Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs

Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Ian Lavery

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Stephenson]

It is an injectable medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. It was recently approved by the MHRA. To put a little bit of extra information out there, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended Mounjaro, the same drug, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who meet specific criteria. The NHS in England is therefore now legally required, in line with NICE recommendations, to fund its use for eligible patients. The availability of that new medicine in Scotland is, however, a matter for the devolved Administration. The Scottish Medicines Consortium, which makes decisions on the use of medicines in Scotland, has not yet published guidance on Mounjaro. It will be a matter for the SMC as to whether that becomes an option in Scotland.

As I was saying, Mr Pritchard, unfortunately we expect supply chain issues to continue for the rest of the year. Throughout the management of this issue, our guidance has been supported by additional advice issued in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has, critically, reinforced the messaging provided by the national patient safety alerts.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister understand and recognise the benefits of glucose monitoring centres? It is not a supply chain issue, but an access issue. They can and do change people’s lives, but they are not widely accessible. People are very much unaware that they actually exist. If they did and understood that the centres were available from the NHS, it would save the NHS millions if not billions of pounds. It would change the lives of many people, mainly in deprived areas. Can the Minister give a commitment to look at that and see how we can allow more people to access glucose monitoring systems?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am more than happy to look at the issue. However, I believe—I may be mistaken—that he is suggesting something that we would routinely advise for type 1 diabetics to be provided to type 2 diabetics. As far as I am aware, the clinical advice does not suggest that we do that, but I am more than happy to look at the issue, because I want to ensure that we support people living with diabetes as much as we can.

Finally, I emphasise that our guidance remains clear that medicines licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes should be used only for that purpose. All prescribers, whether employed privately or by the NHS, are expected to take into account the appropriate national guidance. Unfortunately, the supply disruption is a common issue for the UK and other countries around the world, which is both frustrating and distressing for patients. We cannot always prevent supply issues from occurring, but where they do arise, the Department has a range of well-established processes and tools to manage them and to help mitigate the risk to patients. Addressing issues with GLP-1 RAs continues to be a priority for the Department. We will continue to work hard with industry to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for raising such an important issue.

Question put and agree to.

Transport for the North

Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Ian Lavery

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am sure that the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s pitch on behalf of his constituents. Of course, we are progressing with improvements to deliver the western leg of HS2 as early as possible. We committed in the Queen’s Speech to bringing forward a Bill in this parliamentary Session. That will deliver significant benefits to Cheshire, particularly realising the Crewe hub and the Crewe northern connection visions.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Make no mistake about it, the north-east was abandoned last week by the announcement from this Government—cut off completely from the high-speed rail network. I urge the Minister to actually visit Northumberland; if he looks at the map, it is a little bit above Newcastle, just below the Scottish border. The Government have announced on more than 60 occasions that there would be this “Crossrail in the north”, so I am right to be concerned that the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line in my constituency, which runs from Ashington, through Bedlington, up to the Metro, might be considered for withdrawal. Will the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box today, Wednesday 24 November, that investment in the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line will continue in earnest, and that there will be no reduction in the original plans?

[Andrew Stephenson]

Dear oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are getting on with investing and levelling up the north-east of England. We are reopening the Northumberland line; we already have new Azuma trains running on the east coast main line; we are spending £3.5 billion more on investment in the east coast main line; and, of course, the Pacers, which were allowed to rattle passengers to the core under Labour, have all been eradicated thanks to this Government. We will continue to invest in the north-east and deliver early benefits to passengers across that region.

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Debate between Andrew Stephenson and Ian Lavery

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am always happy to meet anybody, and I am more than happy to meet people who have asked for meetings today. I believe that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who took on responsibility from my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, did have a meeting, but I am always happy to have further meetings on this topic or any other.

I was just going to clarify that the connections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes were so strong that she had to pass over her responsibility for this topic. Her mother-in-law is a beneficiary of the scheme that we are discussing today. Her mother-in-law’s late husband, Bill O’Neill, was a leader of the coke workers union and I understand that he died very young as a result of his years of service underground. At the age of 16, my right hon. Friend’s husband turned down a job in the Keresley pit, but that did not stop him helping to organise port blockades to prevent Polish imports while he was a student, and getting into trouble with his university to protect—in his view—British coal. It is because we appreciate the importance of fairness to mining communities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, when she was in post, dedicated a considerable amount of time to this issue and instructed officials to do the same. She spent time understanding the arguments and concerns of all sides, thinking and talking through alternative proposals and weighing up the merits of the cases presented.

It has been four months since the last Adjournment debate on this matter. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has met the scheme’s trustees, and my predecessor as business and industry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, has met campaigners and coalfield MPs. Officials have also met the scheme’s trustees. For my part, even though I have been in post for only two months, I have taken an interest in this debate not just because of my family background, but because a number of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today have collared me in the corridors since my appointment.

I have reviewed the trustees’ proposals, which my officials have been considering for some time, and I wrote to Her Majesty’s Treasury last week giving them my full support. I will be meeting the chair of the trustees, Chris Cheetham, on 24 June. Central to the trustees’ proposals is protecting existing bonuses. Under that option, if there is a deficit in the future, members will still see their guaranteed pensions continue to rise in line with RPI, and their current bonuses will not be eroded. Without that additional guarantee, members may not be able to get any increase in payment, possibly for many years. The proposals put to my predecessor by the trustees offer benefits to all pensioners, who will see their pensions secured into the future, even if the scheme was to go into deficit, by protecting the bonuses that have accrued to date. The trustees, who include former miners, believe that that is an important way of protecting future revenues for scheme members in the event of a future scheme deficit, because bonuses accrued at past evaluations could be eroded.

The trustees’ proposals would mean a significant additional liability for the Government. In turn, that creates an additional risk of a sizeable call on the public purse. However, I support the trustees’ aim to protect the revenues of individual pensioners. My officials have provided an analysis of the proposals, which I have now shared with Treasury colleagues. As I have said, I am dedicated to the best for miners across the country, which is why I am immensely proud of the scheme and of the investments that we are making to transform mining communities across the country.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree that this has been a fantastic debate, with everyone who participated believing that justice should be done for the mineworkers. Will the Minister say whether the trustees’ proposals include a review of the 50-50 split?

[Andrew Stephenson]

They do not. There are six proposals, which I have written to the Treasury about, and the trustees felt that protecting existing bonuses earned is more important than a review of the 50-50 split at this time.