UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATONS MADE TO THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

4 FEBRUARY 2014

MR JOHN BARON

GEORGE FREEMAN, GEOFFREY CLIFTON-BROWN, DR PHILLIP LEE AND

DR JULIAN HUPPERT

MRS ANNE MAIN, CAROLINE LUCAS, MR BARRY SHEERMAN, ANGELA SMITH AND TRACEY CROUCH

MR MICHAEL MEACHER AND DR JULIAN HUPPERT

MS MARGARET RITCHIE, JIM SHANNON AND CAROLINE LUCAS

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 4 February 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Pete Wishart

Mr John Baron made representations.

Q1 Chair: John, you’ve been to us before so you know the drill. This is an application for a general debate-a full day in the Chamber.

Mr Baron: Thank you for seeing me. I am sorry that I am not joined by other colleagues who signed the nomination paper, but they are in Committees and on various stages. However, you have the list of names of the cross-party group for reference.

We all know that cancer is a growing problem. We have heard headlines today that the rate of cancer is expected to grow by something like 70% over the next 20 years. In this country we have a particular problem. Despite all the money spent on the NHS and, indeed, on cancer services, we still lag behind other countries in survival rates. Reputable figures suggest that if we brought our average survival rate up to the European average we would save 5,000 lives a year. Various organisations-world bodies-have suggested that globally we could save 10,000 if we reached the international standard. We are ranked 28th out of 35 when it comes to survival rates across developed economies.

We have a proud campaigning track record. I have been chairman of the all-party group on cancer for five years, and we have pushed the importance of early diagnosis-what we call cancer’s magic key. The earlier you diagnose, the more chance you can save people because survival rates increase. Late diagnosis makes for poor survival. We have had an effect in getting the Government to take up one and five-year survival measures, broken down at a local level to encourage the local NHS to promote initiatives and promote the concept generally of earlier diagnosis. We have produced a report. Our concern about the restructuring of the NHS is that cancer services could suffer. We want to make sure that that does not happen. We want to make sure that the spotlight remains on cancer, given how prevalent it is. One in three of us will be touched by cancer by the end of our lives.

Q2 Chair: These are all really important issues that will be raised at the time of the debate. The only thing I am a bit concerned about is this. We have been trying to make it clear to colleagues that we need a list of Members who you feel confident will participate in the debate. For a full day’s debate on cancer, while it is very important, having you and then four other Members is not really enough.

Mr Baron: Sorry, you should have had six names. My apologies. I have got Grahame Morris, Paul Burstow, James Clappison, Stephen Metcalfe, Nic Dakin and Sir Nick Harvey.

Q3 Chair: We did not have those last ones. Still, we would want at least 15 participating Members in a half-day debate, so you can double that for a full day. I am sure that it won’t be a problem for you to find Members to do that, but if you would get back to us with a list of Members whom you are confident will participate, that would be very helpful.

Mr Baron: Okay. To answer that question directly, given the cross-party interest in cancer, I don’t think it will be a problem, but if you wish, no problem at all, I will get those names over to you.

Chair: Thanks. That is really helpful, John.

Q4 John Hemming: It is a general debate, so it could go into Westminster Hall. Would you refuse Westminster Hall?

Mr Baron: I would not refuse Westminster Hall, but it is such an important subject that I would prefer a debate on the Floor of the House, even if it is a half-day debate. I do not think there will be any shortage of people participating. Our report is, after all, trying to put the spotlight on how we can keep the focus on cancer in a changing NHS. The report makes firm recommendations over a number of pages and this is what we would be debating.

Q5 Bob Blackman: Given that we have a lot of competing bids for debates, is there any urgency to have the debate by a particular time so that there can be a response from the Government, or could you delay for a month or so?

Mr Baron: It is a good question. The sooner, the better, as we have put a number of further recommendations to the Government and NHS England to try to encourage and promote earlier diagnosis. The iteration, without going into too much detail, of the outcomes indicator set is being decided now for the spring, in many respects, or at least it is being considered. It would be useful to have a debate as soon as possible, but I am sure that a month is not going to break the bank.

Q6 Bob Blackman: Have the Government expressed a view on when they are going to respond to the report?

Mr Baron: No, because there is a slightly grey area between the Government and NHS England. We are trying to bring a little bit of pressure to bear, given that there remains an element of accountability between the Government and NHS England.

Q7 Oliver Colvile: Forgive me, I presume you are trying to put some pressure on the Government either to have a policy announcement of some sort or to bring clarification about how this is going to be operated.

Mr Baron: It is a question of trying to raise awareness in the House, first, but also to put a little bit of pressure on the Government, because there are a number of recommendations that were the result of wide consultation, including with those at the top table at NHS England. We are trying to move the debate forward, because there is a risk that cancer care could, I will not say suffer, but certainly be somewhat neglected in the new structures. We want to make sure that that is not the case, which is why the report was put together, in wide consultation, as I say, with the cancer community as a whole. You may be aware that we consider ourselves as representative of the wider cancer community. We have our annual "Britain against cancer" conference, with some 500 or 600 delegates. Secretaries of State and shadow Secretaries of State turn up to speak, and we try to bring the cancer community together on these issues.

Q8 Chair: Okay. I have a final question. We have a day on 13 February, which is the only day we have to allocate today. 13 February is both the date of the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election and the last day before the recess. I can understand colleagues’ reluctance to take that day, but if half a day were offered to you then, would that be something that you would consider?

Mr Baron: Yes, because it is an important subject and I still think we could get a reasonable turnout given the subject.

Q9 Chair: Excellent. Would you take half a day? A whole day may be completely impossible. We very rarely allocate whole days these days, because we are so tight for time.

Mr Baron: If only half a day were available, I would take it.

Chair: That is very helpful, John. Thank you.

George Freeman, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Dr Phillip Lee and Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q10 Chair: You have suggested a general debate on "patient rights: ownership of NHS patient data" in the Chamber for three hours.

George Freeman: Yes. I am joined by one or two colleagues this afternoon and there are, as you know, 11 other sponsors of my ten-minute rule Bill, which is going to fall at the end of February. We also have a number of other cross-party supporters: Tom Greatrex, John Woodcock and Rosie Cooper for Labour, and Andrew George, Julian Huppert, Gordon Birtwhistle and Roger Williams for the Liberal Democrats.

Perhaps I could say something about why the subject of NHS patient data is topical and will become more topical in the next month or two. I would also like to say something about the demand I have had from Members, charities and other outside bodies in response to the ten-minute rule Bill, and what I think this debate would achieve. As you will see in the newspapers, NHS data have become a hot topic for a number of reasons. Principally, the Government are in the process of some very important reforms to open up transparency of data within the NHS, as well as important reforms on research. From this spring, GPs will be required to make patient data available to patients, without charge and on request-

Q11 Chair: Do you know what date in spring, or whereabouts?

George Freeman: I have not got the exact date to hand, but I think it is at the end of March. It will be announced-

Q12 Chair: So, presumably, you would want to have a debate well in advance of the introduction?

George Freeman: Yes, please. Leaflets have just been delivered to something like 25 million households on this subject, which has triggered phenomenal media and public interest. This topic matters for three big reasons. First, it is important for research. Following the representation that has just been made, that applies to cancer and a whole range of important areas. The more we know about disease, the more we know that different patients get different diseases in different ways and respond to drugs in different ways. This is the cutting-edge modern field of medicine: understanding how patients will respond. Britain is making a strategic move to unlock this extraordinary asset which the NHS has, to pioneer modern, targeted, personalised medicine.

Secondly, data are essential if we are to shift medicine from being something done to us by the Government when they decide we need it to something that modern, empowered, health citizens are able to do for themselves. Unless we empower patients to understand what is possible and to understand their own health situation-

Chair: Rather than going through the arguments, as you will have the opportunity to do so-

George Freeman: Thirdly, the release of data is crucial to driving transparency. My other point is that I have a ten-minute rule Bill, which will fall at the end of February and will not get a chance to be debated at all. Since I launched it in the House, over 70 medical research charities have contacted me and we have had over 45,000 Twitter hits. There is a huge demand for a debate, and I think it would be very well attended.

Q13 Pete Wishart: There is no motion here. Are you seeking a general debate or would you be looking to have a vote?

George Freeman: I am happy to take your advice on that. I was thinking of a general debate or a motion without a vote at the end, with the theme being that the principle should be that patient data belong to patients. They should have access to them and they should control who they share them with.

Q14 John Hemming: There is a lot of demand on time, and you have put down a debate for the Chamber. Would you refuse Westminster Hall?

George Freeman: I would rather go for less time but in the Chamber, because-

Q15 John Hemming: Less time and later on in the Chamber? Say you had to wait for a month or so for the Chamber, but you could have Westminster Hall in the next couple of weeks.

George Freeman: I am really keen to get some airtime before the end of February, when my Bill will fall. If the only way to do that is Westminster Hall then I would go to Westminster Hall.

John Hemming: So you would not refuse it.

Q16 Chair: Okay. The next date is 27 February, but that is only provisional. Unless-and you have to think about this very carefully-as we said to John Baron, there is 13 February, which is the last day of term. Many colleagues will be at the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, and it is the last day before the recess, so that may not be a day which people are very keen to take. But if you are willing to look at 13 February-

George Freeman: I would certainly take 13 February in the Chamber. If there was no alternative I would happily go for Westminster Hall before the end of February.

Chair: That is really helpful, thank you.

Q17 Oliver Colvile: I presume you are seeking to gain clarification of the Government’s thinking on all this. They may begin responding and making a decision before the announcement, which is going to end up happening eventually. So you just want greater clarification, is that it?

George Freeman: Yes. I really want two things. First, to give colleagues from all parties a chance to speak and give voice to this extraordinary public voice that has started to come through in the media in the past month or two and, yes, to give Ministers a chance to respond to a wide range of issues about privacy, confidentiality, and research on cancer and other diseases, and to respond to some of the concerns clinicians have about not breaching patient-clinician confidentiality. It is an opportunity to put down a number of issues and invite Ministers to respond.

Q18 Oliver Colvile: I know very well that the English Pharmacy Board has been campaigning for this, and there is much wider interest among local authority social services departments. It is a very worthwhile cause.

Chair: There you are-a ringing endorsement. Thank you very much for that; that is really helpful. We will be making a decision on what to schedule on 13 February when we go into private session, so we will let you know as soon as we have done that.

Mrs Anne Main, Caroline Lucas, Mr Barry Sheerman, Angela Smith and Tracey Crouch made representations.

Mrs Main: We were very grateful to have had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject granted by the Committee. The debate was hugely well attended, and 27 Members spoke. People such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) did not get a chance to speak, and I was time-limited to three minutes. There were more people sitting and listening, and there was a very big audience participating as well.

You may have noticed that there have been two EDMs on exactly this subject: EDM 299, which got 149 signatures, and EDM 661, which got 98 signatures. Both EDMs urged that the matter should be brought back before the House. Yesterday, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs described the cull as having failed-exactly the wording that we are using-against the criteria set by the Government. Many Members feel that they lent their support, given the plight of the farmers, to this. There is nothing else for us to do now other than urge that it be brought back before the House, because this will keep rolling out. These pilots are not pilots with a view to stopping them coming back before the House; they will roll out according to the criteria of the Government unless the House enforces its will that the matter comes back before the House for a future debate on the information that we have gained from the cull.

Q19 Chair: The debate that you had in Westminster Hall was a full three-hour debate, was it?

Mrs Main: No. It was an hour and a half.

Q20 Chair: If you had had three hours, would you still have run out of time, do you think?

Mrs Main: Yes, easily.

Q21 Chair: So you are asking for a full day’s debate.

Mrs Main: But also we want a vote. We really want a vote so that the will of the House can be shown as to whether or not it still endorses the approach being taken, because that approach will continue to be taken without any further sanction from the House.

Q22 John Hemming: I take it that you are actually looking for a vote rather than the six hours, so if you could have a vote after three hours soon, you would rather have that than wait until you can get six hours.

Caroline Lucas: We absolutely need the vote. Democratic scrutiny has now been removed from the process. When the culls were first extended beyond six weeks, there was no way in which Parliament had an opportunity to comment on that. When the independent panel decided not to look at the extended bit of the cull, there was no opportunity for Parliament to comment on that. If we are not very careful, if we do not get a vote there will be no opportunity for Parliament to comment on the further roll-out.

Mr Sheerman: There is so much more evidence on the efficacy of vaccination, and we want to discuss the welfare of cattle as well. We are not blind to that. We want a balanced debate that everyone can join in, but vaccination evidence has materially changed the situation.

Q23 Pete Wishart: The Government are increasingly abstaining when it comes to Back-Bench business. Would it not be better just to get a good long debate so that you have Ministers in front of you and you can hold them to account, rather than going for the vote if they are just going to sit on their hands as they have been doing in the past few weeks?

Mrs Main: I have to disagree. I think that with the public scrutiny that will come with a full debate and a vote in the Chamber, they cannot keep running and hiding.

Q24 Chair: That is brilliant, thank you. Thank you very much for bringing that to us. We have got, as I said before, 13 February-

Mrs Main: Having discussed this with colleagues, we have such a lot of support across the House that I think it would be a disservice to call it on that day.

Q25 Chair: Sure. Our next provisional day would be 27 February, because we have got the mini recess in between. So there is quite a big gap.

Mrs Main: That would suit us.

Chair: Okay. That is fantastic. Thank you very much for bringing that to us.

Mr Michael Meacher and Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q26 Chair: You are applying for a three-hour votable motion in the main Chamber on inequality?

Mr Meacher: That is right. On a particular motion, which I have already given to you: "That a commission of inquiry be established to investigate the impacts of the current levels of inequality on the UK economy, society and culture."

Chair: Brilliant.

Mr Meacher: This is a huge issue that has hardly been discussed in Parliament. It gets sporadic mention in the media. I was struck by the fact that, a weekend or two ago, the man who initiated Davos said that inequality was now the single most important issue facing the western world.

The arguments are clear. There has been a huge increase-rightly or wrongly, people take different views-in the level of inequality in the past 20 or 30 years and there are real questions about whether that is desirable, whether there are downsides, which clearly need to be discussed, and whether Parliament should take a hand in trying to produce some guidance in terms of the distribution of income.

Q27 John Hemming: On a procedural point, you want a motion, so it has to be in the main Chamber. A motion phrased as it stands is sort of a general instruction to Government that has no force. Have you not thought of establishing a parliamentary Committee instead, which would have force?

Mr Meacher: Well, if I thought that a parliamentary Committee would be accepted by the Government and regarded as a body whose conclusions needed to be responded to, I think I would accept that suggestion. I obtained a debate a few weeks ago, under the auspices of this Committee, and the proposal to set up a commission of inquiry was won by 125 votes to two, but the Government simply ignored it. This is a constitutional issue of great importance. If there is another way round this, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

Q28 John Hemming: The point is that motions in Parliament control what the House of Commons and Parliament does. So if it is to establish a Committee of the House of Commons, that has force and has to be followed through.

Q29 Chair: What John is talking about is that, right at the beginning, when we were first established, Adam Afriyie successfully, through this Committee, got a motion to set up a time-limited Select Committee looking into IPSA. That is within the remit of our powers, whereas a commission is not.

Mr Meacher: I presume that the Government would, of course, have to agree to do this. It would be on a motion before the House to set up a parliamentary Committee and, in the light of what has happened before, I doubt whether that would be accepted.

Q30 John Hemming: The Government may want to Whip it down. Whereas they can ignore motions that have no force, a motion that established a Committee of parliamentarians would have force.

Q31 Chair: Is there time urgency about this?

Mr Meacher: No.

Q32 Chair: There are resource implications for this as well, of course, in terms of setting up Committees. Why do we not speak, together with the Clerks, and find out what is and is not possible and come back next week? Would that be possible?

Mr Meacher: I would be happy to do that, because this is an important Committee, but the success in achieving actual action as a result of its activities seems to be severely inhibited. If we can find a way through this, that would be helpful.

Chair: Okay. That would be great, if you could do that. We will meet, together with the Clerks, and discuss what is possible.

Ms Margaret Ritchie, Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas made representations.

Q33 Chair: You are here with a proposal for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on the reduction in VAT rate for the tourism sector?

Ms Ritchie: Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee. This issue has been raised by MPs from a range of constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the hospitality industry. Several months ago, I tabled an early-day motion that earned about 22 signatures across parties-SNP, Green, Lib Dems, Alliance, DUP, Labour and SDLP.

The tourism sector is particularly vulnerable to the higher rate of VAT and, as a sector, it is important in providing youth employment opportunities that need to be supported. There has been considerable research into this issue, and we believe that there should be a debate. Findings by Professor Blake and a major independent analysis by Deloitte and Touche in their recent report on tourism showed that reducing VAT on key tourism services, such as visitor accommodation and entry to attractions, would boost GDP in the UK by £4 billion, create about 80,000 jobs over two to three years and deliver about £2.6 billion to the Treasury over 10 years.

We have a particular problem in Northern Ireland because we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which has continued to keep its VAT rate on tourism at 9%. In fact, other countries, such as France and Germany and, I think, Belgium, have much lower rates than the United Kingdom.

Q34Chair: Margaret, regarding your application for a Westminster Hall debate, we also now allocate 90-minute slots, as a pilot scheme that we are running. They used to be allocated by the Speaker and are now allocated by us; they are on a Tuesday morning from 9.30 am to 11 am. Is this for DCMS, BIS or Treasury?

Ms Ritchie: Treasury.

Q35 Chair: Next week, we have one of those Tuesday, 90-minute slots, which nobody has applied for, so it would be something that we could easily allocate. We do not have any other Westminster Hall time available to us and, realistically, the next Chamber time is not until 27 February and we are completely overloaded with stuff.

Ms Ritchie: I would say that our general point of principle is that this debate should take place before the Budget on 19 March.

Q36 Ian Mearns: Margaret, the application refers to the tourism sector and in your opening statement, you also mentioned the hospitality industry, which broadens the whole remit quite substantially. One wonders how broad that remit would go and I am therefore wondering if the applicants have a clear perspective about how broad that goes, because, if you add hospitality and tourism together, you could also include-off the top of my head-events, venues, destination attractions, hotels, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, theatres, cinemas, theme parks, English Heritage, sporting venues, and transport companies.

Caroline Lucas: There is quite a big campaign behind this proposal, so it is not just us. The campaign has looked at this very carefully because, you are quite right, it could potentially cover a huge number of things. They see it very clearly in two phases; phase one would be about hotel accommodation and attractions. Then, secondarily, it could potentially go to restaurants and other things, but they are very clear that, at the beginning, it would look at hotels and attractions. They are looking particularly at the effects on competition, because we are one of only three EU member states that does not have a lower rate of VAT in this sector, so there are more obvious competitive disbenefits if you look at hotels and attractions than if you start to get into restaurants.

Chair: Jim would like to say something.

Jim Shannon: I would like to back up Margaret’s introduction to this; there are issues that are important to us all. Critically, we may disagree on some things, but we agree on many others. It is good that Margaret Ritchie and I can come together on this issue to support all our constituents in Northern Ireland. We see it as a potential winner, and not just for the reasons to which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) referred in relation to equality and the job creation that comes out of it. While the price in Northern Ireland was the initial reason for pushing for this debate, the benefits would be for the whole United Kingdom-Scotland, Wales and the rest of England, in particular the south-and we want to underline that. You almost gave us a spot before we started, and we are more than happy to take that up.

Q37 Oliver Colvile: I am rather getting used to using my iPad, so I have not been able to find out how many people you have supporting this application.

Ms Ritchie: I will answer that in two parts, Mr Colvile-

Oliver Colvile: Oliver, please.

Ms Ritchie: Please forgive my formality. Obviously, there are myself, Caroline and Jim and then Naomi Long-

Ian Mearns: Well that’s three hours.

Ms Ritchie: And Martin Caton. I also refer back to early-day motion 78, which was tabled on 14 May 2013 and signed by 22 Members.

Q38 Chair: To follow on from Oliver’s point, it would be good, even with a 90-minute debate, to get some certainty around how many people you think will actually participate.

Ms Ritchie: We will be pursuing that to ensure that we do get support.

Caroline Lucas: There is also a national campaign behind it.

Q39 Oliver Colvile: It would have more power or effort behind it if there were also some Conservatives.

Ms Ritchie: David Morris, a colleague of yours, also signed the early-day motion.

Q40 Oliver Colvile: I just think that if it is going to be a decision of the whole House, it would be helpful to have more Conservatives.

Caroline Lucas: There are more Conservatives. We were at a breakfast meeting organised by the Cut Tourism VAT campaign and Conservatives were around that table, too. We are just slightly ahead of ourselves, because we were so anxious to get in before the Budget.

Q41 Oliver Colvile: Are you seeking actually to have a motion?

Ms Ritchie: Not a votable motion. Just a general debate.

Caroline Lucas: We basically want to have the Minister there to answer us.

Q42 Oliver Colvile: So he understands the strength of feeling?

Ms Ritchie: The former tourism Minister, John Penrose, was at that meeting. It was hosted by Cut Tourism VAT, which is basically the British hospitality industry, hence the reference earlier.

Ian Mearns: If you are looking for high-level support, I understand that the Prime Minister made quite a well reported speech before the last election, telling everyone how regressive VAT was, so you could go to the very top.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming in. We will go into private session now and let you know what we decide.