Pancreatic Cancer

Debate between Tessa Munt and Eric Ollerenshaw

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I should like to pick up on what he said about NanoKnife—there is also CyberKnife and Gamma Knife. Those are all modern, stereotactic treatments for cancer. I hope that he agrees that we need to concentrate not just on the drugs but on those particular types of radiosurgery, which can make sure that people live longer if they are given the trials that they need.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Our point is that because of the poor pancreatic cancer survival rates and its late diagnosis, which is the key, it always seems that the pancreatic cancer patient is last in the queue. The quality of life assessments do not look long enough to justify a new drug or new radiotherapy, as has been pointed out.

Again, I pay tribute to Pancreatic Cancer Action, which got a great deal of press from an advert, not used at the time, saying, “I wish I had breast cancer”. That was effective in raising publicity about the impact of pancreatic cancer.

I am trying to put whatever pressure the Chamber is capable of exerting on the cancer drugs fund when it makes its decision on Thursday and on NICE for what it does to follow. Providing Abraxane and an extra two months could help ease this year’s 8,500 tragedies and start the process of making up for 40 years of lost hope.

UK Shale Gas

Debate between Tessa Munt and Eric Ollerenshaw

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but he must understand that we then get the argument that, because we have had exploratory wells, we obviously need to go ahead since we have spent all that money on exploration. My constituents need assurances that the wells are exploratory, that they are part of a pilot and that there is the possibility that we can close down the whole thing if something else goes wrong. Those are the kinds of assurance that they want.

The community fund that the Onshore Operators Group will apparently be in charge of will provide more money locally, but there are still questions about what the local community is. Will funds go to community groups, parish councils or even district councils in my area, such as Wyre borough council or Lancaster city council? They are all below county council level and there is a huge spread of locality between them. What will the money be spent on? Could it come in the form of cash payments, reduced energy bills, building community facilities, reduced council tax bills or affordable housing contributions? If that kind of money is spent in those ways, there are possible tax implications, which is how the problems with the Shetland Charitable Trust developed.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is probably already aware of the Sullom Voe agreement, under which community benefit is brought into the community at parish level. I believe that for every barrel of oil taken from Shetland Island waters, a number of pence—totalling something like £23 million or £24 million—goes to the Shetland Islands council for it to distribute. That is probably a good model for us all.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

It is an interesting model, but there are serious problems with the definition of what the council can spend money on. If the council spends money on certain things and gives financial recompense to the residents, they will face tax anyway, and that is the issue.

I turn to the subject of certainty. We are talking about a voluntary community compensation scheme. I had hoped that we would be dealing with something more substantial, preferably underpinned by statute. We need to ensure that there is no wriggle room. Local residents and councils need to know that there will be no about-turn, that promises will be lived up to and that changes in company control will not lead to changes to the commitments made by companies now.

Additionality is important. Basically, I want a guarantee from Ministers that if local councils receive extra funds through the community compensation scheme, that will not be used against them when calculating normal standard local government grants. Put simply, I do not want to see a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There must be extra money to compensate local communities for the problems that they will have to deal with in hosting shale gas extraction, and that compensation must not be seen by the Government, of whatever hue, as an alternative to normal grant funding. That might be achieved by using a separate fund, as the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has already suggested, rather than by paying money into the usual revenue streams—almost a Lancashire sovereign wealth fund. Such a fund would be managed by professionals according to a strict charter, for the benefit of the most closely situated residents on the one hand and the whole of the county on the other. Obviously, it would have to work closely with local authorities of all tiers, to deliver genuine and tangible benefits for local residents and the county.

I hope there might be room for negotiation on the amounts involved. One per cent of revenues of £366 billion is interesting and a good figure, but we hope that it is just a starting negotiating point. If we are to have a profusion of wells, which I remind hon. Members are not like oil wells and need to be located every few miles across the patch or move round the patch—that is my understanding, but those more expert than I am may correct me—we want a fund able to invest for the time when the gas goes, as surely it must, given its nature.