Beer Duty Escalator

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has a large brewery in his constituency, but I want to speak up for micro-breweries. My understanding is that there are more micro-breweries and members of CAMRA in Derbyshire than anywhere else. In Derby we also have a beer king, whose ceremonial role includes opening the annual beer festivals in Derby and representing Derby when the city mayor and others go to our twin city of Osnabrück in Germany.

In my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, the brewing and pub sector is a vital and dynamic part of the local economy. It creates jobs, adds to the local economy and is at the centre of the hospitality industry, our cultural heritage and the social life of every community. A world heritage site runs through my constituency.

The beer and pubs industry is a vital part of the local economy in Mid Derbyshire. There are 75 pubs and three micro-breweries, which generate 1,076 jobs—some 307 of those are filled by young people between the ages of 16 and 24. The point about the employment of young people is important, because in spite of recent good news on the employment front, people in that age group continue to find employment very hard to come by.

Some 65% of staff at the Derby Brewing Company are under 25; the company also operates entry-level management schemes that have promoted many promising young people from bar-staff to senior-manager level, none more so than at my local, The Queen’s Head in Little Eaton, which has recently reopened. The brewery is working towards brewing real ales with a much lower alcohol content; it is working down towards a 4% beer.

This debate is critical to business in Derbyshire. Representatives of the Derby Brewing Company, which owns three pubs, have told me that since the introduction of the beer duty escalator, excise duty has increased by 42%—almost 20p per pint.

My husband and I are supporters of the Campaign for Real Ale because we believe that going to the pub, particularly the local, is a core British tradition and so is enjoying great beer, although personally I am not a beer drinker. Unfortunately, however, beer sales in pubs and clubs have fallen by 23% and more than 6,000 pubs have closed. I believe one of the main reasons for that is that beer taxation now costs the average pub around £66,000 per year. I strongly believe that those unintended consequences go completely against the Government’s strategy for economic growth. The Treasury forecasts a small increase in duty revenues from the policy—so small that no additional revenue is predicted in the Budget document.

I recognise that we have alcohol-related problems in our society that we need to tackle, as they cost the NHS billions of pounds every year. There is also the crime and disorder associated with alcohol and the fact that alcohol is the second biggest risk factor for cancer after smoking. But trying to tackle those problems with increased tax at this time is not the right way forward. The issue is having a profound effect in Derbyshire; pubs continue to close across the county. Brewing and pubs are fundamental to British industry, generating a huge amount locally and nationally to GDP. In these troubled times, local pub owners are urging me, as their MP, to ask for their industry to receive some relief from the excessive duty increases. In Derbyshire, a change to the policy could make a big difference and safeguard jobs.

Amendment of the Law

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I would like to congratulate the Chancellor and his team on producing an innovative Budget in difficult times, but none the less a Budget for business and hard-working families. We need more jobs, more employment and more businesses set-up, because we cannot borrow our way out of a crisis, as Labour would like us to do. Rather, we have to earn our way out of this situation.

I find it strange that Opposition Members are so miserable all the time. All they can do is pour scorn and misery on what is a very good Budget. There are so many things in the Budget that are good for Britain and good for hard-working families, but Opposition Members never seem to be able to see it. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is no longer in his place, but I was pleased that he mentioned the measures dealing with future armed forces spending, such as the doubling of the service accommodation relief for families and the welfare grant, along with council tax relief. I am sure that everybody in the House, including Opposition Members, will welcome anything that helps our hard-working service people, who are out there fighting for this country. However, apart from the hon. Gentleman, I have not heard anybody else mention the fact that the Chancellor is doing that.

There are so many positive things in the Budget that it is difficult to pick them out.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Do try.

[Pauline Latham]

The hon. Gentleman should not worry; I will try, although I am disappointed that I have only five minutes to do so.

The Growing Places fund for the local enterprise partnership in my area will bring in an additional £8.5 million, which will be a tremendous boost to the area. Nobody over there on the Opposition Benches really seems to be all that pleased about the largest increase in the personal allowance for 30 years, which I find staggering. I would have thought that they would support the measure, which will take a lot of people out of tax altogether; indeed, 24 million people in this country will benefit from that.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The hon. Lady has mentioned the personal allowance and talked about those of us on the Opposition Benches being miserable. Does she think that the 16,994 pensioners in her constituency will be miserable as a result of the actions in yesterday’s Budget?

[Pauline Latham]

I do not know how you have calculated that for my constituency, because I am not even sure you know where it is. We are looking after pensioners. They will not be losing what you are talking about. They are getting a bigger increase than ever from the triple lock, and we are increasing their allowances. There will possibly be a year when some people will have to pay slightly more tax, but not the majority. Most people will not be spending any more money, and they will certainly not be losing any more money next year compared with this year, so you might like to look a little more carefully at what we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Lady, as I did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) earlier, that we direct debate through the Chair. I am not involved in these arguments.

[Pauline Latham]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker.

The change to child benefit is also something that we should welcome, as it shows that the Chancellor has listened to what people out there have been saying. There will not be a cliff edge, as people have suggested, and no one earning £50,000 or less will lose anything. Only when people earn more than £60,000, which is quite a lot of money, will they lose their child benefit.

[Kate Green]

None the less, would the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Chancellor has been unable to resolve the anomaly whereby a couple earning £98,000 between them might be able to keep their child benefit, while a single parent on an income of £49,500 would not?

[Pauline Latham]

What the Chancellor has done is prevented us from having to go through a huge amount of paperwork that would have cost the country an awful lot of money. People might say, “Oh, but we don’t live together. We used to, but we are no longer together.” There will be so many loopholes, but he has done a good thing by going up to £60,000. I think that the majority of people in this country would agree with that, although of course Labour Members will not.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pauline Latham]

I will not, as I do not have much time left.

We have not heard much about the rate of corporation tax going down significantly, yet that will benefit small businesses in particular. We need those businesses to thrive and to employ more people. The Chancellor has also introduced the new enterprise allowance and enterprise loans, which will help more people, particularly women, to start up businesses. That will give those businesses an opportunity to flourish and to take on more people to work for them.

No one has mentioned the fact that the national planning policy framework is to be published shortly. The increase in construction that that will bring will significantly help the country to move out of recession. There will be protections for the countryside, for the green belt, for national parks, for sites of special scientific interest and for areas of outstanding natural beauty, despite the doom-makers on the Opposition Benches trying to persuade people otherwise.

I am very pleased to see the introduction of an above-the-line research and development tax credit. In my area, Rolls-Royce, Toyota, JCB and Bombardier employ a lot of people from my constituency, and they will benefit from such a measure. We must remember that Rolls-Royce is doing exceptionally well in the aerospace industry in our area. We have not heard much about the investment decision by GlaxoSmithKline, which is a direct result of the Government’s policies. It would not have decided to spend that money in this country if the Government had not come up with the solutions that they put forward yesterday.

I would, however, like to put in two pleas to the Ministers. I would like Derby and the area of Derbyshire around it to be considered as one of the areas that will benefit from high-speed broadband. There is a part of my constituency in Derby that used to be the largest private housing estate in Europe, and it has some of the slowest broadband speeds around. I would like to put in a bid for Derby to be a recipient of any improvements. I should also like to point out that the electrification of the midland main line was missing from the Budget statement. I would have liked to have heard that in this Budget, but perhaps it is in the pipeline and the Chancellor will bring forward those plans in the future.

Health

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I rise today to talk about the east midlands cancer drugs fund, because I have had many dealings with this organisation, none of them very satisfactory. The last such dealing was today, although I would like to start my story, as it were, with my attempts over some months to get Avastin for a constituent of mine. She has already funded more than £60,000-worth of the drug herself. She has sold her car, used her retirement money and sold her heirlooms, and she now has no money left, yet still the east midlands cancer drugs fund will not give her Avastin, because—it says—there is no proof that it works. However, she is living proof that it works, because she has been taking it for two years. It costs her £1,600 every three weeks, and nobody can afford that sort of money. I also have another affected constituent, whom I saw on Friday, but because she is smaller than the other lady it costs her only £1,300—a real snip.

I am appalled at the way those patients are being treated. The reason why we are talking about a second-line treatment is that the first line failed. However, those patients do not choose the first line, because they rely on the consultants to give them the right drug in the first place. When that drug fails, the consultant puts the patient on a drug that works, but in this case, those in the east midlands are not allowed to have that drug funded by the NHS. However, patients can have it funded in the west midlands, the north-east and East Anglia, along with four other trusts.

I first wrote to the east midlands cancer drugs fund about this case on 28 September. Hon. Members should remember that it is supposed to reply within 10 working days, but in this case it did not. As Avastin is not a priority drug, and as my constituent is not a priority person, the fund will reply at its leisure. I wrote on 28 September, but the first I heard from the fund was on 4 November, when, after pushing the organisation, I received a letter from the medical director of NHS Midlands and East, which said that that body would have the ultimate view on whether the drug could be prescribed. The letter also said:

“I can, however, ask the Clinical Panel to review”

my constituent’s

“case and have asked the Clinical Lead to convene an urgent meeting. This meeting will consider clinical effectiveness evidence in accordance with the principles underpinning the East Midlands Cancer Drugs Fund. I will also ask the Panel to reconsider the evidence in the context that other parts of the country have reached a different conclusion regarding the efficacy of avastin as a second line treatment. The Chair of the Clinical Panel will inform me of the outcome of its deliberations”.

That was on 4 November, after I had written on 28 September. That panel has not met. Why not? Because those responsible cannot get the right people together. They convened a meeting, but they asked the wrong people to come to it, so they decided to abandon that. Eventually, after several e-mails, on 10 and 14 November, they let me know that they were urgently considering a meeting, but had not had one yet, and they still have not. Apparently, the people who make the decisions are informing them by e-mail what they think of this case—everything is being reviewed by e-mail.

It is getting close to Christmas, as we are all aware. On 30 November I was told that I would hear by the end of that week. I have not heard anything. Now I am told that I will hear by the end of this week. This is completely and utterly unacceptable for my two constituents, who could die because of the irresponsible and inefficient way in which the organisation works. Fortunately, they are not doing so; they are getting good treatment, and both of their tumour levels have decreased from 40 to 5 while using that drug. That shows that it works, and I do not understand the reluctance of the east midlands cancer drugs fund to prescribe it.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of her speech. I was on the telephone to the consultant of one of my constituents who is terminally ill and who would love to get ipilimumab prescribed. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Sadly for constituents in Scotland, there is no cancer drugs fund there because the Scottish Government have different priorities from those of the coalition Government here. I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration with the way in which the fund is being administered in her area, but would she at least agree that the existence of such a fund is a real benefit to people in England? I wish that that could be the case in Scotland.

[Pauline Latham]

Yes, everyone should have a cancer drugs fund, but those funds should be reactive to what works for people. If I have time, I want to talk about ipilimumab too. It is a difficult name to say, but it is also known as Yervoy. The hon. Lady should talk to the Government in Scotland and ask them to do what we are doing here in this country. They have devolved powers that were voted for by this House—and which I do not agree with—but they have them, and they must make their own decisions.

The cancer drugs fund in the east midlands is not fit for purpose. It is not working for the benefit of patients. The people involved say that they need the necessary clinical knowledge of these cases, but they already have it. The consultant has written to them, as have I, and they can see that those patients are still alive. They are still failing miserably, however, to help my two constituents, who will die if they do not get the drug. I hope that the Minister will contact those people and ask them to work more efficiently and effectively to help those patients who rely desperately on them to provide the necessary drugs.

I want briefly to talk about Yervoy, which is also known by that other name that I cannot pronounce. It is used to treat malignant melanoma. I have to declare an interest, in that my brother died of malignant melanoma 11 years ago next month, before this drug was discovered. It is the first new treatment for malignant melanoma for 30 years. More people are dying of malignant melanoma than ever before, and it is on the increase. I believe that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should recommend that people should have that drug. I have heard stories of people in their 30s with young children getting the condition, and there is no hope for their future. As a responsive listening Government, we should be ensuring that those people get the drugs that they require.

Summer Adjournment

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I wish to bring to the attention of the House and particularly the Minister the east midlands cancer drugs fund. The original concept of the fund was to help thousands of extra cancer patients receive treatment if their clinicians believed it would help them. The policy was warmly welcomed by cancer patients and their families. I have had two patients come to my surgeries on different occasions trying to access the life-prolonging drugs Avastin and Rituximab.

Since my election, I have discovered enormous anomalies between different parts of the cancer drugs fund. The East Midlands strategic health authority provides Avastin for the first-line treatment of both metastatic colorectal cancer and renal cell carcinoma, but it will not make provision for the use of Avastin as second-line treatment. In fact, it has been rather obstructive in giving us information about what it does. That has turned the life of one of my constituents, who is a cancer patient, into a living nightmare. In order to prolong her life, my constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, has to date spent more than £50,000 of her own money on funding second-line treatment with Avastin. That included money that she got from taking early retirement. She has also sold many of her possessions, including her car and family heirlooms, to continue her treatment. But now she is running out of things to sell.

The drug costs my constituent £1,600 every three weeks—a sum that most people would find very hard to find—but she is still alive, which she would not be had she not funded it herself. She is living proof of the effectiveness of the drug in second-line treatment. However, if she resided just 12 miles away in Staffordshire, she would fall under the West Midlands SHA, which has confirmed that it provides Avastin—the drug that she so desperately needs to stay alive—for patients on both first and second-line treatments to treat the type of cancer that she is suffering from. However, the East Midlands SHA has not approved any applications for Avastin for second-line treatment of bowel cancer. This lack of consistency across the country is appalling. The Avastin that my constituent has funded herself, when used alongside chemotherapy, has seen her tumour levels drop from 41 to five—so clearly it is working very well. She is naturally infuriated that the east midlands cancer drugs fund is so resistant to funding Avastin for second-line treatment. I cannot understand why it is not looking at the clear medical evidence that she personally presents showing the effectiveness of the drug. She is living evidence that the medicine works, and she needs such help now.

I know of another patient with scleroderma who has been refused Rituximab. Hers is a terminal illness and she is being refused the drug. According to her doctors, she has three years left to live. She was told seven months after she applied that she could not have it, and it takes six months to take effect, so this lady is having enormous difficulty in understanding why she is not allowed it. She has been to London and been told that, yes, people get it there, but she cannot have it in the east midlands. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he will see how he can help those two brave individuals, because although I believe in local decision making, the current situation is just not fair, and they are not getting the treatment that they both deserve.

Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this debate and on the passion with which they made their points. Indeed, I congratulate all hon. Members in the Chamber on their passion and strength of feeling about this review.

I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who work in this sector and are worried that the retail distribution review will have many unforeseen negative impacts on their employment. I hope that the review is not a knee-jerk reaction to the recent financial crisis.

[Neil Carmichael]

A recurring theme of this debate has been the heavy-handed nature of the Financial Services Authority: people have said that a sledgehammer is being used and so on. Is it not time for us to recognise that it ought to be held properly accountable, just as other quangos are and just as we intend them to be? This persistent theme is at the heart of this discussion and we need to address it.

[Pauline Latham]

I am sure that the Minister will take my hon. Friend’s views forward, and I thank him for the intervention.

I believe it is right that the customer is always put first when it comes to their money. We cannot go back to the financial irresponsibility that led us into the crisis in 2007, which we are, thankfully, just getting out of. Therefore, splitting the financial advice sector into two is probably a good thing, but we must make sure that the advice given by advisers in the primary sector will not stop people moving into a financial position where they will require the full range of services offered by the higher financial advice sector in the future.

My constituents have also suggested that the proposed regulation will force between 30 and 40% of financial advisers to leave the sector, and many hon. Members have mentioned figures of 20, 30 or 40%. It is vital that that does not happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, we are in the business of keeping small businesses and promoting them. We need to do that in this instance, because we do not want all these people to be out of work at a time when life is difficult.

Training and recognised qualifications are important, as they demonstrate to the customer that the financial adviser they are employing to deal with their future can be trusted. If we all agree that there should be a better qualification, surely it should be for those new to the sector and not for those who have had the years and years of experience that we have heard about in various examples. If this proposed qualification is to be in place by 2013, surely we will be rushing it and too many people will be trying to do it, so there will not be enough providers to allow this to happen.

What will happen to all these people who leave the sector in the rural areas and small towns? Very often there are not many of these people in such places. It might be fine if this occurs in cities, where more choice is available, but there is not a lot of choice in rural areas. There is a worry that a lot of the people who will need to take this qualification if it is imposed will not be able to do so in the short time available to them before 2013. Nick Cann, chief executive of the Institute of Financial Planning, has said that the FSA must develop a “catastrophe strategy” in case it reaches June 2012 and half the advisers are not meeting the RDR requirements.

The other concern that the financial advisers in my constituency have mentioned is that the proposed changes to the sale of financial advice will lead to customers being worse off, as they will not be given the range of options currently on offer. Surely, if anything, we should be looking at providing choice for people. Leading critics suggest that the more lucrative financial advice roles will be moved to the banking sector, which will mean that customers will be offered only options that benefit the bank.

Interestingly, the mystery shopping exercise carried out by Which? across the industry concluded that its

“surveys tend to show that IFAs perform better than banks.”

Based on all the evidence that we have heard tonight, I believe that, irrespective of whether it is the desired outcome or it happens by mistake, the increase in the role of the banks in the financial advice sector is wrong and worrying, and that we should be looking at providing choice.

Richard Howells, the director of Zurich Life, said in June 2009:

“The big question…is still around what benefit it will have for the ultimate consumer. I am still not convinced that all of these changes, when you sit down with a consumer and explain them, actually give rise to a consumer benefit that I can…hang my hat on.”

I believe that the aim of the RDR is vital in ensuring that the consumer is defended and our financial sector is strengthened in the light of the recent crisis, but I do not believe that the changes need to be made as the FSA says at the moment. I simply ask the Minister to ask the FSA to reconsider the outcomes of the review and to ensure that its original aims, set out when it began back in 2006, have outcomes that will be advantageous for the whole sector and, more particularly, for the customer, whom we should be protecting. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that the passionate arguments made in the Chamber tonight are taken forward and that they will colour his views.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I would like to pass on my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his prudent emergency Budget, which was so necessary, given the appalling legacy left by Labour. There is one point in particular that I would like to draw to his attention today, although it is about something that will not come into effect until next year, after the proposed rise in VAT. I refer to the listed places of worship grant scheme, which was mentioned in questions earlier and which is due to finish in March 2011. The grant currently enables all listed places of worship across the UK to claim back 100% of VAT incurred on repairs and maintenance.

The scheme is crucial to those places of worship that already require enormous sums for maintenance and repair, of which there are many in my constituency. Since the grant’s introduction in 2001, it has enabled those who look after valuable heritage and community buildings to maintain them for future generations and to ensure that they remain available for use by the whole community. Nationally, £110 million is spent every year on the upkeep of those buildings, and 66% of that sum has to be found by local congregations, the remainder being met by English Heritage’s and the Heritage Lottery Fund’s joint repair grant scheme for places of worship.

Across the country, more people do unpaid work for Church organisations than for any other organisation. Every month collectively, Church of England churchgoers contribute 23.2 million hours of voluntary service to their local communities. At the same time, Church of England congregations give more than £51.7 million each year to other charities, in addition to the large sums raised for local church work.

More than half a million worshippers subscribe to tax-efficient giving schemes. If the listed places of worship grant scheme is not renewed beyond 2011, congregations will have to find an additional 20% of the total cost of repair works, and the impact on them will be huge. That, coupled with the ending of the transitional rate of gift aid for all charities in 2011, means that next year, churches, chapels and other places of worship will effectively face a major financial double whammy.

Many listed cathedrals and churches already have significant maintenance and development programmes, which will begin once they have raised the money. These programmes tend to be quick start and are labour intensive. Often specialist trades are employed. For example, a £100,000 project in a parish church can produce eight or nine jobs for six to 12 months; a cathedral project of, say, £500,000 produces correspondingly more. In terms of job creation in the hard-pressed building industry, one construction job can maintain or sustain up to eight in support services and suppliers, many of which are the small businesses that the Chancellor wishes to help.

That means that, in terms of job creation, repair programmes are much cheaper, quicker, less bureaucratic and simpler than any Government scheme. In other words, the assistance given by the listed places of worship grant scheme is quick and effective, low cost for the employment result and represents extraordinary value for money for those local communities that benefit from the tourist boost and the civil engagement that churches provide.

I know that the Chancellor and his colleagues have had to make very hard choices this year, but I urge him to consider continuing the scheme after March 2011.