Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 20 February 2013
20 Feb 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
New Medicines
The Conservatives have framed the motion with a view to making qualitative progress on the subject of cancer in this afternoon’s debate. In that spirit, we will support the Labour amendment and, if the Scottish National Party amendment is supported at decision time, we will support the amended motion. Why? Because no party here has a monopoly of concern on the subject of cancer. Why are we here as politicians? We are here, sometimes, to embrace big issues and make progress on them on behalf of the people of Scotland. Such was the progress that we made on free personal care. Similarly, such must be the progress that the Parliament now makes on the treatment and the delivery of the treatment of cancer.
I acknowledge that there is commitment throughout the chamber. A quick look at motions that are available for members to support will show a motion from John Pentland on the Little Princess Trust; a motion from Jackie Baillie on international childhood cancer day; a motion from Stuart McMillan on the Ellen MacArthur Cancer Trust sailing hub; a motion from Colin Keir on nico35 and fundraising for various cancer charities; a motion from Kevin Stewart on CLAN Cancer Support; a motion from Siobhan McMahon on NHS Lanarkshire’s cervical screening award; and a motion from Jackie Baillie on cervical cancer prevention week. Every side of the chamber has members who are committed to advancing the progress that the Parliament can make on the treatment of cancer.
The majority of my colleagues have supported Sandra White’s motion on the early detection of breast cancer. I hope all members support the motion. We all have experience of family, friends and colleagues who are facing or who have faced the ordeal of cancer and who, individually, have inspired us in the way in which they face that ordeal and go about their lives as they come to terms with their condition.
As a teenager, before I was ever interested in politics, I would make my way through town on the way home from school and see, underneath the canopy outside Marks and Spencer in Argyle Street, a frail lady of I do not know what age, there in all weathers, shaking a tin on behalf of cancer research. As a young person, it inspired me that here was somebody who was committed in that way, campaigning for funds for a disease that, at the time, many people refused to talk about in public and for which many of us thought that there would never be a cure.
While Sandra White’s motion on breast cancer places the emphasis on early detection, we live in an age of remedy and relief if not yet cure. In 2010, Professor Sir Mike Richards noted that, when it came to making available drugs that had been developed in the previous five years, the UK was 12th out of 14 countries. When it came to making available drugs that been developed in the previous 10 years, we were 10th out of 14 countries. That led to the introduction in England of the cancer drugs fund, since when some 25,000 people in England have benefited from drugs that are available under that fund.
Those drugs include, famously, and now also available by exception in Scotland, abiraterone for prostate cancer; cetuximab for colorectal, breast, kidney and brain cancer; everolimus for kidney, neck and oesophageal cancer; lapatinib for breast cancer, rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma; sorafenib for kidney cancer; bendamustine for non-Hodgkin; fulvestrant and eribulin for breast cancer; and ipilimumab—which I will say more about later—for melanoma and skin cancers. Those are the top 10 of 23 treatments for cancer that are available in England but not yet available in Scotland.
The only point that I will make this afternoon that may be regarded as politically partisan is that there is sometimes suspicion on our side that the reason why the Scottish Government did not introduce a fund for cancer drugs was that the initiative initially came from a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government elsewhere. It is unfortunate if that is the impression that has been created, even if it is not the reality or the truth.
I acknowledge that there is commitment throughout the chamber. A quick look at motions that are available for members to support will show a motion from John Pentland on the Little Princess Trust; a motion from Jackie Baillie on international childhood cancer day; a motion from Stuart McMillan on the Ellen MacArthur Cancer Trust sailing hub; a motion from Colin Keir on nico35 and fundraising for various cancer charities; a motion from Kevin Stewart on CLAN Cancer Support; a motion from Siobhan McMahon on NHS Lanarkshire’s cervical screening award; and a motion from Jackie Baillie on cervical cancer prevention week. Every side of the chamber has members who are committed to advancing the progress that the Parliament can make on the treatment of cancer.
The majority of my colleagues have supported Sandra White’s motion on the early detection of breast cancer. I hope all members support the motion. We all have experience of family, friends and colleagues who are facing or who have faced the ordeal of cancer and who, individually, have inspired us in the way in which they face that ordeal and go about their lives as they come to terms with their condition.
As a teenager, before I was ever interested in politics, I would make my way through town on the way home from school and see, underneath the canopy outside Marks and Spencer in Argyle Street, a frail lady of I do not know what age, there in all weathers, shaking a tin on behalf of cancer research. As a young person, it inspired me that here was somebody who was committed in that way, campaigning for funds for a disease that, at the time, many people refused to talk about in public and for which many of us thought that there would never be a cure.
While Sandra White’s motion on breast cancer places the emphasis on early detection, we live in an age of remedy and relief if not yet cure. In 2010, Professor Sir Mike Richards noted that, when it came to making available drugs that had been developed in the previous five years, the UK was 12th out of 14 countries. When it came to making available drugs that been developed in the previous 10 years, we were 10th out of 14 countries. That led to the introduction in England of the cancer drugs fund, since when some 25,000 people in England have benefited from drugs that are available under that fund.
Those drugs include, famously, and now also available by exception in Scotland, abiraterone for prostate cancer; cetuximab for colorectal, breast, kidney and brain cancer; everolimus for kidney, neck and oesophageal cancer; lapatinib for breast cancer, rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma; sorafenib for kidney cancer; bendamustine for non-Hodgkin; fulvestrant and eribulin for breast cancer; and ipilimumab—which I will say more about later—for melanoma and skin cancers. Those are the top 10 of 23 treatments for cancer that are available in England but not yet available in Scotland.
The only point that I will make this afternoon that may be regarded as politically partisan is that there is sometimes suspicion on our side that the reason why the Scottish Government did not introduce a fund for cancer drugs was that the initiative initially came from a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government elsewhere. It is unfortunate if that is the impression that has been created, even if it is not the reality or the truth.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05664, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on health. 15:55
Jackson Carlaw (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
The Conservatives have framed the motion with a view to making qualitative progress on the subject of cancer in this afternoon’s debate. In that spirit, we w...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Jackson Carlaw
Con
I will in due course.It is not a choice between detection and making drugs available—those are two halves of the approach that the Parliament should ensure i...
Mark McDonald
SNP
I know that Mr Carlaw was making a fleeting political point, but I will quote to him what Breakthrough Cancer Scotland said:“Breakthrough would suggest that ...
Jackson Carlaw
Con
The member has made his point. Many of the quotes used by Mark McDonald are from papers that were issued at the commencement of the cancer drugs fund in the ...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Jackson Carlaw
Con
No—I want to make the point.I am not someone who gets overly emotional in politics—I have been around long enough to know that the hard knocks come and they ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Alex Neil)
SNP
This is a difficult and very sensitive subject. I think that we all recognise that making decisions about which medicines to provide for national health serv...
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
SNP
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that public trust and confidence go to the heart of the debate, and that the public have a right to expect that if their...
Alex Neil
SNP
I will deal with some of those points later in my speech.Thousands of medicines in various doses and formulations are available to clinicians in the UK. In S...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to debate access to new medicines in the NHS and the tone of the speeches made by Jackson Carlaw and the cabinet secretary. I also ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
You are in your last minute.
Jackie Baillie
Lab
Fourteen different ways of doing things is no longer acceptable.Let me turn to the orphan drugs fund. That is very welcome, but it must not just be a stickin...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
The debate is extremely tight, and we have already lost a member from it. I ask members to take only their four minutes.16:18
Aileen McLeod (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to debate a very serious and sensitive issue, particularly as a member of the Health and Sport Committee, as the issue forms part o...
Jackson Carlaw
Con
I understand the point that the member is making, but she has just referred to the £21 million that has been made available for the rare conditions medicine ...
Aileen McLeod
SNP
I speak as somebody who has worn both hats: one as a policy maker and one as a cancer victim and survivor. I am therefore acutely aware of how cancer suffere...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I am sure that we will hear a lot in the debate about the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Scottish Medicines Consortium, individua...
Joan McAlpine
SNP
I think that the member was referring to my article in the Daily Record and I thank him for taking an intervention from me, which Mr Carlaw did not have the ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Please be brief.
Joan McAlpine
SNP
Does the member agree that there is an issue to do with pharmaceutical companies holding the health service to ransom—
Duncan McNeil
Lab
The member will speak in the debate. I hope that I will be given additional time.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I am afraid that this is a very short debate.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
I accept that the premise of Ms McAlpine’s article was that politicians should not be involved in the process at all. However, we set the parameters and we p...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
You must conclude, Mr McNeil.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
That is why the cabinet secretary instigated a review of the process. It matters that we lost precious time. That time was not as precious for us as it was f...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I advise members that we might have to lose another speaker from the debate. Members must take interventions in their own time.16:26
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the debate, although I cannot accept the Conservative motion. I will explain to Jackson Carlaw why that is the case. Mr Carlaw will not share this ...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
That is the clinician’s decision.