations are


representing or pose Mr Newby, they have no confidence in him. He will


have to go. It will happen, and it depends whether we see leadership


from the government or whether this had to drag on another six months or


a year but this will not go away. The question is as on the up order


paper. As many are the opinions AI macro. To the country, no. The ayes


habit. We now come to the backbench debate on access to breast cancer


drugs. I beg to move the motion in my name. Thank you, Mr Deputy


Speaker. I would like to thank the backbench business committee for the


swift way in which they gave us time to have this important debate.


Today, I want to put the spotlight on the issue that affects the lives


of millions of people, people living with breast cancer, and also their


family and friends. I'm sure that almost everyone here today will know


someone who has had this disease, and my own friends have suffered


from breast cancer and am so pleased that many of them will be in the


public gallery to watch this debate today. I have received large amounts


of communication one of the latest last night from a baby and Ashley


you cannot be here today but who will be watching it on TV. It is


something affecting people, irrespective of their class, work.


We know that many honourable members have suffered from breast cancer


like my honourable friend and my whip, who has a great recovery. Can


I share with the house that a member from my own side approached me only


yesterday about receiving treatment and while she wanted to be in this


debate she felt it was too close to her at this moment to be involved.


I'm sure honourable members will agree with me when I say we need a


health system where the most effective cancer treatments are


available to all patients will I want patients to know that we have


not given up on them, and we want an NHS that provides us all with access


to the most effective treatments. If the deliberations that are used by


Nice, particularly the metastatic breast cancer, take insufficient


account of the needs of young families to spend more time with


their mothers, is the remedy to that something that Nice itself can take


in altering the way it goes about those deliberations, or is it


something that we need to do here in this House or the Government needs


to do? I think the answer for the right honourable member's question


is both. There are issues about how Nice, the National Institute of


clinical excellence, assess new drugs, particularly cutting edge


drugs like Kadcyla. And as he will know because of his involvement, the


last government had the Cancer Drugs Fund. It is not an either- or, it is


something we need to come together to discuss. People with more


scientific knowledge than myself might wish to consider. I'm very


grateful to the honourable member for giving way and I congratulate


her on securing this is really important debate. Does she share my


concern at news that the Government appears to be ready to leave the


European Medicines Agency following the Brexit vote? Which many people


fear will lead to a slowdown in access to new medicines. She talks


about the importance of NHS patients getting access to medicines, this


could make the situation worse and we would be disadvantaged, to other


countries in Europe. Mr Deputy Speaker, breast cancer knows no


boundaries, class, social, geographic. And anything that


reduces our access to better forms of treatment is detrimental, in my


view. The ability to lead a rich and longer life as a result of medical


advances should not be limited just to those who can afford private


health care. Those advantages should be accessible to us all. Today in


particular, our debate will focus on the provision of Kadcyla, which is


under threat. Most honourable members will be aware that the lease


of life the breast cancer drug Kadcyla has brought the thousands of


women in illness who have incurable secondary breast cancer. These women


rely on Kadcyla during rich their lives, give them extra pressures


years to live. It is in many ways it revolutionaries drug. By targeting


cancer cells directly, it helps reduce the number of side-effects,


boosting the quality-of-life of those women inevitably. I know that


honourable members who have heard these women talk about their


experiences will be humbled to learn of the distress and despair that


they face as a result of the National is the Jude of health care


excellence, Nice, to be provisionally rejected the future of


Kadcyla on the NHS. Today we are all supporting breast cancer now's keep


Kadcyla campaign, to encourage Nice to reverse its decision and enable


the continued access of this drug on the NHS, which both improves the


quality-of-life and extends the lives of thousands of women in this


country. Thousands of people across the country have had their views


heard since Nice's decision was announced at the end of December.


They have signed by position might petition and contacted the local MPs


to ask that we do not give up on women and the children who are


dependent on their mothers, the families who want to have those


precious extra times with their loved ones. This is why we are all


here today, to raise our collective voice in support of these women and


defend the treatment that allows them to live their lives. I will


focus much of what I have to say today on Kadcyla, but there are


other specific breast cancer drugs that we need to consider, too, as


well as the broader issue of how decisions on access to treatment is


made. Unfortunately, we are yet to see any improvement in access to pay


the drugs, some of which can prevent the development of certain cancers,


saving thousands of lives, and saving the NHS a great deal of


money. Just a few months ago, the front pages of national papers


highlighted the poor access to vital bisphosphonate drugs, which camp


event women developing secondary cancer. Yet this Government has


barely acknowledged the problem of access to this treatment. I look


forward to hearing from the Minister about when we can expect tangible


results and access to of Paton drugs, including bisphosphonates. To


be clear, many of the women who did a oh the lives to Kadcyla might not


have ever developed secondary breast cancer have they had access to buy


false than eight drugs in the first place. Thank you, I'm grateful to my


honourable friend for giving way. I want to talk about off Paton drugs,


specifically on bisphosphonate specifically, is she concerned by


the UK breast cancer group survey undertaken in March last year that


at the moment only 24% of breast cancer clinicians offering


bisphosphonates the patient's? That is something the Government could


urgently addressed up yellow I completely agree to my honourable


friend. It is not just about Kadcyla, but about the thousands of


lives of women who rely on it to survive. I want to share my words


and experiences of two of my friends whose lives have been transformed by


actors devised back. One of my friends who is here today, I went to


primary school with. I won't tell the House just how many years ago


that might have been! Her name is Samantha. When I got the breast


cancer diagnosis, I glibly thought, it's OK, I'll get to would. But


sadly, about 18 months ago, I found out this was not the case, and my


cancer has spread to my liver. That's when I really knew that my


cancer meant business. And that is where Kadcyla comes in. You see, for


breast cancer, although I coped and kept going with surgery, it was


grim. I worked a bit, but regular chemotherapy is not a doddle. Ipsos


gym at Howells is the least of it. Putting on a brave face and wearing


a wig is just a service issue. Getting up and vomiting and going to


work to deal with the VAT is about hardest thing I have ever done. It


wasn't simply because I don't have enough sick pay and work to cover my


mortgage, I actually like work. Work allows me to make my contribution,


and I think that's pretty near the most important thing. Making my life


make a difference, and Kadcyla, well, that means that my life isn't


over. It really gives me hope. There is a big hole where my 45 millimetre


tune be used to be in my liver, and Scottish you and other bits. But I'm


cancer free without having to take another year off my life -- and scar


tissue. My work is precious, I have kept the business going, eight


people are employed because I could keep going, and Kadcyla makes it


possible for me. I would also like to mention my friend... I


congratulate my honourable friend on her, obtaining this debate. She


certainly made a very powerful speech on behalf of her constituent.


Does she agree with me that when Nice looks at this, at the cost


value ratio around this, that her constituent's story and the keeping


of eight people in work should be a factor at looking at women's


economic life and roll both at the workplace and the home? Can I


completely agree with my honourable friend. I appreciate that these


equations and calculations are difficult and I don't underestimate


the work of Nice. But it is about life and quality-of-life and about


so many more people than those just affected by having the council. And


to my friend Lesley, in 2030 my world was turned upside down when I


was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer and a rare and


aggressive kind of cancer that develops in the limb muscles. After


15 months' treatment, compromising eight chemotherapy treatments, and


Mustaq, 15 radiotherapy treatments and the year of medication, it


appeared that the cancer had gone. Four months later I noticed a rash


around the scar tissue of the Mustaq, and a biopsy showed that the


cancer had re-occurred in my skin. My oncologist told me was in a tight


corner, because the cancer had returned so quickly, I wasn't


eligible for the usual drug treatments, radiotherapy was not an


option because I had recently completed a course, and surgery


wasn't possible because of the location of the cancer. I was told


the council was incurable and referred to the Royal Marsden. They


confirmed that surgery was not feasible because the cancer has


spread so quickly over a large area, making skin grafts impossible. I was


told Kadcyla was my best chance. I have now been treated with Kadcyla


the 22 months, and I have been told of others that have been treated for


five years. Signs that the cancer has disappeared very quickly, and so


far I remain cancer free. Kadcyla has enabled me to live a life


reasonably normally, and participate in and contribute to my local


community. Kadcyla has been a life-saver for me, and without it my


future was very uncertain. I feel profoundly fortunate to have


received it, and I'm incredulous that such an effective drug will now


be denied to other people in my situation. I would also like to


mention Rosalie, who was featured in the Evening Standard on Friday


night. Rosalie is just 33 and is living with incurable breast cancer.


She is in single-parent two children, three and six, and she is


terrified of the future without the option of Kadcyla, terrified of her


kids growing up alone. In Rosalie's on words - I hate feeling like a


victim, but I have to fight my kids. There are more important than me


feeling vulnerable against going public. I have to fight for life,


for them. Then there is Maddy, who you may have seen last week on the


Victoria Derbyshire programme. She has spoken so eloquently of how


Kadcyla gave her hope. It has improved her life both significantly


and quickly, enabling her to live a much fuller and richer life - going


on holiday and playing an active part in her young but's life. These


are just a few women of so many lives who have been made possible


through access to Kadcyla. I'm sure many honourable members will share


the experiences of the Rome constituents, such as the honourable


member for Croydon South, who will no doubt talk about the incredible


Bonnie Fox, the face of breast cancer now's keep Kadcyla campaign.


Thanks to Bonnie's hard work and bat of breast cancer now, this campaign


has seen over 100,000 people signed the petition calling for Nice and


Roche to come together and reassess this decision and find a solution to


keep Kadcyla available. Bonnie is an incredible advocate for the keep


Kadcyla campaign, inspiring so many others as she leads the case for


this treatment. Bonnie says her inspiration is wanting to have as


much time with her two-year-old son Barnaby as possible. In her own


words - I already feel cheated by diagnosed with secondary breast


cancer at 37 with the baby. Having the drug taken away that would add


years to my life and give me quality time with my son is so cruel. I'm


grateful to her. She will be aware that the Government's accelerated


access review last October recommended that Nice should review


its health technology assessment processes and methods. Is she


concerned that the review of this drug, Kadcyla and other drugs on the


Cancer Drugs Fund, is happening before that review takes place, so


we might learn the lessons about how the review process needs to improve


and we won't benefit from Matt? Can I agree with the right honourable


member. I'm sure he knows more about this process than myself. It clearly


makes sense if these kind of unique, unusual, first-tier drugs should be


considered in the light of that reconsideration. You know, I could


go on, and I hope that we will hear the stories of these and so many


other women whose lives have been affected by singing the Roux breast


cancer and enriched by Kadcyla. It matters so much to all of these


women for one simple reason - it works. Kadcyla is effective, it


already been available on the NHS for over two years, and its


side-effects are limited in comparison to other treatments. But


today it is nothing short of a tragedy to know that countless women


who thought that Kadcyla would be the next treatment they would


receive for their breast cancer or having their lives shortened in


front of their eyes. Imagine, you're living with incurable breast cancer,


you know that there is no cure but there is something that can give you


extra time with people you love, people who depend on you. It could


be a year or five years or even longer. If you needed a drug today,


the NHS would give it to you. But if you needed it in a few months' time,


you may have lost or trials. -- lost your chance. I thank her for giving


way, she is making a perfect speech. I congratulate her on securing the


debate. Would she agree that the phenomenon of the new drugs in the


pipeline which would make of vital difference but being held up by this


conflict between Nice and pharmaceutical companies overpricing


or value for money or whatever you call it, it not only applies to


breast cancer but for other cancers, too. My constituent David Innis is


one of 30,000 sufferers of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. He was in


here earlier this week making the same argument. He was diagnosed at


39. He has lived with it since 2009, he is making the same point she


makes as Mike both parties need to end the logjam and come up with a


deal and is sure that the availability of these jobs actually


put lives first, because life is too short, literally, otherwise.


stop. I completely agree with in which the best to her constituent.


How can we withdraw a drug from the NHS that works? It seems senseless


that it is happening, and of course Kadcyla is just one drug that we


need to look at, what will happen with other key breast cancer drugs


now and in the future? I would like to consider just two more examples,


one already available on the Cancer Drugs Fund and one not. Pogeta is


currently available, and has not yet been reappraised as Kadcyla has been


and is used for HD are two positive breast cancer patients. It enables


women to live for an additional six months without the breast cancer


progressing and can extend life by an additional six months or more but


because it is administers with two other drugs, it would not be


considered cost-effective under a NICE standards even if drug


manufacturers gave it away for free. Another drug worth considering is


Palbocyclib and I apologise if I have spelt that wrong. It is a new


drug that is being assessed for the first time, another extremely


effective drug, and allowing ten months without progressive cancer.


Robust overall survival data is not yet available because it is so new.


Perversely this will count against it in the NICE appraisal. This is


because overall survival data is given greater weight than


progression free survival, in NICE appraisals, despite the fact that


the outcome is the same, a longer and enrich life was that we are


seeing effective treatment being rejected or facing rejection. What I


want to know is if it is really right that we have a health service


planning to take away these lifelines? How was the decision to


take away these life extending drugs beneficial for people living with


cancer, or any of us who might one day need access to them? Who makes


the decisions as to Mark how can we be sure they are the right ones? I


have my questions regarding the factors constituting the process. It


is too easy to assume that experts must automatically be right. Numbers


income for merely use, then yes or no. Let us not forget that we are


talking about people's lives. For those affected, for those whose this


is all too real. The appraisal process is there doom. Dad how many


people understand the issues in these decisions prisons, the drug


Palbocyclib is proving so effective that data is only available on how


cancer is progressing. In terms of the appraisal, would she agree with


me that the fact that this drug is available in France, Germany,


Austria and Canada shows that routinely are system isn't working?


I would agree with my honourable friend on that point and it is


amazing to think that it will take for this particular drug longer to


get overall survival data because people are living longer without


their cancer spreading? Is obvious success is seen as a disadvantage in


the NICE appraisal system. The cost of Palbocyclib would appear to be


much higher in the NICE formula as a result because overall survival data


is given much more weight than progression free survival will stop


that does seem illogical. Consider also the criteria for and of life


treatment determination. If a treatment is end of life it is


allowed to have doubled the quality adjusted life year, but end of life


is considered to be two years. But not why not three years? How have we


ended up with such an arbitrary fixed figure, especially when the


figure is set in Scotland, as three years? There is no cure for


secondary breast cancer but as people start to live longer it will


place them at a disadvantage in terms of accessing treatment because


it will be harder for those treatments to become approved, and


as they are no longer considered under the end of life criteria. I


asked the Minister how can she be sure that the NICE process is still


fit for purpose? Will she responds passivity on the two suggestions of


revealing the wakeboard regressions free survival when overall survival


is not available because treatment is so effective? And whether the end


of life criteria could be changed to three years instead of two? Finally,


I would also like to return to the issue of offbeat and treatments will


stop over recent years there have been two private members bills on


the topic, one introduced by my honourable friend the member for


Torfaen. We had many commitments to the subject from the then Minister


for life sciences but adds yet we have not seen any improvements to


access, which is hugely disappointment. The Minister


committed to establish a working group to investigate what could be


done to enable use of such treatments and I believe this this


working group is due to conclude its work next month with a report. Can I


ask the minister whether this will report will introduce a clear


pathway for oft repeated treatments and or she write to me with the


details of this pathway and how it will explicitly work for


bisphosphonates drugs for prevention of secondary breast cancer. I know


that others have been disappointed by the extremely patchy availability


of this treatment for eligible women. As a result it recently were


lodged the 43p a day campaign to highlight the low cost of this


treatment and the fact that it would save over 1000 lives every year in


the UK if it worse routinely available. Not to mention saving


millions of pounds for the NHS. Thank her for giving way and


congratulate her for securing the debate. Can I put on my support for


the case the honourable ladies making and particularly draw the


house attention to the case of my constituent Bonnie Fox who is in the


gallery above us this morning, suffering in the way that the


honourable member has been describing and whose life chances


would be greatly improved if something more could be done to


preserve the availability of Kadcyla and I once again express the support


for the case for the honourable ladies's eloquently expressed case.


Can I thank the honourable member, is likely to have such an


exceptional constituent as Bonnie Fox who we have already mentioned in


the debate because of a sessional work. The Minister has said that CCD


's are responsible for commissioning the treatment for bisphosphonates.


Could the Minister let me know what the contact has been with CCG in


this process. This is a challenge in execs leg-macro existing


arrangements,... Does the Minister agree that if we want general in


progress on availability of this treatment we cannot take the path of


least resistance, and just say it is up to CCG. It is -- they are


independent bodies and make their own decisions. That is a do nothing


option. Is an old treatment requiring a new approach, requiring


our commissioning strategists at NHS England to make a decision about how


to commission this treatment routinely. Will the Minister agreed


to meet with Ian Dodge, national director more commissioning strategy


to discuss the specific case with him? And to keep members here today


updated on those discussions was to mark and with the Minister agree


that it is indeed worrying at a treatment that could prevent over


1000 women getting secondary breast cancer every year is not routinely


available? To finish and I'm sure everybody will be delighted...! I


had the Minister would consider the meeting of some of the women


affected by the breast cancer and breast cancer now here today and I


would like to thank those women in the public gallery for coming here


to show their support for this debate en masse? I would like to


wish every single one of them well. Access to life enhancing and life


saving drugs should be a right in the UK, not a decision based on a


lottery of access to private health care. I sincerely hope that


Palbocyclib will reverse the decision and give every woman that


future back. The question is as on the order paper. Ian Stewart. Thank


you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating the honourable


lady from Mitcham and Morden for securing the important debate and


also for setting out the case so powerfully. I agree with pretty much


everything she has said, and I know there are quite a number of members


wishing to speak so I went to tame the house simply by repeating all of


these points. My motivation for speaking today comes from a meeting


I had with my constituency surgery just a couple of weeks ago with my


constituent Joanna Mears, and her husband, and they, like many other


sufferers, are in the public gallery this afternoon watching proceedings.


Mrs Mears suffers from secondary breast cancer and while her


condition sadly is terminology is responding well to her existing


medication and has already had more than twice the expected benefit span


from that notification -- medication. What she is on now, when


that's no longer has its effect her only remaining option is Kadcyla,


and naturally she is very concerned that if the NICE decision is upheld


then that option... It is essentially the same question that


has already been asked. I think we all accept that a mistake... That to


this is a decision this is wrong. The key question is what is the


remedy? Is the remedy within the remit of Palbocyclib to sort by


changing its procedures and considerations? Or does this lie


with the framework, the statutory framework that parliament and


government has set within which NICE works? That is the issue I think two


which we must come to an answer. I'm grateful to him for asking me


questions and my answer will be pretty much the same as the


honourable lady's. In this specific case I think, I hope that there is


scope for NICE and the manufacturer of Kadcyla to sit down and agree if


only for this treatment some compromise, and actually I had a


briefing note from them this morning stating that they are willing to do


that, and I hope that NICE... If I may just finished answering my noble


friend first. I will certainly away afterwards. I hope that Palbocyclib


will respond in kind to -- I hope that NICE will respond in kind. As


my honourable friend points out I think there was a broader issue for


other drugs, and I do think it is time to perhaps look again at the


appraisal system and others, so we don't have to continue to return to


this debate went in new drug in the future is identified, and there is a


question of its affordability under the Cancer Drugs Fund, so I hope


that answers my honourable friend was a point. The other would general


from Coventry. I think the honourable gentleman. I agree with


him because it is not only these drugs we are debating today where we


have problems before, in relation to NICE in particular, and I think in


answer to his honourable friend's question both the Cedars should be


looked at by the Minister and NICE should be looked at as well because


it will be -- we have continually come back here, the years I've spent


here listening to the same questions, is nobody 's business, to


use an expression. The Irn-Bru gentleman from Coventry South makes


an important point and I don't pretend to be an expert in how NICE


works but what I hope to bring to this debate is a personal example


from my constituent just to underline the human effects that


these matters have. I don't have a solution necessarily but I hope the


outcome from this debate will be as well as looking at Kadcyla itself


perhaps seeking a fresh look at the whole process.


The Nice framework works very well for mass drugs, where the entire


population or in whole vaccination is going to work. But for very small


numbers of people, the 1200 women that really need this drug, I


personally don't think it is as effective a process. There are two


people in the negotiation two Kadcyla and Roche. We mustn't have


Roche seeing the new drugs as a new cash cow, as has certain goes


Kadcyla in 2017. Women's lives should not be treated as cash cows


by this drugs company. I agree with the honourable lady. I have not had


any personal discussions with Roche, I can only take at face value the


note they sent me earlier this morning, that seemed to be a genuine


wish to negotiate with Nice and get down to an acceptable price. And I


hope that debate is joined in the spirit it is meant. I was going to


mention this later in my speech, but perhaps it's appropriate now. I


think one area that does need to be examined is the pharmaceutical price


regulation scheme, a five-year voluntary contract between


pharmaceutical companies and Nice. If I understand how it is intended


to work is that the pharmaceutical companies will underwrite any


overspend for a particular drug, but for various reasons that doesn't


seem to be working in practice. So my honourable friend the Minister, I


would urge her to look at that particular point that some in the


industry are making. If I may return to the case of Mrs yours, my


constituent. As I say, when her current medication ceases to be


effective, she considers the only option. While she has responded well


to the current treatment, there is every likelihood, and her consultant


agrees, that she will similarly respond positively to Kadcyla. And


there is every chance that she would enjoy the benefits of that well in


excess of the expected nine months that it has meant. And I just would


therefore argue that a blanket ban on this drug would be inappropriate.


At the very least there should be some flexibility in the system to


make it available to people like my constituent, for whom there is a


very high probability that it would have more than the expected and


official process. I would also make the point that because she has


responded so well to her existing drug, if her life is able to be


extended considerably by Kadcyla, it will allow more research to be done


on the efficacy of her existing medication, and that would be an


important body of evidence to add to the whole appraisal process. The


honourable lady from Mitch Mann mortem quite rightly said that


prescription drugs should be based solely on clinical need, and no


longer a factor. When I met Mrs Mears, she made one point to me that


I couldn't really answer. Through her life she has been a


professional, worked professionally in the criminal justice system and


done a lot of work in saving the public purse money by innovating


programmes to reduce youth offending. That value cannot be


calculated. But she made the point to make up the one point in my life


I need something back -- she made the one point to me, at the one


point and my life I need summing back from this country, it can't be


given to me. I really couldn't answer that. I hope that something


can be done to make this drug available. As I say, the Nice


decision is provisional. I contributed to the consultation, and


I hope, I think it is in early March next, that they will review this


decision. I know that NHS resources are finite, and there are many


competing demands on its budget, and the debate on the overall size of


the NHS budget must be a matter for another time. But in cases like


this, to illustrate the need to use what resources we have as


efficiently as possible. Just before I met Mrs Mears the other week, I


happened to see a story in the media which really made my blood boil. And


I just simply put this on the table, I don't pretend to be an expert in


the prescription system. But the story reported that the NHS wastes


about ?80 billion per annum by prescribing simple painkillers like


paracetamol, which you can buy in a supermarket for 20p or 30p per


packet. But it goes through the usual prescription system, and costs


?80 billion per year. Surely there is a way of getting around that to


somehow give GP practices in stock of these basic painkillers, I'm not


asking people that currently get their prescriptions free to start


paying, but surely there is a way of the doctors just simply issuing them


when it's appropriate to do so, and stop this merry-go-round of


paperwork that they say costs many millions of pounds. I think the


honourable gentleman is making a very valuable point. Would he agree


with me that one way around this would be to have prescribing


pharmacists that could give out those basic painkillers and


medications such as that without the need for the patient to even see


their GP, plus freeing up valuable GP time? That sounds in on the


sensible suggestion. I don't pretend to be an expert in the system, but


surely something like that can be done. That money saved can be added


to the Cancer Drugs Fund and make more drugs like Kadcyla available to


people who need it. So I'm going to end my comments, I know that many


members want to contribute, but please let's try to do everything we


can in this House, in Courage Nice, encourage Roche, certainly look at


the overall system, but particularly on this drug. It means so much to my


constituent, and the many others up and down the country. So I hope this


debate has that effect, and I conclude where I started in


congratulating the honourable lady for introducing it. Nick Thomas.


Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the Backbench


Business Committee. That was very, very important topic for debate this


afternoon. I would also like to pay tribute to my honourable friend, the


member for Mitchell Mann mortem, for the passionate and thoughtful way in


which she introduced the debate. And also to endorse everything that she


said, and particularly in relation specifically to the drug Kadcyla.


She said in her pithy way, firstly it works, but secondly it has far


fewer side-effects than many cancer drugs do. I was very proud to have


backed as well the 43p per day campaign that was mentioned by my


honourable friend in her opening remarks. I should in interest as the


chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on off-patent drugs. I should


also say that one of my first actions and being a member of this


House in 2050 was to become a breast cancer ambassador. I was very proud


to do so, as the person who inspired me to come into politics actually


was my grandmother, who died of the disease years ago. But I was lucky


enough in my early months in this House to be drawn in the ballot for


a Private Member's Bill. And I introduced the off-patent drugs


bill. And although it was talked down in quite controversial


circumstances on the 6th of November 2015, I was nonetheless very pleased


to work after that make cross-party basis to achieve legislative


progress. And I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for Central


Ayrshire, the honourable members for Bury St Edmunds, Daventry, and


indeed the former Minister for life scientist, and the work that was


done in those months to make legislative changes that would then


incorporated in what was then the access to medical treatment


innovation bill, which later became an Act and received Royal assent in


March last year. I want to come if I make to the pledges that were made


on the 29th of January 2016, and how things have moved forward since. I


would say to the Minister that in setting out a number of questions


about this, I don't necessarily expect them all to be answered in


detail in her closing remarks. But if there are aspects that she feels


she cannot answer in detail, I would be very grateful if she would write


to me about those matters after the debate today. On the 29th of January


2016, I and others in this House put down a package of amendments to this


Bill. Some of which were substantial and went into the Bill, and others


which were amendments to receive the promises I have talked about. The


then Minister for life sciences said, broadly, the intention of the


package of amendments is to introduce off label repurposed


medicines in the bill and the budget. The heart of the agenda. And


that is precisely what we sought to do that day. And he added, I


wholeheartedly supported the intention of this bill and its


predecessor, but not the mechanism. We now have a mechanism that will


work. We spoke that day about the mechanism. Now, one of those


amendments was a request for an action plan. And it was decided by


the Minister that he didn't want that on the face of the bill, but he


actually said this - "Let me set up my commitment and bat of the


Government the pursuing the agenda with time and rigour". I thank my


honourable friend for giving way. I remember his bill very well and the


shameful way in which it was talked down by the professional filibuster.


Would he not agree that any action plan needs to look at these things,


and also the diagnosis support and information that patients have a


other types of cancer as well as breast cancer, as well as the


limited availability of effective drugs we have talked about that do


not have side effects and the fact that drugs have been delisted from


the Cancer Drugs Fund. I certainly agree that the pathway has to be a


comprehensive one. I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I will


come back to the pathway in a moment. In addition, that day, the


then Minister for life sciences said he would explore mechanisms for


ensuring that the National is the Judith clinical excellence can look


at evidence and develop evidence -based guidance on off label


medicines so that doctors are aware of which dropped are being used on


off label indications. -- which drugs. He added that Nice are


looking at ways to collect evidence on repurposed medicines. I'm pleased


with the progress that has been made with the national fund and I will


come back to that specifically in a moment. We thought this would have


applied to NHS England. A new system of national commissioning of


repurposed drugs. Again, the amendment was not accepted. But this


pledge was given - the NHS is happy to look at all options for promoting


off label and repurposed drugs use. I hope that pledge will be repeated


by the Minister at the dispatch box today. There was also a commitment


to consult all relevant stakeholders going forward. Again, I'd hope that


would be fairly uncontroversial and able to be repeated. Let me come to


where we have got to. When I intervened on the speech of my


honourable friend, I did quit worrying statistic about


bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates really does provide a case in point


here. Bisphosphonates is a drug that is used to treat osteoporosis, but


it is very, very effective in its second reform, it's repurposed form,


where you do have somebody with primary breast cancer, it certainly


helps with preventing it spreading to the bone. It is very effective in


that regard. That statistic of only 24% of clinicians actually being


able to prescribe it is a very worrying one, and one that needs to


be addressed. There should be in the system no barrier to that being far


more widely prescribed than it is. Let me just come to the working


group, because I understand that it will conclude at the end of next


month. I'm very grateful I will be meeting officials from the medicines


and pharmacy directorate to discuss this in the next few weeks. But it


would be appreciated that if there is to be a pathway, whether the


Minister would be prepared to share that with me in draft form prior to


then in order for comments to be made, particularly going back to the


pledges that were made last year. The British National formulary has


begun work. Indeed, I looked up bisphosphonates specifically on the


BNF online before I came into this debate today. This is what makes


that 24% statistic even more worrying, really, because BNF online


actually says that the use of bisphosphonates impatience with


metastatic breast cancer may reduce pain and prevent pain and prevent


skeletal complications of bonuses starters. Now that is actually there


already. It is the in the prescribers Bible, if you like -- on


metastatic. It would be something for the Minister to focus on, why


that is not filtering through the system in the way it should be. In


addition, there is a pilot licensing scheme that brings together medical


research charities and generic manufacturers of drugs, the


licensees of Paton drugs for the new purposes. If the Minister could


comment on whether that fully fledged scheme would be helpful, but


I also think this is an interesting development because my Bill in its


original form was actually a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to


seek licences for drugs in the new indications. That was the bone of


contention between myself and the Minister. At the time we thought


that was too much and too onerous with respect to the Secretary of


State to have that duty. The other interesting point, looking back at


that debate, is the other point that was made then was about the EU's


licensing scheme. It said that changes could run a coach and horses


through it. Given that we're not going to be members of the European


Union by the end of this Parliament, I would be interested in the


Minister's comment as to how she the Brexit process, the end of the


Brexit process, when we are no longer members of the EU, would


actually affect this? If it was seen by the Minister at the time is


browsing problems, perhaps she could tell us whether she is considering


whether or not this pilot licensing can first of all become fully


fledged, but without that you are being licensing scheme, how she sees


that developing here in the UK going forward. -- without the European


licensing scheme. I appreciate I have got a lot of points to the


Minister there. I'm perfectly happy if she could write to me about it.


But I think what we shouldn't forget here is really the difference that


this of Paton drugs agenda can make the people's lives -- this


off-patent drugs agenda. Those who face this issue have incredible


bravery. The honourable member for Bristol West is in the House with


us, and the constituent Bonnie Fox, the honourable member for Croydon


South. We in this House as legislators Ujah YouTube to all of


those who suffer from this terrible disease to take all of this possible


that that we can to make these extraordinarily cheap drugs readily


available as possible. It is alleged to speak on this


thread and I would like to congratulate the member for securing


it was honoured to be able to back it in the application to the


backbench committee. I would also do like to thank her for her powerful


speech, it was very moving. Fighting cancer is not just a top priority


for the NHS, it is one of the greatest scientific challenges of


our time. Treating our illnesses with signs rather than superstition


is a relatively new idea in the history of medicine. But the


acceleration of better diagnosis, better treatment, and a more


successful outcome is keeping more of us alive for longer, and with


better policies of life. The motion before the house mentions Kadcyla, a


treatment which Nice has not enabled to comment for the of second breast


cancer and we await the results of their consultation in March. This is


a treatment which is a relative of another medicine which in its


introduction was also extremely controversial, and after a lot of


consideration by Nice and a lot of debate and pressure by the house the


drug was approved and has helped thousands of people, because men get


breast cancer, too, fighting breast cancer. Timber macros are treatment


which could help a number of women on the existing remit and would help


them to advance. We talk about secondary or metastatic breast


cancer than we talk about people whose lives are massively sorted by


breast. Kadcyla gives them and their families more time on the quality of


life. It can have months their life expectancy, whose remaining lives


are only likely to be mentioned in a few months, and the honourable


member for Michelin and Morden very movingly talks about some of her


friends and those in the gallery, too. We all understand that the


financial constraints asked tight on NHS even though spending has


increased and I welcome cancer drug funds providing patients with much


better access to promising new cancer treatments with also value


for the taxpayer. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the honourable


lady for giving way, and I was profoundly moved by the case in my


constituency Melanie Marshall who sadly is suffering from breast


cancer and one of the policy to me is she finds it hard to understand


why the NHS can spend such significant sums on conditions which


frankly not life-threatening, and sometimes lead to verge on the


cosmetic, and yet not give a priority vital drugs like someone


macro? -- priority to drugs like Kadcyla question mark surely there


is money that can be found. I also get e-mails on the censored out but


there are other considerations like mental health which is one of the


reasons why some people don't quite understand why money is being spent


in various parts of the NHS. Those are the reasons behind that. I


totally agree with you on drugs like this which seem to make such a


difference. In the case of Kadcyla there seem to be question is why it


can't be brought into the regular use. Some of these are for Nice and


some of them for the manufacturer for up Kadcyla is a treatment


accepted by numerous European countries. I am reassured that


cancer charities seen that Nice has made every effort to fund it. The


question remains that how Nice's final position compares to other


countries, France and Germany for instance. Once's 's equivalent of


Nice considered it in the same way as Nice has and approved it. Another


query is the joys of comparative treatment in assessing the quality


of Kadcyla as a treatment. They concern that the comparator is a old


treatment, and I'm going to compare it, very difficult with these


medical terms,. I haven't been able to say those terms. The


comparisons made with those previous drugs seems unrealistic to base an


old drugs. Everyone would understand the comparison if it was made to a


currently available drug. What is the status of the study under the


name Ester looking at Kadcyla? In the event that a Nice concludes


their study in 2023, the immediate concerns about ability remains. --


availability. Perhaps the manufacturer will reconsider their


position. It has been unfortunate that Nice has been subjected to


sustained attacks by the manufacturer Roche. I call upon them


to get round the table with Nice and look again at the pricing of the


drug as they have done with others in the past. Turning to other


treatments I know that messages going out to clinical commissioning


groups about the options available and treatment, many members will


have had a campaign e-mails relating to bisphosphonates, and I was


reassured that the response I had from the Department of Health and


the Portsmouth clinical commissioning group that they be


made available in my constituency. Queen Elizabeth Hospital in


Portsmouth has above average performance in both treatment times


and outcomes and is becoming if not already a centre of Alex and in


cancer treatment. -- centre of excellence. Like many issues in the


house, and many in the house, many have died in my family of breast


cancer. We need to keep drugs available to treat them, and that


sounds like Kadcyla. May I congratulate the honourable member


for Michelin and Morden for securing the debate which was an


extraordinary powerful, I thought, and emotive speech, and join her in


actually wishing everybody here today in the public gallery and


everybody who is watching this debate at home, all the very best


for their future. It is a pleasure to follow the member for Milton


Keynes who I thought made a very powerful case, personal testimony of


his constituents, and argued her case eloquently. The member for


Torfaen, we often come into politics for many different reasons,


profession of public pain being one, and the NHS wasn't created in 1948,


it was created much earlier when his father died, and he spoke eloquently


about his grandmother being his big inspiration into politics and her


dying of the disease. And finally be a member for Portsmouth South I hope


I can pronounce the drugs that I will mention as she did in this


debate. We have heard a lot of statistics today, and stats in


themselves are shocking, and is important to remind ourselves that


behind every statistic there is a human story. Women all too often,


will young women, mothers lives are being cut cruelly short. We have


also heard many important interventions about the access to


breast cancer drugs for treatment of secondary breast cancer. At the


heart of the day the motion is also the issue of how we can improve


access to both innovative new breast cancer drugs and off patented drugs


used for breast cancer. The use of such drugs relates not only do the


treatment of breast cancer but also its prevention. I am immensely proud


that in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the home to the


nightingale centre, Europe's first breast cancer prevention Centre and


the charity prevent breast cancer. We also benefit being a Mancunian MP


for the pros proximity the Christy Hospital, the largest single site


cancer centre in Europe, treating more bad 44,000 patients a year. The


nightingale centre opened at University Hospital south


Manchester, Wythenshawe Hospital, with July 2000 cents -- 2007,


offering state-of-the-art diagnostic treatment to women and men with


breast cancer and coordinates the best cancer treatment from the NHS


for the Wallaby and chest area. It's also provides training facilities


aimed at interesting the shortage of breast cancer specialists and houses


many of the prevent breast cancer researchers, looking at ways to


predict and prevent breast cancer. In the prevent breast cancer


research unit, several drugs now off patented are being repurposed for


preventing cancer coming back. Women with a family has the or other


factors making high risk -- family history, have been known to be


benefiting from these drugs which prevent the disease but they find it


difficult to obtain these inexpensive tried and tested drugs


because they are currently not listed in the British national


formulary ads specifically licensed for new purpose of prevention,


despite successful clinical trials. There are currently three drugs in


this situation. Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and astrophysical. -- I


would be happy to give well. I'm very grateful for my aunt will


friend giving way. Specifically on the British national for myriad and


aid policies being put together, a new one, by the B and F which will


set out how it will get more off label drugs. Will my honourable


friend agree that it is we can have the policy available the matter? I


congratulate honourable friend doing so much work in this area since he


has come to this parliament. We can only hope Stoke, and maybe the


minister will have more information for us in her summing up on that


particular issue today. The prevent breast cancer research unit oh so


has further out of patented drugs under investigation for prevention


that may even be better in the future. As well as doing everything


we can to extend the life of women with secondary breast cancer we must


also do what we can to prevent breast cancer occurrence in the


first place. As we all know prevention is better than cure. And


for those with secondary cancer where cure is currently out of reach


this is something many will be striving for for the next


generation. At the moment the system stands in the way of this. The


solution to make the drugs widely available which would be


cost-effective would be to ask Nice to list such drugs are approved for


the new indication of a mention in the BN F publication following


evaluation of relevant clinical trials of course so that doctors can


have confidence in prescribing them. The current requirements to obtain a


new medicine and health care products regulatory agency licence


for this new indication is expensive and impractical for repurposed


medications as they usually lack a sponsoring pharmaceutical company to


champion the use of the new genetic drug. I am sealed the new Minister


-- I'm sure the Minister would be in agreement that the small change he


would be in the best interests of the fight against breast cancer and


I would ask them to consider that and Nice in addressing this changing


way which the drugs are listed to evaluate for new purposes such as


prevention to be listed for approved as that purpose. Mr Deputy Speaker,


when we lose someone prematurely to cancer obviously grief follows. It


has been my experience that when we lose someone to breast cancer were


the grief is particularly poignant. So, tonight my thoughts and prayers


are with all my constituents who have either succumbs to this or who


are battling this and their families to carry the consequences. I lost my


cousin to the disease and my two friends Tom and Claire both lost


their mothers to this disease. I stand in solidarity with my


constituents Sheila Higgins who currently battles this disease. She


has been a mother to me for the last two decades. Finally, my


parliamentary assistants, Suzanne Richards, who came back to work


after Christmas with a clean bill of health. She was diagnosed with a


virulent strain last year. She had world-class treatment that


Wythenshawe and the Christy hospitals. Today is her birthday.


Many of us feared it would be a birthday she would never see. Happy


birthday, Suzanne. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank the


honourable member for Mitcham and Morden in securing this debate. May


I say what a pleasure it is to follow the our noble member form


Wythenshawe south-east and I'm sure everyone in the house wishes his


assistant and a very happy and fulfilling birthday. May there be


many, many more to come. Most families in this country have


some experience of cancer at some point. We've had many compelling


examples today in the house. I am very conscious that as we discuss


this difficult topic of the provision of medicines to those who


need it that are frankly, discussions about price, and the


cost of drugs, means nothing to wives, two daughters, to mothers and


grandmothers, who simply want to live the next week, the next month,


the next year, to see their next birthday or the birthday of a loved


one. I don't underestimate the task facing NICE but I have to say having


listened to the speeches today in the house, we do ask, we should ask,


why it is countries such as France and Germany have approved this drug.


And yet NICE has drawn the initial conclusion it has at the end of last


year. I hope today, I know the minister is listening carefully, I


hope today questions, thoughts on this process, feeds into a larger


review as to how NICE is looking at these drugs and other drugs, and


whether we have got the processes correct. And as appropriate as it


can be. I'm a big believer any system run by human beings can


always do better and I wonder if this is an example of that now. I'd


like Mr Deputy Speaker to look at Lincolnshire because it is the


county in which my constituency is situated. I'm pleased we have a


better than average cancer screening in the county. What worries me is


that when it comes to diagnose in the early signs of breast cancer,


might local CCG ranks third from the bottom in the United Kingdom. -- my


local. It's very significant, because we all know in this house


and beyond, the earlier the diagnosis of cancer, where the first


stage or secondary, the better the chances are of successful treatment.


The treatment of secondary breast cancer holds particular relevance in


my constituency because I've met representatives from breast Cancer


care. I say representatives, they were women, mums, wives, as I say. I


was incredibly moved to here to hear their stories of their own


experiences of living with secondary breast cancer. I commend the vital


work that charity has done, in particular, the secondary, not


second-rate, campaign, that has been looking into the barriers to


improving care for those with secondary breast cancer. They


highlighted to me the key point that unless our hospital trusts are


collecting specific data on how many people have been diagnosed with


secondary breast cancer, they cannot plan accurately, those trusts, for


the services for those patients. I was shocked to learn about two


thirds of hospital trusts in this country do not collect that state.


-- collect that data. My own trust is one of those trusts. I urge my


own hospital trust and others across the country to start collecting that


state, so that from there the services provided to women with


secondary breast cancer can be planned properly and effectively.


Now, I know the Minister will help the house with the success of the


Cancer Drugs Fund. We know that 95,000 people have received life


extending drugs they need through that fund. But of course we must


also strive to look at new ways to make sure patients have access to


innovative new medicines, diagnostics and medical


technologies, as, indeed, is happening through the accelerated


access review plans. I also have to say I welcome the government


commitment to making sure the prices charged to the NHS are fair, and is


not inflated. I cannot be the only member who was shocked and pretty


disgusted, actually, at some of the headlines that have appeared in


newspapers recently, about the conduct of some people, some


companies, when it comes to massively inflating the price of


patented drugs. I'm really, really pleased that loophole is going to be


closed to the health services medical supplies built in the other


place at this moment. I also urge the Secretary of State, as I know


he's doing, to make sure the Competition and Markets Authority


keeps a close eye on this as well. Unfair practices should not conspire


against our stitch woods, our neighbours, friends, families, when


it comes to the treatment of cancer. I know my honourable friend the


Minister has listened very carefully to the concerns raised in what I


have found to be a very informative and engaging debate. I hope a


solution is reached quickly between NICE and Roesch if the problem is


that the price charged for this drug is too high. I wish every single


woman in this country currently battling cancer, first stage or


secondary stage, I wish them the very, very Best of luck and I hope


they feel this debate has done them proud. Steve Baker. Thank you Mr


Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the honourable lady for securing this


debate. I'm here today to represent the concerns of my constituents and


I should say of course I joined the cause for cancer to be more


available. When my staff and I were discussing correspondence we've


received about this debate, a particular constituent case, we


quickly agreed this is about one of the worst kind of correspondence we


receive, where people are terminally ill but unable to access the


medicines that they would need. This is particularly acute, I don't think


I would be the first member to struggle to keep a quaver out of my


voice, my mother-in-law died from secondary cancer. These things will


stay with all of us. None of us can know what ladies are going through


who are currently suffering from these diseases but when one has seen


it from second hand, certainly we would all want to live in a world


where the NHS does not have to practice any kind of rationing.


That's really the point I want to focus on, because as the honourable


gentleman for Coventry South indicated, this is a retractable


problem. I'm aware of some of the great difficulties their work


bringing forward a drug to help men in a similar set of circumstances


suffering with prostate cancer. In a sense I wish to sympathise with the


Minister and with NICE. I think NICE and the Minister has an extremely


difficult task because while it is very easy for all of us to say, of


course, Kadcyla should be freely available to all those who need it


without restriction, I'm aware this is a long-standing problem which


applies to many innovative pharmaceuticals, and I know it'll


come as no comfort whatever to sufferers of various cancers to know


a profit-making pharmaceutical system has a far better record of


innovation than the alternative planned systems. In saying that I


wish the Minister every successor she moves forward in a crucially


important task, working out how to ensure these innovative medicines


come forward at lower cost and at a greater rate.


Martin Day. It's a pleasure to take part in today's important debate,


make I thank the honourable member for Mitcham and Morden for securing


it, I'm grateful for her comments and contributions and the cases she


used to illustrate it. It eloquently put a human face to the problem


faced. The debate around the access to Kadcyla is of immense interest to


the public on both sides of the border, breast cancer being the most


common cancer faced, a fact illustrated by the many individual


constituency cases and examples given from all sides of the house


here today. As has been mentioned, Kadcyla is a life extending


treatment giving some women with incurable secondary breast cancer up


to nine months longer than the alternatives and has fewer side


effects at a cost of 90,000 per patient. In Scotland Kadcyla has


never been available on the NHS, the Scottish medicines Consortium which


makes its decisions independently of ministers and Parliament decided in


October 2014 not to approve Kadcyla for routine use in Scotland after


considering all available evidence, they felt the treatment cost in


relation to benefits was not sufficient. Patients have only been


able to access it in exceptional circumstances to individual patient


treatment requests. It is estimated over 100 women in Scotland would


benefit from Kadcyla annually. A Kadcyla discount has been offered by


the pharmaceutical company Roche and they wrote to Scottish Government


officials about a patient access scheme. They've resubmitted their


application so it can be considered for routine use across the NHS in


Scotland. It's being assessed. ... I thank my honourable friend for


giving way, I wonder if he will join me in my hopes for a positive


outcome in relation to Kadcyla for our constituents who are affected by


secondary breast cancer. And for whom this debate means so much


today. I thank my colleague for making that point and I would join


with her in hoping for the positive outcome, we expect a decision can be


made in March with a decision on 10th of April. I look forward to


that. The SNP Scottish Government has substantially increased access


to new medicines particularly for cancer with a number of reforms and


investment in recent years. The Scottish Government will build on


recent reforms and make further improvements by collaboration with


patients and NHS staff by accepting recommendations of the Doctor Brian


Montgomery review. Jordan Robertson Cabinet Secretary for health,


well-being and sport, announce the Scottish Government will take


forward all 28 of the review's recommendations. Doctor Montgomery


was tasked to examine how the changes to the Consortium process in


2014 access affected access to medicines for end of life


conditions. The process for appraising medicines can be made


more open, transparent and robust. Amongst the Montgomery


recommendations, I will not list all 28, is giving the SMC the option of


an interim recommendation for use subject to ongoing evaluation, which


will allow the collection of data on real-world effectiveness. There is


managed access agreements, a medicine provided at a discounted


price for a period of time to perfect data on its effectiveness.


As well as making use of the NHS services in Scotland to lead


negotiations on cost with the industry to get the fairest price


possible. And better capturing of patient outcome data, as it's vital


we can determine whether medicines are bringing the level of benefits


to patients that are expected. Beyond the recommendations of the


review Miss Robertson has announced improvements to the process for the


nonroutine access to medicines on an individual case by case basis. The


approved clinical Systems piloted in Glasgow 2015 to handle applications


for medicines has been successfully rolled out across Scotland. The


second tier of packs will be introduced to build upon the


existing individual patient treatment request system. This will


include consideration of equity of access with other parts of the UK as


a material part of its decision-making process. In November


the senior public affairs manager of Cancer UK in Scotland said SMC does


a difficult but necessary job to assess whether new cancer drugs


should be made available on the NHS. Following the SMC forums we've been


pleased to see a significant increase in the availability of


cancer drugs in Scotland and we support the review's recommendations


to make further progress. Breast cancer now has said the Scottish


Government reforms give fresh hope for a system that will put patients


and their families first and said Scotland's approach to reform is a


useful example to the rest of the UK about ways in which the system can


be improved. I thank my honourable friend for giving way and reflecting


upon his words in relation to the flexibility of approach and the need


to continue to keep pushing forward to make sure we allow access, as


many of these drugs as possible for the people in such need. I wonder if


he would join with me in commending the Scottish Government for that


approach and hoping that approach continuing will make some


difference. Yes, I thank my honourable friend for making those


points and will indeed join with her in those comments. A new Scottish


cancer strategy was launched in 2016, which is very ambitious and


aims to stop anyone dying of breast cancer by 2015 and breast cancer is


a priority in the detect cancer early initiative, there are many


things we need to move forward in that direction. No debate seems


complete without reference to Brexit. This issue is no exception.


Given the Health Secretary has stated the UK will not be in the


European medicines agency, DMA, there could be implications as to


how medicines are regulated and marketing authorisations will be


required from the medicines and health care products regulatory


agency for the UK. I'm in no doubt the implications of that will be


less efficiency and possibly a longer process for obtaining


authorisations, resulting, I fear coming innovative drugs taken longer


to reach patients. Some industry leaders predict it in the region of


150 days based on the examples of Switzerland and Canada. According to


a piece that appeared last in the Financial Times, when Sir Michael


won instead of the NHRA was asked whether it would be able to take on


all the extra work registering new drugs and medical devices currently


carried out by the BMA, he said, I quote "Certainly not". A


considerable investment and recruitment will be required to


re-establish it as a stand-alone national regulator and I would be


keen to hear from the Minister out alleged drug access for UK patients


will be avoided. In conclusion, with regards to Kadcyla... He raises are


very good point. But there has been a problem with regard to the costs


involved. Kelly say, I hope the government will be able to find a


better way through the system then we have previously heard. I hope


that could solve the problem of the European medicines agency but we


will also have a better regular regulatory system afterwards. In


conclusion, with regard to Kadcyla, I hope it's resubmission is at a


fair price for its possible use in Scotland. It could give sufferers


Fisher are detained with their families and loved ones. We know


need pharmaceutical companies to do the bit by bringing forward much


fear pricing for new medicines, so excess is as wide as possible for


the people of Scotland. Cost-effectiveness is the key marker


for making sure drugs are readily available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr


Deputy Speaker. I want to thank my honourable friend for securing this


debate following the very sad news that her friend, who had been


receiving this life extending treatment, we had just heard that


her life had been taken away from her. I am pleased that this very


important debate, she was able to secure it with the backbench


committee. I want to thank all colleagues who have attended today


and made excellent speeches, revealed she prefers the experiences


and thoughts, from the Honourable member for Milton Keynes South and


Portsmouth South. I want to thank Honourable friends from a range of


other constituencies who have taken part today. I am sure the minister


has been given a lot to think about and I look forward to hearing the


response shortly. Finally, I want to thank breast cancer and no, for the


campaigning work. Also, breast Cancer care for their continued


support. In my contribution, I will briefly established the documented


than perceived benefits of Kadcyla. I will then look at the provision of


the drugs and the problems with determining the funding of the drugs


on its cost-effectiveness as judged by NICE. Funding through the breast


Council scheme in 2015 was a great success. At the time, the value of


the drug was fairly successful. It was decided that the cost of it was


worth it, given its effectiveness. However, the future funding of the


drug is no underestimate. It joins another of secondary breast cancer


drugs. It becomes a funding solution for the problems of the research. It


was a funder of Toronto trip to expensive to be recommended by NICE.


We can all agree that patients have benefited from the introduction of


the cancer drugs from. But there is a risk know that access will be


restricted. This is no surprise, given the cash strapped national


Health Service. There are pleasures to provide these costly drugs


developed by these pharmaceutical companies and is forced to look at


cost rather than clinical need. Her response would be welcome of the


Minister could outline concerns around these issues, if they have


been addressed and assessed. We have had a number of good suggestions


today about how funding may be redirected. Thank you for giving


way. Is this not all the more poignant by virtue of the fact that


since 2001, the incidences of breast cancer goes up by 9% every year? She


makes a really good point. That could also be through the diagnosis


of breast cancer, perhaps more people coming forward to be


diagnosed than previously. But it is going to become more of an issue,


not less of one in the years to come. As we have here today, Kadcyla


is said to benefit 1200 women in England alone. It can increase life


expectancy by six months. For some women, it can stretch in two years.


But even if measured in months. Those months are surely priceless to


the women and families involved. I speak from personal experience,


because I lost my mother-in-law to secondary breast cancer 20 years


ago. That was when my children were very small. I know that she


treasured every day in the end of the done anything to spend another


six months with her grandchildren. We wanted that. For all those 12 --


1200 women, it is time for the children perhaps reach one more may


all stored with their families, to see the children starting school


perhaps, getting married, starting university, perhaps having a go in


Sheffield. These memories are so precious and who families are able


to cope with what inevitably follows. I am very grateful. She has


made a very powerful point and an important point. The most aggressive


of cancers, the period between diagnosis, that can be very short.


Any extension of life, as you rightly say, to celebrate family


events or anything else, is incredibly important and we should


not lose sight of that. I agree. What price can be put on those


precious months? Thank you. I have some investment in this. My only


experience of breast cancer treatment over the past three years


has left me really passionate about the issue of prevention. As well as


thanking the breast cancer charities and she has done, but calling on all


of us to spread the word through women we do to make sure they go for


screening tests. I learnt about it through a television programme. I


want people to what they can do to prevent breast cancer, because that


is ways that the risk can be prevented. It is no magic cure, but


it can be reduced. Thank you. We have not touched on prevention or


early diagnosis, but they are absolutely vital points to be made.


We have two looked at these in this house before in other debates are


lame really grateful for my honourable friend reasoning that


point. I am happy every day to see her back here in this place. What


stands out with Kadcyla is the reduced side-effects. They can enjoy


include the inducement of osteoporosis. Also, the increased


chance of blood clots. The side-effects of some cancer


treatments can be truly awful and are often too daunting to prevent


the use of further treatment. It is the common perception that women


make the perception to India treatment earlier than planned. This


is often because the suffering they are in June because of the treatment


is not worth the additional life it is pervading. It is all about the


quality of her life. In the search conducted in the United States, with


regard to side-effects commonly found less than 5% of women suffered


a knee loss of here. We know that hearing loss can be highly traumatic


for women undergoing cancer treatment. It is one of the most


discussed side-effects of cancer. Given that we are discussing


secondary breast cancer, which is ultimately terminal, the best


outcome we can offer through treatment is both the extension and


preservation of the quality of life enjoyed pre-diagnosis. Because


Kadcyla causes fewer side effects, it represents a treatment which can


effectively achieved not only an extension but he preservation of


some of the quality of life to be enjoyed by these women


pre-diagnosis. Look forward to hearing from Minister of what she is


doing to ensure that women will continue to benefit from this fatal


treatment in the future. Also, how we can support of patented drugs.


Drug patents often worse for 20 years, sometimes ten years. At the


end of it, that is very little incentive for these to be licensed.


These drugs are still in many places clinically effective and can be very


cost-effective. Currently, the NHS has no means of making them readily


available. Did somebody asked me to give way? No, I am hearing things!


That has not been made available to patients despite its effectiveness.


If that was given to the entire eligible population, it could


prevent one in ten cancer deaths. It is concerning that in research


carried out by cancer groups, only 24% of clinicians were offering


these two patients. Solving the issue is therefore an opportunity to


help breast cancer survival rates and is something I hope the minister


will consider carefully. I want to finish by talking about the cost


effectiveness of drugs. At the moment, NICE as they would system


for quantifying it. It is almost impossible to objectively measure


someone's quality of life. The question surrounding the morality of


attempting to do so, even. Is raised in the social value judgment paper


by NICE, as is so often the case, a clear cause of the problem you lies


with: NICE assesses these drugs. Drug acceptance and funding is


determined solely by clinical meat, not the cost of value


considerations. It is clearly a need to be addressed these issues. Breast


cancer patients have to consider considerable side-effects, but they


have been greatly lessened and this has led to a much higher quality of


life post diagnosis. At the moment, it is almost impossible for NICE two


reissue of this quality of life. We can see that these individuals would


suffer a law quality of life without Kadcyla. This deserves more


attention in value with regard to drug approval and funding. To end,


the state funding of jobs at the moment is becoming based on cost


effectiveness rather than the clinical needs. As the debate has


shown, it should not be the only deciding factor. It disregards many


personal reasons for many people who rely drug treatments. Kadcyla Has


benefited many people. It has been pooled devastatingly out of their


reach. The Minister has the lever of power to address the problems within


the system which is letting them down. Members across the chamber


have eloquently made the case today. I hope they have listened and she


will give some reassurances to them and their families today. Thank you.


A large number of very important and technical points have been raised


today. I will do my best to respond. I hope colleagues will allow me to


write to them. Kennedy congratulate the honourable member for securing


the debate. I would like to join the house in paying tribute to the work


that she has done. She has campaigned tirelessly to improve


access to cancer drugs for her constituents and as she and. Cancer


is a truly terrible disease earned, clear from the mini moving


contributions we have here today, there are a few of us who have not


been touched by it. These stories are us why we're here


today. There is an all-party group for almost every disease known to


man, perhaps with the exception of rigor mortis. If patience and


campaigners are to have confidence in clinical decision making, there


will have to be profound changes, rather than them bringing lobbying


to MPs who are uniquely unqualified to make those decisions. Can I


suggest to my honourable friend that one of those changes might need to


be a thorough review of the framework and guidance under which


NICE operates? My honourable friend makes a very important point which


has been made by a number of colleagues today. I'll address it


further in the speech if you will allow me. We do want to lead the


world in the UK in fighting cancer. Survival rates in this country have


never been higher but we must go further. While medicines of a vital


weapon in the battle against cancer, we must not forget the bigger


picture. More than half of people receiving cancer diagnosis live ten


years or more. 96% of women diagnosed with breast cancer in


England with more than a year after diagnosis, 86% will live five years


and 81% at least ten years. Improving outcomes for all cancers


remains a priority for this government. Our mandate is to make


England one of the most successful countries in Europe at preventing


premature death for all cancers and we're working to achieve this


through the of our most recent cancer strategy. As the honourable


lady for Bristol West says, early diagnosis and prevention is


essential to achieving this and the faster diagnosis standard will speed


up diagnosis of all cancer. The new standard is to ensure every patient


referred for an investigation but suspicion of cancer is diagnosed or


has cancer ruled out within 28 days. It's important we support further


clinical research as it can have high impact on cancer survival


rates, which is why the NHRC and 42 million on cancer research in


2015-2016. We mustn't forget the vital research carried out by the


cancer charities supported by the millions of pounds donated by


members of the public each year. The government does fully understand how


important it is people are able to access new and promising drug


treatments for people affected by cancer, and we firmly believe


clinically appropriate drugs established as cost-effective should


be routinely available to NHS patients. All of us know these


decisions which can be fiendishly complex will never be easy. We know


from long experience in this place they should not be made by arbitrate


intervention of politicians. They must be clinically led and made on


the basis of the best available evidence and be frequently reviewed


when new evidence come forward. That is why it is right for NICE to play


this role in providing independent evidence -based guidance for the NHS


on whether significant new drugs represent a clinically and


cost-effective use of NHS resources. If a drug is recommended by NICE the


NHS is legally required to fund it and over the years many thousands


have benefited from the cancer drugs NICE has recommended. These include


transformative drugs for cancer. Drugs for skin cancer and prostate


cancer. Unfortunately, there are cancer drugs NICE is not able to


recommend as clinically and cost-effective on the basis of the


evidence available to it. That is why the government established the


cancer drugs funding England and since October 2010 we've invested


more than 1.2 billion in the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has helped over


95,000 people in England to access life extending cancer drugs that


would not otherwise have been available. In July last year NHS


England NICE introduced a new operating model which builds on this


and ensures the fund isn't based on a more stable footing in the future.


Three key objectives, to make sure there is fast access to promising


new treatments, that taxpayers get good value for money on drug


expenditure, and pharmaceutical companies are willing to price


products responsibly and access a new fast track to NHS funding for


the best and most promising drugs. As part of the transition to the new


operating model, ice is looking at whether drugs previously available


through the fund should be funded through baseline funding in future.


Ice has recently been able to recommend to all these drugs for


breast cancer. -- recommend two of these drugs. These will be routinely


available to patients. It was able to recommend these products taking


into account patient access schemes. As we are discussing today, they


also reappraised Kadcyla. As the honourable member rightly explained


they consulted on its draft guidance but were not able to recommend the


drug as it was too expensive for the benefits it gives and could not be


recommended for routine use. As my honourable friend the honourable


member for Milton Keynes South said, it's important to stress NICE has


not issued its final guidance on Kadcyla. And we'll take responses on


the recent consultation fully into account on developing its final


recommendations. It allows time for further negotiation between NICE and


Roche. That is why the debate today has been of value. I appreciate this


is an anxious time for women with breast cancer but I hope all here


today will appreciate these are very difficult decisions to make and NICE


must be able to make these decisions free from political interference. I


assure the house that regardless of the outcome of the appraisal NHS


England will continue to fund Kadcyla through the CDF for all


patients who have already begun treatment. The honourable lady and


others also raised the importance of access to bisphosphonate for cancer


patients. The use of off label land off patents drugs is common in


clinical practice, there is no regulatory barrier to their


prescription and NICE issues advice to clinicians on new off label uses


of drugs. The honourable member made an important and informed speech on


this issue which proves... Just over ten minutes, I think... Why he is


the chair of the committee. Progress needs to be made and the working


group is about to review its latest progress in the next month. I shall


certainly raise the issues he has put forward with my colleague the


noble lord or Shaughnessy who is responsible for this policy area. I


ask him to respond, especially regarding the sharing of the working


group's progress, and an update regarding the publication, which was


raised by the honourable member for Wythenshawe. He would perhaps like


to know the Association for medical and research charities is working


with the Department of Health to facilitate and improve take-up of


robust research findings to the repurposed drugs where appropriate


for the patient. I suspect he knows it given the nature of his speech.


For those other colleagues who intervened on this point,


bisphosphonate is medicine used to treat osteoporosis. As colleagues


note, they are used for other medical conditions including


reducing the risk of primary breast cancer. Based on research in the


Lancet in 2015. Which found they could be used to help women being


treated with early breast cancer. They can reduce the risk of cancer


spreading by 28%. Because there is good research evidence that supports


their use they can be prescribed to patients for this purpose where


prescribers consider this meet their clinical needs. I am aware there are


concerns about access to bisphosphonate and prescription of


them for this purpose is variable. There may be some confusion at local


level as to who is responsible for commissioning them for this use. I


am happy to share NHS England's advice on these points, whilst NHS


England is responsible for commissioning specialist services,


the manual for specialised services makes it clear the decision to


prescribe bisphosphonate rests with the initial and patient. Honourable


members may be aware NICE is currently updating its guideline on


the diagnosis and management of early breast cancer and the use of


bisphosphonate will be considered part of this. Guidance is due in


2018 and my officials have spoken to NICE about the timescale, given


concerns about the prescription of bisphosphonate. NICE is looking at


the feasibility of bringing forward recommendations on use of


bisphosphonate. It will be important to consider what implications might


be for the timescale of the remainder of the guideline. I'll be


happy to keep the house updated on that decision. The government is not


complacent about the availability of breast cancer drugs and we are


looking for measures to drive greater access to innovative


technologies. As the member for Norfolk zero mentioned we've


accelerated the access review which published its final report in


October, setting out how the UK can increase access to devices and


diagnostics for NHS patients and create a more attractive environment


for investors. We'll respond to the review in the spring. NICE has two


continue to evolve to change as in the development of new drugs and the


development of the health and care system. Given the time, I'll respond


to the need to respond to these in writing. We'll continue to work with


NICE to ensure its methods remain fit for purpose. We have to remember


improving outcomes for cancer patients is not just about drugs,


that's why we accepted or 96 recommendations in the independent


cancer task force report. The recommendations are a consensus of


the whole cancer community on what is needed to transform cancer care


across the whole pathway, from prevention and early diagnosis to


living with and beyond cancer, and is dealing with side-effects


mentioned so movingly by the Shadow minister. We are implementing this


through a strategy which was published in May, and we hope to see


great progress as it is delivered. As was made clear by the speeches of


so many today, breast cancer affects so many today. That is why we invest


so much in cancer services. So that more people may survive cancer and


more people live better with cancer. They need rapid access to more


effective treatments, surgery, radiotherapy or drugs. That is what


I want to see, that is what this government will deliver. I'm sure


the whole house will want to join me in congratulating all who have


fought and survived breast cancer. We will want to stand alongside


everybody who is living with a diagnosis of breast cancer, battling


treatment, and living with all this sometimes hidden day-to-day impact


of breast cancer. I'm quite sure we will want to remember all those who


fought valiantly but lost the battle with breast cancer. We've made much


progress in improving care, providing drugs, funding research,


but we know there is much more we can and must do to fight this


disease. I hope each and every one of you here today we'll do what


you've been doing today and told us to account as we move on and try to


do just that. -- hold us to account. Siobhan McDonagh to wind-up. Summing


up can I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate and


thank the Minister for her detailed response. Most importantly, can I


thank those women in the public gallery for coming here to show


their support for this debate en masse. I wish every single one of


them well and hope they will join me for tea after this debate. Perhaps


unconventionally may I also invite any of the honourable members and


right Honourable members here who would also like to join those women


to join us 40 two thank them for their efforts in campaigning and to


understand more about their case. Can I expressly invite Suzanne, the


member Wythenshawe and sail east's office, there is a cake in the room


with her name on it. Happy birthday, Suzanne. The question is as on the


order paper. As many as Arafat opinion say I. Of the contrary know.


Russian number two on business of the house. The Minister to move. Beg


to move. The question is as on the order paper. Chris Leslie. Mad in


jeopardy speaker thank you very much, I was hoping the Minister


might at least explain to the house and those watching proceedings what


the effect of his motion would be. In fact, it's the very first step,


perhaps not necessarily an entirely bad one, but it's the first step in


the concertina of the debate process.


The process of making shorter the time for the House to consider the


European Union Withdraw Bill, as it ought to be called. Because this is


a motion which seeks to allow members and honourable members the


opportunity to table amendments to the committee stage consideration of


this legislation hurdle at this point, well, after the passing of


this motion this afternoon, rather than, as is the usual procedure as I


understand it, which is that amendments for committee stage are


not normally allowed to be tabled until after the second reading has


been heard and debated and voted upon. Madame Deputy Speaker, I


understand that there are good reasons for that particular


convention. Those reasons I suppose we're late to the fact that


honourable members would normally want to hear from government


ministers and other honourable members their thoughts on the


principle of the legislation at first, before then having the


opportunity to reflect on what has been set, reflect on the policy of


the government, and at that point, then, table their amendments. I


thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does it not strike him


as somewhat odd, given that it somewhat makes the assumption that


the bill is going to pass its second reading, and that there might not be


any amendments made to it - we can all make our calculations, but on a


point of principle, it seems to be odd that we are assuming this bill


will go automatically to second reading before we even get to that


stage? My honourable friend is entirely correct. There is a lot of


assumptions which this government seems to make, it is part of their


general instinct to railroad legislation through. But


particularly with this piece of legislation, making assumptions that


the House will have nothing much of any consequence to say about one of


the most important issues in our generation, fact that the UK will be


withdrawing from the European Union. And of course, I suspect that there


will indeed be very many amendments that honourable members will want to


table under this particular motion, Madame Deputy Speaker, should it be


passed. But I would say, Madame Deputy Speaker, to the minister that


I think it is massively regrettable that the government are taking this


particular approach. They could have taken a far more relaxed, open


approach to dialogue and to debate, listening to the issues which are


raised from all sides when amendments are tabled in the normal


course of events, rebutting them if they so wish. But instead, this is


an approach which I think speaks volumes to the frailty and the fear


that ministers have of ordinary debate and discussion in the House


of Commons. Because honourable members do have a lot to say about


this particular piece of legislation. For myself, I don't


believe that we can ignore the outcome of the referendum, but


withdrawing from the European Union has phenomenal consequences. Southee


amendments that may we -- that we may wish to table have to cover, in


my view, all of those issues surrounding the triggering of


Article 50. Whilst I understand that the minister in moving this motion


is seeking to allow and afford members the opportunity to table


amendments in advance of the weekend, before second reading


occurs, I do think it would be regrettable if we lose that space


between second reading and committee stage for people to reflect on some


very, very important things, one of which, of course, is this question


of the white paper. The white paper which the Prime Minister has


conceded we are going to have, and as yet we still do not know when


such a white paper will be published. If we have the white


paper today, it might help us informed the amendments which in an


hour's time, we might be able to table. This is actually a very


narrow motion and it is about the tabling of amendments. And I think


the honourable gentleman is kind of moving into the direction of white


papers. I'm going to be very strict about keeping to the wording of this


amendment. If he comes back to that, I will allow him to continue. I will


give way in a moment. Madame Deputy Speaker, you are entirely short and


to focus very much on the narrow nature of this particular motion. I


believe that the motion should have made reference to the white paper in


this particular process because although it allows members to table


amendments before the second reading process, it does not necessarily


mean that we can table amendments in view of the white paper having been


published. It is in expectation that we are tabling amendments perhaps


beyond that second reading period when the white paper that has been


promised will not be available. I thank my honourable friend. This


bill has clearly been tabled with great speed following the Supreme


Court decision. We are I understand not being given that long a time to


debate it. Is he, and are we certain, that given the complex


cities of this, that this bill is fully compliant with the judgment of


the Supreme Court, particularly with regard to triggering Article 50?


Well, I would not want to stray beyond the precise terms of the


motion that we have before us, which I appreciate is very much about the


timing of the tabling of amendments. But my honourable friend does point


is something I think which will definitely not just come up in


debate in the second reading, but could be something which he himself


could consider as an amendments to the legislation. I give way. If I


might help, the point he makes about the white paper and its relation to


amendments which might be tabled is a very good one, because members may


wish to table amendments and new clauses and schedules which relate


to issues which they are not happy with, and which we are yet to see.


So there is a very, very practical concern here, about being able to


table amendments before we have had a proper presentation of facts by


the Government. Can I make a helpful suggestion that members put their


name down to speak in the debate on Tuesday, at which point all of this


would be very relevant? I appreciate that, Madame Deputy Speaker, but


this motion we are debating today about the timing of the tabling of


amendments is a symptom of the Government, which strategy in


relation to its approach to the withdrawal of the UK from the


European Union. And therefore I think it is entirely appropriate


that the House spots that, recognises what's going on here,


because this is the very first step in the compression of this process,


where normally, members would have, for very good historic reasons, long


established by convention, the right to listen to ministers at second


reading, reflect on those thoughts before tabling amendments. But what


ministers are intent on doing is running this bill through the House


of Commons without thinking of the consequences of that, leaving


honourable members the opportunity to table amendments at this stage,


before we've even heard government policy properly at second reading,


and it's about the time... This really is his last warning. What


he's talking about is the bill that's coming up next week. This is


not what we are debating here. This is entirely about the amendments


that are being accepted before the bill has been read a second time. It


is a very, very narrow motion, and if he keeps to that he may continue


from big but he's really testing my patience. It is a very narrowly


drafted motion. It does indeed say that in respect of this particular


bill, notices of amendments, new clauses and schedules, can be moved


in committee as accepted by clerks at the table before the bill has had


a reading at the second time. And that in itself begs a number of


particular questions. You may have noticed, Madame Deputy Speaker, for


example, that AQ has formed already beside your Chair of honourable


members who may wish to table amendments. I am given to


understand, if honourable members wish to table amendments at the


passing of this motion, we should approach the table and hand those


over to the clerks. And of course, there is I suspect going to be a


great deal of demand for the clerks' time and attention with these


amendments. One issue I would like to raise, and maybe the minister can


respond, is the pressures on the clerks which I think will arise over


this week and in the coming days, because of the demands of members


wanting to table amendments. There is sympathy I hear from my


honourable friend Jon Nolan for his close work and affinity with clerks


in the House, and cares very much about procedure. But it is a serious


point. We are talking about a second reading which is coming up on


Tuesday and Wednesday, and then of course, the committee stage, the


following week, ridiculously, gagging Parliament in its ability to


properly scrutinise the legislation, when the Maastricht Treaty had 23


days of consideration, the Lisbon Treaty had 11 days on consideration,


and yet the House is only going to have that particular period. In


respect of the motion of the timing of the tabling of amendments, I


would like the minister to think about...


With other legislation, for instance, did we have this with the


Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty, the single


European act? Madame Deputy Speaker, I have in my possession managed to


scribble down on paper that I have available in my office about 22


amendments that I thought this an appropriate to this particular piece


of legislation. Spy catching your eye, Madame Deputy Speaker, I have


already shot my place in the foot by missing my place in the queue that


is forming by your Chair to table said amendments. But that is


something I will have to live with by making the points that I wanted


to make about this particular motion today. I would also like to ask


Madame Deputy Speaker about whether the committee on procedures, I think


it is called, has been consulted about the motion that we have before


us today. As I understand it, this is a highly unusual change, not


necessarily one which is unwelcome, but as I say, it is a symptom of the


Government's intention to override normal procedures and processes, the


conventions of the House which would normally allow us to reflect on when


we table amendments. So, Madame Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is


important that members of this House do exercise their rights to reflect


on the consequences of this particular legislation. It is one of


the most important decisions that I think we will be making, who


certainly this year, definitely in this Parliament, perhaps in my time


in the House. I think all honourable members should think about the


amendments that might be pertinent to this particulars legislation.


Yes, while the bill may be narrowly drawn, it is simple, just one line,


one clause, how can you possibly want to end that? Well, a short


sentence can have a huge effect on public policy and all our


constituents, Madame Deputy Speaker, and it is our duty to think about


the amendments that might be relevant and to table them if we


wish. And I hope that all honourable members will think about their


responsibilities. Yes, the clerks look as though they're going to have


a very busy weekend thinking about things, trying to make sure that the


drafting of amendments... Because some say there are a lot of lawyers


in the House. I am not a lawyer myself, I know there are many


honourable members who are, and we do need assistance sometimes in


phraseology, and terminology around these particular amendments. But I


think the minister should at least give us the courtesy of explaining


why he has tabled this motion today, and setting up the fact that this is


the beginning of the compression of the Parliamentary consideration of


the European Union withdrawal bill. For him not to do so, for him to


simply stand and say, beg to move, I think yet again is a sign of the


arrogance of the Government, perhaps not for police reflecting on the


judgment of the Supreme Court, which insisted that this Parliament has a


duty to legislate on these particular matters. It's not


something for the prerogative, it is for us to amend the bill and to make


sure, if we have to do so before second reading, that we have those


particular rights. From this very unusual motion, I totally agree with


him that I would certainly like to know what precedent there is for


this on major or minor legislation. It is entirely unclear to me as to


what the time deadline would be for tabling amendments. Resume public,


before the bill is read a second time, presumably, you can hang


something in right up to the deadline. But unless it is printed


for consideration, how can we properly consider those amendments?


Well, it is a very good point. I think we will obviously have a


notice of amendment sheep published I presume tomorrow morning, if of


course the House is sitting. -- sheet. And then again, on Monday.


That would be before we get to a second reading next week. I wonder


if honourable members might wager abet on thinking how many amendments


we might actually have on the order paper before we even get to the


second reading. This could be quite a record for the House. On the point


of the number of amendments, he will recall the Scotland Act bridgehead


147 amendments, I think plenty of which actually were put to a vote,


purely because of the system of this Parliament, and the time it takes


to. The public will be looking on and watching this process and


wondering why we can have so little time on such an important issue.


The honourable ladies correct of course, people watching proceedings


May say this is a simple motion, what are the honourable members


talking about? We're talking about was the most significant policy


change is affecting our constituents a generation. I certainly believe I


wouldn't be doing my job as a member of Parliament if I didn't think


about all of the consequences that could arise from leaving the


European Union. The decision has been made in the referendum but is


for this Parliament to enact and put that legislation into effect. To do


so without amendment or thinking of those consequences, all of the


ramifications for trade, social policy, we would not be doing our


duty. I have much more to say, but I think I would be testing the


patience of the house were I to do so. I'll keep my remarks short at


this point. Stuart hosiery. I will also try to stick to be fairly


narrow remit of this motion. And say from the outset we welcome the


opportunity to be able to table amendments in advance of second


reading. Whether they are today or on Monday, a substantial number will


be tabled. If I don't stretch your patience too far, may I make one


small observation on the bill, rather the explanatory notes. Number


22 says the bill is not expected to have any financial implications.


LAUGHTER I expect that is very far from what


will happen. And it's on matters financial backed many of the


amendments we wish to table will be taken. The difficulty is, we've had


it already suggested, the White Paper, which is to accompany this


bill, has not yet been published. Which brings us to the rather vexed


question of how the clerks, in advance of the second reading, deal


with the amendments as they tabled. Two very small examples, not to


debate the policy by any means, but to give to small examples of why


this is profoundly problematic. We know there is demand in the


financial services sector for financial passport. We know there is


demand in many sectors for significant and long transitional


arrangements. Unless we tell the clerks what the White Paper may say


about this, whether the government may have accepted some sense on


this, it means the nature of the amendments which can be tabled,


notwithstanding the welcome extra time to do it, becomes extremely


difficult indeed. It's also a very narrow bill. We welcome the


opportunity to table amendments, we need to know what may or may not be


in the range acceptable, not able to be put on the table, but selectable


and potable in this regard. I'm sure some colleagues in the house would


think it was sensible, for example, to try and avoid ?1000 levy on every


EU employee. While we can table such an amendment we don't know if it's


been accepted and we don't know how the clerks may choose to deal with


it. With the honourable member not agree it would be perhaps


disadvantageous to the government if amendments are being tabled without


knowledge either of the White Paper or what ministers may say to clarify


points made by honourable members during the second reading debate. We


may have a range of amendments tabled which may have been averted


if the process was conducted in appropriate order. The lady makes a


very good point. I want to stick to the process of doing this. That's


precisely that. Had all of the information required been available,


notwithstanding the time, the very eventuality could absolutely be


avoided. There is another issue, this motion today, and we do welcome


it, may be seen by the public in the future as problematic rather than


beneficial, precisely for the reasons the honourable lady has


suggested. I'll happily give way. There was a procedural issue for


those not familiar with proceedings of the house, that some people may


feel rushed into putting down amendments, because they are able to


be put down, rather than take that time to craft them in such a way


they might be selectable, veritable, perhaps endorsed on both sides of


the house. It's a very real issue that can affect our ability to


debate this issue. To reject the opportunity of the time to table in


advance. However, the possibility of amendments being badly drafted and


rushed precisely because of this motion is a very real one. It


wouldn't be the first time we've got to the later stages of legislation


for the government to table substantial tables of amendments


because they draft legislation and amendments might not have been


drafted adequately or correctly in the first place. I'm grateful to my


honourable friend for giving way, is not the case that with the Supreme


Court giving its judgment and empowering Parliament to take a vote


on the issue, in sense what the government is done by pushing this


forward with such haste and not allowing honourable members to wait


to see what is discussed at second reading, there is an argument


perhaps even holding the Supreme Court judgment in contempt...


Because what the Supreme Court judgment is about is making sure


Parliament does its job on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom and


it has been denied by the sheer rant at a haste of this government is


driving this through at the pace they are doing. My honourable friend


is fundamentally right. The time to table amendments early years


welcome, of course, and the government will rightly argue this


is Parliament deciding, but nevertheless the consequences of


that, as he has described, are of course absolutely true. I'll give


way one last time, I want to make this brief. The example of the


thousand pound levy for incoming non-UK EU citizens, in the absence


of information from the government we may face amendments surrounding


employers already having employees from non-EU countries, like those in


the London hotel sector, they are worried about 80% in some of their


hotels, non-UK non-EU employees, we may seek amendments on that. It's


unclear at this stage. This is the point often repeated. Without


stretching patience too much, one could add the Scottish fish


processing sector to the hospitality sector for precisely the same point.


Given the clerks will not have access to the White Paper to


identify what may or may not have been accepted by way of clarity of


change, it does make these extremely difficult. One final intervention. I


was just reading the expand remote to the Bill explaining why the fast


tracking is being adopted and therefore we are considering this


motion now. The house agreed in December, I voted against it like he


did, to authorise the commencement of Article 50 by the end of March.


At that stage we didn't know what the supreme judgment would be.


Respective of the role of the house, nor in respect of the role of the


other legislatures. When circumstances change would he agree


it's right the house reconsiders and the explanatory reason for the fast


tracking really does not hold water. That is probably correct. The fast


tracking, rather the additional time for the amendment is welcome, but


the fast tracking of what is a small measure whether government would


appear to have an ill bold majority seems in haste, which is unnecessary


only to meet arbitrary timescales set rather than allowing detailed


scrutiny. We won't oppose this motion. The time to table in advance


of second reading is welcome but I'm sure no one will be left in doubt it


is not without some significant and substantial problems. I fully


appreciate this is a narrow motion. I'll do my best to stick to the


point. I think is the place it is such a narrow motion is a point of


principle. When the public look on and look at this process they want


confident in the process. People did not have confidence in the process


in the run-up the EU referendum. In October 2012, power was conferred


from the UK Government to the Scottish Government for Scotland to


hold a referendum on Scottish independence. Powell is being


conferred, as the motion says, to the Prime Minister. It strikes me


there are two major differences. The timescale between power conferred to


the Scottish parliament when we had the referendum in 2014 was


significant. We went through a two-year process of public


engagement, wrote things down, we have a White Paper, we had 650 pages


of White Paper. This is what it looks like. The minister isn't


paying attention but I wonder whether he read the White Paper.


This is what a white paper looks like, this is what putting blood


sweat and tears and plans into your constitutional future looks like.


Some think this government has not bothered to do. The people of the


United Kingdom deserve better. People in Scotland got the gold


standard of referendum, had a proper consultation process. In the run-up


to the referendum in Scotland we had over 90% of people registered to


vote voluntarily hand over... Could the honourable lady mention


amendments? She may be coming on to it but we are talking about the


Scottish referendum, not even the EU referendum, let alone the bill


coming up next week. It's a very narrow motion and I appreciate there


are lots of members wishing to speak but there is only so much that can


be said. The rest of the debate takes place next week. Hannah Badr


Al Badoor Mark thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I take on board what


she says. -- Hannah Bardell. She will be very much aware 16 and


17-year-olds did have a vote in the Scottish referendum. In the future


any constitutional arrangements across the UK, 16 and 17-year-olds


are guaranteed a right to vote. This isn't just any amendments, these are


very specific amendments. Not amending this bill here. Hannah


Bardell. I will seek, Madam Deputy Speaker, to close shortly, and keep


away from the theoretical. However, these are the options we are left


with. I am a member of Parliament that represent a Scottish


constituency. Since we arrived here we have sought to seek sought to


share the good and positive and constructive experiences we had in


Scotland during the referendum. Every time on matters such as 16 and


17-year-olds this government has sought to ignore them. I thank her


for giving way. Does she agree, this is a procedural resolution, and the


fact suddenly this debate is taking place even though the order paper


says no debate, does that not say something about something else we've


tried to do, to reform procedures and make them more transparent.


There is much that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament


experience. I couldn't agree with my honourable friend more. It comes to


the crux of my point. Many amendments will be tabled as the


timescale to do that is short. The timescale for debate and voting will


be short. Is it not the case that for discussing the amendments to


this euphemistically called Bill... In the spirit of respect it has to


happen within all the nations of the UK, one has to ask whether the


government but before we consider these amendments, has consulted with


the other legislators in the United Kingdom that the Scottish Government


has had the opportunity to take part of the debate with the government


before it becomes part of the bill as part of the process of respect. I


agree with one of my honourable friends. The bottom line here is


that people will watch this process, people did not have faith in the


run-up to the EU referendum. They are now looking on, the whole world


is looking on. Our international reputation is at stake, it's so


important our process... One more time I will give way. Would be


honourable lady not agree that something of such momentous


significance is this change to our Constitution deserves scrupulous and


regular eyes to Parliamentary process, and chopping and changing


and playing games with our usual processes on a bill of this


significance will undermine public confidence in this house and its


processes. I feel you are going in the wrong


direction, so I will finish by quoting someone who said public


confidence in the integrity of government is indispensable to faith


and democracy, and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost


faith in everything we fight and spend for. I hope this government


thinks very carefully about that, about the process that it is


embarking on, and does a decent job. Again, it is very unusual to have a


debate on this sort of procedural motion, but I think it is very


important on a matter of principle for our constituents to understand


the processes of this House, given the significance of the journey we


are about to embark upon, debating and amending and discussing and


voting on this bill, which is of generational significant struggle


this is not just any piece of legislation, this is a bill which


will affect the prospects of people in my constituency, businesses and


organisations and people up and down Wales, for many years to come. It is


only right that the people understand the processes of This


Place, which can often seem very labyrinthine, I have to say. I


support the type of agenda which the honourable lady was talking about,


with regard to straightening out and sympathising some of our procedures.


I wonder whether the procedure committee has look at this issue. I


have not seen this type of motion before, except perhaps on emergency


anti-terrorism legislation and things like that. Whilst it is


welcome to have more time to put down amendments, it does suggest a


very odd direction from the Government, both in terms of that in


support of us having not gone through the second reading debate,


not seen a white paper and not having been able to think through


the structure of new amendments and schedules, and who we might wish to


table them with, who we might want to get to support them, before they


are laid. These matters have great significance in determining what


amendments, as you will know, Madame Deputy Speaker, gets elected and


which ones are able to be voted upon. I had a frustrating experience


recently on a similarly short bill, with regard to the Commonwealth


development corporation, where we had a number of amendments down, but


because of the nature of the debate and the rules which were set in by


the usual channels and others, there were only a certain number of votes


able to be taken. The issue which I had tabled an amendment on, which


had cross-party support, was not actually voted on because we were


told they could only be two votes because of the limitations on time


and on process. I have to say, Madame Deputy Speaker, I am deeply


concerned when I hear that there will only be three days of debate on


this. We do not know how much time there will be for debate on report,


or indeed what will be inserted into the debate. I thank my honourable


for. Would he agree that this is a strange day to table a motion which


effectively starts the exit process, the day on which most members, just


look around, are back in their constituency, many campaigning on


two by-elections. Does my honourable friend agree that the way this has


been tabled today brings the House into disrepute check it would have


been easy for the Government to have tabled this on Monday, to give


people a week before starting the process for the second reading late


the following week? He makes a very good point. It is typical of this


government to table things at the last minute, on a Thursday, when


they think people have gone home, when nobody is watching. I think it


is important that my constituents understand how procedural devices in


this House are often used to frustrate debate, frustrate


discussion and frustrate the reasonable scrutiny of Parliament,


which fundamentally is what the Supreme Court said was crucial


should take place on this important matter. I am disappointed to hear a


minister on the front bench chuntering, time wasting, at my


honourable friend's intervention. This is about this Parliament having


a say, having proper scrutiny over something so fundamental, which will


affect generations to come. I do not normally like to get into big


procedural debates in This Place. I normally like to talk about the


issues of substance, but when we are about to embark on a matter which is


so important, it is absolutely crucial that we have the most tax


transparent, accessible and open processes around these amendments,


clauses and schedules and how those are voted upon. The people... If


that is the issue, then certainly,... It has to be done in a


way that makes the will of the people we have in this Parliament.


With great respect, that is the prerogative, not to ignore the view


of the people, but to acknowledge the voice of the people in the


referendum truckle I do not necessarily disagree with the spirit


of what he says. He is an assiduous tribute to debate and procedures in


This Place. I know he would welcome the proper scrutiny, whether or not


we agree on the results of the referendum or how we should take the


process forward. I know that he does agree on the importance of This


Place and its processes and the way that we debate and discuss things. I


think it is important to understand that the way in which, the order in


which amendments are tabled in This Place, can significantly affect the


ability of people to speak on them, and also which ones are able to be


voted upon. We do not want chicanery attempting to prevent debate and


reasonable discussion. They are chuntering already. We all


understand what the result of the referendum was, we all have


different views on that. But there are many, many issues of concern as


to how this process is being carried out. The Prime Minister has already


shown a great deal of contempt for this House in not turning up here to


expand herself and answer questions. The fact that they have been forced


into a corner about publishing a white paper, and now appearing to


tinker with the procedures of This Place, to rush headlong into a


process and not allow adequate scrutiny. Madame Deputy Speaker, I


raise these issues not through any attempt to frustrate process, to


stop it. And I will not be opposing this motion, but I do want the


public and my constituents to understand that there are those in


this House, Adam Deputy Speaker, who attempt to abuse often procedures of


this House, to prevent reasonable scrutiny and votes being taken. And


I would be deeply concerned if that were to continue over the next few


weeks. We have already seen a habit and a direction of travel from this


government. I hope that that stops right now, that we have a proper


debate and proper scrutiny. With my honourable for an degree, and it is


certainly not time wasting, I hope, this latest intervention, that it


would be a very sad day, on such an important decision, if the


procedures and time given for this debate in this House were less than


in the unelected Other Place? I would absolutely agree with him. The


comparison has already been made. I find it difficult to understand how


we can spend less time on this than was spent on the Lisbon Treaty or


the Maastricht Treaty. Forget all sorts of procedural devices have


been exported. This is a matter of generational significance, which


ever views we have about the referendum and the type of


arrangement that we move into. It is important that it is done properly,


with transparency and care and consideration, because the decisions


we make will last for decades to come.


Peter Grant, my apologies. Accepted, Madame Deputy Speaker. But you will


remember that next time I try to catch your eye! Madame Deputy


Speaker, I would be interested to know why it is that the Government


have taken this welcome but still unusual step with this bill. It is


almost as if we are going to have more time to table amendments then


we will have to discuss them. It might be because the Government


knows there will be a huge amount of amendments being tabled. The number


of specific issues that members will want very clear decisions on his


massive. Think about all the questions that have been raised to


the Leader of the House, the the Prime Minister, about what is going


to happen to EU nationals who are here, to UK nationals over there, to


universities, farming, fishing... Every one of them potentially is


several different amendments. If in their haste to get to the cliff edge


as quickly as possible, only a tiny percentage of those amendments are


considered, we will end up with bad, bad legislation. On this, possibly


the most important decision this Parliament has taken since this


Chamber has been built, bad legislation is something we cannot


afford. Would be honourable gentleman not agree with me, as


somebody who campaigned fiercely for us to remain within the European


Union, the most important decision that was made was when this House


decided, be now wrong or right, given the result, for when we


decided to have a referendum, and we decided that whatever the result of


the referendum was, we would be true to that decision? My recollection of


the act that was passed apart from the fact that it was deeply flawed,


and that is why we are now in this mess, is that it did not say that


Parliament had to abide by that decision, it did not say it was


binding, it did not say anything about it, it just said there would


be a referendum. Maybe the government needs to look at an


amendment to this bill to retrospectively make the last one


binding! The bill is being rushed through, because there is a


political imperative, not a legal imperative, for Article 50 to be


triggered by the 31st of March. The builders not require the Prime


Minister to do anything by the 31st of March, it does not require her to


do anything at all. So, is it for the Government themselves to correct


that mistake - and can the minister explained why it is that, five days


is not enough, it is more than a lot of us get, but given the


Government's own summary of the built, which is 15 times longer than


the bill itself, given that the advice in that summary is that the


impact of the bill itself will be both clear and limited... Limited?!


It is the most important bill this House has ever considered. Given


that it is so limited, why does the Government need to allow so much


additional time for all these amendments? I will just gently


remind him that he's talking about a different bill from the motion that


we are debating here. If you could get back to the tabling of


amendments, I'd be very grateful. I was referring not so much for the


content of the bill but to its extent and its limited impact and


wondering why we needed so much additional time to launch


amendments. Generally speaking, the public are not interested in


procedures and the timing of amendments and what days of the week


hills are created on and so on. This time, it is important, because it's


very clear that the procedures of the House are being used to get the


result that the Government wants, because they are not prepared to


subject this important bill to... Let's not forget, the only reason


the Government is here today is because it has been... Does he share


my concern that with two other legal cases already under way, one around


EEA membership, and another one around whether Article 50 is


actually retractable, which could also result in new clauses and


schedules being required by the government? I am grateful for that


point. I never think it is a good idea to speak in late on court cases


in here, especially if you have got is little legal training as me the


Government it may well be that these are factors which will come back to


haunt the Government in a big way in the future. The Prime Minister has


placed a political imperative on herself to get this Article 50


implemented by the 31st of March. Will my honourable friend join with


me, and further to the honourable members point, in taking this


opportunity to thank the democracy campaigners, in particular Gina


Miller, of course. Their actions and intervention in the courts have


meant that a Prime Minister who sought to ignore Parliament and


treat the powers entrusted to her as an absolute privilege has been


brought back into line of some sort? It is a contribution which will have


long-lasting effects. Can I certainly concur with my honourable


friend's comments? I always think it is in it for me bad taste for anyone


to bad-mouth the motivation of someone who just won a court case.


Because the definition of someone who has sprung a court case in the


High Court, by definition, they were right to take it. I thought the


statement made by Gina Miller after the case was utterly genuine. There


is a number of questions which I would like the Government to answer


in order to expand to us why they are this unusual procedural step.


Why is it that this bill in particular, possibly the shortest


bill in this session, is expected to attract so many amendments? I want


to finish off so I will not take any more interventions. Thank you,


Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I commend your patience, like other members?


Sadly, I think that this will not be the end of the need for the person


sitting in that Chair to have patience. Because although we are


discussing the motion here to give extra time to provide amendments and


extra clauses and so on what I will glad to support, we are definitely


discussing the business of the House and not the content of next week's


bill. The charge is that the government


has begun to politicise, very consciously, the procedures and


business of the house. That is why we have to stand here, now we've got


a little time, and bring the government to account on that


politicisation of the business of the house. I think the honourable


gentleman is making a strong point. I wonder if he's noticed the


government Chief Whip scuttling back and forth. Which seems to suggest


they are worried about something, worried about this place having a


say on motions and procedures and all along they have assumed they can


do whatever they like without reference back to this Parliament. I


do take that point and I'm not saying this to chide the government,


but I'm trying to bring out into the open in this chamber what we all


know. The government has been introducing a new Parliamentary


convention that float on from the fact we had a referendum. The


referendum went against the government. The government is in


panic and shock, it's divided amongst its own backbenchers,


decided on a new convention, to simply use the Crown prerogative to


ram through whatever they wanted, basing that on the fact they had got


the decision for Brexit through the referendum. That's in stark contrast


to the history of this chamber. What has occurred since the government


tried... Let me make a viewpoint is because we're running out of time


and we want to hear the minister. I want very clearly to make the point


that the government, in a panic, chose to use the royal prerogative.


It's been struck down this week by the Supreme Court. A momentous


historical position. You would have thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, in


that point, the government would have more regard for the procedures


of the house and the business, how the business of the house is


formulated, to give the house the proper say in this historic decision


about Brexit. Did you learn that lesson? No. He came back with a one


line bill, to be fast tracked. That is why in order to make some amends


we are here this afternoon discussing a way of getting some


extra time to draft a motion, to go with that fast-track procedure. I


have every right to. The members have every right to worry the


government still has not got clear that we are now going to have proper


Parliamentary scrutiny, including control over the business of how


this motion goes through and this debate goes through the house. Just


to underline, let's look at what the explanatory notes say about the


explanation for the fast tracking. First we were told there was


unexpected step in the formal process, the Supreme Court. I'm


sorry, if our Majesty's government... It's no fault of this


house that Her Majesty's government does not understand what's happening


in the real world. No fault of this house that members on both sides of


Her Majesty's government gets caught by surprise. The rest of us weren't.


It's not an excuse to fast-track. I put it to the Minister. Second


explanation we get for the fast tracking is that it would cause


considerable delay to commencing the former exit process of the trading


of article 50. That's why we are having. That is a random arbitrary


decision of Her Majesty's government to trigger article 50 at the end of


March. That is not the decision of this house. To say we have to


fast-track because the government executive made a decision about when


it wanted to do things. If it becomes a principle of how we do


business in this house, if any government and any executive at any


time says we want to do something next week, because we need to get it


done next week we're going to fast-track everything, that is an


aggregation of democracy. On that, it strikes me the need for the


fast-track process and the need for the almost lack of parliamentary


scrutiny we are seeing shows up that the government is very well its case


is not strong, not watertight, and it would be easy for members across


the house to pick holes in it. -- the government is a very aware.


Because there are so many holes. I fear it may be the case but the


government has nothing to fear from democracy. If the people of England


and Wales have voted and wish to leave the European Union, that is up


to them. I will not oppose that. The people of Scotland have voted to


stay, that's what we're going to do. The issue, I want to come back to


this and won't take any more interventions... The point is the


government is politicising procedures of the house on this


matter. We've been here before, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say this


humbly to the chair because this is why it becomes a major issue, we've


seen this in the 1880s and 1890s, when a government supported a


legitimate desire for home rule in Ireland. It's led to major, major


debate in this Parliament. It became focused through the whole question


of the procedures of this Parliament. Again, in the 1970s,


when devolution was first being discussed for Scotland, it


intertwined with major issues of business of the house because in the


case of home rule for Ireland, the case for home rule of devolution for


Scotland, the executive put itself against the face of Parliament


having a proper democratic discussion. In the end, Madam Deputy


Speaker, the business will go through this afternoon. Unless the


government learns the basic lesson that every time it tries to thwart


democratic discussion in this house, members of both sides will face the


executive down. Unless the government learns the lesson and


opens up the debate, we're in for a lot of procedural discussion over


the next year. Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion before the house this


afternoon has one purpose. Set out in the terms of the motion that I


moved. Namely, to suspend the normal rule in this house that amendments


may only be tabled by honourable members once second reading has been


achieved. The government's motive in tabling this motion this afternoon


is to make it easier for honourable members on all sides to consider and


then to table any amendment that they wish to do. If honourable


members choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity


either through blocking this motion this afternoon or through simply


waiting until the end of second reading, they are perfectly entitled


to take that course of action and we are not in any way through this


motion limiting the continued right of honourable members to table


additional amendments once second reading has been completed. But in


line with the normal procedures of the house. What the government is


seeking to do is to respond. In a way a number of members have


suggested, we are proceeding with the article 50 bill through


extradited process. This expedited process is something that in my time


here has been used by governments of all political colours, often in


response to High Court decisions or Supreme Court decisions, which have


interpreted the law in a different way from how the law had previously


been assumed to stand. And it is usual for this kind of motion to be


moved by the government on the day when such expedited process is


applied. Our purpose in using the expedited process is to enable us to


comply promptly with the judgment of the Supreme Court while at the same


time respecting the vote of this house, that the Prime Minister


should trigger the article 50 process by the end of March this


year. It is trying to make sure we can comply both with the Supreme


Court and the clearly and overwhelmingly expressed view of a


vote in this House of Commons. And I think the speeches we've heard this


afternoon are indicative of the shambolic state of some of the


arguments being presented by honourable members opposite. I have


to say I am disappointed that there seems to be this obsession about


debating the process of each and every stage, rather than focusing


upon what are the key objectives in a negotiation, which will deliver


the best deal for people in every part of the United Kingdom,


following the outcome of the United Kingdom referendum earlier this


year. That is what in the forefront of the government. That is what I


submit is on the mind of our constituents who sent us here, not


the detail of perhaps unusual and arcane procedure. We accepted, Madam


Deputy Speaker, the judge's ruling on the steps of the Supreme Court


after the judges had given judgment. We immediately complied with that


judgment by introducing a bill. Honourable members opposite have


nothing whatever to complain about. The government could not have been


more prompt, efficient, or responsible in complying with that


Supreme Court judgment. The question is on the order paper. I think the


ayes have it, the ayes have it. Question is that this house to now


adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say


aye... Contrary no. Order, order.


Download Subtitles