Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Caroline Nokes

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The DWP has long recognised the challenges that some claimants, particularly those with multiple or complex needs, may face in the transition to universal credit. That is why we have developed the personal budgeting strategy to ensure that claimants have access to suitable financial products and money advice. For the small minority who need them, alternative payment arrangements can be set up. All APA cases are dealt with urgently and the majority of cases are processed within the first assessment period and within a five-day average clearance time.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It was a long overdue victory for common sense that those people with chronic illnesses and long-term conditions will no longer be subject to the work capability assessment, but what about our brave veterans in receipt of war pensions? Why are they still subject to work capability assessments?

Drugs (Ultra-rare Diseases)

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland]

That is a good question, and it is the nub of the issue. It is not finances. Finances are clearly an issue, but it is important to get the message out that they are not the cause of the hold-up. There is an element of bureaucracy in the process, which I will address. I know that the Minister is seeking to ensure that we have a proper process, but ultimately we have to make decisions based on the effectiveness of the drugs. In this case, both drugs have been shown to work and are licensed and used by health systems in other countries.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. On effectiveness, would he agree—I hope the Minister also concurs—that it is about timing, particularly with Translarna? The drug will extend the ability of young boys to maintain their mobility and to keep out of a wheelchair, which is why it is so critical that the bureaucracy is speeded up for individuals such as my constituent Jagger Curtis and his dad, James. They need the drug now, not in six, 12 or 18 months’ time. It comes down to ensuring that the drug is available when it will be effective.

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely. That is very much the case with Morquio, too. Simon and Katy Brown have told me that the drug is having a huge impact now. I met Sam and saw him running around when he visited my surgery. When there is deterioration in such conditions, the clock can never be turned back, which is why we are urging the Minister to address the situation. I am delighted that we had meetings with him. All the organisations involved, the MPS Society, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, Action Duchenne and Joining Jack, are urging the Minister and NHS England to find a way to ensure that all these children, not only the 111 who are currently on the trials—some of whom are, of course, receiving placebos—but all 138 children with these conditions, are able to access the drugs now. We have asked for a decision on that by the end of January.

We are in this situation because a decision was supposed to have been taken by NHS England on 15 December 2014, but a letter was sent by the MPS Society and a young man with Morquio syndrome, Kamal—I am delighted that his family are visiting Parliament today—and on receipt of that letter NHS England, realising that its process was potentially discriminating against people with ultra-rare conditions, pulled the entire process, leaving all these families in limbo. NHS England has a responsibility to put another proper, robust process in place.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

The Fair Deal for your Local campaign clearly campaigned for a statutory code to include the all-important market rent only option—the Select Committee solution—for companies with 500 pubs or more. We did not envisage or call for a code for companies smaller than that. It is interesting that we have ended up here because the so-called British Beer and Pub Association, which is the mouthpiece for the pubcos, decided that it was a clever tactic to try to deflect any legislation by saying, “Oh no, we mustn’t have a two-tier system,” which has backfired terribly. Once again, the BBPA has badly let down the family brewers, who should seriously consider whether to continue to remain part of an organisation that lets them down and is increasingly discredited.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

I give way to the vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group.

[Caroline Nokes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the pessimism that we have heard about the market rent only option is unwarranted in the case of family brewers?

[Greg Mulholland]

Of course, the market rent only option would not apply to family brewers. They would be excluded even in the current proposals, because the enhanced code is only for companies with more pubs. But a lot of myths have been circulated and there is a lot of scaremongering. The all-party group has done a good job with other campaign groups in debunking that. We were told that free houses used to close in greater numbers than pubs—absolute nonsense, and we have proved that. We are now being told that somehow this would close breweries. That is complete and utter scaremongering. It is nonsense. Only 14% of Marston’s revenue is even from its tied estate. It makes huge amounts of money—I am glad to say—from selling its beer to supermarkets and to the free trade from its managed pubs. It is scaremongering without evidence, and the Government must deal with that. It is also why the Treasury must finally answer the freedom of information request and tell us what evidence it has been sent. There is no credible evidence to back up the claims of the BBPA and the big pub companies, which are simply trying to defend the indefensible and to prop up what has been a disastrous business model, which made a few people very rich and has destroyed pubs, and is continuing to make perfectly viable pubs close because of the huge debts they are paying.

In the limited time that I have I must challenge the Minister. This will be a conversation that will be had between now and Committee stage when it will be explored. As set out, the adjudicator will deal with breaches of the code, yet the fundamental problem is that the pub companies are taking too much in the form of excessive tie prices and inflated rents from pubs. How will the adjudicator deal with that? How will the parallel rent assessment deliver that? The adjudicator must have the power to impose a new, fair tied rent. That is the only way in which the Government will be able to deliver their commitment, but it is not clear that the adjudicator will have that power.

Also, I can see no specification of the level of fines. The only arrangement that would make any sense would be one that enabled the adjudicator to say, “Yes, you have been considerably overcharged for this period, and the fine will be set at a level that will allow the pub-owning company to pay you back the entire amount by which you were overcharged through unfairly tied prices and excessive rents.”

The Government have not explained why they have not adopted the simple solution. Their current plans will result in a huge work load for the adjudicator, but there is a simple solution. It was put forward by the Select Committee and backed by 10 organisations including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business, and it is now time to look seriously at improving the situation with a market rent only option.