Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill
Debate between George Freeman and Heidi Alexander(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Heidi Alexander
This group of amendments, and in particular those which leave out clauses 3 and 4, are very welcome and have my full support. I appreciate that making such extensive changes to a Bill at this stage is not easy, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has been true to his word, and has rightly decided not to proceed with these clauses in the face of strong opposition.
Members who were present on Second Reading will have heard some of the grave concerns expressed by medical royal colleges, research charities and patient groups. I think it would be fair to the hon. Gentleman if I say that those concerns, which I shared, were more about the unintended consequences of clauses 3 and 4, than about the stated aim of his Bill. However, the effect of these amendments, if they are passed, is that the sole purpose of this Bill is now to give the Secretary of State the power to establish a database. The hon. Gentleman knows that on Second Reading, along with many other hon. Members, I said that I believed the Secretary of State already had this power.
The Association of Medical Research Charities has said that primary legislation is not required to set up a database of innovative medical treatments. According to the House of Commons Library, section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 gives the Secretary of State power to direct the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish a system for the collection or analysis of information. Indeed, in Committee, the Minister signalled his intention to introduce such a database, regardless of whether this Bill becomes law. He said at that time:
“If the Bill does not, for whatever reason, reach the statute book, I would happily proceed towards establishing such a database”.––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22.]
With that in mind, I have to question whether what is left of this Bill is needed at all.
There also seems to be some confusion, even in the Minister’s own mind, about the purpose of the Bill. The Daily Telegraph claimed on 22 January that the Minister had told it that changes in the reworked Bill could help to cut the length of time it took to bring a new drug to market by a third, from 15 years to 10 years. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) received a written answer to a question on this very subject on 28 January, the Minister’s reply was:
“The Bill is not specifically designed to reduce the length of time it takes to bring a new drug to market”.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the apparent contradiction in those remarks. Having said all that, I support all the amendments in this group. Indeed, they represent a positive step forward in terms of the overall Bill.
George Freeman
The amendments seek to remove the part of the Bill that sought to take forward the original proposals put forward by Lord Saatchi to provide reassurance to clinicians that fear of negligence should not be a barrier to innovation. I want to say something about the Government’s position on this point, which, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has said, has been a point of some contention.
The Government share the ambition that fear of negligence should not be a barrier to innovation. Indeed, we have looked carefully at the provisions of the original Saatchi Bill and of this Bill, and taken legal advice in order to be sure that the proposed mechanism would in no way change medical negligence law, and that is indeed the case. Notwithstanding that, I have also repeatedly made it clear that if the Bill’s provisions were to create confusion, undermine patient, public and clinician trust and confidence and trigger a lawyer-fest of discussion about whether the mechanism did or did not have that effect, it would have had the opposite effect to that which it was seeking. In those circumstances, the Bill could trigger more confusion about medical negligence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has done a sterling job in the past few months to get round all the various parties and reassure them that, in law, the proposed mechanism does not change the legal framework for medical negligence. However, as he himself has candidly said, such has been the level of opposition—and indeed some misunderstanding, not least because there are three Bills on this subject in the House—that this proposal has started to have the opposite effect. As I said on Second Reading and elsewhere, we would never be able to support a Bill which, despite its intentions, undermined public and patient trust and confidence in our world-class medical and clinical research landscape. The fact that a coalition of lawyers, clinicians, patients and charities was concerned about the clause meant that it would inevitably have to be removed if the Bill was to receive any support from the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing his very best to develop the debate and, in the end, deciding that it would be better to remove the clause and focus on the areas on which there is agreement.
In accepting the amendments that remove the provisions on medical negligence from the Bill, it is worth pointing out that I do not want the hon. Member for Lewisham East to misrepresent my position on this. Both the chief medical officer and the NHS medical director had advised us that they believed the proposal was safe, and we had no fear that it would in any way endanger patient safety. The point is that if it triggers legal, political or patient concern, it is self-defeating.
As I have said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, fear of negligence is just one concern in a whole field of barriers to the adoption of innovation. I do not believe that it is the biggest barrier; I never have. The biggest is the difficulty of getting information to clinicians on the busy frontline of our national health service on the pace, scale and volume of innovative medicines that are coming through the system. That is why I believe that my hon. Friend’s refocusing the Bill on that, and on the introduction of a new mechanism for getting information on off-label drugs and innovative medicines in development, is very helpful and powerful.
Heidi Alexander
Will the Minister tell us why it is taken him so long to reach this conclusion? Will he also be clear about the contact that his officials at the Department of Health might have had with the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) or Lord Saatchi on previous incarnations of this Bill? It strikes me that the Department has supported this Bill for a number of months and years in its different incarnations.
George Freeman
I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because it gives me the chance to deal with this matter directly. I am surprised at her question, in an age in which people want the Government to work in a cross-party way and to support private Members’ Bills and enable Back Benchers to get business through, and I have gone out on a limb to work in a cross-party vein. Sadly, however, the hon. Lady seems stuck. I thought this morning might have been a day on which to celebrate that joined-up work. Let me deal with the specific points that she has raised.
Right at the beginning, I said that I supported the aim of Lord Saatchi’s Bill to tackle the issue, such as it is, of medical fear of negligence if it is getting in the way of innovation. Indeed, we made it clear that we supported the aims of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, but not the mechanism involved. We also made it clear that we supported the aim of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry to promote access to information about innovative medicines. I am surprised that the hon. Lady cannot get away from wanting to criticise that attempt. I believe that it is a good thing that we have reached joined-up consensus today on a package of amendments.
The hon. Lady should not believe everything that she reads in the papers. The article in The Daily Telegraph to which she referred talked about the accelerated access review, which I am leading and which I would like to think she welcomes and supports. My comments on speeding up the pace at which we can get innovative medicines to patients were in connection with that. I read the piece too, and it was misleading because it gave the impression that I thought this Bill would have the effect that I want the accelerated access review to have. I was merely making the point that the Bill in its current form could support the wider accelerated access review and the landscape that I am trying to put in place.
Heidi Alexander
I should like to state for the record that it has never been the Opposition’s desire to play political games with this Bill. We have always been concerned about what is in the best interest of patients, and I would like to make that point clear to the Minister and place it on record.
George Freeman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification; it is most welcome.
I want to deal with the point that the hon. Lady and one or two others have made about the necessity of the Bill, given the powers that Ministers already have in relation to data. The Health and Social Care Information Centre, created under section 254 of the 2012 Act, can collect data, but there are restrictions on who it can disclose those data to. The Bill will enable disclosure to doctors, which could be limited by using just section 254. The 2012 Act also contains specific provisions relating to the HSCIC having a role in establishing other databases, so this approach is more in keeping with the general approach in the legislation.
The Bill might not pass in its current form, as it still has to go to the House of Lords. However, the point I made in Committee was that although I support the intention of that database provision, the law regarding the use of data in the NHS is complex and difficult, as Members know well. If the House wants the database to be created, having a Bill that makes very clear what it wants the database to do and requires Ministers to come back with proposals for it would be extremely helpful. In conclusion, I support these amendments.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Database of innovative treatments
Amendment made: 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to “involves” in line 19 and insert
“In this section, “innovative medical treatment” means medical treatment for a condition that”.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 8, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(b) the General Medical Council,
(c) the British Medical Association,
(d) the Association of Medical Research Charities,
(e) the Royal Colleges,
(f) the Academy of Medical Sciences,
(g) the Medical Research Council,
(h) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
(i) the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency, and
(j) any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill
Debate between George Freeman and Heidi Alexander(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Freeman
Most of the cases are a result of other contexts— as my hon. Friend will know, obstetrics is a big part of that—rather than innovation. I am happy to write to her with the actual figure as I do not have it to hand. My point is that the fear of litigation runs through the system.
I recently spoke to a senior paediatric consultant who is neutral about this Bill—he is neither a passionate advocate nor an opponent of it. He observed that over the past 20 or 30 years, a gradual conservatism has crept into clinical practice. When I asked what he thought drove that, he mentioned three things. First, ever tighter procurement control makes it harder to do things differently. Secondly, there is a subtly growing fear of negligence, and a lack of clear data information and guidance on what is available. Thirdly, many clinicians find it easier to stick to normal practice, and that is what the Bill seeks to tackle.
Heidi Alexander
The Minister and the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) have referred to anecdotal remarks about fear of litigation being a barrier to medical innovation. Can the Minister set out his evidence that that is a widespread concern and genuinely prevents doctors from innovating and prescribing new treatments?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an important point because it is difficult to quantify the impact of that fear. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that I do not think that issue is a primary concern, and that the organisational, cultural and financial barriers are higher concerns. That is partly what is difficult about the Bill. It gives the impression that fear of litigation is the big problem, whereas anecdotally I hear from leading clinicians—who, as I said, are not particularly for or against the Bill—that it is one of a number of issues in a complex landscape.
I am conscious of the time, so I will turn to the critical importance of patient and public trust and confidence in our clinical research infrastructure and NHS. The UK leads in clinical trials and in regulation through NICE, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and our ethical framework. I am delighted that over the past four or five years we have made substantial improvements in recruiting more patients into trials. In 2014-15 the National Institute for Health Research—the jewel in the crown of NHS research—had 4,934 studies running, and last year we recruited 52 global first patients into trials. That is a key indicator of our leadership in the most innovative areas of medicine.
The MHRA has approved more than 80 first-in-human studies, and the NHS is becoming a leader in the forefront of that model of research, just as it was in the earlier part of the 20th century. It is also important to consider our leadership in regulation, ethics and approval, not least because those are major exports for this country. Over the next few decades, rapidly emerging economies will be looking for a lead from NICE, MHRA and our clinical trials infrastructure, and it is crucial to have a strong patient voice, and to maintain and develop patient trust. Central to my mission is to bring forward such development and put a stronger patient voice at the heart of our research landscape.
Patient empowerment through technology and access to innovation are key themes of our mission and work, and medical research charities have a huge role to play. In this new research landscape in which genomic information, patient data, records and medical histories become such key assets for research, the question is who will control that information. I think that we should build a policy landscape on the notion that such information and assets ultimately belong to the patient, and that the sovereignty of their relationship with their clinician should remain sacrosanct.
To answer an earlier question from the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), there is nothing in the Government’s plans to make such a database available to the public and drive the sort of quackery charter that I know the Chair of the Health Committee is worried about. We do not want to change the law that prevents pharmaceutical companies from talking to patients directly, and it is important that recruitment into clinical trials and access to innovation is done through patients and their clinicians.
Charities will have an increasingly important role. Cancer Research UK leads in much of this area, and many smaller charities are becoming strong advocates for their patients and collecting data. With the rise of apps and digital technologies, charities will soon create portals for patients to get involved in research communities, and work with industry and academics to drive and accelerate innovation.
George Freeman
I was addressing that point to make it clear that I and the Government take strongly the need to ensure that the Bill does not undermine patient support in any way. I have heard some of those concerns, and if the Bill goes to Committee it is important to address them. It is also crucial to protect and support the sovereignty of clinicians to look after their patients, and to do as much as possible to try to liberate them from the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy and excessive targets. We must remind clinicians that they have freedoms in law and a vocational mission to do whatever they think is best for their patients.
On safeguards and protections let me make three important points about the Bill. I have taken advice from counsel, and I will respond to a number of questions raised by colleagues. As currently drafted the Bill provides no change to existing protections on medical negligence, and that is important. It sets out the power to create a database, and a mechanism to make clear to clinicians how they can demonstrate compliance with existing legal protection—the Bolam test has been referred to—and allow innovations to be recorded for the benefit of other clinicians and their patients. Importantly for the Government, that does not change existing protections on medical negligence, and it is crucial to understand that. Secondly, the Bill does not change our gold standard regulatory and ethical framework for clinical research. The Bill is not about research; it is about reinforcing freedoms for clinicians and how they prescribe. I will return to the detail of that in a minute.
Heidi Alexander
The Minister says that the Bill does not change the law on medical negligence but sets up an alternative pathway or framework. Does he accept that that could confuse matters?
George Freeman
That is an important question. The Bill does not change the legal framework on negligence; it merely seeks to clarify matters for those doctors who understand that they have the freedom to innovate but fear that current understanding in law about the test is not clear enough. It sets out an agreed, statutorily approved procedure to reassure doctors that if they follow that procedure, they will be covered by existing negligence and liability protection that the Bill does not change in any way. The hon. Lady’s second point is about whether people understand that, and whether there is a risk of the Bill inadvertently triggering fear. That is an important point, and it behoves everyone to ensure that we discuss it in the right way.
I have been shocked by some—not all—of the briefings, one of which referred to this being a “concentration camp” or a “Mengele” charter. Such unhelpful language triggers unhelpful media interest and will alarm patients completely unnecessarily. All the provisions in the Bill reinforce and endorse existing safeguards on the use of data and regulatory protection.
Time is short, but I want address the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry gave a powerful speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a number of interventions. There were contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and the hon. Members for Lewisham East and for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). I would like to take the opportunity to welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her post. I value hugely her offer to work on the Bill in a cross-party spirit and to deal with the issues raised. If the Bill goes to Committee, that will be an important offer. I am certainly happy to take it up and see, in a cross-party spirit, whether we can help to ensure that it does not trigger the doubts that she and other hon. Members have expressed concern about.
I want to address the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. She is a very distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee, as well as a doctor. For those reasons, they merit proper scrutiny and attention. I apologise to her if I am unable to deal with all of her concerns, but I will try to address them all.
The first concern is that the Bill is based on a false premise, which is that doctors are afraid to innovate because of fear of litigation. I reaffirm that the Department of Health’s consultation on the previous Medical Innovation Bill revealed that some doctors do find the threat of litigation to be a block to innovation, although that was not a universal view and I do not want to suggest in any way that it is the principal barrier. This Bill is aimed at reassuring those doctors who feel unable to innovate due to concerns about litigation. It sets out a series of steps that doctors can choose to take when innovating, to give them confidence that they have acted responsibly. I read the Bill again this morning and I am happy to highlight some of the key protections in it.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The NICE clinical guidance to NHS England, after carrying out a health technology appraisal, is binding. NHS England has a duty to implement it across the system. There is an issue about how quickly different parts of the NHS implement guidance and how quickly innovative drugs are rolled out. Another Bill going through the House will be looking at what can be done to support the use of off-label drugs. My position on that is that the most profound barrier to the adoption of off-label drugs is in fact information for clinicians on the clinical benefits of an off-label indagation. It is the clinical evidence that provides the basis on which they are perfectly free at the moment to use alternative drugs.
Let me address the other points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, the Chairman of the Select Committee. She expressed concern that the Bill would undermine research and clinical trials. That is an important point. I stress that the Bill, as drafted, does not cover clinical trials, which are regulated by the MHRA and the HRA from a scientific, safety and ethical viewpoint. Rightly, the Bill does not stray into that regulatory environment. I confirm that we would be concerned if it did. It does not relate to formal clinical research, only to clinicians’ duties to their care of individual patients. If the database is got right, we think it could contribute to the sum of healthcare knowledge by collecting information on innovations and their success or not.
My hon. Friend said that she fears the Bill would do more harm than good. I merely point out that the chief medical officer for England supported the final version of the Medical Innovation Bill, which ran out of time in the House of Lords at the end of the previous Parliament. The national clinical director for NHS England confirmed that he had no concerns about patients’ safety with regard to that Bill. Hon. Members may debate whether the Bill is needed, but it is really important to understand that we are clear that the Bill in no way damages patient safety. The test of responsibility under the Bill is intended to reflect absolutely the requirement of the Bolam test, which has been the gold standard for decades. I highlight that a doctor has to obtain any consents required by law when taking a decision to part from the existing range of medical treatments. The Bill expressly provides that a doctor must have regard in particular to the requirements of patient safety. Under both existing common law and the Bill, the doctor would need to show that they had acted responsibly. There is absolutely no escape for a negligent doctor under the Bill. The Bill seeks to give doctors access to the database as a source of learning—doctors, not patients. We hope that if the database has got right it could help to drive both innovation and information through the system.
My hon. Friend set out some concerns about safeguards for patients. I reiterate that the Government are clear that the negligence provisions in the Bill do not provide any immunity to irresponsible doctors. It would be irresponsible for anyone to suggest that they do. I want to make that point very clearly from the Dispatch Box and to reassure her that in our view the Bill does not remove any of the current safeguards in place to protect patients’ safety. Our view is that the Bill does not apply a weaker test to a doctor’s decision to innovate than the existing law on clinical negligence.
My hon. Friend raised points about the rigour of the database, which I will come on to in a moment. A number of other concerns have been raised. I want to run quickly through, in two batches, the concerns about the database and about negligence and legal protections. Colleagues have asked whether there is really a need for legislation for a database. I confirm that the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to confer functions on the Health and Social Care Information Centre in relation to the establishment of a database. Legislation enables provision to be made for the disclosure of information from the databases, ensuring that the HSCIC has the necessary powers to disclose information and that appropriate safeguards are in place. Were the Bill to become law, we would obviously consult on regulations setting out the detail of how the database would be constructed.
Heidi Alexander
Does that power not exist under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady might be surprised to know I do not have that section right in front of me, but I will happily come back to her. The Bill would allow a database to be created for specific purposes. It is not for me to judge the merits of the wording of different private Members’ Bills, but this would not be the first such Bill to command the authority of the House and then to be rewritten to put into effect the ambitions it sets out. I think, however, that the Bill goes a lot further than the existing powers in requiring us to consider a database with specific functions linked to providing a mechanism of statutory protections for clinicians under existing law. We understand what it is trying to achieve, although it is complex in that it does not change the legal protections but merely sets out a particular runway in which clinicians can have confidence.
Questions have been asked about how the database will work. As I have said, if the Bill becomes law, we will want to consult on regulations, but it is intended to be principally for the use of medical practitioners, not patients. We would not support the Bill if it were to be a database—my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee expressed concern about that point—providing support for companies, quacks and unregulated providers to contact patients directly and to validate illegitimate innovations. It is for clinicians to record the innovations that they, in their professional judgment, have decided to adopt. We would envisage the database being used to flag a treatment as innovative, meaning it would be coded and picked up by the HSCIC, allowing us to form a national database.
Questions have been asked about who would submit information to the database. As with all data provisions, patient confidentiality will absolutely be protected. I would envisage the detail of who could access information, and in what circumstances, being a source of substantial discussion, if and when we came to pass regulations. I stress, however, that it would not be used by patients. We could not support that.
Questions have also been asked about who would determine which groups could get information. It is designed for clinicians, the HSCIC and regulators. At the moment, a doctor passing information to the HSCIC is bound by the common law duty of confidentiality and their professional obligations. The HSCIC would need to be satisfied that any disclosure was in accordance with the law, including the Data Protection Act 1998.
Hon. Members asked about funding. The exact level of grant in aid required would be subject to additional scoping by the HSCIC, and if the House decided to proceed, we would need to come back with the details. Hon. Members also asked whether the treatments in the database would be flagged with some kitemark or advert. The Government would oppose this being used as a marketing tool. Such flagging by means of kitemarks, being regulated differently, would not be appropriate. We want a database focused on helping doctors to see what other clinicians have decided is an appropriate treatment. We would see the database not as a process of quality assurance, but as a way for doctors to learn from and see transparently what other doctors have decided is an appropriate treatment.
I turn quickly to the negligence and regulatory questions. Colleagues have asked whether the negligence provisions provide another way for doctors to carry out research, circumventing the usual safeguards. The answer is an emphatic no. The Bill would apply not to research, but only to individual treatment decisions, as clarified in clause 5(2). Research is highly regulated—rightly so—by the Health Research Authority and the MHRA. Research studies cannot go ahead without ethical approval overseen by the HRA, and research that involves clinical trials and the investigation of medicinal products must be thus authorised. The Bill is concerned with innovations in individual treatments by clinicians. The results of an innovation might trigger further research—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry envisages the database triggering questions such as, “Well, if one or two clinicians think this is an appropriate innovation, shouldn’t we look at whether it might be more widely applicable?”—but that would then take it into the more formal jurisdiction of a research application.
Hon. Members asked whether the Bill would relate to clinical trials. It is important to note that it does not cover clinical trials, which are regulated by the MHRA and the HRA. We would not want the Bill to stray into that territory and risk undermining that international gold mark of UK clinical trials infrastructure. It has been asked whether innovation is just the same as research. I strongly believe they are not the same thing, although they are often confused. They are closely related, but they are not the same thing. Research is highly regulated; innovation is the application of different ways of practising medicine, which clinicians have always done. That is partly what makes it hard to regulate and why the Bill has raised the questions it has.
Hon. Members asked whether patients would be asked for their consent before being given an innovative treatment. Yes, patients would have to give their consent. There is no change to the law of consent, which requires patients to provide informed and voluntary consent to any treatment offered. Colleagues have also asked whether the Government support the Bill in the light of the concerns raised by the medical profession about its impact on patient safety. I will confirm the Government’s position in a moment, but we believe it is an important and timely debate for the reasons I have set out, and we support the intentions behind the Bill. My hon. Friend has engaged with those who have raised concerns, and if the Bill goes to Committee, issues raised today would need to be tackled, but in the view of the Government and parliamentary counsel it does not undermine the current law on clinical negligence.
It has been asked in the House this morning and in the run-up to the debate whether the Bill is safe for patients. I again repeat that the Bill does not remove any of the current safeguards on patient safety. The test of responsibility in the Bill is intended to be the nearest possible equivalent to the Bolam test. It simply seeks to provide clarity via a mechanism by which doctors can be sure they are complying with that test.
Heidi Alexander
As I understand it, the current test requires a doctor to seek the advice and medical opinion of a responsible body, while the arrangements in the Bill require them to seek someone else’s view on whether such a responsible body holds an opinion about the safety of treatment. I think those two things are slightly different. Does the Minister share that concern?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I am just looking at clause 3(2):
“For the purposes of taking a responsible decision to depart from the existing range of accepted medical treatments for a condition, a doctor must in particular—
(a) obtain the views of one or more appropriately qualified doctors in relation to the proposed medical treatment, with a view to ascertaining whether the treatment would have the support of a responsible body of medical opinion,
(b)take full account of the views obtained…(and do so in a way in which any responsible doctor would be expected to take account of…),
(c) obtain any consents required by law”,
including
(d)(i) any opinions or requests expressed by or in relation to the patient,
(ii) the risks and benefits”
and to
(e) take such other steps as are necessary to secure that the decision is made in a way that is accountable and transparent.”
Let me repeat that we would not even countenance supporting the Bill if its intention were in any way to change the basic test of clinical professionalism to which every clinician is subject. They remain subject to all the professional safeguards of the GMC and other regulatory bodies and clinical negligence law. The Bill merely seeks to put in place one particular mechanism on which doctors can rely to be clear that the innovation they propose is in accordance with the law. There is a danger of thinking of that if this Bill ever became law, it would be the last and final word on the area of medical innovation. It would absolutely not be; it is a small contribution to a vast canon of common law and practice that—importantly for the Government—does not change.
Counsel’s advice to us has been very clear that the negligence provisions provide no immunity to irresponsible doctors. Under both existing common law and this Bill’s provisions, doctors will need to show that they have acted responsibly. There will be no escape for a negligent doctor.
Members have asked whether the Bill will allow doctors to prescribe untested medicines. It is important to make it clear that the Bill does not change existing medicines legislation, which permits the use of unlicensed medicines —tested or untested—prescribed by physicians on their own responsibility, subject to all their own professional tests, regulatory conditions and the law. This will be based on what they believe, in their own professional clinical judgment, is right for their patients. If there is an unmet medical need, there is clearly more scope for clinicians to innovate.
Finally, I was asked whether the Bill will prevent patients from making a claim if they receive negligent treatment. No. I want to be clear that this Bill in no way changes patients’ rights to claim for negligent treatment. We are completely committed to ensuring that patients are safe and protected. On the occasions when, regrettably, things go wrong and treatment has been given negligently, it is absolutely right that patients are entitled to seek compensation. It is essential that any new legislation or any amendments to the Bill do not put patients at risk in any way. If a doctor carries out a procedure negligently, they would not be protected by this Bill, as is made clear in clause 4(3).
In conclusion, let me highlight that although substantial concerns have been raised—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has expressed some of them this morning—it is true to say that there has been support for the Bill. The “Empower: Access to Medicine” campaign has said:
“This new Bill provides a real opportunity to renew the focus on patients’ rights to try innovative medicines within a reasonable risk framework. Empower: Access to Medicine has long advocated appropriate access, for some patients, to certain medicines earlier in the clinical trials process. Chris Heaton-Harris’ new Bill provides a real opportunity to make that ambition a reality.”
It is particularly supportive of the accelerated access review that I am running. A number of colleagues have suggested that we look at the Bill in the context of those recommendations that will shortly arrive on my desk.
The Royal College of Physicians has said that it
“generally welcomes the first part of the Bill to enable the secretary of state…to establish a database of medical treatments. However, the RCP strongly recommends that the medical and research communities should lead in developing the database.”
If the Bill becomes law, it is very important for that to happen. I understand that the RCP has particular concerns about the second half of the Bill.
Let me also highlight what was said in the extensive discussion of the Medical Innovation Bill, which was launched in the other place. The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, said that she was
“confident that, with the amendments made in Committee stage, the Bill is safe for patients and has the potential to encourage responsible innovation.”
She was referring to the provisions in the second half of the Bill. Sir Bruce Keogh, clinical director of NHS England said, in connection with the same provisions in the former Bill:
“Encouraging innovation in medicine and protecting patients are both of vital importance. This is why I am pleased that amendments have been devised to address concerns about patient safety.”
Sir Michael Rawlins, president of the Royal Society of Medicine said that the Medical Innovation Bill would
“allow responsible innovation in treatment...I believe that the use of the provisions in the draft Medical Innovation Bill will benefit patients, especially those with rarer diseases, and the furtherance of medical science.”
I appreciate that there are real issues of contention and debate, but I wanted to highlight the views of eminent people on both sides of the debate, of which the House should be cognisant.
I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham East. At the end of the last Parliament, her predecessor as shadow Health Secretary said, interestingly, that he was “disappointed” that the Liberal Democrats had withdrawn their support for the Bill. He said that
“there should at least have been some cross-party talks about this”,
and I was glad to hear the hon. Lady echo that view this morning. He went on to say:
“The Bill was heavily amended and extra safeguards put in, and I worry a little bit that those who are opposed to it don’t realise that it is actually quite a different Bill now.”
He said that for parents whose children suffered from untreatable diseases and had no hope, the Bill was “about opening up hope”, and added:
“It is often parents who struggle to get their voice heard”.
In the other place, although some peers had concerns about the Bill, a number of others supported it. I have a list in front of me, which shows that the numbers were equal on both sides. It also shows that some pretty eminent peers supported the Bill: Lord Kakkar, Lord Patel, Lord Ribeiro, Lord Mackay, Lord Woolf, Baroness Gardner, Lord O’Donnell, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord Blencathra. Those are all eminent people in their fields. I am not suggesting for a minute that there is not a debate, but I think it is a genuine debate, which is, after all, what the House is here to provide.
The Government support the intention of the Bill to promote innovation, to reinforce existing medical negligence law, to promote the dissemination of information on innovations, to protect and reinforce the sovereignty and the freedom of clinicians to vary and innovate treatment in the interests of their patients, and to promote the use of identification and data on innovation as critical to 21st-century healthcare. We are—and I am— very concerned to ensure that the Bill promotes, rather than undermines, patients’ and doctors’ trust in the legal and regulatory framework for innovation, to ensure that it fits into the wider landscape and framework for innovation that I—along with various bodies—am putting in place, and to ensure that it reflects and supports the growing discussion about research medicine and innovation.
The House has many and varied ways of improving the lot of our citizens, and private Members' Bills are one important way. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we Ministers are normally sceptical about the virtues of private Members' Bills, and jealously guard our, and the Government’s, unique monopoly on legislative virtue and competence; but I believe that when a Bill—such as this Bill—seeks to do something that we support, even if the mechanics proposed may not yet be perfect, there is a strong argument for it to proceed to a Committee stage and be subjected to detailed scrutiny. I hope that the Bill is given such a hearing in Committee. The hon. Member for Lewisham East has signalled her willingness to work on a cross-party basis to try to get the Bill into a shape that will address the concerns that have been expressed, and I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes make a similar offer.
Heidi Alexander
I am slightly worried that the Minister is ascribing to me words that I have not used. I have indicated a willingness to work on a cross-party basis to address the barriers to innovation, but, as the Minister will have heard me say in my speech, I have very serious reservations about the Bill, and I intend to oppose it today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between George Freeman and Heidi Alexander(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)
I am indeed familiar with the great work of Daiichi Sankyo, and that of my right hon. Friend in supporting its investment in her constituency. I recently had the pleasure of going up to open a new facility. She raises an important point, and the appointment of a Minister responsible for life sciences at the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and of Health, where I have responsibility for NICE and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, allows us to begin to ensure that our health system better supports our life sciences cluster. The review I recently launched of speedier access for innovative medicines will tackle the issue of uptake that my right hon. Friend has rightly raised.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
T6. Ninety-three per cent. of those aged 25 or over who completed apprenticeships last year already worked for their employer. If this is not just a rebadging of existing training programmes as apprenticeships, what is it?