UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

Tuesday 18 November 2014

MR DAVID NUTTALL

MR ANDREW LANSLEY and DR JULIAN HUPPERT

SIR GERALD HOWARTH

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 18 November 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Mr David Nuttall made representations.

Q1 Chair: Welcome.

Mr Nuttall: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am attending today at the 24th hour-at the very last minute-on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester, who submitted this application. Unfortunately, he has had to return to his constituency because a family member is very ill in hospital. So I am grateful to you and the Committee for allowing me to take on this application in his place.

I think the application will be fairly swift to start with, in the sense that you will all have seen the written application that Stephen submitted. It is for a debate on a motion relating to Small Business Saturday and the contribution small businesses make to our national economy.

Members will recall that last year, for I believe the first time in this country, we had a national celebration named Small Business Saturday on the first Saturday in December. That is being run again this year, and it is scheduled for Saturday 6 December.

Q2 Chair: David, we are all aware of Small Business Saturday, but the application does not say how long the debate should be for. [Interruption.] It’s for three hours? And it’s in the Chamber on a motion, is it?

Mr Nuttall: It suggests three hours on the sheet I was sent. The motion is: "This House welcomes the second annual Small Business Saturday and recognises the important contribution that small businesses make to our national economy."

Q3 Chair: The reason I am asking is that, even though you have a specific date in mind, this is not a motion anybody would really disagree with, and we have a lot of other debates on motions. Is this something you would consider having debated in Westminster Hall?

Mr Nuttall: I am in the hands of the Committee. I appreciate that this is not the most controversial of motions, but, as with all matters, the debate could be quite controversial, should Members wish it to be. They could claim the Government are not doing enough, should be doing more or doing different things.

Q4 Chair: But they wouldn’t be prevented from doing so in Westminster Hall.

Mr Nuttall: No, not at all. I appreciate that.

Chair: That’s great.

Q5 John Hemming: I have essentially the same question, although, obviously, Stephen is not here, so he can’t answer. Could the debate go in Westminster Hall? The answer is, "possibly".

Mr Nuttall: It could. The key point I wanted to make is that the issue is very topical. We have all seen the associated television advertising. Certainly, it is something we as a Parliament should be seen to be discussing, given that it will involve the whole country.

Chair: We have Westminster Hall on Thursday 4 December. That might be something we could consider.

Q6 Bob Blackman: The one question I want to clarify is: do you consider it essential to have the sub-debate before Small Business Saturday or, if time is not available, could it be held after then to celebrate what had happened?

Mr Nuttall: My view is that to raise awareness before it happens would be advantageous. Clearly, if that is not an option, having it retrospectively would be the alternative and that is what would have to happen. People could then explain what they had been doing in their constituencies.

Chair: Thank you very much for that. We will let you know as soon as possible because, obviously, it is quite topical.

Mr Andrew Lansley and Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q7 Chair: Mr Lansley, it is good to welcome you in a different capacity. As you have seen the Backbench Business Committee in action many times, we don’t have to take you through this. The only days we have available at the moment are 27 November and, provisionally, 4 December.

Mr Lansley: I am delighted to be joined by Julian Huppert. Apologies from Jim Dowd who hoped to be here but is otherwise engaged. The issue on which I am seeing a debate is the availability and pricing of branded medicines on the NHS. The subject covers a number of important issues that Members might wish to raise, particularly relating to the process by which NICE undertakes appraisals of new medicines and the threshold it applies. You may recall that just a couple of months ago, it said it would not proceed further with what is known as a value-based assessment of those or changes in the fundamental structure of thresholds.

At the same time, there is an increasing debate about the cost and future of the cancer drugs fund. That is for the debate when we come to it and I won’t go into it now, but from my point of view there has been a continuing issue about how we arrive at the point where when a clinician in the NHS feels that a drug is the right one for their patient, they can prescribe it and it falls to the NHS and the drug company to arrive at an equitable price, rather the situation we have lived with for a very long time, which is that too often, the drug company asks a price, the NHS, through NICE-or now through the cancer drugs fund-appraises it and says, "It’s too expensive." The net result is that the patient does not get the drug.

At the heart of the issue is how to address that. I have my own views, and colleagues have theirs. That is why we are looking for a general debate. It would not be sensible to try to impose any substantive motion on the debate because there is a range of issues. Some people will want to talk about the availability of specific medicines and others about the appraisal process for those medicines, as happened during Eric Ollerenshaw’s Adjournment debate in support of this issue at the beginning of September.

There are various policy areas to address. For example, the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is a big deal and went through earlier this year-I suppose it was agreed at the end of last year-but there has effectively been no parliamentary debate on it. One of the major issues is therefore to open up to scrutiny the Government’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

Some 13 colleagues have signed up to make a contribution to the debate and I am sure many more would want to join in, not least because a number of charities, including Breakthrough Breast Cancer with its fair price campaign, are very interested in the issue.

Dr Huppert: Andrew has covered the issues very well, but there is the fundamental question of how to make sure that patients get the medications they need, that the NHS can afford to provide them and that the pharmaceutical companies still have some incentive to develop new medications. There are a lot of complex issues that-in my time in this House-we have not tried to tie together into one debate, so I think it would be very valuable.

Q8 John Hemming: Would you agree to having it in Westminster Hall, given it is a general debate?

Mr Lansley: I would rather not have Westminster Hall because we are not time-dependent.

Q9 John Hemming: So you would refuse Westminster Hall.

Mr Lansley: Yes.

Q10 Oliver Colvile: Would it also include an issue that I feel strongly about: people who are suffering from neurological diseases and have a need for some form of cannabis product as a medicine? I am not in favour of people being able to puff. I never have done. I have never been offered it, so I am probably unique. But I presume it would include that as well, if we are talking about regulation, and the issue of more competition, because cost is also a factor.

Mr Lansley: The scope of the debate is wide. It would allow us to look at the availability of any proprietary branded medicine to the NHS, so it could include that. Strictly speaking, it could include, for example, the issues that have been presented in the Off-patent Drugs Bill: the early licensing of medicines to enable them to be introduced, and the adoption and uptake of medicines in the NHS. All of that would be in scope.

Dr Huppert: It is an issue that I would want to raise, and the former drugs Minister has called for that to be part of it, so it would certainly not be excluded.

Q11 Bob Blackman: You mentioned it is not time-dependent, but is there a deadline by which you would need to have this debate? Just for our guidance.

Mr Lansley: There are links in terms of timing. For example, there is a debate happening: in the wake of NICE saying they were not carrying on with the value-based assessment, how do we get more of that broader value into the technology, appraisals and the threshold NICE sets for drugs? There is a debate happening about the future of the cancer drugs fund. There is a specific link, of course. On Wednesday 10 December, the all-party group on cancer have their annual conference. The debate need not be scheduled specifically for 11 December, but if it was, I know that a lot of the organisations that support the all-party group would want to have issues raised.

Q12 Bob Blackman: Obviously, we don’t know yet about parliamentary business on 11 December, but would that be the ideal date?

Mr Lansley: In a way, 11 December would be the ideal date.

Q13 Bob Blackman: Although you say you’ve got 13 people signed up to speak, only 10 names are on the list, and they are predominantly from the Government side. It would be helpful to have a more balanced view, including from the Opposition, if that is achievable.

Mr Lansley: Yes. We have two Opposition Members in addition to those listed. We have Eric Ollerenshaw and Mark Durkan down, but I am sure more would come in.

Chair: The more names and the more cross-party it is, the better. It is helpful to have a topical hook, so we will definitely look at 11 December. Unless there is anything else, that is it. Thank you.

Sir Gerald Howarth made representations.

Sir Gerald Howarth: Madam Chairman, if I appear to be a total novice, it is because I am. I have not appeared before this Committee before.

Q14 Chair: You are very welcome. We work hand to mouth, so although normally we can assume that Thursdays in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall are Back-Bench days, it is not necessarily every Thursday, but we know that 27 November is available to us. It would be helpful if you could let us know whether you are looking at a specific date for the debate you are pitching for. As we have just discussed, a date hook is helpful.

Sir Gerald Howarth: Indeed. I have been learning on the job, as it were, listening to Mr Lansley. This is something in which I have taken a very close interest since I became a shadow Minister for veterans about 12 years ago. It revolves around a precise issue: post-retirement war widows whose husbands retired from the armed forces. When their husbands died, they were in receipt of a war widow’s pension. However, today if they were to remarry or cohabit they would lose that pension entitlement. That has been a source of huge grievance, not least because of the intrusion that has been inflicted on them as a result of assessments being made of whether they cohabit-obviously, if they get married it is published, as it were-and a means test being applied. It has been a real source of concern.

I seek this debate because the Government announced in the past 10 days or so that they would change that with effect from next April. So, after April 2015, those whose husbands or partners have died, and who are in receipt of a war pension, will be able to remarry without forfeiting the pension. The provision will not apply retrospectively.

It is a massive issue. There are 65,000 war widows. It is estimated that some 400,000 people will potentially be eligible, but the number of people affected every year is about 1,500. It has caused huge unhappiness. We should have this debate now to mark that welcome change, but also to see it in the context of the military covenant. We in this House have made a huge deal of the military covenant, which in my view has always been one between the people and the armed forces, not between the Government and the armed forces. Such a debate would enable all of us from all parties-there is nothing partisan about this-to draw attention to this welcome change and to the value of the covenant. It would be a practical expression of our commitment in Parliament, on behalf of the people, to enforcing the covenant.

Oliver Colvile: As you know, I am very supportive of this. Representing a naval garrison city, I have been lobbied very heavily on it, most certainly last June on national armed forces day. This is an incredibly good thing and I congratulate you, Sir Gerald, on bringing it forward. Thank you very much for this great service on behalf of veterans and their families.

Q15 Bob Blackman: Given it is a general debate, Gerald, would you accept a debate in Westminster Hall, because there is no motion attached to it for a vote?

Sir Gerald Howarth: No, there isn’t. I think the merit of having it on the Floor of the House would be that it tends to attract more importance and it will also signify the importance that the House attaches to the military covenant. If it were to be in Westminster Hall, however valuable-I am not decrying Westminster Hall; nevertheless, it is for more specialist debates. This is an opportunity for Parliament to flag up that we are implementing that which we have promised.

Q16 Bob Blackman: I understand that. The other issue is that there are six or seven names on the list, but no Opposition Members yet. What is the position in that regard?

Sir Gerald Howarth: Forgive me. I haven’t been around: I was abroad until last Friday and was unable to get the people together, but I will do so. I am confident that, as I said at the outset, this is not a partisan issue but one that Members from all parties have cared about for some time-the sticking point having been the Treasury, as we know.

Q17 Bob Blackman: Is there an ideal period during which you want the debate to be held?

Sir Gerald Howarth: I am not particularly insistent that it should be before Christmas necessarily. I think it is topical, but if the Committee felt that there were more pressing matters in the immediate run-up to Christmas-we all know how tight our diaries are-I would understand if it decided that we could have it in the new year. In some respects, the new year would be a new start and an opportunity to flag this up. Not least, it would be on the back of the extraordinary demonstration at the Tower of London and that expression of public gratitude. I was in the United States last week and it was widely reported there.

Q18 Ian Mearns: Just to follow that up, we could do with some Opposition Members’ names.

Sir Gerald Howarth: Point taken.

Ian Mearns: If you are happy for the debate to wait until the new year, that would give you an opportunity to flesh that out. I have no doubt you will get Opposition Members to sign up.

Q19 Chair: Could you also get back to us if there is a date you can identify that would give it a topical hook? That would help us with scheduling. There will be anniversaries and different commemoration days, so it might be worth looking at that and at your personal calendar, to see when would be good or not. If you could come back to us with a wider selection of names, that would help, and I’m sure there will be no difficulty.

Sir Gerald Howarth: That is entirely reasonable and I am happy to do that. Could you enlighten me on the procedure? Do I report back in person to the Committee or just to the Clerk?

Chair: No, just get in contact with the Clerks. That will be fine.

Sir Gerald Howarth: I am happy to do that and report back as soon as I can.

Chair: Thank you for coming.