Pancreatic Cancer

Debate between Karen Lumley and Eric Ollerenshaw

Monday 8th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I think everybody here—all the people who signed the e-petition and the hon. Members who are here to support the debate—realises that it will be a fairly long journey. We are trying to say that we want a quicker start to that journey, please, given what has happened.

I will not detain hon. Members for too much longer, but I want to finish by mentioning a hobby-horse that I have mentioned in previous debates: the need for more and more effective treatments for pancreatic cancer to be made available on the NHS. The treatments do not need to be discovered; they already exist. Last week, I spoke in the House about the need for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to reform if it is ever to be fit for purpose, at least when it comes to ensuring that patients have access to cancer drugs. That is evidenced by the fact that in 2011-12, NICE, as it is called, rejected 60% of the cancer medicines it assessed—an increase since 2010. Simply put, that means that drugs licensed for use in the UK are not being made routinely available on the NHS to all who need them.

The cancer drugs fund for England was introduced in 2010 to clear up the mess—we welcome the fund—and because of it 55,000 patients have been able to access drugs they would not otherwise have managed to access. Those drugs have extended patients’ lives, giving them more time to spend with their loved ones. Unfortunately, the CDF is funded only until 2016. Doctors have to apply for drugs from the fund, which are not routinely available, and any drug on the list could in theory be removed by the CDF panel at any time.

The drug Abraxane, for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, was added to the CDF list in March this year, following a public campaign and a debate held in the main Chamber. Sadly, however, things have moved on. The Health Secretary recently announced that the CDF will get more money, but the accompanying announcement said that the CDF will be reformed. The precise wording was that it would be more closely “aligned with NICE” and that a new cost-benefit analysis will be introduced when new drugs are considered. Imagine the alarm, Mr Chope, when Sir Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, said to the Health Committee last week:

“We would like to move away from a situation where…the Cancer Drugs Fund then says yes to the treatments we have said no to…I don’t think that makes any sense. It’s not a criticism of the decision to allocate more money to cancer. It’s about an alignment of processes and methodologies that we need to get sorted out…There is no reason at all why we can’t provide the basis for NHS England’s decisions on cancer treatments just as we do for all other treatments.”

I say to Sir Andrew that there is a reason why: as I have already said, NICE does not work for cancer patients. To treat cancer as if it were like other diseases when it causes so many deaths and when the population is ageing—we know the likelihood of cancer increases with age—is to take a step backwards.

I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the cancer drugs fund. We are worried at the moment. Abraxane has been considered by the fund. We are grateful that it has received ministerial sign-off in Wales. The cancer drugs fund agreed to list it, but now that is with NICE. I hope I am wrong on this, but I suspect that in the near future it will be rejected by NICE for routine use in the NHS in England. It is the first advance in some kind of pancreatic cancer treatment for 40 years, and it looks likely that NICE will reject it. That is a disgrace.

I have held up the Committee for too long, but I do not mind because of the importance of the issue. Just to finish, next year 8,800 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, of whom 80% to 90% will probably not survive beyond six months. Thousands of relatives and friends will then enter a parallel world: the cancer world.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he think that we need to follow the example given to us by the e-petition to educate our constituents? Should we not take part in pancreatic cancer awareness month in November to help raise awareness of this killer disease in all our constituencies?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my hon. Friend. If raising awareness was the one thing to come from this petition, all of us who have been affected would say that was positive.

Thousands have signed the e-petition that we are debating because they believe the purpose of government is to make improvements in people’s lives. For the sake of the thousands of cases to come, and for those of us left behind, I urge the Minister to help us to prove that our partners, relatives and friends did not die totally in vain.

Shale Gas Profits

Debate between Karen Lumley and Eric Ollerenshaw

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP. To underline the point to the Minister, there has been speculation in the papers that if industrial fracking happens, there could be some 800 wellheads across Lancashire, against the background of onshore and offshore wind farms and the possibility of new nuclear. One can see why it is generating concern.

I stress that we are talking about a hypothetical situation involving industrial fracking some time in the future. The point that I am here to make is that if shale gas operations commence on that scale and scores of wells are drilled, Lancashire should share in the rewards. At the moment, that is not likely to happen, at least not beyond any small-scale voluntary schemes that energy companies might decide to pursue themselves. To be fair to Quadrilla, I understand that it has given a number of grants to various local parishes. The only other way is through section 106 agreements, which do not derive a vast amount of money for the local infrastructure.

The clear point is that the United Kingdom, and Lancashire in particular, is not Texas, where local landowners can strike it rich if oil or minerals are discovered on their land. The mineral rights in our area belong to the Crown, but mainly to the Duchy of Lancaster. Any farmer for whom fracking is proposed on their land will gain precious little, except perhaps a small amount of rent, and the local authorities will get a small amount of business rate. The company will get its profits, the Duchy will get its share from the mineral rights, and of course and as ever—unless Starbucks starts drilling operations—the Treasury will get its share of the proceeds from taxation. Local residents, who will have to deal with increased industrial activity, traffic movements, the movement of chemicals and so on, will not see a direct reward.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I declare my interest, as on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that on fracking, Lancashire is once again leading the way? Should operations expand, it should be laid down in regulations that local residents, not absentee landlords, receive the compensation.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

As ever, my hon. Friend spots where I am going, and I am glad she is here to support that.

There is lots of talk about job creation, but as far as I can see, the thousands of jobs promised will not be created. As I understand the engineering process, once fracking wells are set up and the gas is being used, the jobs involved are support jobs. It is likely that the specialist engineers will be brought in from elsewhere, unless deals can be done with local universities such as the university of central Lancashire or Lancaster university.

I want a fair and substantial share of the profits from shale gas for the people of Lancashire if this is to be a runner. In a way, the Government set a precedent with the introduction of the new homes bonus, whose principle is that communities that allow development in their area should share in the rewards. We could see a similar approach with shale gas or minerals more generally. Although I have a problem with the new homes bonus—it does not reward parish councils directly—any scheme for shale gas should send at least some of the rewards directly to the local areas or residents most affected, as well as to principal or top-tier authorities.

It is perhaps worth mentioning how such things are dealt with abroad. Alaska operates a scheme called the Alaska permanent fund, which is created largely from income from oil operations in the state and designed to ensure that future generations can share in the profits even when the oil is exhausted. Interestingly enough, the fund also pays out an annual cash dividend to all state residents. Apparently, people must reside there for only one year to be classified as a state resident. The payout varies; I think that last year it was $1,000, but in previous years it has reached $2,000. That is an interesting precedent.

In south America, the Brazilian constitution ensures that a share of oil revenue is provided to the states where oil is extracted. They can then use the money to fund infrastructure projects, community schemes or tax cuts as they see fit. That other foreign country, Yorkshire, has the newly established potash community fund, brought to my attention by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North. The extraction company York Potash has set up a fund of 0.5% of profits to be used for the local community. It is expected to provide between £3 million and £9 million a year to fund local projects.

Three different models are in use in different places—from the voluntary to the compulsory—varying according to how the payments are made and to whom. I should like a system to be put in place that provides direct compensation to the local residents and parishes most affected, and an income to the principal or top-tier authorities in the area for infrastructure projects, service provision or even council tax cuts. I should like the Government to give an “in principle” commitment to providing something along those lines before any decision is made on whether to expand shale gas operations. This should apply elsewhere in the country, too.

What I am proposing will be seen by some as trying to bribe residents into supporting shale gas, but that is not so. I know for a fact that many of my local residents would never be convinced of the merits of shale gas, whether it is extracted locally or not, even if they were offered a cheque for £1 million. Their objections are based on genuinely held fears about safety and concerns about the environment, particularly their own water supply. I am suggesting merely that there should be a fair reward for the communities that might have to host all that infrastructure, worry about safety and deal with increased traffic, and, as I have stressed before, that will not secure thousands or even hundreds of extra jobs.

I stress again that I am not proposing that we agree to a move to immediate shale gas operations. I still share my residents’ concerns about water safety and the adequacy of regulatory regimes, and want to see those dealt with in more detail. I support the Energy Secretary’s introducing increased regulation for the test site. It will be interesting to see over the next few months and years what those measurements say and what the safety record is, particularly regarding seismic activity and so on.

We are generous folk in Lancashire. We are loyal to our Duke and are patriotic members of the United Kingdom. But if others are to make millions, then it is only fair that Lancashire should have a share of those millions.